Is there a gay agenda? - simple question

[Ghost Writer]

I wanted to get the opinions of those on this board, before I started my next piece about the gay agenda. Does it exist, or is the very idea ludicrous?

(Edited by Ghost Writer at 11:25 am on Mar. 30, 2003)

[synthesis]

It's certainly going to be less bullshit than the Jewish Domination thread we just went through.

Of course, I disagree with the idea, and I find the gay agenda issue about as valid as the Jewish conspiracy theory, but you could give it a whirl.

[hazard]

are you referring to the idea of "pinko-commies" or the misattribution of love as a gay idea rather than a communist one?

[Ghost Writer]

I am talking about a political movement whose purpose it is to promote a gay agenda.

[RedComrade]

Do you mean a gay agenda as in a political movement to establish equal rights for homosexuals. Or do you mean an actual propaganda campaign to turn people gay?

[Ghost Writer]

I would look more broadly than just equal rights, as gays already enjoy all the rights of American citizens. However, I would not narrow it to simply trying to "turn people gay". Let's look at it with a broad scope, and not narrow it to one specific motivation, at least not yet.

[Dhul Fiqar]

Well, be definition EVERY social group has an "agenda". The agenda most of the time involving maximizing your interests.

The fact is that the gay 'agenda' today is to pull back some of the ages of injustice that has been inflicted uppon gays, because this would benefit them all as a social group.

Makes sense to me.

--- G.

[truthaddict11]

gays already enjoy all the rights of American citizens

No they dont

[Ghost Writer]

No they dont.

Please qualify that, truthaddict.

Well, be definition EVERY social group has an "agenda". The agenda most of the time involving maximizing your interests.

Yes. Excellent. Good response, DF.

The fact is that the gay 'agenda' today is to pull back some of the ages of injustice that has been inflicted uppon gays, because this would benefit them all as a social group.

Makes sense to me.

Are you sure the motivation is that innocent? I am not convinced. In fact, I plan to investigate, and draw conclusion based on the information that exists. I am not willing to assume this moment is as benign as you claim, until I know more. I know this is their stated goal. however, I think we must also evaluate their actions as an interest group before we ignore such political movements. As a political interest group, they have put themselves in an arena where it is necessary to scrutinize their activities. They can not hide behind the banner of being gay, for all political movements deserve the same level of scrutiny, because they have the potential to wield great power, at least under the America system.

Do you understand where I am coming from?

(Edited by Ghost Writer at 3:14 pm on Mar. 30, 2003)

[truthaddict11]

what about anti-sodomy laws? or how you cant adopt if you are gay?

[Moskitto]

gay people aren't allowed to donate blood in the US if they've had sex with annother man after 1979 or something like that, but how are they going to check?

[Ghost Writer]

Is it a right to increase the probability that the blood supply with be corrupted? Look at the statistical data. Gays not being allowed to donate blood is an epidemiological concern, not a segregation policy.

How are they going to check? That's a good question. I suppose those charitable groups are counting on people's integrity. Bad choice. However, they do have multiple screens they do on donated blood to ensure that it is safe. Is it 100%? No, but you have to give them credit for trying.

Can gays donate blood in the U.K.?

[Ghost Writer]

As I understand it the sodomy laws apply to members of both sexes. Do I agree with them? That's a different issue that does not apply to the conversation at hand. The question is how are gays treated any less than any other citizen? What constitutional rights have they not been granted? Sodomy, blood donation, and adoption are not specifically dealt with in the constitution. These are things that have been left to the state level.

As far as adoption goes, whose rights are more important, the child's, or the people adopting.

[sc4r]

Quote: from Ghost Writer on 4:34 pm on Mar. 30, 2003
Is it a right to increase the probability that the blood supply with be corrupted? Look at the statistical data. Gays not being allowed to donate blood is an epidemiological concern, not a segregation policy.

How are they going to check? That's a good question. I suppose those charitable groups are counting on people's integrity. Bad choice. However, they do have multiple screens they do on donated blood to ensure that it is safe. Is it 100%? No, but you have to give them credit for trying.

Can gays donate blood in the U.K.?

How about after 5 posts you actually have a stab at trying to say what a gay agenda might be and why you think there might be one. Beyond the obvious that they want to be accepted as human beings even by homophobes such as yourself there is not one of course but I'd have thought you could at least try and say something if you bring the subject up.

[Ghost Writer]

Homophobe? Of course, some moron was going to call me this for simply bringing up the issue. I treat all people as if they are human beings. Describe what a homophobe is, if you don't mind.

[sc4r]

Quote: from Ghost Writer on 4:47 pm on Mar. 30, 2003
Homophobe? Of course, some moron was going to call me this for simply bringing up the issue. I treat all people as if they are human beings. Describe what a homophobe is, if you don't mind.

Well I'd say a pretty fair starting point would be people who ask questions like 'is there a gay agenda' and then give no reasons for asking it.

By all means explain why else you would ask this question apropos of nothing.

There is an acid test mind. simply admit to all that you are Gay. It cant hurt in anyway because this is the internet. Goinna do it ?

(Edited by sc4r at 4:53 pm on Mar. 30, 2003)

[canikickit]

I think you're being very pretentious Norm, why don't you just speak your mind on the issue rather than trying to drum up attention.

Is there a "gay agenda"? No, the entire statement smacks of bullshit.

Generalisations are for the weak.

Certain people want certain things - that's as far as it goes.

