The Homosexual Agenda

Ok here is a list and some reasoning...fire away!

Edit: Damn was posting elsewhere.....Ah well, I will leave it up@ Kinda funny.



1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like left handedness.

2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile
couples and old people can't legally get married because the world needs
more children.

3. Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents
only raise straight children.

4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if Gay marriage is allowed,
since Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.

5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are property, blacks can't marry whites, and divorce is illegal.

6. Gay marriage should be decided by people, not the courts, because the
majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the
rights of the minorities.

7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the
values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we haveonly one religion in America.

8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that
hanging around tall people will make you tall.

9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy
behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legalstanding and can sign a marriage contract.

10. Children can never suceed without a male and a female role model at
home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual
marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to newsocial norms because we haven't adapted to things like cars or longer
lifespans.

12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a
different name are better, because a "seperate but equal" institution is
always constitutional. Seperate schools for African-Americans worked just aswell as separate marriages for gays and lesbians will.

www.e-thepeople.org...


Marriage doesn�t equal happiness, so gays shouldn�t be able to marry

(U-WIRE) HOUSTON � There is only one effective argument in favor of gay marriage: that gays are entitled to an equal right to marry (and to enjoy the benefits of that legal state) based on the Declaration of Independence assertion that �all men are created equal.� We define this in our society as giving rights to everyone able to fulfill their inherent responsibilities. (For example, only adults are allowed to vote).

Some groups will never be able to fulfill the responsibilities required for a right. For example, why are men not allowed the right to get pregnant? The answer to this is obvious, but the lesson is often overlooked. Some groups are not equal to others in the functions they can perform, and hence the benefits they receive.

With this in mind, why do societies encourage marriage and entice couples to marry with the benefits and social acceptance coveted by homosexual couples?

www.bupipedream.com...

[edit on 16-10-2004 by edsinger]

[edit on 16-10-2004 by edsinger]

[edit on 16-10-2004 by edsinger]

[edit on 16-10-2004 by edsinger]

[edit on 16-10-2004 by edsinger]

[edit on 16-10-2004 by edsinger]

*picks self up off floor*
*tries to contain laughter*

Jesus, ed, did you freaking READ that little top 12 list you just posted????
You just proved what most of us here are trying to tell you!

I mean, criminy, thanks for making our case for us!

Sorry, I have to preserve the link to the source for posterity....
www.e-thepeople.org...

[edit on 16-10-2004 by Banshee]

Edsinger,

You're a very confused man. You just posted a 12 point satirical piece that will only ratify your confusion even further on the subject.

All those rights could be granted with a civil union. They are attacking the meaning of a marriage! If you think I am nuts, so be it, but on this subject the American people are against gay marriage by a whopping margin.

Marriage is a social construct and has no universaly accepted definition; the institution of marriage can be whatever one fathoms.

Deep

[edit on 16-10-2004 by ZeroDeep]

Hahahah you caught it! Well we all needed a laugh!

Too much going on today...Ah well it is a good read though, maybe I should argue with myself?


Oh the more I read that more I laugh with you! # I goofed that one. I did read the first one and had to go outside......Ah well, for all those who hate me have fun at my expense

Damn they arent biting.....???


[edit on 16-10-2004 by edsinger]

[edit on 16-10-2004 by edsinger]

[edit on 16-10-2004 by edsinger]

Originally posted by edsinger
1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like left handedness.

Yeahhh...umm...my old dog was gay (was when we got him), hes a dog, and your saying its not natural?

2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile
couples and old people can't legally get married because the world needs
more children.

The world is already overpopulated and has too many abandoned kids.

3. Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents
only raise straight children.

LMAO!!! Im laughing right there with Banshee!!! Thats #ing hilarious. "Straight parents only raise straight children" LMAO!!!! Look at your Lord's 2nd in Command.

4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if Gay marriage is allowed,
since Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.

Marriage cant be made any less meaningful if you truly love the person.

7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we haveonly one religion in America.

8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that
hanging around tall people will make you tall.

WHAT?!?!

9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy
behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legalstanding and can sign a marriage contract.

And?? Whats your problem if people marry their pets? Does it harm you in any way?

10. Children can never suceed without a male and a female role model at
home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

Kids arent succeeding now anyways, look at our public schools, and TELL me that you see kids succeeding.

Numbers 7-12 were obviously jokes.....

Marriage doesn�t equal happiness, so gays shouldn�t be able to marry

But Marriage can cause happiness, you want to take away that happiness from them.



[Edited on 16-10-2004 by dreamlandmafia]

Originally posted by ZeroDeep
...the institution of marriage can be whatever one fathoms.

Deep

And thus, we enter the state Emile Durkheim called anomie.

Dreamlandmafia:

I don't know if you noticed, but edsinger posted that list as a joke..

Thanks for debunking a joke though!

My take:

If you want to say that ALL gays have an agenda, I'd have to disagree. I don't think that ALL gays are anything, just as I don't think that ALL whites, minorities, or women are anything. I do agree that there might be very many, or maybe a large group that have that kind of agenda. It's possible, and I don't think that gradyphillot should be flamed for posting this. Would you flame someone if they had posted the "Straight Agenda", or the "White Agenda"? This site is about denying ignorance. That means considering everything, even if it happens to be not-so-positive towards a minority group.

