S.S.M Debate, Dissecting The Process And Strategies Of Disinformation

[DavidB]

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]

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]

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.

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

See my previous post (#52).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[DavidB]

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]

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]

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 August 17, 2012 by DavidB

[ERayR]

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]

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]

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 August 17, 2012 by selek1

[DavidB]

All that to make this seemingly meaningless point?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Does this mean you are unwilling to take a position on whether either of the statements about the New Jersey Church are disinformation? I believe both sides of the debate are guilty of disinformation, I believe this disinformation is done via framing a statement in such a way that ones own position is best promoted even when such framing involves withholding information critical to for another to clearly and accurately understand the claim being made.

[wenglund]

Strategy #9: Alliances

I trust we all understand the principle of "strength in numbers." Certainly, the gay movement understood this, which is why, given their relatively small percentage of the population (3-4%), they thought it wise to create alliances in order to boost their numbers and perceived strength.

I say "create" because in some cases, the alliances were somewhat imagined or presumptuously assumed unilaterally and without the public knowledge and/or consent of the alleged allies.

For example, gay activist have often reported that they are allied with the feminist as well as the black civil rights movement, neither of which, to my knowledge, knew anything about the alliance, let alone had agreed to it, and in fact in regards to civil rights leaders, particular leaders in black churches, they were opposed to it. (see HERE)

In other words, in the minds of gay activists, if you don't have strength in real numbers, then make them up. LOL

This is not to say that the gay movement didn't or doesn't have legitimate alliances. They do. For example, they are allied illustriously with lesbians, bisexuals, and trangender, via an organization whose name includes each of their first initials: LGBT.

Evidently, the transgender community was brought late to the party (prior to the 1990's the organization was just LGB), and this after pedaphilic groups like NAMBLA were gradually un-allied. (see HERE)

Presumably, since the 1980's, gay activists have also increasingly, though unofficially, become allied with the Democratic party and the mainstream press, which has given them the greatest boost in strength of numbers.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 17, 2012 by wenglund

[DavidB]

Wade does the NAACP support gay rights or same sex marriage. Does Mrs. Martin Luther King Jr. support that struggle for equal rights of homosexuals is analogous to the struggle of blacks?

You seem to be simply creating your own myths and so forth. Not every minority supports ssm or equal rights for homosexuals yet the NAACP does and there are other minorities who support it, so it is simply folly and incredulous some of what you are claiming.

[selek1]

Wade does the NAACP support gay rights or same sex marriage. Does Mrs. Martin Luther King Jr. support that struggle for equal rights of homosexuals is analogous to the struggle of blacks?

Yes to both- however, that discounts the hundreds of African-American ministers who have rejected both the analogy and the comparisons as patently offensive.

You seem to be simply creating your own myths and so forth. Not every minority supports ssm or equal rights for homosexuals yet the NAACP does and there are other minorities who support it, so it is simply folly and incredulous some of what you are claiming.

The folly is in assuming that the NAACP stamp of approval means anything outside of an already small and increasingly marginalized political fringe.

The African American population was the largest group to support Proposition 8- and they did so by a higher margin than any other voting bloc.

As such, your simplistic- and borderline racist- appeal to authority fails the smell test.

The NAACP and the SPLC are notorious for equating ideological disagreements as "hate". That damages their credibility- but the real nail in the coffin to your appeal to authority is that they do not now- nor have they ever- spoken for a majority of African Americans.

[wenglund]

Does this mean you are unwilling to take a position on whether either of the statements about the New Jersey Church are disinformation?

No. What it means is exactly what I rhetorically said: you said a lot and yet so little.

Frankly, I don't have the time or the interest to delve into the New Jersey case so as to play your unappealing semantic guessing game. I have been busy making my own case.

I believe both sides of the debate are guilty of disinformation, I believe this disinformation is done via framing a statement in such a way that ones own position is best promoted even when such framing involves withholding information critical to for another to clearly and accurately understand the claim being made.

I don't disagree with this.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Wade does the NAACP support gay rights or same sex marriage. Does Mrs. Martin Luther King Jr. support that struggle for equal rights of homosexuals is analogous to the struggle of blacks?

