Are gays going too far?

Pointless Posts, Raves n Rants, Obscure Opinions

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Cmass
Guru
Posts: 1746
Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2006 10:42 pm
Location: Issaquah, WA

Are gays going too far?

Post #1

Post by Cmass »

This is what good Christians mean when they say there is an agenda! Please read and then answer this:
What will the world look like if the gays win and continue to convert our children over to their sick, sinful world? If Christians don't win this one, what might the world look like? When you get up in the morning, what would you see? Naked men in your front yard? What?

'98 Homosexual-Recruitment Drive Nearing Goal
Image
July 29, 1998 | Issue 33•26

SAN FRANCISCO—Spokespersons for the National Gay & Lesbian Recruitment Task Force announced Monday that more than 288,000 straights have been converted to homosexuality since Jan. 1, 1998, putting the group well on pace to reach its goal of 350,000 conversions by the end of the year.
seven months of 1998, nearly 300,000 heterosexuals were ensnared in the Pink Triangle," said NGLRTF co-director Patricia Emmonds. "Clearly, the activist homosexual lobby is winning."

Emmonds credited much of the recruiting success to the gay lobby's infiltration of America's public schools, where programs promoting the homosexual lifestyle are regularly presented to children as young as 5.

Lansing, MI, fifth-grade teacher Margaret Gerhardt. Gerhardt's is one of countless elementary-school classes across the U.S. in which the homosexual agenda and lifestyle are actively promoted.

"It's crucial that we reach these kids while they're still young," Emmonds said. "That's when they're most vulnerable to our message of sexual promiscuity and deviance."

"When I grow up, I want to be gay," said Christopher Linn, 8, a second-grader at Philadelphia's Lakeside Elementary School, one of thousands of public schools nationwide that actively promote the homosexual agenda. "I don't want to have a family or go to church."

"Straight people don't have any fun," said Teddy Nance, 11, after watching Breeders Are Boring!, an anti-heterosexual filmstrip, in his fifth-grade class at Crestwood Elementary School in Roanoke, VA. "Gay people get to do whatever they want."

In addition to school programs that target youths, the NGLRTF launched a $630 million advertising campaign this year in an effort to convert adults to homosexuality. The campaign, which features TV and radio spots, as well as print advertising in major national magazines, has helped convince thousands of people to leave their spouses and families for a life of self-gratification and irresponsibility.

"The gay lifestyle is for me," said James Miller, an Oklahoma City father of four who recently moved to Provincetown, MA, to pursue a career in bath-house management. "When I was a family man, I constantly had to worry about things like taking the kids to Little League practice, paying for their braces, and remembering my wife's birthday. But now that I'm gay, I'm finally free to focus all my energy on having non-stop, mind-blowing anal sex."

Though Emmonds said gays have been tremendously successful in tearing at the fabric of society and subverting basic decency, she stressed that their work is far from over.

"For all the progress we've made, America is still overwhelmingly heterosexual," said Emmonds, who is calling for an additional $2.6 billion in federal aid to further the gay agenda. "If we are to insidiously penetrate American society, as we constantly do each other's orifices, we need more money and resources. Without such help, this country will remain the domain of decent, moral, God-fearing Christians. And that would be a sin."
Last edited by Cmass on Tue Oct 10, 2006 7:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Cmass
Guru
Posts: 1746
Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2006 10:42 pm
Location: Issaquah, WA

Post #11

Post by Cmass »

Do as you must Micatala, but there is a point to this and it is slowly unfolding. You might want to examine the direction of this with more care before throwing it into forum limbo. Also, this is NOT satire, it is sarcasm.

* Part of the issue is the fact that YOU were one of the only ones who actually checked the links I gave. Others simply went with whatever clap trap was written. This is important and was to become a very important part of the debate later on.
* Second, the debate itself required a lengthy setup which you have now effectively dismissed.
* Third, the website verbiage I altered WAS the point. I asked people to check what I quoted against the real web page. If they had, they would see the obvious alteration as well as the point - which directly counters Achilles and other Christian's claims that gays are using some sort of cohesive tactics to get children to become gay. The alteration of the verbiage and the link should make this clear - albeit in a creative manner. There is NO website that has gay camps trying to get kids to become gay; It is the Christian camps that are run as cohesive training camps where they pray to cardboard cutouts of George Bush and train as warriors for God bordering on child abuse. A check of the links I gave would make that point.
* Another link I gave was to counter the claim that the ACLU protects gay groups and not Christian groups. The ACLU not only protects Christian groups, it protects the most disgusting, gay-hating groups such as Phelp's Westburo Baptist Church.
Keep this thread where it belongs - right here.

