http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/07/letat_cest_gay_taking_the_new_sexual_fascism_seriously.html July 10, 2014 L'Etat, C'est Gay: Taking the New Sexual Fascism Seriously By Robert Oscar Lopez After months of collaboration with dozens of family activists, my blogging squad (English Manif http://englishmanif.blogspot.com/) was able to publish a catalog of 300 real-life examples of totalitarian conduct by the gay marriage and gay parenting movement (http://englishmanif.blogspot.com/2014/07/300-articles-you-have-to-read-to.html). For the convenience of readers, and to allow for discussion with common reference points, we have numbered the examples. The incidents range from small and episodic things, like #13 (banning the Dire Straits song Money for Nothing) and #72 (the social media efforts by gays against Gloria Estefan over her contract with Target department stores), to the grave and severe, such as #157 (the imprisonment of a young French man for opposing same-sex marriage) or #162 (the hiring of trained provocateurs to infiltrate the French Manif pour Tous). They range from bureaucratically serious, like #156 (the felonious release of confidential tax returns to the Human Rights Campaign by the IRS), to the emotionally manipulative, like #164 (GLAADs petty vendetta against gay novelist Brett Easton Ellis), to the outwardly violent, like #45 (Floyd Corkins attempt at mass murder at the Family Research Council). ........Undeniable is the acceleration of this stunning phenomenon something to which I will apply the term homofascism, knowing the term is given to caricature. There is a mass movement aimed at stifling the autonomy of natural relationships friendships, familial love, romantic love, human reverence for the divine and subverting such relationships to the punitive power of an intrusive state. It is as sweeping and menacing as past isms, including fascism, to which it reveals a number of striking resemblances. ............. It is important for people to distinguish between gay individuals, many if not most of whom are still struggling, and the lobby that obeys the leadership of a very different generation of male homosexuals (lesbians and bisexuals are still largely marginal to the Gay Lobby). This new generation, which I like to call the helicopter class, consists of people who werent out of the closet when things were very hard for homosexuals during the turbulent 1970s or the onset of AIDS in the 1980s or were out of the closet only within a protected and pampered milieu, if they were actually born at all yet by 1990. The bigwigs of todays homosexual elite, many younger children of extremely wealthy people, parachuted into the gay world from sanitized clouds in the atmosphere. They landed on queer soil when the mass of everyday folks had fought the big battles and earned their true war medals on the street. The parachuters got all of the glory and paid none of the shared sacrifice. In one of the more bizarre twists of this movements history, the less activists actually struggled, the more bitter they felt about homophobia and the more vicious they became about fighting it by focusing on meaningless verbal slights (like #56, Phil Robertson saying unkind things about anal sex) or other gay people being less than in lockstep with them (such as #213, the war against gay writer Brandon Ambrosino for supposedly being too palatable to conservatives). I knew multitudes of poor gay people of color when I was younger. They have no dog in most of these political fights and really could not care less about what is said about them by someone who stars in a show called Duck Dynasty. I still have been unable to understand why the less gay people suffer, the more righteously they avenge themselves, though I made a stab at the issue in at least two American Thinker articles before. Read the full article, and look at the 300 examples (soon to be 600). The gay "rights" movement is not about equality.
So you support the accusation here that there is a specific gay lobby with identified leaders who directly initiated all 300 of the incidents reported (even the ones that didn't actually happen)? The fact is this is a list of normal articles; some true, some spun out of all recognition, many from biased or flawed sources, mostly about individuals doing or saying things, good, bad or indifferent. Many of them are about responses to actual discrimination against homosexuals (even if the responses go too far). Many present only one side of a two sided story. There is absolutely nothing connecting any of them of suggesting any kind of "gay lobby" being involved.
Yes, there is a gay lobby centered around a select few organizations identified in the article (which you obviously did not read) such as GLAAD. The cases demonstrate a group mindset promulgated by a group of leaders. And as you admit, even in cases of actual discrimination, the responses by the gay lobby go too far.
I did read the article. Just because I disagree with the trash you posted doesn't mean I didn't read it. You didn't answer my question though. Do you support the accusation that there are gay leaders who directly initiated all 300 of the incidents reported? I say that responses in all sorts of situations go to far. The article you linked is a perfect example.
