Silencing Christians—Documenting the Gay Agenda Via “After the Ball”

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about “Heritage New Media Partners, Inc. – N…“, posted with vodpod
This one hour documentary was excellent.  It delves into the gay agenda, and it’s effects on society in the United States and elsewhere.  It’s eye opening.  I highly recommend it.  It goes into depth about the book:

“After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90’s”

by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen

if this version doesn’t work try this one from youtube:


  1. Euripides said,

    May 13, 2009 at 9:19 pm

    Thanks for reposting this. I kept meaning to watch this and finally got the chance. It’s amazing how much the homosexual activist agenda has entrenched itself into the country within just 20 years.

  2. KingM said,

    May 14, 2009 at 1:36 pm

    I’m not in favor of heavy-handed behavior like this. It reminds me of the so-called “free speech zones” that represent an erosion of our civil liberties.

    But again, silencing the Christians? You can’t get those fundies to shut up.

  3. KingM said,

    May 14, 2009 at 1:48 pm

    The other thing I take from this video is how much the makers of this video think that homosexuality is a personal struggle to be overcome. You can will yourself or repent yourself heterosexual.

    Not only does this fly in the face of ongoing research, but it is a reminder that the anti-gay marriage movement boils down to: “Yuck, that’s gross! And I’m sure God wouldn’t like one bit.”

    It’s a weak foundation upon which to build public policy.

  4. beetlebabee said,

    May 14, 2009 at 2:16 pm


    I am not for name-calling no matter which side of the issue you’re on. Substitute “Jews”, “darkies” or “homos” instead of “fundies” and see if the comment still sounds as clever as it did when you wrote it.

  5. beetlebabee said,

    May 14, 2009 at 2:27 pm

    on the question of the possibility of fluidity in sexual preference, I think it’s well understood at this point that sexual orientation is not immutable, or caused by a gene. Even an organization as highly politicized as the APA recognizes that.

    “There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles….”

    The causes are generally understood to be part genetic and part environmental. Why are you so closed to the idea that change is possible? I don’t know one way or the other. I would like to think that it had the possibility of being resolved, however, I find it interesting that in the lack of data available, so many people are so willing to flatly deny the possibility of this fluidity being a reality. That perhaps emotional trauma or societal influences which contributed to the sexual orientation could never be addressed.

    I’ve been reading “Light in the Closet” by Arthur Goldberg. It goes over quite a few of these ideas, basically that the social aspects which contribute to sexual orientation can be addressed to the overall benefit of the person. That has made a lot of sense to me, just with my limited experience. I’m no expert in this particular field, but to flatly deny the possibilities, especially in the face of so many personal accounts. I don’t know. Who is to say they are wrong?

    What’s so scary about the possibility that they are right?

  6. KingM said,

    May 15, 2009 at 5:38 am

    My personal belief is that some people could go either way, whereas some people or more strongly hardwired to be either hetero or homosexual in desire.

    But I really don’t care if change is possible. If it were 100% free choice, why does that make a difference? So long as consenting adults are involved, it just doesn’t bother me what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms.

  7. Emissary said,

    May 15, 2009 at 11:53 am


    Do you know that according to the Riddle Homophobia Scale taught in schools today, your attitude is considered homophobic? It’s categorized as “Acceptance” but is considered homophobic because it “still implies there’s something to accept.” They are not pushing for acceptance; they are pushing for endorsement.

  8. Chairm said,

    May 16, 2009 at 7:34 pm

    KingM, would you have a “yuk” reaction to closely related people “marrying”? Is it about choice in behavior or something else?

  9. Chairm said,

    May 17, 2009 at 8:08 pm

    By the way, my previous comment is based on the insistence of SSMers that marriage is defined by its legal requirements.

    They will say that since there is no law forcing married people to procreate, that marriage and procreation are not connected. Of course, they skip past the requriement that people consent to all that marriage entails, in the law, including the vigorously enforced legal presumption that the husband is the father of children born to his wife during their marriage. This makes marriage a public and a sexual relationship type. It is based on the opposite-sexed nature of human procreation. It is based on the coherent set of principles that integrate the sexes and provides for responsible procreation — at the core of the social institution of marriage.

