The real gay agenda?

These are some excerpts from gay publications I found concerning gays' views of family. This is just plain wrong.

WHAT ARE THEY SAYING? ...


Chris Crain, the editor of the Washington Blade has stated that all homosexual activists should fight for the legalization of same-sex marriage as a way of gaining passage of federal anti-discrimination laws that will provide homosexuals with federal protection for their chosen lifestyle.

Crain writes: "...any leader of any gay rights organization who is not prepared to throw the bulk of their efforts right now into the fight for marriage is squandering resources and doesn't deserve the position." (Washington Blade, August, 2003).


Michelangelo Signorile, writing in Out! magazine, has stated that homosexuals should, "...fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely … To debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution. … The most subversive action lesbians and gays can undertake-and one that would perhaps benefit all of society-is to transform the notion of 'family' altogether." (Out! magazine, Dec./Jan., 1994)


Andrew Sullivan, a homosexual activist writing in his book, Virtually Normal, says that once same-sex marriage is legalized, heterosexuals will have to develop a greater "understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman." He notes: "The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal; and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness." (Sullivan, Virtually Normal, pp. 202-203)


Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor and homosexual activist has said: "Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. … Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family; and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. … We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society's view of reality." (partially quoted in "Beyond Gay Marriage," Stanley Kurtz, The Weekly Standard, August 4, 2003)


Evan Wolfson has stated: "Isn't having the law pretend that there is only one family model that works (let alone exists) a lie? … marriage is not just about procreation-indeed is not necessarily about procreation at all. "(quoted in "What Marriage Is For," by Maggie Gallagher, The Weekly Standard, August 11, 2003)


Mitchel Raphael, editor of the Canadian homosexual magazine Fab, says: "Ambiguity is a good word for the feeling among gays about marriage. I'd be for marriage if I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of 'till death do us part' and monogamy forever. We should be Oscar Wildes and not like everyone else watching the play." (quoted in "Now Free To Marry, Canada's Gays Say, 'Do I?'" by Clifford Krauss, The New York Times, August 31, 2003)


1972 Gay Rights Platform Demands: "Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit…" [Emphasis added.]

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And?


( i really shouldnt bother replying to this, but hey, i'm bored.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I skimmed it, but what exactly do you think is 'just plain wrong'?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

truth why do you even care? what is with this paranoia with all these mystifying, "diabolical agendas."

 

fags are like little children tell them they can't have or do something and then they will fight untill they get it.
i think we should not let fags die!!
ahhhh

 

I am shocked by the truth!

 

There is no paranoia or anything mystifying. I just simply find it despicable that there is actually a desire/agenda to destroy the family make up and replace it with something perverse and wrong.

 

According to you who supports Israel's actions in the middle east killing children? I see u would be one of those ppl who still support the crusades against a heathen ppl. Homosexuals are like everyone, I just see the big deal here. That is why I don't like religious fanatics as yourself, talking smack. Ignoring the constituion of your own country by not allow everyone to "pursuit of happiness" biz there.

 

Or coming from one who supports the Palestinian killing of Israelis, nico. I never mentioned anything about a crusade or fanaticism. It does not even have to be religious, there can be right and wrong regardless of a religious perspective or not. This in no way ignores the Constitution, their desire to destroy the family is wrong, has no redeeming value, and by your definition then destroys the pursuit of others happiness who do not want such evil in their society.

 

Just because you view it as perverse and wrong doesn't mean it is. What do you consider a family? Man, woman, and child? You think only they can be a family? If so, your thinking is very shallow.

 

I think, that if you look at the strictly legal side of marriage, a communal property contract between two people, I can't see that there is that big of a deal allowing two men or two women to enter into such a contract. Of course there are other stipulations, most of them slightly archaic. On the other hand, I don't think that you can realistically allow polyandry or polygamy and keep a good deal of the tax structure/marital privleges (specifically health care, but property rights as well). Allowing multiple married partners defeats the legal logic behind it.

 

You know in most of these quotes "redefining the family" and what not, means letting gays get married and adopt children, not much more radical than that (But im sure it probably still propells you into a killing rage to think of it) and the rest of them are such a radical minority that no none even listens to them you dope. The fact that they write thier big pretentious articles in itself shows that not everyone is onboard with thier idea (Like the one about destroying monogomy) and most arnt. News Flash, articles in gay publications dont set the "gay agenda" they just represent the opinions of the sorts of gays who are inclined to write articles. If they had a real following they would be giving speaches to audiences instead of writing articles in magazines that have circulations of 40 or 50 subscribers.

 

You're going completely nuts here, this is nothing but a wild reactionary claim. Who said a damned thing about destroying famillies? You just want to imagine an enemy. All they are talking about is getting morons like you to shut the fuck up, give us our rights, and quit fucking leering at us when we take the kids to the park.

You're reading way too much into some of the quotes you listed here. If homosexuals have their way we're not going to separate brothers from sisters, force parents apart or eat children. We're going to marry whether you like it or not, and that's how the definition of the word will change, it's not going to be about plumbing anymore, but about love.

Regarding the polygamist you quoted, that's another issue entirely. Being gay doesn't protect you from becoming a completely impractical wing nut. I could quote quite a lot of heterosexuals in favor of polygamy but we don't pay them any more heed, nor do we simply come to believe that ALL heterosexuals must be in favor of it.

