Posted on 11/25/2003 11:55:26 AM PST by vladog
Think back: How long ago would you have scoffed at the idea of two men getting married? Or the Supreme Court endorsing sodomy? Or "domestic partners" enjoying the same rights and benefits as married couples? Or network television featuring shows with gays and lesbians? Or companies such as Avis announcing, "Domestic partners are automatically included as additional drivers. No extra fees charged. No questions asked." Or even that you would take the term "sexual rights" seriously?
It wasn't that long ago. The forces for perversion have subjected us to a propaganda campaign of such intensity that most Americans have surrendered to the perverting of America without a fight.
Radical "sexual rights" activists have learned how to manipulate American society for their own ends. They know Americans will accept even outrageous social changes if the changes are introduced gradually, and advocates conduct an effective "information and education" campaign.
You've probably read that the newly ordained homosexual Episcopal bishop is named simply Gene Robinson, or perhaps even V. Gene Robinson, one of those people who use an initial followed by a middle name. Few media sources mentioned that his first name is Vicky. That's right, Vicky, a name Baby Names website identifies as exclusively for females, sometimes short for Victoria. Why did they hide that fact? The media are rabidly pro-perversion and didn't want to feminize the homosexual bishop in any way. The same media now publish homosexual "unions" alongside wedding announcements.
Those who want to lull America into accepting every perversion as "normal" – and they include almost everyone in the entertainment industry, the media, and the judiciary – have other tricks they use. For one, they're brainwashing Americans into believing that those who don't approve of the practices are the abnormal ones. Thus the term "homophobe" and "biphobia" (Yes, there really is such a word being used nowadays) and the rules and laws against discrimination based on "sexual orientation."
Those rules and laws first applied to gays and lesbians. In a classic foot-in-the-door campaign, they are being extended to include transgenders, transsexuals, and bisexuals. Can anyone honestly say that those practices are normal? Yet they're dragging Americans toward acceptance of the perversions, and few of us are kicking and screaming on the way.
Well, you might ask, why should we care what they do in the privacy of their bedroom? This isn't about privacy. This is about Americans being forced to endorse (or pretend to endorse) every sexual perversion possible. This is about schools bringing in gays, lesbians, transsexuals, transgenders, and bisexuals to lecture children on "alternative lifestyles." This is about laws being passed to force employers to employ men who dress like women. A convoluted California bill noted, "Gender is defined as the employee's actual sex or the employer's perception of the employee's identity, appearance or behavior, even if these characteristics differ from those traditionally associated with the employee's sex at birth." This is about the greatest reordering of society in history, and few people of prominence are asking whether it's the right path to follow. Once America goes down that path, that part of society's destiny is locked in forever. We can't turn back.
The Internet has spawned hundreds of websites for these practices. In a classic example of activist doublethink, a website for bisexuals says we citizens become "biphobic" by "Automatically assuming romantic couplings of two women are lesbian, or two men are gay, or a man and a woman are heterosexual, " "Assuming that everyone you meet is either heterosexual or homosexual," "Looking at a bisexual person and automatically thinking of their sexuality rather than seeing them as a whole, complete person," and "Believing bisexual men spread AIDS/HIV and other STDs to heterosexuals." Am I missing something here?
A friend who works for a university told me that a male employee took a leave of absence to change his sex. When he/she returned, complete with panty hose and makeup, the issue of bathroom usage came up. The men didn't want him/her in their bathroom, and he/she didn't want to use it either. The women didn't want someone they had known as a man to use their bathroom. In a typical case of official wimping out, the university built him/her an exclusive bathroom.
In 1998, President Bill Clinton issued an Executive Order prohibiting discrimination in federal employment based on "sexual orientation." He's the same president who Colin Powell noted in his biography seemed more interested in forcing gays on the military than in supporting our troops in Somalia. Is America's "first black president" also America's first gay president?
Fast forward to 2003. Fox News quoted President Bush on the eve of Marriage Protection Week: "'Marriage is a union between a man and a woman." He also noted, "Research has shown that, on average, children raised in households headed by married parents fare better than children who grow up in other family structures."
By contrast, the next day, Terry McAuliffe, Chairman of the Democrat National Committee, announced, "On behalf of the DNC, I would like to recognize Saturday, October 11, 2003 as the 16th Annual National Coming Out Day. Coming out as a gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender (GLBT) American is a tremendous act of courage."
He's not the only Democrat politician to pursue the perverted vote. Howard Dean calls himself a "metrosexual," another word I can't find in my dictionary. One on-line definition states that a metrosexual is a straight, urban male who is eager to embrace his feminine side. Great, now we're considering fruity guys for president.
Gay marriages will soon become legal in America, as they now are in Canada and the Netherlands. Is this the end of it all, the final victory for the sexual activists?
Rest assured it isn't. The practitioners of polygamy, polyandry, pedophilia, sadomasochism, incest, necrophilia, and bestiality, among others, will continue to fight for their "sexual rights." America is a long way from the bottom of its moral pit.
That didn't happen. Credibilty went out the window early.
Consenting adults are not permitted to pay for sexual services yet as we are learning with the norming of "age of consent" for homosexuals and heterosexual, we aren't even talking about consenting "adults" (minors aged 16 and 17 are legally consenting to have same sex relations with persons over 18, even younger minors in states that have "Romeo & Juliet" or "Romeo & Romeo" exceptions to statutory rape laws).
I sure hope we have enough sense to get our Judiciary in that we need to uphold some sanity in this wacked out version we call society.Otherwise the future looks bleak from a morality standpoint for my children and thiers as well.I wonder what my Grandma and Grandpa would be thinking now if they were alive?
Ah yes, life is so much better under the Anarchists' model. No gods no masters, eh?
That's not all. Transvestites are lumped together with transexuals as members of transgender identity (crisis, the forgotten word).
If that man never had the sex change but simply wore women's clothes he would still be able to argue for use of the bathroom that meets the sexual identity of his chosen fetish. We are born naked, there is no genetic component to wearing clothes of the opposite sex. It is fashion and nothing else.
Extending the argument, he could still argue for use of the women's facilities if all he wore were panties and a bra or pantyhose under his street clothes. He might not even need to wear such clothes if his mental "identity" was that of a female.
Off topic attack on anyone who disagrees with you is a sure sign of an arrested development.
I guess you want a flame war. Grow up son.
Government would be a "master" in their worldview.
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.