Procter & Gamble pushes homosexual agenda

American Family Association ^ | 10/12/2004 | Don Wildmon

[William Terrell]

Did you visit the source site, click on the links therein? Did you check donor lists in Cincinnati and in Ohio both for the Ohio marriage protection act and the other causes mentioned?

Out & Equal and Gaywork would probably the very places this companies alleged activities would not be discussed. While I agree unbased rumors should not be spread, I'm at a loss to know where to go to find direct evidence of internal company polices and practices, homosexual makeup of its staff and other allegations.

In this case, what if it is true, and as subversive and destructive as the article says? Should we just brush the allegations off because there are no places on the web that present evidence, the nature of which being unlikely to be distributed?

The very fact that a company would be willing to alienate 90% of their market to capture 3% of its potential market, plus another possible 7% fellow travelers, would be absurd. But that commercial exists, and doubtless others like it.

Nor are they the only large company to have been increasingly advocating these personal and marketing practices.

[pharmamom]

Help me understand this. I thought Free Republic was about individual liberty. How does what two consenting adults do in their bedroom impinge on my liberty? Homosexuality cannot be "caught" like a virus or "taught" like a skill. I don't want my kids learning how to have homosexual sex (or really any kind of sex) in school. I don't think homosexual deserve "special" rights than no one else gets. I think the AIDS activists who seem to deny that AIDS is largely a lifestyle disease are deluded and dangerous. But I just am not bothered by the thought that two people of the same sex are intimate. Nor does it bother me that a company would offer benefits to employees with same-sex or unmarried partners. I think we have lots of other stuff we should be concerned about before we waste a lot of energy on this.

[Colofornian]

I don't want my kids learning how to have homosexual sex (or really any kind of sex) in school.

You just don't get it, do you? Homosexual activists long ago moved this issue well beyond what people do in their bedroom.

They introduced pride parades, making it an issue about about what they elevate as an entire movement. (And, in case you haven't noticed, movements aren't interested in small concessions).

They wanted corporations to equalize health benefits and therefore be treated on the same par as married couples. In other words, they wanted Corporate America not simply to define such a partnership as mere sex, but instead to launch an entire movement to redefine marriage and family.

Now they've moving to totally redefine marriage as any number of people who love each other, which would include 5 men and 6 women in a group marriage; polygamists; bigamists; mix & match 'em! As you can see, such an enterprising definition of marriage and family shows this is no longer simply about sex.

And what? You think that once this right is fully won, kids won't be taught about ALL aspects of social science? You are naive to think that this will remain in Sex Ed class. Nope. Movements are taught in history classes. Family configurations are taught in civics/social science classes. Just as schools celebrate Martin Luther King's birthday, we'll also have Stonewall set-aside days where gay speakers will come in and share their struggle against homophobia and bigotry (anybody who doesn't share their worldview). We already have such speakers coming into some schools for such presentations.

Homosexual athletes who will be "pet role models" of certain educators will be part of the phys ed curricula. As for math, marriage will no longer be 1 + 1; but rather, since it's only about what consensual adults do in their bedroom (to use your language), what's wrong with what 4 heterosexual men, two bisexuals, and 4 mix & match women being part of a 10 polyamorist clan doing what they do in their bedroom post their 10-person marriage?

How does what two consenting adults do in their bedroom impinge on my liberty?

Worldview collision...hey, either the worldview that homosexuality is unnatural is allowed to be expressed in the public square, or, as it is in Canada, it will be squelched with fines, broadcast censorship, corporate admonitions, diversity training sessions, etc. In other words, tolerance of a private lifestyle is not enough for gay activists. You MUST accept, respect and dignify their lifestyle. All people should be treated with dignity and respect--that is true. But it doesn't mean we should respect and dignify all cultural lifestyles any more than I have to dignify the bribery, polygamy, or cannibalization that's been done in other cultures in times & places in human history.

When polygamy is again legalized in this country, your opinions about polygamy--if they are negative--will be forced into the closet, lest you be openly identified as an intolerant bigot who militates vs. inclusiveness and diversity and multiculturalism, making places of employment and schools and etc. as "unsafe" for people to work and learn. Name me just one pro-homosexual marriage argument that doesn't apply to any marital arrangement.

