Goodbye "Don't ask. Don't tell."

[Turtle]

“The gay agenda” is the deprecatory term for “advocacy of cultural acceptance and normalization of non-heterosexual orientations and relationships”.

It's not a deprecatory term for it, it's merely the descriptive term for it. There's nothing inherently bad, evil, wrong or deprecatory about the term "agenda" as it means nothing more than a list of things to be done or to be acted upon. The origin or the term is irrelevant. Just because the messenger is an idiot doesn't necessarily mean the message he delivers is, as well. The book I referenced is the handbook of that agenda. If you read the book it's not really even open to debate. It is what it is.

But, if you don't like the phrase "Gay Agenda", then instead make up one of your own synonyms for it, like you could call it the GLBT Program for Mass Population Manipulation, or the Homosexual Master Plan, or the got Docket, or the Mary Poppins Itinerary, or Fried Green Tomatoes. It doesn't matter what you call it. It really doesn't.

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".

Well, of course they define it that way. It's textbook Associative Conditioning. "Climate of fear" - that's bad, bad, bad, so stop being an extremist trying to create a climate of fear!. And "civil rights", why, my goodness, no intelligent thinking person in this day and age would ever consider depriving someone of their civil rights! Never mind the fact that most of the "civil rights" that gays are after aren't equal civil rights at all, but special rights just for them. But they will make you think that if they want it, it's a civil right, and unless you're bad, bad, bad and against civil rights, you'll give them what they want.

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...

That much is true.

... 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.

That much is not true. It's hogwash. Next thing you kow the term "political agenda" will be politically inorrect. Don't waste your time with the right wing wacko groups like the American Family Association or whoever and getting their evil take on everything, go and read After the Ball for yourself, the whole book and not just the excerpts, and get the information right from the source. Then make up your own mind.

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”.

Well done! Excellent use of the Associative Conditioning in Jamming the emotional response. I'm a "thinking adult" so if I find credence in the "gay conspiracy" theory, linked to horrendous discrimination of historical proportions, then I'm bad, bad, bad, and I shouldn't think that way.

Maybe I'm mistaken and you have read the book. Or it is just that you've been particularly manipulated by the techniques described in the agenda?

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.

Couldn't have said it better myself. However, don't make the mistake in thinking I have fallen prey to the opposite one's propaganda. I can see that for what it is, too.

 

[aristotle]

Post #39 lifts the veil on Mr G's self-loathing cynicism and disillusionment with Western culture, America and Christianity, in particular. An interesting study in the arrested development of an undisciplined mind. Much sound and fury, signifying nothing.

 

[Turtle]

I don't believe that's what Mr G meant, and I know I disagree with Turtle's analysis.

Oh, but you should, 'cause my analysis is correct.

I believe that gay people are deprived of the same rights enjoyed by heterosexuals, just as women and blacks were in the past.

To some extent, sure. In some cases, even more so than other types of minorities. But in many cases the "rights" that homosexuals are claiming aren't even rights at all. Gay marriage, for example, isn't a right, but they sure call it one. They want it, so to them they should have it, therefore it's a right. And if you keep calling it a right long enough, other people will start to think it's a right, too.

Ironically, rights are inalienable, a.k.a., God-given. Ain't that a hoot? Most gays don't want to talk much about that, tho.

And just as one can't help one's gender or race, sexuality is not a "choice" one makes.

Of that we agree completely. Those who think you have a choice in who you are sexually attracted to, or who you fall in love with, are hypocritical in the extreme. Otherwise, I could point to someone at random and then say to you, "OK, now fall in love with that person," and you'd be able to do it as easily as choosing which pants to wear today, juuuust like that.

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?

You missed the point there. It's the homosexuals who use the "nonthreatening novelty" issue to equate the instinctive emotional response of "fight or flight" to that of the heterosexual's perception of the homosexual. Homosexuals don't trigger the same "fight or flight" response, but it does trigger an instinctive emotional response to "something different". But if something different hangs around long enough and you eventually see that it poses no threat, then you'll eventually begin to tolerate and ignore it, or even accept it as being a normal part of your environment. That's precisely what they are after.


Here's an analogy for you, and since I came up with it, I think it's a really good one.

You've driven out west, rural Wyoming or the Dakotas, and just a few feet off the road there is a herd of antelope grazing, usually just a handful, but in the more rural parts sometimes dozens or hundreds. Your truck passing them by causes them no alarm, because they are used to it, they've seen it happen time and time again with no bad effects, so
they tolerate it, they ignore it, they accept it as perfectly normal.

