Posted on 08/14/2010 4:09:18 AM PDT by GonzoII
And outright lie. I am not "pro-homosexual marriage" ...never was and never will be.
The fact that you accuse me of such just proves my contention that you lack reading comprehension skills. Stop bothering me with your knee-jerk replies.
This is getting tiresome. A wedge issue is a political issue that is designed to be purposely divisive and unusually emotional. In the case of both gay marriage and immigration, it allows the Democrats to portray the opposition as ignorant bigots. If you enact civil unions, the gays cannot call you an ignorant bigot because under civil unions, they have all the legal rights as married couples and therefore have no excuse to force their way into churches and demand to be married by a Christian minister.
Yes, I agree it’s getting tiresome.
Homosexual activists want same sex marriage to destroy the social fabric of our nation. They will not be satisfied with civil unions. It goes way beyond political tactics of Democrats.
If you don’t see this, it’s because you don’t want to. Sounds as though you are pushing for civil unions and using this as an excuse, as though civil unions will de-fang homosexual activists and their supporters and partners.
Of course it won’t, they want the whole shebang - “marriage”, adoption, fostering kids, homosexuals in the military, hate speech laws, etc.
You are either ill-informed or deceitful; and I don’t care which, as they both look the same. If you are ill-informed, study up on the goals and tactics of the homosexual agenda. If you are deceitful, that’s something between you and God.
And just for your edification, in case you are ill-informed, here is a list of methods and goals taken from “gay” activists in the 1980s:
Although homosexual propaganda has been around for 50 years, the current campaign started in 1989 with a very popular book within the homosexual community called: “After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 1990s” by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen. This very popular book within the homosexual community makes a passionate argument that homosexual activists should implement an organized propaganda campaign to change public opinion to gain public acceptance to their behavior and obtain special rights, benefits, and privileges. Their rationalization for launching such a campaign is that people who do not agree with them are “bigots, haters, or ignorants”, and therefore activists can and should justifiably employ any tactic possible, including mass deceit, lying, slander, maliciousness, intimidation, violence, etc.
Although many activists initially condemned this approach at first in public, remaining hold outs have jumped on board after benefitting from the success of the propaganda campaign. The following are exerpts taken from “After The Ball.” These strategies, tactics, and techniques have been and are currently employed by most homosexual activist groups, as verified by their well documented trail.
1) The homosexual agenda can succeed by conversion of the average Americans emotions, mind, and will, through, a planned psychological attack in the form of propaganda to the nation via media (page 153);
2) “Propaganda relies more upon emotional manipulation that upon logic, since its goal is to bring about public change” (page 162);
3) Propaganda can be unabashedly subjective and one-sided, there is nothing wrong with this (page 163);
4) Homosexual agenda can succeed by “desensitization” achieved by lowering the intensity of antigay emotional reactions to a level of sheer indifference (page 153);
5) Homosexual agenda can succeed by “jamming” and “confusing” adversaries, so as to block or counteract the “rewarding of prejudice” (page 153);
6) “Heterosexuals dislike homosexuals on fundamentally emotional, not intellectual grounds” (page 166)
7) “Desensitizing” is “our recipe” for converting “ambivalent skeptics”;
8) Make victimizers look bad by linking to Nazi horror while helping straights to see gays as victims and feel protective towards them (page 221);
9) The Nazi story of “pink triangle as a symbol of victimization” should be a sufficient opening wedge into the vilification of our enemies (page 190);
10) Show grisly victimization of gays and demand that readers identify themselves with either social tolerance or gruesome cruelty;
11) Discourage anti-gay harassment by linking and calling all those that have opposing opinions to latent homosexuality (i.e., call people homophobic) (page 227)
12) Jam people by pointing out that it’s inconsistent with the reader’s belief in the value of love between individuals (page 233);
13) AIDS epidemic should be exploited “to increase attention and sympathy” as “victimized minority.”(page xxv)
14) “We argue that for all practical purposes, gays should be considered to have been born gay, even though sexual orientation, for most humans, seems to be the product of a complex interaction between innate predispositions and environmental factors during childhood and early adolescence” (page 184);
15) “Muddy the moral waters”, that is, to undercut the rationalization that justify religious opposition… this entails publicizing support by moderate churches and raising serious theological objections” (page 179);
16) Portray opposing churches “as antiquated backwaters”, badly out of step with the time and with the latest findings of psychology (page 179);
17) Jam the self-righteous pride by linking to a disreputable hate group (page 235);
18) The main thing is to talk about gayness until the issue becomes thoroughly tiresome (page 178);
19) All opposing disagreements to homosexual behavior is rooted in “Homophobia, Homohatred, and Prejudice” (page 112)
20) It is acceptible to call people “Homophobic” or “Homohaters” if they do not agree 100% with homosexual views, opinions, or behavior. (page xxiii)
21) A media campaign should portray only the most favorable side of gays (page 170);
22) Show others accepting gays and homosexuals (page 241);
23) Heterosexuals are like Aryans and people who are against homosexual behavior are “Nazis” and “Clansman”.
