Skip to comments.How do we prevent homosexual morality’s USA becoming an ancient Greek man-boy culture of sex?
Posted on 01/17/2012 11:58:25 PM PST by John Roco
The gay agenda is pervasive; it is everywhere: Brokeback Mountain, La Cage aux Follett, Log Cabin republicans, democratic party powerhouses, numerous library books- all seemingly unstoppable. It is almost as if Kinsey, who wanted to push the envelope, won- with his observations of sexual behavior of his college students, and in depth interviews of homosexual pedophiles. Kinsey is the one who came up with the continuum of sexual preference from gay to straight- seemingly through his intense observations of the results of sexual abuse on male minors by his pedophiles.
But how do we stop this immorality?
This nation, the USA, was built with references to our Creator as well as emphasis on the rights of the individual. But at what point do the rights of gays and homosexuals to pursue happiness, cross the line of forcing all of us into the fulcrum of their world. Already gays and homosexuals boast of obtaining access to all of the unwanted foster, adoptive children. Own all of the nations orphans is already a mantra. Of course, if it was, babysit all of the children, and all childcare facilities were required to have gay men on staff to expose children to a healthy non-discriminatory environment, we would all be up in arms. Right now, though, with HR 1681 and S 1770, Every Child Deserves a Family Act, the end result would be that no foster or adoptive child could choose to go to a non-gay or non-homosexual home.
The gay agenda is organized.
Just google log cabin republicans; in fact, in their split and divide policy, they have won. What just 25 years ago were the Reagan conservatives is now totally split. Are you a fiscal conservative? Oh, I was looking for a social conservative. Before, there was no differentiation. The Log Cabin Republicans produced this differentiation by forming themselves, then wanting to be added on to events; they also from radio self-reports of their own activities, would join republican parties incognito spreading their lore. When I heard the terminology religious extremists in my republican party referring to those who were social conservatives, I knew something was amiss. That, my friends, was direct infiltration.
What do we do?
Obviously we are civilized, unlike some other religious groups that demand termination of existence. All have a right to live, but they do not have a right to assert their beliefs on the rest of us and take over our culture and eventually in 50 years from now, have their perfect little ancient man-boy sex culture (obviously, this all was going to begin with HR 1681 or S 1770, Every Child Deserves a Family Act). Again, we behave as a Christian nation (while still observing as many religious leaders, Christianitys roots in Judaism- the father religion) and treat Homosexuals and gays who want this ultimate transformation, as ultimately and unfortunately people whose minds have been perverted- literally. In a straw hat survey university estimate, 90% of the gays reported being sexually molested (did the other 10% just forgot?).
They are victims.
This group knows nothing else than those behaviors inflicted upon themselves. Of course, as of my psychology background I know also- that in biology there are cases where in-betweens can happen- naturally- as the case in my own textbook, where someone is born with both female and male genitalia. So we do not blame them for what they are, but take pity on them, while at the same time vigorously defending our culture from being dominated by the ancient Greek man-boy sex cultured world they want. This is difficult, as obviously all outlets of media- TV, movies, YouTube, internet, books, radio, major media outlets- are dominated by the propagation of a world that 50 years from now (or sooner) is exactly what they want- complete fulfillment of the perverse sexuality they want everywhere around. Only by producing equivalent and even greater amounts of media in all realms- to counter their efforts, can we succeed in knowing that our great grandchildren will be able to grow up in a truly moral world, as the founders of the Declaration of Independence intended. Yes, we allow them to be as they are; no, we do not allow them to dictate our USA culture to become perverse, and yes we take pity on them, too.
Greek culture was different from ours, and the details of “gaydom” differ too. Even gay Greeks frowned on buggery, incidentally. Homosexuality there was more a kind of mutual j’ing off, details of which are not fit for a family friendly website.
To be honest with you I wouldn't mind seeing things rolled back a touch. BTW, the title is off a bit. Are you missing some words in there?
It would involve a time machine.
Mark for ref
Too late. Haven’t you noticed that American males even hug more than women now days?
I haven't noticed that, and I'm out and about all the time.
And I certainly don't.
Where are you hanging out? San Fran? In my neck of the woods, men shake hands. That is the only contact I see other than the occasional beer bottle over the head during heated bar discussions.
In Romans 1:18 and following there is a point made, which is: that there is a judicial act of divine judgment and wrath at work.
1) The text speaks in the plural which is important, it is not speaking about individuals but societies, nations and cultures. "They, them ... gave them up."