Just another trash and bash piece. Nothing to see here. Move along, move along. Sing a song. Bang a gong Get it on.
So the author is Robert Oscar Lopez.....known for the following open-minded quotes: -- Claims the LGBT rights movement has "become an engine of world-historical evil": "When you see a movement as unprincipled and ruthless as the gay lobby is, you must be clear that you have an enemy. The gay lobby is not your friend. Any friendliness from them is likely manipulation and subterfuge. Remember: your end goal is to pour burning coals on his head, not to have tea and crumpets and reminisce about the good old days when you were classmates at Dartmouth. When they invite you to dinner with the kids they conceived with a surrogate, they are trying to brainwash you, as they’ve already brainwashed the kids. Remember that." -- Claims "The Gay Movement is an International War on Black People" -- Says that by siding with the majority to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor failed to connect the dots between same-sex parenting and slavery: "Incidentally, through my Puerto Rican roots I am also the descendant of African slaves, as I would guess Sotomayor might be as well. The scars inflicted on the survivors of slavery are tied to the fact that our ancestors were bought, sold, and robbed of a link to our biological roots. This is precisely what gay parenting does to kids through baby farming, adoption on demand, insemination, and surrogacy. You don't solve the historical trauma of such uprooting by vindicating the purveyor of the trauma -- in the case of slavery, white negreros, and in the case of same-sex parenting, gay activists who selfishly placed their desire for a family over children's needs for a mom and a dad. Slavery isn't the only past crime against humanity that offers warnings against shielding "parents" from scrutiny of their deprivation of children's roots. Did it protect the children born as slaves to keep slavery legal? Does it protect children deprived of their fathers to make it legal for the lesbians who have sequestered them to continue excluding them from contact with their fathers? Is the wise Latina awake? Paying attention? Just not connecting the dots? Hello!!" -- Directly compares gay parents to slaveowners: "Slavery is the buying and selling of children. In US history, people whose families weren't large enough to work their own land paid slave owners to breed their male and female slaves, then bought their babies and raised them, presumably as beloved members of their family. Gay couples are no better when they arrange such things, even if they lie to themselves and say it's for love. To love a child you have to love yourself and the other biological parent; it all goes hand in hand. Otherwise you're being selfish and abusive. You are selfish and abusive in the way you put forth fraudulent arguments to justify the sale of human chattel and give over to modern slavery in the name of gay liberation." -- Accuses a lesbian couple fighting in court for marriage of "us[ing] their special-needs children as propaganda to force gay marriage on a state" -- Writes of gay men and their sex lives: "I have often wondered if a very large percentage of gay men have chronic PTSD that one would expect of rape victims." -- In open letter to a theoretical lesbian couple with a child, refers to same-sex parenting as "this crime": "Why engage in debate with me at all if you are going to limit our vocabulary to brainless platitudes like "my family counts," "my family exists," and "I am as good as you"? Do you plan to keep your daughter in this Orwellian state of dumbed-down doublespeak for her entire life, lest she suddenly realize that you deprived her of a dad and spent much of her childhood trying to deflect blame for this crime onto other people?" Adds: "Do you ever plan to apologize to the girl you are raising for violating her basic human rights, severing her from her father and denying her a father and controlling her for your own quest for validation?" -- Equates same-sex adoption with "cultural genocide once used against blacks and Indians": "The gay community is now entirely allied to the cultural genocide practices once used against blacks and Indians, since they are determined to say that, in the words of Nancy Polikoff, genetics doesn't matter as long as an adoptive couple can sway the powers that be to award them children. It all feels new and shiny to the gay community, because to them it's a way to overcome past inequality. But they are repeating the same genocidal practices of the past." -- Yet another slavery comparison:"Gay marriage has caused slavery to return to the United States and the nation's courts and lawyers are ignoring the 13th Amendment. We are failing as a society." -- Without any evidence, claims that the late Tyler Clementi probably "had liaisons with men who were older than eighteen and committing statutory rape." -- Described the anti-bullying "It Gets Better" project as "expressly designed for delivery to vulnerable minors in a state of potential nervous breakdown;" added that the late Tyler Clementi's parents "need to step up and show true courage; rather than allow their son to be exploited by the very same subculture that actually caused his death, they need to take the LGBT movement to task." -- Slurs same-sex parents as "slavers buying children from poor surrogate mums overseas": "The testimonials from happy children of same-sex couples are obviously handpicked and staged to maximize the value of propaganda, but a gullible populace won't ask what isn't being printed or broadcast. A gullible populace prefers ingesting whatever is printed or broadcast. 