The Perverted State Of America

Toogood Reports ^ | 11/25/03 | Allan C. Stover

[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.

[weegee]

Same sex sodomy was legal in some places too, not to nitpick.

Either this is a state right or a constitutional right.

[Scenic Sounds]

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.

Why can't we turn back if we decide to? All of these changes are just experimental, it seems to me.

[Protagoras]

Why not all ten?

And your list is a stretch.

[Protagoras]

Some rights are both. But it is more about power than right. Government has no legitimate power over non rights violating behavior.

[tm22721]

We are indoctrinated by, and defer to, the female-dominated HR department (trained by Marxist university professors).

Corporatism is destroying America.

BUMP

[scripter]

I agree, I just wonder why you feel compelled to tell me this.

First, I have no idea you might agree based on your previous posts today. Second, Being this is a public forum, I'm not just talking to you.

So does obesity and other forms of hetrosexual contact. Your proposal on those?

Ah, that argument. Now I have a better idea of your mindset. No behaviorally obtained health hazards compare to those of the homosexual lifestyle. That is, anything that shortens the lifespan and is contagious to the point of death to those who are infected. Does obesity threaten the blood supply? No. Do we have television shows celebrating obesity? No. Do we have organizations in the schools encouraging kids to try obesity? No. I mean, how do kids know they wouldn't enjoy being obese if they've never tried it? The same arguments are valid for your reference to other forms of hetrosexual contact.

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything in this conversation. Child molestations violate rights, that's why they are subject to legitimate government force.

It's this thing called context. The title of the article is The Perverted State Of America and I've documented quite well that homosexuals are more prone to molest children. You're talking about rights and folks who are more prone to molest children. If you can't see what that has to do with the subject, you're not very bright (and I know that's not the case), unable to put the two together, or you're being disingenuous. I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt since we agree on some issues, but some of your responses tell me that may not be of benefit.

Off topic and irrelevant to this conversation. I happen to agree, but why are you telling me about it?

Off topic? C'mon Protagoras, you said our rights aren't being voilated so it's none of our business. Again, in listing the severe health hazards of the homosexual lifestyle I documented quite well just why it is our business.

I think perhaps some can, but again, it's off topic to this conversation.

Those who want to change can change. And again, it is not off topic as we're talking about a behavior that affects the entire world. A behavior that can be changed.

Tolerate? Like not kill them? Like not arrest them?

Talk about playing with words. In your own words: Grow up, son. Grow up, boy. You are demented.. Hopefully you just missed what I said...

I never said tolerate homosexuals as you imply above, I said homosexuality. It's the behavior that we shouldn't tolerate, it's the homosexuality that we shouldn't accept. Why should we tolerate a behavior that is pushed on our kids as acceptable, valid and normal when it is so dangerous, when it can kill? Homosexuals themselves must be accepted for the human beings that they are.

I agree, what have you done about it lately? (Encourage doesn't mean at the point of a gun.)

If you don't know what I'm doing to encourage homosexuals to leave their lifestyle, you're not paying attention. Oh yeah, I like the reference to pointing a gun. Nice. I previously said:

And those who truly care for homosexuals will do just that.

I agree. Get going if you haven't already.

You're not paying attention.

[US admirer]

Not to nit-pick but your statement: “No behaviorally obtained health hazards compare to those of the homosexual lifestyle” is arguably if not clearly incorrect. Excess food and alcohol intake is responsible for the consumption of billions of dollars of yours and my money that deprive us of funding for the treatment and prevention of other conditions. Also, “behaviorally obtained” high ethanol intake is responsible for much sorrow and suffering of others, more so than homos induce, I would wager.

[Protagoras]

First, I have no idea you might agree based on your previous posts today.

I guess you read into them what you thought they meant. Maybe you weren't paying attention.

The same arguments are valid for your reference to other forms of hetrosexual contact.

Not even close. Aids and almost all health issues caused by homsexual contact are true of hetrosexual contact. In fact, name one std which can't be transmitted between men and women. But nice try on the obesity response.

As for the benefit of the doubt on me, keep it. I'm uninterested in your approval.

Again, in listing the severe health hazards of the homosexual lifestyle I documented quite well just why it is our business.

Since refuted. Keep your self celibate outside of marriage and have your wife do the same and you will have no problems. Raise your children correctly and you will have no problems.

As to not tolerating the behavior, check YOUR context. We are talking about government force, not your approval. How would you not "tolerate" homosexuality in the context of government force?

Oh yeah, I like the reference to pointing a gun.

Sorry, but I feel compelled to point out to many folks that which is obvious to most. Namely, government is force. It is their job. It is their tool. Guns are their chosen weapon for enforcment most of the time. Sorry if you have to be constantly reminded of that.

I'm paying attention. Now have a nice day, time to go for the holiday.

[ladyinred]

. Great, now we're considering fruity guys for president. Great isn't it? And just a few years ago, the left tried to smear Bush 41 by calling him a wimp every time they had a chance!

[weegee]

Sez you. Dispute it. Or better yet quit trolling and address the topic of the article itself rather than just baiting posters.

[weegee]

Some rights are both.

Explain.

A constitutional right means that the right to "X" of all US citizens is protected from government control.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Now how can a right be there for the states to choose to permit or prohibit (this is "states rights") and be a constitutional right?

[scripter]

I understand what you're saying but you took that sentence out of it's context. The next sentence said:

That is, anything that shortens the lifespan and is contagious to the point of death to those who are infected.