Now, you pull your truck off to the side of the road right there next to them and park. That's one they don't see very often, and it triggers an instinctive response, an alarm. Some take immediate flight, running away and putting a comfortable distance between them and you. Others have seen it before and know that it's probably harmless, but you've got their complete attention nonetheless.

Now, if you take it one step further and open your door and step outside, that's a little too rare for all but the most jaded, and they don't want to take any chances, they don't want any part of something that different. They're over the horizon before you can point and click, or aim and shoot.

These are instinctive responses, and they can be controlled and manipulated. If enough people were to park their cars on the side of the road without anything bad happening to the antelope, eventually they'd get comfortable with that, too, and it would be ignored, tolerated, accepted.

That's the Gay Agenda, or whatever you want to call it.

The denial of gay folks' rights is due to [and pushed forward by] the influence of organized religion,

That's true, but it's hardly the sole reason for the heterosexual aversion to homosexuality. There have been cultures where homosexuality was openly embraced, tho they didn't last that long and weren't as widely embraced as some revisionist historians make it out to be, but there have also been cultures completely devoid of organized religion where homosexuality was not tolerated even a little bit.

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.

Well, with very few exception, they really and truly do enjoy the same rights as the rest of us. They, right now, have the right to get married, just like you and I can. But I don't have the right to marry another man, and neither do they. But even at that, getting married isn't even a right, it's an institution borne of religion. A Civil Union, I have no problem with that, nor do many others. Same-sex couples should, absolutely, have the same legal rights and protections as opposite-sex couples. To deny them that is an abomination.

But the GLBT community isn't satisfied with merely having the same rights, the same legal protections that a Civil Union would provide, they want to go after the "M" word, they want to go after Marriage, because marriage is a symbol and an institution of religion, a religion that condemns homosexuality. So it's not really about equal rights at all, it's about winning.

 

[iceroadtrucker]

God made man then he made Women as his companion.
the Holy bible supports this.
Noah's Ark as the story goes God punished a man and condemned him to The Africa as we know of to day for getting drunk and taking Gayness with said. Not only was he condemned in the writing, but was to be Servant of his Brothers for Eternity.
Blame it on the Alcohol wine if you may but its in the Bible
OLD Testament go read it your self.

In the military it (Being GAY) is not condoned at all, they tend to disappear and get put out.
NO room for them.

Many unit's in the military their isn't no place for gays plain and simple. Not wanted not trusted.

Hence the USS YELLOWSTONE AD 41 Witch HUNT IN 1988. 30 some Girls got taken off that Command for admitting to be GAY.
IT all started with stinking threat note on Legal beagles Secretaries rack. NO LIE IT happened.

Have you ever seen a very good movie called the gladiator.

The Emperor Son not only Swung both ways but he killed his father because the Spaniard of which was the Emperor favorite general of which was picked by the Emperor to succeed him to the thrown. Long story short, if you seen the movie you know that the son killed the Emperor and blamed the Spaniard for killing his father. Well as the story goes.
The Spaniard got away but the Spaniard family was brutally murdered. Well the Spaniard end up becoming top gladiator and fighting the new Crowned Emperor. Well the Spaniard killed the Emperor then he died of a mortal wound himself.

Gays in the Military think about it.
There is no place for them.

A question was asked the other day about How do you defeat the Enemy.
Japan to win the war we killed the Families of a lot the Japanese army and Navy, ultimately Japan surrendered. Because of the Bomb.
Today, Maybe that would work to win a war.
But it would just Tick-off a true warrior.
Like for example holding ones money to hurt the person family.
Hint getting to ones family to Hurt or to get back at a person don't always work.
If someone did that to my family, Hence go watch the movie Gladiator.
Took a While mission Accomplished in the end.
A Very good movie.
Now getting back to gays, Noah's Ark and the bad boy + that was banished to Africa.
Need I say any more.

If you would only think you know its wrong.

Here is something else to ponder.
Carl Marks what he said about taking away the Reliance of Religion the people have and hence forth Giving of govt of which the people learn to solely depend.
What is happening now?
Think about it.
Bashing of religion
Bashing of Guns
More Govt intervention.
Personally I think the Legislative and Judaical that made it Legal for Same sex marriage in Iowa should get 1000 lashing with a bullwhip. just like in gladiator.
But hey I got a right to my opinion.

 

[aristotle]

Just a minor point, IRT..... don't you think 40 lashes, well laid-on, would be sufficient? Irate Iowans could re-enact the Michael Fay caning. Better yet, vote 'em out of office.