2) That judgment of God's wrath has a progressive character. They do not want God, they hold the truth of the existance of God and his moral will in unrighteousness. (Rom. 1:18)
3)He gives them over to their own depravity in blindness to worship idols,(Rom. 1:21 - and they do not repent) to destroy marriage (Rom. 1:24 and they do not repent) to what is contrary to nature, homosexuality female and male ( Rom 1:26, 27)
The text in various forms uses the expression "for this cause God gave them up.... The idea is an operation of divine wrath in judgment that:
1) exposes the folly of sin
2) leaves not just the individual but the people and nation, without excuse in the final out pouring of that judgment in the day of judgment.
Can you change the direction the world is heading in this area?
1) Working with individuals, some what, in the way of grace and repentance
2) with the nation or society as a whole, I would suggest the end is found in Genesis 19
No one likes my opinions on this around here, but I believe the problem starts very early. There seem to be far more masculinized female toddlers and feminized male toddlers these days. What to do? I think it is the plastics or other pollutants in our environment that is in the uterus wreaking havoc upon the hormonal and sexual development of fetuses.
I don’t know just what to do about it, but I do believe, from all the time I spend with children, that there are more sexual orientation birth defects than ever. There are other reproductive and sexual plumbing problems becoming epidemic lately too.
These kids are sweet innocents that happen to like the toys and dress and behavior of the opposite sex. They can’t help it; it’s not the parents’ fault. But I don’t get any support for thinking thus in these parts.
We must offer something holy and good to these innocents. Right now, as these kids get to puberty, they are welcomed by the gay agenda people and shunned by conservatives and religions. Kids with Down Syndrome are not rejected like this. But conservatives seem to be “haters” if it’s a defect in sexual orientation rather than intellect. If you’ve met one of these kids, you will see that it seems to be the way they are indeed “born” — this is Probably The only thing I agree on with Lady Gaga.
Their latest attack is to make it seem like marriage is meaningless, simply a contractual arrangement with certain benefits and ultimately, no responsibilities. Getting in one side of the door was relatively easy, but the other side, the lack of responsibility, is proving to be more difficult than they anticipated. There are now advocates pushing for a separate (but equal) divorce proceedings for homosexual couples, ‘celebrating their unique situation.’ AKA, don't stick me with child support and alimony.
They're running headlong into a very entrenched feminist region which doesn't want to see that affected, and certainly not the separate but equal resolution system, especially since it would be an easy legal jump for more traditional marriages to be equally considered meaningless.
Much more daunting is the whole two mommies situation. So much of the system has been geared towards turning men into wage slaves who must pile off their earnings into monthly checks to support the former wife and kids. Homosexuals don't exactly appreciate this system, and more over, when you've got two people who consider themselves wives, the automatic granting of custody is stymied.
A targeted fight against the dismantling of the family has to start at the most egregious infringements of the family, that of Child Protective Services and the equivalent. Laws must be rolled back to at the very least require actual proof that there's reason for the state to become involved, and if that threshold is met, priority must be given to extended family becoming primary caregivers.
Grandparents rights groups are an obvious ally in this, and must be cultivated to pool resources to enshrine the common sense that someone the child knows is far better than any random boarding house. While I know there's plenty of fine people in foster care, the cold hard reality is that there's also plenty who simply run their so called homes as boarding agencies collecting state checks, and care little for the children in their care.
By promoting ‘family first’, it also cuts down the number of adoption opportunities that gays can exploit in the system. Not to mention the number of vulnerable children in the foster care system.
An additional element to use to battle this invasion of the family would be senior citizen groups - enlist their aide in granting more leverage in keeping seniors with their nuclear families, rather than shipping them off to retirement homes and separating them from the generations. Dismantling a lot of the receivership laws that are being leveraged against seniors and forcing them away from all that they gained through hard work is another strong goal.
Finally, tort reform must be addressed; limits must be put on the courts as to the size of rewards in all claims, including divorces. The courts were never designed or envisioned to become tools to make people paupers, or to force people into debtor prisons, and this really needs to be addressed, and much of the autonomy in these types of proceedings removed from the judge and jury's hands. I personally believe that people will be more apt to work together to come to an agreement if there's no longer the giant axe swinging above their heads that can take away everything, as that kicks in the primal urges to survive, and by that, I mean fighting to the bitter end to hold onto as much as possible, lest it all be taken away.
I can see why you say that. This whole issue is edging towards a dark road, which is stepped upon once this question is asked: "Ancient Greece had democracy, which America has, and had a thriving homosexual subculture, which America has. Why is it that homosexuality and eventual pederasty end up coexisting comfortably with democracy?"
