Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda
self | February 11, 2004 | little jeremiah

Posted on 02/11/2004 9:00:13 PM PST by little jeremiah

What We Can Do To Defeat The "Gay" Agenda

Dear Fellow Freepers,

The following informal essay has two parts, the first consisting of ideas of what individuals or small groups can do to help thwart, roll back, defeat and otherwise throw a monkey wrench into the onslaught of the "gay" agenda and their stated goal to destroy the moral fabric of society. I am hoping that discussion will ensue, with theoretical ideas as well as accomplished plans. Information and knowledge are the key. Since most people just watch TV and read the establishment media, which are lapdogs of the "gay" elite, they just do not know the truth about homosexuality.

The second part is my analysis of the root cause of the homosexual movement, going a bit deeper than environment and molestation. It is "religious" or "spiritual" in aspect, so anyone who wishes to avoid that type of discussion can avoid it! This analysis is germane to the cure, not only of the homosexual agenda, but the untrammeled hedonism and libertinism of which homosexuality is the poster child.

[Note: I am not attempting to recap the immediate causes of homosexuality, or prove that it is not inborn, or give evidence as to why same sex acts are abnormal, unhealthy, or immoral, or to prove that homosexuals can change. FR already has hundreds of archived articles of this nature.]

Part One: Ideas on Promoting the Truth about Homosexuality

A friend of ours homeschools her children, so as to protect them from the horrible influence of public schools, instill her personal moral values, and give them the best education possible. She knew that homosexuality was unhealthy, immoral, and unnatural, but until I gave her books and booklets I purchased from Scott Lively's website (www.abidingtruth.com) she was not able to articulate her viewpoint. After studying the materials I provided, she became a one-woman task force, gave her elderly father books to read, and shared the books with the charter/homeschool teacher. The teacher, who also had not been very well-informed, had her mind blown (so to speak) and ordered more materials for herself, and placed a link to Lively's website on her personal website. Lively has a number of very informative booklets that can be purchased in bulk cheap, and they are great for distributing. So because I informed one friend, many others have been informed. This particular charter school is all for homeschooled children, and there are about 500 families involved.

By purchasing Lively's materials (or reprints from other groups such as NAARTH and the Family Research Council) and making them available at your church, synagogue or other house of worship, many people can become informed. Materials can be purchased and mailed or given to pastors at other churches, or any organization or club that you belong to.

I have found that if I talk to people in the line at the grocery store, or the cashier, often people are happy to find that others have the same viewpoint, but they are afraid to admit that they think same sex acts to be unhealthy or wrong. Just by speaking up in public, we can encourage others to think for themselves, and not be intimidated by social pressure.

Of course, letters can be written to newspapers (they've never printed one of mine!), legislators, and media people. We could try calling up local talk radio shows to tell the truth or attend school board meetings to protest the homosexual infiltration of the schools. Of course, by doing any of these things we will be "outing" ourselves as homophobes ;-) but that's the risk one takes by speaking the truth.

And then there are guerilla tactics: print up some fact sheets about the nature of and diseases spread by homosexual acts, statistics about molestation rates, etc - make them colorful and readable, and broadcast them about town. Laudromats, bulletin boards in stores, public facilities, rest stops, community college or other educational institutions, any place you can find. Good places would be where there is a lot of foot traffic, especially where high school kids can see them. High schools kids are really being targeted by homosexual activists, so the more they can see the truth, the better.

Another post-it tactic: make or obtain stickers with the names and phone numbers of organizations that help people overcome homosexuality, and stick them near high schools, colleges, downtowns, and so on. You never know whose life might change because of one phone call. Or, place ads in the classified ads section of local newspapers or weekly magazines with the same information.

Other promotional ideas are bumper stickers (make you own, or maybe someone knows where to order pro-family stickers). Ideas for slogans: Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve; Marriage=One Man+One Woman; Children Need a Mother and Father, Not Two of a Kind; Same Sex Acts Are Not Healthy For Living Things; Want to get AIDS? Be Gay!; Don't confuse "Exit" with "Entry"; Don't Mess With Marriage; "Gay" Sex Isn't Gay…. These could also be signs in car windows, yard signs, signs held at rallies.

Protest at "Gay Pride" Parades. If protesting at such public events, wear protective clothing and go in groups, carry antiseptic handwipes and have a camera and maybe tape recorder. No telling what might ensue. Here's an idea that someone freepmailed to me, and it sounds good:

"I have an idea I'd like to pass your way. I suggest that we get permits to set up tables in front of (or near) our respective churches/synagogues along the local "Pride" parade routes this coming June, with literature about reparative therapy. Each table should also have someone there to document all the juvenile insults and threats thrown our way on a videocam, and send copies of the films to the local tv news to include as part of their coverage."

These are just a few ideas. Let's hear yours!

Part Two: The Root Cause of Homosexuality

Everyone needs happiness, love and pleasure. These needs stem directly from the soul, and get interpreted through the body - think of how many people eat because they are lonely, depressed, or in anxiety. A healthy balanced person will eat when hungry, and when in need of companionship will turn to a relative, friend, or even pet for company. The need for love is really paramount, a deeper need than the bodily requirements. What hurts more, a broken heart, or a hungry stomach? Our culture has denied the fact - basic to all religions (probably a few exceptions, but this is not the debate here) - that human beings even have souls, what to speak of the needs of the soul. In fact, the accepted "scientifically based" theory is that humans are just machines, made of chemicals, evolved by accident, and the "self" doesn’t even really exist. In an atmosphere of such impersonal nihilism, it is natural that many people will be easily convinced that real love, real happiness, real heart to heart connection, don't exist.

What can take its place? Instant pleasure. Shopping. Drug and alcohol abuse. Or, most seductive of all, orgasms. And since the sexual organs have no conscience, a wide variety of options is available to people who have been convinced that God doesn't exist, there are no rules - or higher purpose - to life, and instant gratification is the only yardstick to measure happiness with.

There are two kinds of happiness - the kind that comes from the outside - eating, sex, comforts, and the devices or arrangements that facilitate such, as well as more intangible pleasures such as accomplishments, goals achieved, music, arts, learning, and so on. The second kind of happiness comes only from within the heart, and this happiness is our relationship with God. Jesus said that the Kingdom of God is within us, and the same truth is stated in Hindu scriptures (the Vedas) as well. A surrendered soul can experience the loving embrace of God anywhere, any time - if he truly desires and strives for this loving relationship. The experience that God is my best friend, my only refuge, my source of happiness, and indeed, the very foundation for and purpose of my existence - is the only real meaning of religion. Currently, in many religions, the concept that God is a real Person is left out, glossed over, He is described as an amorphous mystery, or that "we are God", or that He is just energy or a force. But according to Jesus, the teachings in the Old Testament, and the teachings of the Vedas, re-establishing a loving relationship with the Supreme Person is the only thing that will fill the emptiness in our hearts. If this knowledge is denied, as in most of our culture, people will seek to fill this void by any means at hand. And if the moral absolutes that are part of God's instructions to humanity are tossed out, then anything goes. If sexual pleasure is the goal of life, and there are no eternal moral truths, then there is no reason to not accept same sex acts, or, for that matter, any kind of sexual activity.

