The Homosexual Agenda

page: 36
3
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 07:01 PM
link   
i just feel its horrible to start hating others because of who they love. if jim loves joe, let jim love joe. if ann loves sally, let ann love sally. does it make any sense that someone would be born with these tendencies, but not be allowed to acknowledge them with another consenting adult?

all the stuff about pedophilia is bs.
the vast majority of pedos are actually straight, middle aged, and white.

pedophilia is not about sex, its about control, and that webpage is a blatently offensive site. it claims horrible things (IE human sacrafice at the michigan women's festivle and other more offensive things.) thankfully it seems like its been shut down. i have many homosexual friends, and i'm a member of the gay/straight alliance.

let people love who they will.

your sexual preferences don't matter, shouldn't matter, and shouldn't be




posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 07:36 PM
link   
Okay. Now I know what you're talking about.



www.inoohr.org...


It does appear that this site has been shut down and it is a good thing that it has, in my opinion. However, this thread being a spin off from a thread in which the term "homosexual agenda" was broached, I decided to research the term and post what I found--the good, bad, and ugly.

This did not set well with some, quite naturally, but the best anyone has come up with has been personal assaults on me and the denial of an agenda for a social movement that has progressively sought changes to our most basic social institutions. First, there is no such thing as a person without an agenda, much less a social movement. Secondly, assaults on me go a long way toward convincing me that there must be an agenda so sinister that no one will speak its name.

All this reminds me of the Las Vegas ("What happens here, stays here.") commercial that portrays a teenager barely getting his parents' living room cleaned before they come home from Las Vegas. His dad ask what he's been up to and he replies, "Nothin'." He has asks his dad what he's been up to and his dad says, "Nothin'."

[edit on 2005/12/19 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpottHowever, this thread being a spin off from a thread in which the term "homosexual agenda" was broached, I decided to research the term and post what I found--the good, bad, and ugly.


Grady, do you mean by this that you began by putting the words "homosexual agenda" into a search engine? You do realize that this term is used only by right-wing anti-gay-rights activists, don't you? And that consequently, you're not going to find much in the way of real gay activist sites by doing a search like that. It's sort of like trying to research Jewish activism by searching for "Elders of Zion."

Try searching for "gay rights" instead. I did. Here are a few of the links:

www.gayandlesbianrights.net...

www.hrc.org...

www.actwin.com...

speakout.com...

www.center4civilrights.org...

The reason why the thread turned into what you are calling a bunch of "personal attacks" is because what you did was so outrageous. You began by asking the question of whether there is a "homosexual agenda," and then posted a bunch of totally off-the-wall material that seemed to suggest that there was a "homosexual agenda" and that it was one most people (including most gay people, although you have never acknowledged that) would find abhorrent.

Then when you were called to task for doing so, you replied that you had not made any arguments at all, only asked for discussion. But the juxtaposition of the material you cut and pasted with your opening question WAS an argument, one made by implication rather than direct statement but an argument nonetheless. To say that you posted what you did with no intention of creating the impression that you created is frankly not credible, and when you made that claim you were being disingenuous. When you do things like that, "personal attacks" are being invited and should be expected.

Now, on the subject of gay marriage. It seems to me the problem here is that we have an institution, marriage, which is religious in nature (at least in your conception and also in the conception of many others), yet also carries public consequences at law. That surely is a violation of the spirit if not the letter of the First Amendment.

The solution is simple: strip from marriage all public consequences at law. Whether two people call themselves "married" becomes a purely private matter, and whether any particular religious institution calls them "married" becomes a purely religious matter, in both cases no business of the state. "Married" people would no longer have the benefits they do today, which gay people want. To gain those benefits, they could enter into a civil union, and could do this whether they are gay or straight. They could also have a civil union whether or not they are married. Marriage and civil union would become totally separate things, not intertwined as they are now.

Meanwhile, religious groups can set whatever standards they want for marrying people. If your church won't marry gay people, while my Wiccan coven will, both those decisions are protected by the First Amendment. The decision carries no consequences at law, only in the hearts of the believers. Nor does your church have to recognize any marriage my coven performs. Whether the state recognizes it or not would no longer be pertinent, as the state has nothing to do with ANY marriage, only with civil unions.

