Sure seems like it considering how often the gay issue is brought up on TV and the news. Straight people are practically being strong-armed into accommodating gay people. It's getting to the point where they're acting more anti-straight than pro-gay. Now, I'm not trying to be homophobic, but I'm annoyed at how often gay narrative is being pushed in the media. I'm starting to think people are going to ridiculous lengths to legitimize a sexual preference as if it's the new way of living or something. It's as if there's no real debate about the issue, just the assumption that you're either for it or you're a hater who isn't worthy of being heard. They want us to accept them, but they won't accept us being straight or against gay marriage (for what it's worth, I'm not even religious).
There is this new fangled thingamajig that some genius (probably tattooed) invented. It is really, really cool, too. You put batteries in it then you point it at your television. There is a button you push and voila! It changes the channel so your delicate sensibilities are offended by all the icky ghey stuffs. It's called a remote control. You're welcome.
You might want to tell 'em to stop disrupting traffic on Santa Monica Boulevard twice a year, it's just far too.... entertaining.... seeing all those colorful happy people dancing around with their colorful happy costumes on........ I tell you, the whole thing is just so happy it makes you want to start tapping your feet. For a moment I could almost forget I'm part of that other crowd.... y'know.... teh str8ts
If there is a gay agenda... [this is a typical gay typing his agenda on a computer] it has to be a rose agenda ...
No. If you think there is, maybe you should spell out in detail what it is for us. TV is not real life. The news is largely sensationalism that pretends to be informative. What's the alternative? What is your basis for this assertion? Given that your post reads as very fearful, I would say you're succeeding without trying, then. Why? I prefer blueberries to cherries, but am happy to accept cherries when blueberries are not available. That's a preference. Same-sex orientation isn't a preference. Well, it's on you to say something worthy of being heard. You're not doing so well thus far. I'm not sure why you think "gay" needs to be debated. I think we first need to define the term acceptance, and then what it is that gay people want you to accept: Acceptance in this case is an agreement to what constitutes reality. The reality that gay people want you to accept first and foremost is that they have a right to exist. I'm not sure you'll get them to universally agree on anything beyond that. I think one could argue that many believe they should have the same rights, liberties, and access to their government as anyone else. Good luck getting them to agree on the specific application of that, though. What often gets ignored is just how diverse the so-called "gay community" actually is. If by "accept" you mean celebrate, ardently support, etc.: I'm skeptical of the notion that a gay person really cares to what extent you personally embrace the idea of them marrying. I think they would prefer that you just leave them alone and let them live as they please - including entering into a legal marriage, if they desire. Do you really believe that gay people universally reject you being "straight"? Really? REALLY??? Wow. Just...wow. What is your basis for this assertion? With regard to "gay marriage": 1) There is no such thing as "gay marriage". Marriage is conceptual - it doesn't have a sexual orientation or identity. Same-sex couples aren't seeking "gay marriage". They're seeking marriage, period. Nevermind that a same-sex marriage doesn't have to be between two individuals who both identify as "gay". 2) What is your basis for opposing the marriage of any same-sex couple? Here's where I remind you that you brought it up first, making questions about how you formed that opinion fair game. Full disclosure, I'm gay, so I will cop to being personally biased. However, that also means I know what I, as a gay person, want. While I may also have a pretty fair notion of what many other gay people want, I can only speak for myself. So deal with me as an individual. If you resort to stereotyping or making blanket generalizations about gay people, this will probably be a very short conversation.
If I can use the examples of a number of gay people who are clients, then gay people most assuredly have an agenda - it seems to be completing multimillion dollar contracts on time and on budget and running successful businesses. As to what the right calls a "gay agenda" ... not so much.