24) Homosexual persecution is identical to Jewish persecution (page 57, 62, );
25) Homosexual persecution is identical racial prejudice to Blacks, Asians, and Hispanics (inferring inborn) (page 62, 73);
26) All scientific/medical arguments to prevent 1973 APA/AMA removal from disorder list were rooted in cultural prejudice, medieval knowledge of science/medicine, and misinformation.
27) “Two-thirds of all boys” have rudimentary homosexual experiences (inferring most teenagers want to have homosexual sex) (page 44)
28) “Vast majority” of homosexuals do not engage in compulsive high-risk sex (page 49)
29) American opposition is based solely on prejudiced, outdated, and hypocritical Victorian morals (page 51)
30) All homosexually suicides are based entirely on societal rejection (page xv)
31) All sexual morality should be abolished (pages 64 to 67);
32) Homosexual civil rights are “explicitly set forth in the Bill of Rights”;
33) Health concerns for AIDS prevention are unwarranted (page 91)
34) Opposition to homosexual marriages is based on “family nostalgia” and “sexual guilt” based on religious/Victorian values (page 92)
35) Adoption agencies have been “placing kids with gay people for a long time,” as long as “you do not bring up” the fact that your gay;
36) “Kids in gay households ultimately receive better-than-average parenting” (page 97)
37) All speech that is opposing homosexual behavior should be banned under “clear and present danger to public order” (page 101)
38) All and any news or media coverage that is presents homosexual in negative form is prejudiced and invalid (page 54);
39) Everyone comes out must be prepped by a media campaign carefully crafted, repeatedly displayed mass-media images of gays (page 169);
40) “Gay activists have tried to manipulate the American judicial system.” Sometimes the tactic works: many executive orders (which side step the democratic process) and ordinances passed by city councils now protect certain rights (page 171);
41) “Employ images that desensitize, jam, and/or convert on an emotional level” (page 173);
42) “Gain access to the kinds of public media that would automatically confer legitimacy upon these messages and sponsors” (page 173);
43) “Ambivalent skeptics” are our most promising targets (page 176)…
44) Associate gay cause with “talk about racism, sexism, militarism, poverty, and all the conditions that oppress the unempowered.” (page 181)
45) Project gays as victims of circumstance and oppression, not as aggressive challengers (page 183);
46) “Mustachioed leather men, drag queens, and bull dykes” should not appear in gay commercials and other public presentations (until later after wide acceptance) (page 183);
47) Groups on the farthest margins of acceptability, such as NAMBLA, must play no part at all in the medioa campaign (page 184);
48) Gays should be portrayed as victims of prejudice…graphic pictures of brutalized gays, dramatizations of job and housing insecurity, loss of child custody, public humiliation… (page 185);
49) In time we see no reason why more and more diversity should not be introduced into the projected image (i.e., drag queens, pedophiles, etc.) (page 186);
50) Infer and speculate that famous historical figures were gay for two reasons: first, they are dead as a door nail, hence in no position to deny the truth and sue for libel; (page 188)
51) In TV and print, images of victimizers can be combined with those of their gay victims by a method propagandists call the “bracket technique” (page 190);
51) The media campaign will reach straights on an emotional level, casting gays as society’s victims and inviting straights to be their protectors (page 187);
52) We like television because it’s the most graphic and intrusive medium for our message (page 201)
53) Over the long-term, “television and magazines” are probably the media of choice (page 204);
54) Ads must manage to get the word gay into the headline or tagline (page 207);
55) Each message should tap public sentiment, patriotic, or otherwise, and drill an unimpeachable agreeable proposition into the mainstreams head (page 208);
56) Several years down the road, our tactics will have carved out, slice by slice, a large portion of access to mainstream media (page 213);
57) Associate and link gays to good causes and non-controversial activities (page 219);
58) The more people who appear to practice homosexuality, and the more innate it appears to be, the less abnormal and objectionable, and the more legitimate it will seem (which is why it is important to maintain claims to 10% of the population)(page 217)
59) Stage candid interviews with gays who appear as solid citizens. Subjects in commercials should be interviewed alone, not with their lovers (for now) (page 247);
60) Most people derive their impressions of the world through the national media (page 250);
61) It will be a sheer delight to besmirch our tormentors, we cannot waste our resources on revenge alone (page 189);
62) “Too many Americans share this mistrust of gay citizens” (page 55)
Better to be an outright heathen then a fake believer.
The slithering is quite amazing.
As to God, he has his own methods. And he isn't fooled either.
What I wrote to you was:
After your personal insults, provocative postings, and pro-homosexual marriage contentions against the teachings of St. Paul, I ever-so-much welcome your departure. Thanks.
You do know the difference between beliefs and "contentions," don't you?
Stop posting me.
You better listen to him vf! The great Oz has spoken! LOLOL!!!
So laws are purely on health issues? Psychological Illness?
What about swinging, porn, teenage sex?
You sounds more and more like you have no clue as to what is going on out there. The funny part is we agree that the Judge’s order is complete crap but your reasoning for is so uneducated I don’t even know what to say to you.
