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.

[Protagoras]

This agrees with the "in my own words" definition I provided above.

LOL,,good stuff. First you climb on to a high horse and scold me in a derisive manner for not using a real definition, and then when I provide one and it proves me correct, and you incorrect, you switch high horses and admit you never looked it up and that it means what you think it should so it fits your mistake. LOL

You should do stand up comedy.

And your bizzarro world of up is down and freedom is totalitarianism would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

[scripter]

I hope you had a great Thanksgiving.

[scripter]

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.

I was more interested in pointing out the context of my statement and I hadn't thought of that angle, thanks.

[Protagoras]

I did thank you, and I hope you did as well.

[Protagoras]

You seem to confuse religious authority with religious principles.

I'm not even a tad confused.

Our nation was founded on religious principles,

Actually, although often repeated I don't find it to be true. It would be more accurate IMO to say it was founded by largely religious men. It was founded on the idea of limited government with checks and balances to keep mischief to a minimum.

but has never been ruled by religious authorities.

Quite true, that's what the founders wanted. But it isn't what many on this thread want.

If you didn't hate those who believe in religious absolutes, you'd readily see the difference.

That's not only incorrect, it is in itself a hateful comment.

[little jeremiah]

Nope, my in-my-own words definition of "theocracy" was one I remembered from another dictionary. Then I quoted Webster's which supported my first definition.

You (as most "liberaltarians" I have attempted to debate with) cannot debate fairly; meaning cannot debate using facts and evidence.
All you can do is juggle words, name-call, and spout slogans and libertarian cant. Just like the "liberals" you claim to be so different from. Besmirch the messenger ("Taliban", etc) but as usual, libertarians (as befits of one of the many brands of utopians) cannot debate facts. The conversation quickly degrades into your side name calling, innuendo, belittling, and so on.

Come up with some reasoned debate or go back to your bong.

And if you don't like that kind of argument, stop using that kind of argument.

[Protagoras]

You have just described your own style. An unexplained dementia has set in. A disconnect with reality.

[Protagoras]

What was your screen name before you resigned up 10 days ago? How many times have you been banned? Inquiring minds want to know. LOL

[little jeremiah]

Never been banned. Long time lurker.

And your last two posts prove my point.

[Protagoras]

Never been banned.

Rightttttttttttttttttt....... LOL