The Perverted State Of America

Toogood Reports ^ | 11/25/03 | Allan C. Stover

[vladog]

Think back: How long ago would you have scoffed at the idea of two men getting married? Or the Supreme Court endorsing sodomy? Or "domestic partners" enjoying the same rights and benefits as married couples? Or network television featuring shows with gays and lesbians? Or companies such as Avis announcing, "Domestic partners are automatically included as additional drivers. No extra fees charged. No questions asked." Or even that you would take the term "sexual rights" seriously?

It wasn't that long ago. The forces for perversion have subjected us to a propaganda campaign of such intensity that most Americans have surrendered to the perverting of America without a fight.

Radical "sexual rights" activists have learned how to manipulate American society for their own ends. They know Americans will accept even outrageous social changes if the changes are introduced gradually, and advocates conduct an effective "information and education" campaign.

You've probably read that the newly ordained homosexual Episcopal bishop is named simply Gene Robinson, or perhaps even V. Gene Robinson, one of those people who use an initial followed by a middle name. Few media sources mentioned that his first name is Vicky. That's right, Vicky, a name Baby Names website identifies as exclusively for females, sometimes short for Victoria. Why did they hide that fact? The media are rabidly pro-perversion and didn't want to feminize the homosexual bishop in any way. The same media now publish homosexual "unions" alongside wedding announcements.

Those who want to lull America into accepting every perversion as "normal" – and they include almost everyone in the entertainment industry, the media, and the judiciary – have other tricks they use. For one, they're brainwashing Americans into believing that those who don't approve of the practices are the abnormal ones. Thus the term "homophobe" and "biphobia" (Yes, there really is such a word being used nowadays) and the rules and laws against discrimination based on "sexual orientation."

Those rules and laws first applied to gays and lesbians. In a classic foot-in-the-door campaign, they are being extended to include transgenders, transsexuals, and bisexuals. Can anyone honestly say that those practices are normal? Yet they're dragging Americans toward acceptance of the perversions, and few of us are kicking and screaming on the way.

Well, you might ask, why should we care what they do in the privacy of their bedroom? This isn't about privacy. This is about Americans being forced to endorse (or pretend to endorse) every sexual perversion possible. This is about schools bringing in gays, lesbians, transsexuals, transgenders, and bisexuals to lecture children on "alternative lifestyles." This is about laws being passed to force employers to employ men who dress like women. A convoluted California bill noted, "Gender is defined as the employee's actual sex or the employer's perception of the employee's identity, appearance or behavior, even if these characteristics differ from those traditionally associated with the employee's sex at birth." This is about the greatest reordering of society in history, and few people of prominence are asking whether it's the right path to follow. Once America goes down that path, that part of society's destiny is locked in forever. We can't turn back.

The Internet has spawned hundreds of websites for these practices. In a classic example of activist doublethink, a website for bisexuals says we citizens become "biphobic" by "Automatically assuming romantic couplings of two women are lesbian, or two men are gay, or a man and a woman are heterosexual, " "Assuming that everyone you meet is either heterosexual or homosexual," "Looking at a bisexual person and automatically thinking of their sexuality rather than seeing them as a whole, complete person," and "Believing bisexual men spread AIDS/HIV and other STDs to heterosexuals." Am I missing something here?

A friend who works for a university told me that a male employee took a leave of absence to change his sex. When he/she returned, complete with panty hose and makeup, the issue of bathroom usage came up. The men didn't want him/her in their bathroom, and he/she didn't want to use it either. The women didn't want someone they had known as a man to use their bathroom. In a typical case of official wimping out, the university built him/her an exclusive bathroom.

In 1998, President Bill Clinton issued an Executive Order prohibiting discrimination in federal employment based on "sexual orientation." He's the same president who Colin Powell noted in his biography seemed more interested in forcing gays on the military than in supporting our troops in Somalia. Is America's "first black president" also America's first gay president?

Fast forward to 2003. Fox News quoted President Bush on the eve of Marriage Protection Week: "'Marriage is a union between a man and a woman." He also noted, "Research has shown that, on average, children raised in households headed by married parents fare better than children who grow up in other family structures."

By contrast, the next day, Terry McAuliffe, Chairman of the Democrat National Committee, announced, "On behalf of the DNC, I would like to recognize Saturday, October 11, 2003 as the 16th Annual National Coming Out Day. Coming out as a gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender (GLBT) American is a tremendous act of courage."

He's not the only Democrat politician to pursue the perverted vote. Howard Dean calls himself a "metrosexual," another word I can't find in my dictionary. One on-line definition states that a metrosexual is a straight, urban male who is eager to embrace his feminine side. Great, now we're considering fruity guys for president.

Gay marriages will soon become legal in America, as they now are in Canada and the Netherlands. Is this the end of it all, the final victory for the sexual activists?

Rest assured it isn't. The practitioners of polygamy, polyandry, pedophilia, sadomasochism, incest, necrophilia, and bestiality, among others, will continue to fight for their "sexual rights." America is a long way from the bottom of its moral pit.