'Love' is a meaningless mantra, like 'nobody is really listening to your phone calls' or "we need drones for national security purposes" out of the mouth of Obama; but in a country where people are swayed by Obama's silky voice, why would people not be swayed by gay couples saying, 'we aren't slavers buying children from poor surrogate mums overseas, we love our kids'? -- Claims the Human Rights Campaign "abets chattel slavery in the form of gestational surrogacy" -- Claims Disney Channel show featuring lesbian parents is meant to "anesthetize us to cruelty" -- Says of LGBT activists: "Dear God, these wacko LGBT full-body totalitarians don't know when to stop. They must control ALL forms of government record-keeping, ALL possible conversations between doctors and patients, ALL lessons in EVERY classroom, ALL jokes made in EVERY military barracks, ALL tweets, ALL florists and cake-bakers and photographers and....Dear God, they are taking over the whole world!!!! God help us." -- Says neighbors should intervene in lesbian households "to make sure the kids don't turn out totally screwed up": "Listen, lesbian moms out there -- cut the crap. You went out of your way to place helpless children into a fatherless home. You knew your household was going to be controversial. You shouldn't have created this situation in the first place. Now that you created it, we all have to make the best of it. Your loved ones and neighbors should be intervening in your household to make sure the kids don't turn out totally screwed up." -- Claims gay people who use reproductive assistance are "re-pathologizing" homosexuality: "If it's normal to engage in homosexual relationships then you can't justify using sperm banks or surrogacy to procreate, in cases where a gay man's testicles are functioning perfectly and a lesbian's uterus and eggs are fit for action. The fact that you're not interested in matching functioning testicles to a functioning uterus because you're gay is supposed to be NORMAL; if we start involving medical treatments for you, then you are reinforcing the notion that homosexuality is a defect. That undoes the whole de-pathologizing move of forty years ago." -- On same-sex parenting: "Lesbian moms allow the sources of their children's sperm to run off and be unbothered, saying to themselves, 'those two dykes will care for my kid, (*)(*)(*)(*), I don't owe the world anything.' Gay dads are just two pairs of men running off to live in a world of men, avoiding the hassles and PMS and demands of the women who bear them children. Both forms of same-sex parenting pass on more broken family ties, cause more erasure, sever children from their origins, and teach men to be fatherless and feckless all at once." -- Accuses "the gay lobby" of "pushing internationally to bring back chattel slavery in the form of gestational surrogacy" and "carrying out a systematic cover-up of the community's global pederastic sex trade" -- Claims "support for gay marriage means supporting the view of children as COMMODITIES FOR PURCHASE, otherwise known as SLAVES." -- In downright nasty (and vulgar) take on Edie Windsor's forty year relationship, Lopez reduces her shared decades with her late wife as being all about sex: "So it goes with Edith Windsor and the woman she was having sex with. She went to the Supreme Court and demanded that American taxpayers reward her for having lesbian sex by issuing her a back check for $300,000+. This is what civil marriage is based on. The country pays you to have sex. When it's a man and a woman having sex, it makes sense -- we need men to have sex with women so that we procreate. Why do we need Edith Windsor to have sex with another lady? What is the public interest in their sex life? They have the freedom to engage in sex because after Lawrence v. Texas, anti-sodomy laws have been deemed unconstitutional. So it's not possible for the state to prevent Edith Windsor from jumping into the sack with another sexy senior female and using dildos, dental dams, frottage, or whatever stimulating activities might send them into erotic thrall. They are free to do that. Once they are legally married, however, and they want the state to pay them for this mutually gratifying sexual activity, they are now no longer free to stop having sex. If Edith and her partner were to keep their clothes on for twenty years and not even do anything erotic at all, her partner could sue for divorce and claim sexual neglect. They would have to go to divorce court. Judges would have to know facts and figures about how they serviced or didn't service each other's erogenous zones." -- Equates same-sex parents with abusers: "So the kid is basically a victim of two gay adults, who are now (without realizing it) rubbing it in the kid's face. 