Nearly
???Just another fatality…
or a Freeper who attempted to cross scripter HWY.
Posted on 05/22/2003 12:47:51 PM PDT by Remedy
By Rev. Louis P. Sheldon
Chairman, Traditional Values Coalition
Dear Mr. Horowitz:
First off, I want to express my appreciation for the significant work you have done in exposing the anti-American Left in the United States. Your FrontPageMagazine web site and your Center for the Study of Popular Culture have been important educational tools for concerned citizens to use in fighting the "hate America" crowd.
However, your recent editorial, "Pride Before the Fall," published on May 20, 2003, deserves a careful response.
In it, you discuss a meeting I attended along with other religious leaders with Republican National Committee Chairman Marc Racicot. The meeting was to discover the reasoning behind Racicot’s recent meeting with members of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), a leftist homosexual group based in Washington, DC.
You attacked our meeting with Racicot as an example of intolerance and suggested we might exercise a bit more humility in addressing the issue of homosexuality.
I believe your comments were based upon two inaccurate assumptions about homosexual activism and homosexuality in general.
In the first place, you seem to be basing your views about homosexuality upon the incorrect assumption that homosexuality is genetic and unchangeable. This is untrue. Even homosexual researchers have now admitted that there’s no such thing as a "gay gene" and that homosexuality is a behavior.
I would urge you to read some of these comments, which have been published by the National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). Their comments are available in "The Innate-Immutable Argument Finds No Basis in Science: In Their Own Words: Gay Activists Speak About Science, Morality, Philosophy".
In addition, Exodus International, a national group of ex-homosexuals, has produced a good deal of material on the causes and cures of homosexuality. I would encourage you to access the Exodus International web site for details: Exodus International.
Traditional Values Coalition has published a number of Homosexual Urban Legends that explain various faulty information and assumptions presented by homosexual activists. I would encourage you to read these: Homosexual Urban Legends.
Second, homosexual activists are not content to be tolerant of Christians and other faith groups or of our beliefs about homosexuality as a sin and a sexual perversion. Homosexual groups like HRC are determined to silence any opposition to the homosexual agenda. They are working aggressively to impose restrictions on our freedom of speech, freedom of association, and freedom of religion—in public, private, and religious organizations. These efforts are typically carried out by imposing speech codes in schools and by passing "hate crime" laws that punish speech and religious expression.
Homosexuals are intolerant of anyone who opposes their agenda. And what is this agenda? It has been spelled out repeatedly throughout the past thirty years.
For example, at the 1993 homosexual March on Washington, homosexual activists issued a detailed list of their demands and goals. Among those demands was the lowering of the age of sexual consent so that homosexuals can gain legal access to children; the abolition of any laws prohibiting sexual behavior between "consenting adults" (legalizing prostitution and sodomy); and the passage of laws prohibiting so-called "discrimination" against drag queens, transsexuals, or cross-dressers in public employment. The March on Washington demands are available here: 1993 March on Washington Demands.
In 1987, two homosexual activists outlined how they would "overhaul straight America" in an article published by Guide magazine. These strategists created a marketing strategy designed to vilify their opponents and to portray themselves as "victims" in a media blitz that has gone on for years. You will learn a great deal about the homosexual agenda by reading this article: "The Overhauling of Straight America."
As a former Communist, you are undoubtedly aware of the Marxist background of Harry Hay, who is considered the father of the modern-day homosexual "rights" movement. Hay formed the Mattachine Society and based it upon the Communist cell principle and revolutionary activism.
You are also undoubtedly aware of Leslie Feinberg, a radical Marxist and male-to-female transgender who is an editor with the Worker’s World Party. Feinberg is fueling both transgender activism (blurring the distinctions between male and female) as well as being a major influence in the anti-war efforts by ANSWER and other anti-American groups. Feinberg and others view homosexuality and transgenderism as "sexual liberation" from all social norms.
The Human Rights Campaign is now partnering with GenderPac, a transgender group based in Washington, DC. HRC has also sponsored a "Two Spirit" event with transgender groups. At this conference, sexually confused girls were shown how to have their breasts removed so they could become "men."
This is where the homosexual movement is headed—and this is why Traditional Values Coalition is so opposed to the normalization of homosexuality and transgenderism in our society. These sexually confused individuals need counseling, not societal approval or "tolerance."
It is my hope that you will carefully read the resources I’ve mentioned to you in this letter and that you will take a principled stand against the spread of sexual confusion in our nation. Our children deserve to be protected from the purveyors of sexual perversion and dysfunction. We do them a disservice by "tolerating" those who wish to prey upon our children and who wish to stifle free speech and religion.
Sincerely,
Rev. Louis P. Sheldon
Chairman
Traditional Values Coalition
Please do, since you've posted only one of the more than fifty summaries, this one being the most innocuous of them. Why don't you post several of the highly perjorative summaries and show the whole picture?
Oh, but that would show how utterly dishonest you are, wouldn't it?
Just who, exactly do you think you're fooling? Do you think I, and my fellow Freepers, are such dullards that your simplistic contortions of the truth aren't going to be spotted? You're unbelievable. And you really need to get a life and quit beating this dead horse. It was a boring and circular argument with you long ago. This little digression is well past its shelf life.
