Barrack Obama: Homosexual Champion

cant this be used as a means of changing somebodys identity through transgenderism? and if it isnt how do we know its not a completely different person that obama is 'appointing?' shouldnt this be illegal?

im not leaning towards anti-homosexuality im just stating the fact that this is dangerous and a covert agent can be planted without the public even knowing?

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by AsimpleAbstraction

 

I just don't think they are going to turn me gay, or my children for that matter.

I don't think people should be shunned for being who they are, provided that they aren't hurting anyone else.

I'm sorry but this is incredibly naive. Unless your children are already grown or you homeschool, they will be exposed to graphic, biased information in the public schools. I read a news story where the pre-school kids of a certain district, I think it may be Massachusetts, were being sent home with a book bag full of books. Pre-school! and the parents were not informed of this. The book bag was secretly transferred child to child, so every week a different child was going home with the book bag full of books, like Heather has Two Mommies and such. If you think this was not an on the sly attempt to influence children's sexual mores at the earliest possible age, under the radar if possible, you have another thing coming.
And then there was the Dad who wanted to opt out his kids from the sex ed program and when he objected to the program, instead of giving him the opt-out, the school got a court ordered restraining order against Dad. Think that isn't some fascistic aggressive move?

Originally posted by AsimpleAbstraction

The complacency here is sickening. Have you not seen what the homosexual minority is doing? They are active, and they have an agenda. To revolutionize and re-conform society into a pro-homo world. Now think about this, homosexuality is biologically abnormal. Thus any ideals pro biological abnormality are either ignorant, self complacent, or completely skewed.

The argument: "they aren't hurting anyone" is poor to say the least. Dictating a demise in a private tradition, influencing the media, converting anyone who even seems "feminine" into a "closet homosexual", forcing their way into every nook and cranny. The only one who doesn't seem to have a choice here, are the ones who are against their ideals. The homosexuals will whine and cry until they get what they want: people to accept it as normal, and incorporate it into everything.

Well maybe a modern day, anti gay Hitler will spring up and make you happy.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by AsimpleAbstraction

 

I just don't think they are going to turn me gay, or my children for that matter.

I don't think people should be shunned for being who they are, provided that they aren't hurting anyone else.

I'm sorry but this is incredibly naive. Unless your children are already grown or you homeschool, they will be exposed to graphic, biased information in the public schools. I read a news story where the pre-school kids of a certain district, I think it may be Massachusetts, were being sent home with a book bag full of books. Pre-school! and the parents were not informed of this. The book bag was secretly transferred child to child, so every week a different child was going home with the book bag full of books, like Heather has Two Mommies and such. If you think this was not an on the sly attempt to influence children's sexual mores at the earliest possible age, under the radar if possible, you have another thing coming.
And then there was the Dad who wanted to opt out his kids from the sex ed program and when he objected to the program, instead of giving him the opt-out, the school got a court ordered restraining order against Dad. Think that isn't some fascistic aggressive move?

Well since you appear to be on the side of Fascism, why don't you ask yourself?

Originally posted by Northwarden

So who the heck are you? Have a mirror. Defend your own credentials you ignorant ****. Spotlight is on ya.
How do you justify teaching kids fully the lifestyle of sodomists, knowing the government does not have societies best interests in mind.

Did I attack you personally or did I attack your argument. The name calling is completely uncalled for. A mirror? Not sure what that is, sorry, I have only been using ATS for a short time and haven't figured out all the bells, and whistles.

You mention "The Gay Agenda" quite often. Can you perhaps tell me what that is. The only people I've heard mention that are people that don't like homosexuals.

And just so you know I am a heterosexual Canadian male. I am traditional in that I only practice 1 man, 1 woman sex and I don't believe in sex outside of a committed relationship. Personally I think that gay sex is gross, but I defend anyone's right to do it, as long as it is between 2 or more consenting adults. To believe otherwise is to curtail the freedom of others, and I feel that is completely wrong.

Have a nice day. I wish you nothing but the best in life. I hope you learn to live and let live.

reply to post by Heyyo_yoyo




OP, I fail to see the problem. Transgender Americans are as capable as anyone else. America is -supposed- to be a celebration of diversity. The notion that different=wrong is outdated and best thrown into the dustbin of history. Like the world we live on, we are always in a state of change, its never a bad time to embrace "live and let live."

Originally posted by Chindogu

Originally posted by Northwarden

So who the heck are you? Have a mirror. Defend your own credentials you ignorant ****. Spotlight is on ya.
How do you justify teaching kids fully the lifestyle of sodomists, knowing the government does not have societies best interests in mind.

Did I attack you personally or did I attack your argument. The name calling is completely uncalled for. A mirror? Not sure what that is, sorry, I have only been using ATS for a short time and haven't figured out all the bells, and whistles.

You mention "The Gay Agenda" quite often. Can you perhaps tell me what that is. The only people I've heard mention that are people that don't like homosexuals.

And just so you know I am a heterosexual Canadian male. I am traditional in that I only practice 1 man, 1 woman sex and I don't believe in sex outside of a committed relationship. Personally I think that gay sex is gross, but I defend anyone's right to do it, as long as it is between 2 or more consenting adults. To believe otherwise is to curtail the freedom of others, and I feel that is completely wrong.