Now about gay marriage... I agree with edsinger about the civil union thing. Even if I wasn't a christian, my stance would be the same. See, marriage IS a religious union between two people regardless of what our society has done to it. That's where the line "...gathered here in the eyes of God..." came from. When two homosexuals get married in the eyes of God, this is just one huge contradiction because the BASIS of the marriage is a sin in the eyes of God. BEING homosexual isn't a sin, doing homosexual acts is a sin (In the eyes of God). Do you see what I mean? It just doesn't make sense. Now as for civil unions, assuming it gives the homosexual couples the SAME rights as it gives heterosexual couples, I am for.

Originally posted by edsinger
What I am saying is that the likelyhood of a pedofile being a homosexual man is much higher than if a hetrosexual man. FACT. Edit: when the abuse is boys.

Erm... isn't that OBVIOUS?

Originally posted by Herman
Dreamlandmafia:

I don't know if you noticed, but edsinger posted that list as a joke..

Thanks for debunking a joke though!

Maybe you need to open your eyes and read the post...I said that it was obviously a joke. But the first couple were how he relaly felt based on other posts.

Thanks Anyways

[Edited on 16-10-2004 by dreamlandmafia]

Grady,

I'm not sure what revelence that link has, but, i will comment on it,

Changing conditions as well as adjustment of life leads to dissatisfaction, conflict, and deviance. He observed that social periods of disruption (economic depression, for instance) brought about greater anomie and higher rates of crime, suicide, and deviance.

Can we say the same about interacial marriage ? Does our Sociologist friend here refer to the act of homosexuality as deviant, or are you just trying to corolate the two without any merit ?

Durkheim felt that sudden change caused a state of anomie. The system breaks down, either during a great prosperity or a great depression, anomie is the same result.

What examples had he given ?

I think you are exagerating Durkheims theories as an axiom.

Deep

It's hatred, edsigner and Mr. Philpott.

Nothing they say makes any sense. They just don't like gays. :shk:

Originally posted by dreamlandmafia

Originally posted by Herman
Dreamlandmafia:

I don't know if you noticed, but edsinger posted that list as a joke..

Thanks for debunking a joke though!

Maybe you need to open your eyes and read the post...I said that it was obviously a joke. But the first couple were how he relaly felt based on other posts.

Thanks Anyways

[Edited on 16-10-2004 by dreamlandmafia]

You said that 7-12 were jokes, but you still tried to "debunk" them, as well as the rest that you seem to think weren't jokes.

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
It's hatred, edsigner and Mr. Philpott.

Nothing they say makes any sense. They just don't like gays. :shk:

I will catagorically state that I do not HATE gays. I do dislike their choice of lifestyle but they are still Gods children.

I "debunked" the ones that he seemed to agree with based on other posts, I knew the entire thing was a joke since I had seen it posted on another message board. #7-12 were the more obviously joking ones since they just made # up and outright lied.While #1-6 (-5) had most arguments that people that want to ban gay marriage usually use.

Damn Ed, Grady, you've broke our Ignorance Meter. It doesn't work anymore.

This is without a doubt THE worst thread I have laid eyes on in my career of perusing the internet. At least the crazy conspiracy threads about pod people and mind control are entertaining to read. This is just plain hate...and congrats to the creator of this thread on the copy and paste job without even offering one personal opinion on the topic he laid out. Discussion boards are for original discussion, not copying information from one place to another and letting people "have at it". And then the "list" of reasons for homosexuals not to marry is obviously a joke and subverts any position the two haters had in the first place. Wonderful job on this one guys, and thanks for making this site 10 times worse in my opinion because of the existance of this single thread.

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
It's hatred, edsigner and Mr. Philpott.

Nothing they say makes any sense. They just don't like gays.

This is an assumption which is based on your belief that people who disagree with someone must hate them. To say that marriage is an institution primarily for procreation and the socialization of children and for the legitimization of and contol of sexuality is not an expression of hatred for homosexuals, it only a statement that marriage is not for same-sex couples. Society has chosen to benefit those who commit to marriage, but marriage was not established to qualify couples for social largess.

One may choose to disagree with this view, but it is historical fact. When we legalize marriage for a class of people who have only their own interest in mind then we weaken the already weakend institution. Homosexuals are not responsible for the current deplorable state of marriage, but using that state as an excuse to further weaken it is indefensible.

Now that this issues has been settled, we may resume the discussion and I would prefer to speak for myself when the time comes.

[edit on 04/10/16 by GradyPhilpott]

I discovered a white agenda to take over the world

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
This is an assumption which is based on your belief that people who disagree with someone must hate them.
[edit on 04/10/16 by GradyPhilpott]

I'm sorry, but I must agree with GradyPhilpott. Although I don't have any prejudice against gays and even have a friend or two who are homosexual, many homosexuals AND heterosexuals tend to think that anyone who doesn't agree with their way must HATE them and be close-minded biggots. If a homosexual was to disagree with a heterosexuals way of life, would you say the same about them? I think thathomosexuals should be able to live their life how they want, with the acception of MARRIAGE which IS a religious union between two people. I think civil unions are fine...

**Note** I don't think that there is any mass Gay agenda. There may be some or maybe even MORE than some that have an agenda, but I don't think that homosexuals as a whole have any agenda. Nobody can be BORN with an agenda, can they?

[Edited on 16-10-2004 by Herman]

Originally posted by Amuk
I discovered a white agenda to take over the world

www.abovetopsecret.com...

haha, nice work amuk. Yours was almost as laughable as Grady's. Watch out for all those groups out there with agendas, better hit em hard before they hit us!

[edit on 16-10-2004 by Shoktek]