Would that work for you?



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 01:10 PM
link   
I would agree that "gay rights" is a component of the homosexual agenda. I certainly did type into Google the term "homosexual agenda," because that is what I was looking for. I did not consider it to be my task to define the term, but to find material that was associated with that term. I posted what I found.

I appreciate your stating your position, though I do disagree. Society and government sanction heterosexual marriage because those are the unions that, ideally, provide stable support for the rearing and socialization of the next generation. That important social role has been neglected by the heterosexual community and that has been exploited by the homosexual community to garner those financial benefits that have accrued solely to those heterosexual couples who legalize their union with the state.

Your response, however, is much closer to what I was hoping for all along. Thanks.

[edit on 2005/12/21 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward:The solution is simple: strip from marriage all public consequences at law. Whether two people call themselves "married" becomes a purely private matter, and whether any particular religious institution calls them "married" becomes a purely religious matter, in both cases no business of the state. "Married" people would no longer have the benefits they do today, which gay people want. To gain those benefits, they could enter into a civil union, and could do this whether they are gay or straight. They could also have a civil union whether or not they are married. Marriage and civil union would become totally separate things, not intertwined as they are now.

Meanwhile, religious groups can set whatever standards they want for marrying people. If your church won't marry gay people, while my Wiccan coven will, both those decisions are protected by the First Amendment. The decision carries no consequences at law, only in the hearts of the believers. Nor does your church have to recognize any marriage my coven performs. Whether the state recognizes it or not would no longer be pertinent, as the state has nothing to do with ANY marriage, only with civil unions.

Would that work for you?


That seems like a perfect solution to this problem - sure, it might inconvenience already "married" couples who have to go through "all that effort" to register their civil-union (boo hoo
)

Personally, I don't want to get "married" in a church - after the way we've been treated by those 'loving and caring institutions of faith'
I don't know why any gay couple would want to walk down that aisle - to me, that would be just like a black couple wanting their reception to be held at the Klan's meeting hall and asking the grand-wizard to be the DJ.

I do understand that there are many gay people that still have faith and are still active AND PRODUCTIVE members of their church - those are the lucky ones, where they just happen to be members of a tolerant congregation - I grew up with faith and family - but I know I can't go back the to the church that I grew up in, the church where my family still goes, the church where I'm just plain 'not welcome'. For Gays that are lucky enough to be members of a church that doesn't demonize them, if they wish to get 'married' in that church, more power to 'em! IF it means something to them, and is that important to them they should do it and be happy.

I do not want or need any church's approval to love the person I want to be with for the rest of my life. But gay couples DO deserve the same rights and protections that are afforded to 'married' couples because it's the right thing to do - a government that is supposed to keep religion separate from law has a responsibility to provide the SAME rights and protections to same sex 'couples' as they do for opposite sex 'couples'. That's where a line needs to be drawn - people who wish start a family unit, no matter how non-traditional, should be thought of as "couples" - not "straight" couples and "gay" couples.

Seems to me that most people are unaware of the fact that all these churches that are anti-gay are also against them . . . Got married at the courthouse, not in a church by a preacher? Worthless marriage! - Choose not to have kids? Worthless marriage! - Medically can't have kids? Worthless marriage! - Wife chooses to work instead of staying at home barefoot and pregnant? Worthless Marriage! - Got divorced and remarried? Worthless marriage! - Bi-Racial family? Worthless marriage! (yes, unfortunately to some, bi-racial is still 'icky') - lived together before you got married? Worthless marriage! - Got pregnant and 'had' to get married? Worthless marriage! - Anyone in your family a "step" relative? Worthless marriage!

That's what these fundamentalists are telling you - "If you're not a wealthy, white, fundamentalist-Christian MAN and WIFE, with 2.7 children, that are biologically yours, then you don't count!"

That's just how I see it - I don't expect anyone else to see it that way or care if anyone else sees it that way. But to me, that's the way it seems to be.