'See! Everyone says what I did is okay! You have NO reason to complain!' This is the way abusers often treat the people they abuse: They send flowers and apologize, justify themselves, make their victims feel it's all in their heads, publicly force their victims to say they're happy and nothing's wrong...I hate seeing kids be exploited and placed in traumatically uncomfortable positions. I hate seeing them be crushed into submission with the emotional tricks of abusive adults." -- Claims surrogacy, adoption, and other paths same-sex parents take toward parenting recall "many of the worst vices against humanity that have been committed in past eras" -- Published fiction books bashing gay life -- Blames America's LGBT rights movement for other nation's draconian bans on homosexuality: "If we do not clean up what's going on in our own backyard, we will only make the problem worse, increase the alarm overseas, and incite ever-increasing levels of antigay backlash. No, I am not excusing antigay backlash that goes this far -- but I am saying that we can't ignore what's happening at home because, in fact, the best way for us to help counteract the antigay backlash overseas is to reform our own gay lobby and inspire other nations with examples of a country that can find a reasonable middle ground of acceptance and support for homosexuals, rather than blatant antigay repression on one end, or the tyranny of LGBT social engineering on the other end." -- Says "I think polygamy is far preferable to same-sex marriage because at least there is a father and a mother in a polygamous household, irrespective of how many additional fathers or mothers there might be." Why should I read an article by this man who has such an openly anti-gay agenda?
I'm not sure what's so complicated about "Gay Rights" or why we are discussing Gay people or making a distinction of them as if they are not human beings and afforded all the rights and liberties that any other human being in America be allowed to have. If we have Human Rights, than Gay people should be included in them. There's no need to make a whole seperate legal code as if they were an addendum to the species. That said...I don't think gay people are trying to undermine liberty. They simply, and justly, wish to be looked on equally and treated so. There may be people trying to use the movement to further their own ambitions (much like the Tea Party and the Occupy movements had been co-opted) but I would not and do not blame gay people for it, nor their movement for their own equality. Anger should be directed only at those people trying to piggyback inside the movmement.
I answered your question. There are gay leaders who promote a homofascist agenda which they encourage others to promote through their PR campaign. Through their media campaign they create an atmosphere of intolerance and overreach. In many cases they are directly involved, in others their proxies are directly involved, and in others the overreach is due to their propaganda influence. Certainly many situations go to far, but that does not mean none are the result of an orchestrated political program.
That's the point. There are gay people who just want to live their lives and are not on a crusade to force acceptance. Glen Geenwald (of the Snowden NSA leaks) is a perfect example, he goes about his work in a professional manner without wearing his sexual preference on his sleeve. I have a great deal of respect for Greenwald and support his activity exposing the NSA surveillance. But Greenwald is not typical of the gay rights activists who think any person who through thought, word, or deed is not completely accepting of the gay lifestyle should be destroyed. As the article stated, most gay people just want to live their lives and leave others alone. They are not the problem.
You should read it if you have an open mind, since the article is not at all about destroying the gay lifestyle, but about the overreach of a small portion of the gay community which is driving a draconian agenda to force acceptance. Unfortunately this small segment is also the most active, vocal, and intolerant and attack all - gay and straight - who do not meet their homofascist agenda. As he wrote: It is important for people to distinguish between gay individuals, many if not most of whom are still struggling, and the lobby that obeys the leadership of a very different generation of male homosexuals (lesbians and bisexuals are still largely marginal to the Gay Lobby). This new generation, which I like to call the helicopter class, consists of people who werent out of the closet when things were very hard for homosexuals during the turbulent 1970s or the onset of AIDS in the 1980s or were out of the closet only within a protected and pampered milieu, if they were actually born at all yet by 1990. The bigwigs of todays homosexual elite, many younger children of extremely wealthy people, parachuted into the gay world from sanitized clouds in the atmosphere. They landed on queer soil when the mass of everyday folks had fought the big battles and earned their true war medals on the street. The parachuters got all of the glory and paid none of the shared sacrifice. In one of the more bizarre twists of this movements history, the less activists actually struggled, the more bitter they felt about homophobia and the more vicious they became about fighting it by focusing on meaningless verbal slights (like #56, Phil Robertson saying unkind things about anal sex) or other gay people being less than in lockstep with them (such as #213, the war against gay writer Brandon Ambrosino for supposedly being too palatable to conservatives). I knew multitudes of poor gay people of color when I was younger. They have no dog in most of these political fights and really could not care less about what is said about them by someone who stars in a show called Duck Dynasty. I still have been unable to understand why the less gay people suffer, the more righteously they avenge themselves, though I made a stab at the issue in at least two American Thinker articles before. You could have read the entire article in less time than it took to write your lengthy response. But maybe that's the difference between you and me, I read dissenting opinions.
