Posted on 08/19/2003 10:22:14 AM PDT by CtPoliticsGuy
It used to be said, before gays "came out," that they were in "the closet." I wish they would go back into it. The rest of us have been in "Pandora's Box ever since.
Not that long ago, in kinder, gentler times, when grown adults actually kept their private business private, and fringe rebels did not get in everyone's face to make their point, what is now considered to be an alternative lifestyle" was in fact, a deviancy. The only thing that has changed is that in 1973, (the same notorious year that also gave us Roe vs. Wade) the American Psychiatry Association (APA) removed the category of homosexuality from it's Diagnostic and Statistical Manuel of Mental Disorders (DSM), under politically correct pressure from gay activist groups. The end result: Enter "alternate lifestyle"!
Since then, we have been continually (and not too gently) reminded by those "reformed deviates" that they are a victim class (one of many) and need special rights. (i.e.: Hate crime legislation which is only redundant of already existing laws against assault, harassment, discrimination, etc., but with stiffer penalties for these "special" citizens needing "equal" rights.) In addition, we are to now "tolerate" homosexuality, which is secret code for "embrace" it, in liberal lingo. That "tolerance" seems to need to only flow in only one direction. As with anyone disagreeing with affirmative action quotas is a "racist," anyone not embracing the gay agenda is a "homophobe." One regular columnist in the New Haven Register who writes about gay issues (ad nauseum) recently accused Pat Robertson of conducting a 21 day "prayer assault" against the Supreme Court after it's recent Lawrence vs. Texas decision, which struck down state sodomy laws. In fact, it would not at all hurt that bitterly angry gay columnist to be so assaulted "with prayer." (Heaven forbid!) This is but a microcosm of the absolute vile contempt that many in the so called gay movement have for anyone who dares to disagree with their agenda.
Lunacy such as pretending to be "open minded" and "main stream" about what is in fact a deviancy is as ludicrous as pretending that the Emperor is in fact, wearing clothes in the famed children's fairy tale. We do not need to know anyone's sexual preferences, be they heterosexual, or homosexual. We don't need the word "gay men" applied to the name of a chorus, and we don't need marchers in drag with gay banners in the New York St. Patrick's Day Parade. Last I heard, the only prerequisite for those two activities was that you be a good singer, and Irish, respectfully. These are but two of countless examples of gays making a needless statement, irrelevant to whatever task they are otherwise trying to carry out.
Paging Senator Santorum....paging Senator Rick Santorum... Oh, yes, another "homophobe"! Remember a few months back when "Santorum" was a dirty word? The conservative, Republican practicing Catholic (For you northeast Democrat "Catholics," that means a Catholic who really means it!) US Senator from Pennsylvania was persona non-grata a few months back among gay groups, opportunistic Democrats and cowardly Republicans for stating his opposition to the banning of state sodomy laws just before the Lawrence vs. Texas decision. Adding to the dismay was that Santorum never expressed the subsequent obligatory Mia coppa for saying what he truly believes, a sad recent trend among most "leaders" nowadays. Santorum stated, and correctly so, that striking down such laws will only further open the door to legalizing bestiality, incest, etc. For the nay sayers, I only need refer you to current gun control laws. The national liberal agenda to strip law abiding citizens of their legal right to defend themselves has been eroded, incrementally. The old riddle reminds us of this as well; "How do you eat an elephant?" Answer: "One bite at a time."
Santorum should change his name to Nostradamus for that prediction. A recent article by Stanley Kurtz in the August 11 issue of The Weekly Standard, articulates how a movement by several groups has been under way for several years, trying to mainstream polygamy (a marriage or non-platonic relationship of one man and several cohabitant women), and polyamory (the same, but with any number of people, and genders). These groups are lying in wait for gay marriage laws to universally pass so that they may then push their agenda. If that succeeds, what about when these "families" wish to bear or adopt children? What kind of stable home will these children have, and what will happen to the nuclear family, and western civilization as we know it, which has already irreparably eroded beyond the point of returning to current levels of re-procreation in the US. Also, sperm donors for gay couples are now demanding child visitation rights upon separation. Multiply that by "parents" in numbers of 3 or more and you get a real legal fiasco. What about organizations which promote condoned sexual relationships between children and adults, like one recently defended by the American (so called) Civil Liberties Union? Where does it end? Is Santorum still such an ogre and a fool now?
>>Continued<<
(Excerpt) Read more at dondodd.com ...
Is that the Spanish or Mexican version of a Manual?
FMCDH
I believe that would be "respectively."
But a generally good rant. I give it a 7.9.
Mia coppa? You a coppa? Maybe we all a coppa!
It's part of a well planned and well funded campaign that has been going on for years:
The Overhauling of Straight America
The Homosexual Propaganda and Media Manipulation Game
FMCDH
Ditto.
Many of us have come to the conclusion that, if God doesn't intervene, we need to consider succession, i.e. separation of the whest states from the chaff states.
Pardon my ignorance, but what/who is Gramschi?
And regarding your question, it seems that most "conservatives" in public life refuse to address the problem of the elephant. It looks like this to me: the leftist/liberal/homonazi etc's take two steps forward, and the "conservatives" try to get them to take one step (or half a step) back. That happens, and then a short while later another figure in the dance. So slowly but surely (only lately it's not even slowly any more) we are coming closer to the waterfall, the roaring gets louder, we can feel the spray, and the current is getting faster.
The only solution I can come up with is individuals shouting louder, taking local action whenever possible (for instance, protesting local school crap), nonstop emails, letters, calls etc to state and federal representatives, and finally, civil disobedience.
Pardon my ignorance, but what/who is Gramschi?
And regarding your question, it seems that most "conservatives" in public life refuse to address the problem of the elephant. It looks like this to me: the leftist/liberal/homonazi etc's take two steps forward, and the "conservatives" try to get them to take one step (or half a step) back. That happens, and then a short while later another figure in the dance. So slowly but surely (only lately it's not even slowly any more) we are coming closer to the waterfall, the roaring gets louder, we can feel the spray, and the current is getting faster.
The only solution I can come up with is individuals shouting louder, taking local action whenever possible (for instance, protesting local school crap), nonstop emails, letters, calls etc to state and federal representatives, and finally, civil disobedience.
(antôn´yô gräm´she) , 1891-1937, Italian political leader and theoretician. Originally a member of the Socialist party and a cofounder (1919) of the left-wing paper L'Ordine Nuovo, Gramsci helped to establish (1921) the Italian Communist party. When Benito Mussolini outlawed the party, Gramsci was imprisoned (1926-37). His posthumously published prison writings, Lettere del carcere (1947), present his theory of hegemony, which explains how a dominant class controls society and emphasizes a less dogmatic form of communism that many intellectuals preferred to the increasingly ossified version represented by the former Soviet Union.
Unless that's a wordplay gag on Mafiosa Italian, I think the original Latin is supposed to be mea culpa, from the Catholic prayer called the Confiteor ("I confess") : "mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa", translated as "through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault".
Remember the second law of homosexuality:
To the mentally healthy person (heterosexual), sex is something they do.
To the mentally diseased person ('homosexual'), sex is everything they are
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.