Gov Schawarzenegger to veto Gay Marriage Bill

[YamiB.]

So you are trying to say that the people who wrote that constitution wanted gay marriage to be legal?Notice that I did not say "people who want the constitution to say gay marriage is okay".

The people who wrote the constitution had an ideal of equality for the people. Until same sex marriage is legalized homosexual couples will not be given equal treatment, for no real reason other than people not liking that they're homosexual.

 

[Naughty Nurse]

I still can't believe that guy is actually a governor. Were the other choices really that bad?

Oh, but the USA has a history of bad actors becoming bad politicians, doesn't it?

 

[Schweddy]

But once they voted them out, couldnt that conservative republican legislator just change the law then?

I simply would hope not. Even though I consider myself a "conservative" the people need to vote on such state matters.

 

[Schweddy]

Funny how liberals want to destroy the electoral colloge and talk about making every vote count,but when the people vote to make sure that only real marriages are recognized they want to throw the people's vote away.These scumbag liberals have the nerve to want to accuse Bush of voter fraud when they themselves want to steal the people's vote.

Indeed. It's also interesting to note that the majority in this thread have said that it is up to whom was voted in. The legistalure even. At the same time, some in the thread have issues about the way the Cali gov handles his politics. Is that not his legislature?

 

[Binary_Digit]

Oh, but the USA has a history of bad actors becoming bad politicians, doesn't it?

:rofl That made my day!

The people of California do not have the right to make that decision. Marriage is a personal issue left up to the consenting people who engage in it. The California courts will reverse it.

The California Constitution states: "A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws"

Source:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1
Yesterday 10:58 PM

The people of California should not have the right to make that decision, but they do. It's the law right now. The law should be changed, but it should be followed until it is changed. The law is there for a reason, because what is moral for one might be immoral and even dangerous for another. The people need to collectively decide what's what, and the decision needs to be official. According to the article, California voters made that decision official five years ago. That is the reason Schwarzenegger said he will veto this, because it would conflict with the intent of voters.

And with all respect they voted in people who were decidely pro-equality. That doesn't really make sense now does it Navy Pride? I have lived in California all my life and I know a tad bit about it. In the past 5 or so years, the state has really changed more to the liberal side on the way of affording rights, especially to gays and this means that what was once a 40% minority is now a 55-60% majority. In Los Angeles, the likelihood is that it is above 70%-and that has the majority of the state's population...

Ok, they voted for people who were decidedly pro-equality. Is that the only issue the voters were voting for? That's like saying Bush was reelected because the majority of Americans want a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Isn't it possible these pro-equality candidates were elected because of their economic plans, or some other reason instead? Just because the California people voted for "pro-equality" candidates does not prove they all support gay marriage. Heck, even people who are against gay marriage will claim they are pro-equality. Especially politicians.

And even if it's true, that the majority of Californians have changed their minds in the last 5 years, they'll have to wait and change the laws officially. I guess that means with a referendum like Navy Pride says. Maybe next time they'll think before voting.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

To tell you the truth I dont miind gay people. As long as they arent flamboyant about it. Even when some straight people do some PDA its stil is kinda gross.

But I look at it this way. I sometimes wish all guys were gay casue more women for me. :lol:

I would have a endless supply of women. I like that. So therefore I think of it as the more gay guys the better casue that means their is more potential a$$ I can get ahold of, :rofl .

Yeah but you are forgetting that chicks love gay guys. I mean it would almost be worth going gay for all the p$$$y you could get.

 

[Binary_Digit]

Yeah but you are forgetting that chicks love gay guys. I mean it would almost be worth going gay for all the p$$$y you could get.

It's ironic, but that's exactly why chicks love gay guys. They aren't hell-bent on sleeping with them. :2razz:

 

[Youve Got To Be Kidding!]

So you are trying to say that the people who wrote that constitution wanted gay marriage to be legal?Notice that I did not say "people who want the constitution to say gay marriage is okay".

Obviously you dont know what property means. Property is probobaly the last word in their you would have thought would be talking about gay marriage. Its part of the property that makes it ok. And yes I do believe that if they where not hate mongerers they would believe in it.

 

[Youve Got To Be Kidding!]

