Goodbye "Don't ask. Don't tell."
- Thread starter aristotle
- Start date
DougTravels
Not a Member
pelicn
Veteran Expediter
My hubby is a retired submariner. You know the joke, 70 sailors go to sea, 35 couples come back. LOL
Seriously, he served with a man that everyone knew was homosexual. The captain, the crew, the families. This was when it wasn't allowed, and the captain would actually arrange "dates" for this man when anyone would question whether or not he "liked girls". He was well liked by the crew because he did his job. His sexual preference made no difference. My point is, I think it depends on the individual. In some cases it may not work, in this case it did.
Seriously, he served with a man that everyone knew was homosexual. The captain, the crew, the families. This was when it wasn't allowed, and the captain would actually arrange "dates" for this man when anyone would question whether or not he "liked girls". He was well liked by the crew because he did his job. His sexual preference made no difference. My point is, I think it depends on the individual. In some cases it may not work, in this case it did.
It is to transform the beliefs of Americans into a cultural acceptance, even a cultural embracing, of homosexuality, and to do so by using the courts to force their views onto the majority. Some of the issues include same-sex marriage, GLBT adoption, military participation, the recognition of homosexuals as an actual civil rights minority, and most importantly, the inclusion of gay themes and history being taught in public schools in order to indoctrinate young minds to accept and embrace homosexuality.
The means of attaining their goals was laid out rather nicely in two how-to books called After the Ball and The Overhauling of Straight America. The 6-point plan paid out in After the Ball is:
"Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible to promote people getting comfortable with hearing it... Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers... Give homosexual protectors a just cause... Make gays look good... Make the victimizers look bad... Get funds from corporate America."
The many goals and tactics of the gay agenda include:
Destroying Christian morals by changing the definition of marriage, even if doing so infringes on the religious rights of Christians not to recognize it. So much for the tolerance that gays preach. They also going after the Boy Scouts, since they're a Christian-based organization.
Promote science that legitimizes homosexuality, such as claims of a never-identified gay gene, and suppressing or outright denying any evidence that the "gay gene" doesn't exist.
Censoring any speech against homosexuality by branding it possible "hate-speech".
The attempt to have Bibles be rewritten to censor negative references to homosexuality, like the ones that condemn homosexuality as an abomination.
Establishing Affirmative Action legislation for homosexuals, same as it was in place for blacks.
Expand hate crimes legislation to include sexual orientation
Ending the military restrictions on homosexuality.
Promote homosexuality in schools. Like, in Massachusetts and California it starts as early as pre-school. Where 5 years olds are schooled that many boys like boys, and many girls like girls, and that's OK. The fact that these kids have no concept of sexuality or sexual orientation is irrelevant, it's all about planing seeds.
Force businesses to accommodate their lifestyle and beliefs. One online dating service was sued because they failed to provide a GLBT section.
Getting more rights in prison, like in California where gays are now allowed conjugal visits
The list goes on and on, and it's one of relentless pressure to force acceptance of not equal rights, but special rights, of laws and policies made just for gays.
I hope that answers your question.
chefdennis
Veteran Expediter
Very well put Turtle......
Bravo Turtle. We now have your eloquence on this subject. This is the finest essay on the gay agenda I have seen in many years.It is to transform the beliefs of Americans into a cultural acceptance, even a cultural embracing, of homosexuality, and to do so by using the courts to force their views onto the majority. Some of the issues include same-sex marriage, GLBT adoption, military participation, the recognition of homosexuals as an actual civil rights minority, and most importantly, the inclusion of gay themes and history being taught in public schools in order to indoctrinate young minds to accept and embrace homosexuality.
The means of attaining their goals was laid out rather nicely in two how-to books called After the Ball and The Overhauling of Straight America. The 6-point plan paid out in After the Ball is:
"Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible to promote people getting comfortable with hearing it... Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers... Give homosexual protectors a just cause... Make gays look good... Make the victimizers look bad... Get funds from corporate America."
The many goals and tactics of the gay agenda include:
Destroying Christian morals by changing the definition of marriage, even if doing so infringes on the religious rights of Christians not to recognize it. So much for the tolerance that gays preach. They also going after the Boy Scouts, since they're a Christian-based organization.
Promote science that legitimizes homosexuality, such as claims of a never-identified gay gene, and suppressing or outright denying any evidence that the "gay gene" doesn't exist.
Censoring any speech against homosexuality by branding it possible "hate-speech".
The attempt to have Bibles be rewritten to censor negative references to homosexuality, like the ones that condemn homosexuality as an abomination.
Establishing Affirmative Action legislation for homosexuals, same as it was in place for blacks.
Expand hate crimes legislation to include sexual orientation
Ending the military restrictions on homosexuality.
Promote homosexuality in schools. Like, in Massachusetts and California it starts as early as pre-school. Where 5 years olds are schooled that many boys like boys, and many girls like girls, and that's OK. The fact that these kids have no concept of sexuality or sexual orientation is irrelevant, it's all about planing seeds.
Force businesses to accommodate their lifestyle and beliefs. One online dating service was sued because they failed to provide a GLBT section.
Getting more rights in prison, like in California where gays are now allowed conjugal visits
The list goes on and on, and it's one of relentless pressure to force acceptance of not equal rights, but special rights, of laws and policies made just for gays.
I hope that answers your question.
Beware the vicious vitriol of the Left will attempt to shout you down. They will call you ugly names, like homophobe, rather than acknowledge the merit of your argument. They will take your words out of context, assign ulterior motives, and when all else fails, they will pile on like a pack of hyenas. I call them the "politically correct posse." You know who they are.
Last edited:
Turtle, would you send me a link for that missive, my grandaughter needs a laugh when she gets home from school today. I woulsd rather her be exposed to forward thinking gays, than to closed minded individuals that seem to populate this board.
My glass is STILL half full, thank you.
My glass is STILL half full, thank you.
Sorry, but the only link for this that I can give you is http://www.expeditersonline.com/forum/soapbox/36453-goodbye-dont-ask-dont-tell.html#post305541
I'm sure a Google search for "gay agenda" will yield many (quite a few more) examples of the above.
You should understand, right up front, that I'm not for or against gays. Largely, I don't care. What I object to is their methods. But I'm pragmatic, a student of human nature and of social science, and I can therefor recognize the Gay Agenda for what it is. There is no forward or backward thinking at play here, the Gay Agenda is what it is, and I challenge you or anyone to refute any of the above.
If you've read After the Ball (full title is After the Ball, How America will conquer its fear and hatred of Gays in the 90's), there is no way you could equate that to forward thinking. It's a very blunt, in-your-face manifesto that describes the powerful psychological and very sophisticated techniques to manipulate the public. Its two authors, Marshall Kirk, a researcher in neuropsychiatry, and Hunter Madsen, who has a doctorate in politics from Harvard and is an expert who specializes in public persuasion tactics and social marketing, and has done so many times in the advertising world of Madison Avenue, are both well aware of how and which buttons to push on people.
The book, for example, lays out in great detail the three primary approaches, to, well, as the book says, "PUSHING THE RIGHT BUTTONS: HALTING, DERAILING, OR REVERSING THE 'ENGINE OF PREJUDICE'"
They are Desensitization, Jamming, and Conversion.
In Desensitization, they speak of the obvious, getting people used to gays and the whole gay idea. It points out, quite correctly, why people are all, to one degree or another, prejudiced. The fallacy, however, is equating a prejudice towards homosexuality with the same kinds of external prejudices (another animal that may or may nor cause harm, or even an animal similar to you but wholly unfamiliar, like different races) to that of the internal difference of gay versus straight. The resulting psychological tactics to deal with it, in any case, are the same, and the authors know it.
"From the point of view of evolution, prejudice is an alerting signal, warning tribal mammals that a potentially dangerous alien mammal is in the vicinity, and should be fought or fled. Alerting mechanisms respond to novelties in the environment, because novelties represent change from the usual, and are, therefore, potentially important."
"One of two things can happen: (1) If the alerting mechanism is very strongly activated, it will produce an unendurable emotional state, forcing the tribal mammal to fight the novelty or flee it. (2) If, however, the novelty is either low-grade, or simply odd without being threatening, the alerting mechanism will be mildly activated, producing an emotional state that, if other environmental circumstances militate against it, will be too weak to motivate any actual behavioral response. In the latter case, the mammal may peer curiously at the novelty for quite some time, but will not do anything about it, or to it."
"As a general physio-psychological rule, novelties cease to be novel if they just stick around long enough; they also cease to activate alerting mechanisms. There are excellent evolutionary reasons for this: if the mammal either has no good reason to respond, or is for some reason incapable of doing so, it is actually hindered in its normal activities if its attention continues to be taken up by an irrelevancy."
"If gays present themselves-- or allow themselves to be presented--as overwhelmingly different and threatening, they will put straights on a triple-red alert, driving them to overt acts of political oppression or physical violence. If, however, gays can live alongside straights, visibly but as inoffensively as possible, they will arouse a low-grade alert only, which, though annoying to straights, will eventually diminish for purely physiological reasons. Straights will be desensitized."
"We can extract the following principle for our campaign to desensitize straights to gays and gayness, inundate them in a continuous flood of gay-related advertising, presented in the least offensive fashion possible. If straights can't shut off the shower, they may at least eventually get used to being wet."
It goes on next to talk about Jamming, where they jam up the pre-existing normal emotional responses by the rules of Associative Conditioning (the psychological process whereby, when two things are repeatedly juxtaposed, one's feelings about one thing are transferred to the other - kind of like one former prolific poster here would would constantly put Obama and those evil male Muslin fundamentalists together in the same posts) and Direct Emotional Modeling (the inborn tendency of human beings to feel what they perceive others to be feeling, meaning of you think someone is sad, you will feel sad, too).
All people feel shame (what's wrong with me?) when they perceive that they are not thinking in the same manner as their friends and peers, the others in the pack. It wasn't all that long ago where prejudice against most minority groups (blacks, Jews, Catholics, whatever) was commonplace, accepted, normal. Now it's not. And you are looked upon as bad, bad, bad if you are prejudiced against any of these while your friends and peers are not. But, if you can somehow equate and align the prejudice against gays with the now-politically taboo prejudice against blacks, for example, you can jam up the emotional response mechanism whereby if they feel bad, bad, bad.
"The trick is to get the bigot into the position of feeling a conflicting twinge of shame, along with his reward, whenever his homohatred surfaces, so that his reward will be diluted or spoiled. This can be accomplished in a variety of ways, all making use of repeated exposure to pictorial images or verbal statements that are incompatible with his self-image as a well-liked person, one who fits in with the rest of the crowd. Thus, propagandistic advertisement can depict homophobic and homohating bigots as crude loudmouths and aѕѕholes--people who say not only '
got' but 'nіgger,' 'kike,' and other shameful epithets--who are 'not Christian.'It can show them being criticized, hated, shunned. It can depict gays experiencing horrific suffering as the direct result of homohatred-suffering of which even most bigots would be ashamed to be the cause. It can, in short, link homohating bigotry with all sorts of attributes the bigot would be ashamed to possess, and with social consequences he would find unpleasant and scary. The attack, therefore, is on self-image and on the pleasure in hating."
"When he sees someone like himself being disapproved of and disliked by ordinary Joes, Direct Emotional Modeling ensures that he will feel just what they feel --and transfer it to himself."
"Note that the bigot need not actually be made to believe" that he is such a heinous creature, that others will now despise him, and that he has been the immoral agent of suffering. It would be impossible to make him believe any such thing. Rather, our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof."
Then they talk about Conversion.
"It isn't enough that antigay bigots should become confused about us, or even indifferent to us--we are safest, in the long run, if we can actually make them like us. Conversion aims at just this."
"Yet, ironically, by Conversion we actually mean something far more profoundly threatening to the American Way of Life, without which no truly sweeping social change can occur. We mean conversion of the average American's emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media. We mean 'subverting' the mechanism of prejudice to our own ends--using the very processes that made America hate us to turn their hatred into warm regard--whether they like it or not."
"In Conversion, the bigot, who holds a very negative stereotypic picture, is repeatedly exposed to literal picture/label pairs, in magazines, and on billboards and TV, of gay- explicitly labeled as such!--who not only don't look like his picture of a homosexual, but are carefully selected to look either like the bigot and his friends, or like any one of his other stereotypes of all-right guys-- the kind of people he already likes and ` admires. This image must, of necessity, be carefully tailored to be free of absolutely every element of the widely held stereotypes of how 'gots' look, dress, and sound. He--or she--must not be too well or fashionably dressed; must not be too handsome--that is, mustn't look like a model--or well groomed. The image must be that of an icon of normality-..."
"The objection will be raised--and raised, and raised--that we would 'Uncle Tommify' the gay community; that we are exchanging one false stereotype for another equally false; that our ads are lies; that that is not how all gays actually look; that gays know it, and bigots know it. Yes, of course--we know it, too. But it makes no difference that the ads are lies; not to us, because we're using them to ethically good effect, to counter negative stereotypes that are every bit as much lies, and far more wicked ones; not to bigots, because the ads will have their effect on them whether they believe them or not."
*******
Its a fascinating book, not at all forward thinking in any way other than in the mass manipulation of the American mind. I can recognize, and don't like it one bit, when I see the tactics of blatant manipulation in general advertising. I don't like to be lied to or manipulated under any circumstances, but especially when someone tried to actually get into my mind and change the way I think. Being presented with facts and opinions and then me making up my own mind, even if it results in a major shift in my thinking, is one thing, but to be tricked into it is quite another.
Like I said, gay or not, I really don't care. You are what you are. I don't find homosexuality an abomination. The abomination is trying to trick me into thinking in such a manner that pleases you.
Many have obviously been manipulated into changing your thinking, at least to one degree or another. How does that make you feel?
I'm sure a Google search for "gay agenda" will yield many (quite a few more) examples of the above.
You should understand, right up front, that I'm not for or against gays. Largely, I don't care. What I object to is their methods. But I'm pragmatic, a student of human nature and of social science, and I can therefor recognize the Gay Agenda for what it is. There is no forward or backward thinking at play here, the Gay Agenda is what it is, and I challenge you or anyone to refute any of the above.
If you've read After the Ball (full title is After the Ball, How America will conquer its fear and hatred of Gays in the 90's), there is no way you could equate that to forward thinking. It's a very blunt, in-your-face manifesto that describes the powerful psychological and very sophisticated techniques to manipulate the public. Its two authors, Marshall Kirk, a researcher in neuropsychiatry, and Hunter Madsen, who has a doctorate in politics from Harvard and is an expert who specializes in public persuasion tactics and social marketing, and has done so many times in the advertising world of Madison Avenue, are both well aware of how and which buttons to push on people.
The book, for example, lays out in great detail the three primary approaches, to, well, as the book says, "PUSHING THE RIGHT BUTTONS: HALTING, DERAILING, OR REVERSING THE 'ENGINE OF PREJUDICE'"
They are Desensitization, Jamming, and Conversion.
In Desensitization, they speak of the obvious, getting people used to gays and the whole gay idea. It points out, quite correctly, why people are all, to one degree or another, prejudiced. The fallacy, however, is equating a prejudice towards homosexuality with the same kinds of external prejudices (another animal that may or may nor cause harm, or even an animal similar to you but wholly unfamiliar, like different races) to that of the internal difference of gay versus straight. The resulting psychological tactics to deal with it, in any case, are the same, and the authors know it.
"From the point of view of evolution, prejudice is an alerting signal, warning tribal mammals that a potentially dangerous alien mammal is in the vicinity, and should be fought or fled. Alerting mechanisms respond to novelties in the environment, because novelties represent change from the usual, and are, therefore, potentially important."
"One of two things can happen: (1) If the alerting mechanism is very strongly activated, it will produce an unendurable emotional state, forcing the tribal mammal to fight the novelty or flee it. (2) If, however, the novelty is either low-grade, or simply odd without being threatening, the alerting mechanism will be mildly activated, producing an emotional state that, if other environmental circumstances militate against it, will be too weak to motivate any actual behavioral response. In the latter case, the mammal may peer curiously at the novelty for quite some time, but will not do anything about it, or to it."
"As a general physio-psychological rule, novelties cease to be novel if they just stick around long enough; they also cease to activate alerting mechanisms. There are excellent evolutionary reasons for this: if the mammal either has no good reason to respond, or is for some reason incapable of doing so, it is actually hindered in its normal activities if its attention continues to be taken up by an irrelevancy."
"If gays present themselves-- or allow themselves to be presented--as overwhelmingly different and threatening, they will put straights on a triple-red alert, driving them to overt acts of political oppression or physical violence. If, however, gays can live alongside straights, visibly but as inoffensively as possible, they will arouse a low-grade alert only, which, though annoying to straights, will eventually diminish for purely physiological reasons. Straights will be desensitized."
"We can extract the following principle for our campaign to desensitize straights to gays and gayness, inundate them in a continuous flood of gay-related advertising, presented in the least offensive fashion possible. If straights can't shut off the shower, they may at least eventually get used to being wet."
It goes on next to talk about Jamming, where they jam up the pre-existing normal emotional responses by the rules of Associative Conditioning (the psychological process whereby, when two things are repeatedly juxtaposed, one's feelings about one thing are transferred to the other - kind of like one former prolific poster here would would constantly put Obama and those evil male Muslin fundamentalists together in the same posts) and Direct Emotional Modeling (the inborn tendency of human beings to feel what they perceive others to be feeling, meaning of you think someone is sad, you will feel sad, too).
All people feel shame (what's wrong with me?) when they perceive that they are not thinking in the same manner as their friends and peers, the others in the pack. It wasn't all that long ago where prejudice against most minority groups (blacks, Jews, Catholics, whatever) was commonplace, accepted, normal. Now it's not. And you are looked upon as bad, bad, bad if you are prejudiced against any of these while your friends and peers are not. But, if you can somehow equate and align the prejudice against gays with the now-politically taboo prejudice against blacks, for example, you can jam up the emotional response mechanism whereby if they feel bad, bad, bad.
"The trick is to get the bigot into the position of feeling a conflicting twinge of shame, along with his reward, whenever his homohatred surfaces, so that his reward will be diluted or spoiled. This can be accomplished in a variety of ways, all making use of repeated exposure to pictorial images or verbal statements that are incompatible with his self-image as a well-liked person, one who fits in with the rest of the crowd. Thus, propagandistic advertisement can depict homophobic and homohating bigots as crude loudmouths and aѕѕholes--people who say not only '
got' but 'nіgger,' 'kike,' and other shameful epithets--who are 'not Christian.'It can show them being criticized, hated, shunned. It can depict gays experiencing horrific suffering as the direct result of homohatred-suffering of which even most bigots would be ashamed to be the cause. It can, in short, link homohating bigotry with all sorts of attributes the bigot would be ashamed to possess, and with social consequences he would find unpleasant and scary. The attack, therefore, is on self-image and on the pleasure in hating.""When he sees someone like himself being disapproved of and disliked by ordinary Joes, Direct Emotional Modeling ensures that he will feel just what they feel --and transfer it to himself."
"Note that the bigot need not actually be made to believe" that he is such a heinous creature, that others will now despise him, and that he has been the immoral agent of suffering. It would be impossible to make him believe any such thing. Rather, our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof."
Then they talk about Conversion.
"It isn't enough that antigay bigots should become confused about us, or even indifferent to us--we are safest, in the long run, if we can actually make them like us. Conversion aims at just this."
"Yet, ironically, by Conversion we actually mean something far more profoundly threatening to the American Way of Life, without which no truly sweeping social change can occur. We mean conversion of the average American's emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media. We mean 'subverting' the mechanism of prejudice to our own ends--using the very processes that made America hate us to turn their hatred into warm regard--whether they like it or not."
"In Conversion, the bigot, who holds a very negative stereotypic picture, is repeatedly exposed to literal picture/label pairs, in magazines, and on billboards and TV, of gay- explicitly labeled as such!--who not only don't look like his picture of a homosexual, but are carefully selected to look either like the bigot and his friends, or like any one of his other stereotypes of all-right guys-- the kind of people he already likes and ` admires. This image must, of necessity, be carefully tailored to be free of absolutely every element of the widely held stereotypes of how '
gots' look, dress, and sound. He--or she--must not be too well or fashionably dressed; must not be too handsome--that is, mustn't look like a model--or well groomed. The image must be that of an icon of normality-...""The objection will be raised--and raised, and raised--that we would 'Uncle Tommify' the gay community; that we are exchanging one false stereotype for another equally false; that our ads are lies; that that is not how all gays actually look; that gays know it, and bigots know it. Yes, of course--we know it, too. But it makes no difference that the ads are lies; not to us, because we're using them to ethically good effect, to counter negative stereotypes that are every bit as much lies, and far more wicked ones; not to bigots, because the ads will have their effect on them whether they believe them or not."
*******
Its a fascinating book, not at all forward thinking in any way other than in the mass manipulation of the American mind. I can recognize, and don't like it one bit, when I see the tactics of blatant manipulation in general advertising. I don't like to be lied to or manipulated under any circumstances, but especially when someone tried to actually get into my mind and change the way I think. Being presented with facts and opinions and then me making up my own mind, even if it results in a major shift in my thinking, is one thing, but to be tricked into it is quite another.
Like I said, gay or not, I really don't care. You are what you are. I don't find homosexuality an abomination. The abomination is trying to trick me into thinking in such a manner that pleases you.
Many have obviously been manipulated into changing your thinking, at least to one degree or another. How does that make you feel?
Gay intolerance is still a taught reflex.
Like prejudice and bigotry...
Little Mikey doesn't know little Johnny wants to be a little Jane until someone tells him ...
I agree very much with Turtle...I was trying to say some of the same things...The Gay Agenda is being forced onto people....not a good thing.....
------------------------------------------------------------
Aristotle.....I still don't see any direct insult towards you personally.....other then 1/2 disagree with you...sorry you took it the way you did.....
Like prejudice and bigotry...
Little Mikey doesn't know little Johnny wants to be a little Jane until someone tells him ...
I agree very much with Turtle...I was trying to say some of the same things...The Gay Agenda is being forced onto people....not a good thing.....
------------------------------------------------------------
Aristotle.....I still don't see any direct insult towards you personally.....other then 1/2 disagree with you...sorry you took it the way you did.....
OVM... you need to make up your mind rather than trying to have things both ways. You throw out slurs such as "homophobic support family" and "homophobic parents" when responding directly to me. Then, you insinuate my views equate to prejudice and bigotry because they differ from yours. You follow the exact left-wing tactics Turtle is describing, and to my astonishment, you proclaim innocence. That is a hypocritical feat only a chameleon could appreciate.
It is going to be difficult to take you as a serious person.
It is going to be difficult to take you as a serious person.
Well, it's really not. Just the opposite, actually. The first paragraph of the quoted section of the book explains prejudice very well. Some prejudices are, in fact, taught, but at the most basic of levels, it is not. What gets taught, or is learned, is that the prejudice (novelty in the environment) is not harmful and can therefor be ignored, or tolerated. The intolerance comes quite naturally, and it's the tolerance that must be learned (or in the case of homosexuality, if not learned, then forced upon you).
The problem comes when applying homosexuality to that kind of learned intolerance, where they equate the prejudice of a potentially harmful external novelty in the environment that turns out not to be harmful to that of homosexuals, when homosexuality is in fact not an external novelty at all, but a very real segment of the current environment.
Gays preach tolerance, but most have zero tolerance for anyone who refuses to accept homosexuality and homosexuals. If you refuse to embrace it, you're called a bigot and/or homophobic, which is a redefining of both terms. Refusing to accept homosexuality as being normal behavior is not even close to being the same thing as utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion, which is what is means to be a bigot. Gay is not a creed, belief or opinion, it's a state of being. Failing to embrace homosexuality is not being homophobic, either, which means to have an irrational fear of homosexuals. For one, most people don't fear homosexuals, much to the dismay of homosexuals. And in any case, there's nothing irrational about a disdain and not wanting to embrace something that is anormal, against the type, contrary to the norm of the species. It is quite irrational to embrace it, actually, since it goes directly against the survival (and propagation) of the species.
No matter how much they propagandize and brainwash people into a different mode of thinking, these are some very fundamentally deep hardwired evolutionary survival skills that cannot be so easily rearranged by altering the minds of the public. They can change a few minds about a few things for a little while, and that's all it takes to get this judge or that judge to rule in their favor, or get this legislative body to make this law in their favor, but while we can deal with and adapt to the laws, we will never as a species accept and embrace homosexualism. It would be quite irrational to do so.
Incidentally, there's a reason why the word "bigot" is used a lot to describe and attack those who will not accept homosexuality. It's in the book as one of the tactics, the Associative Conditioning and the Jamming up of the emotional responses. If you don't embrace homosexuality, you're a bigot, even though you're really not, but the fact that you're not isn't nearly as important as linking being a bigot to being anti-homosexual, and since bigot is bad, bad, bad, and you don't want to be bad, bad, bad, you don't want to be thought of a a bigot, so you therefor start to think that being anti-homosexual is bad.
I can't believe that more people can't see through this crap. It's Marketing 101 on steroids.
Last edited:
In post #4 you'll noticed I quoted Turtle and responded to his post....
If you took it as insinuation...sorry...
I don't think it would be prudent for gays to stamp their forehead with gay and wave the gay banner...no...just sign-up like everyone else....with no "Look at me I am Gay" statement.
No. don't blame the Ox....it had nothing to do with this...just me a Canadian moron...
MrGautama
Not a Member
“The gay agenda” is the deprecatory term for “advocacy of cultural acceptance and normalization of non-heterosexual orientations and relationships”.
The origin of the term can be traced to the 1992 video series “The Gay Agenda” by the Family Research Council, whose president is Tony Perkins. Mr Perkins is a fervent supporter of the Federal Marriage Amendment and open critic of civil unions.
In 1996 while managing the campaign of Republican Louis E. Jenkins, Mr Perkins paid $82,000 to former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke for his mailing list, later on The Federal Election Commission fined Mr Jenkins campaign $3,000 for attempting to hide the money paid to the Grand Wizard.
Other sister organizations to the Family Research Council and frequent users of the term are:
Focus On Family: whose recently resigned director James Dobson is a Dominionist (read: proponent of the Christian equivalent of Sharia Law) and author of this statement: "Homosexuals are not monogamous. They want to destroy the institution of marriage. It will destroy marriage. It will destroy the Earth." (The Daily Oklahoman, Oct. 23rd, 2004).
Alliance Defend Fund: This organization's president is Alan Sears who co-wrote The ACLU vs. America: Exposing the Agenda to Redefine Moral Values and The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing the Principal Threat to Religious Freedom. The principal financial donor to Alliance Defend Fund is Erik Prince founder of Blackwater Worldwide renamed Xe to try escape the reputation of a mercenary training and arms smuggling organization.
American Family Association: Even though in 2007 the AFA Center for Law and Politics seized to exist it's main objectives were the criminalization of homosexuality, opposition to same-sex marriage, opposition to equal-right and hate-crime legislation, and the crown jewel: advocating censorship of print and electronic media. Donald Wildmon has been criticized by the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Congress, Mr Wildmon states that the profane and obscene television content is caused by the Jews that control it.
There are a few more examples like MassResistance.com, very familiar source to a previous poster, but you get the picture...
The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation defines the term as "rhetorical invention of anti-gay extremists seeking to create a climate of fear by portraying the pursuit of civil rights for LGBT people as sinister".
The truth is we don't know the reason why some of us are gay (for the children in the audience... us as in Homo Sapiens!), the only thing we do know is that they live among us, it's morally unacceptable to treat any member of our society as second class citizen and that's exactly what we are doing by letting the fundamentalists inject in our vocabulary terms like “gay agenda” and more so to believe in such nonsense. The LGBT community has endured horrendous discrimination and abuse for most part of human history and is inexcusable in the 21st century to still find thinking adults discussing the problem in terms of “gay conspiracies”. It's easy to complain when one's rights seem compromised e.g., gun control but forget others' rights when we are not affected directly. To claim outrage for the attempt by one group to manipulate our opinion only to fall pray to the opposite one's propaganda is symptom of a lack of depth in our commitment to the truth.
The origin of the term can be traced to the 1992 video series “The Gay Agenda” by the Family Research Council, whose president is Tony Perkins. Mr Perkins is a fervent supporter of the Federal Marriage Amendment and open critic of civil unions.
In 1996 while managing the campaign of Republican Louis E. Jenkins, Mr Perkins paid $82,000 to former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke for his mailing list, later on The Federal Election Commission fined Mr Jenkins campaign $3,000 for attempting to hide the money paid to the Grand Wizard.
Other sister organizations to the Family Research Council and frequent users of the term are:
Focus On Family: whose recently resigned director James Dobson is a Dominionist (read: proponent of the Christian equivalent of Sharia Law) and author of this statement: "Homosexuals are not monogamous. They want to destroy the institution of marriage. It will destroy marriage. It will destroy the Earth." (The Daily Oklahoman, Oct. 23rd, 2004).
Alliance Defend Fund: This organization's president is Alan Sears who co-wrote The ACLU vs. America: Exposing the Agenda to Redefine Moral Values and The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing the Principal Threat to Religious Freedom. The principal financial donor to Alliance Defend Fund is Erik Prince founder of Blackwater Worldwide renamed Xe to try escape the reputation of a mercenary training and arms smuggling organization.
American Family Association: Even though in 2007 the AFA Center for Law and Politics seized to exist it's main objectives were the criminalization of homosexuality, opposition to same-sex marriage, opposition to equal-right and hate-crime legislation, and the crown jewel: advocating censorship of print and electronic media. Donald Wildmon has been criticized by the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Congress, Mr Wildmon states that the profane and obscene television content is caused by the Jews that control it.
There are a few more examples like MassResistance.com, very familiar source to a previous poster, but you get the picture...
The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation defines the term as "rhetorical invention of anti-gay extremists seeking to create a climate of fear by portraying the pursuit of civil rights for LGBT people as sinister".
The truth is we don't know the reason why some of us are gay (for the children in the audience... us as in Homo Sapiens!), the only thing we do know is that they live among us, it's morally unacceptable to treat any member of our society as second class citizen and that's exactly what we are doing by letting the fundamentalists inject in our vocabulary terms like “gay agenda” and more so to believe in such nonsense. The LGBT community has endured horrendous discrimination and abuse for most part of human history and is inexcusable in the 21st century to still find thinking adults discussing the problem in terms of “gay conspiracies”. It's easy to complain when one's rights seem compromised e.g., gun control but forget others' rights when we are not affected directly. To claim outrage for the attempt by one group to manipulate our opinion only to fall pray to the opposite one's propaganda is symptom of a lack of depth in our commitment to the truth.
Last edited:
MR...G...you are saying gays are 2nd class citizens and it is ok to discriminate against them on certain issues?
Kinda like when women pushed their way into the service. There was a time the very thought of a woman as a marine was absurd.
Kinda like when women pushed their way into the service. There was a time the very thought of a woman as a marine was absurd.
I don't believe that's what Mr G meant, and I know I disagree with Turtle's analysis.
[I'd love to refute each premise, just don't have the time]
I believe that gay people are deprived of the same rights enjoyed by heterosexuals, just as women and blacks were in the past. And just as one can't help one's gender or race, sexuality is not a "choice" one makes. While there may or may not be a "gay" gene, there is evidence that the brain of a homosexual is different, neurologically, and as science has just begun to take a closer look, I think it will be confirmed beyond any doubt: no one chooses to be gay. [A fact which I already felt sure of]
The erudite sounding explanation for the 'nonthreatening novelty' issue sounds like BS to me - the percentage of homosexuals is nowhere near high enough to constitute a threat to humanity, [even without overpopulation!] and further, those who cannot reproduce [or choose not to] don't provoke such a response, do they?
The denial of gay folks' rights is due to [and pushed forward by] the influence of organized religion, primarily the Catholics, IMO. It is a clear threat to their agenda [more Catholics with every generation] and authority [the Bible] They will never accept it, and they will continue to demand that no one else accept it, either.
As Turtle once posted: "Morality is doing what's right, no matter what you're told. Religion is doing what you're told, no matter what's right"
I can't see where any of the GLBT folks pose any threat to society, marriage, or me - all of us will continue exactly as before, if they are given the same rights the rest of us enjoy.
[I'd love to refute each premise, just don't have the time]
I believe that gay people are deprived of the same rights enjoyed by heterosexuals, just as women and blacks were in the past. And just as one can't help one's gender or race, sexuality is not a "choice" one makes. While there may or may not be a "gay" gene, there is evidence that the brain of a homosexual is different, neurologically, and as science has just begun to take a closer look, I think it will be confirmed beyond any doubt: no one chooses to be gay. [A fact which I already felt sure of]
The erudite sounding explanation for the 'nonthreatening novelty' issue sounds like BS to me - the percentage of homosexuals is nowhere near high enough to constitute a threat to humanity, [even without overpopulation!] and further, those who cannot reproduce [or choose not to] don't provoke such a response, do they?
The denial of gay folks' rights is due to [and pushed forward by] the influence of organized religion, primarily the Catholics, IMO. It is a clear threat to their agenda [more Catholics with every generation] and authority [the Bible] They will never accept it, and they will continue to demand that no one else accept it, either.
As Turtle once posted: "Morality is doing what's right, no matter what you're told. Religion is doing what you're told, no matter what's right"
I can't see where any of the GLBT folks pose any threat to society, marriage, or me - all of us will continue exactly as before, if they are given the same rights the rest of us enjoy.
Do you condone pedophilia, whether homosexual or heterosexual?
Hey I have a thing for 8 year old girls. I'm sure it's neurological but for some reason it isn't socially acceptable at the moment. But give it a few years and even a pervert like me will be in vogue. Well, me and Woody Allen.
I have no problems with gays. It's the in your face, hey I'm gay thing that bothers me. Also the co-opting of marriage. A legal union is fine by me. But the definition of marriage is a union between a man and a women. Not a man and a man; a woman and a woman; a man and a beast; etc. The institution of marriage has enough problems as it is.
Now please excuse me as I have some candy to distribute before it gets dark. Hey, vans are more versatile than just freight haulers.