[Protagoras]

The rest of your post is equally incorrect. The statements represent your opinion, which I reject. And rights aren't based on opinions.

[John O]

Nice try at a childish play on words.

Did I insult you? why are you trying to insult me?

[John O]

And rights aren't based on opinions.

You're right. Rights are given to us by our Creator. And His opinion is that homosexual behavior is immoral.

There is no right to commit sodomy no matter how the sodomites try to force it.

[Protagoras]

The play on words thing was childish. I never referred to you, only your method.

[little jeremiah]

There is no inherent right to practice sodomy, and throughout the history of Western Civilization, and indeed, other civilizations as well such as the Vedic civilization, as well as the moral absolutes inculcated by Judeo-Christian scriptures, sodomy has always been considered a crime against nature and society. Only in the last couple of generations - or even one generation - has it become venerated as an inalienable right. Sure, some societies have allowed it - the homoerotic Spartans, the SS elite under Nazism, the New Guinea aborigines who also eat their dead grandfathers, but these are not cultures upon whom our Constitution or laws are based.

By rejecting moral absolutes - which are fairly standard in every monotheistic tradition - we are bringing chaos and destruction upon ourselves. Those who like chaos and destruction - and the ensuing totalitarianism - applaud the legalization of sodomy.

Now being defended not only in the bedroom, but in the public bathrooms of universities, parks and beaches, as well as the public streets across our fair land.

[Protagoras]

You're right.

I know.

Rights are given to us by our Creator. And His opinion is that homosexual behavior is immoral.

He also didn't tell you to get a gun and enforce his rules. He doesn't need the violent help of puny immoral people. He will handle sin himself, in this world or the next.

There is no right to commit sodomy no matter how the sodomites try to force it.

You are confusing interactions between humans and human relationships with God. In THIS world, unless someone is violating someone elses rights, other sinning human beings have no LEGITIMATE power to interfere. Unless you violate my rights, your sin is not to be addressed by me violently.

If you believe in a violent theocracy, (and I'm not implying that you do) all bets are off.

[Protagoras]

There is an inherent right to do whatever doesn't violate the rights of others. Any other activity is between God and sinners.

If you want to make the case for a theocracy in this country, have at it.

We can talk about other sin and whether it should be violently suppressed if you want.

[scripter]

I repeat, your rights are not being violated and therefore it is none of your business.

I disagree. As I see it, just because someones rights aren't violated doesn't mean it's nobody else's business.

First, from where do our rights come from? I believe our rights come from our Creator and as John O said: [Our Creators] opinion is that homosexual behavior is immoral.. Sure, homosexual activists try to twist what the Bible says but in doing so they twist Scripture just as the cults do.

Second, homosexual behavior results in severe health hazards that can affect all of us.

Third, homosexuals, being around 2% (including bisexuals) of the population, account for a third of child molestations. Now that's some of everybody's business. Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

Fourth, there is absolutely no evidence homosexuality is genetic. In fact the major factor in determining homosexuality is environment. The fact that thousands have left the homosexual lifestyle supports the environmental factor.

Fifth, homosexuals can change.

So why do we even tolerate homosexualty, let alone accept it? Homosexuals should be encouraged to leave the lifestyle, not continue the destructive lifestyle that it is. And those who truly care for homosexuals will do just that.

[weegee]

In THIS world, unless someone is violating someone elses rights, other sinning human beings have no LEGITIMATE power to interfere. Unless you violate my rights, your sin is not to be addressed by me violently.

Then why weren't prostitution and at home drug cultivation/use legallized with the sodomy decision?

[Protagoras]

One problem at a time.

[little jeremiah]

People keep misusing the word "theocracy" as though it meant a government that is informed by moral absolutes. That is not the meaning of the word "theocracy". Our Constitution and the government we have always had was based on moral absolutes and the founders of our country freely admitted that.
A theocracry is a government RULED by UNELECTED mullahs, priests, clerics, or other official religious authorities. Read the dictionary and learn to use words that have specific meanings. Misuse of the word "theocracy" is misleading, making ignorant people think there is something wrong with allowing the slightest hint of moral absolutes in governance. But laws have always been founded on moral absolutes.
Leave out the moral absolutes and we will have different groups or tribes of people slaughtering each other over their differing opinions of right and wrong, with the strongest in numbers or weaponry dominating the others. Barbarianism and/or totalitarianism will be the result.

[weegee]

Cop out answer. If the judicial decision were just about privacy it would have changed all of those concerns.

This was an activist endorsement of sodomy with whatever excuse it took. The Supreme Court is not infalible and even overturned its own earlier decision (different judges).

The Supreme Court has changed it opinion on a number of decisions throughout the years.

[AmericanInTokyo]

No wonder (and I am NOT JUSTIFYING IT AS MORAL), that the islamofascist fundamentalists are attacking America and hate us/see us as hopelessly corrupt, satanic and sinful.