I'm just posing this question illustratively. It's not meant to be answered.
Then, why do you bother?
I happen to agree with you that homosexuality is largely physiological and that many gays are born with the tendency. (I’m not sure why that opinion is met with such hostility on Free Republic, given that I do NOT believe that being âborn that wayâ means one is allowed to act on homosexual impulses.) There are, though, environmental factors that cause homosexuality. One of the problems in the current culture is that, paradoxically, the wider acceptance of gays has made the public less accepting of a range of behaviors among straight men. An example: a boy with natural artistic ability is now labeled âgayâ. So I think there may also be perfectly normal heterosexual boys who at a very early age are told they are gay, and whose parents are told they are âhomophobicâ if they don’t embrace their son’s homosexuality. The parents then, because they do not want their son to be gay, discourage his interest in the arts, thereby sending him the message that the only way he can explore his interest in the arts is to rebel against them and accept the embrace of the gays.
What just 25 years ago were the Reagan conservatives is now totally split. Are you a fiscal conservative? Oh, I was looking for a social conservative. Before, there was no differentiation.That's because Reagan was able to appeal to social conservatives on issues like abortion and stopping the pro-left meddling of the federal government in cultural issues. He himself was a cultural libertarian and therefore did not allow the government to promote a cultural conservative agenda. Therefore, he did not alienate cultural libertarians.
Reagan helped create this split by converting many voters (especially under 30 at the time) to fiscal conservatism without the cultural collectivist baggage that is always an drag on the GOP at general election time.
As for homosexuality, he had little to say about it because he himself was tolerant. Patty Davis has recalled how he once told her about Rock Hudson's preferences in a very matter of fact and non-judgemental way.
“Are you a fiscal conservative? Oh, I was looking for a social conservative. Before, there was no differentiation.”
“Fiscal conservatives” are white Democrats who don’t like black people; we have a lot of them in the northeast. They have no problems with homosexuality, personal drug use, etc.; just keep those abortion mills humming in those cities. That is what separates them from “conservatives”.
“Im not sure why that opinion is met with such hostility on Free Republic, given that I do NOT believe that being born that way means one is allowed to act on homosexual impulses.”
Probably because the number of homosexuals who have admitted to being assaulted as children; it is a lot - like it “broke” them.
There is no “homosexual morality”. That phrase is merely an attempt to make us think of morality as relative and subjective.
Thomas Jefferson tried to be human-when he proposed a Bill for proportioning crimes and punishments in VA.Most Americans don’t even remember he did that—but nearly everyone knows he
suggested a “wall of separation between church and State”. And given this apostate nations habit of attacking anyone who dares question the “new Civil right” (Sodomy) Look at how they did Dr.Laura Schlessinger ,Dr.Lorraine Day , The Honorable Roy S.Moore,And everyone else who tried escape the crabbucket.That nation only is blessed whose God is the Lord.
If we have been turned from the Lord our only HOPE is to Repent —the reprobates will fall by the wayside.
Accusing me of avoiding the issue that a society that gives the commoner a voice in the law can/will open it up to gross moral abuses?
One would think that Greece’s more naked democracy would have brought their ruin faster. But it’s the US with its supposed representative government structure that has the buggery and grosser practices. Maybe it’s technological, that ancient Greece never had a very good contraceptive, which kept gaydom from hiding away in a background of compromised heterosexuals who were afraid of being called hypocrites.
This isn’t really just about homosexuality. It’s about immorality in general, to include adultery and fornication.
And on the edges you have to include metrosexuals and unfeminine women. It’s one big package. As soon as you make allowances the rest comes in through the crack.
Maybe you should clean that thing out.
Pings for later...
Political Correctness (PC) is an incurable cancer that infects all politicians, regardless as to political affiliation, religion or personal beliefs.
I’m sorry to say that the patent will allow any and all bills, regulations, quelling of free speech and thought along with personal freedoms to be crushed that have any chance of restoration of our free rights to think and act as we please. Worse yet, on how to train and raise our children.
If you have followed the demise of our freedoms and morals since the late 60’s the path is clear to see how it has ruined our society.
Don’t ever think that a politician does not continuously look over their shoulder for the PC police to get them.
Here’s my opinion:
I do not believe homosexuals are born. IMO...I believe we are born with a wiped program and what we observe every waking moment records onto the hard drive.
I believe it falls to the family. Too many men deserted families and boys were raised by mothers...some boys spent too much time around the women and not enough around men learning to be a man. I’ve often heard that most male homosexuals were abused early in life.