[Ghost Writer]

I already explained my reasons. If you would like me to expand, I will. At work, we were discussion the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the Boy Scout's right to associational freedom. Many disagreed with my assertion that it was a good ruling. I maintain that I am right, and that a gay agenda does exist. I have promised to right a paper on this issue for my coworkers. Being a member of this board, I was wondering if anyone here had any thoughts on the subject, as it would be nice to get a pure leftist perspective on the issue, before I do any more research on the topic. Trust me, che-lives.com will get a copy of my final draft, so don't worry. I think it is important to make a distinction between the "gay agenda" and gay people in general. As a student in political science, I find the success of their interest group to be amazing, and I would like to approach the issue from that angle. Any other questions? You never did tell me what a homophobe was. I am still interested in a clear cut definition.

[Moskitto]

Quote: from Ghost Writer on 4:34 pm on Mar. 30, 2003
Is it a right to increase the probability that the blood supply with be corrupted? Look at the statistical data. Gays not being allowed to donate blood is an epidemiological concern, not a segregation policy.

How are they going to check? That's a good question. I suppose those charitable groups are counting on people's integrity. Bad choice. However, they do have multiple screens they do on donated blood to ensure that it is safe. Is it 100%? No, but you have to give them credit for trying.

Can gays donate blood in the U.K.?


my brother is a blood donor and I asked him, I think he said they couldn't, but you're also not allowed if you've had heterosexual contact in the last 5 months.

I am all for stopping the spread of HIV, however people tend to call me a christian fundamentalist when i state my ideas but don't give any alternatives.

[Ghost Writer]

Moskitto,

Well, I am not a Christian fundamentalist by any stretch of the imagination.

"you're also not allowed if you've had heterosexual contact in the last 5 months"

Wow, it's a wonder that they have any donors at all.

Canikickit,

Ruling out the evidence of a such a large political interest group is what reeks of bullshit. Any interest group, by definition, is promoting a set of ideals, or an agenda.

[Dhul Fiqar]

I understand where you're coming from. Hicksville, USA ;)

--- G.

[Ghost Writer]

Damn, I am noticing the same phenomenon, with respect to this topic, that I have noticed in the global warming topic. That is an unwillingness to challenge contemporary thought. Come on. Are my questions unwarranted? If so, why?

[Dhul Fiqar]

OK, my bad. In retrospect you did apparently make a post worth answering with more than an insult.

I understand what your argument is about, but I in no way sympathize with it because it's a twisted way to get to a predetermined point of logic. That is to say, you "know" you don't like gays and they're different rom you, thus you pile on a lot of stuff about how they're a social group and should theoretically be this and that.

The fact is that they've faced an overwhelmign amount of oppression for a very long time, and are still openly discriminated against and insulted in public. Don't tell me it doesn't happen, because it does.

This means that whatever "agenda" they may subconsciously harbor as a social group must be far more benign than of those who actually have power an influence in society, i.e. the "WASP agenda"

--- G.

p.s. note the "subconsciously", as class consciousness of the type we're discussing is generally not considered a consciously cognitive process

[Moskitto]

There might be an exception to the 5 month rule if you're married, but if you're some university student who's having sex with a different person every night then you're abviously an HIV risk.

They normally think i'm a christian fundamentalist because I think that they should ban extra-marital affairs, even though I say if you want to sleep around I don't care, just don't fucking well get married.

we have to import blood from the US.

[canikickit]

Ruling out the evidence of a such a large political interest group is what reeks of bullshit. Any interest group, by definition, is promoting a set of ideals, or an agenda.

Of course they do Norm. The reason the statement smacks of bullshit is because of the prejudiced undertones. It goes without saying that gay people want certain things - just the same as fans of reggae want certain things.

I'm not particularily in favour of your kind of absolutes - [list]all French people are cowards (because you think most are).
All (yes, you definitely implied all) gay people have ulterior motives (because you think they, as a "political interest group" have one).
All socialists are evil (because in the past the regimes bearing the name of socialism have had serious flaws).[list]

I remember once reading a long post by you - the general message of which was, "all europeans are idiots" - because they generalise people from the US. I hope you see the contradiction.


I am quite sure that the vast majority of gay people just want to live their lives. People like you, propagating the idea that they are a different breed of people, easily difined under one branch of thinking are both the direct result of, and the cause of, prejudice.

It's funny that you criticise socialism of propagating groupthink.

[Ghost Writer]

Understand, I am not looking to denegrate gays in any way. I am really only interested in the interest group known as the gay lobby. The two groups a separate, and one does not necessarily entail involvement in the other. Therefore, I still think your criticism of me is unfair. I have libertarian leanings when it comes to drug use, sexual practice, and a number of other things. However, that does not mean we should ignore their existence. All I do is try to understand the world around me. In my lifetime, I have seen this group (the interest group) gain remarkable ground, as they have been largely successful. I only want to evaluate why, and what the possible outcome might be. After all, isn't prediction a part of the scientific method. We are talking political science here, and not bigotry. What troubles me about the movement, is the chilling effect they tend to have. For example, look at the many responses I have gotten just for asking the question. How many of you have tried to silence me with some sort of libelous reprisal? The term homophobe comes to mind.

(Edited by Ghost Writer at 6:39 pm on Mar. 30, 2003)

[Dhul Fiqar]

You're right that the lobby groups in Washington are almost uniformly scum and human filth who make their living feeding of inflaming issues for short term point-scoring, this goes against the actual interests of the groups in many cases. This includes the gay lobby groups, the jewish or zionist lobby groups, and many many others.

It's all about money, shock value, headline grabbing and etc.