Therefore, the real antidote to the "gay" agenda, as well as the breakdown of civilization it heralds, is the spiritual awakening of many individuals, and the understanding that such an awakening is not only important but essential.


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Culture/Society; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: culturewar; culturewars; gayagenda; glsen; homonazi; homosexualagenda; homosexuality; prisoners; profamilyactivism; romans1
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300 ... 351-364 next last
To: little jeremiah
Homosexual Manifesto - An Essay on the Homosexual Revolution

An excerpt from "PERSPECTIVE - IN WHOSE BEST INTEREST"

As a grim reminder of the strides the homosexual activists have made in just a few years, it becomes necessary, once again, to quote some of the ranting of Michael Swift, homosexual writer, who authored a well-known essay entitled, "For The Homoerotic Order" in the Boston Gay Community News, February 15-21, 1987. His essay is prefaced by the statement "This essay is outre, madness, a tragic, cruel fantasy, an eruption of inner rage, on how the oppressed desperately dream of being the oppressor." Unbelievably, his mad fantasy has turned into tragic reality with consequences society refuses to face.

Here, in part, is what he wrote "We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms. . . . Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us.

"All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked. Instead legislation shall be passed which engenders love between men. . . . If you dare to cry faggot, fairy, queer at us, we will stab you. . . . Our writers and artists will make love between men fashionable. . . .

"We will unmask the powerful homosexuals who masquerade as heterosexuals. You will be shocked and frightened when you find that your presidents and their sons, your industrialists, your senators, your mayors, your generals, your athletes, your film stars, your television personalities, your civic leaders, your priests are not the safe, familiar, bourgeois, heterosexual figures you assumed them to be. We are everywhere; we have infiltrated your ranks. . . .

"The family unit--spawning ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy and violence will be abolished. The family unit, which only dampens imagination and curbs free will, must be eliminated, Perfect boys will be conceived and grown in genetic laboratory. They will be bonded together in communal setting, under the control and instruction of homosexual savants.

"All churches who condemn us will be closed. Tremble, hetero swine, when we appear before you without our masks."

Well, today the heterosexual population is the "oppressed," and homosexual activists are seducing our sons and daughters in our schools, and they get the full support and blessing of the teachers' unions. Together, they have now set the machinery in motion to brainwash and socially engineer future generations in accordance with Michael Swift's mad fantasy of homosexual domination and oppression.

All laws curbing homosexuality have been revoked in Canada, and the government now recognizes and protects any kind of homosexual partnership. The passage of the hate-crime bill has established homosexuals as an elite group with special privileges and protection, and no one "dares cry faggot" or pervert anymore. Both homosexuality and bisexuality have become a fad in our society, and anyone showing distaste or disapproval is branded as a bigot or homophobe.

The family unit is constantly challenged in today's society, and recent court decisions have supported the unnatural conception of children through artificial insemination for subsequent adoption by homosexual couples. And parents who spank their children stand to have them taken away by the government, which may well place them in the foster care of adult homosexuals.

Should there be any doubt about the malignant pervasiveness of the homosexual movement in our schools and social infrastructure, look up http://www.youth.org/loco/PERSONProject/

With the attitude of our federal government and the teachers' unions, legalized pedophilia is just around the corner.


201 posted on 03/03/2004 9:19:15 AM PST by EdReform (Support Free Republic - All donations are greatly appreciated. Thank you for your support!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EdReform
Thanks for adding this. I first read Swift's essay years ago and it was terriying. What I feared is now coming to pass. I have seen homosexuals, when confronted with Swift's essay, claim that it was just hyperbole, satire, or the like. But no, it's their plan for us.

If it happens, human civilization is down the drain, kaput, finito, all over. I can't imagine.

We must fight this evil.

I am pinging my list to this.
202 posted on 03/03/2004 9:33:14 AM PST by little jeremiah (...men of intemperate minds can not be free. Their passions forge their fetters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: *Homosexual Agenda; EdReform; scripter; GrandMoM; backhoe; Yehuda; Clint N. Suhks; saradippity; ...
Homosexual Agenda Ping. Pinging you to comment #201 by EdReform.

Anyone who has not yet read Michael Swift's notorious essay -supposedly a fantasy, but becoming cruel reality - should read it, get outraged, and get active.

Check EdReform's links for the entire essay.

Then do yourself and the world a favor and read "The Pink Swastika" if you haven't yet.

(as usual, let me know if anyone wants on/off this (very) busy ping list.)
203 posted on 03/03/2004 9:36:09 AM PST by little jeremiah (...men of intemperate minds can not be free. Their passions forge their fetters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus; Bryan
Ping
204 posted on 03/03/2004 9:44:24 AM PST by EdReform (Support Free Republic - All donations are greatly appreciated. Thank you for your support!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: EdReform
Thanks for the link.

From the "Brochure" page of your linked site:

The P.E.R.S.O.N. Project utilizes proactive strategies to improve the treatment of LGBT persons in K-12 educational systems. Advocates for The P.E.R.S.O.N. Project provide testimony before state and local boards of education, meet with educational policy makers at all levels of government, inform the public about educational equity issues, and furnish various resources for addressing these subjects in the classroom. We call for an end to the censorship of information about our communities in textbooks, course content, resource materials, and library offerings associated with public education.

We believe that elementary and secondary curricula should include:

Fair and accurate information about sexual orientation in sex education, social studies, humanities, and family life classes.

Information about the historical and continuing contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people to art, language, education, science, sport, etc.

Discussion of the LGBT liberation movement and the history of the struggle for equality for sexual minorities in the United States and throughout the world.

Documentation of significant social, legal and historical events, including the National Marches on Washington for Lesbian and Gay Rights in 1979, 1987, and 1993; the Stonewall Resistance of 1969 and its 25th Anniversary commemoration in 1994, and the struggle for privacy and civil rights via the courts, (e.g. Bowers v. Hardwick, the Gay Olympics case, and the cases having to do with the rights of LGBT people to serve in the Armed Forces and to be recognized legally as parents).

Last updated 4/5/2002 by Jean Richter, richter@eecs.Berkeley.EDU

The site doesn't mention the recruiters, but they'll be around.

205 posted on 03/03/2004 10:55:35 AM PST by lentulusgracchus (Et praeterea caeterum censeo, delenda est Carthago. -- M. Porcius Cato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
I have a copy of that manifesto on a Zip flop somewhere, I just didn't have the proper cite and author for it; it was being passed around on other sites and threads without the documentation.

Thanks, Ed.

206 posted on 03/03/2004 10:57:28 AM PST by lentulusgracchus (Et praeterea caeterum censeo, delenda est Carthago. -- M. Porcius Cato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah; scripter; lentulusgracchus; GrandMoM; Brad's Gramma; Grampa Dave; Bryan; ArGee

I have seen homosexuals, when confronted with Swift's essay, claim that it was just hyperbole, satire, or the like. But no, it's their plan for us.


