Scruff

Could someone please explain to me what this term means? When I have heard it used it sounds more ridiculous than the agenda of the religious right or the agenda of socialist leftists, and those are pretty laughable (that is, I fail to believe in wide-ranging conspiracies involving general groups of people who have no clear record of communication or collaberation, but are merely assumed to adhere to radical sets of goals as members of a particular group).

Moose

The "gay agenda" is a fabrication of the radical Christian right. It was thought up so that they would have something to point to when they were trying to convince other people--many of whom do not share their religious hatred--that homosexuals are dangerous and are to be feared. The Christian crazies have put out a continuous stream of "taking over the world" nonsense and whenever some poor misguided gay person says something inappropriate they latch onto it and trumpet it all over the country as part of the PROOF of whatever idiocy they're currently broadcasting.

The process is called "demonization" and it gets used against any group that falls out of favor: the Japanese during the Second World War, communists, liberals, socialists, all political parties do it to each other, and in times gone by the Christian church has done it to women, dark skinned people, mentally ill people, left handed people, folks with birth defects, Satan worshippers, other religious groups, other Christian groups, atheists,...the list is endless. Most people are so poorly educated that they just accept whatever the authority figure in their life tells them whether it's their church, political party, or government is irrelevant.

Gay people want what everybody wants: equal protection under the law, the chance to live their lives in peace, love who they want, and raise their families without discrimination. They represent about 2% of the population and world domination isn't even on their radar despite the hysterical accusations of the religious crazies.

rakkasan

i disagree

i am not a christian zealot of a far right nut job as you imply in your diatribe


but i believe that there is a "agenda" with everything

for example the christian right has a "agenda" to make everyone christians

anti war people have a "agenda" to ensure that there are no militarys or wars

and i believe once again the homosexuall community has an "agenda"


that homosexuality is a societal "NORM"

and its not yet .....my generation (39) is dont care but not a normal thing nor does it float our boat(in general)

my children (16-18) ....."cool beans who gives a shit" a total norm

and my folks i geuss those fucking christian zealot nutjobs who religiously feel that it is wrong and not acceptable


everyone has an agenda, if homosexualls didnt have one, then they would accept the comprimise of CIVIL UNIONS instead of Marriage which makes sense and gives them deserved rights, but also lets those chirstian fuckheads get their NORM acknowledged..............

superbug

Cool, then you should have no problem providing some proof of this.

Ygorl

They want to redefine family, they want to redefine marriage they want to redefine the overall, bedrock social structure of America. Pay attention to how they behave in their "rallies" and "parades" for some ideas of what wonderful things their agenda will bring us.

The "gay agenda" is to "overhaul straight America". They want to be viewed as totally acceptable and normal.

In the early stages of any campaign to reach straight America, the masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behaviour itself. Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed and gay rights should be reduced to an abstract social question as much as possible. First let the camel get his nose inside the tent - only later his insightly derriere ! [Marshall Kirk and Erastes Pill, The Overhauling of Straight America, Guide Magazine, 1987]

That everything they "stand for" is built on deception and misdirection is becoming more and more obvious to the people of America.

What's wrong with same-sex marriage ?

D. James Kennedy & Jerry Newcombe, Crossway Books 2004

Pg. 30

We've heard so often that gays and lesbians comprise 10 % of the population that we tend to accept it as fact. Where does the number come from ? The Kinsey Report of fifty years ago that stated that 10 percent of the men in America were homosexuals has been shown to be utterly fraudulent. Many of the people surveyed were prisoners or ex-prisoners. There were also prostitutes. The survey was taken in one of the worst sections in Chicago, a red-light kind of area. It would be like someone going out in front of a church on Sunday morning and taking a survey of people leaving the service as to their religious activities and then making conclusions about the religious attitudes of the whole country.
The Guttmacher Report came out recently. Now Guttmacher, the head of Planned Parenthood, was no friend of evangelical Christians by any stretch of the imagination. But his study showed that 1.1 percent of American men were either homosexual or bisexual - a far cry from Kinseys 10 %. ["Death of a myth," NARTH Bulletin, Vol. 1, no. 3, July 1993,3. See also "1 % in study say they're homosexual," Ft. Lauderdale : Sun-Sentinel, Apr. 15, 1993]

Pg. 37

"We are about power," homosexual activists have said. But in their book "After the Ball" Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen give the principles of their agenda. Listen to principle number 5:

Portray gays as victims of circumstance and oppression, not as aggressive challengers. In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will not be inclined to refuse to adopt the role of protector ... we must forego the temptations to strut our gay pride publically to such an extent that we will undermine our victim image. [ Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, After the Ball: How America will conquer its fear and hatred of gays in the 90s (New York: Doubleday, 1989), quoted in "Selling 'gay' to straight America," NARTH Bulletin, Vol. 1, No. 3, July 1993, 3 ]

Pg. 59

Genevieve Wood of the Family Research Council points out:

