Procter & Gamble pushes homosexual agenda

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

[Colofornian]

I thought companies held sensitivity training in part to shield themselves from class action lawsuits

There is a difference in how some companies handle sensitivity training. Some simply focus on diversity, multiculturalism and being sensitive to folks of different races & cultures.

A growing % of publicly traded companies invite homosexual activist change-agents in to re-educate the "unenlightened" that their Christian worldview is wrong.

There's a big difference. When you start treating some "minority" sexual orientation groups as "minorities," where do you draw the line? You can't. Once you open the door and say a sexual behavior is worthy of their reeducation efforts and discrimination policies and health benefits and marketing efforts, then ALL sexual minorities fall under that exact same umbrella.

[Colofornian]

The constant attempts to trash an American corporation over any number of stupid claims is ridiculous and affects our economy.

Hey, as your babysitter takes your $ for her night's work and heads down to the local crack house down the street in full view of you, just repeat that mantra to yourself...The constant attempts to trash American self-employed folks over any number of stupid claims is ridiculous and affects our economy...The constant attempts to trash American self-employed folks over any number of stupid claims is ridiculous and affects our economy..."

There. Now doncha feel better?

[Slipperduke]

Surely, at a time like this, there is so much more in the world to be concerned about aside from whether a man who makes washing-up liquid takes it up the bum?

Come on, chaps.

[BikerNYC]

Well, let's see, P&G has formally sanctioned GABLE (Gay and Bisexual Lesbian Employees @ P&G), which means that Gable discriminates against all other forms of sexual minorities.

I hear from a friend that Pfizer officially sanctions a gay Pfizer employees group. I don't buy Pfizer drugs anymore. After I complete research into the other major drug companies, I may just have to stop filling my prescriptions altogether.

[unlearner]

You said: I'm so sorry, but "What Every FReeper Should Boycott, Volumes 1-56878736726455, Including Subsection ZZZ3297534756", is no longer accepting submissions.

Nice try, but I did not advise the boycott. The author of the article did. I posted it FYI.

I am hoping that it will result in useful feedback.

Personally, I may boycott some products, like Tide and Crest, both of which I use.
Choices of employment, product selection and stock investments are some of the ways we can influence our culture. But these are personal decisions.

Because of how I view homosexuality, it bothers me to think I may be contributing to the riches of some people who are committed to the destruction of what I believe in.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

What's this about Prostate & Coli?

[GOP_1900AD]

Many of the Fortune 500s have muddled together generic, Gramscian change-agent-ism with such initiatives as Six Sigma, management performance tuning, employee potential development, community corporate citizenship, ethical investing, and a number of other "good face to the public" sorts of things. Deny it though some here may, it is often those very same Gramscian change agents, who have *personal* and *externally directed, coordinated and driven* agendas for facilitating change within corporate four walls, and ultimately, from the corporate walls *into the general national and international polity!* Do not underestimate the degree to which the Gramscian Marxists long ago identified corporations as a *key vehicle* meritting their subversion and ultimate full control!

[Colofornian]

Surely, at a time like this, there is so much more in the world to be concerned about aside from whether a man who makes washing-up liquid takes it up the bum? Come on, chaps.

Jesus spent almost as much time talking about money and being good stewards of resources as He did on things thought to be "more spiritual." I can just imagine you lecturing Him:

"Surely, Jesus, you've just got three short years in your public ministry, and from what I hear about the inside scoop of what you've been tellin' your disciples, at a time like this--on the verge of you doin' something potentially world-changing, there is so much more in the world to be concerned about aside from whether certain lifestyles out there wound up being passed down to children [see Matthew 18:6-7]."

[Colofornian]

I hear from a friend that Pfizer officially sanctions a gay Pfizer employees group. I don't buy Pfizer drugs anymore. After I complete research into the other major drug companies, I may just have to stop filling my prescriptions altogether.

There are a lot of corporations that formally sanction Gay and Lesbian, etc. employee groups...AT&T having taken the initial lead on that. Other corporations simply allow informal employee groups to meet. I think it's fine for corporations to allow freedom of assembly for informal employee groups; sanctioning it is another matter.

[Slipperduke]

"certain lifestyles out there wound up being passed down to children"

Brilliant. The old 'homosexuality is heriditary' argument. There is one flaw with that one, but I'll leave you to find it out.