 

[pelicn]

Well, with very few exception, they really and truly do enjoy the same rights as the rest of us. They, right now, have the right to get married, just like you and I can. But I don't have the right to marry another man, and neither do they. But even at that, getting married isn't even a right, it's an institution borne of religion. A Civil Union, I have no problem with that, nor do many others. Same-sex couples should, absolutely, have the same legal rights and protections as opposite-sex couples. To deny them that is an abomination.

But the GLBT community isn't satisfied with merely having the same rights, the same legal protections that a Civil Union would provide, they want to go after the "M" word, they want to go after Marriage, because marriage is a symbol and an institution of religion, a religion that condemns homosexuality. So it's not really about equal rights at all, it's about winning.

Thank you! My thoughts exactly.

 

[RLENT]

taught reflex?

This is an Oxymoron.

Whadidja expect ?

...... it's psycho-babble from a book written by a psych and someone from Madison Avenue ... both fields being dubious sources of anything "science" .....

 

[LDB]

But the GLBT community isn't satisfied with merely having the same rights, the same legal protections that a Civil Union would provide, they want to go after the "M" word, they want to go after Marriage, because marriage is a symbol and an institution of religion, a religion that condemns homosexuality. So it's not really about equal rights at all, it's about winning.

Boiled down to the minimal truth of the matter.

 

[RLENT]

Those who think you have a choice in who you are sexually attracted to, or who you fall in love with, are hypocritical in the extreme.

Ahhhhh .... I dunno if I would go quite that far just yet ......

First off equating love and sexual attraction .... well, they aren't quite exactly the same thing now are they ?

"Falling in love" and being in love, and loving someone are really quite different in my book ..... the former is generally used to describe the initial sparks that fly at the onset of a relationship, and generally (but not always) includes sexual attraction as a component.

In actuality, it is a fairly shallow, although often quite pleasurable, thing. It is also often quite fleeting - but can eventually lead to the latter (actually being in love)

Actually being in love and loving someone is something that comes about over time, as one really gets to know the other party, as the relationship progresses, often over many years (10, 20, or more) - it is not at all a shallow or fleeting thing.

It is absolutely something that requires active participation and has to be worked at ...... and even then, the odds ain't that great .... mostly because it involves the human species and our faults and frailties are many ....

A being largely causes his own emotions ..... even if they are not always under his control at all times for various reasons. It is certainly true, at least in my experience, that one does have a choice about who one loves, and is in love with.

Believe me, if that were not the case, my wife and would probably not be married or together after almost 30 years - because it ain't all been all sweetness and light ... and a bed of roses ..... for the majority of them years .... for either one of us. Nevertheless here we are, 30 years later.

Otherwise, I could point to someone at random and then say to you, "OK, now fall in love with that person," and you'd be able to do it as easily as choosing which pants to wear today, juuuust like that.

Well, I'm afraid you are oversimplifying and trivializing the matter just a wee bit too much there .... the ramifications and consequences of choosing someone who is supposed to be your mate for Life are far, far more significant and important ...... than deciding whether it's going to be corduroy or denim for the day ......

Your premise that I quoted above uses flawed logic ..... because it assumes the significance or importance of the two things (love and pants) are the same .... and of course, they are not.

There's alot more I could say .... but I'll keep my powder dry for the moment .... and see where this goes ....

 

[aristotle]

Are we trying to apply logic to the shifting sands of human emotions?

 

[Turtle]

Ahhhhh .... I dunno if I would go quite that far just yet ......

I had a feeling that would catch your eye. hehe

First off equating love and sexual attraction .... well, they aren't quite exactly the same thing now are they ?

Well, I didn't equate them as being the same thing. It's women who equate sex with love, not me.

I listed them as two separate entities, separated by a comma, even. I suppose I could have written it in two sentences to clarify:

Those who think you have a choice in who you are sexually attracted to are hypocritical in the extreme.

Those who think you have a choice in who you fall in love with are hypocritical in the extreme.

I stand by both statements. You can be sexually attracted to someone and feel no love for them at all. That's why it's called an attraction. It's something that draws, attracts, allures, or entices. Magnets don't attract by choice, and neither do people. Love on the other hand is more of an emotional state, and while we do have some control over our emotions, that control is not total. Ever gotten mad even though you know you probably shouldn't? It's not something you chose to do, it merely happened. Actions are generally controlled, but not emotions.

"Falling in love" and being in love, and loving someone are really quite different in my book ..... the former is generally used to describe the initial sparks that fly at the onset of a relationship, and generally (but not always) includes sexual attraction as a component.

Love is a many splendored thing. It is what it is.

The fairly shallow, often fleeting, albeit pleasurable thing might not be love at all, but a case of falling in lust.