Pay less attention to the militants that the media likes to portray, and more attention to the average gay person who just wants to live their lives free from prejudice and oppression. That goes for almost all other groups actually...

--- G.

[Dhul Fiqar]

Oh, and btw, the form of these lobby groups is dictatated by the American system. It invites extremism for individual profit, when a socialist system would invite tolerance for equal gain...

--- G.

[canikickit]

Understand, I am not looking to denegrate gays in any way.

I understand, and realise that, whether that is your intent or not, that is what you are doing. They push their agenda, because, as a group the are below.

What do you think their agenda is anyway? To give everyone "gay"?

[redstar2000]

Do gay people "have an agenda"?

Well, if what is meant by "an agenda" is being treated like other humans, no better and no worse, just equal in every way...I suppose they do. I have no problem with that; do you?

Fear of AIDS and religious fundamentalism seem to be the twin obstacles to the "gay agenda" at this point. AIDS will certainly become curable at some point...so we're back to people who more or less feel that "gay sex" is "an abomination unto the Lord" and those who engage in it "deserve" punishment in this world and "the next"...the usual puritanical bullshit.

Is there any rational reason to treat gay people any different from straight people? Beats me.

The Supreme Court decision, by the way, was a pretty questionable one in my view. The use of "private" status to practice public discrimination in the United States is wide-spread and technically "legal"...but reprehensible all the same. The sub-text of the ruling is that gay scoutmasters shouldn't be allowed the opportunity to "recruit" teenage boys to "gay-dom"...an incredibly stupid notion.

No one "recruited" me to like girls...I did it on my own. It's the same for gay people.

:cool:

[Dhul Fiqar]

Dustmasks like doctors and construction workers wear are a cheap and effective way of avoiding the gay virus.

Canikicit: you are obviously a bit light in the loafers so to speak, you damn queer. Do you want a date?

--- G.

[Dhul Fiqar]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 2:20 am on Mar. 31, 2003
the sub-text of the ruling is that gay scoutmasters shouldn't be allowed the opportunity to "recruit" teenage boys to "gay-dom"...an incredibly stupid notion.

No one "recruited" me to like girls...I did it on my own. It's the same for gay people.


Very good point. The funny part is how easy it is to counter this argument, just ask the person using it if he thinks he could be "tricked" or "convinced" to sleep with a man.

I doubt he'll say that's a possibility ;)

--- G.

[lifetrnal]

Yes. Their agenda, as a liberation ideology, is to end what they deem as descrimination by the rest of straight society. They seem themseleves as being inheritors of the black equal rights movments in the '60s. And to a certain extent I agree with them.
As to the notion that they share the same rights as other Americans... posh. They do NOT share the right to marry their significant others, this means that they have no inheritance rights... no right to sue for wrongful death ... no decision making ability if someone is gravely ill. And that is JUST the marriage issue. I believe their list of grievances is well founded.

[Moskitto]

of course face masks stop the hiv virus, hiv isn't airbourne.

and what the hell do they mean by "recruiting"? have they never heard of puberty? or do they think lots of 13-14 year olds walk into towns and look to join "homosexual", "heterosexual" or "bisexual" based on who offers them the best deal?

I think their main concern is that there would be serious child protection concerns if a man sleeping in a tent with a group of girls in the middle of a forest, so they would have similar concerns with regard to gay people. But they forget that they are not attracted to everyone of the gender they are attracted to, except Sharon that total red haired slut.

(Edited by Moskitto at 7:07 pm on Mar. 30, 2003)

[Ghost Writer]

of course face masks stop the hiv virus, hiv isn't airbourne.

Not yet. Keep giving treatments to people who do not understand western medicine, and the fact that you must take medicine as it is prescribed, and you will essentially succeed at the type of virial manipulation as the Soviets "brute force" method of generating vaccine resistant strains of smallpox. The new AIDs virus might possibly be more virulent and infectious, because unlike the Corpus 1 strain of smallpox, it will have been exposed to the human immune system. Thus giving it that extra bonus.

(Edited by Ghost Writer at 7:18 pm on Mar. 30, 2003)

[Anonymous]

NAMBLA (http://www.nambla1.de)

[Ghost Writer]

As despicable as the fedayeen, NAMBLA deserves the same fate.

[Moskitto]

NAMBLA is the definition of wrong,

I'm wondering If I should actually see their website or will they arrest me :(

[englandsgay]

the "gay agenda" is about nothing more and nothing less then money. they already can love whoever they want, now they want society to pay them for it (marriage stuff, work place benifits, etc.) ... who wouldn't?

The danger is with redefining the word 'family,' cause once it becomes a relative term pandoras little box will open up to all sorts of fun (can a person marry a chicken, how bout a tree) which will inevtiably be a contradiction somewhere down the road.

[Moskitto]

what workplace benefits could there be for being gay?

[Ghost Writer]

I went there once, in order to get enough information to write the following letter for my Stormin Norman: Corporate Crusader (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=22&topic=1385&start=50) thread.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dear NAMBLA,


Although I have been aware of your most despicable organization for some time, I have chosen to let others condemn it for me. Previously, I thought that outspoken critics, like Bill O’Rielly, were sufficient in advocating your remove from our society. Recently, my attitude has changed. I have decided to take to various media for the purpose of helping to eradicate the most malignant tumors that threaten America’s civil society. Unfortunately for you, your organization NAMBLA, short for North American Malignant Boy-molesters who operate Licentiously and Act immorally, has shown up on my radar screen as possibly one of the most dangerous threats to American culture.