    But according to SSM argumentation, this is not definitive of marriage.

    So, minus this core, what would make of “gay marriage” a sexual type of relationship, in the law, and a public relationshp based on that supposed sexual aspect?

    There is no legal requirement for same-sex sexual attraction, same-sex sexual behavior, or even same-sex sexual romance/love. So lacking such requirements, forcing people to show or engage in these things, “gay marriage” appears to be sexless, in law.

    That said, SSMers have responded to the questions I asked in my previous question by, in effect, saying “yuk” because they share the widespread social taboo against incestuous sexual relations even among consenting adults. They assume, against their own standards of argumentation, that “gay marriage” is a sexual type of relationship, in the law. It is not.

    Some SSMers will overcome the social taboo — or the moral principles against closely related “marriages” — and shrug. What people do in private is of no concern. So marriage’s sexual aspect is no longer what makes it a public relationship. Yet these SSMers will continue to emphasize sexual orientation in all of their arguments. That is a major contradiction.

    Others will reinforce the taboo and also point to concerns about responsible procreation and even about sex integration. In other words, they are happy to describe as “repugnant”, at least morally so, certain potential “marriages” of consenting adults; and they are happy to leave intact the legal lines against such marriages. Their notion of discrimination does not extend beyond gay identity politics. And their stated standard — based on the necessity of a legal requirement — is destroyed because of the lack of a law forcing people to engage in same-sex sexual behavior when they seek a license for an all-male or an all-female relationship.

    They imagine that the lines can be redrawn as they wish but that their arguments can be abandoned once “gay marriage” is installed in a merger with marriage. This is a major contradiction.

    If the “gay marriage” argument removes the public sexual aspect from marriage, then, there would be no basis that could sustain the lines drawn against some related people but not all related people.

    If it is a private arrangement, then, drop the public significance of it. If it is a sexual relationship based on the man-woman criterion (see marital presumption of paternity) then the one-sexed relationship type remains out of bounds. In both cases, sexual orientation is no longer the basis for the SSMer’s complaint about the marriage law’s two-sexed criterion.

    SSMers would have this discussion hinge on sexual orientation. But they don’t realize that if this is about subjec feelings or sexual or romantic attraction, then, their hinge would destroy the line drawn against closely related people who’d seek a sexual relationship free from public disapprobation and free from “discrimination” in the law — not just of marriage, mind. They have to provide a coherent construction for “sexual orientation” in the law. It is vague enough to seem innocuous but also vague enough to allow all manner of arbitrary mischief.

    They can’t stand on tradition alone, for they have derided that as insufficient for lawmaking. They can’t stand on the legislating of morality, for they have derided that as well. They can’t rest on social taboo nor on the arbitrary use of governmental authority, for they have insisted these are illegitimate.

    So my questions in #8 remain for all SSMers and proponents of gay identity politics. Think through your reasoning and please consider the first principles upon which your conclusions must rest.

  10. Agnes said,

    May 18, 2009 at 8:17 am

    Schizophrenia is also caused by an unknown complex of genetic-environmental interaction, and has the same concordance in identical twins as homosexuality, that is 50% (This is not to say that homosexuality is a disease by any means.) No one says that schizophrenics choose schizophrenia; the question just doesn’t arise. I have bad bad allergies. There no genetic location for them either; they also are caused by a combination of genetic and environmental factors, as far as we can tell. I certainly did not choose allergies.

    Why do you think that just because an exact cause has not been pinpointed that it therefore follows (other than logic fail) that homosexuality is a choice?

    It’s not. And if it’s not a choice, you have no argument. You have no argument. Except “God said so.” That only works for people who share your specific belief in God. I think you’re being very disingenous here.