Actually being in love and loving someone is something that comes about over time, as one really gets to know the other party, as the relationship progresses, often over many years (10, 20, or more) - it is not at all a shallow or fleeting thing.

Yeah, sometimes it take a long time to fall in love with someone, but there are other times when it's nearly an instantaneous thing.

It is absolutely something that requires active participation and has to be worked at ...... and even then, the odds ain't that great .... mostly because it involves the human species and our faults and frailties are many ....

You're describing a long term relationship more than love here, where, like in a marriage, for example, where you have to work really hard to keep things together, despite the love that exists.

A being largely causes his own emotions ..... even if they are not always under his control at all times for various reasons. It is certainly true, at least in my experience, that one does have a choice about who one loves, and is in love with.

If you're not attracted to someone, you're probably going to "choose" to not fall in love with them, so yeah, I guess you could say that you can pick and choose who you want to be in love with. I'm not sure I buy the premise that you cause your own emotions even though they are not under your control, though. Emotions are, after all, an involuntary state of consciousness as opposed to a state of volition or cognition, and are triggered by external processes, like the eight basic emotions of fear, joy, surprise, acceptance, sadness, disgust, anger and anticipation. It is quite impossible to enter into any of those emotional states without invoking an external stimulus, so I'm not sure how one can cause their own emotions.

Incidentally, love is one of the complex emotions, a combination of two or more basic emotions, in this case a combination of joy and acceptance, often with the combined secondary emotions of affection, lust and longing.

Believe me, if that were not the case, my wife and would probably not be married or together after almost 30 years - because it ain't all been all sweetness and light ... and a bed of roses ..... for the majority of them years .... for either one of us. Nevertheless here we are, 30 years later.

Again, that's a testament to hard work and determination, as well as love. But there are people who get divorced who continue to love their ex. They don't stop loving them because the marriage failed. Conversely, there are many long term marriages completely devoid of love.

Well, I'm afraid you are trivializing the subject just a wee bit too much there .... the ramifications and consequences of choosing someone who is supposed to be your mate for Life are far, far more significant and important ...... than deciding whether it's going to be corduroy or denim for the day ......

I trivialize it because the notion of it being a choice is trivializing homosexuality. It's far easier to condemn someone for their choices than it is to to condemn them for being born a certain way, so that's what happens. In any case, sticking with the "choice theory", whether it's in choosing a mate for life or the type of pants you wear today, it's still a choice, regardless of how important it may be, and while it may take more thought to choose who to fall in love with than it does to pick a pair of pants out of the closet, in the end the process is still precisely the same. Some choices are very important, some not so much, as you can really make a bad choice in pants, like if you wear your clown pants to court. But I really don't think you can choose to fall in love with someone, or choose to be in love with someone, or chose to love someone. Either you love 'em or you don't.

Your premise that I quoted above uses flawed logic ..... because it assumes the significance or importance of the two things (love and pants) are the same .... and of course, they are not.

The only logic involved was in listing two examples of things that are choices. The significance or importance of the choice is irrelevant to it being a choice. Introducing things outside of the choice itself only muddies the issue. If you buy into sexual attraction being a choice, and you call it a choice, then it's a choice no different from any other choice you make, including choosing your pants, or what to order for lunch, or which loads to accept or reject. There may be many varied factors involved in making these decisions, but in the end you must make a choice and pick one.

I maintain that you can't pick and choose who you are attracted to, or to whom you are in love with.

There's alot more I could say .... but I'll keep my powder dry for the moment .... and see where this goes ....

Another example of something that is a choice. The rolled eyes, however, that's an emotion.

 

[MrGautama]

Let put the cards over the table:

- Turtle don't give me the grand BS about reading the book when you just copied, and in some instances didn't even bothered to reword, everything you said from THIS WEB PAGE courtesy of the wackos at MassResistance (of all places the cradle of rational thought!!).

- Aristotle please write something original and get off the turtleswagen groupie fan club, you can now unglue your lips from the back end of the reptile's shell.

- As Cherri said this is just another instance of the denial of rights to a minority. I think it's and example of the historic struggle to teach the square minded that discrimination is an abomination in all it's forms.

- What is wrong with an in your face approach to defending one's rights, without that kind of attitude during the civil rights movement maybe today the black driver parked besides you would have to go to a different washroom that you do at the truck stop... the one with the sign colored!.

- The resistance to gay rights and their effort to gain equal acceptance in society calling it things like the gay agenda or the homosexual conspiracy is the symptom of feeling threatened by something you don't understand. For me is very simple; if an individual feels towards someone of his or her own sex what I feel towards women then he or her is entitled to the same rights and not a watered down version of the ones I enjoy, period. Any attempt to justify discrimination by the rationalization of differences is bigotry.