The fact is if these people want to be unhealthy that’s there choice. You can drink yourself to liver failure. Alcohol is legal. People can smoke themselves to lung cancer but you don’t care about that.
Like i said.. you are hypocrtie of the worst order and your arrogance is blinding you.
You are the one running from the subject. I haven’t once justified their behavior. The problem is that you can’t justify why you allow other people to be ammoral but you want this one activity to be illegal.
Sad.
Threating the zot because you have no logical reasoning behind anything you said.
I put my full opinion on this thread for everyone to read. Can to share yours on the subject or are you just going to whine at everything I say?
Thus, "If a judge (or ultimately the Supreme Court) says the Constitution allows the government to force you to buy health insurance, then it’s a done deal, regardless of whether the Constitution says so or not. Under such a scenario, the Constitution thus becomes a tool for social engineering rather than a protection against government excess, as it was originally intended."
And "as the ruling class has more and more isolated to themselves the power to dictate what is and is not an appropriate use of the blessings of liberty, we have seen a corresponding decrease in the actual liberty we enjoy."
So in Arizona, a judge says that the people have no right to protect themselves from illegal aliens, while in California another judge decides that henceforth marriage will means something it has never meant and cannot mean.
It is not so much that marriage between two men is "illegal." Rather, it is impossible, like being the father of your mother. But what is the left but violent insistence on the possibility of the impossible?
Unfortunately, this is only the beginning.
Whatever happens in November, it certainly won't be a cause for joy. Transient relief, maybe, but not joy, because when narratives break down, people are truly capable of anything.. Much more
Another statement that has no basis in fact.
The problem is that you can’t justify why you allow other people to be ammoral but you want this one activity to be illegal.
I will ask you again. Post where I have said I want it to be illegal. Give the post number and quote. This is the second time that I have asked you to back up your accusations.
You: However, my further point to you, is that you are hypocrite to say sodomy laws should be on the books
Me: Quote where I said that. Post number included.
Either post the quote with post number included or shut up.
What people do privately in their own homes - no one knows, no one cares.
Bath houses? Swingers clubs? People having sex like animals in public whatever their age or sex?
Should be illegal.
Why are you so angry at me?
And the health thing is important. People who have fatal diseases should be punished if they keep freely giving these diseases to other people and WE HAVE TO PAY FOR THEIR MEDICINE AND TREATMENTS!
I don’t want to pay one thin dime to cure or treat diseases that homosexuals give to each other ALL THE TIME by their filthy habits. Or anyone elses’ diseases but homosexually spread diseases are so far above and beyond anything anyone can even imagine, and we the taxpayers are expected to pay for much of this. And insurance rates are higher so that we who do not engage in such devastatingly sick practices can help subsidize them.
I still have no clue why so you are so angry and irrational.
Your actual position is murky. Maybe you ought to re-think it, or express yourself more clearly so that people can understand what your actual POV is.
Personally, I have no clue what your POV is. Other than to attack me and others, froth flying freely.
Are you a mental patient? Nothing that you post to me has any bearing on anything that I have posted. And I am serious. I am not trying to insult. I am asking an honest question. Your posts to me have NO bearing on anything that I've said. They are totally disconnected.
Can to share yours on the subject or are you just going to whine at everything I say?
I can only conclude that there really IS something wrong with you. My post 700 to you stated my stand. My post 697 to you stated my stand. In post 700 I also had to respond to your accusations over things that I never said. You have problems.
Almondjoy’s posts have been murky and disconnected. I checked posting history and past posts seem to make sense. Ya gotta wonder........
What are you doing, besides deluding yourself that you’ve got some influence in our present federal government?
I delude myself as much as the founding fathers deluded themselves when ascribing to the belief that all men are created equal -all men are endowed unalienable rights by the Creator.
We discuss here a government gone astray and the need to return to legitimate the government.
Honest answers to the following questions imply you are the one deluded:
In this case, as cited in the ruling as a finding of fact -what has the government gone astray from?What defines our government as legitimate?
I find it incoherent that you suggest the road back to legitimacy does not or should not include a focus upon that which legitimately was the cornerstone of our foundation -Christianity.
We are in agreement on potentially ALL save one issue; Christianity -its role, its relevance, it legitimacy. The dismissal of religion/Christianity as a legitimate premise for political discourse is the agenda that YOU push as did the judge in this ruling.
The brave new world you envision that does not have a foundational basis firmly rooted in Christianity but instead at best gives Christianity lip service and 'allows' Christians the freedom to worship according to their beliefs but not practice them is not a world you would NOT enjoy...
You are having an argument that you want to have. But be aware you are having it with yourself, I have not made any of the points you answered.
You aren’t even close to discussing the reality of the influence of Christianity in politics today. Its like you don’t want to admit the truth.
You still think I’m arguing against it. I have no idea why you and your friends keep arguing an argument not made by me.
Wake up, read what I posted and respond to that.....or not, I don’t really care.
Save the drama for someone else who actually makes the argument that you seem to wish I was making.
I’m not the one accusing others of being more of a pharisee than I.
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.