Archive

Archive for the ‘Dissecting Revolutionary Propaganda’ Category

Dear Heterosexual Community: Your Kids Are Hurting, Part 2

April 6th, 2015 Comments off

Part One of this series is located here.

How savvy are you about step-families? Do you understand the structural similarity between step-families and same-sex marriage? Take the Step-Family Quiz to test your knowledge. I created this quiz as an engaging way to help defenders of marriage understand the cultural blind-spot that we have about step-families. Of course anybody is welcome to take it. But it is geared towards those who believe that marriage is only between a man and a woman. By the end it should become apparent why I have focused on marriage defenders. There are five questions and their answers, plus a bonus question at the end.

1. Which group was the first to claim there is “no difference” between the intact family founded on natural marriage and other family structures?

  • a. Heterosexuals
  • b. Homosexuals

2. When was that claim first made, and what form did it take?

Read more…

Print Friendly

Dissecting Sexual Revolutionary Propaganda

May 29th, 2014 Comments off

As I have said many times in my speeches (available at the Ruth Institute podcast page), the Sexual Revolution is irrational and its goals are impossible.  Therefore, those committed to the Sexual Revolution must also commit themselves to a steady stream of propaganda to over-write the basic facts of reality. This sometimes includes the subtle or not-so-subtle rewriting of history.

Today’s exhibit in understanding Revolutionary Propaganda comes to us from the Religion News Service, which describes itself this way.

The Religion News Service aims to be the largest single source of news about religion, spirituality and ideas. We strive to inform, illuminate and inspire public discourse on matters relating to belief and convictions.

So I find it odd, to say the least, to find an organization with this mission, taking for granted the arguments of Sexual Revolutionaries in an article, described as an “analysis.”

Let me confine myself to one particularly noticeable re-writing of history.

Written by Kevin Eckstrom, the Editor in Chief of the Religion News Service, the article claims in the section called, “A problem of overreach:”

Conservative groups resisted moves to compromise on a half-measure like civil unions; (Tony) Perkins’ organization (Family Research Council) calls civil unions nothing more than “a slow-motion surrender.” And that, said veteran gay marriage proponent Jonathan Rauch, was a critical mistake.

The author provides no context for cultural conservative Perkins’ comment, and he gives pro-gay Jonathan Rauch the last word. By doing this, the author suggests that Perkins’ assessment is incorrect, without actually taking responsibility for proving this, or even stating that his assessment is incorrect. Read more…

Print Friendly