Gays out Of The Closet And The Rest Of Us In Pandora's Box

Conservative News and Opinion ^ | August 18, 2003 | Doug Wrenn

[CtPoliticsGuy]

It used to be said, before gays "came out," that they were in "the closet." I wish they would go back into it. The rest of us have been in "Pandora's Box ever since.

Not that long ago, in kinder, gentler times, when grown adults actually kept their private business private, and fringe rebels did not get in everyone's face to make their point, what is now considered to be an alternative lifestyle" was in fact, a deviancy. The only thing that has changed is that in 1973, (the same notorious year that also gave us Roe vs. Wade) the American Psychiatry Association (APA) removed the category of homosexuality from it's Diagnostic and Statistical Manuel of Mental Disorders (DSM), under politically correct pressure from gay activist groups. The end result: Enter "alternate lifestyle"!

Since then, we have been continually (and not too gently) reminded by those "reformed deviates" that they are a victim class (one of many) and need special rights. (i.e.: Hate crime legislation which is only redundant of already existing laws against assault, harassment, discrimination, etc., but with stiffer penalties for these "special" citizens needing "equal" rights.) In addition, we are to now "tolerate" homosexuality, which is secret code for "embrace" it, in liberal lingo. That "tolerance" seems to need to only flow in only one direction. As with anyone disagreeing with affirmative action quotas is a "racist," anyone not embracing the gay agenda is a "homophobe." One regular columnist in the New Haven Register who writes about gay issues (ad nauseum) recently accused Pat Robertson of conducting a 21 day "prayer assault" against the Supreme Court after it's recent Lawrence vs. Texas decision, which struck down state sodomy laws. In fact, it would not at all hurt that bitterly angry gay columnist to be so assaulted "with prayer." (Heaven forbid!) This is but a microcosm of the absolute vile contempt that many in the so called gay movement have for anyone who dares to disagree with their agenda.

Lunacy such as pretending to be "open minded" and "main stream" about what is in fact a deviancy is as ludicrous as pretending that the Emperor is in fact, wearing clothes in the famed children's fairy tale. We do not need to know anyone's sexual preferences, be they heterosexual, or homosexual. We don't need the word "gay men" applied to the name of a chorus, and we don't need marchers in drag with gay banners in the New York St. Patrick's Day Parade. Last I heard, the only prerequisite for those two activities was that you be a good singer, and Irish, respectfully. These are but two of countless examples of gays making a needless statement, irrelevant to whatever task they are otherwise trying to carry out.

Paging Senator Santorum....paging Senator Rick Santorum... Oh, yes, another "homophobe"! Remember a few months back when "Santorum" was a dirty word? The conservative, Republican practicing Catholic (For you northeast Democrat "Catholics," that means a Catholic who really means it!) US Senator from Pennsylvania was persona non-grata a few months back among gay groups, opportunistic Democrats and cowardly Republicans for stating his opposition to the banning of state sodomy laws just before the Lawrence vs. Texas decision. Adding to the dismay was that Santorum never expressed the subsequent obligatory Mia coppa for saying what he truly believes, a sad recent trend among most "leaders" nowadays. Santorum stated, and correctly so, that striking down such laws will only further open the door to legalizing bestiality, incest, etc. For the nay sayers, I only need refer you to current gun control laws. The national liberal agenda to strip law abiding citizens of their legal right to defend themselves has been eroded, incrementally. The old riddle reminds us of this as well; "How do you eat an elephant?" Answer: "One bite at a time."

Santorum should change his name to Nostradamus for that prediction. A recent article by Stanley Kurtz in the August 11 issue of The Weekly Standard, articulates how a movement by several groups has been under way for several years, trying to mainstream polygamy (a marriage or non-platonic relationship of one man and several cohabitant women), and polyamory (the same, but with any number of people, and genders). These groups are lying in wait for gay marriage laws to universally pass so that they may then push their agenda. If that succeeds, what about when these "families" wish to bear or adopt children? What kind of stable home will these children have, and what will happen to the nuclear family, and western civilization as we know it, which has already irreparably eroded beyond the point of returning to current levels of re-procreation in the US. Also, sperm donors for gay couples are now demanding child visitation rights upon separation. Multiply that by "parents" in numbers of 3 or more and you get a real legal fiasco. What about organizations which promote condoned sexual relationships between children and adults, like one recently defended by the American (so called) Civil Liberties Union? Where does it end? Is Santorum still such an ogre and a fool now?

>>Continued<<

[EdReform]

Bump and ping. Scripter will be off line occasionally between now and the middle of September. I've agreed to help him out by running his homosexual agenda ping list.

Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links

Homosexual Agenda Index (bump list)

Homosexual Agenda Keyword Search

All FreeRepublic Bump Lists

A simple freepmail is all it takes to subscribe to or unsubscribe from scripter's homosexual agenda ping list. If you wish to be added to the list in scripter's absence, please FReepmail me.