Indeed it is. As Jann Flury's article points out, it's a grim reminder of the strides the homosexual activists have made in just a few years.

The links to articles posted here on Free Republic and elsewhere, contained in scripter's Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1), can be uses to document Swift's article line by line. For example:


We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity...


Tammy Bruce: Protect New York's Children from the Gay Elite

"In my book The Death of Right and Wrong I warn about the sexualization and targeting of children by the radical gay fringe...

Not all of this, however, is inexplicable. As I outline in detail in DRW, there is a sick movement among the homosexual academics and the radical gay fringe to change the age of sexual consent in this nation to 12-years-old. As sexually transmitted diseases for both hetero- and homosexuals increases and HIV/AIDS runs rampant, the goal by some to have access to children (untouched virgins, free of disease) has increased...

I cannot even begin to express my rage at a radical gay fringe and leftists who now are openly and willingly sacrificing children in a vain and self-obsessed drive to quench their own appetites for the young. That’s all this amounts to—adults indulging themselves, and others made too mute by political correctness to step up and say "No."


"Pedophilia Chic" Reconsidered (The taboo against sex with children continues to erode)

For elsewhere in the public square, the defense of adult-child sex—more accurately, man-boy sex—is now out in the open. Moreover, it is on parade in a number of places—therapeutic, literary, and academic circles; mainstream publishing houses and journals and magazines and bookstores—where the mere appearance of such ideas would until recently have been not only unthinkable, but in many cases, subject to prosecution...

Of course, this opus that "gay studies" bookshelves now reserve space for did not spring from nowhere. The book itself grew out of two issues of the American Journal of Homosexuality (Vol. 20, Nos. 1/2, 1990) dedicated to the pondering of "male inter-generational love." Here again, an ostensibly mainstream gay vehicle was put to the service of advocating pedophilia. In fact, the case of the Journal of Homosexuality is particularly interesting as a case study of how a pernicious idea can spread. The editor of this reputable gay journal, John P. DeCecco, is a psychologist at San Francisco State University. DeCecco is favorably quoted in the introduction to Male Inter-Generational Intimacy for having praised the "enormously nurturant relationship" that can result from pedophile-boy contact. DeCecco is also on the editorial board of Paidika..."


The Problem of Pedophilia

"Psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover reflects on the Journal of Homosexuality's "Male Intergenerational Intimacy":

"This special issue reflects the substantial, influential, and growing segment of the homosexual community that neither hides nor condemns pedophilia. Rather they argue that pedophilia is an acceptable aspect of sexuality, especially of homosexuality. Indeed, the San Francisco Sentinel, a Bay Area gay-activist newspaper, published a piece arguing that pedophilia is central to male homosexual life" (7).


You can continue to document like this through the entire essay. For example, going further along:


We shall seduce them in your schools...


GLSEN Encourages Teens In Anal SEX "Don't give up."

"The following quotes are from three Alyson publications recomended to teens by GLSEN: Young, Gay and Proud!, One Teenager in Ten, and Two Teenagers in Twenty...

These books are in middle and high schools around the nation.

"Doing it: Gay men...Many people don't know the anus is not only an organ to remove waste. It's very sexually exciteable...Your first few times having anal sex might be a little hard. You may have to practice a bit before it starts feeling really good. I sure did." (pg. 81)

If this presents a realistic look into the life of a child struggling with same sex desires then these children are seduced/molested at an alarmingly high rate and engage in dangerous/abusive sexual activity at a very young age. What's worse is that the adults who purport to care most about them (the editor of this book for example) present this sexual abuse as if they were tender "coming of age" stories. As if the children struggling with same sex desires are showing how healthy they are by engaging in sex with adults and by having sexual encounters regularly beginning at a very young age.

And, the message is clear, if "straight" kids don't want to be closed-minded, if they want to be "open" and "free" they'll mimic the homosexual sexual behavior and promiscuity related in these books.

In several stories intense sexual activity as a child is presented as normal and healthy, even child/adult sex is presented without question. Five and six year old's who regularly engaged in sex are described as children "who were willing" to explore their sexuality "to it's fullest extent." Many stories fondly recount a youthful sexual encounter with a much older man or woman. Sexual promiscuity and engaging in sex as a child/teenager is presented as "sexual freedom".

Heterosexual or "questioning" youth are encouraged to try same sex intercourse because, the Kinseyin theory is repeated over and over, "Everyone's really gay or bisexual." and "You won't know if you like it until you try it."..."


Fistgate to be Held Again on March 15

Assemblyman MOUNTJOY opposes promotion of homosexuality in public schools

Queering the Schools (excerpt posted here )


And we could go on and on.


Make no mistake, Swift's essay, along with "The Overhauling of Straight America" and "The Homosexual Propaganda and Media Manipulation Game" spells out their plan. Of course, none of this could have occurred without the stage being properly set, and they did that by infiltrating the APA:

Homosexual Activism in the APA and the Removal of Homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)

207 posted on 03/03/2004 12:20:38 PM PST by EdReform (Support Free Republic - All donations are greatly appreciated. Thank you for your support!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

Hi magd
208 posted on 03/03/2004 1:04:22 PM PST by EdReform (Support Free Republic - All donations are greatly appreciated. Thank you for your support!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
BTTT
209 posted on 03/03/2004 5:01:50 PM PST by EdReform (Support Free Republic - All donations are greatly appreciated. Thank you for your support!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
Thanks for your post
210 posted on 03/03/2004 10:04:08 PM PST by joyce11111
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah; betty boop
Here's an excellent essay, posted with permission from betty boop:



To: rface; Alamo-Girl; marron; unspun; logos; xzins; lockeliberty; P-Marlowe; Vernon; restornu

We are watching attitudes change, one generation replacing another, in the direction of full acceptance of gay Americans. We're not there yet. But this time it's the conservatives pushing the most radical idea: a constitutional freeze on social change.


I dunno, but this line of reasoning appears quite specious to me. Ms. Goodman is espousing the "individual rights" argument, alleging that gay men and women are somehow being deprived of their constitutional rights. But this is a total canard.

First of all, the Constitution does not confer rights, it secures them where they already exist. And as far as, say, Thomas Jefferson was concerned (if we want to take the DoI seriously), rights are endued in humans by their Creator; they are not, nor can they be, grants of the state, national or otherwise.

Moreover, gays cannot show that they are being deprived of the right to marry, within the traditional definition of that term. They just choose not to do so.

What is the traditional definition of marriage? William Bennett, on the O'Reilly show last night, had the pithiest definition I have ever come across. He said the purpose of marriage was "to civilize men, protect women, and raise children." Indeed, this is marriage's natural purpose, having been established over some 40-plus millennia ago, and a common feature of human existential experience in all cultures, all places, and all times ever since. It goes without saying that marriage has had enormous "fitness" (survival) value for the human species over time, and continues to be the bedrock social institution of a civilized society.