- The argument proposing pedophilia as a sexual choice is idiotic, prepubescent children are not sexually attracted towards adults, making any contact of that nature an abuse and not a choice between consenting individuals. So Moot I think you won't enjoy the freedom to pursue 8 year old girls in the open in the foreseeable future.

- Well Turtle, what you call “gay agenda” I call “advocacy of cultural acceptance and normalization of non-heterosexual orientations and relationships ”, and they have been forced to devise techniques to advance their recognition and defeat the efforts of individuals like you that are devoted to maintain certain minority group excluded from full citizenship.

- Special Rights?, Here is another catch phrase bigots love to use to try to make gays look unreasonable. The “special rights” gays talk about are: marriage, adoption, open service in the military, protection against hate crimes and anti discrimination protection. The reality is that gays want to end their “special status” and become ordinary citizens like anybody else. Bigot or pawn... one or the other...

- Homosexuality and Children: Making homosexuality a taboo for children archives two objectives; create an fertile atmosphere for the development of bigotry, and pushes gays into the closet at a very early age. Explaining homosexuality to children as an legitimate part of the human experience is the way to ensure that future generations can move beyond this silly subject.

- “God made man then he made Women as his companion... the Holy bible supports this... OLD Testament go read it your self.”. If we are going to look for guidance in the words of the God of the old testament so eloquently described as “arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully”, we are going to get nowhere. So back to reason...

- Choice or Not?, Who gives a golden coprolite!, what difference does it make?.



There are only two options: you want to have an inclusive society or one where minorities are discriminated against?. Time to choose, can't have it both ways.



P.S. “Bigot is often used as a pejorative term to describe a person who is obstinately devoted to prejudices, especially when these views are either challenged, or proven to be false or not universally applicable or acceptable.”

 

[OntarioVanMan]

Yup lets label them washrooms...."Gay" and "Straights"
Wouldn't want to mix the classes.

Yup Gays..2nd class Americans WE the straights will tell them them what occupations WE find acceptable..

 

[cheri1122]

I'm puzzled over the reference to pedophiles - how did that get involved? The answer to Moot's question is that I think pedophiles should be locked away until an effective treatment is found. The discussion concerned consenting adults, not those [of either gender] who abuse children. That is unacceptable behavior, period.
I agree that marriage has 'enough problems' - heck, I couldn't manage more than 17 yrs myself. Still, it is society's best hope for stable family units, and I applaud those who want to make it work, gay or straight. I think we should be encouraging them to practice monogamy, not bashing them for it.
As for gays co-opting a religious tradition, hasn't religion co-opted a few itself?

 

[LDB]

Just for clarification, if same sex couples were allowed a civil union granting the same status re: insurance, inheritance, medical decisions etc. etc. that m/f h/w married people have but not the "marriage license" or legal term "married" the problem with that would be?

 

[OntarioVanMan]

Why problem....most states give common law status to straight couples not even married or civil union...I am wondering if they extend those laws for same sex?

 

[tallcal101]

Ok Leo,got it now:The wise man from Pearl Town TX wants :

1)No balcks in the military except in janitorial postions (their ignorant,even the smart ones)

2) No gays or lesbians need apply. Period.

3) No liberals,thats for sure.No Kool Aid drinkers,it cause's liberals to go crazy.

4) No pot heads.It's a gateway drug that leads to sweat pants and chitos for God's sake!!

5) No anti gun types,even if they want in. Keep the bums out !! Period!

3) Women,well maybe,if they know their place and keep their traps shut.

You know,I like the look of this white mans military. Everyone knows their place and they may be as succesful as the last last white President and his band of merry white men and 1 black "yes sir boss" woman.

Kuddo's Leo for more "Pearls" of wisdom from Pearl Town.

 

[MrGautama]

Just for clarification, if same sex couples were allowed a civil union granting the same status re: insurance, inheritance, medical decisions etc. etc. that m/f h/w married people have but not the "marriage license" or legal term "married" the problem with that would be?

None if you agree to accept those same term for you and your family!

 

[LDB]

Cal, you used to be an enjoyable participant when you discussed the issues. Now that all you can manage is intentionally and rudely dissing my home, bordering on personally insulting me as well as putting not just words but entire volumes into my mouth your posts are far less contributory than before. Hopefully you can find your old self again.

 

[LDB]

None if you agree to accept those same term for you and your family!

If anyone in my family were to choose a same sex union then I'd accept the same terms for them.