Posted on 03/25/2002 4:50:18 AM PST by gohabsgo
The intensifying media indoctrination of rights for gays, lesbians, transgenders, and those who practice "alternative lifestyles" continues on unobstructed. One visit to a California K-12 classroom will attest to this claim. And anyone who would object to the extension of lifestyle rights to the growing legions that fit within this protected class are by liberal definition, hateful, bigoted, extremist, and… (I lost track, but the list of strategically insulting pejoratives grows daily). Has anyone stopped to contemplate that with each award of a right, an equal restriction on freedom occurs? Or is it "hate speech" to defend traditional values against the compulsory stances promulgated by an increasingly aggressive gay agenda?
"Homosexual" is the one single word more than any other, that guarantees the activation of earsplitting alarm bells in the liberal media, the ACLU, and in Hollywood (home of "A Beautiful Mind"). The term has become radioactive, though we´re not quite sure who made it that way. This predicament should make all Americans realize the magnitude of the mind control occurring in the media, and in our schools on a daily basis, and the chilling effect it has on anyone who wants to exercise a moral decision about what they feel is right, and what they feel is wrong.
We´ve all read the stories in the past two months about child abuse and pedophilia by teachers and priests, horrific and life-scarring crimes overwhelmingly perpetrated by grown males upon other (usually minor) males. This should lead a common sense individual to conclude: homosexuality. Right? Wrong. I would argue that this morally-encumbered term is being, by specific instruction of news syndicates such as AP, UPI and Reuters, uprooted, removed, and abolished from our national lexicon. And its use in daily life is a literal mine field. Don´t think so? Try using the term in mixed conversation. And good luck.
So, you want examples? Where do we start?
First, a softy, like the United Way. Remember the early 1990s, when the United Way's disgraced director, William Aramony, stole $600,000 to lavish trips and luxury apartments on himself and his girlfriends? Well, this week they announced that at least 39 affiliates will stop direct community funding of the Boy Scouts to protest the Scouts' ban on homosexual leaders. But here´s the rub. Remember, only bad guys ban gays. Good guys defend gays (and call bad guys names). And sure enough, in the article, it´s the Boy Scouts (the bad guys) who used the term "homosexual" when defending their policy against homosexual leaders (never mind that the US Supreme Court backs the Scouts). Was their crime the refusal to adopt the euphemistic term "gay"?
So, I called the local Orange County, CA United Way affiliate this week to inquire whether they were part of the Boy Scout ban. According to the representative, they had decided to exercise their discretion and continue funding the Boy Scouts. Then I asked her whether she was for or against homosexual troop leaders. "Sorry, can´t talk about it." Each query to pry out an honest response met with: "I can´t discuss it". Clearly the term made her very uncomfortable. Or maybe, we both knew it was no longer part of our permitted vocabulary.
The LA Times, G-d´s gift to ultra-tolerance, diversity and Gray Davis offered up Crazy Charlie and Crimes Against Children (3/21/02). In the article, author Al Martinez tells us that during his childhood, he knew a Crazy Charlie who liked to "touch" little boys. Charley eventually died from a gunshot wound, with his wife in the same room. Martinez states, "I discovered how many child molesters, or accused child molesters, are in positions of trust and responsibility. I suppose you could say that Catholic priests are among the most trusted because they claim to be agents of G-d, a declaration that has lost a lot of its luster in recent weeks." Throughout the article, Martinez uses: molestation, abuse, victimization, but never "homosexuality." I suggest the writer is prohibited from using the term for fear that an ethical judgment about moral character would have to be made, perhaps from a biblical perspective, and that´s just not allowed at the Times (or anywhere for that matter).
Yet, Martinez goes on to say, "molestation creates distrust not only in its victims, but in the body politic as a whole. We already distrust leadership. Are we now to distrust our moral counselors?" Who specifically are these moral counselors you refer to Mr. Martinez? The church? The Pope? People who ascribe to Judeo-Christian principles? No, the new moral "counselors" are the ACLU lawyers ensuring the removal of the 10 Commandments from all public buildings, protecting pornographers rights in the name of free speech, or suing the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) for offering a prayer of thanks before daily meals (soldiers no less, who may end up sacrificing their lives on the battlefield so morons like this can suppress free speech). No, the new moral counselors are the Red Cross prohibiting "G-d Bless America" from public ceremony in the name of diversity, or the United Way demonizing the Boy Scouts for projecting "hate." Protected by a consigliere of black robed goons on the bench, what chance do common sense Americans, raised to believe that an ethical, moral and honest set of values will somehow be honored, have against this depraved and growing body of hypocrisy?
Then you have the Catholic Church, with the Pope speaking about the sex abuse cases plaguing the Church, and the "scandal" that casts a "dark shadow" on all priests. "The Church shows her concern for the victims and strives to respond in truth and justice to each of these painful situations." As a Catholic, I am deeply saddened and embarrassed by the cowardice of the Church, and the willful cover played out in Boston for homosexual priests moved from parish to parish, victimizing innocent young boys in their wake. But did the Pope, or Cardinal Law call these ghastly acts homosexuality? Not on your life!
Yet there is even more backpeddling and cowardice on the use of the term. The Boston Globe in the article "Church newspaper tries to clarify remarks from editorial (3/21/02)" said, "The Boston Archdiocese's newspaper [The Pilot] in a new editorial, said the intent of its editorial that raised questions of priest celibacy, ordination of women and homosexuality had been widely misinterpreted." Misinterpreted? Later in the article, it said, "the editorial took on "a life of its own" and sparked inquiries from around the globe." And why might the article take on a "life of its own."? Aye, lad, might it have anything to do with the term "homosexual," a word not endorsed for interpretive and policy use by the Vatican? Even the Vatican realizes the danger associated with using the word, and perhaps this semantic tap-dance and legalistic equivocation is a metaphor for their unwillingness to call these acts exactly what they are: homosexuality perpetrated by men of the cloth. Short of a complete housecleaning, it will take years to restore credibility. And for what? A gutless fear of using a word that precisely describes a profane act. Or is the dictionary wrong, and the media right? I´m confused.
Hollywood and the liberal media have a deeply vested interest in preserving a positive depiction of this alternative lifestyle, while hiding and rationalizing its most perverse. That´s why "homosexual" is "gay." OK, fair enough. But when the acts that gay men perpetrate upon innocent male minors are heinous and wrong, not only from a moral sense, but from the standpoint of the defenseless victim, there is no ACLU lawyer bent on defending his client´s distorted "freedom of expression" who should be able to avoid the moral confrontation with the gravity of his deed. Period! But this is exactly what is happening, on a much larger and more damaging scale.
So here we sit, too cowardly to grab the moral compass and admit where the arrow is pointing, for abject fear that someone will be offended, but deep down knowing someone, somewhere, must have the moral courage to overcome this ethical and spiritual morass. The media mercilessly vilifies people for speaking their minds about policies that have turned traditional American values and common sense upside down. They know that there are few people who are going to have the courage to risk being falsely impugned as hateful in order to defend their beliefs. And it is this truth that has given the homosexual agenda the fuel to beat their position into the mainstream, with "zero tolerance" for any point of view other than theirs, in absolute and arrogant disregard of the need for impartial and honest dialogue.
It will take a heightened level of moral outrage and sophistication in separating fact from fiction, and emotion from substance, for the public to "get it" soon enough to come to their senses and have an impact in changing the direction of this madness. In the mean time, I´ve gotta go to work, and the GLAADS, the GLSENs, and the liberal phonies work this issue 24/7. I always thought a stacked deck was cheating, but then I was naive enough to believe I still had the inherent right and freedom to think independently and morally, without being called a hateful, bigoted, "extremist."
A judgment day may arrive when in a court of law witnesses will no longer be required to place their left hand on the Bible, and raise their right hand "...so help me G-d" before testifying. Perhaps all you have is your reputation, your integrity, and your faith. So be careful what you do with it. Many people who pray, have had their prayers answered. Many who hold onto their faith like a rock have steady balance in their lives, despite all who would attack and sully what is held dear. But you are isolated and on your own when you refuse to concede your objection to the practice of homosexuality on a moral basis. Not against the freedom of another person to be a homosexual, but against their self-proclaimed right to compel you to "share" their beliefs. You have no ally in the "free" press, and they have no problem defending people who will destroy your freedom to think otherwise.
BTW,the only time I use the word "gay" is to describe somebody who is happy. Rosie O'Donnell may or may not be "gay" (seems pretty sad and pathetic to me),but she IS a homosexual.
I give to the United Way at work (not much, but it's pretty much expected), but would stop if I find out the local chapter stopped funding the Boy Scouts. A while back I saw someone had posted a link to find out which affiliates did this. Does someone know where I could find an updated list?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.