Here we have a situation when roughly 5% of the American population -- that part of it self-described solely according to preferred sexual practices that have never been regarded anywhere as "natural" -- is agitating on the basis that the other 95% is depriving them of their individuals rights. Yet no one is telling gays how to live their lives, or what they may or may not choose to do in their private lives.

Marriage is a public institution in a way that homosexual relations are not. For homosexual liaisons (of whatever duration) are mainly about sexual gratification, erotic experience; they are not concerned with the public purposes that marriage serves: civilizing men, protecting women, raising children.

Personally, one wonders why gay folks want to get "married," really. Civil unions would give them equal benefits with married folk; but this is somehow not good enough: They must have the term itself.

And so one asks: Why? The more radical activists hate marriage because they believe it is a "sexist institution." For such people, that's quite sufficient reason -- all by itself -- to mow marriage down. For it offends one by its "sexism."

And so society is to be stood on its head, just to gratify the narcissism and aestheticism of a tiny minority of the population who have zero sympathy for families, the demands of child-rearing, or respect for the requirements of our rule of law. And the means to do this is to execute an end-run around the Will of the People, expressed through duly-constituted legislatures, and head straight to confused public officials and (ultimately) activist judges for "judge-made law."

This hardly looks to me like a case of tyranny against a minority being perpretrated by the majority. It would be much more accurate to say this is the case of a minority tyrannizing the majority. And it is judges and justices acting outside the scope of their constitutional authority which makes all this possible.

As we saw in the case of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's one-judge majority, ordering the state General Court to accommodate gay marriage in the Commonwealth -- after the Will of the People had already been expressed in a constitutional referendum. The people of the Commonwealth by a huge majority clearly said "NO." One judge said "YES"; and that's all that was needed to trump the will and wishes of society.

This sort of thing is practically the textbook definition of tyranny.

Weasel-worded Kerry is trying (as usual) to have it both ways. He's not in favor of a federal constitution amendment to protect marriage, but he IS up for Massachusetts attempting to pass an amendment to our state constitution. But this is so deceitful of him -- for well he knows that, absent a federal amendment, it's only a matter of time before the Article IV "Full Faith and Credit Clause" ends up getting litigated -- and thus the issue finds itself back in the hands of judges. (Kerry is such a hypocrit I could spit.)

Personally, I am chagrined that the issue of a federal constitutional amendment has even come up. I hate the idea of being driven to such measures by the progressive left which hates America and most Americans. But the fact is, a federal amendment is the only thing that can keep the "Full Faith and Credit" issue from rearing its head at some not far-off time....

Thanks for the post, rface!

20 posted on 03/04/2004 10:01:32 AM PST by betty boop (The purpose of marriage is to civilize men, protect women, and raise children. -- William Bennett)


211 posted on 03/05/2004 8:53:01 AM PST by EdReform (Support Free Republic - All donations are greatly appreciated. Thank you for your support!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EdReform; betty boop
Good read, just a couple comments:

First point:

Goodman prates about "social change" as though:

a) It's inevitable, so lie back and enjoy it,
(kind of like the advice they used to give women who were about to be raped)

b) It's inevitable, so it must be akin to the sun rising in the east and setting in the west; one is psychotic to protest,
(soon we may have re-education or forced therapy for "homophobes")

c) It's "progress" just like two o'clock follows one o'clock; therefore what happens "later" is better than what happened earlier,
("Gay" activists love terms like "turning back the clock")

d) It's part of social evolution. Since humans used to be apes, and humans are smarter and more advanced than apes, therefore, since previously being "gay" wasn't considered good or accepted, that was bad. But now, being more evolved, people know that "gay is good". Whatever happens is good, because it's in the future of what is now past. Those who have studied philosophy and know the proper terminology can point out the fallacy in this thinking better than I can.

The concept that "all (leftist) social change is good, inevitable, and the future is a nice, bright, socialist utopia" is a sick fantasy.

Second point:

Homosexuals are not 5% of the population; various studies claim figures anywhere between 1.5% and 2.5%.


212 posted on 03/06/2004 12:39:48 AM PST by little jeremiah (...men of intemperate minds can not be free. Their passions forge their fetters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
Put the pressure on your members of congress. You can download materials here: http://www.thotline.com

If you state isn't covered, you can request it.

213 posted on 03/06/2004 6:41:40 AM PST by gortklattu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah; lentulusgracchus; Alamo-Girl; marron; unspun; EdReform
Homosexuals are not 5% of the population; various studies claim figures anywhere between 1.5% and 2.5%.

Jeremiah, what an enjoyable post! Needless to say, I agree with your analysis.

WRT the above figure estimating the gay population: I think your number is correct (though gay activists will tell you they are 10% of the population and rising). What I had in mind was an estimate of people in our society who sympathize with the gay position and believe, as you say, that “all (leftist) social change is good, inevitable, and the future is a nice, bright, socialist utopia.” My number includes elite academics gay or straight, and their allies in elite journalism and the mass media. These are the folks who shape and communicate what we are told is “respectable” public opinion on all social and political questions.

And of course I agree with you, theirs is “a sick fantasy.” The point is 95% of Americans in all probability haven’t got the least interest in going to live in some utopian brave new world: They like the world they live in just fine, thank you. The real question is whether a Court can force them to live in some twisted, narcissistic pipe dream.

The gay lobby is self-consciously, explicitly challenging the accepted norms in long customary usage of American civil society and Western civilization in general. Their strategic problem is they are a teensy tail on a giant dog. And the dog doesn’t want gay marriage. The gay lobby doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in Hell of getting gay marriage out of a representative legislature and knows it. That’s why it always runs to the courts. With a “civil rights” pleading.

Their Massachusetts strategy was brilliant and seems to have worked. Look for that model to be repeated elsewhere, going forward.

Thanks for your great post, Jeremiah.

214 posted on 03/06/2004 12:03:18 PM PST by betty boop (The purpose of marriage is to civilize men, protect women, and raise children. -- William Bennett)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
A little motivation for those of us opposed to the homosexual agenda being rammed down our throats:

"We're seeing an incredibly fast-paced civil rights movement and what I think is the last-gasp backlash of the radical right that has been in the gay-bashing industry for decades," said Patrick Guerriero, executive director of the gay Log Cabin Republicans. "This is an unstoppable train."

Let's derail the train. Make sure the politicians know you will not tolerate any redefinition of marriage.

215 posted on 03/06/2004 12:28:59 PM PST by Ol' Sparky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Thank you so much for the ping! Indeed, as I recall it was in the Texas case being heard by the Supreme Court that the 10% figure was "corrected" to something much, much smaller. It may have been 1.5%.

The single most important issue at the moment is the rule of law. The willful rebellion against state law must be stopped or any other issue can become fair game as well for private interpretation.

Likewise a Constitutional Amendment must be forthcoming. Without it, the next "test" of the marriage laws will no doubt be polygamy and then bestiality and then pedophilia. Even many of those who see nothing morally wrong with same sex marriage will no doubt recognize the tax, property law, guardianship rights and insurance implications of the others.

