Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop All Amazon Fashion Up to 70% off Fashion Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Shop Amazon Fire TV Shop now Shop Fire HD 6 Learn More Shop now Shop now Shop now
Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

Has the Gay agenda succedeed it's deception?.


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 1000 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 11 Jan 2012 03:02:01 GMT
How is it possible for a group of debauched sinners to suddenly become saintly and wholesome?Read the Gay "Bible".

Step 1: Talk About Gays and Gayness as Loudly and as Often as Possible

"The principle behind this advice is simple", say Kirk and Pill, "almost any behavior begins to look normal if you are exposed to enough of it at close quarters and among your acquaintances. The acceptability of the new behavior will ultimately hinge on the number of one's fellows doing it or accepting it." A person may be offended initially by the novelty of it all, but the authors point out "as long as Joe-Six-pack feels little pressure to perform likewise, and as long as the behavior in question presents little threat to his physical and financial security, he soon gets used to it and life goes on." As time goes on, Joe-Six pack and his friends will become more tolerant of homosexuality as no more than an alternative, legitimate way of life.

"The way to benumb raw sensibilities about homosexuality is to have a lot of people talk a great deal about the subject in a neutral or supportive way." The more it is talked about, the more the impression is created that public opinion is at least divided on the topic. "Even rancorous debates between opponents and defenders serve our purpose so long as `respectable' gays are front and center to make their own pitch."

The authors also insist that this talk about "gayness" must be talk, not homosexualist indoctrination. "In the early stages of any campaign to reach straight American, 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."

The authors stress the importance of having homosexual issues talked about in the visual media, film and television, which are "the most powerful image-makers in Western civilization." At the time, the average American spent a good seven hours or more per day in front of the TV. "Those hours open a gateway into the private world of straights, through which a Trojan horse might be passed."

Hollywood is described by the authors as the best covert weapon homosexuals have to desensitize the mainstream. They applaud the fact that over the past 10 years (up to 1987) homosexual characters have become prominent in films and television programs.

Since then, these characters have become even more common, and it is all part of the strategy to mobilize public acceptance of homosexuality. Witness, for example, television's Will & Grace or The L Word; movies such as Brokeback Mountain, and likable homosexual characters with prominent roles in films such as Bridget Jones Diary and As Good As it Gets. Amiable homosexual characters increasingly feature in modern film and television, and it is no accident.

Kirk and Pill then lay out their full scale assault on religion. "While public opinion is one primary source of mainstream values, religious authority is the other. When conservative churches condemn gays, there are only two things we can do to confound the homophobia of true believers. First we can use talk to muddy the moral waters. This means publicizing support for gays by more moderate churches, raising theological objections of our own about conservative interpretation of Biblical teaching and exposing hatred and inconsistency."

They continue, "Second, we can undermine the moral authority of homophobic churches by portraying them as antiquated and backwards, badly out of step with the times and with the latest findings of psychology. Against the mighty pull of institutional Religion one must set the mightier draw of Science and Public Opinion (the shield and swords of that accursed `secular humanism'). Such an unholy alliance has worked well against churches before, on such topics as divorce and abortion. With enough open talk about the prevalence and acceptability of homosexuality, that alliance can work here again."[

http://www.amazon.com/After-Ball-America-Conquer-Hatred/dp/0452264987/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1326250880&sr=1-5

Posted on 11 Jan 2012 03:05:20 GMT
Step 2: Portray Gays as Victims, Not as Aggressive Challengers.

"In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be cast as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to assume the role of protector. If gays are presented, instead, as a strong and prideful tribe promoting a rigidly nonconformist and deviant lifestyle, they are more likely to be seen as a public menace that justifies resistance and oppression. For that reason, we must forego the temptation to strut our `gay pride' publicly when it conflicts with the Gay Victim image. And we must walk the fine line between impressing straights with our great numbers, on the one hand, and sparking their hostile paranoia -'They are all around us!' - on the other.

