What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda

self | February 11, 2004 | little jeremiah

[little jeremiah]

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.]

[Travis McGee]

bttt

[expatguy]

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!

[WhiteyAppleseed]

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?

[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.

[Uncle Miltie]

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.

[little jeremiah]

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.

[little jeremiah]

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!

[FormerLib]

A BUMP for decency and the survival of our Republic.

[MEGoody]

"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.

[little jeremiah]

I found it terrifying because it was like getting punched in the face - with the hatred and venom oozing from the author and others like him.

Terrifying because he in not isolated, he speaks on behalf of many, and the many are currently making policy, laws, court decision, and in our schools.

The "gay" activists and radicals are not going to go away quietly. They want no co-existence - they want to dominate and control, and if anyone has any remaining doubts about it, read the links.

[little jeremiah]

This interview with Alan Keyes should be read in its entirety.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1096038/posts?page=1

Here are the last couple of paragraphs:

***Has this push for gay "marriage" — especially with regard to what's happened in recent days and weeks — put us in a new era?***

Well, I don't know. I think we're in an era where at both a political and social level we're witnessing the dissolution of the republic. I don't know that that's a new era. It's a tragic era. It's an era that our civilization is not likely to survive if we don't deal with these issues in an urgent fashion in order to reestablish the basis for our civilized life and freedom. So, I can't see that this is some new day, no. This is actually the twilight of a day, if we're not careful.

Right now, we are in the midst of a tremendous crisis that will decide the fate of our society.

***Certainly, this is a process that has long been ongoing. I guess what I was wondering was whether this crisis has intensified so greatly that it's brought the issue to a head?***

Yes, I think if there were people who thought that this was not serious, and they weren't paying attention, they ought to pay attention now. This is coming to a head. In this generation, we will decide the fate of the American republic and of the civilization that we know. We can either sit back and let abusive courts and gutless politicians make these decisions, or as citizens who understand what's at stake, we can get involved and demand that steps be taken to act aright. If we do not, this crisis will intensify.

I believe — and this is something I will work to avoid — that a mishandling of this situation will lead to dissolution of our union, because at the end of the day, the Founders put us on a basis that would allow us to handle these questions without confrontation, conflict and violence. These abusive judges and lawless officials are now abandoning that understanding. This is going to have dire consequences for the future of our people.

[little jeremiah]

Hmmm - I guess whatever Seraphim Rex thought would help fight the "gay" agenda, TPTB didn't agree with him/her/it.

Another idea:

Anyone who in their business or professional life has to deal with homosexuals that are claiming that they are "married" and therefore want the honeymoon suite, special deals on car insurance, travel rates, health insurance, or whatever - refuse them. Tell them that legally they aren't married and you can't accomodate (whatever it is they want).

These people need to have their balloon popped. And we need to not kowtow to them. It's worth getting in hot water for this. It's worth even losing our jobs, being called "hater", "bigot", and "homophobe". If we don't stand up against this, we're assisting them.

We need to be on the right side of history.

[little jeremiah]

OK, this is what we should do - and if I lived closer to SF I would do it. Or maybe I'll take a couple of days off and do in.

What should we do, you ask? Why, get married, of course! To our brothers, our sisters, parents, or children, and groups of friends. We should DEMAND marriage licenses! Demand our rights to be married to both our brothres, or our sisters, or Grandma!

Foursomes, threesomes, etc. "Gay" activists and homosexual rights people have NO EARTHLY reason why all these marriages shouldn't take place. Just their bias and bigotry against incest, group marriage, and so on.

[deb-bee]

The costs of gay healthcare are unproportionally high, insisting on it means trying to get an unproportional share of resources.

Please would you explain why they would be higher if gays were legally married. Don't they have healthcare cover anyway? Aren't their treatments already being paid for in that way? I don't understand what difference it would make from that point of view. Thanks

[little jeremiah]

Hello, new FR member. I notice that this is the only comment you have made on FR so far.

Here is my explanation: If someone is employed by a business that provides healthcare benefits, said employee is paying for some of that with his own money. If said employee has a wife or husband, then the insurance benefits are spread to said spouse, often with not much more money paid out by said employee.

Since a much higher percentage of homosexuals have AIDS, which can cost between $12k up to $17K a year (or more, with complications), and since homosexuals have much higher rates of various kinds of hepatitis, parasites, TB, many other venereal diseases, higher rates of alcoholism, drug abuse, mental problems, and so on - that means the people who are NOT homosexual will be helping pay the higher cost of the homosexual partners' health insurance.

Let homosexuals each pay their own health care insurance. Since they choose to engage in behavior that entails a higher cost, let each of them foot the bill. Why should people who don't engage in such dangerous behavior have to endure higher medical insurance rates so that homosexuals' pretend "spouses" can get covered?

[Nowhere Man]

Yes, I think if there were people who thought that this was not serious, and they weren't paying attention, they ought to pay attention now. This is coming to a head. In this generation, we will decide the fate of the American republic and of the civilization that we know. We can either sit back and let abusive courts and gutless politicians make these decisions, or as citizens who understand what's at stake, we can get involved and demand that steps be taken to act aright. If we do not, this crisis will intensify.

I believe — and this is something I will work to avoid — that a mishandling of this situation will lead to dissolution of our union, because at the end of the day, the Founders put us on a basis that would allow us to handle these questions without confrontation, conflict and violence. These abusive judges and lawless officials are now abandoning that understanding. This is going to have dire consequences for the future of our people.

I'm concerned about that too. I remember as far back as the 1970's, my father said that "America will not survive as a political entity" and even said "we will see a second Civil War" and I would be around to see it (I'm 37, will be 38 in July). Dunno if he really saw something coming or was reaching for the tin-foil hat, but I think he was on to something when I saw the fighting over the 2000 election and now issues like this.

If this issue of homosexual marriage keeps going the way it is, then other standards of society will be changed and will fall like a set of dominoes. I've gotten into debate with people from the other side and they call us homophobes, rednecks, old fashioned, and Bible Thumpers. Well, I tried to present our side of the debate but they still shout you down with the same old rhetoric. I've pretty much stopped trying to talk to them, let's face it, you cannot "show a blind dog anything." I might sound harsh here but deep down inside, I feel these people are dead spirtually or if I want to be nice about it, "on life support." I mean they just shout you down like the robots they are, instead of thinking, they react, much like a roach does when you shine a light on it.

I've resolved one thing is that I'll try my best to fight for what is right, I work a lot of hours, sadly, I cannot devote a lot of time but I'll do my best to do my part, albeit small, to try to turn the tide. Somedays I'm optimistic, others I am not, but I do feel that within the last year, there was a sleeping giant that did awake because most of middle America does not want this.

I think the homosexual lifestyle is dead wrong, goes agaisnt God, nature, logic, and so on, but despite trying to reach out, not everyone will be guided to the straight and narrow. I resolved that as long as they keep it private, like all sex lives should be, then it should be live and let live. However, when you come to knock down a staple of our society, then that's when we arch our backs like a cat.

Getting back to my father, well, maybe one day the America we know will break up, I don't know how, but I'd be willing to cut Frisco loose and they become a free sovereign city of its own if they want homosexual marriage, but leave the rest of us alone. Better yet, if they want to marry, they can go to Holland and live there, just leave us and our society alone.