216 posted on 03/06/2004 12:49:34 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: EdReform; betty boop
[ER, quoting BB] What is the traditional definition of marriage? William Bennett, on the O'Reilly show last night, had the pithiest definition I have ever come across. He said the purpose of marriage was "to civilize men, protect women, and raise children." Indeed, this is marriage's natural purpose, having been established over some 40-plus millennia ago, and a common feature of human existential experience in all cultures, all places, and all times ever since. It goes without saying that marriage has had enormous "fitness" (survival) value for the human species over time, and continues to be the bedrock social institution of a civilized society.

I don't disagree with you, but FYI on this morning's PBS weekend news show on religion and ethics,

Religion & Ethics Newsweekly

the show's producers, in their segment talking up gay marriage (overall it was a "pro" piece crafted along the lines suggested by Kirk and Madsen), trotted out a Harvard PhD to attack the antiquity and nature of marriage, in the service of the "well, we can do anything we want with marriage, it isn't a big deal" line of propaganda.

Here we have a situation when roughly 5% of the American population -- that part of it self-described solely according to preferred sexual practices that have never been regarded anywhere as "natural" -- is agitating on the basis that the other 95% is depriving them of their individuals rights. Yet no one is telling gays how to live their lives, or what they may or may not choose to do in their private lives.

Well, yes, we do tell them "what they may or may not choose to do in their private lives", but we do so with the sanction of legislation and deliberation, which allows the Government, as the People's servant, to invade the general Ninth Amendment liberties we all possess for sufficient public purposes.

The homosexual argument is that any attack on their favorite practices is bigoted, arbitrary, and unjustified. This is one of the reasons their lawyers keep trying to get certification and class status -- to induce courts to raise the bar on legislation against their interest, they hope to the level of "strict scrutiny". It is the job of any attorney worth his salt to show that the various legislatures deliberated in good faith, followed due process, and produced laws that happen to gore gay oxen, pro bono the rest of society who aren't burdened with their sexual deviancy.

Various analogies suggest themselves. The basic problem is how to convince liberal judges who have their minds made up already.

The alternative, which I support, is the consitutional remedy -- just take it away from the liberal judges. If they can't interpret the law without trying to legislate their own policy nostrums out of prejudice, then take the law away from them and leave them with an empty docket.

217 posted on 03/06/2004 1:06:20 PM PST by lentulusgracchus (Et praeterea caeterum censeo, delenda est Carthago. -- M. Porcius Cato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
Also, there is something particularly vile about the ramming and cramming of homosexuality down kids' throats especially in school. It must be stopped.

Yes, it must. We need Prosecuting Attornies willing to seek indictments of those who participate in that sort of thing. If that is not corrupting minors and disseminating harmful materials to minors, it would be difficult to imagine what would be.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

218 posted on 03/06/2004 1:08:30 PM PST by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus
The alternative, which I support, is the consitutional remedy -- just take it away from the liberal judges. If they can't interpret the law without trying to legislate their own policy nostrums out of prejudice, then take the law away from them and leave them with an empty docket.

There are two aspects of what you suggest. A simple act of Congress, could end Judicial Activism in a wide swathe of areas, simply by limiting the jurisdiction of the Federal District Courts. I have been advocating such a move all of my adult life.

But the problem with the Homosexual assault on tradition and decency, is that if they win in any State, of course, there come into play considerations under the "full faith and credit" clause of Article IV. I think that we do indeed have to consider a Constitutional Amendment on this. This was not necessary before, because every State was at least somewhat rational. But it appears that Massachusetts has now fallen down the Rabbit Hole, so far, that the threat of totally delusional State Government is about to be realized.

Given this sudden crisis, we need to act; but not in panic. I would suggest that the Amendment should be broad enough to protect the States not only from this form of delusional newspeak, but from any form of delusional newspeak, as well as from the possibility of a Court misusing the provisions of some treaty, already ratified. I have a clear concept in mind, but haven't yet put it into words; and I want to reflect on various aspects a bit more, before I start to focus the concept into specific terminology.

In the meanwhile, if someone has a copy of Jefferson's 1782 Notes On The State Of Virginia, handy; I would suggest they post the provisions of the Virginia criminal code that relate to Homosexual and Lesbian activity. (Those lifestyles were not protected civil liberties in the minds of the men who gave us our liberty. No they surely were not!!)

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

219 posted on 03/06/2004 1:30:16 PM PST by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan
I generally concur, but notice that the Massachusetts Supreme Court has put us on a whirligig -- deliberately, I believe, in order to deprive the People of Massachusetts the opportunity to moot their little decree by amending their constitution as Hawaii did.

Once we reach their deadline date, then we are relying on the stalling tactics and, frankly, the defiance of honest Massachusetts clerks, to avoid homosexual marriage licenses, and therefore homosexual marriages, from becoming fait accompli.

Then, they think, the endgame that takes them to SCOTUS for their final triumph will be on.

Notice that a key element in the homosexuals' strategy -- which had to be coordinated behind closed doors with the Massachusetts judges (IOW, I smell judicial misconduct) -- is to take away time, the time to prepare, the time to defend, the time to deliberate what the law should be. This IMHO is a marker that their intentions -- the court's and their unacknowledged clients' -- are tyrannical.

They are jamming the People. Hell, clubbing them.

220 posted on 03/06/2004 1:50:00 PM PST by lentulusgracchus (Et praeterea caeterum censeo, delenda est Carthago. -- M. Porcius Cato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan; GOPcapitalist; 4ConservativeJustices; nolu chan
Pinging for anyone with a copy of the Notes on the State of Virginia that you requested.
221 posted on 03/06/2004 2:03:38 PM PST by lentulusgracchus (Et praeterea caeterum censeo, delenda est Carthago. -- M. Porcius Cato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus; Alamo-Girl; tpaine; marron; unspun; restornu; xzins; lockeliberty
The alternative, which I support, is the consitutional remedy -- just take it away from the liberal judges. If they can't interpret the law without trying to legislate their own policy nostrums out of prejudice, then take the law away from them and leave them with an empty docket.

Sounds like really first-rate advice to me, lentulusgracchus!

It would have been nice to be spared the pain and expense of the amendment process; but increasingly the Left leaves the rest of us with little wiggle room to escape that seeming inevitability. If the people don't demand -- and get -- an acknowleddgement of their constitutional right to stipulate the answer to this question, then we can all just forget about living under a system of liberty and equal justice under law. It's that simple. IMHO. (FWIW)

222 posted on 03/06/2004 2:25:58 PM PST by betty boop (The purpose of marriage is to civilize men, protect women, and raise children. -- William Bennett)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus
This whole issue involves a study in totally delusional thinking. In any other era of human history, something of this sort would probably have come to an abrupt and terribly ugly end. There would have been a reaction, followed by total suppression, and probably some pretty gruesome treatment for those in the throes of the delusion.

I am not suggesting that that will not eventually be the end here. Please understand, I am not advocating that. I feel the historic pattern would eventually trigger another aberration--the pendulum effect--and who knows what. Again, I do not want to see Homosexual activists put in stoning pits, burned at the stake, or meet any of the other historic ends that totally insane attacks on human reason have previously provoked.