Second off.... Its not the ****ing governments buissuiness what you do. I hope you commies like what your going to get.

 

[Binary_Digit]

So you are trying to say that the people who wrote that constitution wanted gay marriage to be legal?

I'm pretty sure they didn't want blacks to vote. I'm pretty sure they weren't perfect, either.

 

[gdalton]

Second off.... Its not the ****ing governments buissuiness what you do. I hope you commies like what your going to get.

This whole thing is about the government extending the same benefits to gay couples who want to have the same legal marriage status as a straight couple. It is the governments business when it comes to things like tax status, property rights, survivor benefits, and all those LEGAL issues that can arise when you are married.
Example: A gay couple is married and one of them is hurt in an accident and is not expected to live with out the help of machines (sound familiar?). So the doctor has to rely on the judgment of whom? If the marriage is shown as legal then the spouse has the right to make the decision, if not then the patients closest family members will decide. I will take it a little further, if the patient passes away who is responsible for the bills, the funeral, who gets the life insurance check, do I need to keep going or is the real issue starting to make since now?

 

[Binary_Digit]

This whole thing is about the government extending the same benefits to gay couples who want to have the same legal marriage status as a straight couple. It is the governments business when it comes to things like tax status, property rights, survivor benefits, and all those LEGAL issues that can arise when you are married.
Example: A gay couple is married and one of them is hurt in an accident and is not expected to live with out the help of machines (sound familiar?). So the doctor has to rely on the judgment of whom? If the marriage is shown as legal then the spouse has the right to make the decision, if not then the patients closest family members will decide. I will take it a little further, if the patient passes away who is responsible for the bills, the funeral, who gets the life insurance check, do I need to keep going or is the real issue starting to make since now?

Right. The government made it their business when they started offering tax breaks and other legal perks to married couples. But by not offering the same benefits to monogomous homosexual partners, the government is effectively discriminating against people based entirely on their sexual preference/orientation. That's why sexual preference is none of the government's business. Either they should provide the same benefits to both, or provide no benefits to either.

 

[gdalton]

Right. The government made it their business when they started offering tax breaks and other legal perks to married couples. But by not offering the same benefits to monogomous homosexual partners, the government is effectively discriminating against people based entirely on their sexual preference/orientation. That's why sexual preference is none of the government's business. Either they should provide the same benefits to both, or provide no benefits to either.

I agree with that. I just want to make sure you realize it's not just about "benefits" it's about the responsibility's involved with marriage as well.

 

[ShamMol]

Ok, they voted for people who were decidedly pro-equality. Is that the only issue the voters were voting for? That's like saying Bush was reelected because the majority of Americans want a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Isn't it possible these pro-equality candidates were elected because of their economic plans, or some other reason instead? Just because the California people voted for "pro-equality" candidates does not prove they all support gay marriage. Heck, even people who are against gay marriage will claim they are pro-equality. Especially politicians.

And even if it's true, that the majority of Californians have changed their minds in the last 5 years, they'll have to wait and change the laws officially. I guess that means with a referendum like Navy Pride says. Maybe next time they'll think before voting.

The point is that they elected them. And when people get elected, they spend what Bush likes to call political capital. They can do this any number of ways from reforming social security to gay marriage. But, this is one issue which galvanizes support against candidates. If there was so much animosisty against gay marriage, candidates who supported it would have fallen-that is the way it works.

The laws just did change officially and will because the congress will override his veto-welcome to California Governator. They did think before they voted, but they do have a right to change thier opinion, just as you do, and just as I do.

 

[mistermain]

I applaud the governator. He is standing up for what "the people" want. They voted against gay marriage. What gives some judge, or mayor the right to marry gays when the majority spoke, and said that is not what they want.

Like Navy said, if you guys in California want things changed go with the referendum.

 

[ElGringo17]

Re: Gov Schawarzenegger to veto Homo Marriage Bill

I agree with Vauge, way to go Arnold!

It is about time for the demorats to stop pandering to the fruitcake and sexual deviant crowd and started discriminating against sexual perverts. it is why the democratic party is so out of touch with the will of the people.