That's why Free Republic is about liberty.

[Colofornian]

Homosexuality cannot be "caught" like a virus or "taught" like a skill.

That's like saying a woman who was sexually abused with sadistic sexual violence as a child would never embrace such a practice as an adult. That's like saying that any number of sexual thrills picked up as a child--be they heterosexual, homosexual, or whatever, aren't translated into adulthood.

What? You're saying that children can never be trained to engage in deviant sexual or violent behavior? That a child who is hit as an adult won't hit as a parent unless he is genetically predisposed? That a boy who is raped as a child won't have at least a slight % more propensity to rape a child as an adult?

I mean how many prostitutes or those in the sexual entertainment industry will tell you they were abused as minors by heterosexuals? What? That sexual behavior didn't influence their current lifestyles? What? These folks are simply (and only) acting out their genetic sexual orientation?

Just because with some people you cannot trace the source of their sexual direction, does not mean it's all in the genes. See post #75 for more details.

[pharmamom]

I didn't say I was pro-gay marriage. Nor do I deny that there is a slippery slope issue here. But a corporation giving benefits to same-sex or living-together-but-not-married couples does not imply an endorsement of the redefinition of marriage. It's just good business, so that they can attract the best people.

Yes, the flagrant "outing" of some homosexuals bothers me. And I don't want sexuality discussed on a regular basis in any of my kids' classes. And I agree that political correctness in government schools has gone off the edge of reason (Max just had "Explorers' Day" instead of Columbus Day).

That said, the majority of homosexuals live quiet, non-descript lives just like the rest of us. And homosexuality is at least partly biologically determined and partly determined by experiences so early in life as to be determinative.

I think how we express ourselves sexually is a choice--and as such, does not need to be addressed in school. Meaning, I don't think the reason anyone needs to be introduced to children is their sexuality.

What would be the worst-case scenario of successful gay activism, the polygamy issue aside, which I don't think would ever go anywhere? Like I said, homosexuals don't recruit members like a social club. Most of them are just folks. If the worst you can think of is that someone will try to get polygamy legalized...take a look at what has happened in Utah. Homosexuality had nothing to do with Mormon polygamy, and the church and the state both have banned it.

[pharmamom]

That's like saying that any number of sexual thrills picked up as a child--be they heterosexual, homosexual, or whatever, aren't translated into adulthood.

There is a difference between pedophilia and homosexuality. Heterosexuals can be pedophiles too. A homosexual is by definition an adult interested in adults of the same sex.

[Colofornian]

There is a difference between pedophilia and homosexuality. Heterosexuals can be pedophiles too. A homosexual is by definition an adult interested in adults of the same sex.

Yes, I agree. But to cite one study, just because you can say that over 60% of homosexuals can clearly point to no abuse/pedophilia issues in their childhood background, the fact that perhaps up to almost 40% of homosexuals say they were sexually abused/molested as children does play a significant part in orienting people certain ways. And not all of those sexual abuse cases involved homosexuals. For example, some women, having been raped as girls, are totally turned off by men; some have turned to lesbian relationships. So I'm not automatically talking about homosexual pedophiles.

My point is simple: You say homosexuality cannot be caught like a virus. Well, what about heterosexual men who abuse girls who then become lesbians. Can you not point to sexual trauma as a child leading to lesbianism? What about homosexual men who abuse boys who go on to become homosexuals? Can you not point to that sexual trauma for those children as a training factor where indeed the cycle of unnatural orientations are passed down?

[pharmamom]

And the second part of what I said holds true--if not genetic, then sexuality is largely determined by events in childhood that take place so early and are so compelling as to be determinative.

I don't want to have homosexuality pushed in my face anymore than you do. Come to think of it, I get pretty tired of the heterosexual sexuality that is pushed on us by advertisers and movies and magazines...I don't want my kids exposed to that either.

I'd like a return to the time where what one did in one's bedroom was not a topic of discussion, advertisement, tv show, etc.,etc., etc.

[pharmamom]

Hey, I'm enjoying this exchange, but I have to go to bed. The problem with morning is it comes too early.

[Colofornian]

It's just good business, so that they can attract the best people.