Have a nice day. I wish you nothing but the best in life. I hope you learn to live and let live.

edit on 22-3-2011 by Chindogu because: (no reason given)

I'm same stance as you on the defines, that's a similar summary. But watch what you're defending, just because it's popular. It's a logical fallacy covered by :

Fallacy: Appeal to Common Practice

Description of Appeal to Common Practice

The Appeal to Common Practice is a fallacy with the following structure:

1. X is a common action.
2. Therefore X is correct/moral/justified/reasonable, etc.

The basic idea behind the fallacy is that the fact that most people do X is used as "evidence" to support the action or practice. It is a fallacy because the mere fact that most people do something does not make it correct, moral, justified, or reasonable.

www.nizkor.org...

Here's the movement, leading to the agenda. Partially a peoples movement, partially a government movement.

Research Paper # 109809
The Gay Rights Movement

www.academon.com...

I don't have to go any farther than Wikipedia to point out the existing Agenda.

In the US, the term "the gay agenda" was first used in public discourse in 1992 when the Family Research Council, an American anti-gay group,[4] released a video series called The Gay Agenda as part of a pack of materials campaigning on homosexual issues and the "hidden gay agenda".[5] In the same year the Oregon Citizens Alliance used this video as part of their campaign for Ballot Measure 9 to amend the Oregon Constitution to prevent what the OCA called special rights for gays, lesbians, and bisexuals.[6] Paul Cameron — co-founder of the Institute for the Scientific Investigation of Sexuality in Lincoln, later renamed the Family Research Institute — appeared in the video, wherein he asserted that 75 percent of gay men regularly ingest feces and that 70-78 percent have had a sexually transmitted disease.[7] The Gay Agenda was followed by three other video publications; The Gay Agenda in Public Education (1993), The Gay Agenda: March on Washington (1993) and a feature follow-up Stonewall: 25 Years of Deception (1994).

en.wikipedia.org...

In 2004, Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn rated the "gay agenda" as a more pressing danger than any terrorist activity affecting Americans.[14]

In 2005, James Dobson, director of Focus on the Family, described the homosexual agenda as follows:

"Those goals include universal acceptance of the gay lifestyle, discrediting of scriptures that condemn homosexuality, muzzling of the clergy and Christian media, granting of special privileges and rights in the law, overturning laws prohibiting pedophilia, indoctrinating children and future generations through public education, and securing all the legal benefits of marriage for any two or more people who claim to have homosexual tendencies."

en.wikipedia.org...

An excellent article found below, courtesy ArchIlluminatus

There is a gay agenda unfortunately my post got pushed back already so here it is again. It was outlined in "After the Ball" ... it was written by a homosexual on how they plan to make homosexuality acceptable to the people. It covers DESENSITIZATION, JAMMING, and CONVERSION. It's covered in the link I provided. Read it and you will see this is what is happening.

www.article8.org...

(from thread www.abovetopsecret.com...)

If you watched "The Libertine", (which I could only stomach a third of), you will know he draws upon an important moral, a moral conclusion. He also complains in the scene that people no longer how to finish a thought, in the tradition of finishing schools of the day and a classical education I suppose. That moral he drew, was : That whatever social experiment you choose to undertake comes at the expense of oneself. Such was the way, and it had character. At this moment I have, willingly and with my own volition, chose to continue answering in this thread, despite having been recently named a chosen foe of an unnamed poster who has not posted in this thread. Despite being called b**** ... to that in a moment. If I chose to continue, it was at my own expense.

To date, I have rarely bad-mouthed another poster, although I recall a few memorables when I have. Titan-Skull comes to mind, over his, at the time, skewed views on science. I responded with "The Faustian Face of Modern Science", and complained about how sciences "yardstick" is held up to all issues, measuring them in accordance to mans reason and understanding, but discarding what isn't understood lightly because it defies an existing measure. I also recall Weed Whacker, over chem-trails, but that's a different story. A more extreme perspective on possibilities is that anyone approaching the prospects of a spiritual reality from a scientific, doubters, extreme sceptics standpoint will approach the spirit world as if demented. Heaven and Hell, Emmanuel Swedenborg. It usually follows that I conclude people need a deepening on understanding when they spout purely social rights and fail to incorporate their deeper faculties about any matter.

I welcome you to glance back to a more polite outlook on society.

Social Aims

www.rwe.org...

On this issue I don't disagree with fair rights to anyone, although if God doesn't actually agree with gay marriages, I think you're on your own there. Affecting kids in schools like they are? Buzzer, fail. What are they weaving into our web of reality???