Demonstrated? I'm sorry if my response was so equivocal as to be taken as a mere demonstration. Let me make it clear: I AM NOT INTERESTED! Any questions?
I can only be highly amuzed at this response of yours. I'm coming to believe you're either so blindly dedicated to your position that you're simply incapable of seeing anything I'm pointing out to you, or you simply have no conscience about committing outright lies.
I'm done arguing with you about whether or not I've given you reasonable explanations. You say I haven't, but this thread is publicly acessible and anyone with the time or interest can see that I clearly have. That's my last word on that dead horse.
Also, I'm highly amuzed that you continue to accuse me of obfuscating (how many times have you used that word now? Was that a new word on your vocabulary builder audiocassettes?), when you've completely avoided - read: obfuscated - answering my question about whether you would accept, at face value, a treatise on the Christian agenda in America written by atheists.
Clearly you would not. You've avoided answering this because it demonstrates quite clearly how deceitful your ambivalence is. You know damn well you wouldn't accept - or even give a disspassionate consideration to - a treatise on the Christian agenda written by atheists. Nevertheless, you have the audacity to accuse me of obfuscation because I also won't accept an obviously biased polemic without consideration.
Clearly this proves how shockingly obtuse you can be. Clearly this shows that you know you're rhetoric is flawed, but disingenuously, you keep hammering away at the same line as if it hadn't been thoroughly debunked already.
You've lost this little round of sparring and your fragile fundamentalist ego simply won't let you admit it. That, poor soul, is pathetic.
I've asked you what pages you want scanned and you haven't specifically answered, but instead said "Why don't you post several of the highly perjorative summaries and show the whole picture."
You also said: "her summary is sparse on full quotes, and she rewords the points in very loaded terms" and since you seem unwilling to specify an exact reference I went with the first point. I'm sorry if that one post that seemed to fit your above definition made you look like a complete fool here, but that's what happens when you have no idea what you're talking about.
So if you want to be embarrassed and shown to be the complete fool you are in this regard, which point would you like scanned? Once scanned we can move on to the next point unless of course you're not really interested in knowing the truth.
Perhaps you believe the ends justify the means, so you say whatever you want and hope you'll get away with it. Um, that progaganda tactic is in the book as well, see points two and three here.
Oh yeah, one more thing, if you stop with the obfuscation I'll stop pointing it out. See, it's really easy to stop reading the word obfuscation, just stop with the obfuscation. I think I can summarize your points so far in three words: obfuscation, obfuscation, obfuscation.
So, gimme a number between 2 and 62, inclusive, and we can continue.
Nearly
???Just another fatality…
or a Freeper who attempted to cross scripter HWY.
Not only did he get crushed crossing where his ignorance, pride or whatever it was led him, but he was later highlighted to make it really obvious.
I'd prefer to resuscitate him with the truth but he's shown no interest in knowing the truth. That in itself is of great concern to me as he's completely fallen for the tactics used by those pushing the gay agenda.
I suppose you didn't realize it was a holiday weekend, you know, Memorial Day?
You feel the need to spin this discussion (for lack of a better word) as if I'm the "complete fool" here. However, I'm perfectly content letting the context of this discussion speak for itself and letting others decide which of us is the fool. I'm not the least bit concerned about my countenance, while you seem to be almost lobbying to salvage your credibility. Frankly, you've strained it badly.
Now, go away. I'm not entertaining you anymore. I'm getting perturbed by your almost stalker-like obsessive need to get a response from me.
I'm sorry if I embarrassed you even more by pinging others and bumping the thread, further demonstrating your willingness to stay ignorant on this issue. Your refusal to provide me with specific information speaks volumes.
You said you were tired of reading the word obfusction yet you continue with the obfuscation and misdirection.
You should be as your credibility is on the line here. I want as many folks as possible to see just how wrong you are, just how far you'll go to try and save face.
Oh, that's right, you really don't want to know the truth here.
Hmm... Now you're throwing me mixed signals again. Should I continue or not? I mean, you did say to continue but you didn't give me a number to continue with.
Oh no, more mixed signals... So you didn't really mean it when you asked me to please continue?
Which summary is, to use your own words, highly perjorative?
If I pick a number you'll probably, again, say it's most innocuous. Should I move on to point 2? We can do this sequentially until we reach the end if you want.
The state government can and does have the right to enact state laws governing behavior. Period.
The fact that those laws are enacted by "republican" representatives rather than by direct "democratic" vote is not the issue.
LOL :) You seem to have a burr up your arse in regards to something; specifically, what I'm not sure and could care less.
You're the one who started the "republican" vs. "democratic" form of federal government sophistry. I simply pointed out that it was irrelevant since we were discussing a *states* issue. Get over it.
-- Why do you WANT states to be able to ignore our constitution?
:-)
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzztttttt. Nice try. Thanks for playing!
Like your personal opinion of the matter, mine is also irrelevant.
The facts of the case are that the states are not prohibited by the Constitution from enacting laws governing personal behavior. Murder, buggering chickens, pedophiles, prostitution etc... they do all the time. If homosexual buggery is near and dear to your heart, by all means, work to get the *state* law revoked... just don't try to dream up some sort of Constitutional right to it and expect to be taken seriously.
Further replys ignored since we seem to be deadlocked.
Have a nice day :)
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.