Ask them. I am not your research assistant.

You seem to be simply creating your own myths and so forth. Not every minority supports ssm or equal rights for homosexuals yet the NAACP does and there are other minorities who support it, so it is simply folly and incredulous some of what you are claiming.

Feel free to make your case beyond bald assertions.

For my part, I agree with what selek said.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 17, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Strategy #10: Bait and switch.

If I recall correctly, for several decades the less radical, and perhaps proportionally larger, segment of the gay movement took a considerably less in-your-face approach, and in fact their proposals were more along the lines of, "hey...you don't bother us, and we won't bother you," or "we will stay out of your bedroom if you stay out of ours," or "you do your thing, and let us do ours, and to each their own," etc.

These kinds of proposals seemed quite reasonable to a very large segment of the heterosexual population, including me. I and others like me went so far as to favor doing away with sodomy laws and differing age of consent for homosexual males, and keeping the government and the rest of us out of homosexual bedrooms. To us, if adult homosexuals wanted to gather at their own bars and bath houses, that was their business and not mine or the governments, and I believed homosexuals should have been as free as heterosexuals in seeking out their respective debauchery.

This proposal suited me very well since I had several homosexual friends and co-workers over the years, and I very much wanted to have the ease of friendship and interactions that would have been otherwise somewhat impeded were they to have put their homosexuality in my face and were I to put my heterosexuality in their face.

Thus, informally and unspoken, on both an individual and a collective level as a society, an amicable compromise was struck by each keeping, to a reasonable extent, their sexuality out of our shared platonic relationships.

Unfortunately, I later learned that this was the bait. And, once these amicable relations were well established (individually and collectively), and we were all buddy-buddy and caring for each other, and had a respectable degree of mutual tolerance solidly in place, then came the switch.

In more recent times it became increasingly more apparent that this sizable and less radical arm of the gay movement were no longer content with "you don't bother us, and we wont bother you." Like their more radical fellow travelers, they started to not only want to come out of the closet, but to be as free as heterosexuals in manifesting their sexuality or romantic proclivities in public. They wanted their homosexuality to be displayed on TV, in movie, and in magazines and newspapers. They wanted gay celebrations, etc.

And, because of our friendly relations, many of us heterosexuals, while reluctant at first, became fine with allowing a bit more in-your-face homosexuality into our collective conscious.

But, then, that wasn't enough either. Evidently, homosexuals also wanted their lifestyle and familial relationships to be taught to our children and featured in school textbooks and supported in school clubs.

Then, they went even further, and had the gall to demand the government stamp of approval for their relationships, in hopes of homosexuality being put morally and socially on equal footing with heterosexuality, and this by conducting a devolutionary social experiment on the most fundamental and important, if not sacred, institutions of society.

And, when many of us heterosexuals were unwilling to bend that far, how were we repaid by our once homosexual friends and neighbor, even after we had giving in to some of their requests? Well, we were called "homophobic" and "anti-gay" and "bigoted," etc. Our churches were slandered and our businesses maligned, picketed, and legally harassed, and this because we finally had enough and needed to stand on principle, and hold people to their "you do your thing...and we will do ours" promise, and do what is in everyone's best interest.

Ultimately, we were the ones that were baited and were even willing to bend and switch to a point, and yet we end up being viewed as the bad guys.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 17, 2012 by wenglund

[Daniel2]

_{Inspiring Pic for the Day:}

Edited August 17, 2012 by Daniel2

[california boy]

Strategy #9: Alliances

I trust we all understand the principle of "strength in numbers." Certainly, the gay movement understood this, which is why, given their relatively small percentage of the population (3-4%), they thought it wise to create alliances in order to boost their numbers and perceived strength.

I say "create" because in some cases, the alliances were somewhat imagined or presumptuously assumed unilaterally and without the public knowledge and/or consent of the alleged allies.

For example, gay activist have often reported that they are allied with the feminist as well as the black civil rights movement, neither of which, to my knowledge, knew anything about the alliance, let alone had agreed to it, and in fact in regards to civil rights leaders, particular leaders in black churches, they were opposed to it. (see HERE)

In other words, in the minds of gay activists, if you don't have strength in real numbers, then make them up. LOL

This is not to say that the gay movement didn't or doesn't have legitimate alliances. They do. For example, they are allied illustriously with lesbians, bisexuals, and trangender, via an organization whose name includes each of their first initials: LGBT.

Evidently, the transgender community was brought late to the party (prior to the 1990's the organization was just LGB), and this after pedaphilic groups like NAMBLA were gradually un-allied. (see HERE)

Presumably, since the 1980's, gay activists have also increasingly, though unofficially, become allied with the Democratic party and the mainstream press, which has given them the greatest boost in strength of numbers.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I guess when you are defending discrimination against a minority group, you gotta go with myths.

NOM believes that stirring up anti-gay-marriage fervor among black voters has helped it win referendums in other states by pitting two groups of loyal Democrats against each other. As internal documents released during Maine's investigation into the group's finances asserted, "The strategic goal is to drive a wedge between gays and blacks—two key Democratic constituencies. Find, equip, energize and connect African American spokespeople for marriage; develop a media campaign around their objections to gay marriage as a civil right; provoke the gay marriage base into responding by denouncing these spokesmen and women as bigots."

Jackson is exactly the kind of African American spokesperson the NOM memo envisions. "There's been a hijacking of the civil rights movement by the radical gay movement," he said on CNN after backing California's Proposition 8 in 2008. "You can't equate your sin with my skin." He has received $20,000 from NOM's education fund and has rallied support for same-sex marriage bans in Florida and Washington, DC, where he joined Councilmember Marion Barry to oppose a marriage equality bill in 2009.

And yes, NAACP does support gay rights or same sex marriage. Mrs. Martin Luther King Jr. does support that struggle for equal rights of homosexuals is analogous to the struggle of blacks?

[KevinG]

As much as I respect the late Dr. King his wife has not been without political motivations for her public positions.

[wenglund]

I guess when you are defending discrimination against a minority group, you gotta go with myths.

And yes, NAACP does support gay rights or same sex marriage. Mrs. Martin Luther King Jr. does support that struggle for equal rights of homosexuals is analogous to the struggle of blacks?

First of all, I was speaking about what has been said throughout the whole duration of the gay movement, and not just select late developments.

Second, I was speaking about the general rule and not the rare, fringe, increasingly decrediblized, monetary/politically motivated exceptions (you will note that I did mention that the mainstream media and the democratic party have in more recent times allied themselves with the gay movement. So I am not surprised to find several of the publicity hound, squeaky wheels within the democratic party following suit).

One need simply look at the ratio of blacks, and black religious leaders, who oppose SSM to determine the actual myth.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[DavidB]

Wade you are being ridiculous and grasping at straws in a vain weak attempt to divert attention away from your incorrect made up assumption.

There are blacks and other minorites who support ssm, this is not a myth.

[wenglund]

Wade you are being ridiculous and grasping at straws in a vain weak attempt to divert attention away from your incorrect made up assumption.

There are blacks and other minorites who support ssm, this is not a myth.

Nonsense. I explicitly accounted for the exception.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[DavidB]

Yes wade nonsense. You engage in double standards, if a fringe supports your point thhen the fringe can acts as the rule...see your post 49, if you oppose what you label a fringe then a fringe must at all cost be discounted...see your post 71.

The myths here are the myths of your own creation.

[wenglund]

Yes wade nonsense. You engage in double standards, if a fringe supports your point then the fringe can acts as the rule...see your post 49, if you oppose what you label a fringe then a fringe must at all cost be discounted...see your post 71.

The myths here are the myths of your own creation.

You clearly misread my post #49, just as your post #72 clearly misread my post #71.

My post #49 simply acknowledged the minority as a minority in response to your forgetting the minority all together in your post #47. In no way can my post #49 be reasonably or correctly interpreted as me making the fringe the rule. I did nothing of the sort.

Also, my post #71 explicitly acknowledged the exception as an exception, which you ignored in your post #72.

Are you seeing a pattern yet? Nonsense and myths indeed.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 20, 2012 by wenglund