LGBT Takeover of Civil Rights

 From The Christian Post:

Pastor Voddie T. Baucham recently spoke to The Christian Post about his new book, It's Not Like Being Black: How Sexual Activists Hijacked the Civil Rights Movement, which was published last week and delves into what he described as the attempt by sexual activists to subvert the civil rights movement to promote immorality. Baucham also warned that many American churches are going to have to "pay a price" for standing up for biblical sexual ethics during a time when the state is increasingly mandating against them.

 Baucham, whose book traces some of the key ideas and figures responsible for the LGBT movement, told CP that the idea for writing it had been percolating in his mind for more than 15 years. He especially remembers the media campaign that attempted in vain to convince California voters to legalize same-sex marriage by voting against Proposition 8 in 2008. (Read more.)

 

A unifying theory of sexual revolutions from Bethel McGrew at Further Up:

George was sort of an important guy though, a loud and active participant in America’s mid-century censorship wars. He eloquently put his case that if this country was going to become sane, it had to get over itself and its neurotic repression of all things sexual. Let a million flowers bloom, he cried. That is, as long as the flowers were “natural” and not “perverse.” There, George drew a bright line.

George did in fact have a long-running research relationship with the iconic Alfred Kinsey, who became famous for his groundbreaking work on homosexuality. Kinsey drew on extensive field work George had done in New York’s gay scene, including the prostitution scene. But in George’s mind, there was a separation between simply observing gay culture and taking serious steps to normalize it in the broader culture. His partnership with Kinsey soured largely because he came to believe Kinsey was pursuing the latter (and suspected Kinsey himself was more than a little “personally invested” in the whole business). Homosexuals should be tolerated, George supposed, to a point. But to normalize homosexuality was to normalize the “perverse” impulse that threatened to, so to speak, unman George’s sexual revolution. He especially loathed and suspected the “elite gays” insinuating themselves into the highest ranks of publishing, fashion, and other culture-making institutions. If they had their way, he believed they were going to launch a culture-wide subversion of heterosexuality, perhaps even turning straight men into “pseudo-homos.” And he wasn’t alone. His frank private correspondence with Marshall McLuhan shows that McLuhan thought along very similar lines.

You might have thought George would uncritically celebrate all things 60s, but you’d be wrong. He celebrated free love in the sense that he celebrated his male fanboys achieving peak satisfaction with their girlfriends (bullying the girls along if the boys were struggling to persuade them). But he didn’t like the way certain other flowers of the free love revolution were smelling. He was a simple revolutionary, was George. He was a Lady Chatterley’s Lover guy, not a Marquis de Sade guy. He didn’t want violent porn. He just wanted porn. He was disgusted by drugged-out orgies, freaky fashions, tattooed teats. Where was all this weird stuff coming from, and where was it all going? Yes, of course George wanted a sexual revolution, but not like that. (Read more.)

Share