Can someone tell me when it was that Gays had different drinking fountains?...

[bodecea]

I have Observed what Naturally is... ALL Facts... You call Facts "Hate"?...

For that, you are a Cancer on this Species.



peace...

And yet it is attitudes like yours that are, thankfully, dying off.

Maybe they'll have an "It Gets Worse" series for old homophobes like they have an "It Gets Better" series for gays and lesbians.

And so goes another thread where the fudgepackers and Rug Munchers retreat with their tails between their legs .

See? Making my point from the other day.

 

[Seawytch]

I have Observed what Naturally is... ALL Facts... You call Facts "Hate"?...

For that, you are a Cancer on this Species.



peace...

And yet it is attitudes like yours that are, thankfully, dying off.

Maybe they'll have an "It Gets Worse" series for old homophobes like they have an "It Gets Better" series for gays and lesbians.

That would be awesome to see that put together.

There's three or four candidates for the first series right here on this thread.

 

[bodecea]

Gay rights is not a civil rights issue. It's an agenda.

Nah, more like a civil rights issue with an agenda. Want to know what it is? It's equality.

And what about equality for Pedophiles, To date your toddlers. Necrophiliacs - to date your rotting corpse. Bestiality practitioners need equal rights as well - I don't think the ASPCA would mind, but PETA might have a thing to say about it.

You have Equality dumbass - So long as you leave the Queer side of yourself on a hanger in the closet when you venture out into the sane world . We don't need to know whether you roll eggs at your partner and yell bombs away for shits and giggles or munch carpets.

Many of those Queers who insist on taking their Queer side into the sane World fiendishly and subconsciously crave the attention and notoriety .

Another poster who CANNOT or WILL NOT see the clear difference between what goes on between consenting adults and what goes on with non-consenting children, non-consenting bodies, non-consenting animals.
Kind of scary to find another one who cannot see the clear difference.

 

[mal]

It isn't a "thought" you Dishonest Twat... Two Men nor Two Woman can make a Baby... Ever.

YOU and EVERY other Human on Earth is in one way or another the Product of a Man and a Woman... Race doesn't matter, a Black Man and a White Woman have always and will always be able to Reflect our Natural Existence.

It is no other way Naturally.

Man/Woman is NOT Equal to Man/Man or Woman/Woman... Ever.

All Men are Designed and Equipped by Nature to continue the Process that made their "very Existence"... and Women are the same.

That you Choose to Defy this Natural Design is your Right, but Burdening Society with your Choice is something that I will always speak Against.

And Demanding that Society give your Chosen Defiance Special Rights in Law to the Exclusion of others is simply Disgusting... If you had any Shame.



peace...

How is it "burdening society"?
You forgot to 'splain that one.
Specifics please.

It burdens him personally that he can't stop thinking of they gheys...

It is part of Public Policy... It is being Debated... Not even close to everyone agrees with your side.

Calling me a Fag doesn't make me run away but it does Silence a lot of People and that's why you and yours employ that Tactic.

It also Illustrates just how Filthy you Really are and how aware of it that you are that you would continuously use your own Deviancy as a Pejorative Attack on those who Disagree with our Agenda.



peace...

 

[Seawytch]

Nah, more like a civil rights issue with an agenda. Want to know what it is? It's equality.

And what about equality for Pedophiles, To date your toddlers. Necrophiliacs - to date your rotting corpse. Bestiality practitioners need equal rights as well - I don't think the ASPCA would mind, but PETA might have a thing to say about it.

You have Equality dumbass - So long as you leave the Queer side of yourself on a hanger in the closet when you venture out into the sane world . We don't need to know whether you roll eggs at your partner and yell bombs away for shits and giggles or munch carpets.

Many of those Queers who insist on taking their Queer side into the sane World fiendishly and subconsciously crave the attention and notoriety .

Another poster who CANNOT or WILL NOT see the clear difference between what goes on between consenting adults and what goes on with non-consenting children, non-consenting bodies, non-consenting animals.
Kind of scary to find another one who cannot see the clear difference.

Well, if they don't understand the difference, they will be the ones that suffer the consequences. I just hope no farm animals are hurt in the process.

 

[mal]

Nah, more like a civil rights issue with an agenda. Want to know what it is? It's equality.

And what about equality for Pedophiles, To date your toddlers. Necrophiliacs - to date your rotting corpse. Bestiality practitioners need equal rights as well - I don't think the ASPCA would mind, but PETA might have a thing to say about it.

You have Equality dumbass - So long as you leave the Queer side of yourself on a hanger in the closet when you venture out into the sane world . We don't need to know whether you roll eggs at your partner and yell bombs away for shits and giggles or munch carpets.

Many of those Queers who insist on taking their Queer side into the sane World fiendishly and subconsciously crave the attention and notoriety .

Another poster who CANNOT or WILL NOT see the clear difference between what goes on between consenting adults and what goes on with non-consenting children, non-consenting bodies, non-consenting animals.
Kind of scary to find another one who cannot see the clear difference.

A 45 year old Sister and a 50 year old Sister caring for a Grandchild together in the same Home...

Why are you seeking to Exclude them from your Special rights on Marriage?

What Justifcation do you have to be Exclusionary in your Expansion of Special rights?...



peace...

 

[Seawytch]

How is it "burdening society"?
You forgot to 'splain that one.
Specifics please.

It burdens him personally that he can't stop thinking of they gheys...

It is part of Public Policy... It is being Debated... Not even close to everyone agrees with your side.

Calling me a Fag doesn't make me run away but it does Silence a lot of People and that's why you and yours employ that Tactic.

It also Illustrates just how Filthy you Really are and how aware of it that you are that you would continuously use your own Deviancy as a Pejorative Attack on those who Disagree with our Agenda.



peace...

Oh goodness gracious no...I would never associate you with gays. We're much better than you. I said you're obsessed, not gay.

 

[Seawytch]

And what about equality for Pedophiles, To date your toddlers. Necrophiliacs - to date your rotting corpse. Bestiality practitioners need equal rights as well - I don't think the ASPCA would mind, but PETA might have a thing to say about it.

You have Equality dumbass - So long as you leave the Queer side of yourself on a hanger in the closet when you venture out into the sane world . We don't need to know whether you roll eggs at your partner and yell bombs away for shits and giggles or munch carpets.

Many of those Queers who insist on taking their Queer side into the sane World fiendishly and subconsciously crave the attention and notoriety .

Another poster who CANNOT or WILL NOT see the clear difference between what goes on between consenting adults and what goes on with non-consenting children, non-consenting bodies, non-consenting animals.
Kind of scary to find another one who cannot see the clear difference.

A 45 year old Sister and a 50 year old Sister caring for a Grandchild together in the same Home...

Why are you seeking to Exclude them from your Special rights on Marriage?

What Justifcation do you have to be Exclusionary in your Expansion of Special rights?...



peace...

Good luck with your fight, then.

 

[GreenBean]

You know what people like you thought were "facts" Mal?

Scientific racism

http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/imagine-how-stupid-you-are-going-to-look-in-40-years.jpg

It isn't a "thought" you Dishonest Twat... Two Men nor Two Woman can make a Baby... Ever.

YOU and EVERY other Human on Earth is in one way or another the Product of a Man and a Woman... Race doesn't matter, a Black Man and a White Woman have always and will always be able to Reflect our Natural Existence.

It is no other way Naturally.

Man/Woman is NOT Equal to Man/Man or Woman/Woman... Ever.

All Men are Designed and Equipped by Nature to continue the Process that made their "very Existence"... and Women are the same.

That you Choose to Defy this Natural Design is your Right, but Burdening Society with your Choice is something that I will always speak Against.

And Demanding that Society give your Chosen Defiance Special Rights in Law to the Exclusion of others is simply Disgusting... If you had any Shame.



peace...

How is it "burdening society"?
You forgot to 'splain that one.
Specifics please.

burdening society

Holy Shit Bombs Away - I could probably write 4 or 5 pages on that
You've got to be Joking Right ?

Anyway - Mal is perfectly capable of burying your sorry ass on that one, so I'll leave it at that.


OT: Still got some Easter Eggs Left ?

 

[mal]

And what about equality for Pedophiles, To date your toddlers. Necrophiliacs - to date your rotting corpse. Bestiality practitioners need equal rights as well - I don't think the ASPCA would mind, but PETA might have a thing to say about it.

You have Equality dumbass - So long as you leave the Queer side of yourself on a hanger in the closet when you venture out into the sane world . We don't need to know whether you roll eggs at your partner and yell bombs away for shits and giggles or munch carpets.

Many of those Queers who insist on taking their Queer side into the sane World fiendishly and subconsciously crave the attention and notoriety .

Another poster who CANNOT or WILL NOT see the clear difference between what goes on between consenting adults and what goes on with non-consenting children, non-consenting bodies, non-consenting animals.
Kind of scary to find another one who cannot see the clear difference.

Well, if they don't understand the difference, they will be the ones that suffer the consequences. I just hope no farm animals are hurt in the process.

Fucking Farm Animals is an Inherently Liberal thing... And after the Gay Agenda is Dishonestly Solidified in Law, then the Gay's old Marching Partners from the 70's and 80's in NAMBLA will get theirs... And then the Animal Fuckers will be next.

It will most definitely come to pass.

The Fact that Gays stopped calling for an End of Age of Consent Laws in their National Charter, or stopped hanging around NAMBLA because they were caught in 1994 doesn't mean that the Sympathies for them have gone away.

One thing at a time, amirite?...



peace...

 

[Seawytch]

Another poster who CANNOT or WILL NOT see the clear difference between what goes on between consenting adults and what goes on with non-consenting children, non-consenting bodies, non-consenting animals.
Kind of scary to find another one who cannot see the clear difference.

Well, if they don't understand the difference, they will be the ones that suffer the consequences. I just hope no farm animals are hurt in the process.

Fucking Farm Animals is an Inherently Liberal thing... And after the Gay Agenda is Dishonestly Solidified in Law, then the Gay's old Marching Partners from the 70's and 80's in NAMBLA will get theirs... And then the Animal Fuckers will be next.

It will most definitely come to pass.

The Fact that Gays stopped calling for an End of Age of Consent Laws in their National Charter, or stopped hanging around NAMBLA because they were caught in 1994 doesn't mean that the Sympathies for them have gone away.

One thing at a time, amirite?...



peace...

Really? I always saw sheep fucking as an inbred hick thing. Guess it's regional. Anyway, stay away from animals, they can't consent. Stay away from children, they can't consent. Stay away from dead bodies, they can't consent.

This has been a Public Service Announcement

I really love that you guys still bring up NAMBLA. In polite circles, that's called scraping the bottom of the barrel.

I'm truly enjoying the dying gasps of the anti gay bigots.

 

[GreenBean]

Another poster who CANNOT or WILL NOT see the clear difference between what goes on between consenting adults and what goes on with non-consenting children, non-consenting bodies, non-consenting animals.
Kind of scary to find another one who cannot see the clear difference.

Well, if they don't understand the difference, they will be the ones that suffer the consequences. I just hope no farm animals are hurt in the process.

Fucking Farm Animals is an Inherently Liberal thing... And after the Gay Agenda is Dishonestly Solidified in Law, then the Gay's old Marching Partners from the 70's and 80's in NAMBLA will get theirs... And then the Animal Fuckers will be next.

It will most definitely come to pass.

The Fact that Gays stopped calling for an End of Age of Consent Laws in their National Charter, or stopped hanging around NAMBLA because they were caught in 1994 doesn't mean that the Sympathies for them have gone away.

One thing at a time, amirite?...



peace...

Employing the same tactics used by other queer activists, pedophiles have begun to seek similar status and are arguing their perversion for children is a sexual orientation no different than heterosexual or homosexuals.

2 psychologists in Canada declared that pedophilia is a sexual orientation just like homosexuality or heterosexuality. No doubt these clowns are affiliated with the APA

a list of “basic sexual rights” that includes “the right to engage in sexual acts or activities of any kind whatsoever, providing they do not involve nonconsensual acts, violence, constraint, coercion or fraud.” Another right is to, “be free of persecution, condemnation, discrimination, or societal intervention in private sexual behavior” and “the freedom of any sexual thought, fantasy or desire.” The organization also says that no one should be “disadvantaged because of age.”

Sex offender laws protecting children have been challenged in several states including California, Georgia and Iowa. Sex offenders claim the laws prohibiting them from living near schools or parks are unfair because it penalizes them for life.

http://patdollard.com/2013/07/it-begins-pedophiles-call-for-same-rights-as-homosexuals/

 

[Gadawg73]

"pedophiles have sought to obtain similar status"
LOL
It is legal for pedophiles to marry even after they are convicted.
You are not very swift there Moe. But keep posting as I dig picking on defenseless folks.

 

[bodecea]

It isn't a "thought" you Dishonest Twat... Two Men nor Two Woman can make a Baby... Ever.

YOU and EVERY other Human on Earth is in one way or another the Product of a Man and a Woman... Race doesn't matter, a Black Man and a White Woman have always and will always be able to Reflect our Natural Existence.

It is no other way Naturally.

Man/Woman is NOT Equal to Man/Man or Woman/Woman... Ever.

All Men are Designed and Equipped by Nature to continue the Process that made their "very Existence"... and Women are the same.

That you Choose to Defy this Natural Design is your Right, but Burdening Society with your Choice is something that I will always speak Against.

And Demanding that Society give your Chosen Defiance Special Rights in Law to the Exclusion of others is simply Disgusting... If you had any Shame.



peace...

How is it "burdening society"?
You forgot to 'splain that one.
Specifics please.

burdening society

Holy Shit Bombs Away - I could probably write 4 or 5 pages on that
You've got to be Joking Right ?

Anyway - Mal is perfectly capable of burying your sorry ass on that one, so I'll leave it at that.


OT: Still got some Easter Eggs Left ?

I look forward to your 4 to 5 pages then. Type away.

 

[Gadawg73]

It isn't a "thought" you Dishonest Twat... Two Men nor Two Woman can make a Baby... Ever.

YOU and EVERY other Human on Earth is in one way or another the Product of a Man and a Woman... Race doesn't matter, a Black Man and a White Woman have always and will always be able to Reflect our Natural Existence.

It is no other way Naturally.

Man/Woman is NOT Equal to Man/Man or Woman/Woman... Ever.