Alex the homophile wrote:""The people" do not have the right to dictate what consenting adults can do"

Sure they do, it is called the penal code, the civil code, the welfare and institutions code, the vehicle code.....etc.....they are called LAWS and these laws tell people what they can and cannot do.

Yami B claims the majority of citizens who don't approve of sexual pervert marriages on the basis of sexual pervsion is a "mob".

History calls it democracy. Schwarzeneggar had a mandate, and it was the Defense of Marriage Act overwhelmingly approve via the democratic process.

Shamol the homohile claims most people support sexual pervert marriage. The Sham part in shamol is accurate.

Alex the homophile adds: "The people of California do not have the right to make that decision. Marriage is a personal issue left up to the consenting people who engage in it. The California courts will reverse it.

The California Constitution states: "A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws"

Notice how it says "person" as opposed to those 18 or older? That means adults and underage children are having their liberty to have sex with eachotehr removed.....and drunk drivers have their liberty removed, and heroin addicts have their liberty removed, and polygamists have their liberty removed, and necrophiles haver their liberty removed, and zoophiles have their liberty removed....

Jmesrage quite excellent poitned out typical democratic liberal puke hypocrisy:"Funny how liberals want to destroy the electoral colloge and talk about making every vote count,but when the people vote to make sure that only real marriages are recognized they want to throw the people's vote away.These scumbag liberals have the nerve to want to accuse Bush of voter fraud when they themselves want to steal the people's vote."

BinaryDigiti the homophiel wrote: "The people of California should not have the right to make that decision"

But wait a minute, shouldn't "every vote count"?!?!?!!?!?!?!?

BinaryDigit did slip up though; "It's ironic, but that's exactly why chicks love gay guys. They aren't hell-bent on sleeping with them. "


Actually, since I study the way sof my adversaries, most homosexuals are not exclusively so. Male homosexuals have this frequent tactic they pull where they insinuate themselves into the lives of women who don't have their typical guard up.....I have seen it time and time again wheere I have seen males who self identify as homo try to hit on women and I have had countless male homos admit they do this.

Youvegottobekidding spewed; "Second off.... Its not the ****ing governments buissuiness what you do."

Oh honey,look at the angry, hate filled bigoted homosexual! He doesn't think the government should enforce laws against drunk drivers, zoophiles, polygamists, necrophiles, heroin junkies, thieves, rapists, etc. because that would mean the "government is getting involved in our business"!

The bottom line is, considering male homosexuals have an average of 1000 acts of multiple anonymous sodomy partners throughout their rampant, rampaging sexual lifetime, I sincerely doubt this has anything to do with them now wanting to stay with one butt-buddy, this has EVERYTHING to do with politically forcing normal people to recognize these sexual deviants as a legitimate lifestyle and sexual behavior. After all, such is written right in their playbook; The Homosexual Agenda as strategized by Kirk and Madsen.

 

[YamiB.]

I applaud the governator. He is standing up for what "the people" want. They voted against gay marriage. What gives some judge, or mayor the right to marry gays when the majority spoke, and said that is not what they want.

Like Navy said, if you guys in California want things changed go with the referendum.

If we allowed the majority to decide it would have been much longer for segregation to end, slavery to end, women to get the right to vote, and interracial marriages being legal.

The minority should not have to wait for the majority to overcome it's bigotry to get equal rights, the government should work to give the minority equal rights regardless of what the majority wants.

 

[Alex]

I applaud the governator. He is standing up for what "the people" want. They voted against gay marriage. What gives some judge, or mayor the right to marry gays when the majority spoke, and said that is not what they want.

Like Navy said, if you guys in California want things changed go with the referendum.

What gives the government or the people it governs the right to tell people who they can or cannot marry? Marriage is a personal issue better left to the people getting married, not you or the government.

 

[ElGringo17]

YamiB the homophile wrote:

If we allowed the majority to decide it would have been much longer for segregation to end, slavery to end, women to get the right to vote, and interracial marriages being legal.

The minority should not have to wait for the majority to overcome it's bigotry to get equal rights, the government should work to give the minority equal rights regardless of what the majority wants.

Ah, another perfect example above of following The Homosexual Agenda script.

The Homosexual Agenda, Chapter 1, verses 2-25: "In the early stages of any campaign to reach straight America, the masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed and gay rights should be reduced to an abstract social question as much as possible. First let the camel get his nose inside the tent--only later his unsightly derriere! "

The Homosexual Agenda, Chapter 2, verses 22-26: "As far as gays can tell, they were born gay, just as you were born heterosexual or white or black or bright or athletic. Nobody ever tricked or seduced them; they never made a choice, and are not morally blameworthy. What they do isn't willfully contrary - it's only natural for them. This twist of fate could as easily have happened to you!"

The Homosexual Agenda, Chapter 3, verses 6-10: Our campaign should not demand direct support for homosexual practices, should instead take anti-discrimination as its theme. The right to free speech, freedom of beliefs, freedom of association, due process and equal protection of laws-these should be the concerns brought to mind by our campaign."

The Homosexual Agenda, Chapter 4, verses 1-5: "[4] MAKE GAYS LOOK GOOD. In order to make a Gay Victim sympathetic to straights you have to portray him as Everyman. But an additional theme of the campaign should be more aggressive and upbeat: to offset the increasingly bad press that these times have brought to homosexual men and women, the campaign should paint gays as superior pillars of society. Yes, yes, we know--this trick is so old it creaks. "

Now notice that he referred to those who oppose sexual perverts from being able to marry based upon their sexual perversion as "bigots"?
That "jamming' tactic comes straight out of The Homosexual Agneda, Chapter 5, verses 16-18: "A campaign to vilify the victimizers is going to enrage our most fervid enemies, of course. But what else can we say? The shoe fits, and we should make them try it on for size, with all of America watching."

The Homosexual Agenda, Chapter 6, verses 9-10 :"... We intend to make the antigays look so nasty that average Americans will want to dissociate themselves from such types."

 

[ShamMol]

I applaud the governator. He is standing up for what "the people" want. They voted against gay marriage. What gives some judge, or mayor the right to marry gays when the majority spoke, and said that is not what they want.

Like Navy said, if you guys in California want things changed go with the referendum.

We are working on one as I type this. Don't worry about that. But when we elect officials, we expect them to do a job, and if we don't like the job they do, we can vote them out (I will personally garuntee that no more than 5% of those Congresspeople will lose jobs over this, if at all, but I am not willing to garuntee the at all). Point being-California has changed since the referendum and the people WE ELECTED recognize that.

A judge has the right to change a law that is wrong-don't know where you got an idea otherwise. You also might recognize that the Governator as you put it, has the second or so lowest approval rating of the governors in the entire country...he is second to someone who is indicted (Ohio)...maybe third. Point being, the people don't like the job he is doing and thus he is making yet another mistake by judging that to be the will of the people when opinion polls state clearly otherwise and when lawmakers use their power as such to pass laws (their right you know?).

 

[InDefenseofSanity]

Re: Gov Schawarzenegger to veto Homosexual Marriage Bill

I agree with Vauge, way to go Arnold!

It is about time for the democrats to stop pandering to the sexual deviant crowd and started discriminating against sexual deviants. It is why the democratic party is so out of touch with the will of the people.

Alex wrote:""The people" do not have the right to dictate what consenting adults can do".

Sure they do, it is called the penal code, the civil code, the welfare and institutions code, the vehicle code.....etc.....they are called LAWS and these laws tell people what they can and cannot do.

YamiB claims the majority of citizens who don't approve of sexual pervert marriages on the basis of sexual pervsion are a "mob".

History calls it democracy. Schwarzeneggar had a mandate, and it was the Defense of Marriage Act overwhelmingly approve via the democratic process.

Shamol claims most people support sexual pervert marriage. Not!

Alex adds: "The people of California do not have the right to make that decision. Marriage is a personal issue left up to the consenting people who engage in it. The California courts will reverse it.

The California Constitution states: "A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws"

Notice how it says "person" as opposed to "those 18 or older"? That means adults and underage children are having their liberty to have sex with eachother removed.....and drunk drivers have their liberty removed, and heroin addicts have their liberty removed, and polygamists have their liberty removed, and necrophiles have their liberty removed, and zoophiles have their liberty removed....

