Ygorl

* All red text is my writing. *

There's even a website about boycotting Ford for their support of homosexuals and their twisted ideas. Good:

BoycottFord.com - Sponsored by American Family Association

Obviously, Ford thinks those who do not support homosexual marriage are not "inclusive and respectful".
--------------------------------
Ford held the first automotive conference aimed at bringing diversity to the car industry. "Diversity" is a code word for homosexuality. By defining themselves as a minority such as African-Americans, homosexual activists seek to bolster their claims of needing special treatment.
--------------------------------
Ford hired a D.C. marketing firm to target the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender market and developed a plan to involve Ford in the day-to-day business of selling vehicles worldwide to gay and lesbian customers.
--------------------------------
Ford was an executive sponsor of the 2004 "Out & Equal Workplace Summit Conference." The purpose of the event was to advance the homosexual agenda, including homosexual marriage, in major corporations.
--------------------------------
Ford donated to the Michigan Gay Pride March a red Mustang Cobra convertible. This was the first time an auto manufacturer has donated a vehicle for the Michigan Gay Pride Parade. * Christ on a cracker, Ford is obviously sick in the head. *
-------------------------------
Ford has been an "Emerald Sponsor" of Parents, Families & Friends of Lesbians & Gays (PFLAG), a national organization promoting the homosexual lifestyle including homosexual marriage.

================================================== ======

AFA Journal, Pg. 5


After all the machinations involved in ramming the legalization of same sex marriage through Canada's Parliament, the city with the largest percentage of homosexuals has seen only a single gay Canadian couple tying the knot thus far this year.
----------------------------------
National Review Online contributing editor Stanley Kurtz ... believes many radical homosexual activists actually want to get rid of the institution of marriage altogether.
"The way to abolish marriage, without seeming to abolish it, is to redefine the institution out of existence," he said. "If everything can be marriage, pretty soon nothing will be marriage." - LifeSitenews 6/27/07

* So there we have it. It's NOT about "rights". It's NOT about a "word". It's about reforming a society to fit into the weird worldview(s) of a small group of sexual deviants.

Will we accept this ?

No, I don't think we WILL. *

SamInTheSouth

I think you need to find a hobby.

__________________
Carolina Politics Online

Sam

Izzibeth

#1. I see nothing wrong with what Ford is doing.

#2. Just because an editor named Stanley Kurtz "believes" something does not make it true.

Has there not been a decline in the number of marriages anyway? And a rise in the number of divorces? Personally, I have been in my heterosexual relationship for going on 4 years now. We have no plans to get married (but we also have no plans to have children... if that were to change then a legal marriage would happen for the benefit of our kid).

And now, why is the number of marriages being brought up? Shouldn't you be jumping for joy that only one couple has sought a legal marriage? People date. Relationships don't work out. Perhaps they are the only homosexual couple who has decided to tie the knot this year. In coming years I am sure there will be more. Why is it any of our business either way? (Especially because you're talking about Canada here).

This is why homosexuality is such a tired issue. People will complain no matter what. "We don't want you to get married!! GRRRR!!! Homo conspiracy!!!" .. law changes.. "Why aren't enough of you getting married!!! GRRRRR! Homo conspiracy!!!" How about just keeping out of it? It is none of your business who gets married and who doesn't. ESPECIALLY in Canada. This is insane already. Plenty of people rushed off to MA to get married when homosexual marriages were allowed there. People got all up in a tizzy about that too.

For serious.... they can't seem to win no matter what they do. Everyone just butt the eff out!

__________________

Ygorl

Well, if enough of us shrug off and ignore what perverts and deviants are DOING, we'll have only ourselves and our indifference to blame when perversion is normal and normal is perversion.

I'll not sit idly by, myself.

iTaliAN_ICe

What've you got against the gays? Who cares what they do, it doesn't hurt you or me.

Izzibeth

FRY, you wanted to know why it is important to show that variations in gender identity and sexuality are quite normal and happen while forming in the womb - a.k.a. not a choice and as readily found in nature as the variations in skin tone.

Here is one example of why.

__________________

Ygorl

Yeah, everyone just butt the "eff" out.

It would be nice if GAYS would leave HETERO relations alone rather than trying to redefine the MEANING of them.

The difference between a male and a female

or a male and a male

or a female and a female

is as clear and obvious as the difference between a cube and a sphere

or a sphere and a sphere

or a cube and a cube.

Gays would have us call them all the same thing. Which makes ZERO sense. It's NOT about "rights". It's NOT about a "word". It's about reforming a society to fit into the weird worldview(s) of a small group of sexual deviants.

Ygorl

Read # 7.

I have nothing against "gays". I'm against the societal changes they're attempting to FORCE on us.

Redefine marriage. Redefine perversion and normal. For instance:

One of the goals of the gay agenda is "D.D. Up" and "D.D. Down." You have probably never heard of those things, so let me explain them. "D.D. Down." means "defining deviancy down." The late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, in his study on this, shows that when deviancy becomes prevalent in a society, societies tend to define deviancy down so they can live with it. Otherwise it becomes too uncomfortable to know there are that many perverts of whatever kind who are living around you. [ See American Scholar, Winter 1993, 17-30 ] So the American Psychiatric Society defined it down until it became normalcy.

What is "D.D. Up" (defining deviancy up) ? It is taking the other side that has always been known as normal and defining that up into deviancy. You say, "Well, that's ridiculous." Listen to Dr. Charles Krauthammer, who says:

One way is denial: defining real deviancy down creates the pretense that deviancy has disappeared because it has been redefined as normal. Another strategy is distraction: defining deviancy up creates brand-new deviances that we can now go off and fight. That distracts us from the real deviancy and gives us the feeling that, despite the murder and mayhem and madness around us, we are really preserving and policing our norms. [ Charles Krauthammer, New Republic, Nov. 22, 1993, 20-25, quoted in NARTH Bulletin, Volume 2, Number 1, March 1994, 4-5 ]

Izzibeth

So... we agree?

Gays have not tried to change the meaning of heterosexual relationships. Heterosexual relationships = relationship in which there are at least one female and one male involved. I haven't seen anything where homosexuals have tried to change the meaning of that.

Yeah. Except you forgot hermaphrodites. And transgendered. And inter-sexed.

Marriage from a religious standpoint does not have to change. That is up to the religion. In terms of legality and privileges awarded... as has been shown in New Jersey... if you call one "marriage" and the other a "civil union" then it leaves room for discrimination. Either they are both "marriage" or they are both "civil unions" in legal documents. If you want to call it "united" on court and legal papers and then go have a separate ceremony in which you get "married" under whatever god you believe in ... that's fine. But having them called two different things when they are IN FACT the exact same thing under the law makes no sense. Unless, of course, you are trying to discriminate against people for <whatever reason>. Which I suppose you have no problems admitting.

__________________

Izzibeth

And homosexuality is not "deviancy".

__________________