The Bible calls homosexual activity wrong, but . . .

[sidhe]

Thanks for doing the research.

That really makes this document sound like The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Although this "gay agenda" is much less creative than Protocols.

I think it is, in a way, far more insidious. It makes perfectly reasonable demands...and then gets to legalizing pedophilia and polygamous marriage.

It makes it sound almost plausible, and the average person isn't going to check Illinois newspapers in 1972 for record of this. The National Coalition of Gay Organizations was in Illinois in '72...protesting Vietnam and Nixon. No conference, no released agenda.

It almost sounds like the kind of thing Nixon's people would have released to defame a group protesting their activities. I wonder...the hand of Ben Stein?

 

[sidhe]

Alright! This makes me happy as an InfoSci geek!

Non-right wing mention of the meeting in Chicago in 1972. It's not the "National Coalition of Gay Organizations," and they didn't formulate a platform. They discussed protest techniques for both parties' upcoming National Conventions. Manford (the subject of the article) discussed the importance of knowing what a candidates actual position was as opposed to their published position.

I'm still saying the "Platform" that appears on the anti-gay sites reeks of Nixon's enemies list.

 

[IzzyPop]

My use of the word "deviant" is actually a kind word and quite mild actually, comparatively speaking. But of course anything that is in opposition is automatically translated as "hate", so that comes as no surprise.

Compared to what? What you want to say? What you are allowed to say on this board?

It is one thing to say that you disagree with homosexuality. It is another thing entirely to promulgate lies about them.

It isn't "shenanigans", You left out A LOT of information. Not surprising though, really. After all, the truth does not help the promotion of the erroneous information and the innocent, picked on portrait that some persist in attempting to depict.

In regards to David Parker, his child was FIVE and he as a parent has a right to decide what he wants his child exposed to and when, schools or the public do not get to decide that. If it was the KKK visiting the school to promote their agenda to five year olds I am sure I would be hearing a different tune played here.

Several courts say he doesn't have that right where a public school is concerned. They were not teaching his child anything about homosexuality other than it exists.

This has nothing to do with any such thing.
One of the publications is called the Little Black Book. Gives explicit details of sexual acts and how to perform them, educates kids on what "[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]" is etc.... have you heard of it?

You mean the one that was mistakenly handed out to teens in a conference of Gay and Lesbian issues? I had to go through 3 pages of hate links to find an unbiased source about it. And that one wasn't really unbiased, it was blasting Romney, but it gave a much more complete picture of what happened than the links that cried "[wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth], teh Gayz are coming!"

It also, as does websites that offer "safe sex tips" for homosexuals gives out a lot of erroneous information and causes them to put a lot of faith in things that cannot guarantee their protection because the items used for protection of heterosexuals during natural sex were not meant for use combined with rectums.

What is 'natural sex'? There is not much a homosexual couple can do that I have not done with my wife. But that is sanctified because we are married, right?

And they are equally vile and morally grotesque however are not going on in the daytime as are the gay parades, with children present and there are arrests for lewdness and indecent exposure.

Wrong. I seem to remember during Fantasy Fest that there were a bunch of naked people in body paint around 3 in the afternoon. I don't recall naked people in any of the Pride events I have been to.

I have never been to any of the above, however I have seen enough footage and done enough research to get the picture. I disagree with you as far as much more "tame". None of the footage I saw could that be said about.

Then I recommend you not do your research on hate sites. Massresistance, Article8, CWA, and the like are no different than Stormfront.

I didn't coin the phrase "gay agenda", so apparently it isn't just "my imagination."

Nah. You just use it. That is almost worse.

 

[TheManeki]

Alright! This makes me happy as an InfoSci geek!

Non-right wing mention of the meeting in Chicago in 1972. It's not the "National Coalition of Gay Organizations," and they didn't formulate a platform. They discussed protest techniques for both parties' upcoming National Conventions. Manford (the subject of the article) discussed the importance of knowing what a candidates actual position was as opposed to their published position.

I'm still saying the "Platform" that appears on the anti-gay sites reeks of Nixon's enemies list.

I can't rep you again so soon, but great work on the sleuthing!

 

[selfinflikted]

I can't rep you again so soon, but great work on the sleuthing!

Got her. You know I got yo back.

EDIT: lol. my "rep power" is teh sux0rz.

 

[IamRedeemed]

I never classified Darwinism as a religion.
Read my post again.

Are you serious? You just pleaded for realism and honesty, yet you go on about Darwinism being a religion, ffs. You're talking about a real "Gay Agenda". How can you honestly expect any of us to take you seriously with the blatant hypocrisy that you display in this post? This is completely laughable.

 

[Skaloop]

I never classified Darwinism as a religion.
Read my post again.

Granted, but you did lump it in with religion. Why?

And evolution is not being rammed down anyone's throat, it is merely being taught. Nobody is forced to believe it, they only need to understand the theory. Writing an essay on evolution does not require one to accept it. I don't believe in God, but I could write an essay on him. Evolution underpins all of biology; one must understand it in order to study biology in depth. But they don't need to believe it to do so.

 

[selfinflikted]

I never classified Darwinism as a religion.
Read my post again.

If I misinterpreted what you were trying to say then I apologise. But even after re-reading your post, it looks as if you are throwing Darwinism in with "other religions".

Anyway, my point still stands about your hypocrisy concerning your plea for "facts" and "honesty" and then throwing up the imaginary "gay agenda". This is dishonesty at its best.