Let me start by saying that I have nothing against homosexuals. What people chose to do on their own time is their own business, up to a point. If degenerates like you chose to simply poke each other in the ass, I would have no problem. However, sexual gratification between adults is not your business. As an extension of the gay agenda, your organization wishes to further infiltrate my society by overrunning the socialization processes necessary for the creation of decent citizens. This is done in an attempt to change people’s perceptions about what is acceptable in a civil society. Like the white supremacists you wish to legitimize your demented world-view through shared perception. Like the group that dangers you the most, you wish to indoctrinate the youth and spread your perversion throughout society.

Unfortunately for me, I had to visit your homepage in order to research what your group claims to represent. Your objectives were clearly stated.

Your “goal is to end the extreme oppression of men and boys in mutually consensual relationships by: building understanding and support for such relationships; educating the general public on the benevolent nature of man/boy love; cooperating with lesbian, gay, feminist, and other liberation movements; supporting the liberation of persons of all ages from sexual prejudice and oppression”.

Exactly as I suspected, you wish to erode the mores that prevent society from accepting pedophilia. I have got some bad news for you. Nothing you can do will ever end the extreme oppression felt by the pedophiles that molest little boys. Your attempts to redefine what is socially accepted will be hindered by the majority of people that support decency. Regular people, including most gays, will never understand your insatiable desire to have sex with children. Your “relationships” will forever be considered as criminal behavior. Get use to it sickos. You have no hope in being accepted by normal people. Just like in your adolescents, you are considered by everyone to be awkward freaks, who deserve shunning or constant ridicule. Further updating you to the feelings of most Americans, I say that we have no use for “education” into what it means for an adult to damage a child. Surely, it is the workings of a convoluted mind that claims such spoliation to be a benevolent act. What value would society have for teachings offered by a cankerous sore on its customs and morals? If society were a living system, you would be a pathogen aimed at its destruction. Consider those decent people, who refuse to acquiesce to your lies and deception, to be the immune system dedicated to the destruction of a harmful agent.

Furthermore, you claim one of your objectives to be the support of “greater economic, political and social opportunities for young people and denounce the rampant ageism that segregates and isolates them in fear and mistrust.” How foolish do you think people are? This is obviously a poor attempt to lure insecure children into your organization. Do you really think that taking on a role of child advocate will convince any normal child to expose themselves to your perverse organization? I think not. Even the children are not as blind as you would hope. Even children who have had the misfortune of ever hearing about your organization revile you. Those like you are true outcasts. Even the most innocent among us are able to recognize your sickly presence. I liken this attempt to speak for the children to the tactic of luring children away with candy that child molesters use. To your credit, it is a more elaborate scheme that demonstrates how advanced your type has evolved to become. Like the pathogens you are, it was necessary for you to find more innovative ways of fooling the immune system. We are not fooled. Consider me to be the cytotoxic T lymphocyte (CTL) whose purpose it is to limit virus reproduction and destroy virus-infected cells. In other words, you are the disease and I am the cure.

In addition, you call for the “fundamental reform of the laws regarding relations between youths and adults. Today, many thousands of men and boys are unjustly ground into the disfunctional criminal justice system. Blindly, this system condemns consensual, loving relationships between younger and older people”. First, let me tell you that you spelled dysfunctional wrong. Secondly, let me tell you that I agree the system is dysfunctional. For years I have been asking myself about the validity of a sex offender registry. Why should we need one? Why do we let perverts back out into the population after the have committed a crime against humanity? You are right, we do need reform of the criminal justice system. Perhaps this will be the purpose of my cytokines, to send messages of reforming the system. However, I think we will disagree on how this should be done. I say we stiffen the penalty on child offenders. No man convicted of child molestation should ever see the light of day again. Furthermore, upon their conviction, child molesters should face the death penalty. Of course, in the interest of a speedy trial system, the appeals process should be expedited. Instead of a twenty-year wait, they should only have to face a two-year wait. Instead of wasting energy electrifying someone not worthy of the electricity we shall find a more cost effective, perhaps more painful method of execution.

Your web-site also states, “Our prisoner program seeks to provide moral support to incarcerated boy-lovers. These people experience a harsh and exceptionally hostile environment, which undermines their self-concepts and self-respect. We keep in touch with prisoners, primarily through a monthly Prisoners' Letter.” I’m sorry, but I am having a real hard time feeling any sympathy for these monsters, and I don’t agree with your intentions to lighten the burden these prisoners face while incarcerated. Unlike your organization, I feel the criminal pecking order remains a form of poetic justice. Child rapists should be thrown into the general population where they can suffer humiliating beatings for the rest of their days. This form of justice will do just fine until the day when they can be terminated for their hideous actions. They should have more to worry about than whether or not they can receive NAMBLA mail. Society would be better served if they had to worry more about surviving another day in prison. Furthermore, shouldn’t these sick fucks be questioning their self-concepts? If they had any self-respect they wouldn’t defile children, so that’s a mute point.

It sickens me that you would find this to be an important cause. Obviously, only a child molester would feel as you do, and that is why they should lock up everyone associated with your organization. The chances are, most of you have or will assault a child, and allowing those so vocal in their fight for child molestation is a game of Russian roulette society shouldn’t play. In the interest of protecting our youth a rapid campaign for the extermination of all child molesters should be waged. Now that’s a cause worth championing, so much worthier than the rights of the child molesters who deserve nothing better than death.

Your enemy,

Stormin Norman

P.S. If one of your kind ever touches someone that I care about you will have more to worry about than the current justice system.