I see. I've heard this argument said for feminism and racism and I believe there are definitely those who go into the extreme side of it where they cease to be defensive and become overly offensive, if not imperial, lol. Ah well. Well then you are right if it means simply treating gays as equals (no more bullcrap about whether a gay person can marry another gay person...utter waste of energy) but not giving them any more than that.
Leftists suffer from Oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) a pattern of angry/irritable behavior, or , and is exhibited during interaction with at least one individual that is not a leftist. One of the psychological symptoms includes labeling conservatives as fascists and anybody who doesn't agree with them as bigots.
One of the first things i do before spending my time reading an article that on the surface appears to be a particularly oriented hit piece is to look at the bio of the author- and what I found was the selection of quotes that I posted here- posts that reveal a man with a very specific negative point of view of homosexuals. So it establishes his bias. So you want me to read his article? First of all- it is poorly written- given to exaggeration and vague claims. He also labels any group that has fought for equal rights as a wing of his mythical 'homofacist movement' Go and read through the list. You may start to grasp how enormous the gay family movement is, how corrosive and especially how illiberal and anti-democratic it is. And also how dangerous it is it has systematically subverted all the bailiwicks of patriarchal privilege that caused homosexuals their legitimate grievances in the century between the 1860s and the 1960s. First, let us be honest with ourselves that the gay lobby is real and has incredible power. Certain names repeat eerily, especially the Human Rights Campaign, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the American Civil Liberties Union, and GLAAD. Well lets examine this claim. The Human Rights Campaign I am not immediately familiar with but a quick check of their website does show that they are specifically a group oriented towards equal rights for homosexuals As the largest civil rights organization working to achieve equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans, the Human Rights Campaign represents a force of more than 1.5 million members and supporters nationwide all committed to making HRC's vision a reality. I don't find anything particularly unusual or nefarious about this- take as example the Anti-Defamation League The Anti-Defamation League was founded in 1913 "to stop the defamation of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment to all." Now the nation's premier civil rights/human relations agency, ADL fights anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry, defends democratic ideals and protects civil rights for all. The next one they mention is the Southern Poverty Law Center- and organization that I am familiar with- The Southern Poverty Law Center is dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry and to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of our society. Using litigation, education, and other forms of advocacy, the Center works toward the day when the ideals of equal justice and equal opportunity will be a reality. Their current priorities include- children at risk, hate groups, immigrant justice, LGBT rights and tolerance in schools. The ACLU everyone knows- and has fought for the civil rights of everyone from African Americans and KKK to jews and LGBT. GLAAD is another specific gay organization- again no different in concept than the ADL. But he labels these as all co-conspirators in in some 'homofascist' movement. Then we have this wierd guilt by association: consider the case of Obamas appointee to commerce secretary Penny Pritzker, the cousin of Jennifer Pritzker, the first transgender billionaire. As the Sun Times reports: Jennifer Pritzker, the first transgender billionaire, has contributed $54,000 to Republican Bruce Rauner's campaign fund Why the hell does he care whether a cousin of the commerce secretary is 'transgender'? He doesn't explain- he just makes the connection. The article itself is poorly written, with a particularly odd anti-homosexual slant- clearly he is absolutely against homosexuals as parents and that is probably because of his own experience- which is natural- but doesn't mean that his opinions should go unchallenged. BUT wait- does he provide a concise list- i.e. catalogue of what he calls 'homofascist' examples? No- that is another link- and that is an ugly mess. First up of the examples is the example of a 14 year old girl who called for people to vote against same sex marriage. And on Youtube she got horrible criticism- even death threats. Is that an example of 'homosfascism'? There is nothing to indicate that this is anything more than the usual hateful anonymous posts that get posted on the internet. I have seen people here on PF make comments about homosexuals almost as bad- like hoping that they get AIDS and die. One of the next examples is of a 15 year old boy who published an article in a school newspaper- and when a gay couple complained- was called to the principals office. The only 'organization' linked to this event was the 'Liberty Foundation'. So the first two 'homofascist' events have no indication that there is any 'invisible hand' behind them- and why should i keep going on? People will be criticized for having unpopular ideas- and that includes being against gay marriage. No one deserves death threats for having an opinion- and yes- I will happily call whoever made those death threats a fascist- but they are the type of fascists that plagues the internet with stupid, vile remarks - often directed though- at homosexual kids. http://www.dailydot.com/entertainment/disney-mia-talerico-death-threats/ 5-year-old Disney star gets death threats when her show introduces same-sex couple I look forward to Mr. Lopez's article and catalogue of the anti-gay fascists- but I suspect that he will never be as concerned about death threats to those who appear to be 'pro-homosexual as he is about those who appear to be anti-homosexual. - - - Updated - - - One of the first things i do before spending my time reading an article that on the surface appears to be a particularly oriented hit piece is to look at the bio of the author- and what I found was the selection of quotes that I posted here- posts that reveal a man with a very specific negative point of view of homosexuals. So it establishes his bias. So you want me to read his article? First of all- it is poorly written- given to exaggeration and vague claims. He also labels any group that has fought for equal rights as a wing of his mythical 'homofacist movement' Go and read through the list. You may start to grasp how enormous the gay family movement is, how corrosive and especially how illiberal and anti-democratic it is. And also how dangerous it is it has systematically subverted all the bailiwicks of patriarchal privilege that caused homosexuals their legitimate grievances in the century between the 1860s and the 1960s. First, let us be honest with ourselves that the gay lobby is real and has incredible power. Certain names repeat eerily, especially the Human Rights Campaign, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the American Civil Liberties Union, and GLAAD. Well lets examine this claim. The Human Rights Campaign I am not immediately familiar with but a quick check of their website does show that they are specifically a group oriented towards equal rights for homosexuals As the largest civil rights organization working to achieve equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans, the Human Rights Campaign represents a force of more than 1.5 million members and supporters nationwide all committed to making HRC's vision a reality. I don't find anything particularly unusual or nefarious about this- take as example the Anti-Defamation League The Anti-Defamation League was founded in 1913 "to stop the defamation of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment to all." Now the nation's premier civil rights/human relations agency, ADL fights anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry, defends democratic ideals and protects civil rights for all. The next one they mention is the Southern Poverty Law Center- and organization that I am familiar with- The Southern Poverty Law Center is dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry and to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of our society. Using litigation, education, and other forms of advocacy, the Center works toward the day when the ideals of equal justice and equal opportunity will be a reality. Their current priorities include- children at risk, hate groups, immigrant justice, LGBT rights and tolerance in schools. The ACLU everyone knows- and has fought for the civil rights of everyone from African Americans and KKK to jews and LGBT. GLAAD is another specific gay organization- again no different in concept than the ADL. But he labels these as all co-conspirators in in some 'homofascist' movement. Then we have this wierd guilt by association: consider the case of Obamas appointee to commerce secretary Penny Pritzker, the cousin of Jennifer Pritzker, the first transgender billionaire. As the Sun Times reports: Jennifer Pritzker, the first transgender billionaire, has contributed $54,000 to Republican Bruce Rauner's campaign fund Why the hell does he care whether a cousin of the commerce secretary is 'transgender'? He doesn't explain- he just makes the connection. The article itself is poorly written, with a particularly odd anti-homosexual slant- clearly he is absolutely against homosexuals as parents and that is probably because of his own experience- which is natural- but doesn't mean that his opinions should go unchallenged. BUT wait- does he provide a concise list- i.e. catalogue of what he calls 'homofascist' examples? No- that is another link- and that is an ugly mess. First up of the examples is the example of a 14 year old girl who called for people to vote against same sex marriage. And on Youtube she got horrible criticism- even death threats. Is that an example of 'homosfascism'? There is nothing to indicate that this is anything more than the usual hateful anonymous posts that get posted on the internet. I have seen people here on PF make comments about homosexuals almost as bad- like hoping that they get AIDS and die. One of the next examples is of a 15 year old boy who published an article in a school newspaper- and when a gay couple complained- was called to the principals office. The only 'organization' linked to this event was the 'Liberty Foundation'. So the first two 'homofascist' events have no indication that there is any 'invisible hand' behind them- and why should i keep going on? People will be criticized for having unpopular ideas- and that includes being against gay marriage. No one deserves death threats for having an opinion- and yes- I will happily call whoever made those death threats a fascist- but they are the type of fascists that plagues the internet with stupid, vile remarks - often directed though- at homosexual kids. http://www.dailydot.com/entertainment/disney-mia-talerico-death-threats/ 5-year-old Disney star gets death threats when her show introduces same-sex couple I look forward to Mr. Lopez's article and catalogue of the anti-gay fascists- but I suspect that he will never be as concerned about death threats to those who appear to be 'pro-homosexual as he is about those who appear to be anti-homosexual. - - - Updated - - - What an odd statement in a thread by a conservative who is labeling homosexuals and anyone who doesn't agree with them as fascists.