Save your letter writing for something important, you sound like you've got a lot of energy, Channel it properly and you'll be a force for something special, I'm sure.

[Colofornian]

My best friends wife is an employee and has never had this "training and indoctrination" as you suggest, I also have family members who are employees. The company has for years been a target of this kind of slander. They are a big company, well respected and very much envied. This kind of stuff comes up every so often and its usually backed by their competition who can't compete with P&G for quality and price. The add on the website proves nothing. It's an ad for a clothes de-wrinkling product. The wording on the left is not part of the ad and isn't connected to P&G. What you are touting as proof is a big stretch. I dont think it belongs on this forum.

To avoid a big broad brush and to be fair to P&G, I heard that because it was such a big TV ad spender that P&G has been a catalyst in the past to try and address Hollywood's programming folks to improve the quality of TV programming. Frankly, P&G, paying the bills for such programming, was tired of being linked w/such on-air mush. It wanted more family-friendly fare.

Still, there's no getting around it. Key P&G employees are local Cincy homosexual activists, including Gary Wright. P&G wrote a check of $10,000 to Wright's group to try to overturn an upcoming local vote that addresses "sexual orientation."

Wright's group and P&G wants "sexual orientation" to be a late adjunct to the Civil Rights Act. In other words, they want to write into statutes and ordinances that overt sexual behavior is tantamount to race and is therefore to be afforded the same "discrimination" protection that minorities by race have. When you call P&G, they don't deny giving this $. They simply say it's part of their diversity promotion campaign.

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 (& who knows how many other alternative sexual orientation folks) should be able to marry.

If every relationship is a potential marriage, then nothing is marriage.

[Stone Mountain]

I think we should start a "Stoopid Boycott" ping list. :)

I like this idea. Particularly because I believe that most boycotts are completely counter-productive. The Last Temptation of Christ would have been a movie that none of us had heard of except for the religious groups that protested it. Sean Penn has just given Parker and Stone a ton of free publicity for their movie with his stupid criticisms. I think that it's possible that some boycotts could conceivably work in a limited way, but for the most part, the publicity that boycotts create almost always backfires on the protestors.

[unlearner]

"Surely, at a time like this, there is so much more in the world to be concerned about aside from whether a man who makes washing-up liquid takes it up the bum? "

I disagree.

Sodomy is an out of control lust that consumes those who engage in it.

This behavior is becoming more and more public. TV shows, movies, billboards, magazine covers, and more bombard all of us, including children, with the message that perversion is OK, should be tolerated, should be embraced.

When children are exposed to this destructive propaganda, there is a real risk of damaging the sexual imprint of their gender identity. This exacerbates the problem as society becomes filled with more people pushing the envelope of accepted norms of sexual behavior.

Incidents of rape, sexual abuse of children, and sexual slavery go hand in hand with society giving itself over to sexual pleasure and experimentation.

This leads to, among other ills, more disease and more broken homes.

[Prophet in the wilderness]

GOOD REASON TO BECOME A CHEVY ( REAL MAN ) unless, other company's have the libs and gays in the pockets of these company's.
LETS VOTE ALSO WITH OUR WALETS>
BOYCOTT P7G , FORD, or any other company that don't support our values,
By the way, CBS, NBC, ABC, PMS ( PBS ) CNN, LET"S BOYCOTT ALL OF THEM and COMPANYS THAT THAT SUPPORT THE LIBS AGENDA.
MONEY TALKS, and you know what walks.

[Colofornian]

Brilliant. The old 'homosexuality is heriditary' argument. There is one flaw with that one, but I'll leave you to find it out. Save your letter writing for something important, you sound like you've got a lot of energy, Channel it properly and you'll be a force for something special, I'm sure.

So 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?

You live in a small world, my friend, if you think that the direction of sexual energy is only an inherent, non-behavioral issue 100% of the time.

Studies vary on percentages, but some say as much as almost 40% of all homosexuals were sexually abused or molested as minors. An 18-year study (1973-1991) of ads in the homosexual publication, THE ADVOCATE (Los Angeles) show that 1/3rd of all ads targeted minors. Now that's not to say that 30% plus gays are pedophiles...I'm sure somebody would make the argument that in an era of AIDS, promiscuous gays were simply being practical by attempting to lower their chances of contracting an STD by having sex with younger, less-experienced "clients"...just as heterosexual male inmates may engage in homosexual sex simply because they're being practical.