As for the lesbians, the same holds true for them. Notice the manly behavior of some lesbians and family and you’ll find that they hung around guys most of their lives. They were jealous or envious or whatever and wanted to be like the guys. Plus, I’ve never known a lesbian who claimed she was born that way. Mostly they too were abused by men or raised to hate men.
IMO...MEN are important in the family. Girls grow up looking to their fathers to learn what a father and husband is suppose to be. Boys grow up looking to their fathers to learn what a father and husband is suppose to be.
Think about that for a moment when we consider homosexuals raising kids.
The government has forced us to accept their lifestyle because we are a country that cannot discriminate. As a Christian nation we are also taught to love the person but hate the sin.
And finally, based on the above facts, I don’t think there is anything we can do about it. We are outnumbered. Prayer is my answer.
"Just one word... plastics"
Was your “more organic diet” lower in refined carbs or no carbs at all? I’m PCOS and trying to get back on the low carb wagon, I feel like my symptoms are less when I do. Haven’t tried avoiding plastics, though.
There is no public standard for morality (or even for behavior) anymore...
I would provide everyone Occam’s Razor on this topic -
the goal of the “gay agenda” is to criminalize Christianity.
Everything begins to make sense when you apply this simple truth to the matter.
This question can be easily answered. Democracy gives people the tools to make their behavior legal.
The power of majority is not even required. It is enough to have some numbers to begin trading power. And that's what happens here. Often small but loud groups make themselves an annoyance, and the rest of voters gives them what they want just to make them go away (every child knows how that works.) At other times those groups recruit fringe media, mount propaganda campaigns, and basically mess with your head so much that you start believing that black is white - and eventually vote against your own interests.
A dictatorship (such as monarchy, for example) is not a guaranteed solution, of course. However monarchs usually outsourced morality to the Church, and the Church - represented by local priests - kept an eye on the situation. Not only the priests explained on daily basis why certain acts are sinful, they would also send a word upward the hierarchy if a new Sodom is about to occur. Then the King would send a few soldiers to arrest the offenders; their trial would be fast and definitive. But before that becomes necessary a bunch of villagers with farm implements in hand, likely led by the priest, would show up at the house of the offender and explain to him the error of his ways.
I mentioned that dictators are not a guaranteed solution. But they do help, for one simple reason. A dictatorship always needs warriors. A dictator wants a strong country that can defend itself and, preferrably, attack others. However a bunch of homos do not always make the army strong. The dictator also wants more children to be born, but gay families cannot produce children. Any dictator who runs a gay-friendly country is digging his own grave. Democracies, on the other hand, never think about the future - they have no built-in, automatic mechanisms for sacrificing something today for the greater good tomorrow. They can only depend on wisdom of voters, a fleeting thing.
Murdoch does have influence and is known to meddle in Fox Broadcast and movies
But his deal with Roger Ailes on Fox News is hands off...100 percent control with Ailes and Rupert at 80 dare not meddle
and his kids...all of whom are liberals detest this arrangement and Ailes
>No one likes my opinions on this around here, but I believe the problem starts very early. There seem to be far more masculinized female toddlers and feminized male toddlers these days. What to do? I think it is the plastics or other pollutants in our environment that is in the uterus wreaking havoc upon the hormonal and sexual development of fetuses.<
You may very well have a point. American agriculture has relied on hormones to force maximum growth in cattle for the last few generations. We are what we eat.
I have a cousin who was a major tomboy when we were very little. She had lots of friends, male & female, but never dated in high school. I will leave it to your imagination as to what her political leanings are today.
Well, this time, because the original poster was asking the question. But often, I bother only to stand up for sweet, innocent children who are born with a difference that we don’t know yet how to test for, but it’s as real as the differences in kids with autism or Down Syndrome. The Glee Agenda is taking away these kids and I want to fight for them. Our side doesn’t believe these kids, or even try to help them.
not arguing with that...but i would say FNC is way more conservative than the others...no question
and they shill for Romney and i detest that
odd that Rupert endorsed Santorum
yet his network adores Mitt
which goes back to what I said in the first place
Wow, you “get” what I’m trying to say! So glad not to be alone. Yes, indeed, this problem is exacerbated on our side, by shoving some straight but “artistic” or quiet boys over to the Glee side. I didn’t realize this until you said it. I think conservatives have not fought hard enough to explain to kids that we are not slaves to our orientation and give them an option to be themselves, even with their differences, and stay religious. And conservative.
i disagree...as the father to five i think parents....coddling moms and absent dads have everything to do with it
im 54 with a 5 year old...old alphas like methat who still run the family are relics trust me
and these new alpha moms will continue to raise feminized boys raised to wear sock caps
In our house we’ve done the same. Storing and microwaving food in glass only. Glass baby bottles (lifefactory is an awesome brand).
But tests have been done all over and studies report: BPA in all human wombs. Are we so arrogant to believe that these pollutants destroy reproductive systems of soft animals like fish and frogs but could never affect us?
When seeking a link, I found a ton that link bpa prenatally to girls born with behavior problems too.
As in all things human, a very few people seem born to be, among other things, musicians, athletes, mathematicians, salesmen, and homosexuals. However, as in all things human, most of those who become known as musicians, athletes, mathematicians, salesmen, and homosexuals do so through hard work and diligent practice under the direction of experienced mentors.
I respect your opinion. But I have seen rock-ribbed conservative families have one of their sons, often one with an older brother or two, be so affected. I’ve seen little masculinized girls from solid two parent decent families too. And conversely, I’ve seen very traditional gender play and identity from Heather and Hank with Two Mommies. I am sure the latter group is more comfy with homosexuality because they don’t know much else, but I think the child’s “play orientation” (children are not, and should not be, sexual) doesn’t depend on parents coddling.
And trying to beat an interest out of a child that young tells him he is “bad.”. It negates him as a human. Children should never be shamed until they are old enough to choose a wrong choice knowingly. I’m explaining that badly. Let’s put that differently: it’s not injuring a five-year-old who has sneaked a cookie before dinner to call him on it. But it is injurious to shame him for playing with his sister’s toys because he enjoyed it.
And remember that the child with loving parents WILL play with his sister’s Barbie no matter what. Most boys with their sister’s barbie will play like this:
- take off her clothes and laugh at the boobs
- cut her hair or some other wacky “mutilation”
- use her as a prop in his play world, like blow her up in a pretend war, or try to save her, or see what happens if you Vroom her around like a car
A feminized boy will play like this:
- Have her talk, play make believe with her
- comb her hair, fix it in styles
- change her clothes and talk about how pretty they are
It’s very different. And these are innocent kids who don’t have any political ideas about how they play. They just like toys and want to have fun.
We need to be as supportive of boys like that as the left is, and as we are of kids with other disabilities. It is NOT the fault of coddling parents who didn’t punish them enough. That is like saying that masculine boys were taught to be the wAy they are. They aren’t. They just are that way.
You have a point. So what is our answer for a feminized boy as he approaches puberty? Besides nasty cracks at him. Because right now, the Glee Agenda is the safest and most accepting place for him.
I am thinking of the character Chandler from Friends. Yes, a fictional character, to be sure. But there is one episode where all the friends say that when they first met him, they thought he was gay. I think we have all known someone like that. You assume they are gay, then you find out they are happily hetero.
We need to help boys to go in that direction. I don’t know how but I voice our need to try and save these guys and the opposite gals.
Then you are too young. American men never used to hug. There’s a reason for the change.
Watch some sports on TV.
“Tell me what you think- trying to be humane here, that way I think can make the most progress in stopping the onslaught and drawing the line- that things progress no further and stop where they ought.”
OK, I’ll try.
That “line” might have been “drawn” several years’ back, by Republicans/conservatives pushing for a “Marriage Amendment” in the Congress, right after Vermont passed its “civil unions” law.
THEN was the time to “do something”, because there was enough “national indignation” against the growing “gay putsch” that it might have been stopped in its track — back then.
Even some democrats in Congress would have voted for such an amendment, due to pressure from “the folks back home”. Once out of Congress, there was certainly enough momentum in the required number of state legislatures, for it to become the law of the land.
But back then, Republicans refused to act, because a Marriage Amendment to the Constitution would have been an extreme and final act — we were told that “it wasn’t necessary”. We were being lied to, and we swallowed that pill.
But the “gay left” knows that its goals are best won incrementally, and since Vermont, they’ve been working to that end, slowly, patiently, with their eyes on the prize. And sooner or later, they’re going to win that “prize”, which will be a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that overturns the Defense of Marriage Act and legalizes gay marriage throughout the nation — a gay “Roe v. Wade”, if you will.
No, they won’t get it from the _current_ makeup of the Court, but the justices who are sitting now ain’t going to last forever. Sooner or later, a more liberal Court will be seated, and then the gay left will strike when the iron is hot — because we as conservatives failed to grasp the notion that it was up to _us_ to “strike” back then, years ago, while OUR “iron” was hot.
Wish I could be more optimistic, but I’m a realist and that’s how I see things....
Not if I don't have to.