Of course there is. An early version called the "Gay Rights Platform" was outlined in 1972 at the National Coalition of Gay Organizations Convention, held in Chicago. You can find it here http://www.rslevinson.com/gaylesissues/features/collect/onetime/bl_platform1972.htm Some interesting items: Amend all federal Civil Rights Acts, other legislation and government controls to prohibit discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations and public services. Issuance by the President of an executive order prohibiting the military from excluding for reasons of their sexual orientation, persons who of their own volition desire entrance into the Armed Services Federal encouragement and support for sex education courses, prepared and taught by gay women and men, presenting homosexuality as a valid, healthy preference and lifestyle as a viable alternative to heterosexuality Federal funding of aid programs of gay men's and women's organizations designed to alleviate the problems encountered by Gay women and men which are engendered by an oppressive sexist society Enactment of legislation so that child custody, adoption, visitation rights, foster parenting, and the like shall not be denied because of sexual orientation or marital status. Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent. Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers. The entire Gay Rights Platform is aimed at not only "equality" but also with making homosexuality accepted. That's why federal and state funding for gay promotion is in the platform, and federally funded public school sex ed courses taught by gays. And notice that gay platform calls for the repeal of all laws relating to the age of sexual consent. Is that a hint at pedophilia? In the National March on Washington for Gay and Lesbian Rights, most of the 1972 platform was reiterated and the following was included: "An anti-homophobic curriculum should be implemented in school". "Homophobic" is a subjective word whose interpretation is determined by the gay person. An anti-homophobic curriculum means a pro-gay PR and intimidation campaign. "Institutions that discriminate against lesbian and gay people should be denied tax-exempt status and federal funding". That's the attack on religion. “Public and private institutions should support parenting by lesbian or gay couples" The method for imposing the gay agenda is outlined in the 1989 book "After the Ball - How America Will Conquer It’s Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90’s". The article "The Overhauling of Straight America" (Guide Magazine, Nov, 1987 (Guide was published for gays)) does the same. They clearly and specifically outline a media propaganda campaign aimed at manipulating people using emotion, all opponents to the gay agenda are vilified. TV is specifically targeted, the method being to get as many gay characters in tv shows, sit-coms, movies, daytime talk shows. That's why in the 1990's-early 2000's many shows often had pro-gay comments embedded, and all the rage was same sex characters kissing, and why today every show seems to have a gay character, even though gays are about 2% of the population (and much less than that in most of the country). On page 146 of the book: “First you get your foot in the door, by being as similar as possible; then, and only then – when your one little difference is finally accepted – can you start dragging in your other peculiarities, one by one. You hammer in the wedge narrow end first. As the saying goes, ‘Allow the camel’s nose beneath your tent, and his whole body will soon follow.’” That's an admission that the gays were lying all the time. When they said they just wanted "a place at the table" (the chant throughout the 1990's, and the title of a 1994 book) and would not challenge religious institutions, and just wanted everyone to live and let live, it was all a lie. From 1972 (and earlier), the agenda was to force their lifestyle on society and destroy all those who stand in their way.
yes. And many leaders of the 'Gay Rights' hoax have confirmed that the entire 'movement' is based on a continuing series of expedient lies. They know they're mentally ill and it's a sexual fetish,.
So what? Do you think that because you were not involved or it doesn't fit into your time table that it does not exist? There are people that have vision and think and operate in the long term, acting on a plan that spans decades and even generations. Of course there are, gays have implemented their plan over the past 40 years. "progressives" have implemented a 100 year plan, religions operate over centuries. The writing is on the wall, gays have been open about their agenda for 40+ years, all you have to do is read it in their own words.
I think that I'm an individual quite capable of deciding for myself what my personal agenda is, if I have one at all. I don't need a "platform" from an event 40+ years ago to tell me what causes I think are worthy. For you to assume it has anything to do with my or what I argue is pretty foolish. Except those words aren't my words. This is where you and many others constantly fail - your assumption that "gays" all believe/want/pursue the same things - that we're all part of some vast conspiracy. It's also why I stopped engaging you, and will stop once again. There's really no point to trying to have a dialog with someone who can't see past their conspiracy theories to see the actual person trying to engage them.