All Men are Designed and Equipped by Nature to continue the Process that made their "very Existence"... and Women are the same.

That you Choose to Defy this Natural Design is your Right, but Burdening Society with your Choice is something that I will always speak Against.

And Demanding that Society give your Chosen Defiance Special Rights in Law to the Exclusion of others is simply Disgusting... If you had any Shame.



peace...

How is it "burdening society"?
You forgot to 'splain that one.
Specifics please.

It isn't required to gain Gays what they claim to be missing when they Choose to Defy their Design.

Civil Unions Remedy their Issues without Dishonestly making something Equal to something it is not.

Raising a Generation of Children to Accept Lies in Law will do Harm in the long run.

Basing Law on Lies will do Harm in the long run.

It's a Tragic Time for this Republic.



peace...

One day sooner than later I hope mal you will see and change your tune.
Book it. All you do is try to convince YOURSELF here.
You are obviously ashamed of gay folks in your family or friends or something.
Get over it and treat them as equals for what they want.
Nothing less. Get it off your shoulders mal because you do not appear to be a bad guy to me.

 

[Seawytch]

How is it "burdening society"?
You forgot to 'splain that one.
Specifics please.

burdening society

Holy Shit Bombs Away - I could probably write 4 or 5 pages on that
You've got to be Joking Right ?

Anyway - Mal is perfectly capable of burying your sorry ass on that one, so I'll leave it at that.


OT: Still got some Easter Eggs Left ?

I look forward to your 4 to 5 pages then. Type away.

I'd have to un-ignore him for that. Make sure you alert me if he does.

 

[mal]

How is it "burdening society"?
You forgot to 'splain that one.
Specifics please.

It isn't required to gain Gays what they claim to be missing when they Choose to Defy their Design.

Civil Unions Remedy their Issues without Dishonestly making something Equal to something it is not.

Raising a Generation of Children to Accept Lies in Law will do Harm in the long run.

Basing Law on Lies will do Harm in the long run.

It's a Tragic Time for this Republic.



peace...

One day sooner than later I hope mal you will see and change your tune.
Book it. All you do is try to convince YOURSELF here.
You are obviously ashamed of gay folks in your family or friends or something.
Get over it and treat them as equals for what they want.
Nothing less. Get it off your shoulders mal because you do not appear to be a bad guy to me.

I've Advocated for Civil Unions for 2 Decades... What I will not do is say something is the same that is not. I will not Lie to make others feel better about their Choices in Life.



peace...

 

[GreenBean]

How is it "burdening society"?
You forgot to 'splain that one.
Specifics please.

burdening society

Holy Shit Bombs Away - I could probably write 4 or 5 pages on that
You've got to be Joking Right ?

Anyway - Mal is perfectly capable of burying your sorry ass on that one, so I'll leave it at that.


OT: Still got some Easter Eggs Left ?

I look forward to your 4 to 5 pages then. Type away.

Sorry, but pressures of the real world put a serious contraint on my time and in providing you sorry ass faggots with an education - so here's some copy and paste for your reading pleasure - remember they'll be a quiz later .

The debate over whether the state ought to recognize gay marriages has thus far focused on the issue as one of civil rights. Such a treatment is erroneous because state recognition of marriage is not a universal right. States regulate marriage in many ways besides denying men the right to marry men, and women the right to marry women. Roughly half of all states prohibit first cousins from marrying, and all prohibit marriage of closer blood relatives, even if the individuals being married are sterile. In all states, it is illegal to attempt to marry more than one person, or even to pass off more than one person as one’s spouse. Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphilis or other venereal diseases. Homosexuals, therefore, are not the only people to be denied the right to marry the person of their choosing.

I do not claim that all of these other types of couples restricted from marrying are equivalent to homosexual couples. I only bring them up to illustrate that marriage is heavily regulated, and for good reason. When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse’s social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse’s health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children.

Granted, these restrictions are not absolute. A small minority of married couples are infertile. However, excluding sterile couples from marriage, in all but the most obvious cases such as those of blood relatives, would be costly. Few people who are sterile know it, and fertility tests are too expensive and burdensome to mandate. One might argue that the exclusion of blood relatives from marriage is only necessary to prevent the conception of genetically defective children, but blood relatives cannot marry even if they undergo sterilization. Some couples who marry plan not to have children, but without mind-reading technology, excluding them is impossible. Elderly couples can marry, but such cases are so rare that it is simply not worth the effort to restrict them. The marriage laws, therefore, ensure, albeit imperfectly, that the vast majority of couples who do get the benefits of marriage are those who bear children.

Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met.

One may argue that lesbians are capable of procreating via artificial insemination, so the state does have an interest in recognizing lesbian marriages, but a lesbian’s sexual relationship, committed or not, has no bearing on her ability to reproduce. Perhaps it may serve a state interest to recognize gay marriages to make it easier for gay couples to adopt. However, there is ample evidence (see, for example, David Popenoe’s Life Without Father) that children need both a male and female parent for proper development. Unfortunately, small sample sizes and other methodological problems make it impossible to draw conclusions from studies that directly examine the effects of gay parenting. However, the empirically verified common wisdom about the importance of a mother and father in a child’s development should give advocates of gay adoption pause. The differences between men and women extend beyond anatomy, so it is essential for a child to be nurtured by parents of both sexes if a child is to learn to function in a society made up of both sexes. Is it wise to have a social policy that encourages family arrangements that deny children such essentials? Gays are not necessarily bad parents, nor will they necessarily make their children gay, but they cannot provide a set of parents that includes both a male and a female.

Some have compared the prohibition of homosexual marriage to the prohibition of interracial marriage. This analogy fails because fertility does not depend on race, making race irrelevant to the state’s interest in marriage. By contrast, homosexuality is highly relevant because it precludes procreation.

Some argue that homosexual marriages serve a state interest because they enable gays to live in committed relationships. However, there is nothing stopping homosexuals from living in such relationships today. Advocates of gay marriage claim gay couples need marriage in order to have hospital visitation and inheritance rights, but they can easily obtain these rights by writing a living will and having each partner designate the other as trustee and heir. There is nothing stopping gay couples from signing a joint lease or owning a house jointly, as many single straight people do with roommates. The only benefits of marriage from which homosexual couples are restricted are those that are costly to the state and society.

Some argue that the link between marriage and procreation is not as strong as it once was, and they are correct. Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage, in every society around the world, has been procreation. In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment. As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage, rather than the good of the children or the social order, has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years. Homosexual marriage is not the cause for any of these pathologies, but it will exacerbate them, as the granting of marital benefits to a category of sexual relationships that are necessarily sterile can only widen the separation between marriage and procreation.

The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction than love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.

The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage - The Tech


The tactics employed by current day Liberals and in particular Gay Activists was developed in the 30s and 40s by the Nazis and Stalinist Russia , was perfected by the totalitarian dictators of Communist China in the 50s and 60s, and utilized extensively by American Liberals since at least the early 70s. Exposed in a fictional format by George Orwell's work of Fiction entitled 1984, it was scientifically first exposed by Robert Jay Lifton in Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of 'Brainwashing' in China in the 60s .

It's incorporation into the Gay Arsenal began with a book After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's (Plume)by Marshall Kirk, a researcher in neuropsychiatry and his sidekick Hunter Madsen. A powerfully persuasive, perverse and popular book within the gay
community it presents an impassioned plea, and a brilliant strategy for homosexual activists to implement an aggressive, concerted and organized campaign to mold public perceptions, and brainwash the young.

The brainwashing and propaganda campaign, based on the Communist Chinese tactics, employs 3 primary methods desensitization jamming and conversion.

1) Desensitization Through a consistent barrage and exposure to homosexuals in the media - primarily the fantasy world of Television and the Movies, but also on radio, and in the print media , the public would become acquainted and accustomed to gays as a normal part of
society and life. Numerous novels, plays, movies, and television shows have tediously worn down and desensitized society from its former disgust with the homosexual.

As per the strategy the image conveyed would be of gays as productive healthy members of society. Although in reality this is far from the truth. Although there are many productive and otherwise admirable gays , the majority are psychologically maladjusted, and an extremely large percentage are infested with a myriad of both organic and psychological maladies arising from their perverted lifestyles, going far beyond HIV/AIDs. This dark side of the Gay Lifestyle was/is taboo - the public must not be made aware of, or exposed to it. Out of sight out of mind.

That fact that the public was/is not permitted to be educated on or even be made aware of the darker side of homosexuality , especially in the early days of the movement can be demonstrated with a 1974 episode of Marcus Welby MD.





The episode tells the story of a teen boy who is sexually molested by his gay science teacher. The episode, --The Outrage-- aired October 8, 1974. Gays exploded immediately - a campaign against the network ensued, gays bombarded over 200 organizations with hate mail and lobbied vigorously. Many major sponsors pulled out ,17 affiliates dropped the program. Some of the affiliates dropping the program were coerced by threats of reprisal if they failed to pull it from their stations . "...Like other media activists Loretta Lotman already had established ties with the management of ... local ABC Affiliate, she warned that if something were not done about the program they would be hit with protests the likes of which had never seen before.." [Target: Prime Time: Advocacy Groups and the Struggle Over Entertainment Television (Communication and Society)]. There are dozens of similar stories , where otherwise uncooperative members of the media were beaten into submission by gay terrorism [See Gay Media Influence]



Jamming The objective of jamming is to force opponents into silence by accusations of homophobia, latent homosexual tendencies and bigotry . The purpose being to create a social stigmatization of anyone whom opposes the Agenda. Jamming is to ridicule the opponent in the eyes of the world and to evoke the "pack mentality" .


Mentally healthy human beings will naturally feel a sense of shame and exclusion when they perceive that they are not part of the the pack, both in their thoughts and actions. The Jammimg tactic is to evoke a sense of shame in the opponent when his opposition to the gay movement and sexual perversion surfaces. Gay propaganda will depict opponents as homophobic and queer hating redneck bigots, as crude obnoxious loudmouths. It can depict them being isolated from the pack, shunned criticized, and despised. Most importantly however, it must depict gays as experiencing horrific persecution and suffering as a result of the "homophobic - queer hating red necks" . The opponent must be made the villain, both in the eyes of the uninvolved, and when possible in their own eyes also.

Jamming is basically psychological terrorism intended to silence expression of or support for any dissenting opinion.
Jamming employs the science of Direct Emotional Modeling and Associative Conditioning.

Jamming makes use of the rules of Associative Conditioning ... and Direct Emotional Modeling. [After The Ball pg. 152-53 ] the bigot ..made to believe ... that others will now despise him .[the]effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof .whether he is conscious of the attack or not....the more he [the bigot] is distracted ... the less conscious he will be of the true nature of the process .

Dr. Laura is a prime example of this facet of the campaign at work, a visible victim of this new assault on freedom of speech and free thought. The LGBT machine mobilized and launched a vicious campaign against Dr. Laura following comments on her shows which accurately described gays as deviant, biological errors and a mistake of nature. Talk show host Dr. Laura Schlessinger was forced to issue an apology to gays.

I deeply regret the hurt this situation has caused the gay and lesbian community..
..While I express my opinions from the perspective of an Orthodox Jew and a staunch defender of the traditional family, in talking about gays and lesbians, some of my words have been poorly chosen. Many people perceive them as hate speech. This fact has been personally and professionally devastating to me as well as to many others...

In 2000 she attempted to launch a Television program and was beaten down by gay agendaites. The show aired only briefly but advertisers largely shunned the program due to harassment and manipulation from the Gay machine. While other shows such as the several early failed attempts by the gay machine to get Ellen [Degennaris] into the public eye met with a number of failures due to poor quality, Dr. Laura, having ample quality, failed due to leftist censorship and manipulation induced by Jamming and Associative conditioning





Associative Conditioning involves a psychological process whereby, when two issues are repeatedly juxtaposed, one's feelings about one thing are transferred to the other. Juxtaposition is placing unrelated or different issues in relation to one another. It will have the tendency to draw attention to the attributes of each. When properly executed it will enhance the undesirable attributes of one by drawing upon the qualities of the other. A good example in current Media manipulation was the Movie X-men.

X-men utilized metaphors traditionally assigned to the gay community in presenting their 'mutant' super heroes and strove to form a mental correlation between their fictional superheroes and real life homosexuals.

X-Men mutants struggle with societies reluctance to accept their mutations, coming out, a term associated with gays coming out of the closet is supplanted with X-Men superheroes "coming out" with their mutations/super powers. The screen writers openly admit that they employed the tactics described here, and in fact boast of their attempts at tampering with the minds of societies youngest members. [See Gay Subtext]. Subliminally, at least, it strives to implant a somewhat hypnotic suggestion in the minds of the impressionable youngsters viewing it that Gays were super-heroes by associating the two.

Other semi-subliminal intrusions are also inserted into the film. Captain America, a symbol of American Patriotism, is depicted as out of touch , somewhat goofy and lacking in substance, he's for all intensive purposes, an idiot. Which is in stark contrast to his character in other films. In one scene , one of the X-men says of Captain America "I can't believe my father idolized that guy !" which was a brazen and somewhat unnoticed attempt to quell any patriotic sense developing in the minds of the youthful viewers.





Direct Emotional Modeling goes back to the pack mentality, it is the natural tendency of human beings to feel what they perceive others to be feeling.

Human beings naturally seek approval and liking from the pack, their crowd. When they witness or perceive someone similar to themselves being disapproved ,disliked and shunned by the pack due to a particular pattern of behavior or spoken thoughts, their social survival... blending in with the pack, dictates that they modify their behavior and rethink their opinions in order to fit in.

Direct Emotional Modeling ensures a symbiotic reaction in the target, it ensures that the target person/people will feel exactly what the other pack member feels and subconsciously transfer it to themselves. It's basically a ripple effect that elicits shame and doubt in the target person, thereby jamming any satisfaction that they would experience under natural conditions. It's a highly effective method of behavioral modification on a societal scale.

The targeted people do not actually need to be made to believe that they are a bad people, and others will now shun and despise him. Such a task attempted directly outside of the subconscious level would be next to impossible. It is possible only through continuous and repetitious conditioning . The more the target is distracted the less conscious he'll be of the true nature of the mental conditioning process which works to the advantage of the puppet masters.

Examples of Direct Emotional Modeling are many, the media is trife with them. Manipulation of language, distortion of facts to suit agendas are business as usual in the Modern Liberal media .