[Protagoras]

I disagree. As I see it, just because someones rights aren't violated doesn't mean it's nobody else's business

It should be clarified that we are talking about the use of force in making it your business. I think you can and should do everything you want to change minds and hearts about sinful behavior, SHORT of force and violence.

believe our rights come from our Creator

So do I.

and as John O said: [Our Creators] opinion is that homosexual behavior is immoral..

I agree with that as well.

Sure, homosexual activists try to twist what the Bible says but in doing so they twist Scripture just as the cults do.

I agree, I just wonder why you feel compelled to tell me this.

Second, homosexual behavior results in severe health hazards that can affect all of us.

So does obesity and other forms of hetrosexual contact. Your proposal on those?

Third, homosexuals, being around 2% (including bisexuals) of the population, account for a third of child molestations.

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything in this conversation. Child molestations violate rights, that's why they are subject to legitimate government force.

Fourth, there is absolutely no evidence homosexuality is genetic.

Off topic and irrelevant to this conversation. I happen to agree, but why are you telling me about it?

Fifth, homosexuals can change.

I think perhaps some can, but again, it's off topic to this conversation.

So why do we even tolerate homosexualty, let alone accept it?

Tolerate? Like not kill them? Like not arrest them?

Homosexuals should be encouraged to leave the lifestyle, not continue the destructive lifestyle that it is.

I agree, what have you done about it lately? (Encourage doesn't mean at the point of a gun.)

And those who truly care for homosexuals will do just that.

I agree. Get going if you haven't already.

[Protagoras]

I didn't cop out a bit. I make my points, you make yours.

I don't particularly care why the court made this decision. I am not a fan of most court decisions. This one may be correct for all the wrong reasons.

My point is only this, consensual sex between adults in private is not a legitimate government function. The proper role of Government in a free society is to defend rights. Period.

I'm not interested in violent force based theocracies.

[Protagoras]

You use the time honored strawman. It doesn't work with me. Go argue with someone who believes those things. With me, stick to arguing with what I say.

Which of the ten commandments do you want to see enforced by government?

[Protagoras]

Read the dictionary and learn to use words that have specific meanings.

theocracy

SYLLABICATION: the·oc·ra·cy
PRONUNCIATION: AUDIO: th-kr-s KEY
NOUN: Inflected forms: pl. the·oc·ra·cies
1. A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.
2. A state so governed.

Physician, heal thyself.

[weegee]

I don't particularly care why the court made this decision. I am not a fan of most court decisions. This one may be correct for all the wrong reasons.

Bad Supreme Court decisions set bad precedent. That they can "pick and choose" what can be done in privacy means that the privacy argument won't hold for every case.

If the court had chosen to be consistent in it's decision I would not be hollering about this. This WAS a set aside for the homosexual lobby and no other privacy rights groups get a benifit from the decision. Ergo your rights as a citizen are still limited even for activities you commit in private with consent from other adults.

Meanwhile, they claimed that this would not unleash a challenge to society's prohibitions on same-sex marriage, homosexual adoption, age of consent laws for sex acts between adults and minors over the age of consent (we were told that this was strictly the actions of consenting ADULTS and some states did set different ages for conventional heterosexual pairings and atypical homosexual pairings).

We were also told that this would not legalize prostitution and that seems to be the only provision of their claims that is holding.

Some might bring up commerce as a reason for the government to be involved but is the government involved in approving who you employ as a babysitter (child care provider)? There are violations of child labor laws, income tax laws, let alone no background checks or proficiency test. I'm am not pushing for the prohibition of baby sitters (and am not arguing for the legalization of prostitution for any other reason but consistency in the decision; I wouldn't use a prostitute).

[Protagoras]

We were also told that this would not legalize prostitution and that seems to be the only provision of their claims that is holding.

Prostitution is legal in some places. Has been for a long time. (not to nitpick)

Some might bring up commerce as a reason for the government to be involved but is the government involved in approving who you employ as a babysitter (child care provider)? There are violations of child labor laws, income tax laws, let alone no background checks or proficiency test. I'm am not pushing for the prohibition of baby sitters (and am not arguing for the legalization of prostitution for any other reason but consistency in the decision; I wouldn't use a prostitute).

Sex is just one area where the government is engaged in illegitimate use of force.

[weegee]

Which of the ten commandments do you want to see enforced by government?

Thou shall not commit murder

Thou shall not steal

Thou shall not bear false witness (lie under oath)

Thou shall not commit adultery (marriage is a contract and adultery is a violation of that agreement; if you want the government out of all marriage agreements, say so)

Additional laws do exist (whether you want them to or not) regarding:

"Keeping the Sabbath holy." See Sunday Blue Laws (try to by alcohol before noon on Sunday).

"Taking the Lord's name in vain." You may think that you have free speech but there are areas of profanity against religion that are actually considered "hate speech" and unprotected. And this holds for all religions (especially islam, today) in America. These laws tend to be written to apply to persons mocking someone else's deity but the concept is there.

That would be 4 laws that I agree should be based on the 10 commandments (although many states removed the adultery laws which is okay in their minds now that there is no fault divorce, I assume even though someone is still legally wronged).