How the Gay Agenda is Helping the GOP Get Votes in 2012: a poll

Tell you what,it would make family reunions very awkward indeed.

 

Johnny C, I completely agree with you, but it is next to impossible to deal logically with people like Silhouette -- when attempting to make a cogent and logical argument against gay marriage, they will inevitably raise one or all of the following contentions...it will lead to polygamy; people will want to marry their grandmothers, sisters, fathers, etc,; what's to stop someone from wanting to marry their horse, poodle, or canary?

They think themselves very clever and believe this to be a winning argument. As with most who instinctively believe themselves to be correct they fail to challenge their assumptions and therefore miss the distinction between wanting to marry multiple people, relatives and pets (animals) and wanting to marry a person of ones own gender. Nor will anyone ever be able to educate them otherwise because they refuse to believe that heterosexuality and homosexuality are two equal and legitimate forms of sexual orientation; one is a dominant trait within the population, the other a recessive trait, much the same as with brown eyes, blue eyes or right handed, left handed. (And to explain bisexuality there are those statistically rarer individuals who are sexual oriented to both genders, just as there are people who are naturally ambidextrous and some individuals born with one blue and one brown eye.)

The foregoing information is universally endorsed in the fields that deal with this subject: genetics, medical and psychiatric in the sciences as well as psychology and sociology in the humanities. As with everything else there are a relatively few minority opinions that disagree, just as there is with the evolution/creation dispute. Interestingly among the general population those supporting creationism are more often than not the same people who maintain that homosexuality is not trait but an acquired behavior.

For those whose minds are not closed and for whom logic matters there is an ocean's vastness between same gender coupling and incest, polygamy or bestiality. Polygamy, incest and bestiality are all acquired behaviors, while homosexuality is a trait with which a person is born.

The bottom line is that in a well ordered society public policy must be rationally based on knowledge and science. Tradition, opinion, intuition, religion and superstition must all give way as new information and understanding become available.

 

I feel that Gays are as equal to Illegals and Petifiles in this country.

Illegals and Petifiles are criminals....Homosexuals should, and need to be classified in the same reference.

In the True Christian belief, Homosexuality is a sin and perverted act. Young children being exposed to such sickening lifestyle is drastically wrong.

How ironic in the past few years the Liberal media has gotten quiet on the un-curable killing Aids Desease. Which is part of the Gay lifestyle.

Their influence in social mingling is damageing to our nations future. Un-normal, sick, mentaly disturbed people must be seperated. Removed from an normal healthy society.

If there are new politics with individuals that will finnaly make a difference, because of the majority of decent God fearing people demanding it.

The Majority
GREAT!!!

 

Please, if you insist on inflicting everyone with your bigoted opinions and erroneous social observations learn to write following the rules of grammar and spelling. You might consider going back to school because your posts illustrate a severe deficiency in an entire range of subjects.

I hate to break it to you Dearie, but the views you've expressed are not held by the majority. And BTW do you really think that a pointed gun is consistent as a Christian symbol?

 

My wife enjoys her play toy. But that is not the issue.

Pay attention genious. .....The majority in this nation are still of the Christian Faith. Decent God fearing people who are NORMAL.

That will be the majical word of the day...."NORMAL" Not 'Un-Normal' like queers and lesbians are.

"NORMAL"

Repeat it in your mind over and over....and over and over.....

 

The answer is that there is a rational basis to support governmental prohibition of marriage between brother and sister. Such a union could produce genetically damaged offspring that could impact adversely on society. That indeed is why, sociologically speaking the taboo on incest came into being. Now I suppose if one partner were willing to be sterilized or if the partners were of the same gender the same support would weaken, but then so would the underpinning for the prohibition.

I have met one incestuous sibling couple; they were identical twins living on Miami Beach. They swore they loved each other in every possible way and that their sex life was like a symphony (their description not mine). They were nice enough guys, but I thought it was the epitome of narcissism and that's what weirded me out, not the incest thing.

This however is a distraction from the subject of gay rights and marriage. The instances of gay siblings are fairly rare and of those being attracted to each other even rarer. Besides the legal benefits and rights denied to gay couples, that are extended by marriage, exist naturally for two siblings who share their lives together. As for heterosexual couples the incest ban stays in place.

 

Again you really need to work on your vocabulary, spelling and grammar. Do you intentionally wish to inflict pain on your readers?

That Christians are a majority in the United States is hardly shocking news, but here's a couple of facts that might give you a shiver:

Not all Christian faiths believe being homosexual is a sin. Sexual acts of violence, force, intimidation or imposition without informed consent may be viewed as sinful but they apply to both homosexuals and heterosexuals. Additionally those Christian Faiths welcome gay people into there membership and even ordain them as ministers.

Then of course there is the fact than not only are the majority of heterosexuals in the USA Christians, a majority of homosexuals are Christians as well.

As for being NORMAL I doubt that you're lexicon is sufficient to define the term. And for sure you don't have a definition for un-normal. But just for laughs lets try showing you how NORMAL applies to homosexuals. Brown is a NORMAL eye coloring and the majority of people have brown eyes. Heterosexuality is a NORMAL sexual orientation and the majority of people are heterosexuals (following so far?). Blue is a NORMAL eye coloring, but only a minority of people have blue eyes. Homosexuality is a NORMAL sexual orientation, but only a minority of people are homosexuals. (Get it?)