There are estimates that up to 25,000 people currently live in polygamous families in Utah; then there are thousands more in No. Arizona in two communities near the Utah border. So, you're saying that all Utah businesses would be justified in starting to provide domestic partnership benefits for those who have multiple partner sexual orientations (all partners) because (a) it's just good Utah business; and (b) they can better assure themselves of attracting the "best people."

And then, I suppose, with a straight face, you're going to tell me that such a decision would (c) have no relationship were it to be interpreted by some to endorsing polygamy; and (d) would not help usher in the eventual re-legalization of polygamy in this country.

If you can convince me of that, I'd hire you as my used car salesman or highest-paying telemarketer!

I can just imagine you working for such a company, trying to explain the dichotomy to your teen-age daughter: "Dad, your company pays for doctor costs for three wives?" "Yup." "And your company's polygamy group uses the company newsletter, company-wide e-mails, company library, and company annual conferences where your CEO speaks?" "Yup." "And your company told you at diversity training last year that any frame of reference talking about only one wife was to be frowned upon because it comes across as elitist and presents an unsafe working environment to those with more than one?" "Yup." "And your company places ads in the regional Polygamy Gazette and PBS (Polygamy Broadcasting System)?" "But you say your company doesn't promote polygamy?" "Nope." "You say that your company hasn't redefined marriage and the family?" "Nope."

"Whatever you say, Dad." says Junior.

[Colofornian]

a corporation giving benefits to same-sex or living-together-but-not-married couples does not imply an endorsement of the redefinition of marriage.

Good night to you...parting comment for the night for ya: Some corporations provide domestic partnership benefits for heterosexual couples who simply live together. Are you consistent, then, in attempting to claim that such benefits do not imply endorsement of cohabitation?

Is not cohabitation by its very nature an attempt to redefine the man-woman relationship?

Is it not a fact that the domestic violence rate is higher in cohabiting relationships? Is it not a fact that the divorce rate is significantly higher among couples who live together first and then marry than those who never lived together prior to marriage?

That being the case, then is not a company's sanctioning of heterosexual cohabitation a cultural endorsement of a lifestyle that results in (a) more victims of domestic violence; and (b) more divorces. Now how is that a pro-employee policy "good for business"--a policy that ultimately harms more people? Likewise, there are other fallouts (health-wise, etc.) of embracing homosexual lifestyles.

[scripter]

I'd like a return to the time where what one did in one's bedroom was not a topic of discussion, advertisement, tv show, etc.,etc., etc.

Hear hear!

[ClancyJ]

What in the heck does that mean?

So, I'm against trashing a company because of any number of smear campaigns - satanism, homosexuality recruiting. Gee, sorry. Thought we were to fight political battles here - not destruction of top corporations over some claim someone decides to post on FR.

Wonder if any one ever thought that maybe diversity and political correctness might be the root cause of this nonsense rather than the evil empire of the corporation.

Companies have to be diverse nowadays. So, if a corporation decides to allow employees to get grants or whatever over community activities, then they have lost the right to "control" which activities those employees pursue. So, an employee is an activist - they are abusing the system not necessarily the whole corporation.

Don't you think there are plenty of people at P&G that find such activism irritating?

I would expect that this is not the corporate culture but the fact of diversity and pc directives being grasped by the activists who landed jobs. Then what recourse does the corporation have?

It is not always the corporation to blame - it is individual employees, government directives run loose.

[ClancyJ]

You might need to broaden your boycott list to include all the Fortune 500 companies. Guess this should mean any of your stock investments also. Golly, why invest in a stock when that corporation is doing something you don't like.

If you have a financial advisor - be sure to give him the boycott list so your money does not go to your list of corporations.

[ClancyJ]

...And, if you talk to any folks at any of the Cincy homosexual rights activist groups where P&G employees serve as board of directors or co-leaders or other leadership roles, they'll tell you that they're in favor of redefining marriage as well and that gays & lesbians...

Oh - here it is - the key point of your argument, "where P&G employees serve as board of directors or co-leaders"

I don't see P&G there - I see employees of a corporation.

Now - you just go check out all the employees of all of the Fortune 500 companies and see what they are involved in that you don't agree with.