Oh you mean kind of like the way the definition of marriage as being "A union between one man and one woman" infringes on my pursuit if happiness? Quit worrying about who wants to marry who, because that's just not your choice to make, don't give heed to who else happens to be starting a family or what values they have, because, again it's none of your damned business. Once Homosexual marriages are legalized in this country the sun will rise on the next day, and everything is just going to keep on moving along as it has every day before hand, the only difference is that you won't hear pissed off people like me bitching you religious right wingers out quite so much, and what an awful world that would be.

When it comes down to it the real real gay agenda is as simple as this: Leave us the fuck alone.

 

Or coming from one who supports the Palestinian killing of Israelis, nico.

I do??? I support the struggle of Pals. independance, not the death of innocent Israeli's. That is a tactic they use, I have no control over that. But I do support their cause. You though suport the murders of Pals. And you now believe you have some pseudo-moralistic justificaton here to "protect" the non-existant normal 1950's nuclear family. Wake UP! it's 2003. I smell homophobia don't you everyone?

And truth there is a thing subjectivity, and things that are subjective like, good/bad, evil/goodness. Should be family based on the priniciples of said family. Not society, that is imposition on other of your mores and ethics which you mistakingly think is in some way superior.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Re: Or coming from one who supports the Palestinian killing of Israelis, nico.

A good point. Denying homosexual marriage is nothing but the many bullying the few. At what point does the majority gain the right to interfere with and obstruct the liberty of a minority? Only if what that minority is doing is directly threatening to the majority, I'd imagine, but it's really going to be a hell of a feat to prove that my being able to find a husband, and adopt a kid is going to impact the lives of others in any negative way. I guess that's what this thread is all about, though.

 

so truth if you have established the "real gay agenda," can you inform me of the "real white bigot male agenda?"

 

You know, you don't have to be white to be a bigot, nor do you have to be male. I think that a lot of white males don't appreciate this stereotype that we're all homophobic and actively working to keep minorities down. It's just as stupid as any other stereotype.

 

I don't think I said a thing about homophobia. Yeah, maybe some people are. I love it when you someone says they do not like something that is part of the liberal agenda, they are automatically hate mongers or prejudiced. What garbage.

I believe in right and wrong. It takes a man and a woman to create a child and to raise one. And from the comments I first posted, I think that the overall intention is to destroy something right and good and sacred all in the name of making excuses for creating a deviant lifestyle. I don't revel in the fact that I am a heterosexual. I don't have to go around wearing it as a badge of honor. I am not so full of myself as to scream my sexuality at others.

Some things are wrong. It is as simple as that. It does not always need to be these so-called gray areas that liberals love. Just because I don't approve of the lifestyle and choice, does not in anyway constitute hate. Since I don't approve of drug use, does this mean I am prejudiced against drug users? Since I am not for abortion on demand, does not mean hatred of people that are involved in it. It means I think it is wrong and within the confines of the law, seek to have what is right and the type of society that I want my children to have.

 

I believe in right and wrong.

Really shows the scope of your intellectual capability.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I think that the overall intention is to destroy something right and good and sacred all in the name of making excuses for creating a deviant lifestyle.

You think homosexuality is destroying marriage, which unto itself is retarded? Hello look at heterosexual divorce rates, and blonde bimbos marrying rich old guys for love? Please... Marriage is corrupted as it is, homosexuality is not going to change anything. Please tell me what the hell is going to change? Are you going to suffer from this?

excuses for creating a deviant lifestyle

Who the FUCK gives you the right to decide what is deviant or not? You can't get out of the box of subjectivity can we, your way or the highway.. you ppl's make me sick to think God let's u live.

I am not so full of myself as to scream my sexuality at others.


Excuse me, heterosexuals do that all the time! Have you watched about 60 years of T.V?

Some things are wrong. It is as simple as that.

Googoogaagaa.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I am caveman.

Since I don't approve of drug use, does this mean I am prejudiced against drug users?

illogical coparison, drug use does effect us all, we have to pay economicly for that use, we have to deal with it in re-hab. Homosexuals don't threaten anyone, anymore then a hetero.

Since I am not for abortion on demand, does not mean hatred of people that are involved in it.

I wouldn't be surprised.

It means I think it is wrong and within the confines of the law, seek to have what is right and the type of society that I want my children to have.

Where in the law does it say that a homosexual cannot get married? Isn't that against your very american prinicples of freedom? And about your children there is a 1/10 chance they would be gay. So I want to see ur kids live a real life as well.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

"I believe in right and wrong. It takes a man and a woman to create a child and to raise one. And from the comments I first posted, I think that the overall intention is to destroy something right and good and sacred all in the name of making excuses for creating a deviant lifestyle. "

If marriage is correct and good, why not allow homosexuals to do it?

"I don't revel in the fact that I am a heterosexual. I don't have to go around wearing it as a badge of honor. I am not so full of myself as to scream my sexuality at others. "

And the homosexuals I know don't do that either, it is the usual loud minority that do, similar in noise to the loud marriage is sacred crowd that runa round trying to get everyone married. Oh aye, and drunk men especially late at night.


"It means I think it is wrong and within the confines of the law, seek to have what is right and the type of society that I want my children to have."

And yet, somehow you are part of a society involving all these people. So why not just accept that personal matters like this are presonal, and if people want to be able to get married, it shouldnt matter. Then you have to address the matter of what you think allowing homosexual marriage will do to you? What will it do to you? How will it destroy your life?


We've been through all this already anyhow:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26560
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26519
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25746&perpage=20&pagenumber=1

So as you can see a lot of us are getting a little bored. Go back and read those threads and come back when you have a new angle of discussion.