It might also interest you to know that there may well be more homosexuals in the world than people with blue eyes. Brown eyes are dominant in the US, and significant in Europe and Australia, but when you get to Asia and Africa almost everyone has brown eyes. So homosexuals, blue-eyed humans pretty close in number --- both NORMAL.

 

There a word that is used relatively little, that word is "alogical". Many people argue in that manner. So, often the ONLY thing to do it open your mind up like a fisherman's net, and catch enough of the BS their throwing out, to sense where their overall thoughts are 'pointing'.

You'd literally drive yourself crazy, trying to follow them, anywhere. (Don't even try.) For a creative person (like me), being able to recognize the "crazy" thinking, is a tool... because coming up with new ideas for song and music, is more than a sheer logical exercise (although developing a creative idea, eventually involves logic of some type).

Just remember, it takes a good amount of alogical thinking, to allow oneself to slide down a SLIPPERY-SLOPE argument such as that. Just accept that people who present such arguments, aren't being "logical" at all; they are very often misled by the convolution of their own alogical thinking.

One problem with such 'egos' as you mention above, is that they 'believe' that others MUST play-along with their "alogical" (foolish) thinking. The FACT is that they no more control the minds of others than anyone. They CAN be challenged directly, for not making sense... no matter how much they 'believe' they are making sense... and that challenge DOES NOT have to be on their terms. I typically toss a bit of alogicalness right back at them (as a catalyst)... not to RESOLVE the argument, but to spur MORE thinking period (on THEIR part); a bit like tapping them on the head, inviting them to consciousness.

And the sooner you, I or anyone else recognizes that they WILL NOT learn... the sooner we can work primarily to counter the effect of their rantings and expressions.

For I realized a long time ago, that some reading the posts in these fora, need the reasonable opinions of people, so that they can think things over themselves. Those who use poor or zero logic to reach their conclusions (though they are comfortable with the same) don't help those truly seeking answers.

Yeah, I know. They've bought into their INDOCTRINATION, rather than the good and decent sense of reality which science might afford them.

Some who associate homosexuality with things such as you mention above, are only parroting techniques of those whom they have allowed to INDOCTRINATE them. It's an OLD TRICK: Take one thing, and associate something negative or evil with it; then, emphasize those evils or negatives. The purpose of MOST who compare homosexuality with pedophilia (especially), is ultimately to VILIFY homosexual people (which in and of itself of reprehensible). They don't like getting caught, being JERKS and will be very aggravated... when you point out that they are simply seeking to dehumanize/hurt homosexual human beings.

At this point in my life, I have very little patience or tolerance for the attitudes of those who are straight-up "anti-gay". I'm practically as intolerant of their views, as they are of homosexual people. I try to fight fire, with a GIANT, OVER-SIZED EXTINGUISHER. If all they are going to do is bring their irrational animus or hatred to the table... I promise them that I'll keep moving the table around or flicking the lights on/off until they get tired or say something that makes more sense overall.

Indeed, that is true.

People don't like their traditions being 'challenged' (especially religious ones). But hopefully science (and the evidence it accumulates) will help them to adjust their paradigms over time, in the best possible ways.

 

haha lol haha


the homo secret service

 

In all actuality, homosexuality is an outright insult, and degrading too human civilization.
It is not part of the norm, and never will be.

There are those few that are trying to force their acceptance upon the normal society, but it will be crushed down.

Too many fine Democrat folk are discusted with those liberals, and their allience with gay crap.

FACT.

 

Subdermal's Irony Post of the Day™ nominee - corrected for grammar, spelling and punctuation.

If you're going to criticize someone for their posting acumen, pragprog: you'd better be spot-on your game...and you're not.

 

It is widely rumoured that the gay marriage issue was surreptitiously slipped into the political fray of the 2004 presidential election by GOP political strategists. Many believe that the Liberal Establishment taking the bait and running with it during the summer of 2004 actually tipped the scales in favor of W on election day.

 

Subdermal: Thank you for pointing out my errors. I should have taken the time to proof-read my submission before posting. This however is not a forum for scholarly endeavors, but rather a place to exchange ideas and debate issues. As such, the use of such colloquialisms as "here's" instead of "here are" and "o homosexuals, blue-eyed humans pretty close in number --- both NORMAL" rather than " So homosexuals and blue-eyed humans are pretty close in number --- both NORMAL" are permissible and not grammatical heresy. The use of "un-normal" was intentionally ironic, as you might have guessed from the title of my post "Abbey and Other Normals" (an allusion to "Young Frankenstein"). I don't believe you pointed out any errors in vocabulary or spelling, the rest, a matter of failing to proof; mea culpa!