When you dilute something, you take away what's special about it. When you come in and you counterfeit something, you cheapen it. And the reality is the reason we don't allow people to counterfeit money is because it cheapens the real thing. That's what happens when you counterfeit marriage. When you say that marriage is no longer just a man and a woman, it can be any other of a variety of arrangements, all of a sudden, it's not very special anymore and, all of a sudden we're suggesting that one family structure is no better than another for raising the next generation. And in a politically correct world, that may be the thing to say. But the truth is we know better. There are some family structures that do better at raising children than others and, unfortunately, it's children who are victims when we suggest otherwise. [ Transcript from an interveiw with Genevieve Wood for Ft. Lauderdale, Fl.: The Coral Ridge Hour, on location in Washington, D.C., May 2004 ]

Pg. 128

Many of the elites in our nation, which include the courts and these groups that have access to the courts, have decided that marriage as a man and a woman should be destroyed. There is no evidence in favor of the benefits of destroying marriage, quite to the contrary, all of the evidence shows the sexual rev¬olution has been a disaster. By the way, the forces that were responsible for the sexual revolution, they should be apologizing now to America for 30 years of devastation, of child poverty, of kids being born out of wedlock, ending up on wel¬fare, ending up in prison; they should be apologizing for that, but they're not, they're trying to push it to the next level and actually take away the legal road map to marriage and the family which would be devastating for children, and they're doing it through the courts. It's a profoundly destructive social revolution and it's also anti-democratic because the American people don't want it. [Transcript from an interview with Matt Daniels for The Coral Ridge Hour, Ft. Lauderdale: Coral Ridge Ministries-TV, May 2003]

On Black Monday, May 17, 2004, when homosexuals "married" each other in Massachusetts, Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, issued a statement:

The so-called "gay agenda" is far-reaching, and it encompasses much more than the fight for marriage rights. If we do not immediately pass a Constitutional amendment protecting mar¬riage, we will not only lose the institution of marriage in our nation, but eventually all critics of the homosexual lifestyle will be silenced. Churches will be muted, schools will be forced to promote homosexuality as a consequence-free alternative lifestyle, and our nation will find itself embroiled in a cultural, legal and moral quagmire. [Tony Perkins, "FRC Statement on Massachusetts Homosexual "Marriages" (Washington, D.C.: Family Research Council, May 17, 2004)]




Pg. 129

Conclusion

America, take your pick. Marriage between one man and one woman, as God intended, or the floodgates opened up by societal acceptance of same-sex marriage. The choice is ours. God and nature or a panoply of bad outcomes that will follow the state's stamp of approval on same-sex marriage. Forty years after the sexual revolution promised "free love" but brought divorce, illegitimacy, STDs, fatherlessness, and abortion, the last thing our nation needs is one more misguided social experiment. The Supreme Court once called marriage and the family the "sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization." If we monkey with that foundation, expect wrenching devastation to follow. May God help us as a nation to repent and fix this thing before it's too late. Soli Deo Gloria.

__________________
Why do liberals oppose capitalism except when it produces or promotes perversions and/or degeneracy ?

Ygorl

Forget it. You're not going to get anything. Their agenda is built on deception and misdirection.

It's those radical Christian right wingers blah blah blah. This will lead us away form any examinations of truths you see ? You will if you don't yet, because that's the only kind of bullshit you'll be offered.

__________________
Why do liberals oppose capitalism except when it produces or promotes perversions and/or degeneracy ?

sglaine

Just to shed some light with a few of my thoughts. I don't care if someone is Gay or not. That is there business. But the whining in today's society is out of hand about this said issue.

There whining about there right while there infringing on our rights.

I really don't care what the Gays do as far as there activities. That is there business. But what I'm saying is that I don't want them forcing there beliefs on to me...

superbug

Ditto. Won't hear me argue on that.



(by the way, what is the minimum length on replies for this board?)

Moose

Your question is ambiguous. Are you asking me to prove the religious crazies did it, or asking me to disprove that gay people don't have an agenda?

Go to one of the religious crazies websites and read for yourself: http://www.traditionalvalues.org/ Who is pushing the concept? Who is fighting to disenfranchise homosexuals? Follow the links from one site to the next, look up Focus on the Family, James Dobson, Fred Phelps... there's no question who is pushing the concept.

How does one prove a negative? Can we prove that Bigfoot DOESN'T exist? If I make up a derogatory story about you and people believe it, is it then incumbent on you to prove that it's not true? Nope, if you took me to court I, as the instigator, would be required to show proof or the court would rule summarily against me.

Accusing someone or some group of something, and then asking them to prove it's not true is a debating technique.

Moose

You are always pushing the Bible version. Okay, give us some proof that the Bible has ANYTHING to do with God or right or truth. I'm not talking about your opinion or tradition, I'm talking about PROOF that your holy book is anything more than a book, just like all the other "holy" books held dear by various groups of people.