Excess food and alcohol intake is not contagious nor do they contaminate the blood supply with a deadly virus. Also, I can't find my links on this right now, but the amount of money spent on AIDS compared to the number of infections is way, way too high.

One link you might find interesting: Sharing Disease is Not a Civil Right.

[scripter]

I guess you read into them what you thought they meant.

Apparently when you said to others: Grow up, son. Grow up, boy. You are demented I shouldn't read anything into it and just repeat to myself, I must not be paying attention. Those tactics never really worked in grade school but apparently nobody told you.

Not even close. Aids and almost all health issues caused by homsexual contact are true of hetrosexual contact. In fact, name one std which can't be transmitted between men and women. But nice try on the obesity response.

And here starts your misdirection. AIDS specifically targets homosexuals. To deny this is to deny studies done for the past 10 years, just read the health hazards. While it's very possible for heterosexuals to get AIDS, and nobody is denying that, the majority of the AIDS cases in America stems from homosexual behavior. That is, unless you have a source to rebut this well known fact. Your misdirection will not be allowed to distract from the facts.

I prevously said:

Does obesity threaten the blood supply? No. Do we have television shows celebrating obesity? No. Do we have organizations in the schools encouraging kids to try obesity? No. I mean, how do kids know they wouldn't enjoy being obese if they've never tried it?

Let's see now. Does heterosexual anal sex threaten the blood supply? Yes, but at a much, much smaller rate than homosexual sex. Do we have television shows celebrating heterosexual anal sex? No. Do we have organizations in the schools encouraging kids to try heterosexual anal sex? No. I mean, how do kids know they wouldn't enjoy heterosexual anal sex if they've never tried it?

Hmm. Except for the small cases of heterosexual anal sex possibly tainting the blood supply, it does apply.

Since refuted. Keep your self celibate outside of marriage and have your wife do the same and you will have no problems. Raise your children correctly and you will have no problems.

Nice dodge. Homosexual anal sex results in AIDS, monogamous or not. If you have scientific studies that refute the above then post it. Otherwise you're just supporting the homosexual agenda either willfully or out of ignorance.

As to not tolerating the behavior, check YOUR context. We are talking about government force, not your approval. How would you not "tolerate" homosexuality in the context of government force?

That's just more misdirection. The article mentions force in the context I'm using, not yours. From the article:

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.

That's exactly what I've been talking about. You're not paying attention again.

Sorry, but I feel compelled to point out to many folks that which is obvious to most.

Apparently it's not even obvious to you.

When folks misdirect the discussion I tend to get annoyed, so perhaps I won't respond when you return. There's one thing to be thankful for, and that's you're hopefully not HIV+ from some confused homosexuals tainting the blood supply. And that is your business, as it's everyone's business. Just as it's everyone's business to realize homosexuals are more prone to molest children. Just as it's everyone's business to realize what GLSEN is teaching our kids in school.

[Gritty]

This isn't about privacy. This is about Americans being forced to endorse (or pretend to endorse) every sexual perversion possible.

BTTT

[2nd Amendment]

Very good post. The gist of the information is absolutely true. Of course the Supreme Court didn't outright endorse sodomy. They don't do it that way. They "protected" what sodomites do in private. I believe some members of this Supreme Court will have a special place in hell for the destruction of Godly values they have wrought on America. Justices like Souter and O'conner are a disgrace to anyone who believes in Judeo-Christian values.

[little jeremiah]

Theocracry, in the definition you kindly provided, means more or less what I said - ruled BY religious authority. A government with laws founded on traditional moral absolutes is NOT a theocracy. In my Webster's theocracy means:
"government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials regarded as divinely guided." This agrees with the "in my own words" definition I provided above.

If someone posits that governments should rule (i.e. enact and enforce legislation, IOW laws) that have NOTHING to do with moral absolutes as handed down by spiritual or religious tradition, where do the concepts of right and wrong come from?

Answer: they must come from the minds of men. A funny thing about the minds of men; the only commonality is that will always disagree. So the final word about what should be legal, illegal (IOW right and wrong) is whoever has the power at the moment. So your version is this: MIGHT MAKES RIGHT.

Totalitarianism.

[little jeremiah]

As far as the Ten Commandments, I agree with (I think it was) weegee. Even the blaspheming one - in the sense that it should be illegal (and generally used to be until very recently) to publicly vilify another's religion. Perfectly ok to disagree philosophically, but to mock, or slander, especially in a violent or obscene manner, any religion is wrong. For instance, how the Nazis used to vilify the Jewish religion and Jews in general. Or how Catholics used to be vilified in this country.
But that is different than legitimate disagreement with ideas.

[little jeremiah]

Excess food and alcohol intake is responsible for the consumption of billions of dollars of yours and my money that deprive us of funding for the treatment and prevention of other conditions.

[I made a really detailed reply and it went somewhere else - into the ethers.]

The number of people who choose to eat too much or drink too much is so much larger than those who choose to indulge in same sex acts which cause disease that it can't be compared. If the people indulged in same sex acts increased their number to equal, for instance, the number of people abusing alcohol we wouldn't have a civilization any more.

[Protagoras]

You are debating yourself. Not very well either.

[Protagoras]

I'm happy for you that you agree with someone else who takes essentially a Taliban position on governance.

I don't want to live in a violent theocracy, which is precisely what you wish for without even knowing it. No thanks. Good luck when Hillary is in charge of your morals.