I simply dislike television shoving agendas in my face. eg: I love Law and Order, but it constantly throws their biased perspective on topical issues into the episodes, especially SVU. And almost always they're on the wrong side of the issue. It's so (*)(*)(*)(*)ing obvious. Please, just give me an entertaining show. You can bring political topics up, just don't treat them unfairly. South Park does this brilliantly: even on things which they strongly feel about (like gun rights, drugs, etc) - they always give the other side a fair treatment. That's on-topic issues done right, not how SVU handles it.
Apologies - I see that I've managed to cut & paste the wrong quote marker above, unintentionally misattributing Battle3's statement to RosePop. Would have fixed it, but discovered it too late. Sorry about that!
This is not about you. Because you personally don't subscribe to a movement does not mean the movement does not exist. A movement does not require 100% participation of every person affected, it only requires enough people to impose change. That can be a small number or a large number depending upon the issue, who is involved, their resources, and the approach. The gays have quite clearly and deliberately thought out an agenda and a process, and have so far successfully executed their plan. The "conspiracy theorists" have been correct in predicting the goals and agenda of the gay activists, which is not surprising since the gays pretty clearly stated what they were going to do.
In short, you're going to lump me in with them regardless, because you prefer your bogeyman to a conversation with a real person. We're done.
Again, this is not about you. It does not matter what you think as an individual, what matters are those individuals who share a common agenda and have joined together to create a critical mass of power to impose their agenda on the rest of society. You are one, they are many, and as a result your personal position is not relevant. Its a similar situation as with radical islam, 300 Million muslims sitting quietly on the side lines letting the world pass them by means nothing, its the 200,000 radicals who wage total and barbaric war to impose their beliefs on the world who are making an impact and who matter.
I find this whole argument rather pathetic. For thousands of years, religious folk have specifically targeted gay people for persecution - they have imprisoned gay people, stoned them, chemically castrated them, had them fired from their jobs and disrespected their military service. And now, like the jerk kid who tortures the neighbors dog until it nips back, these religious folks have gone crying to the world about how gay people are "rabid" dogs just because one of them demands a cake. MOD EDIT - Rule 3
You're trying to pass that off as somehow definitive and applicable to gays in 2015? And it was an 'early version'? OK, so what was included in the later versions, when and by whom?
I believe it's much more sinister than that. I believe what they want is to increase the number of gay people in society so that they will have more potential partners. As is, only 2-3 people out of every 100 are gay. That means that a gay man in the general population will see 49 other men who he could possibly find attractive before he finds 1 that could possibly reciprocate the same feeling. Competition is sky high in their community, requiring levels of personal fitness and grooming that most men would have a very hard time adhering to. This has left many gay men perpetually single. The agenda is to indoctrinate children the same way liberal activists have been indoctrinating children in the class room for decades. Get at them when they are young, teach them that being gay is healthy, normal, and an "option" to the traditional heterosexual relationship that most people are hardwired into accepting. Sexuality is a spectrum. In that, I agree. Some people are completely, 100% heterosexual, right down to their genetic core. Some people are completely, 100% homosexual. However, I believe there are people in society who are somewhere in between, and can either end up gay or straight depending on their life experiences and upbringing. These are the people that I believe they are targeting and hoping to influence. So they overrepresent gays on television shows. They always show them to be the loving, compassionate, gentle souls that solve problems for others (usually with an angry abusive heterosexual somewhere in the background to provide a contrast). We are told constantly that any opposition to any of this is "homophobia".
Nonsense. What 'they' want to do is increase the number of gay people who don't feel that they have to hide that fact for fear of being discriminated against (or worse) by ignorant people who think it's somehow OK to treat people as 'wrong' or 'bad' or 'inferior' just because they are gay. That's not the same thing at all.
I explained my position, but you left off most of the explanation in your reply. You are free to disagree with it.
The documents from the 1970's, 1980's, and 1990's show a long term plan implemented by a core group of activists, and it matches events between the 1970's and today. I provided the links, read them first, use some initiative and do some of your own leg work, then respond with an opinion, rebuttal, or agreement. Past experience shows that people whose posts are nothing more than requests for ever more information will never be satisfied no matter how much information is provided.
