*THE VAST HOMOSEXUAL CONSPIRACY*

[The Persnickety Platypus]

This is it. The day of reckoning.

There is no doubt. No more fooling ourselves. A haunting specter has arisen. It's broad hand casts a shadow over our societies most hallowed institutions, and will advert it's force at nothing short of it's ultimate goal:

WORLD DOMINATION


Religious Conservatives have been warning us for years. They have fought countless foes in the perpetration of their noble message (evidence, logic, facts, reason), yet bravely continue their plight of truth. Dauntless and enduring, their message miraculously survives today, even despite the hoards of autocratic homosexual liberal communist abortionists currently controlling our society.

Beware of Liberals; do not succumb to their evil agenda! They will try to smooth talk you, catch you off guard, lead you astray. They will inquire as to why "so called moral Christians" are not concerned with the "real" matters plaquing our world; global poverty, insufficient health care, the energy crisis, global warming, the national debt, inflation, malnutrition, natural disasters, plaque. What they do not realize is that it is the dreaded HOMOSEXUALS who are perpetrating all these ailments!!! It's True!!!

Homosexuals are stealing food from the hungry!!!
Homosexuals are injecting people with illnesses and stealing the government subsidised funds aimed at curing them!!!
Homosexuals are using up all our oil!!!
Homosexuals are melting to polar ice caps, causing sea levels to rise!!!
Homosexuals are responsible for the uncompensated government spending!!! They blackmailed Reagan into starting it, and are doing the same to Bush!!!
Homosexuals are warming the seas and sprinkling magical hurricane dust into the atmosphere!!! They created all the hurricanes last year, and are planning even more this year!!!
Wondering why your dollar isn't worth as much nowadays? Homosexuals!!!
Homosexuals have hi-jacked our education system!!! They are conducting new anal sex classes, and indocrinating our innocent children to their evil ways!!!
Homosexuals eat kittens!!!
Homosexuals seek to destroy the institution of marriage!!! Once gaining ultimate political power, they will decree that all couples separate and choose new same-sex partners!!!
Homosexuals order thousands of babies to be aborted every year against the mother and father's will!!!
Homosexuals are currently in the process of BANNING CHRISTIANITY!!! Don't be mislead by the fact that 98% of our elected leaders are professed Christians!!! Liberal lies!!!



Time is waning! We must do something about these homosexuals, lest they destroy all we hold dear! Now that you are aware of the full extend of the homosexual agenda, you are probably wondering what you can do to join the resistance.

(1) First and foremost, you must sign the petition. Upon signing, you will be admitted to my underground gay/liberal/feminist/abortionist/evolutionist/humanist resistance movement dubbed F.A.G. (Fight Against Gays). Further instruction will follow.

1. The Persnickety Platypus
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.

Our official chant (to be used whenever faced with a particularly compelling pro-gay rights argument) is thus:

"Man+Woman good, Man+Man bad"

(Lyrics by George Orwell)


(2) To avoid indoctrination into the homosexual liberal communist feminist humanist evolutionist abortionist lesbian dogma, one must wear a string of garlic around his neck. (I am told that this also helps fend off vampires. How convenient!)


(3) One must make their social stance known. A few suggestions:

- Make all your posts on message boards related to homosexuality. Never talk about anything that actually matters. Start lots of anti-homo/liberal/evolutionist/feminist/abortionist/ect threads, but never present any actual arguments or evidence. Especially evidence. Evidence is for liberals.

- Loudly exclaim "Ewww that's gross" whenever homosexuality is mentioned in a public setting.

- Stage obnoxious protests outside military funerals. Hold up signs with slogans like "God hates fags" and "America is going to hell for tolerating gays". For more information, visit http://www.godhatesfags.com.




Now, let's get some intelligent discussion going. Questions for debate:

1. What other venues of society have the homosexuals infiltrated?
2. What else can we do to stop them?

[reality101]

moral foundation is easy
any sexual relations, in order to be moral needs two things
1) concentuality
2) openness to creation

I think there should be an alternative to number two, and that alternative is the ability to nurture.
Surely you do not believe that infertal heterosexual couples are immoral?
And for all practical purposes, propogation should NOT be a concern for humans right now. We have...plenty of people.
Parents who can adopt abandoned and orphaned children seem more precious than those bringing MORE people into the world, and homosexual couples can be just as nurturing if not more so than any heterosexual couple.

Welcome to the forum, its good to have you.

i think straight people who are infertal should not have sex simply for the reson that they dont need to worry about a kid but sex is also said to be about joining a man and woman together in love

and adoption is a great thing but i do not believe that it is ok for gay couples to adopt for 2 very simple reasons
1) raising a child properly usually requires a MAN AND A WOMAN not 2 men or 2 women men have lessons they teach as women has lessons they teach without the combination it is hard to be (i really dont know how to say this so excuse the clumsy wording) fully grown and matured

2) you need marrage in order to adopt and marraige is the holy union between a man and a women in love to raise a family

[McCulloch]

i think straight people who are [strike]infertal [/strike]infertile should not have sex simply for the [strike]reson [/strike]reason that they don't need to worry about a kid but sex is also said to be about joining a man and woman together in love

Others disagree with you. On what basis do you think that your opinion should be binding on them?

and adoption is a great thing but i do not believe that it is ok for gay couples to adopt for 2 very simple reasons
1) raising a child properly usually requires a MAN AND A WOMAN not 2 men or 2 women men have lessons they teach as women has lessons they teach without the combination it is hard to be (i really don't know how to say this so excuse the clumsy wording) fully grown and matured

So children should be taken away from widows and widowers to be reared by "real" families. That would be the logical conclusion of your unfounded and unsupported assertion about parenting.

2) you need [strike]marrage [/strike]marriage in order to adopt and [strike]marraige [/strike]marriage is the holy union between a man and a women in love to raise a family

No it is not. In some religions, it is defined thus, but many people get married without any recognition of the alleged holiness of marriage.

[reality101]

i think straight people who are [strike]infertal [/strike]infertile should not have sex simply for the [strike]reson [/strike]reason that they don't need to worry about a kid but sex is also said to be about joining a man and woman together in love

Others disagree with you. On what basis do you think that your opinion should be binding on them?

and adoption is a great thing but i do not believe that it is ok for gay couples to adopt for 2 very simple reasons
1) raising a child properly usually requires a MAN AND A WOMAN not 2 men or 2 women men have lessons they teach as women has lessons they teach without the combination it is hard to be (i really don't know how to say this so excuse the clumsy wording) fully grown and matured

So children should be taken away from widows and widowers to be reared by "real" families. That would be the logical conclusion of your unfounded and unsupported assertion about parenting.

2) you need [strike]marrage [/strike]marriage in order to adopt and [strike]marraige [/strike]marriage is the holy union between a man and a women in love to raise a family

No it is not. In some religions, it is defined thus, but many people get married without any recognition of the alleged holiness of marriage.

it isnt my opinions it is te beliefs of my religion

and the widows part: male children especially need a male role model in there life and there is proof of that
look at most teenage punks out there the ones who barely kno wut it is to be a real man the ones who beat on ther women and etc
the majority of them were raised by a single mother
and although there is really no way to control this i think it is better for a single father to raise his son and single mother to raise her daughter in the case of widows i dont believe in divorce unless it is a situation of a houshold unfit for child rearing in which case i think male children shouold go with ther fathers and females with ther mothers

and when i say male role model i mean a straight man not a gay man becase only a straight man can give a real idea of what it is truly to be a man


about the last part now:
if marraige is not a religious thing than what is the point of even getting married

u gotta understand that my arguments are of the catholic belief system

[AClockWorkOrange]

it isnt my opinions it is te beliefs of my religion

you are going to have to consolidate the two soon.

look at most teenage punks out there the ones who barely kno wut it is to be a real man the ones who beat on ther women and etc
the majority of them were raised by a single mother

i would possitivly love some non-speculative proof of this.

Rebellion knows no limits.

and although there is really no way to control this i think it is better for a single father to raise his son and single mother to raise her daughter in the case of widows

this doesnt seem very sound.

I dont think that people are ignorant of aspects of the opposite sex, as you so grade-school black/white'ed the situation.

i dont believe in divorce unless it is a situation of a houshold unfit for child rearing in which case i think male children shouold go with ther fathers and females with ther mothers

eek. NEVER become affiliated child services, please oh please.
I cant even begin to outline all the damage you would do.
Ill hit a few.
1.) sibling seperation
2.) bizaar gender role enforcement
3.) detachment from a parent
4.) a DREADED president such an action would set

and when i say male role model i mean a straight man not a gay man becase only a straight man can give a real idea of what it is truly to be a man

the only difference there would be is sex as a means of propogation, and ive never heard of gay parents forcing their on their children. Only straight parents seem to that.

about the last part now:
if marraige is not a religious thing than what is the point of even getting married

bonding two people in love.

Marraiges predate Christianity and formative Judaism by a bit. Gay marriage too.

u gotta understand that my arguments are of the catholic belief system

Oh i do.

[MagusYanam]

in the case of widows i dont believe in divorce unless it is a situation of a houshold unfit for child rearing in which case i think male children shouold go with ther fathers and females with ther mothers

Just to be clear, widows and widowers are not divorced. Widows are women whose husbands have died; widowers are men whose wives have died.

To clarify McCulloch's question for you: if a woman has a husband who dies early in their child's life, should the child be sent to live with a foster family? Who would have the authority to do this?

Also, have you seen the movie Evelyn?

if marraige is not a religious thing than what is the point of even getting married

Marriage has (especially in pre-1648 Europe) very often not been done for reasons of love or to get children, but for status, for land, to end blood-feuds, to cement military alliances, et cetera. Reasons not particularly spiritual, let alone religious. Nowadays, people often marry because of an unexpected pregnancy.

and the widows part: male children especially need a male role model in there life and there is proof of that
look at most teenage punks out there the ones who barely kno wut it is to be a real man the ones who beat on ther women and etc
the majority of them were raised by a single mother

Do you have the data on this? Personally, I think divorce of one's parents can be an extremely traumatic experience for a child, so I wouldn't be surprised if the data supported this hypothesis, but I'd like to see them all the same.

[Lacey]

Marriage is what appears to be a religious concept as a means as to join two families. The idea that it must be between a man and woman is due to their ability to make children; therefore continuing the family group and strengthening the bond. Homosexuality was probably banned by religion since it was deemed unproductive since homosexual marriage yields little results in terms of offspring. If the Church wanted the population to go up, heterosexual marriage was the only way to go.

However, it is highly probable that marriage originated as a simple way to merge two family groups. A political tool somewhat.

[reality101]

in the case of widows i dont believe in divorce unless it is a situation of a houshold unfit for child rearing in which case i think male children shouold go with ther fathers and females with ther mothers

Just to be clear, widows and widowers are not divorced. Widows are women whose husbands have died; widowers are men whose wives have died.

To clarify McCulloch's question for you: if a woman has a husband who dies early in their child's life, should the child be sent to live with a foster family? Who would have the authority to do this?

Also, have you seen the movie Evelyn?

if marraige is not a religious thing than what is the point of even getting married

Marriage has (especially in pre-1648 Europe) very often not been done for reasons of love or to get children, but for status, for land, to end blood-feuds, to cement military alliances, et cetera. Reasons not particularly spiritual, let alone religious. Nowadays, people often marry because of an unexpected pregnancy.

and the widows part: male children especially need a male role model in there life and there is proof of that
look at most teenage punks out there the ones who barely kno wut it is to be a real man the ones who beat on ther women and etc
the majority of them were raised by a single mother

Do you have the data on this? Personally, I think divorce of one's parents can be an extremely traumatic experience for a child, so I wouldn't be surprised if the data supported this hypothesis, but I'd like to see them all the same.

ok i dont go by stats
"statistics can be altered personel sight cant"
im goin by things seen by my father and uncle who have both spent more thean 15 years working in prison as guards and will often point out that when you see punk in there the majority of the males were raised soley my ther mothers also look around in society most of thes wiggers walkin round like they r tough shit have no father figure or have a shitty father figure it is not a matter of the traumatics of divorce it is simply that they dont have a true male role model to teach them how to be a good man

and as for teenage mothers i think that they should be required to put ther children for adoption because the very act of getting pregnant at that young age and unmarried shows a great level of imaturity and irrisponsibility

i kno wut widows are i may be young but im not stupid lol

[reality101]

Marriage is what appears to be a religious concept as a means as to join two families. The idea that it must be between a man and woman is due to their ability to make children; therefore continuing the family group and strengthening the bond. Homosexuality was probably banned by religion since it was deemed unproductive since homosexual marriage yields little results in terms of offspring. If the Church wanted the population to go up, heterosexual marriage was the only way to go.

However, it is highly probable that marriage originated as a simple way to merge two family groups. A political tool somewhat.

no it was actually a way for a man to claim a women as his mate FOR THE CREATION OF LIFE

[Lacey]

Marriage is what appears to be a religious concept as a means as to join two families. The idea that it must be between a man and woman is due to their ability to make children; therefore continuing the family group and strengthening the bond. Homosexuality was probably banned by religion since it was deemed unproductive since homosexual marriage yields little results in terms of offspring. If the Church wanted the population to go up, heterosexual marriage was the only way to go.

However, it is highly probable that marriage originated as a simple way to merge two family groups. A political tool somewhat.

no it was actually a way for a man to claim a women as his mate FOR THE CREATION OF LIFE

Not really. By "claim" what do you mean? Marriage has always been the linkage between two people. Vast majority of the time it has been between a man and a woman but this was for child creation on a political level. A man would have many lovers and many children, but the only legitimate child would be with the mans wife. Marriage has become increasingly mainstream accross history, but it wasn't founded as an instrument of love.

It would be in the creation of life. Just not in the romantic way.

[reality101]

Marriage is what appears to be a religious concept as a means as to join two families. The idea that it must be between a man and woman is due to their ability to make children; therefore continuing the family group and strengthening the bond. Homosexuality was probably banned by religion since it was deemed unproductive since homosexual marriage yields little results in terms of offspring. If the Church wanted the population to go up, heterosexual marriage was the only way to go.

However, it is highly probable that marriage originated as a simple way to merge two family groups. A political tool somewhat.

no it was actually a way for a man to claim a women as his mate FOR THE CREATION OF LIFE

Not really. By "claim" what do you mean? Marriage has always been the linkage between two people. Vast majority of the time it has been between a man and a woman but this was for child creation on a political level. A man would have many lovers and many children, but the only legitimate child would be with the mans wife. Marriage has become increasingly mainstream accross history, but it wasn't founded as an instrument of love.

It would be in the creation of life. Just not in the romantic way.

by claim i am refering to the way women were looked upon in the past.
Even if that is what marraige was we have advanced past those relativly primative times and become better people and less ignorent people on a general scale.
Religious marraige has always been about the love of a man and a womon But true marraige has always had love in it, marraige without love is not a true marraige.