Tell me why some homosexual activist groups, when they have printed out an agenda (I know, that's a loaded word, but call it what you may), have advocated for lowering the age of consent?

Even a PFOX billboard mentioned by a WorldNetDaily article cites an APA statement that "There are no replicated studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality" (May 2000). So what? The APA is wrong?

[Prophet in the wilderness]

by the way ? It's my FIRST AMMENMENT RIGHT !!! OF FREE SPEACH AND MORAL DUTY !!!!!!!!!!! TO ASK OTHERS NOT TO SUPPORT THOSE WHOS VALUES THAT WE DON"T AGREE WITH.
PEOPLE IT"S OUR FIRST AMMENMENT RIGHT OF FREE SPEACH.
I guess it's coming to place in our country were we can't even spend our money ( AFTER TAX ) were we want to, WE EARNED THAT MONEY.
If I want to buy some soap, laundry detergent, food at a company who support my values,, THAT IS MY RIGHT TO DO SO.

[Colofornian]

I like this idea. Particularly because I believe that most boycotts are completely counter-productive. The Last Temptation of Christ would have been a movie that none of us had heard of except for the religious groups that protested it. Sean Penn has just given Parker and Stone a ton of free publicity for their movie with his stupid criticisms. I think that it's possible that some boycotts could conceivably work in a limited way, but for the most part, the publicity that boycotts create almost always backfires on the protestors.

Oh, you're right! Just look at all the publicity thru the centuries that God's boycott of Sodom & Gomorrah has received. Now, some people say there are more homosexuals world-wide than ever.

God, a word to the wise. When you're provoked, just stay quiet. Go along with business as usual. Eventually, the lack of a media hubbub about it will mean that Sodom & Gomorrah would have eventually faded into the woodwork. I mean, at that time, gays couldn't naturally reproduce anyway. If ya woulda just left matters alone & not made a big stink, we all know that gayness is just genetic, anyway, and therefore, those civilizations promoting homosexuality would have just died out. That's a genetic fact, Lord! Lord? Are ya listening, Lord?

[Bella_Bru]

Then you might want to boycott everything. Most employers do not have an "are you homosexual" question on their applications to weed out them eeeevil queers.

[Colofornian]

Then you might want to boycott everything. Most employers do not have an "are you homosexual" question on their applications to weed out them eeeevil queers.

Straw man. There is a distinctive difference between private homosexuality and in your face homosexual activism.

Also, as to who a company hires, the best way for a company to protect itself from lawsuits by racial minorities is to ensure it has an informal, internally driven quota. In other words, if 22% of its community is black, they should have 22 to whatever% of its employees who are black; and ditto other racial minorities. That way, were it to come to a lawsuit over its hiring practices, they can go into court (or wherever the complaint is lodged) and say, "No, we don't discriminate vs. such and such a minority group...see, here are our percentages."

Likewise, if homosexuals were going to be added as an officially government sanctioned minority group (or if alternative sexual minorities across the board were), then the homosexual activists would make their faulty claim of 10% and then any company falling short of hiring that % would leave that company with a feeling of vulnerability to lawsuits.

So, no, you don't have to boycott everything. Because there are thousands of corporations that have not officially added the phrase "sexual orientation" into their non-discrimination policies. That absence doesn't mean they do discriminate. Why start adding behaviors to such policies? I mean, who is more likely to be discriminated against in the workplace, someone who says she will be a lifelong pure virgin in every physical way possible but who says she will always have a sexual orientation toward minors that won't be behaviorally acted upon? or someone who is gay or lesbian? The former, of course. Does that mean we need to start having policies to "protect" every alternative sexual lifestyle imaginable just because what they do in the privacy of their life has nothing (so they say) to do with their character or trustworthiness or job?

[Bella_Bru]

As you can tell, I don't really care about whom employers employ. I still shop at Nordstrom, even though they offer domestic partner health benefits, still do business with AT&T, etc.

I just always get a kick out of threads like this. They help my time at work go by faster.