User avatar
achilles12604
Site Supporter
Posts: 3697
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 3:37 am
Location: Colorado

Post #12

Post by achilles12604 »

Cmass wrote:Do as you must Micatala, but there is a point to this and it is slowly unfolding. You might want to examine the direction of this with more care before throwing it into forum limbo. Also, this is NOT satire, it is sarcasm.

* Part of the issue is the fact that YOU were one of the only ones who actually checked the links I gave. Others simply went with whatever clap trap was written. This is important and was to become a very important part of the debate later on.
* Second, the debate itself required a lengthy setup which you have now effectively dismissed.
* Third, the website verbiage I altered WAS the point. I asked people to check what I quoted against the real web page. If they had, they would see the obvious alteration as well as the point - which directly counters Achilles and other Christian's claims that gays are using some sort of cohesive tactics to get children to become gay. The alteration of the verbiage and the link should make this clear - albeit in a creative manner. There is NO website that has gay camps trying to get kids to become gay; It is the Christian camps that are run as cohesive training camps where they pray to cardboard cutouts of George Bush and train as warriors for God bordering on child abuse. A check of the links I gave would make that point.
* Another link I gave was to counter the claim that the ACLU protects gay groups and not Christian groups. The ACLU not only protects Christian groups, it protects the most disgusting, gay-hating groups such as Phelp's Westburo Baptist Church.
Keep this thread where it belongs - right here.
In my defense I did check your sites and I was unable to find your exact quotes. However I also did not wish to spend hours going through that entire site and all of its little branches. Hence I trusted that what you were presenting was something you had found and I had not.

Was your point that no one should trust atheist cited sources because if so I already knew that. I guess I should be more like them and doubt everything that I am told. Perhaps this will bring me true wisdom . . . or at least many blank looks with nothing to support any claim on.
It is a first class human tragedy that people of the earth who claim to believe in the message of Jesus, whom they describe as the Prince of Peace, show little of that belief in actual practice.

User avatar
Cmass
Guru
Posts: 1746
Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2006 10:42 pm
Location: Issaquah, WA

Post #13

Post by Cmass »

In my defense I did check your sites and I was unable to find your exact quotes.

Well, unfortunately, my tactics have gotten me into trouble with more than you! This whole thing did NOT unfold the way I intended it to. Check again what I quoted below and then check the website I supposedly copied it from:
With the use of critical documentation, Gays Kids Network (GKN) educates parents, friends, gay leaders, and children's crisis hotlines facing our children and young people because of our lack of understanding of what they need and want in their sexual lives. In these sessions we share how open Gayness is helping children around the world through signs, wonders, and miracles and help leaders and parents release their children into the Gay Lifestyle.

And here is the web page I gave:

Don't believe me? Here is the text, read it for yourself!
http://kidsinministry.com/WhatWeDo.html


Also, give me a break here Achilles, don't you see any irony in this part of our exchange?:
Achilles:
For the most part, religions are rarely discussed much less taught out of church.
Cmas:
How true! Rarely discussed! Hardly ever taught! While I don't agree with the religion, why should anyone hassle them!


Or how about this? Did you check the link? Did it support what you were saying about the ACLU? Did it support my apparent agreement with you?
Achilles:
For a teacher to teach religion to their students in a school setting would bring the ACLU in like the flying dutchman.
Cmas:
How true! Look at the sick, twisted gay-loving group the ACLU is protecting now!!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00643.html


You need not defend yourself - you have not sinned. I am the one who has committed the sin and deserve the whip until I bleed blood of fire. :flamed: However, I do think this thread has the potential for being entertaining and perhaps even enlightening. At the very least, you might end up learning a bit more about the ACLU and who they defend.

User avatar
achilles12604
Site Supporter
Posts: 3697
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 3:37 am
Location: Colorado

Post #14

Post by achilles12604 »

Cmass wrote:
In my defense I did check your sites and I was unable to find your exact quotes.

Well, unfortunately, my tactics have gotten me into trouble with more than you! This whole thing did NOT unfold the way I intended it to. Check again what I quoted below and then check the website I supposedly copied it from:
With the use of critical documentation, Gays Kids Network (GKN) educates parents, friends, gay leaders, and children's crisis hotlines facing our children and young people because of our lack of understanding of what they need and want in their sexual lives. In these sessions we share how open Gayness is helping children around the world through signs, wonders, and miracles and help leaders and parents release their children into the Gay Lifestyle.

And here is the web page I gave:

Don't believe me? Here is the text, read it for yourself!
http://kidsinministry.com/WhatWeDo.html


Also, give me a break here Achilles, don't you see any irony in this part of our exchange?:
Achilles:
For the most part, religions are rarely discussed much less taught out of church.
Cmas:
How true! Rarely discussed! Hardly ever taught! While I don't agree with the religion, why should anyone hassle them!


Or how about this? Did you check the link? Did it support what you were saying about the ACLU? Did it support my apparent agreement with you?
Achilles:
For a teacher to teach religion to their students in a school setting would bring the ACLU in like the flying dutchman.
Cmas:
How true! Look at the sick, twisted gay-loving group the ACLU is protecting now!!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00643.html


You need not defend yourself - you have not sinned. I am the one who has committed the sin and deserve the whip until I bleed blood of fire. :flamed: However, I do think this thread has the potential for being entertaining and perhaps even enlightening. At the very least, you might end up learning a bit more about the ACLU and who they defend.
No I only checked the first link. Actually I was planning on dropping this thread after my inital remarks unless something else came up. I usually avoid discussing homosexuality because it is a REALLY touchy subject for some people. So I was simply surprised and offered my two cents.

It has however given me a good idea for a future thread so it wasn't in vain. :-k
It is a first class human tragedy that people of the earth who claim to believe in the message of Jesus, whom they describe as the Prince of Peace, show little of that belief in actual practice.

User avatar
micatala
Site Supporter
Posts: 8338
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 2:04 pm

Post #15

Post by micatala »

Let me make a few follow up comments, both as a moderator and as a forum member.

Now donning my moderator's hat :king: (it's the closest thing I could find)

Firstly, I should say that extensive moderator notes like this one are usually provide via Personal Message, but as this seems to be a rather unique situation, and the general forum public might benefit from the discussion, and CMass has addressed some of the issues I would raise in a PM already, and CMass seems to have anything but a thin skin, I will proceed here in the thread.

Secondly, I would not describe CMass as having committed any greivious sins or being in any major trouble. This is not a formal warning. I would remind him to consult the rules. The ones that are potentially relevant to this thread would be, IMV:
The administrators in the rules wrote:2. Nothing "R" rated is allowed (this includes profanity and anything of sexual nature).

3. When you start a new topic in a debate subforum, it must state a clearly defined question(s) for debate.

5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not make blanket statements that are not supportable by logic/evidence.

7. Do not post frivolous, flame bait, or inflammatory messages.
Whether rules have been violated is always a judgment call, particularly with regards to rule 7. The chalkboard picture probably violates rule 2, and if CMass would be so kind as to remove it, that would be appreciated.


Thirdly, although I have moved the thread to Random Ramblings, this is not meant to be a commentary that the thread is not worthy of participation or interesting. CMass has certainly been creative, there is no doubt. :!: The thread was moved because, in my judgment, it was more inclined to produce discussion, reactions, commentary, etc., than debate. Not every thread has to be a debate thread, and we probably have quite a few debate threads that were less productive than this one is likely to be.

As the thread proceeds, I would simply advise posters to keep the rules in mind, including #1 (be civil) and number 7 noted above.

Now doffing my moderator's hat

User avatar
micatala
Site Supporter
Posts: 8338
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 2:04 pm

Post #16

Post by micatala »

The point that people often respond without thoroughly checking the citations (or even checking them at all), is well taken. I am sometimes guilty of this myself.
CMass wrote:Third, the website verbiage I altered WAS the point. I asked people to check what I quoted against the real web page. If they had, they would see the obvious alteration as well as the point - which directly counters Achilles and other Christian's claims that gays are using some sort of cohesive tactics to get children to become gay. The alteration of the verbiage and the link should make this clear - albeit in a creative manner. There is NO website that has gay camps trying to get kids to become gay; It is the Christian camps that are run as cohesive training camps where they pray to cardboard cutouts of George Bush and train as warriors for God bordering on child abuse. A check of the links I gave would make that point.
I think you may be misinterpreting achilles position, but I would certainly allow that many Christians buy into anti-gay rhetoric that has absolutely no substance whatsoever, is highly bigoted and inflammatory, and completely mischaracterizes their opponents and the so-called 'gay agenda'. I myself have engaged such folks on this forum extensively, as could be seen in numerous threads, the most infamous of which is the longest thread on the whole forum, I think by a factor of approximately four as I recall.

