One of the great mysteries of our time has to be how these LBGTQ+ activists suddenly became so influential in our culture and politics. This is insane.
It’s less a mystery than one might think. One thing people misunderstand about the rainbow alphabet rights movement is that it’s just one part of the left wing. It’s not a stand-alone movement, made up only of the sexually dysfunctional. So it is a small group with outsized clout, but not the group so many people think it is.
One of the keys to their success has been to borrow the moral authority of the black civil rights movement, trying to cast themselves as similarly-disfavored minority group. That, I think, is partly why they pushed the “born this way / not a choice” message so hard. That’s not really what the evidence showed; it was just a better fit for their victim narrative. It’s commonly said that there’s an unusually large number of homosexuals working in the film and television industry, so it was probably easy to get the media to portray them the way they preferred.
One move by the “gay agenda” that’s not often discussed was GLAAD’s formal request to the AP, to soften the language the press was using to describe them. They knew the term “homosexual” was too plain-spoken, and clinical, so they told the AP it was “offensive.” Instead, they wanted the press to use more approachable, slang terms like “gay” and “lesbian.”
https://www.glaad.org/2010/11/23/glaad-at-25-persuading-the-associated-press-to-restrict-use-of-a-problematic-word“Homosexual” is a neutral, descriptive term, and obviously the term most suitable for the press to use. It doesn’t take any longer to say (it certainly takes less effort to write/type) than the phrase “gay and lesbian,” but the press was probably eager to go along with the change.
What really put them over the top was the marriage issue. That goes back to their having black-faced their movement. It was easy for them to claim, however speciously, that two women who want to “marry” one another are the equivalent of an interracial, heterosexual couple, in the 1960s. Anyone who disagrees is somehow a bigot. Instead of explaining why millennia of tradition and practice ought to be set aside, the alleged right to same-sex marriage was simply asserted,
sans evidence. There was, somehow, a right to have a foundation of society redefined, to accommodate something only rarely practiced in human history, and certainly no part of most cultures’ idea of marriage. It certainly didn’t help that religion was in decline, leaving Westerners w/o a basis for much of anything in their culture. Pointing to the religious nature of marriage was seen as illegitimate, while the gaygenda’s appeal to “but I want to” was beyond question.
It was no coincidence that immediately after the Court forced this new sort of “marriage” on all 50 states, the rights of wedding service providers was under assault, followed by the demand we all forget bedrock facts about sex differences. And now, as predicted by many, pedophilia is up for debate. Also, Canada is pushing euthanasia. And that's just the tip of the 'berg, of course.