"A media campaign to promote the Gay Victim image should make use of symbols which reduce the mainstream's sense of threat, which lower its guard, and which enhance the plausibility of victimization. In practical terms, this means that jaunty mustachioed musclemen would keep very low profile in gay commercials and other public presentations, while sympathetic figures of nice young people, old people, and attractive women would be featured. (It almost goes without saying that groups on the farthest margin of acceptability such as NAMBLA, [North American Man-Boy Love Association] must play no part at all in such a campaign: suspected child-molesters will never look like victims)."



Kirk & Pill outline two different messages about the "Gay Victim" that must be communicated. "First, the mainstream should be told that gays are victims of fate, in the sense that most never had a choice to accept or reject their sexual preference. The message must read: `As far as gays can tell, they were born gay, just as you were born heterosexual or white or black or bright or athletic. Nobody ever tricked or seduced them; they never made a choice, and are not morally blameworthy. What they do isn't willfully contrary - it's only natural for them. This twist of fate could as easily have happened to you!'"



This strategy is in place all around us. Witness the vile Lady Gaga and her recent music release, "Born this Way". Witness also the rabid hatred of homosexuals against groups such as Courage or Exodus Now that help men and women defeat their homosexuality. If homosexuality can be overcome, then this destroys the false argument that homosexuals are victims of fate who can do nothing to change themselves.

Kirk and Pill continue, "Straight viewers must be able to identify with gays as victims. Mr. and Mrs. Public must be given no extra excuses to say, `they are not like us.' To this end, the persons featured in the public campaign should be decent and upright, appealing and admirable by straight standards, completely unexceptionable in appearance - in a word, they should be indistinguishable from the straights we would like to reach. (To return to the terms we have used in previous articles, spokesmen for our cause must be R-type `straight gays' rather than Q-type `homosexuals on display.') Only under such conditions will the message be read correctly: `These folks are victims of a fate that could have happened to me'."



The authors go on to note that homosexuals may not look favorably on a strategy that makes them look like victims of some sort of plague, "but the plain fact is that the gay community is weak and must manipulate the powers of the weak, including the play for sympathy."

"The second message would portray gays as victims of society."

http://www.amazon.com/After-Ball-America-Conquer-Hatred/dp/0452264987/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1326250880&sr=1-5

Posted on 11 Jan 2012 03:06:44 GMT
Step 3: Give Protectors a Just Cause.





"A media campaign that casts gays as society's victims and encourages straights to be their protectors must make it easier for those to respond to assert and explain their new protectiveness. Few straight women, and even fewer straight men, will want to defend homosexuality boldly as such. Most would rather attach their awakened protective impulse to some principle of justice or law, to some general desire for consistent and fair treatment in society. Our campaign should not demand direct support for homosexual practices, should instead take anti-discrimination as its theme. The right to free speech, freedom of beliefs, freedom of association, due process and equal protection of laws-these should be the concerns brought to mind by our campaign.



"It is especially important for the gay movement to hitch its cause to accepted standards of law and justice because its straight supporters must have at hand a cogent reply to the moral arguments of its enemies. The homophobes clothe their emotional revulsion in the daunting robes of religious dogma, so defenders of gay rights must be ready to counter dogma with principle."

http://www.amazon.com/After-Ball-America-Conquer-Hatred/dp/0452264987/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1326250880&sr=1-5

Posted on 11 Jan 2012 03:08:20 GMT
Step 4: Make Gays Look Good





"In order to make a Gay Victim sympathetic to straights you have to portray him as Everyman. But an additional theme of the campaign should be more aggressive and upbeat: to offset the increasingly bad press that these times have brought to homosexual men and women, the campaign should paint gays as superior pillars of society. Yes, yes, we know - this trick is so old it creaks. Other minorities use it all the time in ads that announce proudly, `Did you know that this Great Man (or Woman) was ____?' But the message is vital for all those straights who still picture gays as `queer' people - shadowy, lonesome, fail, drunken, suicidal, child-snatching misfits."

The authors stress the importance of Celebrity endorsement. "The celebrities can be straight" (such as Ed Asner) "or gay"

http://www.amazon.com/After-Ball-America-Conquer-Hatred/dp/0452264987/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1326250880&sr=1-5

Posted on 11 Jan 2012 03:12:14 GMT
Vilify Christianity

In line with Kirk & Pill's "Overhauling of Straight America", the process of vilifying those who oppose homosexuality is now spreading with frightful rapidity. The attack from homosexuals is aimed primarily at Christianity.

* On a Lesbian Gay, Bisexual and Transvestite (GLBT) website dedicated to exposing "Hate Crimes", activists claim that pro-family organizations are engaging in hate speech when they criticize homosexual conduct and this "hate speech" allegedly leads to hate crimes and must be suppressed. This site equates opposition to homosexuality as equal to Hitler's slaughter of Jews in Europe.
* The same website also blames pro-family groups for the murder of gay college student Matthew Shepard.[6] (Yet Matthew Shepard was killed in a robbery, not because he was homosexual).[7]
* In 2004, a Protestant preacher in Sweden was sentenced to a month in jail for criticizing homosexuality during a sermon he gave in his own church.[8]
* The San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a resolution blaming religious groups for so-called "hate crimes" such as the murder of Mathew Shepard. In addition, the Board approved a resolution urging the local media not to carry advertisements by pro-family organizations that addressed hope for homosexuals to change.
* In New York, a billboard with a Bible verse on it was taken down under pressure from city officials, who cited it as "hate speech."
* In Massachusetts in 2005, parent David Parker was arrested for protesting his elementary school child having to listen to pro-LGBT propaganda! He eventually removed his child from the school. He was in court for two years and lost all of his appeals.[9]

The public acceptance of homosexuals has now invaded so-called conservative Republicans, many of whom have withdrawn any opposition to homosexuality.

* In August 2010, Glenn Beck told Fox's Bill O'Reilly he didn't see a problem with same-sex marriage. This prompted the Washington Post to run a story headlined "Glenn Beck, gay marriage advocate?"

The interview took place as follows:
O'Reilly: "Do you believe that gay marriage is a threat to the country in any way?"
Beck: "A threat to the country?"
O'Reilly: "Yeah, is it going to harm it in any way?"
Beck: (laughing) "No I don't. Will the gays come and get us?"
O'Reilly: "No, OK, is it going to harm the country in any way?"
Beck: "I believe that Thomas Jefferson said: `If it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket what difference is it to me?'"

* GOProud, a Republican homosexual organization that backs same-sex marriage and homosexuals serving openly in the U.S. military, was a sponsor of the 2010 Conservative Political Acton Conference (CPAC) in Washington, D.C, which is supposedly the largest conservative annual gathering in the country. CPAC ignored calls from genuine conservative groups not to allow GOProud to sponsor the conference.[10]

It is clear that the strategies and tactics laid out in "The Overhauling of Straight America", and in After the Ball, are playing themselves throughout the nation and in the world. Homosexuality is now being forced on the nations as a legitimate lifestyle, to the point where California just passed a measure that demands "Gay history" curriculum to be taught in its public schools.[11] There can be no doubt this is the plan homosexual activists and corrupt politicians intend to implement in all public schools throughout the nation.

We have been manipulated and corrupted.

If this trend is not stopped by solid Catholic teaching against homosexuality from the highest places, the end result can only be the further destruction of the family, the corruption of youth and the persecution of Christians who uphold the Biblical condemnations of homosexuality.[12]

Posted on 11 Jan 2012 03:28:26 GMT
Tom M says:
Hi Cyril

One of the better books I have ever read on the actual nature of homosexuality is by Dr Satinover.

Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth

It details the series of deceptions that originated with the terrible AIDS outbreak in what remains the depository of AIDS in the US, the homosexually attracted community.

Particularly interesting was how the original name GRID, Gar Related Immune Disorder quickly got renamed. There was actually more concern to dissasociate the disease from the gays, despite what everybody treating the condition knew to be the case.

Interesting too was the power manoueres that resulted in the APA adopting a formal change over the wishes of the majority of psychiatric experts.

Then the obvious canard of genetic determination, equating the disorder with being born black. 60% of identical twins of homosexually attracted twins are NOT homosexually attracted. That's all she wrote folks. It's amazing to see the effect you speak of earlier taking effect on human minds.

How can a sane person who knows that the great majority of identical twins are not homosexually attracted believe someone is 'just born that way". The truth is, that just like the condom issue and AIDs in Africa, people don't give a damn.

The causes of gender identity disorders that lead to later homosexual attraction and the contributing deternining factor that is marital instability, is generating new generation of human beings who will be sacrificed with their very lives to this ideological dogmatism.

As Dr Satinover demonstrates, one must maintain deep personal solidarity with the homosexually attracted person, but one must strongly resist the death and morbidity that flows from anal sex in particular , a perverse behavior for which we are radically not suited for. This is the major cause of the physical price being paid.

It is a horrible situation for young victims of societal indifference to be confronted with. I hope you get and enjoy Satinover's wonderful book. It sheds much light.

Posted on 11 Jan 2012 04:36:50 GMT
Ford Prefect says:
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Posted on 11 Jan 2012 05:21:33 GMT
Withnail says:
I don't see why you think gay people are seeking your approval for where they stick their c..k.

Your cut and pastes look slightly similar to the 19c world wide Jewish conspiracy tracts. Have you checked the original source or are you happy to quote what someone says somebody else said?

Posted on 11 Jan 2012 06:55:30 GMT
Drew Jones says:
Bit of a theme developing with your threads.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jan 2012 08:22:20 GMT
Last edited by the author on 11 Jan 2012 08:25:37 GMT
G. Heron says:
cyril webster

I think it is wrong if homosexuals are specifically targeting Christianity for vilification on the grounds of its teachings about homosexuality. I would hope that in the 21st centuary all religions with anti-homosexual teachings would be equally vilified.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jan 2012 09:02:08 GMT
G. Heron says:
cyril webster

I am afraid I can't let you give Hollywood all the credit for portraying homosexuals as people. The British 1961 film "Victim" was a brave and ground breaking film that has been credited with helping getting homosexuality made legal in the UK.

On lighter note the "Julian and Sandy" Sketches on the radio programme "Round The Horne" also played a part.

Posted on 11 Jan 2012 09:30:53 GMT
FangtheGnome says:
I hate to sound repetitive on these different threads but 'christianity for vilifying gays', I'd like to point out that this should be 'some christian denominations' not all. There are gay ministers, and in some denominations gay bishops. Of course there are still many christians that do target homosexuality and they do deserve condemnation for this.

My only problem with gays is that they have stolen a beautiful word.
Once upon a time I could have had a happy and gay day,
Now this means I would have something inserted in my bottom, which personally would not make me very happy (although it might make homosexuals happy).

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jan 2012 09:33:47 GMT
Last edited by the author on 11 Jan 2012 14:39:50 GMT
Drew Jones says:
"One of the better books I have ever read on the actual nature of homosexuality is by Dr Satinover."
I'm sure it's one of the better books *you* have read on homosexuality.

"Particularly interesting was how the original name GRID, Gar Related Immune Disorder quickly got renamed. here was actually more concern to dissasociate the disease from the gays, despite what everybody treating the condition knew to be the case."
This probably had something to do with experts wanting to convey the fact that although coming to prominence through the gay community it isn't and never was a disease that specifically targeted homosexuals - as far as we know a host's sexual preference offers no barrier against viruses and diseases. To classify it as a gay only disease would cause greater problems in tackling ignorance of the effects it has for the heterosexual community too.

"Interesting too was the power manoueres that resulted in the APA adopting a formal change over the wishes of the majority of psychiatric experts."
Citation needed.

"Then the obvious canard of genetic determination, equating the disorder with being born black. 60% of identical twins of homosexually attracted twins are NOT homosexually attracted. That's all she wrote folks. It's amazing to see the effect you speak of earlier taking effect on human minds."
This paraniodily-jumbled paragraph is almost too 'Tomistic' to decipher. You have been informed that your identical twin study results (assuming they are valid) would lend support a supplimented idea of genetical influence over sexuality when compared to the statistical data you provide for wider populations.

"How can a sane person who knows that the great majority of identical twins are not homosexually attracted believe someone is 'just born that way". The truth is, that just like the condom issue and AIDs in Africa, people don't give a damn."
You are not just bad at reading data but terrible at understanding statistics. Since when has 60% ever been considered a "great majority"?

"The causes of gender identity disorders that lead to later homosexual attraction and the contributing deternining factor that is marital instability, is generating new generation of human beings who will be sacrificed with their very lives to this ideological dogmatism."
This is another of your cited studies that you have been taken to task on. You have focussed on a study that doesn't just have problems with the quality of it's data gathering methods but a study which results you have selectively taken from. This can only be attributed to your limited source material.

"As Dr Satinover demonstrates, one must maintain deep personal solidarity with the homosexually attracted person, but one must strongly resist the death and morbidity that flows from anal sex in particular , a perverse behavior for which we are radically not suited for. This is the major cause of the physical price being paid."
There is risk associated with homosexual sex just as there is with any sex and many other activities. To imagine or seriously suggest that death is somehow inevitable by it is to willfully abuse and/or misread the data. Usually I'd put this down to nothing more than stupidity but given the a priori dogma of the organisation you so enthusiastically revel in I can't help but think there is also an element of morbid and twisted satisfaction you get from thinking your prejudices are borne out of care for your fellow man.

"It is a horrible situation for young victims of societal indifference to be confronted with. I hope you get and enjoy Satinover's wonderful book. It sheds much light."
It would appear to leave you looking confident but ignorant.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jan 2012 09:46:21 GMT
Last edited by the author on 11 Jan 2012 12:55:26 GMT
Drew Jones says:
I hate to sound repetitive on these different threads but 'christianity for vilifying gays', I'd like to point out that this should be 'some christian denominations' not all."
Trying to deny the antecedent is weak. That you can point out that some Christians don't vilify gays doesn't effect the validity of a statment which says that Christianity villifies gays and homosexuality. You can't even play the 'mainstream Christianity' card here because it is in some of the largest mainstream denominations offer the biggest and most sustained demonisations of homosexuality. Whats more they go right to the source material to justify it.

"My only problem with gays is that they have stolen a beautiful word."
Well since you guys have taken love, light, goodness, humble and many other superlatives upon yourselves, I think you should allow others to define their groups with whatever words they prefer.

Posted on 11 Jan 2012 09:47:54 GMT
Norm Deplume says:
TomA: '60% of identical twins of homosexually attracted twins are NOT homosexually attracted. That's all she wrote folks. It's amazing to see the effect you speak of earlier taking effect on human minds.

How can a sane person who knows that the great majority of identical twins are not homosexually attracted believe someone is 'just born that way". '

So you are assuming that identical twins must be identical in every way. Why? It is not uncommon for identical twins to have opposite handedness - one left-handed, one right-handed. Does this mean that no left-hander is 'just born that way'?

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jan 2012 09:55:29 GMT
G. Heron says:
Tom M

The name of the virus that causes aids was changed from HTLV3 ( human T-cell lymphotropic virus type 3) to HIV (Human immunodeficiency virus) do you want to try and spin some conspiracy theory around that?

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jan 2012 09:58:59 GMT
""My only problem with gays is that they have stolen a beautiful word."
Well since you guys have taken love, light, goodness, humble and many other superlatives upon yourselves, I think you should allow others to define their groups with whatever words they prefer."

Stupid comment, straight people aren't referred to as loves, lights, goodness' or humbles.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jan 2012 10:00:44 GMT
"It is not uncommon for identical twins to have opposite handedness - one left-handed, one right-handed"

Surely then they are not identical...?

Posted on 11 Jan 2012 10:01:25 GMT
Huck Flynn says:
traditionally the christian churches' attitude has been
- being gay is bad
- being gay is sick
- you can't be gay and a member of our club (with all of its afterlife benefits)
how is that not victimisation?
what they are defending themselves from is an attack on basic human rights by institutions that have a poor track record
why the surprise ???

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jan 2012 10:12:43 GMT
Last edited by the author on 11 Jan 2012 10:24:58 GMT
Drew Jones says:
I was making the point that if gay people are going to find themselves a sustained and organised villification of their preferences you will naturally start to see a sustained and organised effort on their part to counteract the negative PR. I didn't say it was straight people who heap these adjectives upon themselves, it was the religious who I was speaking of and they do happily and seemingly unironically bathe themsleves and their ideology in such terms.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jan 2012 10:18:39 GMT
G. Heron says:
Tom M

"Then the obvious canard of genetic determination, equating the disorder with being born black. 60% of identical twins of homosexually attracted twins are NOT homosexually attracted. That's all she wrote folks. It's amazing to see the effect you speak of earlier taking effect on human minds. "

You seem to accept heterosexuality as the default which requires no explanation and homosexuality as a disorder which does require an explanation, this is sloppy thinking. It is like trying to explain why some people are left handed without ever wondering what makes most people right handed. Either way it is no excuse for prejudice against homosexuals.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jan 2012 10:30:08 GMT
Last edited by the author on 11 Jan 2012 10:38:12 GMT
Tom's right ..

"Gay-related immune deficiency (GRID or GRIDS) (sometimes informally called the gay plague) was the 1982 name first proposed to describe an "unexpected cluster of cases" of what is now known as AIDS, after public health scientists noticed clusters of Kaposi's sarcoma and Pneumocystis pneumonia among gay males in Southern California and New York City.

The term AIDS (for acquired immune deficiency syndrome) was proposed in 1982 by researchers concerned with the accuracy of the disease's name. In this new name, scientists were supported by political figures who realized that the term "gay-related" did not accurately describe the demographic that the disease affected. On April 23, 1984, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary announced at a press conference that the probable cause of AIDS had been discovered: the retrovirus subsequently named human immunodeficiency virus or HIV in 1986."

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jan 2012 10:34:38 GMT
But nowadays if someone says 'gay', 'queer' or 'fruity', for example, people will think of homosexuals. If you say any of the words you mentioned, most people wouldn't assume you were talking about a Christian or any other religious person. If you say 'he was a good, loving and humble man' I myself would not think that the man in question was of faith.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jan 2012 10:36:28 GMT
I would think it was rather obvious that heterosexuality is the norm, how else would human life continue if the only people capable were of a minority - we'd die out.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jan 2012 10:39:32 GMT
Drew Jones says:
"But nowadays if someone says 'gay', 'queer' or 'fruity', for example, people will think of homosexuals."
Yes but that wasn't exactly the point I was making or denying.

"If you say any of the words you mentioned, most people wouldn't assume you were talking about a Christian or any other religious person."
Well no, I wouldn't either and again, that wasn't the point I made. That you wouldn't actually associate religious people with these concpets doesn't mean that religious people and religions don't try and use these words as synonyms for their beliefs.

"If you say 'he was a good, loving and humble man' I myself would not think that the man in question was of faith."
I understadn that but do you agree that there are those who would suggest that someone of the nature was religious or Christian even if they did not hold to any religious or Christian belief?
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 201 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the religion discussion forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  85
Total posts:  5011
Initial post:  11 Jan 2012
Latest post:  19 May 2015

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 6 customers

Search Customer Discussions