Can you point out the guile, duplicity, and sheer agenda of this mindjob? Draw some morals

The trick is to get the bigot into the position of feeling a conflicting twinge of shame, along with his reward, whenever his homohatred surfaces, so that his reward will be diluted or spoiled. This can be accomplished in a variety of ways, all making use of repeated exposure to pictorial images or verbal statements that are incompatible with his self-image as a well-liked person, one who fits in with the rest of the crowd. Thus, propagandistic advertisement can depict homophobic and homohating bigots as crude loudmouths and assholes--people who say not only 'faggot' but ''n-word',' 'kike,' and other shameful epithets--who are 'not Christian.' It can show them being criticized, hated, shunned. It can depict gays experiencing horrific suffering as the direct result of homohatred-suffering of which even most bigots would be ashamed to be the cause. It can, in short, link homohating bigotry with all sorts of attributes the bigot would be ashamed to possess, and with social consequences he would find unpleasant and scary. The attack, therefore, is on self-image and on the pleasure in hating.

www.article8.org...

reply to post by Northwarden


I have one question for you.

Do you have kids?

reply to Northwarden






So, your 'proof' of the 'gay agenda' is the words of a few outright bigots, who openly spew hate toward these groups??? let's look at his, shall we?

1From your source:

the term "the gay agenda" was first used in public discourse in 1992 when the Family Research Council, an American anti-gay group

The Family Research Council is a Christian rights group, which means, by your definition, they have an agenda.

Tom Coburn is a Southern ordained Baptist Deacon.

Jamed Dobson is an evangelical Christian.He pushes tax cuts for people who send their kids to religious schools. He believes god defines marriage.

Noticing a trend here? Seems as though you want to push YOUR religious agenda, while putting down equality as an "agenda". Very hypocritical.

Again, sounds like the words of a forked tongue....

reply to post by captaintyinknots


Seriously! I called him on the God agenda early on.

And he shined it on. But - everything points to it.

Its confusing.

Originally posted by XelNaga
why is it wrong that obama appoints transgenders or gays to seats in office? i think its a great message of tolerance that needs to be recognized across the land.

they arent hurting anyone, so why should it matter?

Can't you see?! The homosexuals are hurting AMERICA. Constitution 9/11 Obamacare. Kenya Muslim Homosexual. America!

And yet there are trials enough of nerve and character, brave choices enough of taking the part of truth and of the oppressed against the oppressor, in privatest circles. A right speech is not well to be distinguished from action. Courage to ask questions ; courage to expose our ignorance. The great gain is, not to shine, not to conquer your companion, - then you learn nothing but conceit, - but to find a companion who knows what you do not; to tilt with him and be overthrown, horse and foot, with utter destruction of all your logic and learning. There is a defeat that is useful. Then you can see the real and the counterfeit, and will never accept the counterfeit again. You will adopt the art of war that has defeated you. You will ride to battle horsed on the very logic which you found irresistible. You will accept the fertile truth, instead of the solemn customary lie.

Let nature bear the expense. The attitude, the tone, is all. Let our eyes not look away, but meet. Let us not look east and west for materials of conversation, but rest in presence and unity. A just feeling will fast enough supply fuel for discourse, if speaking be more grateful than silence. When people come to see us, we foolishly prattle, lest we be inhospitable. But things said for conversation are chalk eggs. Don't say things. What you are stands over you the while, and thunders so that I cannot hear what you say to the contrary. A lady of my acquaintance said, " I don't care so much for what they say as I do for what makes them say it."

www.rwe.org...

Originally posted by General.Lee
Not surprising given his radical, leftist views. Then throw in the fact that he, himself is a closet homo and suddenly it's not so surprising. He and Rahm "Dead Fish" Emanuel used to frequent a gay club in Chicago. Then there's Larry Sinclair. Under that suave facade is an evil man. Perhaps a psychopath.

Source
Source

I checked your sources and Wayne Madsen has a proven record of being spectacularly wrong...I followed him for quite a while until I realised he flings poo like a lower order of primate.
And World Net Daily? About as dependable as Weekly World News. They don't call it World Nut Daily fer nuthin'. Surely you can do better than that.

Reply to post by Heyyo_yoyo

Of course he's for the gay coalition. He should know because he probably is one. He is a leo and all the leos i know are either gay or bisexual so obama is gay and that's why he wants gay rights for america he's nothing but a fraud and wolf in sheeps clothing!!!

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Mod Note : All Caps – Please Review This Link.

Do you sense devaluation in your own self?
2nd ...

Originally posted by ag893
Reply to post by Heyyo_yoyo

 

OF COURSE HE'S FOR THE GAY COALITION. HE SHOULD KNOW BECAUSE HE PROBABLY IS ONE. HE IS A LEO AND ALL THE LEOS I KNOW ARE EITHER GAY OR BISEXUAL SO OBAMA IS GAY AND THAT'S WHY HE WANTS GAY RIGHTS FOR AMERICA HE'S NOTHING BUT A FRAUD AND WOLF IN SHEEPS CLOTHING!!!

What? Where does this stuff come from?

My hubby is Leo -- and definitely not gay. This is ridiculous.

Anything can be made of nothing.
Anything.

Including gay agenda.

Nothing needs be made of it.

That was our best resort. Too bad you insist on it.

God will repay.

Originally posted by Northwarden
God will repay.

Uh huh.

And its not about God. Right!

You've certainly tried to avoid and skirt around that from the beginning.

It always reveals itself.