GLAAD and the “Homosexual Agenda”

GLAAD, the forerunner of lgbt advocacy, recently published a document entitled Accelerating Acceptance. The document celebrates the recent judicial victories for the lgbt Sexual Revolution, but laments the work ahead. What work? Here’s a passage from the document:

Yet, GLAAD’s survey also reveals that slow but steady progress is being made for acceptance of LGBT people. In many of the ‘comfortability’ questions central to GLAAD’s Accelerating Acceptance survey, non-LGBT Americans report significantly less discomfort than was reported in 2014. Whereas in 2014 over 36% of non-LGBT Americans said they were “very uncomfortable” or “somewhat uncomfortable” seeing a same-sex couple holding hands, this year’s survey finds 29% of non-LGBT Americans are uncomfortable in the same scenario, a notable decline of seven percentage points. Still, these Americans’ level of discomfort remains about the same year over year when asked about their children, once again indicating there is still much work to be done.

There are a few things of note here:

1. Initially, gay activists only asked for toleration. Then came the demand for equal rights and non-discrimination. Now it seems that both toleration and equal rights are not enough. These activists are now pushing for acceptance and comfort with gay behaviour, which helps explain the rise of the word “heterosexism“, a neologisim aimed to discourage heteronormative thought (language can be used to help direct thought: you say ‘government’; I say ‘regime’).

But, wait. If I strongly believe gay behaviour to be evil and sinful, that is, contrary to the will of God, how can I be comfortable with it? How can I be comfortable with that which I deem evil? I cannot. In this way, however incidentally, orthodox Christian and traditional conservative conviction is now targeted by GLAAD. For GLAAD, it is not enough that gays are tolerated and treated equally, we now should also be comfortable with their sin, which requires us not to understand it as an evil in the first place.

2. Acceptance of an lgbt person is herein understood with the level of comfort felt with gay behaviours. But orthodox Christians and many other people distinguish between accepting and loving the person who is gay but rejecting gay behaviour. Consequently, GLAAD’s model of acceptance conflicts with orthodox Christian understandings of acceptance, which implies that such Christians, on GLAAD’s model, cannot fully accept persons who are lgbt. How unfortunate.

Despite that sad implication, GLAAD is free to believe in and advocate for that model of acceptance; but if GLAAD does, then it should abandon any pretense of irenic intention toward orthodox Christians and traditional conservatives. GLAAD is trying to change us, or rally the public against us; thus, GLAAD is no friend. That needs to be understood.

Sometimes it is argued that it is nonsensical to love and support lgbt persons while rejecting lgbt behaviours, which thus suggests that doing lgbt is a part of being lgbt. How do I respond? Well, firstly, gay behaviours, such as sodomy, are not determined by same-sex sexual inclination; we remain free beings despite our sexual inclinations, just as I am now free not to engage in heterosexual sex. Hence, doing lgbt is not part of being lgbt in that deterministic sense. Objectors who declare otherwise deny the freedom of  persons who are lgbt. But suppose an objector took a different route, proclaiming that doing lgbt is a part of being lgbt in a way like going to Mass and praying are ways of being Catholic. These ways are not deterministic but are still part of being Catholic. How do I respond? Here I simply deny the analogy: Going to Mass and praying are part of being Catholic, because they are obligations and historic traditions for Catholics.  In contrast, there are no obligations for persons with same-sex inclination to engage in sodomy, nor any other sexual behaviour. Thus, I reject that argument, too. And so I conclude: Doing lgbt is not a part of being lgbt.

This still might sound odd to secular liberal, so let me make a further clarification. Objectors need to understand that our love and support toward persons who are lgbt is a love and support qua personhood, that is, who they are as children of God; and this sense of personhood exists despite any lgbt social identity, not because of it. Thus, the lgbt social identity is not a part of what we consider to be the person; hence, it is not part of that which we support.

3. In conflict, language is among the first tools weaponized. In this case, GLAAD takes the agreeable but vague word ‘acceptance’ and loads it in our disfavour, framing orthodox Christians and traditional conservatives as undesirables. This strategy is not new. Instead, it is an extension of what was proposed way back in the 80s, particularly within the book After the Ball. Its authors were frank about their intention: they largely rejected rational persuasion, preferring the use propaganda and psychological manipulation, such associative conditioning (see here), to both gather support for gay rights and to demonize “homohaters”. In fact, one proposed technique was to associate detractors with klansman and Adolf Hitler, something redolent of the current strategy deployed against Trump supporters today. My point here is just that gay activists, such as GLAAD and others, are playing dirty, choosing to manipulate language and propagandize rather than reason.

Given all of this, it is clear that there is a something aptly called the “homosexual agenda” for at least some activists. Maybe not all, but some. So how should orthodox Christians and traditional conservatives respond? Not in kind, I hope. I suggest that we calmly clarify our position, rebut our opponents and unveil the manipulation deployed by the gay rights movement. I suggest that we calmly insist that these activists reason and use language properly.


  1. “So how should orthodox Christians and traditional conservatives respond? Not in kind, I hope. I suggest that we calmly clarify our position, rebut our opponents and unveil the manipulation deployed by the gay rights movement. I suggest that we calmly insist that these activists reason and use language properly.”

    And they’ll continue to disingenuously use the means listed in this piece. Why think that the same old same old with respect to this issue will work?