I like the whole separate marriage and civil-unions idea - choose to do neither, one or the other, or both! It would fit-right-in nicely with the whole separation of church and state thing (if that really exists anymore), and it would treat EVERYONE equally. If you're religious AND want the benefits of legal recognition, get married in a church in front of your friends and family, then go sign your civil-union papers at city hall. - If you don't care about the legal benefits, just get married at the church - If you don't care about the religious dogma and rituals, just get a civil-union at the courthouse. It's a simple idea, it doesn't (or shouldn't) "offend", it would be easy to implement, and it would treat EVERYONE fairly.

Now, so religious folks won't feel the 'sanctity' of their marriage is in jeopardy we're going to have to use some new words to describe our relationships - for the social 'terminology' - I propose that if you got 'married' in a church, then call yourselves "Married" . . . and if you got a 'civil-union' by the Justice of the Peace, call yourselves "Civilized" - Besides, the way things are going now, it seems the people calling for and standing up for EQUAL rights are the only "civilized" ones around.


As for the whole "Homosexual-agenda" thing, I don't know what that is, unless it's the fight for EQUAL rights. I have not received the 'company newsletter' that's supposed to tell me what to do as a homosexual, and my cranial-transceiver has not picked up any transmissions that tell me to do bad things to straight people. If the hope of being treated equally is supposed to be referred to by the derogatory term "agenda", then there is no hope left. I thought I lived in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - where I'm SUPPOSED to be treated EQUALLY! - not the 'Right-Wing Fundamentalist States of America', where it's: "Do everything exactly like We do it, or get out and don't let the doorknob hit you in the ass on the way to Hell!"

I can't speak for all Homosexuals, but personally, I have no ill will towards straight people, married people, or even religious people. I don't want to turn any straight person into a homo - I don't want to break up anyone's marriage or 'ruin the sanctity' of it - I don't want religious people to stop being faithful or going to church, but until they realize that their religion, and they way they interpret it IS A CHOICE, and that sometimes their interpretation is causing ALOT of harm to innocent people who just wish to be treated fair and equal.

What I DO want (MY 'agenda', if you will) is simply to be treated the same as anyone else - I want to be able to go out in public and not have people look at me and my boyfriend like we have leprosy - I want to be able to go to family dinners without leaving my boyfriend at home - the way things are now I'm screwed no matter what I do - either tick off the family by not showing up, or tick off my boyfriend by leaving him at home alone - I want to be able to hold my head high (and my Boyfriend's hand) and know that I can do ANYTHING anyone else can (legally) do, and that the law will be there to back-me-up against people that think they have the right to tell others how they 'have to' live.

Why are so many people so up-tight about that kind of equality 'agenda' anyway? It's 2005 for God's sake! The 21st century! We don't lock people in towers for saying the earth is round anymore - we shouldn't be condemning people for expressing the love that comes naturally to them! It's not like if we make gay marriage legal that you're going to have marry one! - we're not going to break into your houses and redecorate everything with pink chiffon! - We're not going to steal your children and make them watch musicals and force them to learn tap-dance!

If those are the kinds of things you're worried about . . .get over yourselves! We don’t want you all to be like that – just like we don’t all want to be exactly like you.


[edit on 12/21/05 by paulthefourth]



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by paulthefourth
What I DO want (MY 'agenda', if you will) is simply to be treated the same as anyone else - I want to be able to go out in public and not have people look at me and my boyfriend like we have leprosy - I want to be able to go to family dinners without leaving my boyfriend at home - the way things are now I'm screwed no matter what I do - either tick off the family by not showing up, or tick off my boyfriend by leaving him at home alone - I want to be able to hold my head high (and my Boyfriend's hand) and know that I can do ANYTHING anyone else can (legally) do, and that the law will be there to back-me-up against people that think they have the right to tell others how they 'have to' live.


Well, that certainly sounds like an agenda to me. I'm not sure it is attainable in full, given human nature, but I think the right to associate freely with those of one's own choice is something that most can identify with well enough. Public displays of affection are still a source of discomfort for some folks regardless of their sexual orientation or position on gay rights, so I don't see that as something to be expected to gain much acceptance in the near future, in terms of equality.



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I certainly did type into Google the term "homosexual agenda," because that is what I was looking for.


Then that's NOT what you should have typed, because no gay activists actually use that term (except in mockery of the anti-gay-rights people who do use it).

If you consider gay rights to be only a "part" of the gay agenda, then perhaps you should have typed in "gay activism" or just plain "homosexuality." It would have required more digging, but at least you would have found SOME relevant material, not purely the garbage that you did.



I did not consider it to be my task to define the term, but to find material that was associated with that term. I posted what I found.


Grady, Grady. Look, anyone with any brains at all knows perfectly well how the term "homosexual agenda" is used and by whom. That means anyone with any brains at all knows perfectly well that if he does a search for "homosexual agenda," he's going to turn up a bunch of anti-gay stalking horses.

Since you clearly do have a brain, I don't believe you are being honest with us here. Your choice of actions was not innocent. You knew what you would turn up, you knew it was not informative of the real "agenda" of gay activists, and you did it anyway, deliberately.



I appreciate your stating your position, though I do disagree. Society and government sanction heterosexual marriage because those are the unions that, ideally, provide stable support for the rearing and socialization of the next generation.


Didn't you suggest at one point the idea of "separate but equal" civil unions for gay people, not called "marriage"? Or was that someone else? If it was you, then I don't see how that idea differs from mine, insofar as the government would be providing equal material benefits to both types of couples.

Actually, the only difference between my idea and the "separate but equal" idea is that, under my proposal, straight people would no longer enjoy a privilege under the law denied to gay people. Straightforward gay marriage would do that, too, but would also (arguably) involve the state redefining the term "marriage" and so inserting itself improperly into a religious subject. What I'm suggesting would avoid that problem. Since the only difference is a denial of straight-couple legal privilege, I see no way to avoid concluding that that's the real reason you oppose the idea.

[edit on 21-12-2005 by Two Steps Forward]



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 02:16 PM
link   
You may attribute whatever motives I may have had when I started this thread over a year ago. I chose to use the term agenda in an academic sense without imposing emotion or connotation onto it. The deed is done. It cannot be changed and revisiting it over and over again will not advance the discussion.

I support a contractual agreement between individuals regardless of the quality of the relatinship that will honor their desires regarding joint ownership, inheritance and the like.

That is not quite the same as civil unions or marriage. I'm not a lawyer, but I have seen gay couples' wishes trampled by family members at their demise and I think there should be some protection against that.


[edit on 2005/12/21 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Elton John enters into a civil partnership with David Furnish. Many are proclaiming this move as watershed event for gay rights, although the partnership is not equal to marriage.






It's official: Sir Elton John and his partner of 11 years, David Furnish, have tied the knot. The King of Kitsch is known for his flamboyant parties and entrances, but today it was a relatively private affair for Britain's most famous gay couple.

They arrived at Guildhall in the historic town of Windsor shortly after 11 a.m. Waving to well-wishers, they posed for the hundreds of photographers that lined the cobbled street before entering the same hall where Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles said their vows.

Behind closed doors, the 40-minute ceremony was attended by the couple's parents and close friends. When it was over, the elated couple were showered with confetti and rice, and when asked how the ceremony went, Sir Elton replied: "Great, thanks."

For the first time ever, same-sex couples were able to enter what is called a civil partnership. Even though this partnership gives gay couples legal recognition for their relationship under U.K. law, the partnerships are still not recognized as marriages. The law, however, formalizes the relationship and grants couples new rights in areas such as employment, pension and inheritance.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


[edit on 2005/12/21 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 03:15 PM
link   

: Originally posted by paulthefourth
What I DO want (MY 'agenda', if you will) is simply to be treated the same as anyone else - I want to be able to go out in public and not have people look at me and my boyfriend like we have leprosy - I want to be able to go to family dinners without leaving my boyfriend at home - the way things are now I'm screwed no matter what I do - either tick off the family by not showing up, or tick off my boyfriend by leaving him at home alone - I want to be able to hold my head high (and my Boyfriend's hand) and know that I can do ANYTHING anyone else can (legally) do, and that the law will be there to back-me-up against people that think they have the right to tell others how they 'have to' live.