  11. Emissary said,

    May 18, 2009 at 7:49 pm


    I think the main difference is that, unless you’re the victim of a horrible crime, who a person has sexual relations with is always a choice. From what I’ve read, homosexuality seems comparable to alcoholism. People might have a genetic tendency towards it, but they always have the choice whether to drink or not.

  12. Chairm said,

    May 19, 2009 at 11:23 pm


    Genetic Sexual Attraction (GSA) fits your descriptive basis for claiming Same Sex Attraction (SSA) is not a choice.

    See #8 and #9 above, please.

  13. agnes said,

    May 19, 2009 at 11:34 pm

    Ah, Emissary, so you’d be happy in a same sex relationship? I have no problem with this. Good to know. Others aren’t so free to choose, Have some compassion.

  14. Scott said,

    May 20, 2009 at 12:08 am

    Actions have consequences. Anti-gay rights people are trying to ignore and deny those consequences. The “gay agenda” you speak of, is in part making sure that the results are matched to the cause. You want to speak hate and lies and have no consequence for it. You’ll hide behind the freedom of speech claiming that it allows you to say whatever you want without payback. It is not true. Whether you’re racist, sexist, homophobic or any other disease, when you spread that disease expect to reap the rewards.

    Don’t look aghast when it comes back and it hurts.

  15. Emissary said,

    May 20, 2009 at 10:01 am


    The examples you used in comment #10 were what I was addressing. You used schizophrenia and allergies. Both of those are biological processes. You don’t get to have a choice. But having sex is always a choice (unless you’re the victim of a crime). So your analogies don’t hold true.

    We control our behavior. If I have a tendency towards anger, does that justify beating someone up if s/he upsets me? No. The genetic inclination might be there, but society has determined that certain behavior is not appropriate. Acting on our desires is not always acceptable.

    Also, could you please explain to me why my analogy on alcoholism is invalid from your point of view?

  16. Emissary said,

    May 20, 2009 at 10:03 am


    I try to have compassion. I also have compassion for those who commit adultery because their marriage seems loveless. Or for those who choose to have an abortion because they don’t see any other way out. But I don’t condone those behaviors, nor do I excuse them.

  17. Agnes said,

    May 20, 2009 at 11:30 am

    The question has been raised by Emissary about controlling behavior. Gay people fall in love with people of the same sex. Straight people fall in love with people of the opposite sex. One we allow, one we don’t. If you are gay, in Emissary’s world, you don’t get to fall in love, marry, and etc. If you are straight, you do. Love is not alcohol. Living a loveless life has nothing to do with not drinking. We’re human. We fall in love. It’s an essential part of being human. Got it?

  18. Emissary said,

    May 20, 2009 at 11:48 am

    Okay, for sake of argument, let’s allow the love. Let’s say you don’t have any control over who you fall in love with. Why does falling in love with someone require marriage? Why should society change the definition of marriage from “the husband-wife relationship” instead of creating civil unions or equivalent?

    Now before you ask, “Would you be happy with a civil union?” you need to acknowledge that marriage already has a specific definition. It’s the “husband-wife relationship”. And, honestly, from a governmental point of view, it’s not based on love. It’s based on a man and a woman coming together to form a husband-wife relationship. So what compelling reason is there for society to completely redefine marriage?

  19. Euripides said,

    May 20, 2009 at 11:57 am

    Emissary is correct. There is no social requirement to marry based on love. Marriage is a social institution regulated by the state based on the union of a man and a woman. Love can be expressed between any two people, regardless of marital standing.

  20. rubyeliot said,

    May 20, 2009 at 1:52 pm

    “Falling in love” has nothing to do with why the government recognizes marriage.

  21. Chairm said,

    May 20, 2009 at 11:00 pm

    If “falling in love” was of the utmost importance, then, every mother who has fallen in love with her children would be qualified to marry them. Of course, Agnes is using “love” euphemistically.

    Is it same-sex sexual behavior and attraction that you mean, Agnes?

    Because if it is, then, both in terms of romance and attraction and behavior your remarks are making the case for consenting adults who happen to be predisposed to GSA. You are emphasizing SSA but so what?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: