76 replies to this topic

[ERayR]

Tacenda, on 15 August 2012 - 02:21 PM, said:

I just feel for them and don't want others to say they are anything but beautiful children of God and have been given a raw deal, something that they've been biologically born with.

Nobody is saying any different.  It is you that seems to have trouble separating the person from the action.  Nobody is deriding the person only questioning the actions.  Most people don't identify themselves by their sexuality.  I have never heard anybody say Hi I;m___and I'm heterosexual.

Edited by ERayR, 16 August 2012 - 05:12 PM.

[DavidB]

As this thread is disinformation in the ssm debate, then it is open to discussion as to both groups and disinformation.

I heard a radio show with Karl Rove, in the show he was asked if he opposed ssm, he would not answer yes or no rather he answered he supported traditional marriage.

Is it disinformation to answer the question "Do you oppose ssm?" with "I support the traditional definition of marriage."

Is it disinformation to state that a person or group who only support traditional or Biblical marriage are opposed to ssm.

[wenglund]

DavidB, on 15 August 2012 - 07:57 PM, said:

As this thread is disinformation in the ssm debate, then it is open to discussion as to both groups and disinformation.

I heard a radio show with Karl Rove, in the show he was asked if he opposed ssm, he would not answer yes or no rather he answered he supported traditional marriage.

Is it disinformation to answer the question "Do you oppose ssm?" with "I support the traditional definition of marriage.

No. A person can reasonably be undecided about, indifferent to, or even not mindful of SSM while also being supportive of traditional marriage.

Also, given the potential for over reactions and the risk of being misconstrued in answer to the first question (as evinced recently in the Chick-Fil-A firestorm), prudence suggest answering indirectly in a potentially less inflammatory way.  This isn't disinformation, but tact.

Quote

Is it disinformation to state that a person or group who only support traditional or Biblical marriage are opposed to ssm.

It depends upon whether they are actually opposed to SSM or not. As with your previous question, a person or group can be undecided about or indifferent to SSM or not even have thought about SSM, and yet only support traditional or biblical marriage. Such was invariably the case for people supportive of traditional marriage prior to 1970 when the issue of SSM first surfaced. Logically, one's support for something doesn't necessarily mean one is against other options (known or unknown).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund, 15 August 2012 - 08:32 PM.

[wenglund]

Thus far in the thread we have talked about the means by which gay activists have facilitated changes in our culture from the early 70's to now--how we as a society have slipped to where we are at on the slope.

It may now be instructive to consider where this is all intended to go. And, the best place to find this out is to go to the source and see what leading gay activist groups have set as their end goals. Please take a look at at the Gay Liberation Manifesto. The alarming things disclosed therein not only give explanation for how we got to where we are today, but also clearly state that the gay movement isn't going to be satisfied with legal reforms (like what we have seen so far), but that they are out to revolutionize and even do away with certain fundamental aspect of society, like the traditional family, monogamous relationships, the cultural distinction between men and women, etc. They are out to create a whole new lifestyle for one and all. Ultimately, they are not looking for acceptance, but to promote gays as the premier model for advanced societies.

The manifesto is as astonishing in its audacity as it is in its forthrightness.

Here were the demands they made at the time (1970's). See how many have already been met.

• that all discrimination against gay people, male and female, by the law, by employers, and by society at large, should end.
  
• that all people who feel attracted to a member of their own sex be taught that such feeling are perfectly valid.
  
• that sex education in schools stop being exclusively heterosexual.
  
• that psychiatrists stop treating homosexuality as though it were a sickness, thereby giving gay people senseless guilt complexes.
  
• that gay people be as legally free to contact other gay people, though newspaper ads, on the streets and by any other means they may want as are heterosexuals, and that police harassment should cease right now.
  
• that employers should no longer be allowed to discrim inate against anyone on accou nt of their sexual preferences.
  
• that the age of consent for gay males be reduced to the same as for straight.
  
• that gay people be free to hold hands and kiss in public, as are heterosexuals.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

For those who may suppose that the radical intents of the 70's  Gay Liberation Manifesto (linked above) died out along with the hippie movement, may I suggest reading what Michael Swift had to say as late as 1987, in the Gay Community News article called, "Michael Swift, 'Gay Revolutionary'." It is a deeply disturbed and disturbing piece, and in light of our discussion about the gay abhor-to-embrace process and strategies, Swift had this to say (note how well it fits with what has been disclosed thus far):

"...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...."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund, 16 August 2012 - 01:26 PM.

[DavidB]

wenglund, on 15 August 2012 - 08:31 PM, said:

No. A person can reasonably be undecided about, indifferent to, or even not mindful of SSM while also being supportive of traditional marriage.

Also, given the potential for over reactions and the risk of being misconstrued in answer to the first question (as evinced recently in the Chick-Fil-A firestorm), prudence suggest answering indirectly in a potentially less inflammatory way.  This isn't disinformation, but tact.

It depends upon whether they are actually opposed to SSM or not. As with your previous question, a person or group can be undecided about or indifferent to SSM or not even have thought about SSM, and yet only support traditional or biblical marriage. Such was invariably the case for people supportive of traditional marriage prior to 1970 when the issue of SSM first surfaced. Logically, one's support for something doesn't necessarily mean one is against other options (known or unknown).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

thanks for the response. I question the reasoning though. I tend to doubt that the majority of those who espouse Biblical marriage or traditional marriage are indifferent (not caring one way or an other) to ssm, or that they have not given the idea of ssm much thought and therefore have not formed an opinion.

[DavidB]

Some more disinformation; which is the disinformation. These three are a few of the rally cries against ssm.

Catholic adoption agencies were forced to close shop because of SSM
vs.
Catholic adoption agencies closed because they could not operate without State or Federal funding - a condition of receiving said funding was abiding by State laws.

A Church in New Jersey was penalized for standing true to its religious beliefs against SSM.
vs.
A Church in New Jersey, which held it property open for public use as a condition for receiving tax exemption on the property, lost its tax exempt status for refusing to hold the property open to the public i.e. a homosexual couple.

Student in Mass. were forced to read a book about a homosexual Prince.
vs.
Student in Mass. were sent home with a list of books for reading. The parents of said children were to review the list are were permitted to object. Parents did not review the list and thus did not object to a book about a homosexual prince.

Students in Ca. were forced to attend a SSM wedding.
vs.
Parents of students in Ca. arranged for their children to attend the ssm of their teacher.

[Maestrophil]

I do not see how Wade's points originally were inflammatory at all.  They are simply means used by many groups to further an agenda.

The spirit of his post, from what I can see, is that as a proponent of traditional marriage, one needs to recognize that these means are being employed so one can be aware of them and thus potentially lessen the effectiveness.  (just as an advocate of SSM would encourage his/her peers to learn to recognize the same from the other camp.

Nothing wrong with the strategies employed...  just empowering to recognize them.

That said:

"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." <---- this is the kind of rhetoric that reduces my ability to relate to the SSM community (not that all hold this radical of a view - I simply hear A LOT of similar language)

[wenglund]

DavidB, on 16 August 2012 - 02:23 PM, said:

thanks for the response. I question the reasoning though. I tend to doubt that the majority of those who espouse Biblical marriage or traditional marriage are indifferent (not caring one way or an other) to ssm, or that they have not given the idea of ssm much thought and therefore have not formed an opinion.

Even if I grant your speculation, my reasoning stands given that you allow for a minority of people for whom it may apply.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I am pleased to have just recently discovered that much of the work I have been doing for this thread has already been completed. It may be found in a book titled, "The Triumphant Gay Revolution--". And, while it appears to be written in a gay-friendly manner, it is seems to be an excellent resource for the history of the gay movement to date. For those of us who don't have direct access to the book, here is a 3-page synompsis: How the Gay Rights Movement Won.

If or when I have the time, it would be interesting to compare and contrast this book with a book on the same subject and published more than a decade earlier, called: "We Are Everywhere," and another book written in the late 80's, "The Rise of a Gay and Lesbian Movement.

Here are some other on-line resources:

Timeline for the Gay Rights Movement
HIstory of the Gay Rights Movement
PBS: Milestones in the American Gay Rights Movement

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund, 16 August 2012 - 03:31 PM.

[DavidB]

wenglund, on 16 August 2012 - 02:45 PM, said:

Even if I grant your speculation, my reasoning stands given that you allow for a minority of people for whom it may apply.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wouldn't that make it the exception and not the rule, right?


Are you willing to address the points raised in post 47?

[wenglund]

DavidB, on 16 August 2012 - 02:38 PM, said:

Some more disinformation; which is the disinformation. These three are a few of the rally cries against ssm.

Catholic adoption agencies were forced to close shop because of SSM
vs.
Catholic adoption agencies closed because they could not operate without State or Federal funding - a condition of receiving said funding was abiding by State laws.

A Church in New Jersey was penalized for standing true to its religious beliefs against SSM.
vs.
A Church in New Jersey, which held it property open for public use as a condition for receiving tax exemption on the property, lost its tax exempt status for refusing to hold the property open to the public i.e. a homosexual couple.

Student in Mass. were forced to read a book about a homosexual Prince.
vs.
Student in Mass. were sent home with a list of books for reading. The parents of said children were to review the list are were permitted to object. Parents did not review the list and thus did not object to a book about a homosexual prince.

Students in Ca. were forced to attend a SSM wedding.
vs.
Parents of students in Ca. arranged for their children to attend the ssm of their teacher.

FYI, this thread is intended to discuss the general process and strategies related to the gay movement. The previous thread was intended to highlight general points of disinformation. Here you are presenting specific points you believe are disinformative.

Now, even though your post is more than a little off-topic, I will allow it and open it up to scrutiny by those interested.

However, the thing is, you need to provide links to what you are allegedly quoting in each of the cases above so that we can check the accuracy of your quotes and also read the quotes in context so as to test your claim of disinformation.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

DavidB, on 16 August 2012 - 03:35 PM, said:

Wouldn't that make it the exception and not the rule, right?

Yes...if one accepts your conjecture. The problem is, your initial question was not time specific, and thus covered the milllenia prior to 1973 when SSM first became an issue. This then raises the question of whether it was the exception or the rule.

Even still, assuming you were speaking in terms of modern times (within the last quarter century), and were one to view it as an exception, this doesn't impact my reasoning since I answered by saying "it depends"--thereby allowing for both the rule and the exception.

Quote

Are you willing to address the points raised in post 47?

See my previous post (#52).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[DavidB]

wenglund, on 16 August 2012 - 03:43 PM, said:

FYI, this thread is intended to discuss the general process and strategies related to the gay movement. The previous thread was intended to highlight general points of disinformation. Here you are presenting specific points you believe are disinformative.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade here is your thread title "S.S.M Debate, Dissecting The Process And Strategies Of Disinformation"  perhaps you should request the thread title to be change too

"Dissecting The Process And Strategies Of Disinformation of the gay agenda"

but as the title stand my posts are completely inline with the topic.

[wenglund]

DavidB, on 16 August 2012 - 04:16 PM, said:

Wade here is your thread title "S.S.M Debate, Dissecting The Process And Strategies Of Disinformation"  perhaps you should request the thread title to be change too

"Dissecting The Process And Strategies Of Disinformation of the gay agenda"

but as the title stand my posts are completely inline with the topic.

You evidently aren't paying very good attention.

First, as explained, your post doesn't speak to process or strategies, regardless. It doesn't even speak to general points of disinformation, regardless. Rather it speaks to specific statements that you deem to be disinformation. HOw you missed this even after I highlighted those points, is puzzling.

So, your post is, in fact, off-topic even given the generic title of this thread.

Second, out of the goodness of my heart, I liberally granted you permission to discuss on this thread your specific quotes even though they were off-topic. All I reasonably asked is that you document your alleged quotes. Is that asking too much? Sheesh!

So, no, the title doesn't need to be changed as you suggest. Instead, you need to pay better attention, man-up and apologize for jumping to false conclusions, show some gratitude for the charity I extended you, and step up and document your comments where reasonably needed and requested.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[DavidB]

wenglund, on 16 August 2012 - 04:31 PM, said:

You evidently aren't paying very good attention.

First, as explained, your post doesn't speak to process or strategies, regardless. It doesn't even speak to general points of disinformation, regardless. Rather it speaks to specific statements that you deem to be disinformation. HOw you missed this even after I highlighted those points, is puzzling.

So, your post is, in fact, off-topic even given the generic title of this thread.

Second, out of the goodness of my heart, I liberally granted you permission to discuss on this thread your specific quotes even though they were off-topic. All I reasonably asked is that you document your alleged quotes. Is that asking too much? Sheesh!

So, no, the title doesn't need to be changed as you suggest. Instead, you need to pay better attention, man-up and apologize for jumping to false conclusions, show some gratitude for the charity I extended you, and step up and document your comments where reasonably needed and requested.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade I originally asked which was the disinformation.  Which is again on topic, as the post sought to delineate what is disinformation and what is not.

"In New Jersey, the United Methodist Church was investigated and penalized under state anti-discrimination law for denying same-sex couples access to a church-owned pavilion for their civil-union ceremonies." here is the associated footnote

here is a NPR article on the New Jersey and why it's tax exempt status was revoked

So which is the disinformation...Claiming a Church was penalized for denying a same-sex couple access to a church-owned pavilion  OR A New Jersey found was found to be in violation of it tax exempt status in denying a same-sex couple access to a church-owned pavilion.


of course though, I can provide you your response ''It is a distinction without a difference and therefore no disinformation" or "It is a matter of personnel opinion therefore no disinformation".

Edited by DavidB, 16 August 2012 - 05:09 PM.

[ERayR]

DavidB, on 15 August 2012 - 07:57 PM, said:

As this thread is disinformation in the ssm debate, then it is open to discussion as to both groups and disinformation.

I heard a radio show with Karl Rove, in the show he was asked if he opposed ssm, he would not answer yes or no rather he answered he supported traditional marriage.

Is it disinformation to answer the question "Do you oppose ssm?" with "I support the traditional definition of marriage."

Is it disinformation to state that a person or group who only support traditional or Biblical marriage are opposed to ssm.

I think that is a very straightforward answer.

Do you have any doubt what is now traditional marriage?

[wenglund]

DavidB, on 16 August 2012 - 05:06 PM, said:

Of course though, I can provide you your response ''It is a distinction without a difference and therefore no disinformation" or "It is a matter of personnel opinion therefore no disinformation".

All that to make this seemingly meaningless point?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

In conjunction with strategy #2, and as if there is any doubt that the mainstream media is in bed with gay activists, here is this unflattering story about a gay activist run a muck, which is getting precious little news coverage (were this a far-right shooter at an abortion clinic it would be dominating the news cycle for days), though it can be read the Christian Science Monitor.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[selek1]

wenglund, on 16 August 2012 - 07:00 PM, said:

In conjunction with strategy #2, and as if there is any doubt that the mainstream media is in bed with gay activists, here is this unflattering story about a gay activist run a muck, which is getting precious little news coverage (were this a far-right shooter at an abortion clinic it would be dominating the news cycle for days), though it can be read the Christian Science Monitor.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It should be emphasized here that the story is not about homosexuals and their propensity for violence, nor about tarring the entire LGBT movement for the actions of a lone individual- who may or may not- have been sane.

The key fact is the indisputable and undeniable difference in how these stories have been handled- or more accurately- BURIED by a supposedly neutral, unbiased media.

Edited by selek1, 16 August 2012 - 07:04 PM.