Originally posted by GradyPhilpott: Well, that certainly sounds like an agenda to me.


Well, I did say "my Agenda" - but when you use that word, I still can't tell if you think it's a good thing or a bad thing.

Of course I think my "agenda" is a good thing - how could equality for everyone be a bad thing? But does everyone else see that as a bad thing?

You seem to believe (or at least give the impression) that there's some sort of evil or sinister motive behind the "Gay's agenda" - Trust me, if there were some organized plot against straights that all us gays knew about, you'd know about it too! We're not the most tight-lipped people in the world - We don't like keeping secrets, if we did, we'd all still be in the closet. It is a gut wrenching process coming to terms with one's sexuality when it's not considered "normal" by mainstream society - but what's worse is having so-called "religious" people condemning us for finally accepting the truth about ourselves.

When it comes down to it - everyone thinks they are right - but which "side" will cause more harm? I wish no harm to any other person on this planet - but I get the feeling that fundamentalists actually wish me dead or at least physically harmed enough to "teach me a lesson". I mean I'm going to hell anyway
, so why not teach me a lesson as they send me down?

Lord knows they've been working on psychologically harming us for hundreds, if not thousands of years - and now it seems to me that since they've noticed there are still some queers around, they've got to do something beyond making them feel bad about themselves. I've been so close to the edge of killing myself because of how I've been made to feel by religious folk - maybe that's the "fundamentalist's agenda": "Let's get them to feel so depressed that they will kill themselves off. No blood on our hands and we'll be rid of them for good." Is that it? Have I stumbled onto "their" hidden agenda? Well, suicide doesn't seem to be killing us off - AIDS isn't going to take care of the "problem" either - so I guess Fundies will just have to start taking matters into their own hands, get 'em a little bloody and 'teach us a lesson' the old fashioned way. (I'm guessing the Bible is still "Pro-Stoning" when it comes to fundamentalist's views on homosexuality)

I don't know what to think anymore - everyone says something different, and anyone can drudge-up "documented proof" that will support their point of view. All I know is what I feel on the inside - I was made this way, either before or after birth, i don't know - I can't change it - I would if I could - I want so much to be considered "normal" - and pretending to be normal, and totally uninterested in sex, feels worse and makes me feel even more alone. (One has to pretend to hate sex if they want to pretend to be normal, because the thought of straight sex makes them nauseaus)

Nobody wants to feel like that - Being what I am is not a choice I made - Telling people the truth was a choice I wish I'd never made, but I think I'm better off for it mentally - If I'd pretended to have no sexual desires any longer than I did (till I was 28) I'd probably be dead or at least in a mental institution by now.

I'll leave you with this - Religion has a choice to make - a choice to be kind and welcoming and tolerant of other's differences, or a choice to be an exclusive 'club', intolerant of others that aren't exactly like them and downright mean and hateful to groups that think otherwise.

Now who's got a choice to make?



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by paulthefourth
Well, I did say "my Agenda" - but when you use that word, I still can't tell if you think it's a good thing or a bad thing.


The word agenda is completely neutral. Not everyone uses it that way, but that is not my problem. Agendas are like navels; everybody's got one.



posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 01:53 AM
link   
I have so much controversy about gay people. I was upbrought in an environment where gays are not considered normal. My brother-in-law turned out to be gay and I end up working closely with gay people... I often find it hard to relate to them when situation goes beyond daily small-talk and pure business.

Sometimes I hated them all due to my frustration with some of them. Please, forgive me, gay men, for that. Love must be a keyword when we think and talk about gay people.

Let me try to explain my opinion about "gay agenda".

