Posted on 02/01/2005 9:29:48 AM PST by Laissez-faire capitalist
| Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1) |
|
|
| What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda |
|
|
| Myth and Reality about Homosexuality--Sexual Orientation Section, Guide to Family Issues" |
Well, from the list you posted it looks like they are all once-weres or wanna-bees. I guess notariety is still important to getting or keeping a singing career going, even if it is for notorious reasons.
Shalom.
Holy understatement, Robin.
Shalom.
You just *know* that Springsteen (as for me he ranks right up there with Yoko Ono, but that's just me) was asked since he runs with all of that crowd that appears on the CD. But my guess is that Springsteen just couldn't "go there" what with his macho image and all. ROFLMAO. C'mon Bruce, loosen up!
You gotta give an actress more than one film before you decide the character shares her beliefs.
Moore did "Saved," which did not provide an even close to sympathetic portrayal of Christians. Apparently she just did "Walk" for the part.
Shalom.
I agree that some people just want to get their name out there just to keep working, but Dolly is a multi-gabillionaire and a country legend. Normally she's pretty careful to not lean one way or the other politically or do anything to upset her base fans.
One does not listen to Dolly sing. One watches Dolly sing.
Listening to Dolly sing is like eating at Hooters.
Shalom.
Homosexual Agenda Ping.
FYI - various "artistes" and their slavering support of the "gay" agenda.
Love doesn't mean love anymore.
Let me and DirtyHarryY2K know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.
Mandy Moore frankly used Christians as a stepping stone.
Remember "Saved!" that she starred in last year ?
Dolly PARTON?
I knew long ago that Mandy Moore had become an honorary dixie-chick bimbo, but Dolly? Oh, so sad.
Since'95, I and my family, (mother, sister and cousin), have been to Dixie stampede 5 times, 4 in Pigeon forge, and One in Myrtle beach. I used to think Dolly was pretty decent, and was proud to help support that region(my family has travelled to the Smoky mountain region(gatlinburg/pigeon forge/Seveirville area) EVERY year, since '92, at the end, or middle of October, as a weekend mini-vacation(It is only about 4 and a quarter hours from my house, which is not even a "good drive" to me, anymore).We go to see the leaves turn, and to have fun in general. We DID go, this last october.
NOW.... Ohhh.. MAN!! Knowing that our money will be going to help "swing for the other team"!! Man,that does give me pause, about going back there!!
BTW-- I like Dave Koz, too, this is also disappointing.
"Love Rocks"
I can't think of a more appropriate title....
USA for Africa they ain't.
I'd at least have some respect for these people if they'd be honest about their tactics, and just say that, "we don't care what people think, we are going to use the Courts to impose gay marriage/civil unions on the entire nation and there is nothing you can do about it."
That would at least be honest.
And someone points out in this article, all the talk about "love" is really just an attempt to disguise their true agenda -- which is the complete acceptance and celebration of homosexuality as an equal alterntive to hetersexuality. Of this there can be no doubt. At first they wanted tolerance, and they got it. Then they wanted acceptance, then they got it. Now they want their 'unions' to be celebrated in the same manner we celebrate men getting together with women.
Part of me wishes the Sup Court would impose gay marriage or civil unions (and the 'or civil unions' is key, because I think its safe to say that most people in most states would vote to ban any legal recognition of same-sex unions no matter what euphemism is used to describe them). Then I'd like to see both this allegedly conservative President and this allegedly conservative Congress simply refuse to enforce the decision. I'd like to see them publically deem the decision to be reckless usurpation of power, and a politically and ideologically inspired decision w/o any basis in Constitutionality.
This would be great. It would force a huge public debate and discussion about the proper role of the Courts, and if the President and Congress held their ground, it could shatter forever this idea, which Jefferson, Madison, and other Founders disagreed with, that the Courts are the sole arbiters of Constitutional matters and that they have the power to order the other two branches around. A first step in this would be for the Senate to take up the Court-stripping legislation passed by the House last year that removed from the Judiciary the power to hear challenges to the federal and state DOMAs.
Of course, sadly the Executive and Legislative branches have been meek in the face of judicial activism, and seemingly like pretending as if they can do nothing about it. So my ideas are probably just fantasies.
Because of this, perhaps it would be best for the Marriage Coalition to change tactics themselves. Perhaps they should offer up an alternative Amendment that stops short of banning gay marriage, and instead explictiy empower each state to handle the matter for its own purposes, and Congress for federal purposes, and that neither is subject to judicial review.
This makes sense for a variety of reasons. First of all, it would be easier to pass as it would call the bluff of all those who claim to oppose the banning Amendment because they favor leaving it to the states ( I say bluff because I don't think most Democrats, and some Republicans like McCain, Hagel and the Maine duo, have any problems with an eventual judicial decision for the Left), as this would put their stated beliefs precisely into law. Second, anyone who is consistent knows that it makes no sense to oppose gay mariage yet support civil unions as they are the same thing, a distinction w/o a difference. Its a semantic game. Following from that, those who favor the banning Amendment must admit that its language does allow for states to choose to adopt and recognize civil unions. And there is no doubt that 10-15 states would do so if they haven't already, and in doing so the effects on the public realm (i.e. tax funded employee benefits, public education curriculum, etc) in recognizing and subsidizing gay unions would be no different than if those unions were called 'marriages' or 'civil unions.'
In other words, the currently proposed Amendment would really just protect the nation from the Courts, and protect the word 'marriage', as it would allow civil unions. Keeping the word 'marriage' would simply be a symbolic victory; though I must say to even deny the Left this would be something, and that is a sad state of affairs in that it shows just how much ground they have gained, and just how extreme they are for reaching the point where they are not even happy with a semantic appeasement and the institution of marriage, but instead feel bold enough to demand the institution and the word.
But anyway, since its clear the proposed Amendment permits civil unions, and since consistency makes clear that legally recognized civil unions are no different than gay marriage, then why not just try and hold what we have by protecting the majority of the states that would opt to only recognize real marriages. Take advantage of the publically stated 'let the states decide' positions of all those Senators and Representatives who voted against the Amendment last year, and offer up an alternative Amendment that puts their feet to the fire.
The only downside is that it would allow each state to eventually, someday, adopt full-blown gay marriage. But really, if it gets to the point where the South, Rocky Mtn West, Breadbasket, etc are voluntarily doing so, then the war is lost.
It is best to take advantage of public opinion favorable to us while it still exists, and put into place an Amendment that protects the states that would not now, and maybe not ever, recognize same-sex unions. With the Left's domination of Hollywood, universities, the mainstream media, and public schools, it is a race against time as the younger generation comes up with decidedly leftist views on this subject.
>> Love is one of the Trojan horses for the acceptance of homosexuality <<
Trojan? Heh-heh.
When you talk about proud support, my Grandfather was one of the founders of Silver Dollar City (now owned by Dollywood) and one of the original Shepherds of the Hills. I used to be very proud of the Ozarks and the Table Rock region.
But once the enemy confuses the issue and the good refuse to clarify things any place is vulnerable.
Shalom.
Hmmm...can't seem to find E# on my bass guitar. Must be on those funky asian instruments.
It's a joke. (E# is simply F, although if you want to be really technical about it, E# is theoretically its own key separate and distinct from F, even though all the tones of the scale are the same.)
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.