[redstar2000]

Gee, SN, you left out public flogging, burning at the stake, and, ohmygod, crucifixion.

Was that just an oversight, SN, or did you get "cold feet"?

By all means, let us torture sick people as much as we can...it will certainly teach people not to dare to be sick.

I think this SN post is actually kind of instructive; beneath the surface (not very far beneath) of pro-capitalists is the desire to inflict the most horrible imaginable punishments...to do their best, as the Nazis did, to re-create "Hell" on earth.

There are rational alternatives, of course...the most obvious being to simply separate such people from children altogether. Let them fantasize whatever they will...prevent them from acting on those fantasies.

But for the SNs of this world, there's "no fun" in that...when the alternative is a nightmare of pain and suffering.

It makes me wonder...who are the really sick people?

:cool:

[Hampton]

If degenerates like you chose to simply poke each other in the ass, I would have no problem.

How sophisticated of you.

[El Che]

Does it exist, or is the very idea ludicrous?

It exists.

What is important that you realise SN is the nature of an entity like "gay agenda" or "gay lobby". It is a generalization. That is to say that you have some individuals who take it upon themselves to be the representatives of a group of people, that doesn`t mean they are and in the event that they represent a majority they never represent the totality. Just like you have lobbies for people who like to hunt or for people who are blind you have a gay lobby. Theres nothing wrong with saying that if you understand what it is your saying. What is it you want to say? Is there something wrong with the possible existence of a gay agenda? You know, Che Lives doesn`t stand for Rascist bullshit and homophobic and/or sexist bullshit doesn`t go down very well either. Your situation here is precarious as it is but dont let that stop you.

I can`t be bothered to read your intolerable crap but that quote Hampton singled out could very well be a display of homophobia. Why is poking someone in the ass a degenerative behavior?

(Edited by El Che at 3:52 am on Mar. 31, 2003)

[Anonymous]

Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines a phobia as folows:


Pronunciation: 'fO-bE-&
Function: noun
Etymology: -phobia
Date: 1786
: an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation

I fail to see how simply portraying a general disgust with homosexuals and the homosexual lifestyle constitutes "homophobia".

[El Che]

ho·mo·pho·bi·a ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hm-fb-)
n.
Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
Behavior based on such a feeling.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[homo(sexual) + -phobia.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
homo·phobe n.
homo·phobic adj.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

homophobia

n : prejudice against (fear or dislike of) homosexual people and homosexuality


Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

[Dhul Fiqar]

The "pandoras box" argument is absolutely laughable. ADULT HUMANS are the only group that can get married, no one is suggesting changing that nor would there be any movement towards legalizing pedophilia because it's a totally different issue.

As for the dustmasks I was being sarcastic about the danger of "picking up gayness", not talking about HIV.

[Ghost Writer]

El Che,

In response to:

"I can’t be bothered to read your intolerable crap but that quote Hampton singled out could very well be a display of homophobia. Why is poking someone in the ass a degenerative behavior?"

The quote was intended to read, "if degenerates (being people who lust for children) like you (NAMBLA) chose to simply poke each other in the ass (engage in homosexual behavior), I would not have a problem. Obviously, it is their activity with children that I have a problem with, and that was the issue that I dealt with in the post.

That fact that some here would rather criticize my attack on those degenerates (they are degenerates) is very troubling. The idea that some would take more offense to the stance I take on child molestation, than the child molesters speaks volumes about the degradation of western society.

This is probably a bigger reason for the Arab assault on our culture, than any foreign policy mistake we have made. If you read any of the propaganda coming from that culture, you will see that the porn belt, Hollywood, Girls Gone Wild, and our lack of moral integrity in general are evoked as a greater justification for Jihad, than CIA involvement in Arab countries.

I would suggest that anyone who enjoys sexual liberation, women’s rights, gay's rights, and the overall human rights that perpetuate this image across the world on 300 different satellite T.V. networks get on board this war on terrorism. It is a culture war. It's ethnocentric, and the survival of the liberal notions that you suggest as being important for the rights of homosexuals hang in the balance.

If you really feel as you do, you should be willing to defend those principles that make it possible for you to take such a tolerant stance, the same ideas that allow for a secular state where religious morals are not imposed by law. You should have more of a problem with the Sharia than you do with any U.S. conservative, since it is those principles that we aim to protect from liberal erosion.

The problem with liberalism is that you are unwilling to make a judgements about anything, unless it involves those people who do make value judgments. This is why your ideology is flawed. It fails to protect itself. It embraces the enemy, stating that everything is culturally relative.

Or does it? Perhaps liberalism only uses those lines when it is in a defensive posture. Maybe they see the power of the chilling effect as a way to reduce the power of the status quo to defend itself. Will the Nazis come sporting swastikas and National Socialism this time, or will they do it under the disguise of human rights, and anti-hate legislation? Will it be the storm troopers of the S.S that kicks in people's doors, or will it be some humans rights watch? For what I have seen, and from what Plato predicted in his Republic, it will be those who claim to champion the human condition, or public safety that will pose the greatest threat to freedom. In fact, if you look at all the most devastating forms of government you will find that common note among them.

What promises did the German Chancellor make to get his nation to go along with the inhumane conditions of the holocaust, how about the communists? What promises do today's liberals make, and hasn't it become apparent that they do not care for these things? This becomes evident in the way they ignore certain atrocities that are being committed around the world. Instead they turn their pious criticism on the country that offers the most freedom in the world.