Do you believe none of the cases listed (in what actually happened rather than any one-sided reporting) actually represent legitimate defence against discrimination against homosexuals? Do you think there is any legitimate situation for homosexuals to bring complaints or legal cases regarding discrimination or mistreatment? If all the organisations and campaigns in favour of homosexual rights are to be identified as a singular "homofascist agenda", wouldn't the equally aggressive organisations and campaigns against homosexual rights be identified in a similar manner? Wouldn't it be more honest to argue against all "fascists" rather than just the homosexual ones?
The last clearly shows you did not read (and by read I don't mean skim the article looking for ways to justify your bias, "read" means to gain some understanding) the article. And it shows you do not read and consider the posts and miss the most basic statements. Yes, I am a conservative, I do not accept homosexuality, but tolerate it and do not support govt intrusion. I have been clear that the issue is not all gays, but the gay activists who are on a crusade to obliterate all signs of real & perceived anti-gay thought & action. Its the overreaching activists that are the homofascists, not all gays. To miss such frequently repeated facts makes it clear your bias is too deep to be impacted by any outside influence.
Of course there are legitimate cases and claims. The point is not all the cases and claims, its the cases that are taken to an extreme in order to make an example out of the victim (and by victim, I mean the target of the gay crusaders). And the point is that people are targeted not for actual discrimination but because they do not completely accept the gay agenda. Brendan Eich (Mozilla) is the perfect example. He supported 8 years ago a defense of marriage proposal in California, the proposal won but was overturned in court. Eich accepted the result and there is absolutely no evidence or even indication he has done anything "anti-gay" particularly in his capacity at work, yet a segment of the gay activists could not allow a man who at any time and in any way demonstrated less than 100% acceptance of the gay agenda. Therefore, they destroyed Eich. Or Maurice Price (pro football player who tweeted "gross" about the gay player kissing a guy), who was fined, put on probabtion and sent to re-education classes. The gay extremists cannot allow any public display of non-gay approved action, and so Price was victimized. The purpose of the extremists is to shut down all public and private dissent. People are targeted and destroed to send a message that if anyone thinks or acts in an "anti-gay" manner then they will be villified in social media, their employer targeted, they will be taken to court, and made to suffer in every manner possible.
In which case, the list of 300 cases and the article based upon it are frauds. They're not actually representing what they claim to represent. Sometimes, but not nearly as much as is being alleged here. More importantly, those people with legitimate complaints or valid personal opinions are being libelled by being automatically lumped together with the minority of extremists. Again, there are also extremist who target people for attack just because they seek equality and an end to discrimination against homosexuals and they deserve exactly the same condemnation. You know, people who create lists of every homosexual-discrimination claim they can find and accuse all of them of being part of some grand "homofascist" conspiracy. And, I'm sorry to say, those who promote them. Too true. Down with all the extremists.
