The homosexual agenda

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
I wasn't sure whether to continue the other thread or begin a new one. I chose.

Some here have decided to support homosexual marriage no matter what. Some have chosen to oppose it, no matter what. A few probably fall between the cracks.

Some have scoffed at the very notion that homosexuals are part of a larger conspiracy, knowingly or not. Some are sure of it. As was pointed out, the lessening/removal of the disorder from the psychological standpoint was only a beginning. They then wanted to come out, peacefully. Today they want marriage. Some have suggested that the slope gets invariably slippery since the tactics used for homosexual (fill in the adjective here) will be a stepping stone for polygamy & pedophilia, amongst others. I don't believe that anyone is suggesting a specific correlation between pedophiles & homosexuals, it's just the leagl ramifications are incredibly similar.

A few have even suggested that the churches won't be required to participate in the marriage ceremony. Well, you were wrong. Here, my friends, is step one. Start with liberal Canada as a testing ground.

While an American pastor is the subject of federal investigations for delivering a pro-George Bush sermon on July 4, Christian churches in Canada are now facing the loss of their tax-exempt status should they become involved in partisan politics.

The Canada Customs and Revenue Agency has met with legal representatives of both the Catholic Church and the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada to warn them of the action in connection with this year's campaign.

According to LifeSiteNews, churches are not only admonished against recommending certain candidates or political parties, but they also face crackdowns for speaking out on issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage.

Step two to come later.

WND
 
Step TWO? naw, they are much further then that.

Just one more little step of social decline in the name of social progress.

Again, they MUST lower long held standards of social morality to rise to the bar.
 
Step one, step two in forcing churches to go along for the ride. If we're talking about the whole picture, we're up to about step 347
 
Gonz said:
Start with liberal Canada as a testing ground.



Step two to come later.

WND

As WorldNetDaily previously reported, the issue of churches having their tax-exempt status threatened is also hitting home in the U.S.

At least two organizations are monitoring the content of Sunday sermons by American pastors and threatening to report churches to the Internal Revenue Service if they hear political messages they deem inappropriate under federal guidelines on tax-exempt status.

Note, the 'previous' :D

According to a statement by the Democratic committee, the party, "looks forward to the day when all citizens may vote their conscience without their political beliefs being dictated to them by politically involved religious leaders, regardless of denomination."
 
Ok... this one will take a while... but believe me, this one will be fun! (anybody remember my very first post to OTC?)

 
[b] said:
Ok... this one will take a while... but believe me, this one will be fun! (anybody remember my very first post to OTC?)

Ha I can go one better'n that...I remember JJRs :D

HI ! we've missed you :hug:
 
AFAIK, the government can impose rule on public life, but not private. Since joining a church is a private matter, then the government has no business getting involved in church affairs unless said affairs do public harm. Also, since the government has taken on many of the same responsibilities as the church, then the government has an obligation to stick to it's own business in church matters, rather than forcing a church to follow the governments moral compass...This one is going to be a meatgrinder, . nothing fun about it at all... :p
 
Alrighty then, here we go...

First off, what could possibly be the homosexual agenda? World Domination? Conversion of the populace to faggots and lesbos? Our own theme park?

The very idea of some dark, secret homosexual agenda borders on lunacy. If we have an agenda it's to simply be treated like human beings and not some sub-human species only fit for ridicule and extermination.

And speaking of lunatic ideas... how do you make the leap from two homosexual people forming a loving marriage to lets-all-join-NAMBLA-and-rape-8-year-old-boys?

To link gay marriage with polygamy and pedophiles is, well, just plain silly. The Mormon religion, which is one of the fastest growing religions in the world practiced polygamy(and some still do, they just don't call it polygamy anymore). Now, I've known a few Mormons and I seriously doubt that if they were allowed to officially practice polygamy again that the world would spin off it's axis and crash into the sun. And there is just something about Mormons riding the coattails of the gay marriage issue that I really just don't see happening.

And for the record, I don't believe that churches should be forced to conduct ceremonies for gay weddings. The government has no say in that matter, just like the church should have no say in wither or not the government chooses to recognize the union of a homosexual couple.

Separation of church and state. Check the constitution.

I also disagree with undercover agents hiding out in churches waiting for someone to say something out of line. However, laws apply to everybody, even churches, and if they sign a paper saying that they don't have to pay taxes so long as they abide by those laws, then by god they had better hold up their end of the bargain.

Just for grins and giggles, can you please list some examples in how government has taken on the role of churches?

 
*sigh*

how do you make the leap from two homosexual people forming a loving marriage to lets-all-join-NAMBLA-and-rape-8-year-old-boys?

me said:
I don't believe that anyone is suggesting a specific correlation between pedophiles & homosexuals, it's just the leagl ramifications are incredibly similar.

Separation of church and state. Check the constitution.

Yes. Please do. If you find it, let me know.
 
*sigh*

How can you say that you're not trying to say there is a correlation between the two when the next words out of your mouth are to draw a correlation?

Rather than go into typing a lengthy e-mail myself, please check out this site and this site for arguments that the constitution does support seperation of church and state.

 
First off, what could possibly be the homosexual agenda? World Domination? Conversion of the populace to faggots and lesbos? Our own theme park?

The very idea of some dark, secret homosexual agenda borders on lunacy. If we have an agenda it's to simply be treated like human beings and not some sub-human species only fit for ridicule and extermination.
You know damn well they would flock to a gay-theme park in droves!!! ;)

Social re-engineering, reconstruction of social evoultion? Forcing the acceptance of a behavior and promoting of a lifestyle that the general public already has a tolerance for. Why Marriage, Why are they demanding a title tht evolved into what is over the centuries?

The goal is to be treated as heterosexuals with out the social stigmas attached to homosexuality. It's the method of obtaining this goal is where the conspiracy is, some of process and methodology are wide spectrum and not all are honorable. Some are dependant on lowering the standards to rise to the social acceptance of the lifestyle. The end justifies the means. You must admit that homosexual lobby is by far the most organized and bonded machine ever created (and I personally admire that and awe at the depth it goes). I get stacks of newsletters from the homosexual lobby, some are very sensible while others are quasi-militant.



And speaking of lunatic ideas... how do you make the leap from two homosexual people forming a loving marriage to lets-all-join-NAMBLA-and-rape-8-year-old-boys?
Well first off you don't understand what NAMBLA is if you think they condone rape. They want to be able to have consentual[/b] sex with 13-year olds. Rape is not part of their program. They want to have loving realtionships and to simply be treated like human beings and not some sub-human species only fit for ridicule and extermination.


[b] said:
To link gay marriage with polygamy and pedophiles is, well, just plain silly. The Mormon religion, which is one of the fastest growing religions in the world practiced polygamy(and some still do, they just don't call it polygamy anymore). Now, I've known a few Mormons and I seriously doubt that if they were allowed to officially practice polygamy again that the world would spin off it's axis and crash into the sun. And there is just something about Mormons riding the coattails of the gay marriage issue that I really just don't see happening.
How is it silly? Morals and behaviors have been legislated in the past. yes you can legislate morality, that is what laws are.

[b] said:
Separation of church and state. Check the constitution.
I did, it isnt in there.

[b] said:
Just for grins and giggles, can you please list some examples in how government has taken on the role of churches?
They both dictate personal policies of socially acceptable behavior that have been developed from knowledge gained over the life experices of generations; the chuch sends you to hell, the Gov't send you to jail. It is however illegal for the government to create a state church that can create government policy.
 
[b] said:
Just for grins and giggles, can you please list some examples in how government has taken on the role of churches?



Not sure about down south, but up here...marriages are no longer registered at churches, but in GVT. The ceremony happens in the church, but that's all it is until all teh paperwork is filled out and sent to the registrars' office. Until it gets there...you're not really married :)

We recently had a call from the registrar's office saying that one of the weddings performed in our diocese wasn't going to be accepted because the priest hadn't gotten his certificate and number authorising him to do such a marraige. His application had never gotten to them and so he wasn't registered....thus...not allowed to marry people.

When once the GVT role in marriage was merely record-keeping and the church said who married, now the GVT says who's married and the churches merely nice places to fill in the forms, and have a party thereafter.
 
Ok, I'll respond to Mr. Bishop first:

Have you stopped to consider the reason why marriages moved over to the legal realm in the first place? It's all about stuff. Who owns it while your living, and who gets it when you divorce or die.

If heterosexual marriages were all the wholesome, loving, as-god-intended-it-to-be sacred institutions heterosexuals would like for us to believe they are, then can someone please explain to me the high divorce rate in this country, or why there are such things as prenuptial agreements, or why people think Anna Nicole is a money grubbing slut who married an old man for his money, or why I can turn on the TV and watch programs like Cheaters, Who Wants to Marry a Stupid Rich Guy, Who Wants to Marry a Midget, Trading Spouses, or any number of programs where smucks parade around kissing each other for two weeks to see if some guy or girl is "the one" only to find out that their choice is you or a check big enough to retire on? Oh, and lets not even get started on big celeb weddings that last anywhere from 55 hours to two weeks.

To tell me that allowing homosexuals to marry will somehow "tarnish" the brilliant gold standard that heterosexuals have set for marriage is a crock of horseshit.

I know I've said this before, but since it's been a while I'll say it again. It is my personal philosophy that marriage is nothing more than me saying, "Hey, will you marry me." and that person saying, "Yes." If you truly love and trust someone enough to want to marry then and spend the rest of your life with them then it doesn't take god or George Bush to say that you are. What ever happened to a person's word is their bond? Tell me how my belief in what marriage really is tarnishes yours? You can't because it doesn't. You simply can't get a more pure definition.

Now to answer ResearchMonkey:

Yes, we would flock to a gay theme park... or perhaps skip and rave our way there. Yay Gay Days at Disney!

Why would homosexuals want marriage? After my rant about what the "title evolved [into] over the centuries" has evolved into, I have no clue as to why we'd want to be a part of it. I certainly don't. At least not how it's described today. However, there are a few things that are nice about being married that I see no reason why homosexuals should be excluded. Health Care for example.

I'll have to find the site I read this on, but a study was done that showed that allowing same-sex couples to share benefits would save the country billions in health care. Not only that, but the increased revenue to the economy from fees, ceremonies, rings and all the other trappings that go with a wedding would boost the economy. Letting gay people get married should appeal to a capitalist country such as ours. Other benefits include hospital visitation rights that aren't extended to homosexual couples.

If my boyfriend were in a car wreck today I'm the only family he has here. Where is the justice in forcing me to sit in the waiting room while he slips into a coma and dies all alone? Isn't four and half years of a solid loving relationship good enough to prove that I should be at his side?

What non-honorable methods are homosexual's using to achieve the goal of being treated as heterosexuals without the social stigmas attached to homosexuality? As far as I'm aware none of us have flown a plane into a building, bombed a building, shot an abortion doctor, tied someone to a fence and beat them to death, or tied a man to the bumper of a pickup truck and dragged him down a dirt road till his head popped off. And your damn right we're organized. We got centuries of persecution and the subsequent civil liberties movements to draw upon. We're better educated and more connected than any group before us simply because of the times we live in.

Every group has it's militant supporters, and so we do to. That doesn't mean that the homosexual community follows and believes in what they do any more than it means Prolifers everywhere throw a party every time a Abortion Clinic gets blown to smithereens.

As for NAMBLA, since I'm pretty sure nearly every state has laws that dictate how old a child can be before he or she is old enough to understand what it means to have sex (and I don't think it's 8 or 13) then having sex with children under that age is legally rape. What burns me is how people want to try to say that if we allow homosexuals to have the same rights to live un-oppressed in today's world that it automatically leads to letting grown men fondle children's butts. That's how it's silly. Me wanting to be in a loving, consensual sexual relationship with another person of the same sex who is old enough to understand what he's doing and able to accept all that being in the relationship means is simply not the same as me picking up little boys who may only understand that me touching them down might feel good.

The separation of church in state, as it applies to the constitution, seems to be one of those things that, like the bible, can be interpreted how you want to fit your own needs. The sites I listed as examples, offer, in my opinion, a very good argument that the constitution does indeed have provisions for a separation of church and state. If you choose not to see that, there is no argument I could possibly provide that would sway your opinion on it. For that matter, I'm unlikely to change the minds of any person here that doesn't feel I have the right to live in a free, open society, where I can be married (should I choose) and not worry about getting run down in the street if my boyfriend and I are holding hands on a street corner. However, since I'm a gay superhero, I will do what I can to try.

 
Back
Top