The way I see it, American gays as a social group have an agenda and it is a good thing, although I do not agree with all of it. Here it is:

1. Legalize gay partnerships by having basically the same rights as heterosexual couple
1.1. Some gays would like their legal partnership to be called 'marriage' in the law and in Standard American English, while others just want the rights and don't care about the name
1.2. Some of the gays in 1.1. come with the Christian gay acceptance agenda in mind. Since marriage is a big part of Christian beliefs, those gays basically want to 'legalize' their partnership within Christian Church
1.3. Child adoption is a separate issue, since for heterosexual couple it is not exactly a right but rather the nature of life

2. Become accepted by our society as a part of its culture. This topic I do not see as being discussed much at all.

In brief, I support gay agenda, my comment for each item from above are listed below:
1. I agree 100%. May be being gay is a sin but the choice is theirs, we can only help by loving and accepting them.
1.1. I think, gay partnership should not be called 'marriage' legally. Language is a part of our culture, and this word carries a lot of meaning. Besides, it could offend many religious confessions. And, really, there is no need for that.
1.2. Whether Christian Church wants to 'legalize' gay partnership or not, it should not interfere with gay legal rights.
1.3. I believe nobody knows an answer to this question. Only research can show if gay are ok to adopt children. People seem to be really stupid about discussing this issue by talking about their personal great or not so great experiences with gay couples. The only people who can tell us what was good and what was bad of being raised by gay couples are their children themselves at the end of their lives, say, after 50 year old. So, it is a matter of careful experiment and time.

2. I think, it would be best for everyone to find a way to accept gays into our culture. Think about how little black people were accepted 100 years ago. May be it is just a matter of time.



posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 02:31 AM
link   
Thanks for your comments. That's perhaps the first real attempt at a thoughtful post I've seen so far. Some very good points and personal reflections on a real hot button issue.



posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 10:54 AM
link   
i don't really think the agenda of the homosexual community goes further than acceptance of their love for another. that's why they want marriage between same sex couples legalized.

some may believe its a sin, but all i know is that if someone truely wants to spend their entire life with another human being out of love, we should allow it.



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 03:07 PM
link   
Ach, Mein Cod, Mein Cod.... Pun.......What Sickening Crap!!!!!!!! All the "Fruitcakes" should be rounded-up and given their own island or state. or at the very least have to wear pink "H"s



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 11:00 PM
link   
I was hoping that we could move beyond this type of response. We really should be talking about social change and how the "gay rights" movement contributes to such.



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 11:27 PM
link   
i think one group that has turely appreciated the flourishing of gay rights are the fundementalist religious groups. more scapegoating.
on a more positive note, transgendered individuals have found a group to help them speak out.
also, in america, as more of the archaic legislation dealing with what goes on in the bedroom is stripped away, people get more legal privacy, and vestiges of prudish thought get toned down.



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 11:46 PM
link   
Well, at least someone will admit that "gay rights" have been flourishing. I doubt that fundamentalist christians really seek for scapegoats, but one cannot deny that among the lessons that come to us from antquity, the taboo of homosexuality is one of the most visceral.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 10:00 PM
link   
The arrogance of those that see their time as the pinnacle of human achievement are always rewarded with the ridicule of time. Like it or not one day everything we've said at this point in time will be viewed as quaint and our politics arcane. Life moves on, it always does. Try as you like you're not going to stop it. One day all of us will be viewed as we view the 18th century alumni.

I'll definitely be glad when this foul chapter is a footnote in history and we live without prejudice of sexuality.

Every century; everything changes except degrees of ignorance. Don't fret about your mention even if you oppose equal rights, the ignorant always have a place in history. Even the guys that stuffed the force feed pipes down the throats of the Suffragettes got a mention.


[edit on 6-1-2006 by kegs]



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Well, at least someone will admit that "gay rights" have been flourishing. I doubt that fundamentalist christians really seek for scapegoats, but one cannot deny that among the lessons that come to us from antquity, the taboo of homosexuality is one of the most visceral.


by flourishing i mean that when people "gay bash" it's verbal instead of physical beatings, for the most part at least. gay people used to be considered sex offenders on the same level as serial rapists, so going from that to now is going to be a huge leap.





top topics
 
3
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join