    • I agree. GLAAD is not interested in clarification, proper distinctions or reasoned debate. It’s like trying to reason with your opponent in the Octagon. He’s simply going to try to knock you out so you better be prepared.

  2. GLAAD and those who are likeminded are incapable of reason, given their worldview. It’s akin to attempting to reason with the Islamist whose worldview is “submit to Allah or die”, or Kim Jong Un whose worldview is “America wants to invade and destroy us, so we must be always ready to strike first”.

    No amount of reasoned dialogue and no line of evidence will ever suffice to convince GLAAD, or the Islamist, or Kim Jong Un otherwise.

  3. Here’s a simple way to defend what they are saying (even though the following is, perhaps, not at all what they are attempting to accomplish): most people wish that everyone would agree with their worldview, so all these activists shoot for is that everyone becomes persuaded to accept their ideology.

    Question. What if I believe that monogamy should not only be tolerated, but also shoot for everyone being persuaded to accept monogamy as the right way to live? This would be called unacceptable and intolerant (or, perhaps, bigoted) and not at all like what GLAAD is hoping for in ‘innocently’ wishing that everyone be persuaded of their ideology.

    If that is, in any way, what the response would be for this hypothetical (or what a ‘progressive’ kind of feels is justified while reading my hypothetical) then it is oppressive and/or they are experiencing oppressive dispositions.

    Of course, many members of GLAAD are likely not covered by the ‘innocent’ interpretation of events. So, in a way, it’s already being developed from an oppressive mindset (whether they are self-aware enough or not to recognize it as such).

    • Liberal LGBT perspective:
      When the LGBT community talks about “acceptance,” they essentially mean that they want to be treated like everyone else. You don’t have to agree with our choices, or make the same choices for yourself — you just have to accept our right to choose.

      We’re not trying to persuade anyone that the LGBT life is the “right way to live.” We just want to be more or less left alone. We don’t want people quoting the Bible at us, making a show of being grossed out, or trying to correct our behavior. That’s rude.

      It’s not about a battle of ideologies. It’s about common courtesy. People just want to be treated like adults capable of making their own life choices, without the public feeling like they have a right to be part of the decision process. Sexuality isn’t democratically decided, and I’m sure you wouldn’t want someone trying to meddle with yours either.

      That’s all 🙂

  4. The OP and respondents have brought up important points, though I think Hulk is putting things too mildly. The truth isn’t just that some activists have an agenda; it is that those most actively pursuing the agenda are often the ones driving the bus in our society through the media, the educational system, and the law. Short of an act of God, few in that camp will ever change their minds. By contrast, probably most of those classified in the report as allies or detached supporters are just thinking and feeling what they’ve been conditioned to think and feel by the propaganda that has been fed to them all these years.

    So, what to do? At least two things. First, we need to be more public about the fact that some same-sex attracted or gender-confused people have left the LGBT+ movement and actively oppose the aims of what Roberto Oscar Lopez calls “Big Gay.” I’m thinking of people the folks in the “Such Were Some of You” documentary, and the adult children who have been raised by same-sex couples and who have the courage to speak out against re-defining marriage. Most people have only been exposed to the lies that have been fed to them. If enough people come to realize first-hand that the tidy “out and proud” narrative is a lie, then perhaps we will begin to have more honest and informed discussions about human sexuality.

    Second, conservatives need to do a better job of supporting one another. I know how difficult it can be to present and defend a conservative view of sexuality and marriage in front of a largely unsympathetic classroom full of undergraduates. I can’t imagine what it would be like to do so in the national media, nor do I want to find out. We should take the time to encourage those who are literally on the front lines and who must daily face the pressures of being in the public eye on these issues. I’m thinking of folks like Ryan Anderson, Robert George, and Roberto Oscar Lopez; Katy Faust and Brandi Walton; Walt Heyer and Paul McHugh, among others.

    Third, and most importantly, churches need to become covenant communities again. Too many churches have a fast food, “easy in, easy out, no pressure” attitude toward attendance and membership, and our nation is dying spiritually because of it. No longer can it be assumed that if you are a church member, you will be discipling younger believers while being mentored by older ones. No longer can it be assumed that Christian families are studying and memorizing scripture together, or that people won’t leave the church just because they don’t like the style of the worship music. Few if any churches follow the biblical mandate that we confess our sins to one another (James 5:16), or that we be devoted to one another in brotherly love (Romans 12:10). As a result, we have a form of godliness but deny its power (2 Timothy 3:5). Is it any wonder that so many in our culture see Christians as (at best) hypocrites? For things to change in our culture, believers need to commit themselves to holy living in community with one another at a level that is much deeper than just helping out with children’s Sunday School once a month or making the church coffee or playing in the worship band from time to time. We need to pursue holy living together on a daily basis, or something near enough. I don’t know how it will happen, but I do know that, somehow, it must happen. I shudder to think of what our nation will be like in another thirty years if it doesn’t.

    • Why is it so difficult to believe that different lifestyles can be productive, beautiful, and fulfilling?
      Why do conservatives look at the LGBT movement like the crusaders looked at the sultanates? People often seem to imagine themselves as soldiers in some holy war: defending the good in the face of evil. But there is no holy war. Just different people, living different lives. There’s no evil in that.

1 Trackback / Pingback

  1. Daily Reading – The Ordeal of Consciousness

Leave a Reply (Be sure to read our comment disclaimer)