As far as the motive for my post, Dixiehunter submits many posts and he inevitably fails to take even minimal care to assure that his communications are clear and understandable. His egregious spelling errors, mis-use of words and composition, make his overall writing often indecipherable. This is an irritant and distraction to the reader that can only hinder communication. It also suggests how little regard he has for dialogue and those reading his posts. He may not have the best writing skills (not the greatest of sins), but his lack of courtesy toward his audience is apparent in that verbal correction tools are literally right at his fingertips.

Again thanks for you observations and I will endeavor to proof-read before postings (with the caveat that I'm a deficient proofer).

 

Yup. And they're doing it again in the form of "the pledge" thing. The act is to force a polarity in the middle and rake in votes from that. And if the dems run with it again, they're going to lose again.

Dems are so blind to GOP strategies that it's pathetic. For the GOP it really is like shooting fish in a barrel.

 

Actually, it is considerably different.

Racism is derived from primeval social instincts which reference "outsiders," or people not of your clan as a potential source of danger. Such instincts had a certain degree of survival value during the Paleolithic Era.

Taboos against homosexual and lesbian behavior are derived from primeval reproductive instincts which proscribe all sexual behavior which is not conducive to successful reproduction (including masterbation, incest, bestiality, and pedophilia). Contrary to popular belief, the sexual taboos did NOT originate with religious dogma. (Indeed, they likely preceded organized religion by several aeons.) Considering the enormous role that successful reproduction has on the survival of a species, the sociobiological evolution of the sexual taboos is really not that surprising.

 

You present interesting theories, but that is all they are. It is equally valid to posit that intolerance of race, homosexual orientation and different religions all stem from fear or lack of understanding of the "other," or as you put it the "outsider." Said another way, those who are unlike the established majority (or in other instances, unlike ourselves). It applies today within so-called advanced and sophisticated societies, how much more in ancient, primitive cultures.

As for taboos, while they no doubt preceded "organized" religion by millennia, there is ample evidence in the archaeological record that "religion" existed as far back as 30,000 to 50,000 BCE or nearly as long as humankind has lived within social structures. From observations made of existing populations of remote and primitive peoples we know that taboo and religion are so intertwined as to be virtually indistinguishable. So to say that taboos were not part of religious dogma is disingenuous.

It is true that motivating many taboos or religious laws was the need to either increase or protect the group or clan. It is understandable that a nomadic desert people like the Israelites would have religious laws or taboos against eating pork or shellfish, and why they would require the immediate burial of the dead. Mandates that modern society has shed, except in cases of cultural or religious tradition. At the same time ancient religions gave at least tacit approval of things that we today believe to be taboo, polygamy and incest to name two.

Neither taboo nor religious dogma should be the basis alone of a modern laws or moral standards. Just because something has a long tradition does not in and of itself justify its existence. Traditionally humankind was ruled over by a hereditary, absolute monarch. Traditionally woman and children were the legal possessions of the male head of the family. Traditions are paths not destinations.

 

A homosexual is not recognizable except by his or her behaviors. Ergo they are not a "class" or "race". If they were, then bulimics and people with OCD would by precedent also have to be declared a "class" or "race".

Behaviors cannot qualify for "class" or "race" legally. So, good luck with selling that one to SCOTUS.

 

I openly express my opinion about it whenever it comes up. I'm not sure your question of secretly "voting" against it is valid however, as I've never had the opportunity to vote on it at all.

They know exactly what the outcome would be if we were given the chance, so the powers in charge litigate it through.

 

I selected Ironclad Federal laws against Adult Males marrying males under 17 YEARS OF AGE .

 

Agreed. However in CA they voted in Prop 8 just fine, in spite of predictions it would fail.

That's what this thread is about: the disparity in people being polled vs actual election results. When a social movement gets as aggressive as the gay agenda has, people tend to placate them socially while privately harboring a much different opinion, that they then go vote with. It's almost like a private rebellion or passive aggression?

 

Who cares about the gay agenda anyway?

 

Ignoring the fact that the poll questions were messed up, I would tend to agree that the GOP will probably benefit from backlash against the Gay Agenda. It is well known that it is the younger generations that are most accepting of the gay lifestyle and that it is the older generations that tend to go and actually vote at election time. Do the math, and it's obvious a hot-button issue with older voters will benefit the political party that panders to their prejudices.

 

Strangely I agree with the title of this post.

Dystopian fantasy conspiracy theories really do have a way of garnering support for the Right.
I think that's why they endorse them so much.

Between the Left Behind series and the "gay agenda" BS, I just find myself wondering what the Right will make up next!

 

Most youths are not tolerant of the gay agenda. Mainly because they are confused about which gender of homosexuality is acceptable.

 

I tend to disagree. I know a group of hip youngsters who are growing stale on the gay thing. In short it is the worst form of attrition the Agenda could experience...it's become passe' with the youngsters. It's been going on for some time and you know how each generation rebels against the preceding one to carve out a different identity.

Proving again that it's a trend and not a class or race.

Democrats should. Because the GOP is going to use the gays forcing dems to flaunt their Agenda to polarize votes in the middle towards the GOP that the dems would otherwise have by a landslide.

So, dems should care. I care. I don't want to see a deviant sexual behavior overtake important things like healthcare and jobs all so that the culture club can play house in marraige and teach little kids to follow the Pied Piper doing the same..