Michelangelo Signorile is the sort of activist who knows how to work his craft. Many of us know that when we are authoring a reply to an email, for example, whilst fuming; it is imperative to let it rest as a draft for a while. After a while we must re-read it, note its emotive and aggressive nature, engage in editing and finally send a nice reply.
However, activists such as Michelangelo Signorile would write the fuming email, get even more upset, pepper it with even more emotionally charged statements and then send it.
This is a tactic which plays on the fact that emotions are real tangible experiences whilst arguments are etheric and abstract. Thus, a person is much more likely to respond to emotive statements than toned down ones. Moreover, when a person elicits an emotional response in you, you build an emotional attachment to them. Thus, the job of the activist is simply to get attention in any form, get people upset enough to support them and leave the reality of the issue to the poor sucker who ends up coming across as dry and detached.
Note the villainous manner in which he refers to those with whom he disagrees:
Anti-gay zealots rode the wave of homophobia
deceptive, pathetic action by the anti-gay crusaders
Note the heroic manner in which he refers to those with whom he agrees:
gay and lesbian couples took the then-extraordinary step
gay advocates in Washington gasped for air, drowning in anxiety
Note the inflammatory manner in which he refers to the issue (emphasis added):
war over marriage equality
attack gay marriage over and over again
fighting for marriage
we needed to have this fight
Also, note his slippery slope goals approach as he is “focused on making incremental change” so as to bring about “changes public opinion dramatically.”
Of interest might be his claim that “four out-of-context sentences from my 11,000-word article have been used by anti-gay crusaders to attack gay marriage over and over again” he was referring to his OUT Magazine article “Bridal Wave” (December/January 1994 AD, p. 161). He further claims that his article, specifically the four sentences, “weren't even my opinion but a hypothetical ‘middle ground’ I suggested between gay assimilationists who saw marriage as a panacea and gay liberationists who saw it as a confining, heterosexual institution.”
Here is how he, himself, quoted himself:
A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes but rather to ... radically alter an archaic institution. [Legalizing "same-sex marriage"] is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture. It is the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statutes, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into public schools, and, in short, usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us. [brackets in original; the HuffPost article]
He then notes:
In retrospect it seems like a fairly tame suggestion (and again, it was only a suggestion of a middle ground between two opposing views and wasn't even my opinion), but because I'd used the dreaded "redefine" word, the zealots latched onto it.
Certainly, that he wants to—or merely hypothetically suggests (yeah, right)—a redefinition of marriage is the goal of the pro-same sex marriage agenda; what else could it be?
Yet, note the manner in which he proposes his hypothetical suggestion.
Firstly, he does not want homosexuals to marry as a means whereby to adhering to society's moral codes. This is interesting on a few levels such as that he must be referring to the USA’s middle to right socio-political nature. However, society's moral codes are whatever the USA’s socio-political nature is and thus, is tentative.
So then, why be wed? Why commit oneself to be faithful to one person for life and raise a family together (via adoption, etc.)? Not due to love, not due to society's moral codes but in order to “... radically alter an archaic institution.”
Notice that while he claims to have been un-contextually quoted, he only partially quotes himself as the ellipses points where his doing. In the OUT Magazine he wrote, “to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution.”
But, pray tell, what is this “myth” which must be hypothetically debunked? Well, it must be the source of the archaic institution. And what is the source?
It is not nature as within nature we find all sorts of sexual/familial relationships. This, by the way, is exactly where personages such as Michelangelo Signorile want to take us; away from YHVH and towards a Neo-Pagan nature worshipping animal like fulfilling our every lust—see below for evidence of this.
It is not even the “world’s religions” as these merely presuppose traditional marriage (and some allow polygamy, bigamy, etc.).
No, only the Bible provides a template for marriage: one man and one woman who leave their parents only when they are married and then live together, then copulate, then have children and then stay together for life.
When the issue of marriage (via a discussion of the resurrection) was raised to Jesus, He stated:
Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh (Matthew 19:4-6).
Thus, the deeper issue with Michelangelo Signorile’s hypothetical suggestion was not just that he seeks to redefine marriage and family and culture and laws and education and public schools and society but that he bases his activism on rebellion against YHVH. His premise is “to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution.”
Note that to personages such as Michelangelo Signorile homosexuality is not two committed same sex persons who love each other. Rather, it is a worldview. This is why they become activists because they see and judge all things in accordance to homosexuality.
The answer to questions such as what is good, evil, true, false, ethical, unethical, what political party/politician to support, which theology/religion/holy book is true, etc., etc., etc. is the very same: does it or does it not approve of homosexuality? They have turned homosexuality into their very essence, their manner whereby to discern all things, they base their “pride” on it, they build their lives around it, they define themselves in accordance to it.
This is why if you are in favor of traditional marriage you are an anti-gay zealot homophobic crusading extremist. Because you are not seen as merely dealing with ethical or legal issue but rather as “attacking” their very worldview
Lastly, back to the point about Neo-Pagan nature worshipping animal like fulfilling our every lust. In the OUT Magazine article Michelangelo Signorile went on to write:
Rather than being transformed by the institution of marriage, gay men — some of whom have raised the concept of the ‘open relationship’ to an art form — could simply transform the institution itself, making it more sexually open, even influencing their heterosexual counterparts.
In other words, rather than marriage functioning to have two people commit to each other for life homosexuals, or in this case “gay men” could spearhead a movement to turn marriage into…what exactly? Apparently, marriage means that you have a legal right to keep your stuff in a shared home and that is about it.
Rather than being transformed, by marriage, into a faithfully committed person, he wants homosexuals to transform marriage into an open relationship so as to make it more sexually open and thus, influencing heterosexual to be even more promiscuous until society is nothing more than a mass of fornicating adults and very sad, confused, lonely and abandoned children.
Michelangelo Signorile has certainly raised the art of playing the victim to new heights even as he un-contextually quotes himself so as to hide that which he states within pro-homosexual publications. His actions are much more serious than seeking basic civil rights. In his fervor to rebel against YHVH, he seeks to take society down with him.
Such Neo-Pagan worldview activists are referred to in the following as they…:
exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.
For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper… (Romans 1:23-28).
Feel free to take advantage of the free subscription to this page so that you will get an email notification when something is posted herein—see subscribe link above, next to my name…or just CTRL+F and search for “subscribe.”
Find us on: