'Gay'-vid and Goliath or David and 'Gay'-liath?

[FiddlingAnt]

Malcolm Gladwell's latest best-selling book David and Goliath: Underdogs, Misfits, and the Art of Battling Giants presents a challenging argument that the underdog can beat the giant most of the time by changing the game. He starts by explaining that David was no match for Goliath in a hand-to-hand combat, but that Goliath was no match for David when David changed the game to nimble slingshot shooter vs. lumbering armored swordsman. Gladwell gives the example of America winning their revolution from Great Britain. The Continental Army could not beat the better trained and equipped redcoats. However, when they changed their tactics not to fight head on, they were able to last long enough to wear out the enemy. The same thing happened in Vietnam. The communists could not beat America using conventional military means, so they changed the way the war was fought.

There are many other examples of the underdog beating the favorite in history. The Soviets could not beat the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan in the 1980's. During World War II the British tried to challenge the battleship Bismark using conventional means of other battleships. The Bismark easily won, sinking the vaunted HMS Hood. However, when they changed tactics and attacked the formidable battleship with slow flying bi-plane torpedo bombers, they were able to win.

In our current day, perhaps no group has been more successful in a David vs. Goliath struggle than the homosexual community. They are riding a wave of growing acceptance of same sex marriage.

Could a gay agenda win in an open challenge against traditional values? Absolutely not. During the 70's and 80's the homosexual activists acted like revolutionaries, with in-your-face challenges of cross-dressers, public same-sex kissing, and other actions meant to shock. It got them nowhere. Fighting Goliath on his terms, you lose.

Then in the 90's they changed their strategy from revolutionaries to victims and found a way to play David against Goliath. It was all planned out by public relation experts Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen in their 1989 publication, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred for Gays in the 90's. The plan was for homosexuals to show themselves as mainstream, such as wanting to marry, instead of displaying their overwhelming desire for promiscuity. They would get the media to focus on middle aged women or professionals and not the leather-men or drag queens. Extreme gay groups like the North American Man/Boy Love Association would have to be kept out of the news.

The plan also included selling the idea that people are born gay and have no choice. Again, it is a victim ploy to make society believe that homosexuality is the same as race as far as choice is concerned. If someone can't be held responsible for their actions, how can you blame them for what they do? They have largely succeeded in this plan even though there is no full proof scientific evidence. For example, studies of identical twins do not show that they are always both gay or both straight. Obviously there is choice involved.

We only have to look at the daily headlines to recognize that 'Gay'-vid has beaten Goliath and as long as we keep playing the same game, those who believe in traditional Christian values are going to keep losing.

The way to win is to change the game so David beats 'Gay'-liath. What will that require? I don't think we can use Right vs. Wrong, or Good vs. Evil, because moral relativism increasingly dominates society and does not recognize these are legitimate public issues. I do think an argument we can win is making choices as responsible adults (traditional) vs. making choices like irresponsible juveniles (homosexuals). Homosexual values are immature, selfish, and anti-children. Traditional values are responsible, forward thinking, and pro-children.

What is best for America?

[Big Dog]

You know what?



Skunk butt.

[obumazombie]

You know what?



Skunk butt.

Watch where you're pointing that thing ! Pew pew pew will take on a whole new meaning !

[Big Dog]

Watch where you're pointing that thing ! Pew pew pew will take on a whole new meaning !

That's Le Pew Pew Pew, my friend!

[obumazombie]

That's Le Pew Pew Pew, my friend!

That's the perfect "end" to this thread !

[DumbAss Tanker]

Gladwell gives the example of America winning their revolution from Great Britain. The Continental Army could not beat the better trained and equipped redcoats. However, when they changed their tactics not to fight head on, they were able to last long enough to wear out the enemy. The same thing happened in Vietnam. The communists could not beat America using conventional military means, so they changed the way the war was fought.

It's a popular myth, but has pretty much no factual connection to what actually happened.  Aside from a couple of instances of severe losses caused by pure arrogance, the British regulars pretty much kicked the shit out of the militia regiments or chased them off the field (Sometimes with heavy losses, sometimes not at all) until guys like von Steuben, Pulaski, and Lafayette trained and disciplined the Continental Army up to the same standard as the redcoats, and then proceeded to employ them head-to-head against the Brits and their German mercenaries.

Even at that, America was the lowest-priority theater for Britain, which was in a world-wide war with France and her allies; the German mercenaries were used mainly because the Royal Army was overcommitted everywhere else around the world.  In fact the final battle at Yorktown was only a victory because half the American forces were French regulars, and the French Navy had fought an action offshore that kept the Royal Navy from intervening to support, move, or withdraw the British land forces at Yorktown.  Great Britain pretty much won the war all around the world except in the American theater, and really the only reason the whole thing worked was because of Franklin's successful diplomacy in tying American fortunes to France, which enabled both the Yorktown victory and the roll-up of the fate of the Revolution into the peace treaty negotiations between the two European superpowers.

The French legacy of debt from that debacle had a tremendous amount to do with bringing on the French Revolution only a few years later, ultimately leading to misery and staggering loss of life in the subsequent Napoleonic Wars on an even more-global scale than the two centuries of intermittent warfare between the English and every other seafaring nation in Europe had seen, in which our own War of 1812 was another small sideshow from the point of view of our opponents, though a threat to our national existence from ours.

Luck in picking friends, relying on foreign military experts who actually knew what they were doing, diplomatic cunning, and fortunate timing had a lot more to do with winning the Revolution than David vs. Goliath romanticism, which actually did not win the war, despite the mythology.

The real lesson of the Revolution is this:  If you are David and going up against Goliath, you're much better off doing it from his blind side while he's busy fighting Godzilla.