I am certainly in agreement with CMass that:

1. The reality of whatever constitutes the so-called gay agenda bears next to no resemblance to what is portrayed by anti-gay CHristian activists.
2. The ACLU may be liberal, but in its actions, it is not anti-CHristian. It does support the idea of separation of church and state, and I think this is a good thing.
3. Yes, sarcasm is a more accurate description than satire. I stand corrected.

User avatar
Cmass
Guru
Posts: 1746
Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2006 10:42 pm
Location: Issaquah, WA

Post #17

Post by Cmass »

I usually avoid discussing homosexuality because it is a REALLY touchy subject for some people.
Well, you should NOT avoid it. If a subject is sensitive then you can bet there is some substance in it. For example, I am terribly bored when a debate consists primarily of yammering on about what Peter, Paul or Mary said in XYZ sentence, paragraph 3 of the Bible. So, join in on these discussions and tell us what you REALLY think! Especially you Achilles.
This is a very important topic for me. One of my best friends of 30 years, someone I respect and admire, "came out" last year so I have had a crash course on the emotional landscape of a well educated gay man in our society today. He has faced so much pain from people who don't even know him. People who blame "his kind" for some sort of downfall of morality. He faces an incredible amount of anti-gay propaganda and, sometimes, outright violence and murder. Most ALL of it has some kind of religious connection. Through my conversations with him, I have become more aware of what "the other side" (as Achilles puts it) is really like. And yes, by golly, they are actual human beings (yikes!!).
However, I can also discuss this topic from the point of view of another good friend who happens to be a self-proclaimed redneck for Jesus. I am friends with both of these people partly because I have long history with both. Also, I would put my life and the life of my child in either of their hands (and in the case of the redneck, literally have) should the need arise.
--------------
As to the rules:
2. Nothing "R" rated is allowed (this includes profanity and anything of sexual nature).

3. When you start a new topic in a debate sub forum, it must state a clearly defined question(s) for debate.

5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not make blanket statements that are not supportable by logic/evidence.

7. Do not post frivolous, flame bait, or inflammatory messages.
OK, I removed the naughty chalk board drawing. However, it is a view that many Christians have described to ME - in lurid detail. Very similar drawings can be found on wholesome Christian websites. Drawings like this are what some Christians have described to me - what they think is going on in public schools.
If you actually enforced rule #2 you would remove ALL my threads concerning the sexy Jesus and all the assertions that Jesus might have been gay or any other sexually-based topic. This would, for the most part, shut this forum down because sexuality is a HUGE part of the conflict in Christianity; among Christians, between Christians, agnostics and atheists.

#3 Read my opening OP again. The article was only setting the scene for the question - which is in BOLD.

#5 Read again. My claim - supposedly in agreement with Achilles - that the ACLU was indeed supporting gays and not Christians was supported by evidence. However, if you checked my evidence it would have shown that my interpretation of that data was flawed: The ACLU is actually supporting gay HATE GROUPS. This is a seldom used debate tactic as it leads your opponent to research and come up with a conclusion - and if you are correct and they are sane, it will be YOUR conclusion.

#7 This is hardly frivolous or inflammatory. This thread is quite serious. My approach is, however, unusual. Review some of your own posts Micitala, review some of Achilles posts. As far as "flame bate" goes, perhaps it is flame bait because I have no idea what flame bate is.
I think you may be misinterpreting Achilles position
OK. Apparently you have interpreted this more accurately than I:
Religions don't try and influence people's children who do nt wish for them to be taught. For the most part, religions are rarely discussed much less taught out of church. For a teacher to teach religion to their students in a school setting would bring the ACLU in like the flying dutchman.
And this, non-inflammatory, non-flame bate, statement. I apparently misinterpreted this as well:
Arn't these gays spreading their ideas just like a religion except they are not bound by any rules and so therefore they are able to influence and force ideas onto children of parents who do not wish this to happen? We have to play by the ACLU's rules but no one else does?
Note: I have donated tokens to Achilles several times specifically for his acerbic comments that I find very entertaining. They help me understand just what is going on in the head of a fundamentalist Christian. They also make this forum worth reading. I am terribly bored if what I post only results in further elaborations on what I have already presented.

