So you believe that the movementS in this country are pushing us closer to normal ???

Anyone who doesn't believe there's any organized "gay agenda" in this country, and that most all "gay americans" are paying attention and actively communicating with each other about it on social networking sites, does not know what is going on, and doesn't know diddly about what they're speaking.

More fear tactics from the far far right.
 

I'm not going to place much credence on a link that someone deigns to post, which is an unsupported opinion piece on a subject of which I have personal experience to draw on.

I'm not even taking the time to read it. If you have something to say, just say it.

Homosexual Agenda - Conservapedia

I lived near San Francisco for a number of years so I do have some experience with gay/lesbians and bis. The people I met had all kinds of different political philosophies, life experiences, and other interests. Except for living their lives they did not seem to have any kind of agenda. Maybe, that was because they were in SF which was one of the most liberal cities in the world where they did not need to have much of an agenda.

A deep, dark conspiracy to convert everyone to "gayness"??? :1rotfl:

Sometimes I wonder why so few adults post on this thread.

I'm speaking to the disseminating of information and organizing of groups and mailings to sympathetic public figures and government representatives to pressure and cajole them to fight, or at least publicly support, the issues that matter to the gay community in this time in American history where the problems and concerns of the gay community are front and center in entertainment and litigious circles.

Comprehend?..............or are there more juvenile thoughts to share?

And what issues would those be? Lower taxes? Jobs? Economy? Right to marry? Out of Afghanistan?

Oh yeah....now I get it. You mean they are like a special interest group that supports and tries to influence issues that they see as beneficial to them?
You mean like small business, unions, the NRA, african americans, women, hosptitality industry, organized religion......stuff like that?

Exactly right. Did you think I was talking about something else?

The LGBT, and similar groups, are special interest groups. The gay community of today is largely plugged into the daily activities of these groups and their agenda.

I just can't figure our why the denying of a "gay agenda". Did I miss a "must be politically correct" memo or something?

You are so right, but how do I say be a fag but I don't want to know about it, and yet be supportive of equal rights for everyone. Being gay turns my stomach, but I still think everyone should have the right to exist and be who they want to be. Help me with this issue.

Well, first of all can the f-a-g word. It shuts down the communication instantly, just as the n-word shuts downs discussions of race relations.

This conversation is way past "right to exist". No one has even gotten close to that reactionary a discussion. We're just discussing their lives and interactions in a society historically dominated in all of recorded history by heterosexuals.

All gays are accorded, and really not ever denied, "human rights" in our more or less enlightened American society of the 21st century; but the question is about the matter of "human privileges" in a sense.

The question is pretty much about marriage, and maybe the adoption of children to be raised.

Then there is the LGBT agenda of teaching children in schools, by law, in their formative years that humans can be any gender, by birth or decision; and can be any form of gender specific, or non-specific, or any combination thereof, and still must be regarded as completely normal.

In other words; "It's all good". That's going to be a harder goal to accomplish, but they're making big inroads in that direction.

This may help.

Words of wisdom from Allen West on gays in the military | Jay Bookman

Don't ask, don't tell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is not a human rights or civil rights issue because there are remedies that eliminate those concerns. Hpwever, at the heart of the matter rests a physical, psychological and philosophical fact that has lasted from the beginnng of mankind. To attempt to re-define marriage to be other than between a man and woman is first absolutely wrong and secondly will forever change the dynamics of society and not for the better.

I
respect your opinion even though I think you are wrong. I say let them alone and quit trying to control their actions. They are citizens just like the rest of us regardless of how you feel about them. Live and let live I say. But then again, I am honest and tell it like it is and I do not word smith cowardly like some do. Don't you agree?

No offence, I was trying to show my republican side. LOL

True and well stated.

GOP on Gay Rights
 

The GOP cozies up to gay haters: Perry and Santorum make chilling statements on Uganda's homophobia* - NY Daily News

Ya gotta love the GOP take on Gay rights.

I have no idea what you're talking about. I read your post as you having some really prejudiced views on homosexuality. Your word f-a-g, and the revelation that gays make you "sick to your stomach", was my first clue to your distaste for gays.

I was only trying to explain the agenda to you in a non-confrontational manner, and then you berate me for reasons only you can answer.

I have not posted any anti-gay rhetoric as you have.

I've only been speaking to their quest for equal recognition in societal matters without demeaning them as people, as you have.

I am not anti gay, I was just trying to speak in the GOP intent on women, gays and minorities. My point is that if someone is going to treat them like second class citizens, then man up and say what you mean. It is hiding to say they have less of a place in our country than we republicans do and then pretend that you have no problem with their way of life. Well, anyway, "I HAVE THE SAME RESPECT FOR GAYS, WOMEN, AND MINORITIES AS I DO FOR MY RICH WHITE FRIENDS" My intent was misunderstood, but after all my posts it should have been clear that I was being sarcastic. We have talked in person and you know where I stand and I know your true intent on this forum. Happy posting.

Sorry, I still don't get what you're trying to do, or trying to say.


If it was truly "satire", it came off as ineffectual and mean.

To pigeon hole this into a partisan discussion is unproductive and immature, and shows little understanding to the greater societal issues involved.

You don't know me at all and don't pretend you do. I do have gay relatives and friends, and I do understand their concerns, and I also talk to them about the process of incrementalism, and how that is the way they will eventually get what they desire. I'm just not closed minded to the realities of life as some are in their impatience.

I am not against "gay marriage"; it's just that I don't think the concerns of the heterosexual majority on this topic can only be seen as prejudicial.

There's a way to talk about this without condemning everyone you disagree with, or rather, don't understand.

This was a well written post Richie !!!!

I am with you, and NOT as depicted by some as slow, unsympathetic, dolts.

Thanks for saying it very well !! I promised a poster I would investigate and I am but to your point, it seems that this issue must be pushed down my throat.....these folks who support this kind of thing want sensitivity but offer none in return.

Sorry you misunderstood again Rickie. I have tried to explain to you three different ways and you still come back with I don't get it. And them slam me for being prejudiced. What part of the red highlight confuses you? If you really do not understand then Maybe next Monday night, I will stop by City Fire and take to time to explain it to you slowly. However, if you are just saying that for childish reasons, then I have no time for your silliness. I will try to get there before you have had too many drinks. LOL

I totally agree. For some reason at this point in our country's history, the agenda of the gay community has reached a near fever pitch, and a form of desperation, as if it's a now or never prospect.

There has been so much progress in the last very few years for the gay community that I don't know why this is so.

There are still some reactionary public figures like the hateful pastor in North Carolina who recently "preached" for the death of homosexuals, but he will be castigated and shunned by a society that not so long ago would have thought him speaking God's will. The fact that he will be challenged and shunned is true progress for the gay community in a world where that wouldn't have been the case a few short years ago.

When a solution is figured out that gives the gay community the societal recognition they desire without destroying all that the majority hold sacred, we will have at last solved this problem.

Richie: It may be exacerbated by the "MTV-generation" effect of ever more immediate results. There was a show called "Life On Mars" in the UK about a 2005-era cop waking up in 1973 and the look on his face when they said the fingerprint results from Scotland Yard would be back in TWO WEEKS was priceless.

We want results (or at least progress) NOW.

We have facial recognition, fingerprint and retina scanners, ATM cards, the internet, satellite communications. Wikipedia and Snopes have supplanted the Encyclopedias of our youth.

Cook food in an hour? Feh! Where's my microwave?

Phones - Landlines? How quaint!

In the 1960s, it took a while to organize a protest. Now you can do it via flash-mob and discuss the results over Skype!

So I think, over time, our expectations are changing. Our "internal chronometers" have been irrevocably affected.

Does this help or hurt the cause, or agenda, of the gay community.

Is this government overreach?

The DOJ has ordered a college to allow an anatomically complete male to use the women's bathrooms. The story says this man is saving money to get gender reassignment surgery. This male is 36 years old, and has been married twice and has children, if that matters to anyone.

Obama DOJ Forces University To Allow Biological Male Into Female Restrooms

I generally don't discuss gay rights. It usually doesn't come up in my daily life. But when it does come up (like now), I will include everything. Why not?

They can do anything they want. They have all the same rights as everyone else. They can get married if they want to, it just won't be a legal marriage as we know it between a man and a woman.

I don't think they need to be married other than for the purpose of debasing our culture. They can accomplish everything they need to accomplish with a contract of some sort. But it shouldn't be the standard marriage contract as it pertains to a man and a woman.

Looks like a split decision! :1rotfl:

Things are not always what they seem.:ho:

We did get off course on this one. Thanks Admin.

The Villager II:clap2:

And you just made my point.

They CANNOT accomplish the same thing. In many states contracts like those you refer to can be challenged by family members. As I said elsewhere, a congressional study found over 1600 "benefits" to marriage. So, in a sense, marriage can represent 1600 different contracts.

But I do take exception to part of what you said - that 'they' don't "need" to be married other than to be "debasing our culture". I can think of SO many legal marriages that are more debasing (like an adoptive uncle I had getting married 6 times to 4 women - to say nothing of the typical 'celebrity marriage').

Those 1600 benefits have almost nothing to do with what goes on inside a church - which is why I'm also in favor of protecting churches from having to perform ceremonies that their dogma says they shouldn't. Those 1600 benefits are secular benefits and, if you get them from when a Justice of the Peace marries you, well, that's the way it should be.