The only conclusion that can be drawn is that they do not care about those things they purport. Their wish is opposite of their stated goal. They prefer oppression to freedom, starvation to sustenance, pain to pleasure, and lunacy to sanity. By twisting the language to suit their needs, liberals are able to fool many people about the sado masichistic treachery that drives their vision for the world. This is the slight of hand maneuvering that can prove challenging for those of us, whose goal it is to monitor such activity in the political system. Sometimes it seems as if there is some powerful force that protects the evil agenda that being advanced on the part of liberals, as the majority of people choose to remain oblivious to its existence.

[sc4r]

Quote: from Ghost Writer on 8:44 am on Mar. 31, 2003
If you read any of the propaganda coming from that culture, you will see that the porn belt, Hollywood, Girls Gone Wild, and our lack of moral integrity in general are evoked as a greater justification for Jihad, than CIA involvement in Arab countries.



Christ you are quite ludicrous. The hatred orginates in a number of things (envy of wealth, dislike of arrogance, and most of all dislike of support for Israel). But the expressed disgust for porn, booze etc is nothing more than the sort of post hoc vilification of 'the enemy' that every confrontation provokes. It supports the basic (and real) reasons because it it is easier to express, nothing else. They might be invoked, but if it wasn't them it would just be something else, anything else.

I've no idea what these NAMBLA lot are, I've never heard of them, and if they are genuinely paedophiles encouraging the activity* then i join you in condeming them but I am also utterly disgusted by the language you use to do so (and mystified as to why you posted your open letter to them here). Homophobia screams from every paragraph of it frankly.

Like almost everyone here I know your type. I know you will deny homphobia while launching attacks on gays, just as you will plead objectivity while stating blatant lies about socialism. I'm only waiting for the 'I am completely devoid of racism, but.....' line to appear for the usual set to be complete.

Now I'd like to hear how you square your supposedly libertarian views with attacking the adult porn industry.

* But I see from checking up on them that they are not. They may hold a different view about consent than you (and me) but they are quite expressly telling their members that while the law is as it is they must obey it. Pretty obviously there will be paedophiles of a nasty variety among their membership but in that case it is those people you should be attacking. NAMBLA itself seems simply to be an association with a different opinion than you exercising its right to free speech (the same right you so categorically demand for yourself even when you are breaking the rules). always find it fascinating that the people who scream free speech loudest are always the same ones who most violently object whenever anyone not sharing their views chooses to use it.

Before you deny it yes you were attacking free speech. You were not in the main having a pop at what NAMBLA are saying you were simply vilifying them. In effect telling them to shut up. The fact that you cant legally enforce your desire doesnt alter this. I am expecting you of course to deny this and to ocome out with the standard excuse that 'it isnt the same'; no its isnt exactly the same but its obvious to most that it amounts to the same thing, and that if they were shut down you would not be on the picket lines demanding they be allowed to stay open.




(Edited by sc4r at 9:46 am on Mar. 31, 2003)

[El Che]

You`re out on a limb here and I think you know it.

It`s just occured to me what you are, you are a zealous partisan. Theres a set of values and principals, that from what I gather are mixed with a strong sense of Americanism and Patriotism, which you consider very important and in the name of those values you are willing abdicate of certain and particular principals which you make referance to in your post and which I like to qualify as Leftist (or Liberal though I dislike the word) in nature. Many of your conservative buddies wouldn`t go so far and they certainly wouldn`t go so far as to openly state they would go so far, if you catch my meaning. You are a minority just like we are.

About the issues themselves.... What can I say? I genuinely believe that tolerance is very necessary. I believe institutionalising things like religion or patriotism is god aweful and medival. I believe that any sexual behavior between consenting adults is just as "right" or "wrong" (i.e its nothing, it just is) as the next. etc etc etc.

Vive la differance!

(Edited by El Che at 9:34 am on Mar. 31, 2003)

[Ghost Writer]

"Now I'd like to hear how you square your supposedly libertarian views with attacking the adult porn industry."

Hey, I never attacked the adult porn industry. I stated that it was a source of the moral justification that the Jihadists use, today. They also attack rap music, and our materialistic "junk" society. Is porn immoral? Probably. Does that mean it should be illegal? No. Is massive porno on the world wide web evoked as one of the reasons that the Islamists have for attacking our country? Yes. That was my point. You read to deep. By attributing it as a source for the moral justification of my enemy, I have not condemned it. But it was meant to inspire thought as to the effect our apparent moral decline could be having on the way we are percieved internationally.

[sc4r]

You have to be effing joking 'If you read any of the propaganda coming from that culture, you will see that the porn belt, Hollywood, Girls Gone Wild, and our lack of moral integrity '

I dont even need to find a different to quote to see you attack the porn industry. You obviously think that nobody is smart enough or empathic enough to read (not very deeply) between the lines.

And why pray did you decide to stick a letter about what you claim is paedophilia inside a thread on Gays ?

(Edited by sc4r at 9:53 am on Mar. 31, 2003)

[Ghost Writer]

You`re out on a limb here and I think you know it.

It`s just occured to me what you are, you are a zealous partisan. Theres a set of values and principals, that from what I gather are mixed with a strong sense of Americanism and Patriotism, which you consider very important and in the name of those values you are willing abdicate of certain and particular principals which you make referance to in your post and which I like to qualify as Leftist (or Liberal though I dislike the word) in nature. Many of your conservative buddies wouldn`t go so far and they certainly wouldn`t go so far as to openly state they would go so far, if you catch my meaning. You are a minority just like we are.

About the issues themselves.... What can I say? I genuinely believe that tolerance is very necessary. I believe institutionalising things like religion or patriotism is god aweful and medival. I believe that any sexual behavior between consenting adults is just as "right" or "wrong" (i.e its nothing, it just is) as the next. etc etc etc.

Vive la differance!


You are one of the few leftists here that I like, El Che. However, you should not under estimate my willingness to fight for those principles. As I am not often willing to concede on this forum, I apply a greater level of zeal to those areas of life that remain important to the survival of the democratic experiment. There are not many things that I would be willing to sacrifice to advance the ideals that I support. The Peter Arnett situation is unfortunate to me, but propagandizing for the enemy is not protected speech. In fact, it is a crime, for good reason, I might add.

As for the term liberal, its a relative term. In America, leftist are liberal.

And you are right, I would make a great ally. Fortunately, I am for the side where justice prevails, and the truth is the goal.

[Ghost Writer]

"And why pray did you decide to stick a letter about what you claim is paedophilia inside a thread on Gays?"

Because someone brought up NAMBLA. I don't think the majority of gay people molest children, this type of pedophelia is a very small, minute, aspect of the culture, and it pertains to the conversation we are having. If you read the mission statement of NAMBLA you will see that they lobby for some pretty sick shit, and that makes them a interest group, for sickos, I might add.

[sc4r]

Quote: from Ghost Writer on 10:03 am on Mar. 31, 2003
"And why pray did you decide to stick a letter about what you claim is paedophilia inside a thread on Gays?"

Because someone brought up NAMBLA. I don't think the majority of gay people molest children, this type of pedophelia is a very small, minute, aspect of the culture, and it pertains to the conversation we are having. If you read the mission statement of NAMBLA you will see that they lobby for some pretty sick shit, and that makes them a interest group, for sickos, I might add.

O Y thats right One of your fellow capitalists introduced the words and then you expanded it.

"If degenerates like you chose to simply poke each other in the ass, I would have no problem. However, sexual gratification between adults is not your business. As an extension of the gay agenda"

Anyone who cant see that this is homophobic as well as anti NAMBLA must be almost blind. It explicitly ties NAMBLA into the 'gay agenda' and makes it patently obvious that the 'degeneracy' is the poking in the ass not the object of the poking. Its just that Norm CLAIMS he would have no objection to that type of 'degeneracy'. An odd sort of claim; its tricky to see how you could call someone a degenerate and mean it not in a bad way.

[Ghost Writer]

I already addressed that issue. Degenerates being the pedophiles. I am sorry if you wish to attribute my words to all gays, even though my letter speaks otherwise, and defends the basic decency of most gay people. To me, my words are pretty clear, and you are trying to engage in the type of chilling that I spoke of earlier.

Degenerate: A sexual deviant. People who molest children are sexual deviants, are they not?

[Ghost Writer]

Why don't you wait and see how my piece on the "gay agenda" turns out before you start attacking me as a homophobe. I have not done enough of an investigation to know the entire extent or motivation of the "gay agenda" in a general sense. But you can trust that I will keep you updated. Probably next weekend, I will have a finished result.

[sc4r]

Quote: from Ghost Writer on 10:22 am on Mar. 31, 2003
I already addressed that issue. Degenerates being the pedophiles. I am sorry if you wish to attribute my words to all gays, even though my letter speaks otherwise, and defends the basic decency of most gay people. To me, my words are pretty clear, and you are trying to engage in the type of chilling that I spoke of earlier.

Degenerate: A sexual deviant. People who molest children are sexual deviants, are they not?

BS anyone who understand anything about communciation and language knows what the line 'If degenerates like you chose to simply poke each other in the ass conveys about your feelings for homosexuals. semantically it insults what the person would be IF... as well as attacking them for what they are.

On a purely technical point it also completely ignores the fact that NAMBLA actually do advocate only poking each other in the ass unless the law is changed (not that this is especially relevant).

I see dictionaries have come out. The other guaranteed tactic of your kind. Do you honestly think of yourself as individual ? you are a clone of 1000 other self obsessed idjits on forums over the whole web. All of them claim to be geniuses and all of them demonstrate some knowlege but almost no understanding of things. They would all be good at pub quizzes I would guess, but piss poor at anything less trivial.

[sc4r]

Quote: from Ghost Writer on 10:25 am on Mar. 31, 2003
Why don't you wait and see how my piece on the "gay agenda" turns out before you start attacking me as a homophobe. I have not done enough of an investigation to know the entire extent or motivation of the "gay agenda" in a general sense. But you can trust that I will keep you updated. Probably next weekend, I will have a finished result.


LOL Fuck me you flatter yourself. I am not overcome with impatient excitement to see your newest piece of excrement. There is no bloody gay agenda you tart or more accurately there are 1000 of them. There are gays who are republican, gays who are communists, gays who are liberals, there are gays who like balllet and the arts and gays who think a night down the pun dru=inking mild and bitter is the biz, there are gays who want marriage rights and gays who dont, gays who favour adoption, and gays who dont, there are evn (god know why) gays who are ultra conservatives in every other matter.

The mere fact that you cant see this obvious truth and insist on going through with your OH so very obvious 'research' tlls me all I need to know. Are you going to actually ask gay men what their agenda is ? No I thought not, what you are gonna do is write your agenda isn't it.

Anyone care to bet that That ghostboy will conclude that he supports the 'gay agenda' , I'll offer odds ? No I thought not.

Gay men like having sex with other men, and want to be allowed to. Thats the entire extent of the 'Gay agenda'. Frankly anyone who has been around the majority of gay men knows that they dont have time for or care much about almost anything else.

(Edited by sc4r at 10:52 am on Mar. 31, 2003)


(Edited by sc4r at 10:54 am on Mar. 31, 2003)


(Edited by sc4r at 10:59 am on Mar. 31, 2003)

[Dhul Fiqar]

Go to google. Type in "the gay agenda" and see what you come up with.

The very fact that you use this phrase immediately puts you in a very unsavoury group of biggots in most people's minds.

--- G.

[redstar2000]

"Sometimes it seems as if there is some powerful force that protects the evil agenda that being advanced on the part of liberals..."

[i]Hey, Satan, get in here! Stormin Norman is dissing you again!

The sad part is this guy actually considers himself a "thinker". But he is more typical of America than you would believe possible.

:cool:

[Dhul Fiqar]

Well, he is a 'thinker' in the sense that he at least takes the time to come up with convoluted crap and hairsplitting like this to justify his uninformed and bigotted positions.

Whereas most Yanks just rely on the ol' "Fuck you, I'm an American and we're the greatest people in the world and fuck anyone that tries to show us a reality we don't like!"

That being said, the latter group does not have the annoying habit of popping up on messageboards and waste everyone's time, so perhaps that IS a preferable approach.

--- G.

[Ghost Writer]

Well, the very first thing that popped up was this (http://www.gayagenda.com/) (don't worry it's not disgusting porn). I have to say that you are right about one thing. There are some very unsavory characters that come up under that search.

[Totalitarian]

Some gays are lobbying for certain naughty words about them to be made "hate speech", and in some western countries people can be arrested for publicly reading portions of the bible or qu'ran which forbid homosexuality.

PC Thought Police seek to legislate against hurt feelings, and people are supposed to feel sorry for having natural urges of disgust towards homosexuality. I guess some gay fanatics just want revenge on the "breeders", similar to their zionist and feminist counterparts.

[mentalbunny]

I don't know about the US but things aren't too bad here, a guy at school's uncle is gay and he adopted this kid who had a really bad background and now he has a real chance in life.

Gays can be great parents, but they can be shit, as can hetero couples. There's nothing to stop gays from adopting in my eyes, those who want to adopt, whether gay or straight, should have the same kind of tests, for lack of a better word, to decide whether they should be allowed to adopt.

[Dhul Fiqar]

I probably shouldn't bring this up, but I was brought up by a gay mother..... Not the best example of how things should turn out, but I assure you many others do better ;)

--- G.

[mentalbunny]

Dhul, not only that but many hetero couples do worse! So do the capis say that's ok, cos they're straight?

[Saint-Just]

Many people have asked what you mean by 'gay agenda'. I think this is because there obviously is one, so the question is somewhat perplexing. If there was no 'gay agenda' there would be no gay rights demonstrations and such like.

I would suggest that although the majority of homosexuals may not take part in demonstrations such as these they certainly support them and their aims.

[Soul Rebel]

Quote: from Ghost Writer on 2:20 pm on Mar. 30, 2003
I would look more broadly than just equal rights, as gays already enjoy all the rights of American citizens. However, I would not narrow it to simply trying to "turn people gay". Let's look at it with a broad scope, and not narrow it to one specific motivation, at least not yet.


That you say gays enjoy all the right of other americans is completely false. There are many ways in which gays do have the same rights, that we take for granted.
#1) They cannot get married. Yes this is a tired argument, but it is a real one. We have to see that marriage is not about tradition, it is about money. Marriage has historically been about $, womyn couldnt own anything and so had to be married off as a form of survival. So to me the excuse that gays should not get married is bullshit. They should be able to enjoy the same benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy: coverage on each others policies, etc.
#2) Adoption: I dont understand why they cant adopt, but there are restrictions on it. They can be good parents just like anyone else. All a child needs is love, shelter, food,understanding, good health, etc. The fear that gay parents will turn their children gay is absurd. There is no proof in this. I have many friends raised by gay parents who are heterosexual.
#3) Heterosexuals can enjoy showing their love (PDA) in public, whereas for homosexuals it is extremely hard unless they feel like getting the shit beat out of them. As heterosexuals we really take this for granted: we can talk of our significant other, hold their hand, kiss them, etc. in public without worrying what other people will say. Homosexuals do not really enjoy this priviledge. Many have to hold back feelings.
#4) Heterosexuals don't have to come out to family and friends with the fear and risk of being rejected. Homosexuals risk losing all relationships and connections with people important to them over something as silly as sexual orientation.
#5) Heterosexuals arent constantly referred to on terms of their sexuality. For sexample most of us don't say "My heterosexual friend, Mark..." , but we continuously do this to homosexuals. Why must we emphasize their sexuality? Is their any importance.
#6) Heterosexuals aren't asked to speak on behalf of the heterosexual community. Homosexuals are constantly asked to speak on behalf of their community. This is like asking how an African-American or Latino person how they feel on a certain topic and assuming it applies to all African-Americans and Latinos.
#7) Stereotypes. This is one that nobody can deny- homosexuals have to constantly put up with bullshit stereotypes. Sorry to inform the public, but not all gay men are feminine and not all gay womyn are butch. Some may actually have their "gender roles" (which are made up by society and inforced by institutions) correct.

Do I need to go on? You can disagree if you want, but this is what i see (as a sociology and womyn's studies student). You dont have to be gay to see these things, any person who can accept and celebrate diversity sees them. Peace.