Amen.
Next.

User avatar
methylatedghosts
Sage
Posts: 516
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:21 pm
Location: Dunedin, New Zealand

Post #18

Post by methylatedghosts »

Could this "increase" in the amount of people being gay be attributed to the fact that in this day and age it has become acceptable? That the true number of gay people has not changed, but the number of gay people being open about it has? And there is not much proof that gay people choose to be gay - they may be born gay. Who knows? God does, and noone on earth does, really. Being gay can hardly be basis to send someone to hell.

User avatar
micatala
Site Supporter
Posts: 8338
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 2:04 pm

Post #19

Post by micatala »

CMass wrote:
I usually avoid discussing homosexuality because it is a REALLY touchy subject for some people.
Well, you should NOT avoid it. If a subject is sensitive then you can bet there is some substance in it. For example, I am terribly bored when a debate consists primarily of yammering on about what Peter, Paul or Mary said in XYZ sentence, paragraph 3 of the Bible. So, join in on these discussions and tell us what you REALLY think! Especially you Achilles.
Yes it is touchy. On the other hand, I would agree that simply avoiding the subject is not likely to be productive. If reasonable people refuse to engage the issue because of the unreasonableness or strong emotion of many with strongly held opinions, the result is that the extremes drive the debate, and likely end up driving public policy as well. It is not alwasy easy, and I confess, I often simply let comments pass because I don't want to get in a knock-down drag-out with someone, or be instantaneously labeled as 'promoting immorality' or some such thing.

ALso, IMV Peter, Paul, and Mary is a great folk group, and I would be happy to hear whatever they had to say or sing. (I was in fact fortunate enough to hear them just this past Thursday!) ;)


Personal experience is very important and compelling. I believe statistics show that people who actually know someone who is gay are much less inclined to support the anti-gay agenda. I think this is because this personal experience usually shows that gays are nothing like what is portrayed by the anti-gay contingent.


I would suggest an interesting experiment. Take any statement made by a person or organization that is critical of gays that includes the word 'gay' or 'homesexual' or 'lesbian' and replace that word with 'heterosexual' or 'man' or 'woman' and see whether or not the statement becomes completely ridiculous or not. Often, it will clearly show the irrational bias of the original statement.

User avatar
micatala
Site Supporter
Posts: 8338
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 2:04 pm

Post #20

Post by micatala »

Wrap-up Moderator Comments
CMass wrote:#7 This is hardly frivolous or inflammatory. This thread is quite serious. My approach is, however, unusual. Review some of your own posts Micitala, review some of Achilles posts. As far as "flame bate" goes, perhaps it is flame bait because I have no idea what flame bate is.

IMV, flame bait consists of posting comments that are designed to provoke an emotional response, rather than thoughtful debate, or comments that themselves are 'emotional diatribe or ranting' that are likely to do nothing more than insult or anger others.

When emotional or difficult issues (like homosexuality) are involved, determining what is 'inflammatory' or not is difficult, mostly because intent is part of what is involved. If a person is sincerely giving his or her viewpoint, even it might be considered 'extreme', then this would not IMV be inflammatory, even if some people get upset by it.

I certainly accept your own characterization of your comments and motivation, and that you are not seeking to be inflammatory, but rather thought-provoking. Some of my reaction stems from at first being confused as to exactly what you were trying to accomplish.

In general, what we hope for as mods is that all members will be civil, and at least make some attempt to understand why those with opposing views feel the way they do.



The 'sexuality' rule is really meant to address 'graphic depictions, pictures, or language'. It is not intended to put all discussion of sexual issues out of bounds. As you say, if this were the case, huge swaths of this forum would have to be expunged (including much of my own contributions). I thank you for removing the picture.


As I have myself stepped a bit out of the normal protocol by posting this discussion in the thread, and not as a PM, I will leave it at that for now. If there are any further questions regarding the rules, especially as they may pertain to this thread, please PM me or one of the other moderators.


End of Moderator Comments

Post Reply