Framing

Framing is a psychological theory which suggests that people will have a different reaction to an idea when it is given a positive spin than they would if it was given a negative spin. Advertising professionals, public relations people and propagandists must possess a clear and concise knowledge and understanding of this concept to successfully spin their spiel. The implications of framing is that our decisions and opinions are based more on our predetermined attitudes rather than factual evidence. In communication, and advertising and propaganda campaigns framing defines how the media will shape mass opinion.

Framing, when properly executed in social discourse short-circuits counter arguments . No one can speak up against an effective frame and say, Why, yes, I do think women should be raped and I do think women should be sex objects. when discussing the Feminist "rape culture" frame . And no one can speak out against the Gay intrusion into public schools under the guise of tolerance and diversity and state I do think students should kill themselves, or I do think gay kids should be beat up.

Again in the Gay Agenda and Gay Infiltration in The Classroom, a scheme of gay infiltration into the classroom using "tolerance" and anti-bullying programs as a perfect path to classroom indoctrination was introduced. Kevin Jennings, a Gay Teacher and former Obama safe school czar said the following ... If the radical right can succeed in portraying us as preying on children, we will lose. Their language .... is laced with subtle and not-so-subtle innuendo that we are after their kids" He then went on to propose a strategy of how they could get at our kids which included a campaign of framing the debate using tolerance and anti-bullying as a tool to get their foot in the door.

The strategy involves linking the Gay Agenda to universal values that all members of society share. Basically to latch onto tolerance, diversity, safety, and peaceful coexistence amongst children of many variations - which is a good thing. It's a tactic referred to as Framing. From this simple dirt path, they seek to build a super-highway into the minds of our youth. Anybody who objected to the Gay Agendas planned indoctrination would be heretofore be labeled a heartless bully, a homophobic demon with a complete disregard for children and students.

This framing short-circuited their arguments [heterosexuals] and left them back-pedaling from day one, .... [N]o one could speak up against our frame and say, Why, yes, I do think students should kill themselves , This allowed us to set the terms for debate. - Kevin Jennings

Gay* Brainwashing Techniques


Research objective

Over the last 30 years, HIV/AIDS has emerged as a major global health challenge. Globally, the trend is that non-communicable diseases and injuries are accounting for a larger share of disease burden, but HIV/AIDS is a notable exception. Maintaining and expanding the response to the epidemic will require assessment of its magnitude and impact at the country level. It is also critical to examine the HIV/AIDS epidemic in the context of other health problems to clearly understand its impact and effectively allocate resources. To this end, its levels and trends must be measured in units, such as disability-adjusted life years, or DALYS, that allow comparison with other major conditions. The authors used the metrics and data produced by the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2010 (GBD 2010) to assess where HIV/AIDS remains a dominant cause of health loss and where disease burden is still increasing.
Analytical approach

In GBD 2010, DALYs are used as a key measurement of disease burden. DALYs are the sum of years of life lived with disability (YLDs) and years of life lost to premature mortality (YLLs). YLDs are disability-weighted prevalence estimates and YLLs are the difference between age of cause-specific death and an ideal lifespan. Researchers derived DALY estimates for HIV/AIDS from the UNAIDS 2012 prevalence estimates, the GBD 2010 disability weights, and their own custom estimates. The custom mortality model arrived at estimates on a country-by-country basis. For 36 countries with complete and high-quality vital registration systems, researchers used CODEm, the standard GBD 2010 cause of death model, so the estimates would make best use of the available data. For the remaining countries where cause of death data was not sufficient for analysis, because there were either too few deaths recorded or systematic misclassification of deaths in vital registration or verbal autopsy studies, researchers used UNAIDS 2012 estimates.
Findings

Researchers found that global HIV/AIDS mortality peaked in 2006 and has been steadily declining at an average annual rate of 4.17% ever since. The decline in HIV/AIDS mortality reflects both declining incidence in some settings as well as the impact of the rapid scale-up of antiretroviral therapy (ART) in some countries with large epidemics. HIV/AIDS was the 33rd most important cause of burden in 1990 and increased dramatically to the 5th cause of burden in 2010. In absolute terms, the burden of HIV increased during that period by 354%.
The distribution of HIV/AIDS burden is not equal across demographics. In 2010, HIV/AIDS was the leading cause of DALYs for both males and females aged 30 to 44. It is also not equal across regions. In 2010, HIV/AIDS was the leading cause of DALYs for 21 countries that fall into four distinctive blocks: Eastern and Southern Africa, Central Africa, the Caribbean, and Thailand. While HIV/AIDS is a global epidemic, a majority of the disease burden is concentrated in a handful of countries with particularly large epidemics. HIV/AIDS is ranked within the top five causes of burden in 26 countries.
Conclusions

The burden of HIV/AIDS has declined in the last half decade, which is likely attributable to declines in incidence, massive scale-up of ART coverage, and increased efforts to prevent transmission from mothers to their children. Clear and compelling links between donor funding for ART programs and scale-up provide strong evidence on the impact of some investments. Despite progress, however, the message is clear: HIV/AIDS is still very much a global problem. The global HIV/AIDS community will need to increasingly focus its attention on settings where the disease is not yet a dominant health problem. Several studies have shown the cost savings and health benefits that can occur if low-burden countries invest in HIV/AIDS prevention now. This may require different political and technical strategies moving forward.
The GBD effort will be updated to provide accurate and timely estimates of disease burden at the country, regional, and global levels. This data can foster a sustained, coherent response to the HIV/AIDS epidemic and other current and future global health challenges.
Citation

Ortblad KF, Lozano R, Murray CJL. The burden of HIV: insights from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. AIDS. 2013; 27:2003–2017.

The burden of HIV: insights from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010 | Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation


(Reuters) - If the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down a federal law defining marriage as between a man and woman, the newfound rights for gay married couples may bear something not so welcome - a bigger tax burden.

That's because with equality, gay couples will face the same tax woes of many heterosexual couples with similar incomes, including the tax hit known in America as the marriage penalty.

Taxpayers filing as married couples may be forced to pay higher taxes as their collective income crosses into a higher tax bracket sooner than if they were filing separately.

Oral arguments on Wednesday gave gay marriage backers hope the court would overturn the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) after a majority of the nine justices raised concerns about the law's validity under the U.S. Constitution.

Taxes are at the very heart of the challenge to DOMA.

The case involves Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer, a New York couple. When Spyer died in 2009, DOMA prevented Windsor from enjoying one of the biggest tax breaks enjoyed by heterosexual Americans - the exemption from federal estate tax on wealth passed from one spouse to another.

If the law is struck down, the ruling extending the exemption to gay and lesbian surviving spouses would also clear the way to more than 1,100 federal benefits, rights and burdens linked to marriage status.

Cynthia Leachmoore, a tax preparer in Soquel, California, has about 40 same-sex married couples as customers ranging from teachers to Silicon Valley workers.

A handful of them have joint incomes that top $1 million. They're facing $25,000 to $30,000 more in federal and state taxes if DOMA goes down and they file taxes jointly, she said.

"Most of them don't care. They'd really like to be able to say that they were married" on tax returns, Leachmoore said. "That's more important to them."

COMPLICATIONS

Married gay couples would see other benefits, including a break in taxes now paid on health insurance and greater access to federal family and medical leave.

There are some 130,000 same-sex married couples in the United States as estimated by the Census Bureau, and nearly 650,000 same-sex couples, married and not, in total.

The Byzantine U.S. tax code's marriage definition is not consistent. In some sections, the marriage provisions are defined for a "husband and wife." Other places say "spouse."

If the law is struck down, the Internal Revenue Service may need Congress to clarify the tax code, or the Obama administration may say same-sex married couples will be treated the same as opposite-sex marriages, said Annette Nellen, a tax professor at San Jose State University.

GOOD FOR TAX COFFERS

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office in 2004 estimated that recognition of gay marriage would, on net, help the budget's bottom line by $1 billion a year over 10 years. The increased revenue would account for about 0.1 percent of total federal revenues at the time.

The Williams Institute, a unit of the University of California at Los Angeles School of Law, estimates that gay marriage may be good also for the fiscal health of states and localities that legalize it.

Of the 50 states, 31 have constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. It is legal in nine states and Washington, D.C.

The remaining states' policies vary, with some recognizing marriage from other states, some providing some of the legal benefits of marriage and others denying marriage by state laws.

Williams Institute estimated that if Rhode Island legalized marriage, its coffers would gain $1.2 million in 2010 dollars over three years, largely due to lower spending on social welfare programs and increased income tax revenue and marriage license fees.

That is the small slice of the hundreds of millions in operating deficits Rhode Island is expected to be working under in the next five years, as estimated by a governor's report.

Because of differing state laws, it is unclear what the impact might be in states with laws disallowing gay marriage.

Brian Moulton, an attorney with the Human Rights Campaign, said that if he married legally in Washington, D.C., and moved to Oklahoma, where gay marriage is not legal, the federal government might still recognize the union.

But Todd Solomon, a partner at law firm McDermott Will & Emery and author of a book on domestic partner benefits, said he was not so sure that would be the case.

"It is an open question as to what happens in Oklahoma," he said. "Each state will still be allowed to legislate marriage."

INCOME, ESTATE, HEALTH TAXES

Although the case was about the estate tax, only 3,600 estates owed the estate tax in 2012, according to government figures, and the wealthiest Americans pay most of it.

The end of DOMA might also save same-sex couples from having to pay some federal taxes on healthcare benefits they receive through a spouse's employer. Unmarried domestic partners on average owe an extra $1,000 annually in taxes on these benefits because they are now taxed, according to Williams.

"Everyone will get a benefit if they were carrying health insurance," said Nanette Lee Miller, head of non-traditional family practice at accounting firm Marcum LLP in San Francisco.

The impact on Social Security benefits will be mixed. DOMA prevents same sex couples from claiming the survivors benefits extended to married couples. But Social Security recipients might face greater taxes on their benefits because they will hit the level where the benefits begin to be taxed sooner if married.

(Writing by Kim Dixon; Editing by Howard Goller, Mary Milliken and Tim Dobbyn)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/28/us-usa-court-gaymarriage-taxes-idUSBRE92R12020130328


At the White House in 2003, President George W. Bush hosted a celebratory 25th reunion for his Yale University classmates. When he graduated in 1968, Yale was an all-male school, but one of his college brothers had gotten a sex change and was now a woman. Standing on the receiving line, she debated how to introduce herself to the conservative president. The best she could come up with was: “You might remember me as Peter when we left Yale…" Without skipping a beat, Bush stepped in, “And now you’ve come back as yourself.“

It might seem strange that this conservative president was so accepting of his transsexual guest, but in good and bad ways, George W. Bush is a quintessential American.

Liberated from the burden of homophobia

If America has a philosophical tradition, it’s a combination of pragmatism and pluralism. We have never had an official church or a royalty that could impose and maintain a unifying order. As a result, we are not limited by a religious tradition or orthodoxy. If something no longer works, we drop it and invent something new. Our society is a pluralistic collection of various groups who battle over ideas through the democratic political system. No one group can claim they possess the truth based on tradition. Even conservative politicians must argue that their ideas make practical sense today. Our pluralism might seem to inspire chaos, but it is actually key to America’s dynamism.

This pragmatic American ethos explains the remarkably quick success of the gay rights movement. Just 40 years ago, more than half of the states had sexual psychopath laws that officially designated homosexuals as a threat to society. The American Psychiatric Association listed homosexuality as a mental illness. Employers would regularly fire employees for being gay. In New York City, it was illegal for bars to serve alcohol to anyone who was openly homosexual.

I’m a straight man who wrote a book about why the American gay rights movement succeeded so quickly. I’m often asked why I care so deeply about equal rights for homosexuals. The answer is simple: the gay rights movement has benefited me and the rest of American society.

Discrimination burdens both the oppressor and the oppressed. Those who carry around prejudices constantly find themselves interacting with people who make them anxious and angry. They are less able to work well with gay coworkers and have tense relationships with gay family members. Who would want that psychological burden? Fortunately, the gay rights movement has liberated many of us straights from the burden of homophobia.

Abandoning self-defeating policies

As a patriotic American, I have seen how equal rights for gays have allowed millions of people to contribute fully to the success of the nation. The U.S. Military used to have a policy of discharging gay soldiers. The absurdity of this policy became clear at the height of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, when the military was discharging hundreds of highly skilled personnel, including members of the Special Forces and Arab language specialists. American pragmatism kicked in and we abandoned our military’s self-defeating discriminatory policy.

You can see American pragmatism at work in our debate over adoption rights for gays. The practical need to find homes for orphans trumped prejudice. The majority recognized the reality that children who grew up with gay parents turned out to be wonderful adults. The minority who refused to accept this fact lost in the democratic process.

In the debate over gay marriage, opponents may mention tradition, but their most successful argument has been that gay marriage would somehow undermine the institution of marriage for everyone. It’s an argument based on a practical threat to the future rather than a need to uphold the past. The problem for gay marriage opponents was that as more and more states began allowing gays to marry the supposed threat to straight marriages never materialized. Once again, American pragmatism kicked in. Why wouldn’t we want to help gays and lesbians build stable families? Within a few years, the poll numbers flipped, and now a majority of Americans support gay marriage.

Lessons for Europe

Looking at Europe, there is a divide between the Protestant northern countries and the Catholic south and east. The Protestant countries have caught up with the U.S. and, in some ways, even surpassed us. Catholic countries are also beginning to change. Pope Francis has begun shifting the rhetoric of the Catholic Church from condemnation of homosexuals to focusing on charity and poverty. That shift bodes well for the future of gay rights in western Europe.

In Russia, Vladimir Putin is pushing an anti-gay agenda in a cynical attempt to curry favor with the Russian Orthodox Church. Clearly, this former KGB agent is not motivated by a commitment to traditional religious values. He is trying to solidify his support with the common man by demonizing a minority group – a tactic that we have seen all too often in history. Putin says the gay rights movement poses a threat to Russian society; the reality is that it poses a threat to his authoritarian regime.

The American experience demonstrates that the greatest obstacle to tyranny is pluralism. A free society needs unpopular groups who are able to air their ideas, spark public debate and challenge the system. The rise of the gay rights movement in America did just that and succeeded in changing the minds of hundreds of millions.

Whether Americans support or oppose gay activist groups, almost all of us defend their ability to change our society and see it as a tribute to our freedom. The battle for gay rights in Russia has greater implications for Russian society as a whole, and Putin knows it. If gays could succeed in establishing their rights, it would demonstrate that the Putin regime couldn’t control public debate. Even a small success would mark the beginning of a revival of liberty from which all Russians, gay and straight, would benefit — just as all Americans benefit from the pragmatic extension of liberties that we continue to experience.

http://www.theeuropean-magazine.com/david-eisenbach--2/8279-gay-rights-and-the-american-way


What benefit does homosexuality provide in society?
by Matt Slick

Does the lifestyle of homosexuality benefit society? Now, I'm not talking about how homosexuals can attain their sexual jollies and make themselves feel good. I'm talking about the benefits to society as a whole. How would the proponents of homosexuality answer the question? Well, to find out, I asked this question on the CARM forums and received many interesting replies. I cited several of them and provided responses.

1. "Why does homosexuality have to benefit society? How does red hair benefit society? Or white skin?"

Homosexuality is a lifestyle, a behavior. Lifestyles and behaviors can have beneficial or harmful effects on one's self and others. We know this is true because the homosexual community has a high degree of diseases, such as AIDS, which affect their own health and even the health of others, i.e., contaminated transfusions, etc. Likewise, the great cost of fighting AIDS is a drain on society. Would anyone say this a benefit? I wouldn't. But, to say that homosexuality is essentially the same as red hair or white skin is a mistake. Homosexuality, as I said, is a lifestyle and behavior. Red hair and white skin are neither lifestyles nor behaviors, so comparing them is inappropriate.

2. "Since when does anything have to have a benefit?"

This doesn't answer the question. Simply to ask whether not something must have a benefit or not basically ignores the rather prevalent and even domineering attitude that homosexuals have in regard to getting their view accepted by mainstream society. They are very practiced at getting homosexuality to be included in movies, TV, and radio, etc. Undoubtedly they are promoting their lifestyle for a reason, and I am sure they are not promoting it because they think it is bad. They must be promoting it because they think is good. If something is good and worth promoting, then shouldn't it have a real benefit to society? So, the question still stands. Does the lifestyle of homosexuality benefit society?

3. "What benefit is a fossil to anyone? Yet it exists. What benefit is a galaxy? Yet it exists. But according to some, gay people alone have to prove they benefit society before we are allowed to exist."

This response is similar to number one above, and it too confuses a lifestyle with things. Fossils simply exist, but fossils are not a lifestyle that is being thrust upon our culture, in schools, movies, TV, etc. Mere existence of something isn't the issue. It is homosexuality, which is by definition a sexual behavior. When we look at what is happening in society and how it is being promoted so heavily, we must ask what benefit does it have?

4. "The same benefit heterosexuality provides society. This is kind of a silly question."

If homosexuality has the same benefit as heterosexuality, then we need to ask how homosexuality can provide, for example, children. It is only heterosexuality that can do that. Children grow up and provide the furthering of society with new ideas, new hopes, and new dreams. So, if homosexuality has the same benefits as heterosexuality, then how does it provide children? Remember, the response was "the same benefit heterosexuality provides..."

5. Not sure who you are talking to but there is no need for anything to be of benefit to society for it to be acceptable.

Again, this is not answering the question. But still, the response to number two above would be appropriate here since homosexuality is being promoted in society.

6. "Why can't a homosexual brother help his heterosexual sibling in raising his or her children, and thus contribute to the procreation of humanity?"

But helping someone raise a child is not an issue of homosexuality. It is an issue of helping, giving, and caring. It would be like saying why can't a Chinese person help his sibling by raising a child? What does being Chinese have to do with it? Of course homosexuals can be loving and nurturing and kind, but that isn't the issue any more than if a monogamous atheist with subjective morality can be a help in raising children. The question deals with the benefit of the lifestyle, the practice, and the promotion of homosexuality in society.

7. "What value do left-handed people add to society"

Left-handed people as well as right-handed people can fix cars, drive airplanes, perform surgery, etc. But you don't see a Left-handed Lobbyist Organization (LLO) promoting left-handedness and demanding special rights due to their being left-handed, trying to get it accepted in school, and have it be promoted in movies and TV so as to alter the moral fabric of society. Being left-handed is not an issue of morality. Homosexuality is. So, we have to ask what benefit to society does the sexual act of a man with a man, or a woman with a woman, have for society?

As you can see, the responses weren't very well thought out and failed to actually answer the question. But this is typical. Instead of listing benefits, attacks and other questions are offered. This is a demonstration of the inability of many to be able to address this difficult issue.


http://carm.org/homosexuality-benefit-society

What is the Gay Agenda ?

As per U.S. Rep. Barney Frank the "gay agenda" is to be protected against violent crimes driven by bigotry, it's to be able to get married, it's to be able to get a job, and it's to be able to fight for our country.....

As per the Family Research Council, the group which initially coined the term "gay agenda" with their educational series "hidden gay agenda" the "gay-agenda" is an assault on Christian values, a frontal assault on God, and an anal assault on masculinity. It is an evil sinister plot to destroy the foundation of the Family.

The Institute for the Scientific Investigation of Sexuality {fore-runner of Family Research Council} made some startling, possibly sensationalist claims , such as, just shy of 80% of gay men have sexually transmitted diseases 75% regularly ingest their partners poop ... though it presented some legitimate and viable data it did for the anti-gay movement what "reefer-madness" did for the marijuana lobby. Some of their later material such as Stonewall: 25 Years of Deception, is more sophisticated and verifiably factual .

I see the Gay Agenda as a devious assault on reality, and on the morality of our youth. The perpetuation of seething lies designed to fester in the minds of society and the pitiful homosexual individuals who are afflicted by this pitiful Mental Disorder {Is Homosexuality a Disease ?} . Homosexual activists claim they only seek acceptance and tolerance from mainstream society, but as per Marshall Kirk, a prophet of the Gay Agenda - "In the early states of any campaign to reach straight America, the masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior 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 -- and only later his unsightly derriere! "

We, the straight community{ies} , the un-afflicted heterosexuals of the World are the Camel of which he speaks, and I would implore that the degenerates of the Gay community to keep their eyes off of, and agenda out of our "unsightly derrieres" !

<PageTop
Homosexual Media Manipulation

James Komack was the producer of many top Television programs of the 60s and 70s Welcome Back Kotter, Chico and the man, Love American Style and others. In **The homosexual revolution: End time abomination** by David A Noebel , he is credited with the following statement. "Do you know the most powerful lobby in the entertainment business? Bigger than blacks or women's lib or any nationalist or racist group. It's the gays. If you don't have the approval of the Gay Media Task Force, you don't go on the air." Perhaps this is one reason that you will rarely see a homosexual "bad guy" in the media.

Homosexual propaganda has been around for many years, the spark that ignited their present day stranglehold however was a brilliant book **After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's **by Marshall Kirk, a researcher in neuropsychiatry and Hunter Madsen.

This powerfully persuasive, perverse and popular book within the gay community presents an impassioned plea, a call to arms if you will for homosexual activists to implement an aggressive, concerted and organized campaign to mold public perceptions. The book further lays out a blueprint, a methodology that has been rigidly implemented and enforced over the past 2 decades . Their rationalization for launching such a campaign is that people who do not agree with, or adhere to the Gay Agenda are "bigots, haters, or ignorants". The book further attempts to justify gay activists use of unscrupulous tactics , mass deceit, brainwashing, lying and malicious slander, blackmail, intimidation and violence. Kirk and Madsens book states the following ....

"All sexual morality should be abolished" (pages 64 to 67)
Homosexual agenda can succeed by "jamming" and "confusing" adversaries, so as to block or counteract the "rewarding of prejudice" (page 153);
All opposing disagreements to homosexual behavior is rooted in "Homophobia, Homohatred, and Prejudice" (page 112)
A media campaign should portray only the most favorable side of gays (page 170);
Discourage anti-gay harassment by linking and calling all those that have opposing opinions to latent homosexuality (i.e., call people homophobic) (page 227)
It is acceptable to call people "Homophobic" or "Haters" if they do not agree 100% with the gay agenda views, opinions, or behavior. (page 23)
Throughout the 1990s, the media message pertaining to treatment of Homosexuals was "Tolerance". However, as society became more tolerant of their affliction largely through educational and media mind programming we have become less tolerant of those who refuse to subscribe to this political correctness. Itâ&#8364;&#8482;s difficult to fathom, but there was a time not long ago, when morality and virtue was celebrated in mainstream society. Today, anybody in the public eye particularly the mainstream media who dares to disagree with homosexuality or homosexual viewpoints will more than likely be fired, branded and blacklisted.
Through the media, homosexuals have won the tolerance and sympathies of the huddled masses.

Numerous novels, plays, movies, and television shows have tediously worn down and desensitized society from its former disgust with the homosexual.

<PageTop





Chronology of Gay Activism and Terrorism

1970 New York Post columnist Pete Hamill refers to gays as â&#8364;&#339;slim-waisted freakcreepsâ&#8364; Gay activists picketed the Post and demanded Hamill be fired. The editor apologized, but defended the editorial freedom of his writers.

1970 Gay activists occupied the offices of Harpers Magazine after the magazine ran a cover story â&#8364;&#339;Homo/Hetero: The Struggle for Sexual Identity.â&#8364; that described homosexuality as "an affront to our rationality living evidence of our despair of ever finding a sensible, an explainable design to the world."


1972 - The Gay Media Task Force is created by the National Gay Task Force to be an organization to manipulate and control network television programming, theoretically as it addressed gay issues.

1972 ..... the networks tilted against the guardians of morality. They began to send scripts to gay Gay consultants routinely. "Anything that crops up in a script that is even remotely gay" said the writer Allan Burns , "They get it and they really make themselves heard" **Inside Prime Time** by Todd Gitlin
1972 Gay activist, turned journalist Mark Segal feigns disdain that he couldnâ&#8364;&#8482;t dance with a gay partner on a dance show, infiltrates an ABC affiliate in Philadelphia and interrupts the news broadcast. He later pulled similar charades against the Johnny Carson on the Tonight Show when he stormed out of the Audience durring a live show, on the Mike Douglas show and Today shows. Variety claimed that the activities of Segal alone, not to mention other gay activities had cost the entertainment industry $750,000 in costs including lost advertising revenue.

1973 - Gay propagandist/activist invades CBS News with Walter Cronkite.

1974 A popular and long-running medical drama on ABC - Marcus Welby MD tells the story of a teen boy who is sexually molested by his gay science teacher. The episode, â&#8364;&#339;The Outrageâ&#8364; aired October 8, 1974. Gays squawked immediately - a campaign against the network ensued, gays bombarded over 200 organizations with hate mail and lobbied vigorously. Many major sponsors pulled out ,17 affiliates dropped the program. Some of the affiliates dropping the program were coerced by threats of reprisal if they failed to pull it from their stations . "...Like other media activists Loretta Lotman already had established ties with the management of ... local ABC Affiliate.... she warned that if something were not done about the program they would be hit with protests the likes of which thaye had never seen before.." **Target: Prime Time: Advocacy Groups and the Struggle Over Entertainment Television (Communication and Society)**

1977 Florida gay rights/privileges ordinance sparks strong opposition . Former Miss Oklahoma beauty pageant winner, and outspoken critic of homosexuality Anita Bryant led the campaign that successfully had the law repealed and she paid dearly. Her career came to a screeching halt, her credibility and reputation was viciously assaulted . She was at one point physically assaulted with a pie while attempting to exercise her right to Free Speech. Beware all those who oppose the Gay Agenda Anita Bryant's career was destroyed by her campaign against "militant homosexuality" She ultimately suffered a divorce, needed counseling, and was bankrupted.

**The Anita Bryant Story**
Anita Bryant assaulted - YouTube
Like Satan, Anita Bryant keeps coming back. 2009
Uma Thurman to Play Notorious Anti-Gay Activist in â&#8364;&#732;Anitaâ&#8364;&#8482; 2013

1978 - A Question of Love, ABC TV movie airs based on a lesbian mother and her struggle for custody of her children. Part of manipulated trend to positive TV images of gays , acknowledged as a result of gay activists.

1980 - CBS Reports Episode â&#8364;&#339;Gay Power, Gay Politicsâ&#8364; draws strong criticism for what the gay camp referred to as malicious inaccuracies and slanting of the news. The program did heavily focus on the sexual practices of gay males , in particular sadomasochism. The National News Council, stated that CBS had violated journalistic standards through misrepresentation as well as through deceptive editing. I find it curious that the National News Council never says anything when CBS manipulates in favor of the Left leaning liberals and democrats which it has consistently for decades. **See Dan Rather**

1983 NY Times did not cover a fundraiser for Gay Menâ&#8364;&#8482;s Health Crisis in Madison Square Garden - leads to protests and eventual apology from the Times for not helping in promoting the Gay Agenda

1985 "....You can handle homosexuality - as long as you handle it a lovely, tolerant fashion that will not upset the gay liberation lobby" - Earnest Kinov writer, screenwriter and playwright.

1987 Marshall K. Kirk and Erastes Pill wrote a strategy series of articles entitled "The Overhauling of Straight America" which appeared in Guide Magazine. They wrote ... "In the early states of any campaign to reach straight America, the masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior 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 -- and only later his unsightly derriere! "

1987 A study by The Center for Media and Public Affairs reported that only 9% of the characters depicted on TV with AIDS are identified as homosexual ,while in actuality, over 70 percent of such persons have AIDS or HIV. This is in accordance with the unwritten homosexual lobby's demand to define AIDS as non-gay disease.

1988 episode of NBC's "Midnight Caller" originally portrayed a homosexual as an AIDS carrier who deliberately infects straight woman, a gaggle of gays gathered and more rapidly flocked to NBC Studios and vigorously protested loudly outside the set. The script was changed to appease the pervs, and the program executives humbly kissed their royal infected derrieres while apologizing profusely.

1988, Cosmopolitan magazine published an article "Reassuring News About AIDS: A Doctor Tells Why You May Not Be At Risk." which attempted to inform the public that in unprotected vaginal sex between a man and a woman , the risk of HIV transmission was basically nonexistant, even if the man was infected. This did not fit within the narrow confines of the warped reality that the Homosexual agenda was attempting to ram down societies throat. When lobbying and coercion against the Author and Cosmopolitan failed, the gay agendaites decided they "had to shut down Cosmo." They produced a video entitled, "Doctor, Liars, and Women: AIDS Activists Say No To Cosmo." Activists protested vigorously at the Hearst building (parent company of Cosmopolitan) chanting "Say no to Cosmo!"

1989 Andy Rooney states on air that the year had brought recognition â&#8364;&#339;of the fact that many of the ills which kill us are self-induced: too much alcohol, too much food, drugs, homosexual unions, cigarettes. Theyâ&#8364;&#8482;re all known to lead quite often to premature death.â&#8364; shortly thereafter Rooney made a racial comment â&#8364;&#339;Iâ&#8364;&#8482;ve believed all along that most people are born with equal intelligence, but blacks have watered down their genes because the less intelligent ones are the ones that have the most children. They drop out of school early, do drugs, and get pregnant.â&#8364; he is suspended for the racial comment , a Gay uproar follows because he was not disciplined for the Gay comment.

1990 The Sacramento Union publishes several editorials against pro-homosexual activities. Vandals quickly destroyed over a hundred of the newspaper's vending machines. The vandalized machines were plastered with stickers from the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power / ACT UP .

1990 The Wall Street Journal editorialized that it seems to be entirely permissible to discuss homosexuality.....only if you maintain "the approved point of view."

1991 During the height of Operation Desert Storm, ACT UP activist John Weir and two other activists entered the studio of the CBS Evening News at the beginning of the broadcast. They shouted "AIDS is news. Fight AIDS, not Arabs!" Even anchorman Dan Rather, that befuddled bastion of left wing lunacy was not immune to the Gay onslaught. . The same night ACT UP demonstrated at the studios of the MacNeil/Lehrer Newshour. The next day activists displayed banners in Grand Central Terminal that said "Money for AIDS, not for war" and "One AIDS death every 8 minutes." One of the banners was handheld and displayed across the train timetable and the other attached to bundles of balloons that lifted it up to the ceiling of the station's enormous main room. These actions were part of a coordinated protest called "Day of Desperation."[Wikipedia]

1992 Marketing reports indicate that gays have more expendable income than normal people, mainstream advertisers began pouring money into gay publications. Some advertising revenues nearly double.

1994 Roseanne TV episode features a kiss between two females.
1997 Lesbian Television personality Ellen Degenerate .... uh I mean Degeneres, has her TV character also come out, ratings climb.

1996 Los Angeles magazine cover story by gay journalist David Ehrenstein,, argued that gay material was more persuasive than the average viewer might have thought. "You may not have noticed, but your favorite sitcoms are written by gays and lesbians." informed readers with a tongue in cheek nod to the idea of a gay sitcom writer mafia." {Gay TV and Straight America Pg. 163}

2012 DC Comics relaunches its Green Lantern character as Gay, the original character was a married father of two who first appeared in 1940

2011 - Gallup poll shows that U.S. adults estimate that 25% of Americans are gay or lesbian.
52% of American Adults estimate that at least one in five Americans are gay or lesbian
35% estimate that more than one in four are.
Few put the figure at less than 15%.

The actual number ??? .... drum roll .... envelope please ..... and the answer is ....... LESS THAN 4% are Gay !!!!!
That's correct only 1 - 4% of the U.S. population is Gay or Lesbian. Why in Gods name would so many allegedly educated {or indoctrinated as the case may be} and supposedly informed American Adults believe that so very many of their countrymen are homosexuals ? .... drum roll ..... the answer is ....Gross over representation and coverage by the Media, both in Entertainment Fiction {Soaps, Sitcoms, Movies..} as well as News coverage.

Almost any show currently airing on television features at least one homosexual. Daytime talk shows, Soaps, and comedies are rampant with out of closet card carrying homosexual characters. In addition, all these characters are not permitted to display character flaws, they are either wealthy, educated, and happy OR depressed and oppressed by perceived mistreatment from normal people.

2013 FemTechNet - A feminist internet group is organizing a program entitled "Storming Wikipedia," and are calling for women to edit the site and add feminist stories . Now I see nothing wrong with giving equal representation to the contributions of Women to science , history, the arts and so on, the problem lies in the adverse and perverted agenda which the controlling agents for this organization espouse. A warped world view, generally completely out of context is what they envision and will attempt to implant within the pages of the most trafficked reference site available.

Yale University, Brown University, Pennsylvania State University and many others will offer college credits to students who help to impose the feminist view on wikipedia readers. â&#8364;&#732;Storming Wikipediaâ&#8364;&#8482;: Colleges offer credit to students who enter â&#8364;&#732;feminist thinkingâ&#8364;&#8482; into Wikipedia

<PageTop
** The quote from Michael Swift of the Boston Gay Community News was originally satirical in nature. Nonetheless, the remarks are terrifying and should give every sane person, whether gay or straight, reason to contemplate the real motives of homosexual activism. The article in its entirety is available atMichael Swift: "Gay Revolutionary"

http://loonybird.com/gay_media.htm

We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us.

Women, you cry for freedom. You say you are no longer satisfied with men; they make you unhappy. We, connoisseurs of the masculine face, the masculine physique, shall take your men from you then. We will amuse them; we will instruct them; we will embrace them when they weep. Women, you say you wish to live with each other instead of with men. Then go and be with each other. We shall give your men pleasures they have never known because we are foremost men too, and only one man knows how to truly please another man; only one man can understand the depth and feeling, the mind and body of another man.

All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked. Instead, legislation shall be passed which engenders love between men.

All homosexuals must stand together as brothers; we must be united artistically, philosophically, socially, politically and financially. We will triumph only when we present a common face to the vicious heterosexual enemy.

If you dare to cry faggot, fairy, queer, at us, we will stab you in your cowardly hearts and defile your dead, puny bodies.

We shall write poems of the love between men; we shall stage plays in which man openly caresses man; we shall make films about the love between heroic men which will replace the cheap, superficial, sentimental, insipid, juvenile, heterosexual infatuations presently dominating your cinema screens. We shall sculpt statues of beautiful young men, of bold athletes which will be placed in your parks, your squares, your plazas. The museums of the world will be filled only with paintings of graceful, naked lads.

Our writers and artists will make love between men fashionable and de rigueur, and we will succeed because we are adept at setting styles. We will eliminate heterosexual liaisons through usage of the devices of wit and ridicule, devices which we are skilled in employing.

We will unmask the powerful homosexuals who masquerade as heterosexuals. You will be shocked and frightened when you find that your presidents and their sons, your industrialists, your senators,your mayors, your generals, your athletes, your film stars, your television personalities, your civic leaders, your priests are not the safe, familiar, bourgeois, heterosexual figures you assumed them to be. We are everywhere; we have infiltrated your ranks. Be careful when you speak of homosexuals because we are always among you; we may be sitting across the desk from you; we may be sleeping in the same bed with you.

There will be no compromises. We are not middle-class weaklings. Highly intelligent, we are the natural aristocrats of the human race, and steely-minded aristocrats never settle for less. Those who oppose us will be exiled.

We shall raise vast private armies, as Mishima did, to defeat you. We shall conquer the world because warriors inspired by and banded together by homosexual love and honor are invincible as were the ancient Greek soldiers.

The family unit-spawning ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy and violence--will be abolished. The family unit, which only dampens imagination and curbs free will, must be eliminated. Perfect boys will be conceived and grown in the genetic laboratory. They will be bonded together in communal setting, under the control and instruction of homosexual savants.

All churches who condemn us will be closed. Our only gods are handsome young men. We adhere to a cult of beauty, moral and esthetic. All that is ugly and vulgar and banal will be annihilated. Since we are alienated from middle-class heterosexual conventions, we are free to live our lives according to the dictates of the pure imagination. For us too much is not enough.

The exquisite society to emerge will be governed by an elite comprised of gay poets. One of the major requirements for a position of power in the new society of homoeroticism will be indulgence in the Greek passion. Any man contaminated with heterosexual lust will be automatically barred from a position of influence. All males who insist on remaining stupidly heterosexual will be tried in homosexual courts of justice and will become invisible men.

"We shall rewrite history, history filled and debased with your heterosexual lies and distortions. We shall portray the homosexuality of the great leaders and thinkers who have shaped the world. We will demonstrate that homosexuality and intelligence and imagination are inextricably linked, and that homosexuality is a requirement for true nobility, true beauty in a man.

"We shall be victorious because we are fueled with the ferocious bitterness of the oppressed who have been forced to play seemingly bit parts in your dumb, heterosexual shows throughout the ages. We too are capable of firing guns and manning the barricades of the ultimate revolution.

Tremble, hetero swine, when we appear before you without our masks.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/swift1.asp

Hows that for starters ? :>

 

[kaz]

Are you one of those that thinks you can't have civil rights unless you were beaten and tortured?

So if I think that government not validating gay marriage is the same as being beaten and tortured, I think that you can't have "civil rights" unless you are beaten and tortured. What's tortured is what you are doing to the English language and basic logic.

 

[bodecea]

burdening society

Holy Shit Bombs Away - I could probably write 4 or 5 pages on that
You've got to be Joking Right ?

Anyway - Mal is perfectly capable of burying your sorry ass on that one, so I'll leave it at that.


OT: Still got some Easter Eggs Left ?

I look forward to your 4 to 5 pages then. Type away.

Sorry, but pressures of the real world put a serious contraint on my time and in providing you sorry ass faggots with an education - so here's some copy and paste for your reading pleasure - remember they'll be a quiz later .

The debate over whether the state ought to recognize gay marriages has thus far focused on the issue as one of civil rights. Such a treatment is erroneous because state recognition of marriage is not a universal right. States regulate marriage in many ways besides denying men the right to marry men, and women the right to marry women. Roughly half of all states prohibit first cousins from marrying, and all prohibit marriage of closer blood relatives, even if the individuals being married are sterile. In all states, it is illegal to attempt to marry more than one person, or even to pass off more than one person as one’s spouse. Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphilis or other venereal diseases. Homosexuals, therefore, are not the only people to be denied the right to marry the person of their choosing.

I do not claim that all of these other types of couples restricted from marrying are equivalent to homosexual couples. I only bring them up to illustrate that marriage is heavily regulated, and for good reason. When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse’s social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse’s health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children.

Granted, these restrictions are not absolute. A small minority of married couples are infertile. However, excluding sterile couples from marriage, in all but the most obvious cases such as those of blood relatives, would be costly. Few people who are sterile know it, and fertility tests are too expensive and burdensome to mandate. One might argue that the exclusion of blood relatives from marriage is only necessary to prevent the conception of genetically defective children, but blood relatives cannot marry even if they undergo sterilization. Some couples who marry plan not to have children, but without mind-reading technology, excluding them is impossible. Elderly couples can marry, but such cases are so rare that it is simply not worth the effort to restrict them. The marriage laws, therefore, ensure, albeit imperfectly, that the vast majority of couples who do get the benefits of marriage are those who bear children.

Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met.

One may argue that lesbians are capable of procreating via artificial insemination, so the state does have an interest in recognizing lesbian marriages, but a lesbian’s sexual relationship, committed or not, has no bearing on her ability to reproduce. Perhaps it may serve a state interest to recognize gay marriages to make it easier for gay couples to adopt. However, there is ample evidence (see, for example, David Popenoe’s Life Without Father) that children need both a male and female parent for proper development. Unfortunately, small sample sizes and other methodological problems make it impossible to draw conclusions from studies that directly examine the effects of gay parenting. However, the empirically verified common wisdom about the importance of a mother and father in a child’s development should give advocates of gay adoption pause. The differences between men and women extend beyond anatomy, so it is essential for a child to be nurtured by parents of both sexes if a child is to learn to function in a society made up of both sexes. Is it wise to have a social policy that encourages family arrangements that deny children such essentials? Gays are not necessarily bad parents, nor will they necessarily make their children gay, but they cannot provide a set of parents that includes both a male and a female.

Some have compared the prohibition of homosexual marriage to the prohibition of interracial marriage. This analogy fails because fertility does not depend on race, making race irrelevant to the state’s interest in marriage. By contrast, homosexuality is highly relevant because it precludes procreation.

Some argue that homosexual marriages serve a state interest because they enable gays to live in committed relationships. However, there is nothing stopping homosexuals from living in such relationships today. Advocates of gay marriage claim gay couples need marriage in order to have hospital visitation and inheritance rights, but they can easily obtain these rights by writing a living will and having each partner designate the other as trustee and heir. There is nothing stopping gay couples from signing a joint lease or owning a house jointly, as many single straight people do with roommates. The only benefits of marriage from which homosexual couples are restricted are those that are costly to the state and society.

Some argue that the link between marriage and procreation is not as strong as it once was, and they are correct. Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage, in every society around the world, has been procreation. In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment. As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage, rather than the good of the children or the social order, has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years. Homosexual marriage is not the cause for any of these pathologies, but it will exacerbate them, as the granting of marital benefits to a category of sexual relationships that are necessarily sterile can only widen the separation between marriage and procreation.

The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction than love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.

The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage - The Tech


The tactics employed by current day Liberals and in particular Gay Activists was developed in the 30s and 40s by the Nazis and Stalinist Russia , was perfected by the totalitarian dictators of Communist China in the 50s and 60s, and utilized extensively by American Liberals since at least the early 70s. Exposed in a fictional format by George Orwell's work of Fiction entitled 1984, it was scientifically first exposed by Robert Jay Lifton in Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of 'Brainwashing' in China in the 60s .

It's incorporation into the Gay Arsenal began with a book After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's (Plume)by Marshall Kirk, a researcher in neuropsychiatry and his sidekick Hunter Madsen. A powerfully persuasive, perverse and popular book within the gay
community it presents an impassioned plea, and a brilliant strategy for homosexual activists to implement an aggressive, concerted and organized campaign to mold public perceptions, and brainwash the young.

The brainwashing and propaganda campaign, based on the Communist Chinese tactics, employs 3 primary methods desensitization jamming and conversion.

1) Desensitization Through a consistent barrage and exposure to homosexuals in the media - primarily the fantasy world of Television and the Movies, but also on radio, and in the print media , the public would become acquainted and accustomed to gays as a normal part of
society and life. Numerous novels, plays, movies, and television shows have tediously worn down and desensitized society from its former disgust with the homosexual.

As per the strategy the image conveyed would be of gays as productive healthy members of society. Although in reality this is far from the truth. Although there are many productive and otherwise admirable gays , the majority are psychologically maladjusted, and an extremely large percentage are infested with a myriad of both organic and psychological maladies arising from their perverted lifestyles, going far beyond HIV/AIDs. This dark side of the Gay Lifestyle was/is taboo - the public must not be made aware of, or exposed to it. Out of sight out of mind.

That fact that the public was/is not permitted to be educated on or even be made aware of the darker side of homosexuality , especially in the early days of the movement can be demonstrated with a 1974 episode of Marcus Welby MD.





The episode tells the story of a teen boy who is sexually molested by his gay science teacher. The episode, --The Outrage-- aired October 8, 1974. Gays exploded immediately - a campaign against the network ensued, gays bombarded over 200 organizations with hate mail and lobbied vigorously. Many major sponsors pulled out ,17 affiliates dropped the program. Some of the affiliates dropping the program were coerced by threats of reprisal if they failed to pull it from their stations . "...Like other media activists Loretta Lotman already had established ties with the management of ... local ABC Affiliate, she warned that if something were not done about the program they would be hit with protests the likes of which had never seen before.." [Target: Prime Time: Advocacy Groups and the Struggle Over Entertainment Television (Communication and Society)]. There are dozens of similar stories , where otherwise uncooperative members of the media were beaten into submission by gay terrorism [See Gay Media Influence]



Jamming The objective of jamming is to force opponents into silence by accusations of homophobia, latent homosexual tendencies and bigotry . The purpose being to create a social stigmatization of anyone whom opposes the Agenda. Jamming is to ridicule the opponent in the eyes of the world and to evoke the "pack mentality" .


Mentally healthy human beings will naturally feel a sense of shame and exclusion when they perceive that they are not part of the the pack, both in their thoughts and actions. The Jammimg tactic is to evoke a sense of shame in the opponent when his opposition to the gay movement and sexual perversion surfaces. Gay propaganda will depict opponents as homophobic and queer hating redneck bigots, as crude obnoxious loudmouths. It can depict them being isolated from the pack, shunned criticized, and despised. Most importantly however, it must depict gays as experiencing horrific persecution and suffering as a result of the "homophobic - queer hating red necks" . The opponent must be made the villain, both in the eyes of the uninvolved, and when possible in their own eyes also.

Jamming is basically psychological terrorism intended to silence expression of or support for any dissenting opinion.
Jamming employs the science of Direct Emotional Modeling and Associative Conditioning.

Jamming makes use of the rules of Associative Conditioning ... and Direct Emotional Modeling. [After The Ball pg. 152-53 ] the bigot ..made to believe ... that others will now despise him .[the]effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof .whether he is conscious of the attack or not....the more he [the bigot] is distracted ... the less conscious he will be of the true nature of the process .

Dr. Laura is a prime example of this facet of the campaign at work, a visible victim of this new assault on freedom of speech and free thought. The LGBT machine mobilized and launched a vicious campaign against Dr. Laura following comments on her shows which accurately described gays as deviant, biological errors and a mistake of nature. Talk show host Dr. Laura Schlessinger was forced to issue an apology to gays.

I deeply regret the hurt this situation has caused the gay and lesbian community..
..While I express my opinions from the perspective of an Orthodox Jew and a staunch defender of the traditional family, in talking about gays and lesbians, some of my words have been poorly chosen. Many people perceive them as hate speech. This fact has been personally and professionally devastating to me as well as to many others...

In 2000 she attempted to launch a Television program and was beaten down by gay agendaites. The show aired only briefly but advertisers largely shunned the program due to harassment and manipulation from the Gay machine. While other shows such as the several early failed attempts by the gay machine to get Ellen [Degennaris] into the public eye met with a number of failures due to poor quality, Dr. Laura, having ample quality, failed due to leftist censorship and manipulation induced by Jamming and Associative conditioning





Associative Conditioning involves a psychological process whereby, when two issues are repeatedly juxtaposed, one's feelings about one thing are transferred to the other. Juxtaposition is placing unrelated or different issues in relation to one another. It will have the tendency to draw attention to the attributes of each. When properly executed it will enhance the undesirable attributes of one by drawing upon the qualities of the other. A good example in current Media manipulation was the Movie X-men.

X-men utilized metaphors traditionally assigned to the gay community in presenting their 'mutant' super heroes and strove to form a mental correlation between their fictional superheroes and real life homosexuals.

X-Men mutants struggle with societies reluctance to accept their mutations, coming out, a term associated with gays coming out of the closet is supplanted with X-Men superheroes "coming out" with their mutations/super powers. The screen writers openly admit that they employed the tactics described here, and in fact boast of their attempts at tampering with the minds of societies youngest members. [See Gay Subtext]. Subliminally, at least, it strives to implant a somewhat hypnotic suggestion in the minds of the impressionable youngsters viewing it that Gays were super-heroes by associating the two.

Other semi-subliminal intrusions are also inserted into the film. Captain America, a symbol of American Patriotism, is depicted as out of touch , somewhat goofy and lacking in substance, he's for all intensive purposes, an idiot. Which is in stark contrast to his character in other films. In one scene , one of the X-men says of Captain America "I can't believe my father idolized that guy !" which was a brazen and somewhat unnoticed attempt to quell any patriotic sense developing in the minds of the youthful viewers.





Direct Emotional Modeling goes back to the pack mentality, it is the natural tendency of human beings to feel what they perceive others to be feeling.

Human beings naturally seek approval and liking from the pack, their crowd. When they witness or perceive someone similar to themselves being disapproved ,disliked and shunned by the pack due to a particular pattern of behavior or spoken thoughts, their social survival... blending in with the pack, dictates that they modify their behavior and rethink their opinions in order to fit in.

Direct Emotional Modeling ensures a symbiotic reaction in the target, it ensures that the target person/people will feel exactly what the other pack member feels and subconsciously transfer it to themselves. It's basically a ripple effect that elicits shame and doubt in the target person, thereby jamming any satisfaction that they would experience under natural conditions. It's a highly effective method of behavioral modification on a societal scale.

The targeted people do not actually need to be made to believe that they are a bad people, and others will now shun and despise him. Such a task attempted directly outside of the subconscious level would be next to impossible. It is possible only through continuous and repetitious conditioning . The more the target is distracted the less conscious he'll be of the true nature of the mental conditioning process which works to the advantage of the puppet masters.

Examples of Direct Emotional Modeling are many, the media is trife with them. Manipulation of language, distortion of facts to suit agendas are business as usual in the Modern Liberal media .


Framing

Framing is a psychological theory which suggests that people will have a different reaction to an idea when it is given a positive spin than they would if it was given a negative spin. Advertising professionals, public relations people and propagandists must possess a clear and concise knowledge and understanding of this concept to successfully spin their spiel. The implications of framing is that our decisions and opinions are based more on our predetermined attitudes rather than factual evidence. In communication, and advertising and propaganda campaigns framing defines how the media will shape mass opinion.

Framing, when properly executed in social discourse short-circuits counter arguments . No one can speak up against an effective frame and say, Why, yes, I do think women should be raped and I do think women should be sex objects. when discussing the Feminist "rape culture" frame . And no one can speak out against the Gay intrusion into public schools under the guise of tolerance and diversity and state I do think students should kill themselves, or I do think gay kids should be beat up.

Again in the Gay Agenda and Gay Infiltration in The Classroom, a scheme of gay infiltration into the classroom using "tolerance" and anti-bullying programs as a perfect path to classroom indoctrination was introduced. Kevin Jennings, a Gay Teacher and former Obama safe school czar said the following ... If the radical right can succeed in portraying us as preying on children, we will lose. Their language .... is laced with subtle and not-so-subtle innuendo that we are after their kids" He then went on to propose a strategy of how they could get at our kids which included a campaign of framing the debate using tolerance and anti-bullying as a tool to get their foot in the door.

The strategy involves linking the Gay Agenda to universal values that all members of society share. Basically to latch onto tolerance, diversity, safety, and peaceful coexistence amongst children of many variations - which is a good thing. It's a tactic referred to as Framing. From this simple dirt path, they seek to build a super-highway into the minds of our youth. Anybody who objected to the Gay Agendas planned indoctrination would be heretofore be labeled a heartless bully, a homophobic demon with a complete disregard for children and students.

This framing short-circuited their arguments [heterosexuals] and left them back-pedaling from day one, .... [N]o one could speak up against our frame and say, Why, yes, I do think students should kill themselves , This allowed us to set the terms for debate. - Kevin Jennings

Gay* Brainwashing Techniques


Research objective

Over the last 30 years, HIV/AIDS has emerged as a major global health challenge. Globally, the trend is that non-communicable diseases and injuries are accounting for a larger share of disease burden, but HIV/AIDS is a notable exception. Maintaining and expanding the response to the epidemic will require assessment of its magnitude and impact at the country level. It is also critical to examine the HIV/AIDS epidemic in the context of other health problems to clearly understand its impact and effectively allocate resources. To this end, its levels and trends must be measured in units, such as disability-adjusted life years, or DALYS, that allow comparison with other major conditions. The authors used the metrics and data produced by the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2010 (GBD 2010) to assess where HIV/AIDS remains a dominant cause of health loss and where disease burden is still increasing.
Analytical approach

In GBD 2010, DALYs are used as a key measurement of disease burden. DALYs are the sum of years of life lived with disability (YLDs) and years of life lost to premature mortality (YLLs). YLDs are disability-weighted prevalence estimates and YLLs are the difference between age of cause-specific death and an ideal lifespan. Researchers derived DALY estimates for HIV/AIDS from the UNAIDS 2012 prevalence estimates, the GBD 2010 disability weights, and their own custom estimates. The custom mortality model arrived at estimates on a country-by-country basis. For 36 countries with complete and high-quality vital registration systems, researchers used CODEm, the standard GBD 2010 cause of death model, so the estimates would make best use of the available data. For the remaining countries where cause of death data was not sufficient for analysis, because there were either too few deaths recorded or systematic misclassification of deaths in vital registration or verbal autopsy studies, researchers used UNAIDS 2012 estimates.
Findings

Researchers found that global HIV/AIDS mortality peaked in 2006 and has been steadily declining at an average annual rate of 4.17% ever since. The decline in HIV/AIDS mortality reflects both declining incidence in some settings as well as the impact of the rapid scale-up of antiretroviral therapy (ART) in some countries with large epidemics. HIV/AIDS was the 33rd most important cause of burden in 1990 and increased dramatically to the 5th cause of burden in 2010. In absolute terms, the burden of HIV increased during that period by 354%.
The distribution of HIV/AIDS burden is not equal across demographics. In 2010, HIV/AIDS was the leading cause of DALYs for both males and females aged 30 to 44. It is also not equal across regions. In 2010, HIV/AIDS was the leading cause of DALYs for 21 countries that fall into four distinctive blocks: Eastern and Southern Africa, Central Africa, the Caribbean, and Thailand. While HIV/AIDS is a global epidemic, a majority of the disease burden is concentrated in a handful of countries with particularly large epidemics. HIV/AIDS is ranked within the top five causes of burden in 26 countries.
Conclusions

The burden of HIV/AIDS has declined in the last half decade, which is likely attributable to declines in incidence, massive scale-up of ART coverage, and increased efforts to prevent transmission from mothers to their children. Clear and compelling links between donor funding for ART programs and scale-up provide strong evidence on the impact of some investments. Despite progress, however, the message is clear: HIV/AIDS is still very much a global problem. The global HIV/AIDS community will need to increasingly focus its attention on settings where the disease is not yet a dominant health problem. Several studies have shown the cost savings and health benefits that can occur if low-burden countries invest in HIV/AIDS prevention now. This may require different political and technical strategies moving forward.
The GBD effort will be updated to provide accurate and timely estimates of disease burden at the country, regional, and global levels. This data can foster a sustained, coherent response to the HIV/AIDS epidemic and other current and future global health challenges.
Citation

Ortblad KF, Lozano R, Murray CJL. The burden of HIV: insights from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. AIDS. 2013; 27:2003–2017.

The burden of HIV: insights from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010 | Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation


(Reuters) - If the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down a federal law defining marriage as between a man and woman, the newfound rights for gay married couples may bear something not so welcome - a bigger tax burden.

That's because with equality, gay couples will face the same tax woes of many heterosexual couples with similar incomes, including the tax hit known in America as the marriage penalty.

Taxpayers filing as married couples may be forced to pay higher taxes as their collective income crosses into a higher tax bracket sooner than if they were filing separately.

Oral arguments on Wednesday gave gay marriage backers hope the court would overturn the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) after a majority of the nine justices raised concerns about the law's validity under the U.S. Constitution.

Taxes are at the very heart of the challenge to DOMA.

The case involves Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer, a New York couple. When Spyer died in 2009, DOMA prevented Windsor from enjoying one of the biggest tax breaks enjoyed by heterosexual Americans - the exemption from federal estate tax on wealth passed from one spouse to another.

If the law is struck down, the ruling extending the exemption to gay and lesbian surviving spouses would also clear the way to more than 1,100 federal benefits, rights and burdens linked to marriage status.

Cynthia Leachmoore, a tax preparer in Soquel, California, has about 40 same-sex married couples as customers ranging from teachers to Silicon Valley workers.

A handful of them have joint incomes that top $1 million. They're facing $25,000 to $30,000 more in federal and state taxes if DOMA goes down and they file taxes jointly, she said.

"Most of them don't care. They'd really like to be able to say that they were married" on tax returns, Leachmoore said. "That's more important to them."

COMPLICATIONS

Married gay couples would see other benefits, including a break in taxes now paid on health insurance and greater access to federal family and medical leave.

There are some 130,000 same-sex married couples in the United States as estimated by the Census Bureau, and nearly 650,000 same-sex couples, married and not, in total.

The Byzantine U.S. tax code's marriage definition is not consistent. In some sections, the marriage provisions are defined for a "husband and wife." Other places say "spouse."

If the law is struck down, the Internal Revenue Service may need Congress to clarify the tax code, or the Obama administration may say same-sex married couples will be treated the same as opposite-sex marriages, said Annette Nellen, a tax professor at San Jose State University.

GOOD FOR TAX COFFERS

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office in 2004 estimated that recognition of gay marriage would, on net, help the budget's bottom line by $1 billion a year over 10 years. The increased revenue would account for about 0.1 percent of total federal revenues at the time.

The Williams Institute, a unit of the University of California at Los Angeles School of Law, estimates that gay marriage may be good also for the fiscal health of states and localities that legalize it.

Of the 50 states, 31 have constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. It is legal in nine states and Washington, D.C.

The remaining states' policies vary, with some recognizing marriage from other states, some providing some of the legal benefits of marriage and others denying marriage by state laws.

Williams Institute estimated that if Rhode Island legalized marriage, its coffers would gain $1.2 million in 2010 dollars over three years, largely due to lower spending on social welfare programs and increased income tax revenue and marriage license fees.

That is the small slice of the hundreds of millions in operating deficits Rhode Island is expected to be working under in the next five years, as estimated by a governor's report.

Because of differing state laws, it is unclear what the impact might be in states with laws disallowing gay marriage.

Brian Moulton, an attorney with the Human Rights Campaign, said that if he married legally in Washington, D.C., and moved to Oklahoma, where gay marriage is not legal, the federal government might still recognize the union.

But Todd Solomon, a partner at law firm McDermott Will & Emery and author of a book on domestic partner benefits, said he was not so sure that would be the case.

"It is an open question as to what happens in Oklahoma," he said. "Each state will still be allowed to legislate marriage."

INCOME, ESTATE, HEALTH TAXES

Although the case was about the estate tax, only 3,600 estates owed the estate tax in 2012, according to government figures, and the wealthiest Americans pay most of it.

The end of DOMA might also save same-sex couples from having to pay some federal taxes on healthcare benefits they receive through a spouse's employer. Unmarried domestic partners on average owe an extra $1,000 annually in taxes on these benefits because they are now taxed, according to Williams.

"Everyone will get a benefit if they were carrying health insurance," said Nanette Lee Miller, head of non-traditional family practice at accounting firm Marcum LLP in San Francisco.

The impact on Social Security benefits will be mixed. DOMA prevents same sex couples from claiming the survivors benefits extended to married couples. But Social Security recipients might face greater taxes on their benefits because they will hit the level where the benefits begin to be taxed sooner if married.

(Writing by Kim Dixon; Editing by Howard Goller, Mary Milliken and Tim Dobbyn)

Analysis: Gay marriage rights may carry bigger U.S. tax burden for some | Reuters


At the White House in 2003, President George W. Bush hosted a celebratory 25th reunion for his Yale University classmates. When he graduated in 1968, Yale was an all-male school, but one of his college brothers had gotten a sex change and was now a woman. Standing on the receiving line, she debated how to introduce herself to the conservative president. The best she could come up with was: “You might remember me as Peter when we left Yale…" Without skipping a beat, Bush stepped in, “And now you’ve come back as yourself.“

It might seem strange that this conservative president was so accepting of his transsexual guest, but in good and bad ways, George W. Bush is a quintessential American.

Liberated from the burden of homophobia

If America has a philosophical tradition, it’s a combination of pragmatism and pluralism. We have never had an official church or a royalty that could impose and maintain a unifying order. As a result, we are not limited by a religious tradition or orthodoxy. If something no longer works, we drop it and invent something new. Our society is a pluralistic collection of various groups who battle over ideas through the democratic political system. No one group can claim they possess the truth based on tradition. Even conservative politicians must argue that their ideas make practical sense today. Our pluralism might seem to inspire chaos, but it is actually key to America’s dynamism.

This pragmatic American ethos explains the remarkably quick success of the gay rights movement. Just 40 years ago, more than half of the states had sexual psychopath laws that officially designated homosexuals as a threat to society. The American Psychiatric Association listed homosexuality as a mental illness. Employers would regularly fire employees for being gay. In New York City, it was illegal for bars to serve alcohol to anyone who was openly homosexual.

I’m a straight man who wrote a book about why the American gay rights movement succeeded so quickly. I’m often asked why I care so deeply about equal rights for homosexuals. The answer is simple: the gay rights movement has benefited me and the rest of American society.

Discrimination burdens both the oppressor and the oppressed. Those who carry around prejudices constantly find themselves interacting with people who make them anxious and angry. They are less able to work well with gay coworkers and have tense relationships with gay family members. Who would want that psychological burden? Fortunately, the gay rights movement has liberated many of us straights from the burden of homophobia.

Abandoning self-defeating policies

As a patriotic American, I have seen how equal rights for gays have allowed millions of people to contribute fully to the success of the nation. The U.S. Military used to have a policy of discharging gay soldiers. The absurdity of this policy became clear at the height of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, when the military was discharging hundreds of highly skilled personnel, including members of the Special Forces and Arab language specialists. American pragmatism kicked in and we abandoned our military’s self-defeating discriminatory policy.

You can see American pragmatism at work in our debate over adoption rights for gays. The practical need to find homes for orphans trumped prejudice. The majority recognized the reality that children who grew up with gay parents turned out to be wonderful adults. The minority who refused to accept this fact lost in the democratic process.

In the debate over gay marriage, opponents may mention tradition, but their most successful argument has been that gay marriage would somehow undermine the institution of marriage for everyone. It’s an argument based on a practical threat to the future rather than a need to uphold the past. The problem for gay marriage opponents was that as more and more states began allowing gays to marry the supposed threat to straight marriages never materialized. Once again, American pragmatism kicked in. Why wouldn’t we want to help gays and lesbians build stable families? Within a few years, the poll numbers flipped, and now a majority of Americans support gay marriage.

Lessons for Europe

Looking at Europe, there is a divide between the Protestant northern countries and the Catholic south and east. The Protestant countries have caught up with the U.S. and, in some ways, even surpassed us. Catholic countries are also beginning to change. Pope Francis has begun shifting the rhetoric of the Catholic Church from condemnation of homosexuals to focusing on charity and poverty. That shift bodes well for the future of gay rights in western Europe.

In Russia, Vladimir Putin is pushing an anti-gay agenda in a cynical attempt to curry favor with the Russian Orthodox Church. Clearly, this former KGB agent is not motivated by a commitment to traditional religious values. He is trying to solidify his support with the common man by demonizing a minority group – a tactic that we have seen all too often in history. Putin says the gay rights movement poses a threat to Russian society; the reality is that it poses a threat to his authoritarian regime.

The American experience demonstrates that the greatest obstacle to tyranny is pluralism. A free society needs unpopular groups who are able to air their ideas, spark public debate and challenge the system. The rise of the gay rights movement in America did just that and succeeded in changing the minds of hundreds of millions.

Whether Americans support or oppose gay activist groups, almost all of us defend their ability to change our society and see it as a tribute to our freedom. The battle for gay rights in Russia has greater implications for Russian society as a whole, and Putin knows it. If gays could succeed in establishing their rights, it would demonstrate that the Putin regime couldn’t control public debate. Even a small success would mark the beginning of a revival of liberty from which all Russians, gay and straight, would benefit — just as all Americans benefit from the pragmatic extension of liberties that we continue to experience.

Gay Rights and the American Way - The European


What benefit does homosexuality provide in society?
by Matt Slick

Does the lifestyle of homosexuality benefit society? Now, I'm not talking about how homosexuals can attain their sexual jollies and make themselves feel good. I'm talking about the benefits to society as a whole. How would the proponents of homosexuality answer the question? Well, to find out, I asked this question on the CARM forums and received many interesting replies. I cited several of them and provided responses.

1. "Why does homosexuality have to benefit society? How does red hair benefit society? Or white skin?"

Homosexuality is a lifestyle, a behavior. Lifestyles and behaviors can have beneficial or harmful effects on one's self and others. We know this is true because the homosexual community has a high degree of diseases, such as AIDS, which affect their own health and even the health of others, i.e., contaminated transfusions, etc. Likewise, the great cost of fighting AIDS is a drain on society. Would anyone say this a benefit? I wouldn't. But, to say that homosexuality is essentially the same as red hair or white skin is a mistake. Homosexuality, as I said, is a lifestyle and behavior. Red hair and white skin are neither lifestyles nor behaviors, so comparing them is inappropriate.

2. "Since when does anything have to have a benefit?"

This doesn't answer the question. Simply to ask whether not something must have a benefit or not basically ignores the rather prevalent and even domineering attitude that homosexuals have in regard to getting their view accepted by mainstream society. They are very practiced at getting homosexuality to be included in movies, TV, and radio, etc. Undoubtedly they are promoting their lifestyle for a reason, and I am sure they are not promoting it because they think it is bad. They must be promoting it because they think is good. If something is good and worth promoting, then shouldn't it have a real benefit to society? So, the question still stands. Does the lifestyle of homosexuality benefit society?

3. "What benefit is a fossil to anyone? Yet it exists. What benefit is a galaxy? Yet it exists. But according to some, gay people alone have to prove they benefit society before we are allowed to exist."

This response is similar to number one above, and it too confuses a lifestyle with things. Fossils simply exist, but fossils are not a lifestyle that is being thrust upon our culture, in schools, movies, TV, etc. Mere existence of something isn't the issue. It is homosexuality, which is by definition a sexual behavior. When we look at what is happening in society and how it is being promoted so heavily, we must ask what benefit does it have?

4. "The same benefit heterosexuality provides society. This is kind of a silly question."

If homosexuality has the same benefit as heterosexuality, then we need to ask how homosexuality can provide, for example, children. It is only heterosexuality that can do that. Children grow up and provide the furthering of society with new ideas, new hopes, and new dreams. So, if homosexuality has the same benefits as heterosexuality, then how does it provide children? Remember, the response was "the same benefit heterosexuality provides..."

5. Not sure who you are talking to but there is no need for anything to be of benefit to society for it to be acceptable.

Again, this is not answering the question. But still, the response to number two above would be appropriate here since homosexuality is being promoted in society.

6. "Why can't a homosexual brother help his heterosexual sibling in raising his or her children, and thus contribute to the procreation of humanity?"

But helping someone raise a child is not an issue of homosexuality. It is an issue of helping, giving, and caring. It would be like saying why can't a Chinese person help his sibling by raising a child? What does being Chinese have to do with it? Of course homosexuals can be loving and nurturing and kind, but that isn't the issue any more than if a monogamous atheist with subjective morality can be a help in raising children. The question deals with the benefit of the lifestyle, the practice, and the promotion of homosexuality in society.

7. "What value do left-handed people add to society"

Left-handed people as well as right-handed people can fix cars, drive airplanes, perform surgery, etc. But you don't see a Left-handed Lobbyist Organization (LLO) promoting left-handedness and demanding special rights due to their being left-handed, trying to get it accepted in school, and have it be promoted in movies and TV so as to alter the moral fabric of society. Being left-handed is not an issue of morality. Homosexuality is. So, we have to ask what benefit to society does the sexual act of a man with a man, or a woman with a woman, have for society?

As you can see, the responses weren't very well thought out and failed to actually answer the question. But this is typical. Instead of listing benefits, attacks and other questions are offered. This is a demonstration of the inability of many to be able to address this difficult issue.


What benefit does homosexuality provide in society? | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

What is the Gay Agenda ?

As per U.S. Rep. Barney Frank the "gay agenda" is to be protected against violent crimes driven by bigotry, it's to be able to get married, it's to be able to get a job, and it's to be able to fight for our country.....

As per the Family Research Council, the group which initially coined the term "gay agenda" with their educational series "hidden gay agenda" the "gay-agenda" is an assault on Christian values, a frontal assault on God, and an anal assault on masculinity. It is an evil sinister plot to destroy the foundation of the Family.

The Institute for the Scientific Investigation of Sexuality {fore-runner of Family Research Council} made some startling, possibly sensationalist claims , such as, just shy of 80% of gay men have sexually transmitted diseases 75% regularly ingest their partners poop ... though it presented some legitimate and viable data it did for the anti-gay movement what "reefer-madness" did for the marijuana lobby. Some of their later material such as Stonewall: 25 Years of Deception, is more sophisticated and verifiably factual .

I see the Gay Agenda as a devious assault on reality, and on the morality of our youth. The perpetuation of seething lies designed to fester in the minds of society and the pitiful homosexual individuals who are afflicted by this pitiful Mental Disorder {Is Homosexuality a Disease ?} . Homosexual activists claim they only seek acceptance and tolerance from mainstream society, but as per Marshall Kirk, a prophet of the Gay Agenda - "In the early states of any campaign to reach straight America, the masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior 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 -- and only later his unsightly derriere! "

We, the straight community{ies} , the un-afflicted heterosexuals of the World are the Camel of which he speaks, and I would implore that the degenerates of the Gay community to keep their eyes off of, and agenda out of our "unsightly derrieres" !

<PageTop
Homosexual Media Manipulation

James Komack was the producer of many top Television programs of the 60s and 70s Welcome Back Kotter, Chico and the man, Love American Style and others. In **The homosexual revolution: End time abomination** by David A Noebel , he is credited with the following statement. "Do you know the most powerful lobby in the entertainment business? Bigger than blacks or women's lib or any nationalist or racist group. It's the gays. If you don't have the approval of the Gay Media Task Force, you don't go on the air." Perhaps this is one reason that you will rarely see a homosexual "bad guy" in the media.

Homosexual propaganda has been around for many years, the spark that ignited their present day stranglehold however was a brilliant book **After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's **by Marshall Kirk, a researcher in neuropsychiatry and Hunter Madsen.

This powerfully persuasive, perverse and popular book within the gay community presents an impassioned plea, a call to arms if you will for homosexual activists to implement an aggressive, concerted and organized campaign to mold public perceptions. The book further lays out a blueprint, a methodology that has been rigidly implemented and enforced over the past 2 decades . Their rationalization for launching such a campaign is that people who do not agree with, or adhere to the Gay Agenda are "bigots, haters, or ignorants". The book further attempts to justify gay activists use of unscrupulous tactics , mass deceit, brainwashing, lying and malicious slander, blackmail, intimidation and violence. Kirk and Madsens book states the following ....

"All sexual morality should be abolished" (pages 64 to 67)
Homosexual agenda can succeed by "jamming" and "confusing" adversaries, so as to block or counteract the "rewarding of prejudice" (page 153);
All opposing disagreements to homosexual behavior is rooted in "Homophobia, Homohatred, and Prejudice" (page 112)
A media campaign should portray only the most favorable side of gays (page 170);
Discourage anti-gay harassment by linking and calling all those that have opposing opinions to latent homosexuality (i.e., call people homophobic) (page 227)
It is acceptable to call people "Homophobic" or "Haters" if they do not agree 100% with the gay agenda views, opinions, or behavior. (page 23)
Throughout the 1990s, the media message pertaining to treatment of Homosexuals was "Tolerance". However, as society became more tolerant of their affliction largely through educational and media mind programming we have become less tolerant of those who refuse to subscribe to this political correctness. It’s difficult to fathom, but there was a time not long ago, when morality and virtue was celebrated in mainstream society. Today, anybody in the public eye particularly the mainstream media who dares to disagree with homosexuality or homosexual viewpoints will more than likely be fired, branded and blacklisted.
Through the media, homosexuals have won the tolerance and sympathies of the huddled masses.

Numerous novels, plays, movies, and television shows have tediously worn down and desensitized society from its former disgust with the homosexual.

<PageTop





Chronology of Gay Activism and Terrorism

1970 New York Post columnist Pete Hamill refers to gays as “slim-waisted freakcreeps” Gay activists picketed the Post and demanded Hamill be fired. The editor apologized, but defended the editorial freedom of his writers.

1970 Gay activists occupied the offices of Harpers Magazine after the magazine ran a cover story “Homo/Hetero: The Struggle for Sexual Identity.” that described homosexuality as "an affront to our rationality living evidence of our despair of ever finding a sensible, an explainable design to the world."


1972 - The Gay Media Task Force is created by the National Gay Task Force to be an organization to manipulate and control network television programming, theoretically as it addressed gay issues.

1972 ..... the networks tilted against the guardians of morality. They began to send scripts to gay Gay consultants routinely. "Anything that crops up in a script that is even remotely gay" said the writer Allan Burns , "They get it and they really make themselves heard" **Inside Prime Time** by Todd Gitlin
1972 Gay activist, turned journalist Mark Segal feigns disdain that he couldn’t dance with a gay partner on a dance show, infiltrates an ABC affiliate in Philadelphia and interrupts the news broadcast. He later pulled similar charades against the Johnny Carson on the Tonight Show when he stormed out of the Audience durring a live show, on the Mike Douglas show and Today shows. Variety claimed that the activities of Segal alone, not to mention other gay activities had cost the entertainment industry $750,000 in costs including lost advertising revenue.

1973 - Gay propagandist/activist invades CBS News with Walter Cronkite.

1974 A popular and long-running medical drama on ABC - Marcus Welby MD tells the story of a teen boy who is sexually molested by his gay science teacher. The episode, “The Outrage” aired October 8, 1974. Gays squawked immediately - a campaign against the network ensued, gays bombarded over 200 organizations with hate mail and lobbied vigorously. Many major sponsors pulled out ,17 affiliates dropped the program. Some of the affiliates dropping the program were coerced by threats of reprisal if they failed to pull it from their stations . "...Like other media activists Loretta Lotman already had established ties with the management of ... local ABC Affiliate.... she warned that if something were not done about the program they would be hit with protests the likes of which thaye had never seen before.." **Target: Prime Time: Advocacy Groups and the Struggle Over Entertainment Television (Communication and Society)**

1977 Florida gay rights/privileges ordinance sparks strong opposition . Former Miss Oklahoma beauty pageant winner, and outspoken critic of homosexuality Anita Bryant led the campaign that successfully had the law repealed and she paid dearly. Her career came to a screeching halt, her credibility and reputation was viciously assaulted . She was at one point physically assaulted with a pie while attempting to exercise her right to Free Speech. Beware all those who oppose the Gay Agenda Anita Bryant's career was destroyed by her campaign against "militant homosexuality" She ultimately suffered a divorce, needed counseling, and was bankrupted.

**The Anita Bryant Story**
Anita Bryant assaulted - YouTube
Like Satan, Anita Bryant keeps coming back. 2009
Uma Thurman to Play Notorious Anti-Gay Activist in ‘Anita’ 2013

1978 - A Question of Love, ABC TV movie airs based on a lesbian mother and her struggle for custody of her children. Part of manipulated trend to positive TV images of gays , acknowledged as a result of gay activists.

1980 - CBS Reports Episode “Gay Power, Gay Politics” draws strong criticism for what the gay camp referred to as malicious inaccuracies and slanting of the news. The program did heavily focus on the sexual practices of gay males , in particular sadomasochism. The National News Council, stated that CBS had violated journalistic standards through misrepresentation as well as through deceptive editing. I find it curious that the National News Council never says anything when CBS manipulates in favor of the Left leaning liberals and democrats which it has consistently for decades. **See Dan Rather**

1983 NY Times did not cover a fundraiser for Gay Men’s Health Crisis in Madison Square Garden - leads to protests and eventual apology from the Times for not helping in promoting the Gay Agenda

1985 "....You can handle homosexuality - as long as you handle it a lovely, tolerant fashion that will not upset the gay liberation lobby" - Earnest Kinov writer, screenwriter and playwright.

1987 Marshall K. Kirk and Erastes Pill wrote a strategy series of articles entitled "The Overhauling of Straight America" which appeared in Guide Magazine. They wrote ... "In the early states of any campaign to reach straight America, the masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior 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 -- and only later his unsightly derriere! "

1987 A study by The Center for Media and Public Affairs reported that only 9% of the characters depicted on TV with AIDS are identified as homosexual ,while in actuality, over 70 percent of such persons have AIDS or HIV. This is in accordance with the unwritten homosexual lobby's demand to define AIDS as non-gay disease.

1988 episode of NBC's "Midnight Caller" originally portrayed a homosexual as an AIDS carrier who deliberately infects straight woman, a gaggle of gays gathered and more rapidly flocked to NBC Studios and vigorously protested loudly outside the set. The script was changed to appease the pervs, and the program executives humbly kissed their royal infected derrieres while apologizing profusely.

1988, Cosmopolitan magazine published an article "Reassuring News About AIDS: A Doctor Tells Why You May Not Be At Risk." which attempted to inform the public that in unprotected vaginal sex between a man and a woman , the risk of HIV transmission was basically nonexistant, even if the man was infected. This did not fit within the narrow confines of the warped reality that the Homosexual agenda was attempting to ram down societies throat. When lobbying and coercion against the Author and Cosmopolitan failed, the gay agendaites decided they "had to shut down Cosmo." They produced a video entitled, "Doctor, Liars, and Women: AIDS Activists Say No To Cosmo." Activists protested vigorously at the Hearst building (parent company of Cosmopolitan) chanting "Say no to Cosmo!"

1989 Andy Rooney states on air that the year had brought recognition “of the fact that many of the ills which kill us are self-induced: too much alcohol, too much food, drugs, homosexual unions, cigarettes. They’re all known to lead quite often to premature death.” shortly thereafter Rooney made a racial comment “I’ve believed all along that most people are born with equal intelligence, but blacks have watered down their genes because the less intelligent ones are the ones that have the most children. They drop out of school early, do drugs, and get pregnant.” he is suspended for the racial comment , a Gay uproar follows because he was not disciplined for the Gay comment.

1990 The Sacramento Union publishes several editorials against pro-homosexual activities. Vandals quickly destroyed over a hundred of the newspaper's vending machines. The vandalized machines were plastered with stickers from the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power / ACT UP .

1990 The Wall Street Journal editorialized that it seems to be entirely permissible to discuss homosexuality.....only if you maintain "the approved point of view."

1991 During the height of Operation Desert Storm, ACT UP activist John Weir and two other activists entered the studio of the CBS Evening News at the beginning of the broadcast. They shouted "AIDS is news. Fight AIDS, not Arabs!" Even anchorman Dan Rather, that befuddled bastion of left wing lunacy was not immune to the Gay onslaught. . The same night ACT UP demonstrated at the studios of the MacNeil/Lehrer Newshour. The next day activists displayed banners in Grand Central Terminal that said "Money for AIDS, not for war" and "One AIDS death every 8 minutes." One of the banners was handheld and displayed across the train timetable and the other attached to bundles of balloons that lifted it up to the ceiling of the station's enormous main room. These actions were part of a coordinated protest called "Day of Desperation."[Wikipedia]

1992 Marketing reports indicate that gays have more expendable income than normal people, mainstream advertisers began pouring money into gay publications. Some advertising revenues nearly double.

1994 Roseanne TV episode features a kiss between two females.
1997 Lesbian Television personality Ellen Degenerate .... uh I mean Degeneres, has her TV character also come out, ratings climb.

1996 Los Angeles magazine cover story by gay journalist David Ehrenstein,, argued that gay material was more persuasive than the average viewer might have thought. "You may not have noticed, but your favorite sitcoms are written by gays and lesbians." informed readers with a tongue in cheek nod to the idea of a gay sitcom writer mafia." {Gay TV and Straight America Pg. 163}

2012 DC Comics relaunches its Green Lantern character as Gay, the original character was a married father of two who first appeared in 1940

2011 - Gallup poll shows that U.S. adults estimate that 25% of Americans are gay or lesbian.
52% of American Adults estimate that at least one in five Americans are gay or lesbian
35% estimate that more than one in four are.
Few put the figure at less than 15%.

The actual number ??? .... drum roll .... envelope please ..... and the answer is ....... LESS THAN 4% are Gay !!!!!
That's correct only 1 - 4% of the U.S. population is Gay or Lesbian. Why in Gods name would so many allegedly educated {or indoctrinated as the case may be} and supposedly informed American Adults believe that so very many of their countrymen are homosexuals ? .... drum roll ..... the answer is ....Gross over representation and coverage by the Media, both in Entertainment Fiction {Soaps, Sitcoms, Movies..} as well as News coverage.

Almost any show currently airing on television features at least one homosexual. Daytime talk shows, Soaps, and comedies are rampant with out of closet card carrying homosexual characters. In addition, all these characters are not permitted to display character flaws, they are either wealthy, educated, and happy OR depressed and oppressed by perceived mistreatment from normal people.

2013 FemTechNet - A feminist internet group is organizing a program entitled "Storming Wikipedia," and are calling for women to edit the site and add feminist stories . Now I see nothing wrong with giving equal representation to the contributions of Women to science , history, the arts and so on, the problem lies in the adverse and perverted agenda which the controlling agents for this organization espouse. A warped world view, generally completely out of context is what they envision and will attempt to implant within the pages of the most trafficked reference site available.

Yale University, Brown University, Pennsylvania State University and many others will offer college credits to students who help to impose the feminist view on wikipedia readers. ‘Storming Wikipedia’: Colleges offer credit to students who enter ‘feminist thinking’ into Wikipedia

<PageTop
** The quote from Michael Swift of the Boston Gay Community News was originally satirical in nature. Nonetheless, the remarks are terrifying and should give every sane person, whether gay or straight, reason to contemplate the real motives of homosexual activism. The article in its entirety is available atMichael Swift: "Gay Revolutionary"

Gay and Lesbian Media influences

We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us.

Women, you cry for freedom. You say you are no longer satisfied with men; they make you unhappy. We, connoisseurs of the masculine face, the masculine physique, shall take your men from you then. We will amuse them; we will instruct them; we will embrace them when they weep. Women, you say you wish to live with each other instead of with men. Then go and be with each other. We shall give your men pleasures they have never known because we are foremost men too, and only one man knows how to truly please another man; only one man can understand the depth and feeling, the mind and body of another man.

All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked. Instead, legislation shall be passed which engenders love between men.

All homosexuals must stand together as brothers; we must be united artistically, philosophically, socially, politically and financially. We will triumph only when we present a common face to the vicious heterosexual enemy.

If you dare to cry faggot, fairy, queer, at us, we will stab you in your cowardly hearts and defile your dead, puny bodies.

We shall write poems of the love between men; we shall stage plays in which man openly caresses man; we shall make films about the love between heroic men which will replace the cheap, superficial, sentimental, insipid, juvenile, heterosexual infatuations presently dominating your cinema screens. We shall sculpt statues of beautiful young men, of bold athletes which will be placed in your parks, your squares, your plazas. The museums of the world will be filled only with paintings of graceful, naked lads.

Our writers and artists will make love between men fashionable and de rigueur, and we will succeed because we are adept at setting styles. We will eliminate heterosexual liaisons through usage of the devices of wit and ridicule, devices which we are skilled in employing.

We will unmask the powerful homosexuals who masquerade as heterosexuals. You will be shocked and frightened when you find that your presidents and their sons, your industrialists, your senators,your mayors, your generals, your athletes, your film stars, your television personalities, your civic leaders, your priests are not the safe, familiar, bourgeois, heterosexual figures you assumed them to be. We are everywhere; we have infiltrated your ranks. Be careful when you speak of homosexuals because we are always among you; we may be sitting across the desk from you; we may be sleeping in the same bed with you.

There will be no compromises. We are not middle-class weaklings. Highly intelligent, we are the natural aristocrats of the human race, and steely-minded aristocrats never settle for less. Those who oppose us will be exiled.

We shall raise vast private armies, as Mishima did, to defeat you. We shall conquer the world because warriors inspired by and banded together by homosexual love and honor are invincible as were the ancient Greek soldiers.

The family unit-spawning ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy and violence--will be abolished. The family unit, which only dampens imagination and curbs free will, must be eliminated. Perfect boys will be conceived and grown in the genetic laboratory. They will be bonded together in communal setting, under the control and instruction of homosexual savants.

All churches who condemn us will be closed. Our only gods are handsome young men. We adhere to a cult of beauty, moral and esthetic. All that is ugly and vulgar and banal will be annihilated. Since we are alienated from middle-class heterosexual conventions, we are free to live our lives according to the dictates of the pure imagination. For us too much is not enough.

The exquisite society to emerge will be governed by an elite comprised of gay poets. One of the major requirements for a position of power in the new society of homoeroticism will be indulgence in the Greek passion. Any man contaminated with heterosexual lust will be automatically barred from a position of influence. All males who insist on remaining stupidly heterosexual will be tried in homosexual courts of justice and will become invisible men.

"We shall rewrite history, history filled and debased with your heterosexual lies and distortions. We shall portray the homosexuality of the great leaders and thinkers who have shaped the world. We will demonstrate that homosexuality and intelligence and imagination are inextricably linked, and that homosexuality is a requirement for true nobility, true beauty in a man.

"We shall be victorious because we are fueled with the ferocious bitterness of the oppressed who have been forced to play seemingly bit parts in your dumb, heterosexual shows throughout the ages. We too are capable of firing guns and manning the barricades of the ultimate revolution.

Tremble, hetero swine, when we appear before you without our masks.

Internet History Sourcebooks Project

Hows that for starters ? :>