But that this is, indeed, a form of madness--and I leave it to theologians as to the possibility of demonic possession, towards which I am a skeptic (although less and less so, in the face of what is all around us)--I have not the slightest doubt. It is not rational--it is seriously irrational and very disturbed--to actually believe that you can alter reality by simply changing the meaning of words. And yet that is precisely what is being attempted.

It isn't really a legal argument what marriage does not mean in this context. It is true, of course, that different peoples have differently defined what marriage does mean; but there has never been any doubt what it does not mean. Different cultures are willing to sanctify different forms of human mating; but human mating is still a concept that parallels that of other forms of sexual life (as opposed to asexual life, where there is no division of the species into two sexes). Marriage is the form we take to treat human procreational activity as something special; something we hope will be Blessed by God; something most religions believe was originally ordained by God.

It has always been the rule, at least in Western Societies, that if the marriage cannot actually be consummated--that is consummated by a sexual act, which is an act between a participant from each of the two parts of the species, for procreational functions--it is subject to annulment as something that never really was. I know that in kindness, in respect for privacy and sensitivity, we do not require proof of consummation; we permit those to marry, even where there might be doubts as to the ability to consummate because of age or infirmity. But those doubts do not equate to mocking the very concept of procreational mating, by allowing people to marry inanimate objects, or other species, where procreation is impossible; nor members of their own sex.

These distinctions are so fundamental to the concept of marriage that no one thought it necessary to address them before. But the present challenge, is nowise more rational than it would be to suggest that a 30 year old horse be eligible to stand for the United States Senate--a' la, the mad Emperor Caligula. Indeed, the horse candidate for the Senate idea, is actually more rational than the idea of Homosexual marriage. It is bizarre and stupid; while the idea of homosexual marriage, is not only bizarre and stupid, but a 180 degree denial of the very nature of the institution.

I have lately been making a little joke, that if men can marry men, and women marry women, the "happy" couples can reproduce by picking up rocks and registering them as births. Those children would be no more delusional than the "marital" state of the "parents."

I could go on with this. I have only touched the surface of how depraved this concept is. But I am arguing to the choir.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

223 posted on 03/06/2004 2:58:03 PM PST by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer
I think they want to marry because, deep in their hearts, they KNOW it is wrong. If society validates it, then at least 'they say' it is ok. They will still know in their hearts it is wrong, but they will have the covering of the State to make them legitimate. Tho it won't.
224 posted on 03/06/2004 3:23:50 PM PST by bboop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: John O
"They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act."

I guess that infertile couples are not allowed to have sex because there's no chance of children. Fortunately there is no biblical command that the sexual act must be procreative every time.

I agree that the "procreative" argument by itself is rather weak, but I wouldn't compare a lack of pro-creativeness in an infertile couple to homosexual behavior either.

In any case we don't need a Biblical command on this particular aspect of homosexuality since the Bible clearly condemns homosexual behavior outright every place it mentioned in the Bible.

225 posted on 03/06/2004 4:57:33 PM PST by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
The first thing we need to do is TAKE BACK THE LANGUAGE!! STOP using the term 'gay' for the homosexual lifestyle! Let's start using 'gay' the way it is supposed to be used, to mean; happy, delighted, etc. For example, my hubby and I have been happily married for almost 29 years. That means WE have a 'gay marriage'. No matter what homosexuals call what they do, it will never be a marriage in the full sense of that word, so call it a 'union', 'arrangement', whatever you like, but DON'T call it marriage! Words MEAN things; don't let the terms continue to be hijacked!!
226 posted on 03/06/2004 4:59:41 PM PST by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
bump
227 posted on 03/06/2004 8:11:46 PM PST by foreverfree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
If the people don't demand -- and get -- an acknowleddgement of their constitutional right to stipulate the answer to this question, then we can all just forget about living under a system of liberty and equal justice under law. It's that simple. IMHO.

I agree! Thanks for the ping!

228 posted on 03/06/2004 8:24:12 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: bboop
If society validates it, then at least 'they say' it is ok. They will still know in their hearts it is wrong, but they will have the covering of the State to make them legitimate.

Exactly. Gays posting to Salon have said as much, usually emphatically.

There is a further consequence of their having achieved this, though, and that is that they will proceed to attempt to pressure "nonreconciling", i.e. doctrinally persistent churches (mostly the Baptists and the Roman Catholics, both of whom the homosexual activists have in their eye) to abjure their Levitical teachings, or suffer at the hands of friendly judges the way Paul Cameron did when he went up against uber-gay psychiatrist and former president of the APA Judd Marmor in a shopped court before a recent Carter appointee in 1981. That and a stunt gay activists ran on Cameron a few years earlier cost Cameron his membership in the American Psychological Association. The gays are very vindictive, and they would use Lawrence and the further decision that they want on marriage to go after the churchmen in court. They couldn't get criminal charges instated anywhere, but they could take them to civil court and strip them of resources, the way Morris Dees and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) did with a Klan organization. They want to drive faithful believers underground, to turn the tables 180 degrees on Levitical teaching and all its adherents.

Faithful religious people will, of course, welcome such persecution as a further sign of the approaching Eschaton.

229 posted on 03/06/2004 9:34:13 PM PST by lentulusgracchus (Et praeterea caeterum censeo, delenda est Carthago. -- M. Porcius Cato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan
Again, I do not want to see Homosexual activists put in stoning pits, burned at the stake, or meet any of the other historic ends that totally insane attacks on human reason have previously provoked.

No, I don't either, but I don't think there's any question that, mutatis mutandis, that they wouldn't do that to us. Their vindictiveness is extreme, and it is on the record. They may have justified to themselves and others the werewolfing that they gave Laura Schlessinger, Paul Cameron, and (I suspect, behind-the-scenes) Judith Reisman, upon some peg of situational necessity or just deserts (just in their own twisted lights), but sooner or later they will try to make their "Homoerotic Order" screed stick -- I suspect that when they go after the kids for real, is when it'll hit the fan, and they'll have to put the Baptists and Catholics away for good, or lose their culture war.

But that this is, indeed, a form of madness--and I leave it to theologians as to the possibility of demonic possession, towards which I am a skeptic (although less and less so, in the face of what is all around us)--I have not the slightest doubt.

John Paul II issued a rather interesting encyclical, whose arguments I read in digest, that modernism, and in particular its dry, sardonic, detached intellectual form, is an emanation of hell itself. He even mentioned a coupld of its epicenters, one of which IIRC was Lyon, France. He seemed to be describing the modern continental worldview.

It is not rational--it is seriously irrational and very disturbed--to actually believe that you can alter reality by simply changing the meaning of words. And yet that is precisely what is being attempted.

Kirk and Madsen, in their magazine articles that eventually became After the Ball, stated forthrightly that they proposed to follow the propagandistic methodology of Josef Goebbels. Considering that the Nazi SA's and Hitler himself were homosexual, it is worthwhile to reflect on what that augurs, about the type of treatment people who don't "go along to get along" are going to receive from these people, and what their idea of settling scores and governing outcomes looks like.

230 posted on 03/06/2004 9:52:24 PM PST by lentulusgracchus (Et praeterea caeterum censeo, delenda est Carthago. -- M. Porcius Cato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus
Unfortunately I'm on remote dialup and my copy is, well, in Virginia right now. It's online though: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/jevifram.htm
231 posted on 03/06/2004 10:05:45 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
Good post. It's sad to confuse sex with friendship.
232 posted on 03/06/2004 10:35:38 PM PST by BrucefromMtVernon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
Focus the arguements on the detrimental effects on our children.

"Stop the homosexual assault on our children" states the real battleground, and puts the homos on the defensive, where perverts belong.

Inform people that if "gay marriage" is accepted by law, then by law gay activists will be in our public grade schools telling children that homosexuality is just a fine choice.

"Little Bobby, when you grow up, are you going to marry a man or a lady?" is going to be the NEA talking point, day after day, brainwashing our children. "Sally, (Steve) if you've never kissed another girl (boy), how do you know you don't like it?" will be rammed down our kids throats day after day. Any teachers who refuse to allow "Gay Pride" guest lecturers into the classroom will be fired as "haters" and "homophobes."

That's the real fight: to protect our kids from the homo chickenhawks who want to poison their minds as school kids.

233 posted on 03/06/2004 11:11:46 PM PST by Travis McGee (----- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com -----)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ
You are so right about taking back the language! No more "gay," homosexual only. And no more "gay marriage," this almost makes this step a fait accompli if we use this term.

Instead, always refer to this abomination as "so-called homosexual marriage," or "sham marriage" or "homosexual mockery of marriage."

234 posted on 03/06/2004 11:14:52 PM PST by Travis McGee (----- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com -----)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist; Ohioan
GOPcap, thanks for the link.

Pinging to your requested link.

235 posted on 03/07/2004 12:54:40 AM PST by lentulusgracchus (Et praeterea caeterum censeo, delenda est Carthago. -- M. Porcius Cato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
Homosexuality has always been forbidden in civilized societies, barring some Greeks here and there.

Hmmmm... Not quite. The Greeks were at the pinnacle of their civilization, and incorporation of homosexuality was a big part of that. The way I see it, the queer coup is the milestone that says, "this society has hit its prime, and now it's on the way down." When a society becomes rich and fat enough, self-destructive behavior sets in...

I guess that's what depresses me about the whole fruit salad inundation. It almost seems inevitable. What's a conservative to do? Somehow I don't think that bumper stickers about entries and exits is going to strike any major chords...

I've been thinking about our societal decline lately, and it seems to me that if there is any way out, it lies in democracy. I don't give much credence to polls but if their trends are to be believed, more folks than not in this country don't approve of the gay lifestyle or agenda. Where are their voices being heard? Where is the moral vote?

236 posted on 03/07/2004 9:12:49 AM PST by maxwell (Well I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
IN SEATTLE

A march is planned to try to pressure King County Executive Ron Sims to allow same-sex couples to obtain marriage licenses in the county. Sims said he is required to uphold state law, which says marriage is between a man and a woman. The march is being organized by Brian Peters, who says he and his partner want to get married, but don't want to travel to do it, according to a notice on thestranger.com. The march is scheduled to begin Monday, March 8, at 9:30 a.m. at the Espresso Vivace cafe, 321 Broadway E., and head to the administration building at Fourth Avenue and James Street.


237 posted on 03/07/2004 3:24:16 PM PST by ppaul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Sparky
Unless we are willing to get up in the faces of these people who wish to remake this country in their image and do unspeakable things to our children and let them know we will not tolerate it, things will not change for the better.

We also need to lean on our politicians and judges up for re-election since this is a major election year and if they are not willing to work with us to stop this assault on our society and children then they had better update their resumes.

Finally, we must push and push hard to make appointed judges accountable for their actions by making it easier to get them thrown off the bench if and when they decide to usurp the powers of Congress and legislate from the bench.

Of course, I know in my heart people really don't care as much as they say they do (present company excepted) and nothing will change and in five years time not only will we have same sex marriage regardless of what the people want our children will become little more than sex toys for the sick pervert queers.

Don't be praying for President Bush. Be praying for the soul of this country.

238 posted on 03/07/2004 4:57:40 PM PST by Houmatt (The FMA: For your children's future.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
First and foremost, the actual numbers need to be disseminated. Most reputable studies estimate the gay population at 2 to 5%. Most gays claim the number to be 10 to 15%.

The 10 to 15% numbers would place them above Blacks and Hispanics as the most numerous minority and therefore worthy of equal treatment as afforded those ethnic minorities.

Number two: The point needs to be made that homosexuals need to recruit to perpetuate. If left to biological selection, they cannot procreate and by the principles of Darwinism, they should disappear.

They recruit primarily through media portrayal of gays as humorous, quirky fun-loving people that have infinitely more wisdom than their straight counterparts. The entertainment community has taken the gay issue and placed it in mainstream programming as "normal". Our children are being recruited for this lifestyle by virtue of their TV viewing habits.

TVs have an on-off switch and a tumer. Parents need to control what their kids watch.

239 posted on 03/07/2004 6:57:51 PM PST by pfflier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pfflier
Actually, I have never seen a study which put the number of exclusive homosexuals at 5%. But since people move in and out of same sex behavior, numbers can change anyway.

I have never seen even the most rabid "gay" activists claim 15%, although I don't know what they're saying lately. And even many of them have admitted that they knew they were lying about the 10%, but felt justified in their lies to further their goals. Just like Goebbels.

One problem with TV and movies is that teenagers who may not be under the direct supervision of parents all the time are very easily influenced, and many public (as well as private) schools are recruitment grounds for homosexuals through clubs, assemblies, homosexual teachers, cirricula designed to promote homosexuality, and so on.

It looks as though more people of legitimate racial and ethnic minorities (at least minority in the US) are realizing that being born Black, or Asian, has nothing in common with someone who chooses to practice same sex sodomy. Many Black people and those belonging to other minorities are disgusted and insulted to be compared to homoesxuals, and to have the "gay rights" movement try to ride on their coattails.
240 posted on 03/07/2004 11:00:25 PM PST by little jeremiah (...men of intemperate minds can not be free. Their passions forge their fetters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: bboop; All
Here's some noted homosexual spokespeople stating their reasons for pushing "gay" marriage:

(Hint: they aren't interested in holy matrimony, they're interested in destroying the concept of marriage, family, and morality, and they want access to children for indoctrination.)

An excerpt from: In Their Own Words: The Homosexual Agenda:
"Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile, who writes periodically for The New York Times, summarizes the agenda in OUT magazine (Dec/Jan 1994):

"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 debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution... The most subversive action lesbian and gay men can undertake --and one that would perhaps benefit all of society--is to transform the notion of family entirely....Its the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statues, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into the public schools and in short to usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us."

Chris Crain, the editor of the Washington Blade has stated that all homosexual activists should fight for the legalization of same-sex marriage as a way of gaining passage of federal anti-discrimination laws that will provide homosexuals with federal protection for their chosen lifestyle.
Crain writes: "...any leader of any gay rights organization who is not prepared to throw the bulk of their efforts right now into the fight for marriage is squandering resources and doesn't deserve the position."
(Washington Blade, August, 2003).

Andrew Sullivan, a homosexual activist writing in his book, Virtually Normal, says that once same-sex marriage is legalized, heterosexuals will have to develop a greater "understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman." He notes: "The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal; and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness."
(Sullivan, Virtually Normal, pp. 202-203)

Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor and homosexual activist has said: "Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. . Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family; and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. . We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society's view of reality."
(partially quoted in "Beyond Gay Marriage," Stanley Kurtz, The Weekly Standard, August 4, 2003)

Evan Wolfson has stated: "Isn't having the law pretend that there is only one family model that works (let alone exists) a lie? . marriage is not just about procreation-indeed is not necessarily about procreation at all. "
(quoted in "What Marriage Is For," by Maggie Gallagher, The Weekly Standard, August 11, 2003)

Mitchel Raphael, editor of the Canadian homosexual magazine Fab, says: "Ambiguity is a good word for the feeling among gays about marriage. I'd be for marriage if I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of 'till death do us part' and monogamy forever. We should be Oscar Wildes and not like everyone else watching the play."
(quoted in "Now Free To Marry, Canada's Gays Say, 'Do I?'" by Clifford Krauss, The New York Times, August 31, 2003)

1972 Gay Rights Platform Demands: "Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit." [The list of demands also include the elimination of all age of consent laws.]
241 posted on 03/07/2004 11:29:58 PM PST by little jeremiah (...men of intemperate minds can not be free. Their passions forge their fetters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
bttt
242 posted on 03/07/2004 11:33:50 PM PST by Travis McGee (----- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com -----)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah; All
You can try to reason and explain all you want, but in the end there is only one way to defeat the gay agenda.

Stop the Tolerance!

243 posted on 03/08/2004 1:11:19 AM PST by expatguy (Subliminal Advertising Executive)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
Should there be an amendment banning homosexual marriage? Should government legalize homosexual marriage? Neither. Why should government be involved?

In all of the media coverage, we hear little from those whose fondness for each other has prompted them to now elope to either coast. Has the media asked homosexuals that question? We heard that homosexuals would like to offer insurance coverage to their partners. We have heard that homosexuals, for unknown reasons, are unable to obtain health insurance coverage for their partners. Is it against the law for insurance carriers to provide such coverage? We haven’t heard the media ask that question of insurance.

The free market better addresses the issue. Obviously, if insurance is desired and if it is the driving force behind the matter, one would think that a company would make such insurance available. I can name whoever I want to be beneficiary of my life insurance policy. One would think that the same principle could be applied to health insurance. There is a demand for health insurance coverage for households where same sex couples reside. Is it illegal for insurance companies to provide that coverage? Amend that law and leave marriage alone.

There is the matter of the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Inherent in those words is that government will not be hostile to an establishment of religion.

And like it or not, the Bible is clear on the right or wrong of homosexuality. By legalizing marriage between homosexuals, government would be openly taking a hostile stance against the religions that believe homosexuality is wrong. Oh, but some religions believe homosexuality is okay.

Obviously then, for government to suggest homosexual marriage is okay would be an affront to those whose religion believe it to be wrong, not only because government would be taking a stand hostile to one religion, but because government would be openly endorsing the religion that believes it is okay.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said in a speech to a Philadelphia conference on religion in public life, in May of 1991: “Protecting religious freedoms may be more important in the late twentieth century than it was when the Bill of Rights was ratified. We live in a pluralistic society, with people of widely divergent religious backgrounds or with none at all. Government cannot endorse beliefs of one group without sending a clear message to non-adherents that they are outsiders.”

Whose religious beliefs should government endorse? Those who believe homosexuality is wrong? Or those who believe it is right? The answer is neither. The First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.

If it is a matter of insurance and other benefits, we’ve heard the homosexuals’ argument that tells us that there is a market for such services. The question then becomes—who will offer those services? Or are we simply being prepared for the next demand: government health insurance for all?

244 posted on 03/08/2004 2:30:56 AM PST by WhiteyAppleseed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WhiteyAppleseed
Or better yet, advocate the abolition of marriage licenses for all. The idea of licenses didn't come about until 1800.
We made due without them until then.
245 posted on 03/08/2004 2:46:44 AM PST by WhiteyAppleseed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda

"Marry" your pet. Committed, loving relationships and the vetrinary benefits that issue therefrom should not be limited by bigoted Homosexuals.

246 posted on 03/08/2004 7:58:11 PM PST by Uncle Miltie (Leave Pat Leave!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brad Cloven
I am highly disappointed that no one has showed up in SF (or now in Portland, and who knows where else) with his or her sister and/or brother, parent, kitty cat, or entire neighborhood to get "married". What's wrong with people? I guess I may have to drive down to SF, grab my good friends down there, and stand in line. After all, what's wrong with a foursome? I want to know why two couples can't all get married to each other, if they're consenting adults.
247 posted on 03/08/2004 8:44:27 PM PST by little jeremiah (...men of intemperate minds can not be free. Their passions forge their fetters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: expatguy
One of the main reasons the "gay rights" movement has succeeded so well is that early on they infiltrated the media, and since the media elites are leftists almost to a man, it was a done deal. Therefore, the great unwashed have no access to the truth of what homosexuals do, their goals, and so on.

So the cure for ignorance is knowledge, the cure for darkness is light. The information about the reality of the homosexual agenda and lifestyle is organized on FR, with more accumulating daily.

If those of us who do understand the truth email articles to people on our address book, print out articles and distribute them to as many people as possible, more "sheeple" will wake up. We will also see who our real friends are, and who starts avoiding us...

I've read a lot of comments lately from people who previously were "tolerant" who have reached the limit, and are now sick and fed up with the "gay" agenda. We just need to encourage more people to reach that point of nausea, or gay rights sticking in the craw - or as you pointed out, we need to help more people become:

INTOLERANT!
248 posted on 03/09/2004 12:30:50 AM PST by little jeremiah (...men of intemperate minds can not be free. Their passions forge their fetters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
A BUMP for decency and the survival of our Republic.
249 posted on 03/09/2004 10:23:19 AM PST by FormerLib ("Homosexual marriage" is just another route to anarchy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
"I first read Swift's essay years ago and it was terriying."

I don't find it terrifying, but it does make me sad beyond words for this lost fellow so full of hatred, even of himself.

Of course, we must do what we can to stop the homosexual agenda from advancing, for the good of our children - for society as a whole. But this essay shows how tortured these individuals really are.

250 posted on 03/09/2004 2:04:52 PM PST by MEGoody (Kerry - isn't that a girl's name? (Conan O'Brian))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300 ... 351-364 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson