Could We Discuss The Podcast In My Post After Listening With Open Minds?

[Damien the Leper]

You got a very very sincere response -- which you immediately treated with a frivolous, useless impossible CFR. (Not only that but you insisted that I use sources other than the sources I originally talked about! Ridiculous!)

I then specifically asked you how such a CFR could be fulfilled... which you did not answer but merely reissued it.

So... you want sincere responses but when you get them you abuse the conversation. Its like "Go find a Rock". "No.. not that rock go find another". You are playing games with me instead of being sincere yourself.

Not at all. But you have further confirmed that we should stop discussing this issue between the two of us. Take care, CA.

[Tacenda]

In addition to what I said in my previous post, here is a statement made in 1987 by Michael Swift, a gay revolutionary, in a popular gay newspaper, Gay Community News (GNC):

"We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us.

"Women, you cry for freedom. You say you are no longer satisfied with men; they make you unhappy. We, connoisseurs of the masculine face, the masculine physique, shall take your men from you then. We will amuse them; we will instruct them; we will embrace them when they weep. Women, you say you wish to live with each other instead of with men. Then go and be with each other. We shall give your men pleasures they have never known because we are foremost men too, and only one man knows how to truly please another man; only one man can understand the depth and feeling, the mind and body of another man.

All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked. Instead, legislation shall be passed which engenders love between men.

"All homosexuals must stand together as brothers; we must be united artistically, philosophically, socially, politically and financially. We will triumph only when we present a common face to the vicious heterosexual enemy."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

http://en.wikipedia....mosexual_agenda

Initial usage

In the US, the term "the gay agenda" was first used in public discourse in 1992 when the Family Research Council, an American conservative Christian group,^[4] released a video series called The Gay Agenda as part of a pack of materials campaigning on homosexual issues and the "hidden gay agenda".^[5] In the same year the Oregon Citizens Alliance used this video as part of their campaign for Ballot Measure 9 to amend the Oregon Constitution to prevent what the OCA called special rights for gays, lesbians, and bisexuals.^[6] Paul Cameron — co-founder of the Institute for the Scientific Investigation of Sexuality in Lincoln, later renamed the Family Research Institute — appeared in the video, wherein he asserted that 75 percent of gay men regularly ingest feces and that 70-78 percent have had a sexually transmitted disease.^[7] The Gay Agenda was followed by three other video publications; The Gay Agenda in Public Education (1993), The Gay Agenda: March on Washington (1993) and a feature follow-up Stonewall: 25 Years of Deception (1994). The videos contained interviews with opponents of LGBT rights, and the series was made available through Christian right organizations.^[8]

Satire

A satirical article by Michael Swift which appeared in the Gay Community News in February 1987 entitled "Gay Revolutionary" describes a scenario in which homosexual men dominate American society and suppress all things heterosexual. This was reprinted in Congressional Record without the opening line: "This essay is an outré, madness, a tragic, cruel fantasy, an eruption of inner rage, on how the oppressed desperately dream of being the oppressor."^[23]

The term is sometimes used satirically as a counterfoil by people who would normally find this term offensive, such as the spoof agenda found on the Betty Bowers satirical website,^[24] and when Bishop Gene Robinson declared that "Jesus is the agenda, the homosexual agenda in the Episcopal Church".^[25][26] On an episode of The Daily Show, Jon Stewart defined the gay agenda as "gay marriage, civil rights protection, Fleet Week expanded to Fleet Year, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) assistance for when it's raining men, Kathy Griffin to host everything and a nationwide ban on pleated pants."^[27]

From the looks of it, this was satire or a spoof!

Edited August 16, 2012 by Tacenda

[ERayR]

Why? That's not the issue to begin with. This thread drifted off into "slippery slope" land and at the bottom of that hill, sunk into anti-discrimination laws against businesses. All of which, has nothing to do with ss marriage. It has to do with discrimination against minority groups, of which ss attracted are only a small part. Those lawsuits would prevail (and have, in many cases) whether or not ss marriage was/is legalized.

Libs those lawsuits are part and parcel of this whole thing. You can't divorce one from the other. That is why you can't seem to see the picture, you are looking at all this as isolated events but they are not. You need to put the montage together.

[Damien the Leper]

bibliolatrous evangelical

Until you actually learn something about me...I would suggest that you refrain from labelling me as such. I am not nor have I ever been an bibliolatrous evangelical. I have argued against inerrancy with the likes of Reformists and others. I don't support certain evangelical beliefs. I do not recognize evangelical pastors such as Billy Graham, Pat Robertson, James Dobson as relevant to theological discussion and I outrightly reject their brand of Christian ethics and moralism.

So I suppose that I can issue a CFR that I am in any way a bibliolatrous evangelical or that I demonstrate myself to be such.

But you'll probably refrain from answering it because there is no such evidence and therefore I will not waste yours nor my time.

[USU78]

Until you actually learn something about me...I would suggest that you refrain from labelling me as such. I am not nor have I ever been an bibliolatrous evangelical. I have argued against inerrancy with the likes of Reformists and others. I don't support certain evangelical beliefs. I do not recognize evangelical pastors such as Billy Graham, Pat Robertson, James Dobson as relevant to theological discussion and I outrightly reject their brand of Christian ethics and moralism.

So I suppose that I can issue a CFR that I am in any way a bibliolatrous evangelical or that I demonstrate myself to be such.

But you'll probably refrain from answering it because there is no such evidence and therefore I will not waste yours nor my time.

You misunderstand me: you used the argument that the Evangelical uses, of Sauline primacy over everything else, justifying solafides and solascriptura, the bedrock of their religious understanding. In doing so, you thought, perhaps, to strengthen your position. You actually weaken it in the eyes of most Christians. The Evies are a relatively small minority of Protestants, who are a relatively small minority of Christians.

[wenglund]

From the looks of it, this was satire or a spoof!

That is how it is being down-played. But, given the header for the article, it looks to me like it is a "...cruel fantasy, an eruption of inner rage, on how the oppressed desperately dream of being the oppressor."

In other words, it is an unbriddled expression of an inner desire, and in a way that "unmasks" (a word used multiple times in the article) the sentiments of the community for which Swift was/is a spokesman. And, in spite of its sensationalist and inflammatory language, much of it echoes what is stated in the Gay Liberation Manifesto that I linked to earlier.

It may help you to read through both so you can get an unvarnished sense for the movement you have decided to climb into bed with. See what is really behind the self-identified mask--beyond what is periodically revealed during gay pride parades and inadvertently with public outburst like what occurred with the abuse of Chick-Fil-A owners and employees.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 16, 2012 by wenglund

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

How do you know your not Gay unless you try it? I remember reading that in one of those books on homosexuality.

[Damien the Leper]

You misunderstand me: you used the argument that the Evangelical uses, of Sauline primacy over everything else, justifying solafides and solascriptura, the bedrock of their religious understanding. In doing so, you thought, perhaps, to strengthen your position. You actually weaken it in the eyes of most Christians. The Evies are a relatively small minority of Protestants, who are a relatively small minority of Christians.

What argument did I use exactly?

[USU78]

What argument did I use exactly?

Perhaps I misunderstood your point in employing Saul/Paul: Did you or did you not intend that Saul/Paul is the last word on everything? And that no amount of statements by Jesus or anybody else could overcome the volume of Saul/Paul's retained correspondence? And that his statements regarding the circumcision of gentile converts means that the Torah was of no further consequence after Saul/Paul, Jesus' statements about the Torah notwithstanding?

[Tacenda]

That is how it is being down-played. But, given the header for the article, it looks to me like it is a "...cruel fantasy, an eruption of inner rage, on how the oppressed desperately dream of being the oppressor."

In other words, it is an unbriddled expression of an inner desire, and in a way that "unmasks" (a word used multiple times in the article) the sentiments of the community for which Swift was/is a spokesman. And, in spite of its sensationalist and inflammatory language, much of it echoes what is stated in the Gay Liberation Manifesto that I linked to earlier.

It may help you to read through both so you can get an unvarnished sense for the movement you have decided to climb into bed with. See what is really behind the self-identified mask--beyond what is periodically revealed during gay pride parades and inadvertently with public outburst like what occurred with the abuse of Chick-Fil-A owners and employees.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I'm sure that it might exist and is the sickest thing I've ever read but it isn't the "rule" just like child abusers or serial rapists aren't the rule or the majority.

[Libs]

Libs those lawsuits are part and parcel of this whole thing. You can't divorce one from the other. That is why you can't seem to see the picture, you are looking at all this as isolated events but they are not. You need to put the montage together.

Sorry, but I disagree, Ray. The other stuff is not directly related to ss marriage and only serves to confuse the issue or try and propagate unrealistic (IMO) fears. Gays are in the process of fighting for and gaining their civil rights, just as other minorities have done, in the past, and it will be a little painful, in the beginning, and need clarification, by courts, here and there, but will all smooth over, in the end, with religious liberties fully intact.

[CASteinman]

How do you know your not Gay unless you try it? I remember reading that in one of those books on homosexuality.

Just ask George Michael... who did not know until he tried it... Up to then he thought women were fun...

Well.. that's the story he used to tell anyway. I would not be shocked if he has changed his tune on that and would now say that he was always gay. But he used to claim he did not know it until he tried it.

Edited August 16, 2012 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

I think advocating for same sex marriage is the same thing as confessing that you do not understand -- or if you do understand you do not agree with God's plan of Redemption and Exaltation of Man.

Edited August 16, 2012 by CASteinman

[Pahoran]

I was just thinking about the title of this thread and wonder why it is only those who oppose gay marriage need to keep open minds. Shouldn't the same apply to the other side?

What she said!

Regards,

Pahoran

[Damien the Leper]

Perhaps I misunderstood your point in employing Saul/Paul: Did you or did you not intend that Saul/Paul is the last word on everything? And that no amount of statements by Jesus or anybody else could overcome the volume of Saul/Paul's retained correspondence? And that his statements regarding the circumcision of gentile converts means that the Torah was of no further consequence after Saul/Paul, Jesus' statements about the Torah notwithstanding?

While I am a huge fan of Paul's writings, I don't think his writings are the final say on matters.

I am curious as to whether or not any Jews would agree with the Christians employing their laws on themselves or anyone else. Perhaps this is why Paul seemed to leave Judaism behind as he converted.

To each their own, I suppose.

[wenglund]

I'm sure that it might exist and is the sickest thing I've ever read but it isn't the "rule" just like child abusers or serial rapists aren't the rule or the majority.

That is debatable. Nevertheless it is these alleged exceptions who have been the major force behind the gay movement and who were largely responsible for much of the relevant social change early on, starting with the "Harry Hay's Mattachine Society in 1951, originally inspired by Communist models of social changes..."--particularly the radical D.C. chapter formed a decade later, as well as the Stonewall Riots of 1969. (see HERE)

Again, look behind the self-identified "mask."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[ERayR]

Perhaps I misunderstood your point in employing Saul/Paul: Did you or did you not intend that Saul/Paul is the last word on everything? And that no amount of statements by Jesus or anybody else could overcome the volume of Saul/Paul's retained correspondence? And that his statements regarding the circumcision of gentile converts means that the Torah was of no further consequence after Saul/Paul, Jesus' statements about the Torah notwithstanding?

Or as one Evangelical group I crossed paths with. "Are you rightly dividing the word"

[DBMormon]

LIBS - and any others who addressed my previous questioning

So the difference is that one is consenting adults and the other isn’t. What makes one person a consenting adult and not the other person? The Law, Moral code? Whether we are talking animals or underage people, if we take God out of the picture it boils down to legal law and moral code and what society is willing and not willing to allow. Both of the are based on popularity and not any real fixed line in the sand. It is possible then that both beastialty and pedophilia could be permitted at some later time if the general population at some point becomes forward thinking and progressive and accepts these behaviors as natural and permissable. It could be both legal and morally acceptable. There are people who have attractions to both the two illegal issues and can’t help themselves. At it’s root homosexuality can be seen as applicable and grabbing at the same acceptance that other issues do. So how is homosexual behavior at it’s root different? I would also say that heterosexual behavior is no different as well. The only true difference outside of legality and moral acceptance in a general population is if God exists and if he staes what is right and what is wrong. Only then do we have a firm line drawn, and not leave what is right and what is wrong up to public opinion.

Obviously in the underage case we must assume consent has been given verbally though obviously not legal consent. In the animal case there is legal precident that animal consent is not needed to do harm to an animal, as the farmer asks no one before he kills his chickens or cow for food. Any deterrant to kill an animal is again a matter of law and again an be changed by popular opinion

Any thoughts ???

again not exactly my view but playing devils advocate

Never was addressed and was hoping a SSA behavior advocate might help me tackle this line of thinking

[wenglund]

Yesterday, a gay rights supporter took the Chick-Fil-A and SSM controversy to a whole new level and showed how he intended to deal with people who disagreed with his position. As expected, the story is being comparatively, though expectedly, under-reported in the mainstream media. However, you can read about it in the Christian Science Monitor.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[TAO]

I can understand both arguments but of course I will choose the argument that I believe best fits and other side will choose theirs.

Definitely.

[wenglund]

Much of the "common culture" you are defending (if not celebrating) is predicated on the recruitment, sexual conquest, and domination of underage men.

And before you shriek "Godwins" and beg the moderators to shut down the conversation- NO- I'm not talking about the NAMBLA wackos

Speaking of NAMBLA, I wasn't aware until just a few moments ago that in the late 70's, in part "...a police raid of Toronto-area gay newspaper The Body Politic for publishing "Men Loving Boys Loving Men" set the stage for the founding of NAMBLA."[5]

Also, "In December 1977, police raided a house in the Boston suburb of Revere. Twenty-four men were arrested and indicted on over 100 felony counts of the statutory rape of boys aged eight to fifteen. Suffolk County District Attorney Garrett Byrne found that the men used drugs and video games to lure the boys into a house, where they photographed them as they engaged in sexual activity. The men were members of a "sex ring", and said that the arrest was only "the tip of the iceberg."^[5] The arrests sparked intense media coverage, and local newspapers published the photographs and personal information of the accused men. The "Boston-Boise Committee", a gay rights organization, formed in response to these events and to protect the "rights of gay men" and promote "gay solidarity." NAMBLA's founding was inspired by this gay rights organization.^[15] It was co-founded by the gay historian David Thorstad."^[16]

Evidently, NAMBLA was a part of the International Lesbian and Gay Association until as late as 1996, though there was some trouble brewing in GLBT paradise prior to then (ibid)

Of particular note as to why the parting of ways, "In 1994, Pat Califia^[26] argued that politics played an important role in the gay community's rejection of NAMBLA, however, Califia has since completely repudiated his earlier support for NAMBLA.^[27]

If you click on the Califia link you will learn that Pat was born into an LDS family. She started out life as a female, came out as a lesbian in 1971, was heavy into S/M and wrote a lot of pornographic material, and in 1990 she "transitioned".

As I indicated to Tacenda, things get quite interesting as we dig beneath the surface of the gay movement.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[ERayR]

Speaking of NAMBLA, I wasn't aware until just a few moments ago that in the late 70's, in part "...a police raid of Toronto-area gay newspaper The Body Politic for publishing "Men Loving Boys Loving Men" set the stage for the founding of NAMBLA."[5]

Also, "In December 1977, police raided a house in the Boston suburb of Revere. Twenty-four men were arrested and indicted on over 100 felony counts of the statutory rape of boys aged eight to fifteen. Suffolk County District Attorney Garrett Byrne found that the men used drugs and video games to lure the boys into a house, where they photographed them as they engaged in sexual activity. The men were members of a "sex ring", and said that the arrest was only "the tip of the iceberg."^[5] The arrests sparked intense media coverage, and local newspapers published the photographs and personal information of the accused men. The "Boston-Boise Committee", a gay rights organization, formed in response to these events and to protect the "rights of gay men" and promote "gay solidarity." NAMBLA's founding was inspired by this gay rights organization.^[15] It was co-founded by the gay historian David Thorstad."^[16]

Evidently, NAMBLA was a part of the International Lesbian and Gay Association until as late as 1996, though there was some trouble brewing in GLBT paradise prior to then (ibid)

Of particular note as to why the parting of ways, "In 1994, Pat Califia^[26] argued that politics played an important role in the gay community's rejection of NAMBLA, however, Califia has since completely repudiated his earlier support for NAMBLA.^[27]

If you click on the Califia link you will learn that Pat was born into an LDS family. She started out life as a female, came out as a lesbian in 1971, was heavy into S/M and wrote a lot of pornographic material, and in 1990 she "transitioned".

As I indicated to Tacenda, things get quite interesting as we dig beneath the surface of the gay movement.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

And on another thread Libs still insists there is no slippery slope.

[USU78]

Wade, I appreciate your bringing these matters to everybody's attention. I haven't the heart to do it myself, though I've been listening to that and similar dreck since the early '70s.

The reason? As a then actor/dancer/singer, I was often the only straight guy in the room . . . and listened carefully to what was said . . . and read up on what was referred to.

The worst of all disingenuousness in the whole thing? The attempt by the homophile orthodoxy to claim that sexual abuse by men of boys and by women of girls is not a homosexual phenomenon. The argue all the more passionately against this because it's an absurdity. Fact is, if 1-3% of the male population is indeed homosexual and 1/3 of all child sex abuse is male on male, then the percentage of homosexuals who sexually abuse underaged males is astoundingly high. I haven't the heart to do the math.

[wenglund]

Wade, I appreciate your bringing these matters to everybody's attention. I haven't the heart to do it myself, though I've been listening to that and similar dreck since the early '70s.

The reason? As a then actor/dancer/singer, I was often the only straight guy in the room . . . and listened carefully to what was said . . . and read up on what was referred to.

The worst of all disingenuousness in the whole thing? The attempt by the homophile orthodoxy to claim that sexual abuse by men of boys and by women of girls is not a homosexual phenomenon. The argue all the more passionately against this because it's an absurdity. Fact is, if 1-3% of the male population is indeed homosexual and 1/3 of all child sex abuse is male on male, then the percentage of homosexuals who sexually abuse underaged males is astoundingly high. I haven't the heart to do the math.

I am sensitive to the issue as well, though for somewhat different reasons. When I was 16 years old, and looked about 14, I was propositioned by older homosexual men several times in the Seattle bus terminal on my way home to Bellevue after work. And, I have a male relative who was sexually abused at the tender age of 6 by an elderly man, and subsequently suffered from it into adulthood. I also have a male friend who was raped when he was about 14 by a homosexual man in his early 20's, and the event was so traumatic that decades later I had to take him to the hospital for suicide prevention treatment, and later I helped him through his suicide watch.

I get that not all homosexuals are pedophiles. And, I can even understand the political motive behind the gay movement downplaying this unsavory aspect of their community--which they attempt to do by idiosyncratically defining the term "homosexual" as adults. It is just that I think we are all better served by sweeping it out from under the rug.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[DBMormon]

still no taker on my questions and thoughts...... why is that? Are the arguments too compelling to go against?

Post #357

http://www.mormondia...entry1209162798

Edited August 18, 2012 by DBMormon