I read it- and frankly wish I had those 15 minutes back of my life. The article is poorly written, and full of unestablished claims and guilt by association Tell me- what do you think he was trying to say when it brings this up?: consider the case of Obama’s appointee to commerce secretary – Penny Pritzker, the cousin of Jennifer Pritzker, “the first transgender billionaire.” As the Sun Times reports: Jennifer Pritzker, the first transgender billionaire, has contributed $54,000 to Republican Bruce Rauner's campaign fund I see no difference between the gay activists that you speak of and the Anti-Defamation League and the NAACP or any of the myriad of Christian organizations that fight to counter negative portrayals of Christians. Who were the 'overreaching activists' in the very first 'example' this author gives in his article? To connect every perceived slight to those who oppose homosexuals to 'homosexual activists'- and to some larger and grander 'invisible hand' just makes it clear that your bias is to deep to be impacted by reality. - - - Updated - - - Who is 'they'? The main critics of Eich were employees of Mozilla. Who were the 'gay activists' that 'destroyed' Eich?
Again who were the gay activists that made any of this happen? How was this handled any more extremely than if a player had tweeted 'gross' about a black woman kissing a white man? Look at what happened with the owner of the Lakers- what happened to him was not the result of some organized effort of 'black activists' who pull strings behind the screen- this was a league that was being watched- and reacted quickly to address what was perceived as bigoted comments. What you call homofascism is what I call societal rejection of bigotry. Just as it is no longer socially acceptable in most circles to call an African American a n****r, and to face societal consequences if someone is perceived to be a racist- so now there are now some societal consequences for the appearance of being bigoted towards homosexuals. Note I said- appearance of being bigoted. - - - Updated - - - One last comment regarding your post- you accused me of not reading the article- you did no better- you clearly did not read all of my response- nor did you respond to the specific points I raised in my response.
Just because in every case an identifiable individual does not stand and lead the effort does not mean the persecution is not the result of an orchestrated atmosphere of intolerance and hatred. Through PR and media they set the tone and encourage the persecution. The societal consequences to the "appearance" (and what does that mean? Who sets this extremely subjective threshold?) of being anti-gay are far out of proportion to the actual "appearance". I read most of your response, even to the point of skimming the second half which was a repeat of the first half. And I did not respond to all of your numerous items, it seems a waste of time when to address numerous specific (and somewhat redundant) points when you miss the major concept. It seems without an idenitifiable ring leader behind every example - a smoking gun - the concept of overreach if beyond your horizon, or you are too defensive to allow it. How often do people blame Fox News or the GOP or Sarah Palin for activity they had no direct participation in, but the accusors claim FOx/GOP/Palin set the tone and direction and are still responsible? Yet gay organizations are immune to the concept of whipping their followers into a frenzy and setting them loose?
But you were saying that Eich was a perfect example. You are assuming that what happened was orchestrated- but you have no evidence to support that conclusion.
I would say that they are all 'equally' fascists- which means that none of them are. Condemn the actions of GLAAD like someone else might condemn Fox- I have no problem with that. Condemn the Southern Poverty Law Center for something you consider to be stupid, just like I will happily condemn Sarah Palin for some particularly slanted remark(death panels......) But I am not condemning or accusing those of the Far Right of being fascists- nor am I making up some sort of concerted action that includes Fox News, Sarah Palin, the Million Mom's and the Catholic Church.
Allow me to be quite frank, now. This isn't about extremism. This isn't about fascism. Neither of those terms apply. This is about humanity, and it is about love. It's about the kind of acceptance and understanding that should be the standard for mankind, regardless of sex, skin colour or sexual orientation. Anti-gay sentiment is an absolute scourge on the world. The suicide rates for homosexuals are through the roof, and countless more are forces to conceal it because of fear of the intolerance, maltreatment and hatred that they are likely to encounter. This is not fine. You speak of extremism, but it is not extremism when one does not tolerate bigotry. It is not extremism when one will fight for the right of people to be with their loved ones. Bigotry against homosexuals will be crushed. It will not be accepted in any way, shape, or form to hate people because of their sexual orientation. You say those things as if they are bad. Well, they aren't. It's all right and proper that we all layeth the smacketh down on anti-gay sentiment, and make it very crystal clear that such inhuman and archaic values have no place in modern society. Of course, none of that actually entails harming someone physically, which is curiously absent from your list of things that people are subjected to. Perhaps you don't think that "made to suffer in every manner possible" includes being lynched and murdered, which is something that has happened to countless homosexual people, and is still happening in the world today.