THE PROBLEM YOU ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT IS WITH 'EMPLOYEES' - NOT P&G.

And just what is P&G to do about their employees' activities away from work?

You are slandering a corporation - P&G - because they have a few gay activists. Well - I am sure there are gay activists all over the country. Are you boycotting their companies also?

[ClancyJ]

I think it is stupid to boycott a corporation because of what its employees do. If that makes me a hypocrit, so be it.

Wonder why it is always P&G that boycott threads are started on. I never see boycott threads on Johnson & Johnson, Chevy, Exxon, AT&T, Cingular, Microsoft, Dell, Burlington, American Airlines, Macy's, Neiman's, Honda, Toyota, IBM, etc., etc, etc.,

I would bet that there are bad activities at all of those companies. Where are the boycott threads???????????

[ClancyJ]

...May I ask what sexual orientation you are?
....

The gall of you asking that poster that. What business is it of yours? Aren't we getting a little hung up on sex here?

[unlearner]

"Help me understand this. I thought Free Republic was about individual liberty. How does what two consenting adults do in their bedroom impinge on my liberty?"

Is an addict free? Is being a slave to drugs free? Is being a slave to sexual perversion free?

Does engaging in sex automatically make two people married and thereby a family? You are not simply asking us to ignore what is done in secret. You are asking us to publicly agree with homosexuals that what they do is OK. Giving insurance or other benefits on the basis that two people engage in sex is asking for society to condone it.

Should my share of costs be higher in order to provide medical insurance to someone who is engaging in risky sexual behavior?

You claim that homosexuality does not spread. You are incorrect. During formative years we all are influenced by what we see and hear as we develop our gender identity and a sexual imprint (largely influence by our first sexual encounter). There are more homosexuals today than ever before in our nation.

To confuse the behavior of sodomy with a type or class of person is a fundamental fallacy. You presume that two homosexuals can enter into a relationship that is comparable to a husband and wife. A homosexual couple is nothing more than two perverts becoming codependent and engaging in mutually reinforced destructive behavior.

When you accept homosexuals as a class of people, rather than seeing homosexuality as a type of destructive behavior, it will follow that society must adjust to accommodate this behavior. We must not object to two men kissing in public or on our family TV programs. We must teach our children that this is acceptable behavior. We must allow homosexuals to adopt children. They must be allowed to be our children's teachers, doctors, guidance counselors, etc.

You also said "But I just am not bothered by the thought that two people of the same sex are intimate. "

You should be bothered. Exposure to sexual immorality and perversion has desensitized you to them. This will also carry over into your ability to objectively empathize with others' feelings. It will affect your ability to evaluate right and wrong on the basis of your conscience.

At the heart of your argument is the privacy issue. Yes, we have a fundamental right to privacy in a limited sense. It does not mean that anything a person does in private does not affect others and should not be governed by the rules of society. For example, if someone views pornographic images of children being raped, and collects these images in PRIVATE, should there be legal consequences?

You may answer, "Of course". But some places are actually using this logic to make policy and law.

[ClancyJ]

I wonder if homosexuality in the young is a defect in the puberty stage whereby the gays do not progress to the next stage of maturity (when boys discover an interest in girls that obsesses them from then on).

If you will notice there is usually an immaturity in other areas as well. Notice the silly spats that gays have, the more juvenile interests - seems there is an emotional immaturity also.

I really feel there is some step or trigger that does not happen in the gays. This is where they find out they are different, they don't understand and they find they just do not fit in with the girl-crazy guys any longer. They then seek people more like them. And, tragedy ensues.

I also believe some people choose to be homosexual, but I also know that generally human sexuality is not something that every person sits down and makes a decision on in puberty. Seems that the interest is pretty definite without any possibility of making the other choice.

Now - all - no need to chastise me for this opinion. It is not up for debate as I am not at all interested in getting involved in name calling here. I think homosexuality is a horrible tragic problem that our society is faced with.

I also think it is totally unfair for our young teenagers to have to handle problems like these. Who in the world is mature enough to handle them - much less teenagers?

[little jeremiah]

I guess you didn't read Jim Robinson's statement the beginning of which is on the Free Republic home page.

"As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc."