The Ethical Boundaries of the Gay Agenda: A New Millenium of Free Speech

[Father Time]

Err because some of them aren't satisfied with separate but equal I guess.

I can understand why that wouldn't be good enough for races but I don't understand why it isn't good enough for gay marriage.

One person said that if we do separate the two we'd have to make a lot of rewrites in the current law to make them equal (i.e. everytime the word marriage appears change it to include civil unions as well, or something like that) and just giving them the term marriage would prevent that.

Although if you make those massive re-writes than I don't see the point.

 

["b0xcar*girl*]

[/QUOTE]Don't know if that number is accurate but homosexuals are the minority in this country. So, why all the cow-towing to them? Because that's what this country has become, a country that favors the minority and the majority be damned.[/QUOTE]

I completely agree with this. Read the last quote on my signature. I'm tired of everybody (meaning the minority with the LoUd voice) plowing over my beliefs with a steam roller. That's why I joined this forum. To let others know what I think.

 

[sidneyworld]

You have free speech. Just as your employer has the right to fire your ass if they don't like that speech. Freedom of speech doesn't guarantee you the right to say whatever you want with no consequences, it guarantees the right of no government sponsored consequences.

Prejean has her beliefs, and her boss doesn't like them. She needs to take personal responsibility for her own actions.

If she were gay and her answer went the other way, and her boss disagreed with her beliefs, there is no way she would have been fired. Free speech should be a 2 way street.

Hey, I did not write that. When you post, make sure you credit the correct author. Thanks.

Anne Marie (sidneyworld)

 

[sidneyworld]

Especially when someone quotes something that is completely opposite to what my point is. Sheeeesh!

am

 

[sidneyworld]

Today marks a new beginning in the fight for free speech in this country. Here we have a young lady who was asked a question about Same Sex Marriages. She answered sincerely. Now she's fired. After several attempts to meet her commitment to appear for various functions, she was blackballed and advised that her only responsibility was to win and keep a smile on her face through all of it. Her attorneys advised pageant officials of the increasing evidence in their possession that indeed she was fired because of being politicaly incorrect. That along with emails and testimony from organizations who had engagements set for her appearances which were subsequently cancelled, but not by Ms. Prejean.

This is about the Massive Gay Agenda in this country which has become the New Millennium of Free Speech. But it's not win, but an incredible loss for Homosexuals in this country.

Nothing could be more obvious. This young lady now has a huge lawsuit against Pageant Officials because she kept a record of every engagement contact at the advise of her attorney. She will prove, with great backing, that she was PREVENTED from touring the country because of the Gay Community's fear that she will continue to assert her position regarding same sex marriages. I back her up completely!

These kind of threats to a person's career, job and occupation because of the Homosexual agenda will come to a halt after her attorneys are finished with them. But there's so much going on here, for a very long time which begs the question about the Ethical Boundaries of the Gay Agenda.

I think many of us agree that no human being should have their civil liberties compromised due to race, creed, color and, sexual preferences. In fact, I never really understood how the gay community became such a focus back then, given the fact that it was simply a difference of sexuality. Something I've always considered as quite personal. That is until I realized that operating from a back door, living in a closet is in itself a tremendous burden on their dignity and quality of life. Their preferred life. One that for centuries has been viewed as deviant and gross and misaligned in terms of following the moral majority of this country.

I suppose, in the scheme of things, I am still rather ignorant in attempting to understand how all of this became an issue, because it is very difficult to stereotype homosexuality. They come from all walks of life, all races, creeds, colors with one common denominator. Their sexuality. This thing that even today is still pretty much locked up behind closed doors as something very intimate and very much our own business. It's unlikely that anyone would ask about someones sexuality. Even if it came to pass that that person clearly has a same gender preference. The more sensible individual would most likely respect the "privacy" of that individual, regardless of any disclosure.

But the evolution of strife between the moral majority and homosexuals clearly indicates that something is wrong. Not with the diverse sense of sexuality, but with the open introduction of such a lifestyle where it suddenly became a political vehicle. As I recall, the first legal battle that came to play in the City was Right-of Survivorship for a New York City Apartment. This successful case was the first of it's kind. Two people living together for many years in the same apartment with only one named occupant should have the right to stay in that apartment should the occupant on record die. There are many logistics to this on both sides. New York City Landlords, because of rent control, fought the battle because they would still be locked into a rent controlled situation of that lease should there be a successful conveyance of named occupant. It was not a matter of homosexual prejudice. The landlords were just losing money in the long run, as you might expect. But because only one "single" occupant could sign a lease until the law was changed, (with the exception of students), as opposed to a married couple or an immediate family member under the same roof, it was believed that no right-of-survivorship could be asserted.

They were wrong. It was determined that to begin with, evidence of substantial contribution to the maintenance of that apartment would have to be established. Rent receipts, house insurance, household items, etc. The unnamed individual would have to clearly establish that he/she has played an equal role in their co-habitation at such a residence. In the twenty five cases that soon surfaced, almost all had established this criteria. There was no mention of homosexuality in this legislation, but certainly within all the pleadings, motions, briefs and testimony during this proceeding. The point being that there was no reason the second or third or fourth individual (having met this criteria) could not be later named on a lease who was not a spouse or immediate family member or legal dependant.

I completely agreed with this. And there is no ethical boundary under such legislation nor does it encroach on anyone's civil liberties. Not in the least.

Then came the issue of health insurance. Another successful proceeding which established the term "Life-Partner." This was also a first in history where it was argued that if someone spent a certain amount of time, under the same circumstances and criteria, as with right-of-survivorship, they should be able to provide health insurance to the other, as they are both equally dependant on each other's survival. This too was plausible, but suddenly the balance of equal rights became disproportioned because the legal definition of a "Life-partner" was successfully established to refer exclusively to gay partners. Not heterosexuals living together.

Thus the evolution of a bona fide legal union between two individuals of the same sex. On a legal standpoint, this was indeed prejudicial and outrageous and later changed to include and equally accommodate the heterosexual couple, but with a great deal of modification, as you might imagine. But the controversy took many turns once these two primary pieces of legislation came to fruition. Suddenly the gay community became empowered beyond any legal structure, and came out completely. But what came out is where the ethical boundaries comes to mind.

Naturally I would have to mention right of adoption of a baby and the subsequent concept of Same Sex Marriages. But weirder things have been passed historically in various states on the topic of marriage and who or "what" can we marry. It should have come as no surprise, perhaps. But the law can be greatly manipulated under the concept of liberty and pursuit of happiness, whatever that takes for someone to achieve in their survival, and more often that you would think the most bazaar of circumstances not only make it into court, but is argued successfully. Thus you have a man from Kentucky who is legally married to his goat because it's milk is his primary source of income. We've all heard about this type of thing. But I doubt society would take this case into account when attempting to reassert the primary core values of the moral majority. Homosexual marriages however, is something greatly significant in terms of introducing yet another legally viable lifestyle. There are problems with this, not only fundamentally or religiously.

It would stand to reason that our children will be subjected to the infinite environmental aspects of their respective lives without the benefit of any immediate parental supervision once they walk out the door. We as parents are left to the task of regulating their sensibilities and awareness and capacity to understand beyond any influence of the nature of people within this society. And we hope that until they come of age, their core values are somewhat maintained to reflect the values of their family. Not necessarily of their environment. But to a large degree this is not realistic. Schools have taken measures to accommodate, through their curriculum, a better, more positive perspective of the concept of homosexuality and same sex partners/marriages and that there is no difference in the quality of life of the child they might raise, which in itself might very well be true. But this is not the focus. Children are persuaded to think outside the box and that is it their exclusive choice to either date a boy or a girl of the same gender. And this is completely unacceptable to me. It's unacceptable because I honestly believe that only 10 or 20% of the entire gay community are gay by some biological disorder. That the balance of this those in this particular lifestyle have chosen to live this way because of environmental influences. I completely believe this. So it stands to reason that many heterosexual couples would take a issue to such direct influence by schools, to beneficially accommodate gay couples whose children attend any particular school.

What this clearly establishes, within the evolution of homosexuality, is the sudden encroachment of our liberty to somewhat successfully regulate the moral stability of our children, as might be prescribed by each family. When states begin to pass laws that directly accommodate homosexuals in schools, such as the elimination of Father's Day and Mother's Day; when troop leaders are allowed to "come-out" openly expressing their homosexuality to their organization and to their boy scouts as was the case, for instance in Boston, Illinois and Pennsylvania; when the Gay Parade at some point during it's trek towards Central Park becomes an open indiscriminate orgy, to the astonishment and disgust of parents riding the buses home with their preschoolers in plain view of these folks. And that's not just during the parade. Central Park has many areas where gay men meet to "really meet." I've seen this myself and no matter how discrete those situations are, people lose themselves at times in the heat of passion and boy there's a lot of it by the Boathouse in the West side in the park. Walk you're dog there sometimes. Just don't take the kids. Yikes.

I never thought I would ever soften on the issue of homosexuality as an established legal lifestyle. I have somewhat. Just don't tell my children is OKAY to be gay to such an extent that they might actually entertain the notion of having a sexual experience with the same sex at a very vulnerable age. This is nearly as bad as being molested, in my opinion. It is still unnatural and children, especially teenagers, who are coming into puberty can be very easily be persuaded into finding love anyway they can, most of which have absolutely no medical predisposition of genuine homosexuality.

We are not a society that want to raise homosexuals. That will never change. While we are sympathetic and hopefully respectful, there is only one formula that ensures our moral and literal self-preservation. The propagation of life. And what that means quite simply that marriage should never assume any other identity for the sake of legal equality. It's simply not necessary and in many cases, not even beneficial. We all have the right to love whomever. I honestly believe that. But we do not have the right to manipulate the children in this society into believing that there's anything natural about homosexuality. Love is natural. Love is a very powerful thing. And we have the right to be happy. All of us. But we also have a responsibility in making sure, under normal circumstances that our children are not influenced into a lifestyle for the sole purpose of pacifying a community still trying to make some point in their existence when they have already received a great deal of recognition. And in many ways, rightfully so, as I've demonstrated above.

Above all, we as citizens in this country have a right to express our opinion, as Ms. USA did, and in a very diplomatic fashion. She lost her job because of it. This is a complete disgrace and the Homosexual Agenda and it's staunch supporters will soon discover that this exposure of their perception of bigotry, only exposes them to a universal prejudice of anything by straight.

Anne Marie

You have free speech. Just as your employer has the right to fire your ass if they don't like that speech. Freedom of speech doesn't guarantee you the right to say whatever you want with no consequences, it guarantees the right of no government sponsored consequences.

Prejean has her beliefs, and her boss doesn't like them. She needs to take personal responsibility for her own actions.

This quote was a response to me by Nik. Just to clear things up. I don't spend this much time on these boards to make a point and be misquoted.

Anne Marie

 

[JW Frogen]

sidneyworld has a drinking problem, I can tell from her avatar. Such a crumbling beauty.

 

[JBeukema]

I was thinkin' anne probably preferred coke or the glass dick...

 

[JW Frogen]

I was thinkin' anne probably preferred coke or the glass dick...

Out of the way, I am trying to get laid.

 

[JBeukema]

I was thinkin' anne probably preferred coke or the glass dick...

Out of the way, I am trying to get laid.

 

[sidneyworld]

Gee, thanks alot guys. Sheeeesh!

 

[sidneyworld]

Err because some of them aren't satisfied with separate but equal I guess.

I can understand why that wouldn't be good enough for races but I don't understand why it isn't good enough for gay marriage.

One person said that if we do separate the two we'd have to make a lot of rewrites in the current law to make them equal (i.e. everytime the word marriage appears change it to include civil unions as well, or something like that) and just giving them the term marriage would prevent that.

Although if you make those massive re-writes than I don't see the point.

Huh?

Anne Marie

 

[Al Gunn]

Sid, you're a homophobic bigot stuck in a god delusion of hate.

 

[sidneyworld]

Sid, you're a homophobic bigot stuck in a god delusion of hate.

lol. Thanks fer clearin' thins up fer me there, Skippy. I'm just a happy redneck..

 

[sidneyworld]

Now here's something to TALK about...

OMG! Gays Go To Prom!
Posted on: June 16, 2009 9:09 AM, by Ed Brayton

The Worldnutdaily has a breathless article about a prom held for gay youth in Boston by the Boston Alliance of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender Youth, or BAGLY. The event was for people 22 and under and the anti-gay group MassResistance sent in a 20 year old college student to infiltrate the event and get pictures. And he was horrified - horrified - to find out that kids at a gay prom do the same kinds of things kids at a straight prom do.

But being anti-gay nuts, they tell this story with all the requisite hysteria and even call it the "prom from sexual hell." Some of this stuff is really funny:

"I remained in the building for an hour and a half and found the events inside disturbing, depraved and outright criminal," Max reported. "The line included kids wearing the rainbow regalia of the gay movement, teenage boys wearing dresses and high heels, hugging their 'boyfriends,' extremely young looking girls, not much older than 14 or 15, with 'Out and Proud' inscribed in rainbow letters on the front of their T-shirts."
Imagine that. A group that specifically advocates for the rights of gays, lesbians and the transgendered kids has - gasp - gays, lesbians and transgendered kids in it that wear t-shirts and rainbows. How disturbing, depraved and outright criminal.

Max continued, "On the flower pots and stairs leading up to the subway entrance, I saw dozens of kids aged 12-17 smoking cigarettes and making out with each other."
Yeah, that would never happen at a straight prom. No straight kids would ever smoke cigarettes, only those evil gay kids do that. And worse yet, some kids were making out:

He entered City Hall as two floors shook with earsplitting music and began taking numerous photographs of the event. Max spotted teen homosexual couples, with hair painted rainbow colors, making out in almost every corner of the room.
Any of my straight readers make out at the prom? I didn't think so. This is the kind of debauchery only gays and lesbians would engage in at prom (that's my story, mom, and I'm sticking to it).

But here comes the real shock and horror:

He said three middle-aged lesbians with military haircuts shouted from megaphones at the more than 300 youth attendees in line for the event. They barked: "If we find you bringing alcohol, you're going home!"; "Don't have sex on the dance floor!" and "Are you ready to party?"
Now ordinarily you would think that MassResistance would be pleased that there was adult supervision there enforcing rules against bringing alcohol or having sex at the prom, but you obviously missed the crucial part of the sentence: these were middle-aged lesbians. And they were butch too.

This whole story is designed for one purpose: To make insulated suburbanites go "ewwwwww." Which, when you think about it, is pretty much the whole basis for the anti-gay movement.

OMG! Gays Go To Prom! : Dispatches from the Culture Wars

Makes you kind of wonder where the gene pool went. lol

Anne Marie

 

[sidneyworld]

Here's the entire original article if you folks are still paying attention... hmmmm.

Kids attend prom from 'sexual hell'
You won't believe how children as young as 12 years old partied

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: June 12, 2009
10:50 pm Eastern


By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily



Youth enter prom at Boston City Hall (photos: MassResistance.org)


Note: This story contains material that readers might consider graphic and offensive.

Family advocates are outraged by a prom held at Boston City Hall that was open to children apparently as young as 12 featuring crossdressers, homosexual heavy petting, suspected drug use and a leather-clad doorman who teaches sexual bondage classes.

Children from middle schools and high schools across Massachusetts on May 9 attended a Youth Pride Day event ending with a prom inside of Boston City Hall sponsored by the Boston Alliance of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender Youth, or BAGLY, a group seated on the Massachusetts Commission for GLBT Youth.

Boston Mayor Thomas Menino issued a proclamation welcoming homosexual and transgender youth to the celebration. A man in drag introduced a homosexual activist from Menino's office to read the letter. A video of that proclamation is below.



MassResistance, an organization that describes itself as a pro-family action center, sent a 20-year-old college student named Max to the prom to take pictures and learn more about what Massachusetts children were doing there.

Brian Camenker of MassResistance said Max was astonished by the number of children who appeared to be between 12 and 14 years old.

"They look pretty darn young," Camenker told WND. "He said there were a lot of middle school kids there. It really bothered him."

The day's events began with a transgender Elvis and a parade. Attendees were given condoms and pro-homosexual material such as a bookmark for kids on how to get involved with several homosexual groups and "Transgender Rights Now" stickers. Then many children attended the prom that evening at City Hall.

"I remained in the building for an hour and a half and found the events inside disturbing, depraved and outright criminal," Max reported. "The line included kids wearing the rainbow regalia of the gay movement, teenage boys wearing dresses and high heels, hugging their 'boyfriends,' extremely young looking girls, not much older than 14 or 15, with 'Out and Proud' inscribed in rainbow letters on the front of their T-shirts."


Two boys kiss on dance floor


Max continued, "On the flower pots and stairs leading up to the subway entrance, I saw dozens of kids aged 12-17 smoking cigarettes and making out with each other."

He said three middle-aged women with military haircuts shouted from megaphones at the more than 300 youth attendees in line for the event. They barked: "If we find you bringing alcohol, you're going home!"; "Don't have sex on the dance floor!" and "Are you ready to party?"

Two men helped the women herd youth into City Hall. One of the men reportedly wore exceptionally tight pants and eyeliner while calling the children "sweetie" and everything around him "fabulous." The other man wore leather bondage gear.

While BAGLY advertised the event for youth 22 and younger, Max said identification was not checked – even for people who were obviously older than 22.


Official greeter describes self as "leather BDSM fetishist"


"Why would 22-year-olds be mingling with 14 and 15-year-olds?" Camenker asked, troubled by the details of the event. "As we saw, they pay no attention to any age limit at all. It was full of all of these strange adults."

A doorman, with a Mr. Boston Leather sash, had BAGLY's official chaperone credentials around his neck, Camenker noted. He identified himself as a "leather BDSM (bondage discipline and sado-masochism) fetishist" and handed out business cards to youth.

His card asked, "What is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?"

Mr. Boston Leather's MySpace profile describes him as a single, middle-aged gay male who attends spanking parties and waxes for leather dancing events.

"Starting in April I am teaching month BDSM classes at the MALE Center in Boston, and I will be running an event called Kinky Kamp ... in Upstate New York at Easton Mountain Retreat Center," it states.

Max said he also saw a prominent transsexual activist who specializes in recruiting middle and high school children enter the building.

Despite its announcement stating,"Do not bring drugs, weapons, or alcohol into the space, and do not come to the space under the influence of drugs or alcohol," Max said no measures were taken to stop anyone from sneaking prohibited items into the building.

He entered City Hall as two floors shook with earsplitting music and began taking numerous photographs of the event. Max spotted teen homosexual couples, with hair painted rainbow colors, making out in many corners of the room.

As Max moved through the crowd, he said he observed several adult homosexuals wearing T-shirts with "recruiter" written in rainbow colors.

"The intention of these individuals, and of the entire event, is made plain by the slogans on those shirts," he noted.

Max moved into a smoking section where he claims he saw people of all ages smoking cigarettes and marijuana.

"Chaperones clearly witnessed these things occurring but did nothing to stop them," he wrote of his experience.

"He said that there was absolutely, definitely marijuana," Camenker told WND. "We have a picture. … He said that here was no question that the girl in the picture was smoking marijuana. A ton of people around her – that whole area of the room – just reeked of marijuana smoke."

WND contacted the Boston Police Department to ask whether officers on duty were aware of attendees smoking marijuana.

Boston Police Department spokeswoman Elaine Driscoll said, "We don't have any reports on that."


Some event chaperones in designated smoking area


Boston City Hall spokesman Nick Martin reviewed the photos with Driscoll and told WND, "There were both City Hall security on hand and also undercover Boston police officers. The allegations in terms of smoking both cigarettes and marijuana are unfounded. City Hall has hosted the event for at least 15 years and never ran into issues of that sort."

He said such illicit behavior would never be tolerated.

"People can make allegations about anything they want. The individual who claims that the person was holding paraphernalia might have an agenda of their own," Martin said. "But, as far as we are concerned, there weren't any problems with the event."


Man dressed as woman


Camenker told WND this event takes place every year and the state of Massachusetts originally budgeted $850,000 last year for the Massachusetts Commission for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Youth. He said members, such as BAGLY, usually receive funding from that commission. However, that funding for the homosexual lobby was later slashed as part of an effort to cut costs in response to the state's budget shortfall.

The Massachusetts Commission for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Youth sponsors programs in public schools such as Gay-Straight Alliance clubs, he noted.

"The kids are contacted and brought in through this network of Gay-Straight Alliance clubs and the money that funds that," he said. "There are also buses that often bring kids in. We're not sure if they used buses this year, but they usually do. That's basically how the kids get there."

Camenker said he objects to the city hosting the public event at City Hall and sanctioning it by providing a taxpayer-funded police presence.

Another spokeswoman with Boston City Hall property and Construction Management Department told WND the prom was funded entirely by BAGLY and that the group received no special discounts on its use of the City Hall building.


Max talked to both and claimed these boys could be around middle school age. Boy in dress has 'free kisses, free hugs and gropes' written on his body.


After his experience, Max said it is difficult for anyone who has never attended such an event to truly grasp the "perversion and disturbing nature" of the prom hosted by the city and welcomed by the mayor.

"As a young person who has been exposed to many disturbing things within today's youth culture, I believed I was prepared to deal with what I saw at the 2009 BAGLY Prom," Max wrote.

"Minutes after entering the event, I discovered that I was not."

Camenker agreed that the affair was shocking.

"This stuff doesn't happen by accident. You don't have these kinds of really weird people around these kids by accident. These guys actually think that this is what these kids should be experiencing," he said.

"This movement has an obsession with kids, and there are no boundaries. It's worse than anybody thought."


Kids attend prom from 'sexual hell'

am

 

[sidneyworld]

I mean come on folks. Is it actually possible for the homosexual community to actually keep kids out of their bedroom mentality? Is it?

I mean, seriously. Seems to me the Anti-Gay movement is simply the anti-pervert movement, or The Organization for the Better Display of Judgment movement, or KEEP YOU PERVERSE SEXUALITY BEHIND CLOSED DOORS movement.

Hey, how about Keep your hands off my kids movement. Yeah, yeah, I'll go with that one, and all of the above, thank you very much!

Have fun kids!

Anne Marie

 

[JBeukema]

I mean come on folks. Is it actually possible for the homosexual community to actually keep kids out of their bedroom mentality? Is it?

now what, exactly, are you trying to say there that you won't say outright?

I mean, seriously. Seems to me the Anti-Gay movement is simply the anti-pervert movement, or The Organization for the Better Display of Judgment movement, or KEEP YOU PERVERSE SEXUALITY BEHIND CLOSED DOORS movement.

odd how you have no problem with kids being around sexuality so long as you like it, too...

Hey, how about Keep your hands off my kids movement

Did you realize that, per capita, a disproportionate percentage of child molesters are straight?


That you can be so ignorant and stupid is almost baffling

 

[sidneyworld]

I mean come on folks. Is it actually possible for the homosexual community to actually keep kids out of their bedroom mentality? Is it?

now what, exactly, are you trying to say there that you won't say outright?

I mean, seriously. Seems to me the Anti-Gay movement is simply the anti-pervert movement, or The Organization for the Better Display of Judgment movement, or KEEP YOU PERVERSE SEXUALITY BEHIND CLOSED DOORS movement.

odd how you have no problem with kids being around sexuality so long as you like it, too...

Hey, how about Keep your hands off my kids movement

Did you realize that, per capita, a disproportionate percentage of child molesters are straight?


That you can be so ignorant and stupid is almost baffling

Aside from the rest of this bogus post, you seem to have no issues with children and sexually explicit behavior. Considering homosexuals have some need to literally parade their sexuality in open public, you might be the poster "child" in this scenario, leading the crowd.

I guess to each his own, any which way you can, Sir. Party on dude!

Anne Marie

 

[JBeukema]

Aside from the rest of this bogus post,

Do feel free to demonstrate how anything I said is 'bogus

you seem to have no issues with children and sexually explicit behavior.

Do highlight where I said that/ It is you who said you have a problem with children being around homosexual behavior, but said nothing about children being around sexuality that you enjoy yourself

Considering homosexuals have some need to literally parade their sexuality in open public

Demonstrate that all homosexuals do and heterosexuals do not


or stfu

 

[sidneyworld]

Be careful, JB. You're losing your grip here, along with any point. Take a break. Go for a walk and take in the sunshine.

Good luck!

am