Jmesrage quite excellenlyt pointed out typical democratic liberal puke hypocrisy:"Funny how liberals want to destroy the electoral colloge and talk about making every vote count,but when the people vote to make sure that only real marriages are recognized they want to throw the people's vote away.These scumbag liberals have the nerve to want to accuse Bush of voter fraud when they themselves want to steal the people's vote."

BinaryDigiti wrote: "The people of California should not have the right to make that decision"

But wait a minute, shouldn't "every vote count"?!?!?!!?!?!?!?

BinaryDigit did slip up though; "It's ironic, but that's exactly why chicks love gay guys. They aren't hell-bent on sleeping with them. "


Actually, since I study the ways of my adversaries, most homosexuals are not exclusively so. Male homosexuals have this frequent tactic they pull where they insinuate themselves into the lives of women who don't have their typical guard up.....I have seen it time and time again where I have seen males who self identify as homosexual try to hit on women and I have had countless male homosexuals admit they do this.

Youvegottobekidding spewed; "Second off.... Its not the ****ing governments buissuiness what you do."

Oh honey,look at the angry, hate filled bigoted homosexual! He doesn't think the government should enforce laws against drunk drivers, zoophiles, polygamists, necrophiles, heroin junkies, thieves, rapists, etc. because that would mean the "government is getting involved in our business"!

The bottom line is, considering male homosexuals have an average of 1000 acts of multiple anonymous sodomy partners throughout their rampant, rampaging sexual lifetime, this homosexual marriage nonsense has nothing to do with them now wanting to stay with one sexual perversion parnter, this has EVERYTHING to do with them politically forcing normal people to recognize these sexual deviants as a legitimate lifestyle and sexual behavior. After all, such is written right in their playbook; The Homosexual Agenda as strategized by Kirk and Madsen.

YamiB wrote:

If we allowed the majority to decide it would have been much longer for segregation to end, slavery to end, women to get the right to vote, and interracial marriages being legal.

The minority should not have to wait for the majority to overcome it's bigotry to get equal rights, the government should work to give the minority equal rights regardless of what the majority wants.

Ah, another perfect example above of following The Homosexual Agenda script, including the "jamming tactic".

The Homosexual Agenda, Chapter 1, verses 2-25: "In the early stages of any campaign to reach straight America, the masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed and gay rights should be reduced to an abstract social question as much as possible. First let the camel get his nose inside the tent--only later his unsightly derriere! "

The Homosexual Agenda, Chapter 2, verses 22-26: "As far as gays can tell, they were born gay, just as you were born heterosexual or white or black or bright or athletic. Nobody ever tricked or seduced them; they never made a choice, and are not morally blameworthy. What they do isn't willfully contrary - it's only natural for them. This twist of fate could as easily have happened to you!"

The Homosexual Agenda, Chapter 3, verses 6-10: Our campaign should not demand direct support for homosexual practices, should instead take anti-discrimination as its theme. The right to free speech, freedom of beliefs, freedom of association, due process and equal protection of laws-these should be the concerns brought to mind by our campaign."

The Homosexual Agenda, Chapter 4, verses 1-5: "[4] MAKE GAYS LOOK GOOD. In order to make a Gay Victim sympathetic to straights you have to portray him as Everyman. But an additional theme of the campaign should be more aggressive and upbeat: to offset the increasingly bad press that these times have brought to homosexual men and women, the campaign should paint gays as superior pillars of society. Yes, yes, we know--this trick is so old it creaks. "

Now notice that he referred to those who oppose sexual perverts from being able to marry based upon their sexual perversion as "bigots"?
That "jamming' tactic comes straight out of The Homosexual Agenda, Chapter 5, verses 16-18: "A campaign to vilify the victimizers is going to enrage our most fervid enemies, of course. But what else can we say? The shoe fits, and we should make them try it on for size, with all of America watching."

The Homosexual Agenda, Chapter 6, verses 9-10 :"... We intend to make the antigays look so nasty that average Americans will want to dissociate themselves from such types."

 

[Kelzie]

Re: Gov Schawarzenegger to veto Homosexual Marriage Bill

Oh by, where to start.

I agree with Vauge, way to go Arnold!

It is about time for the democrats to stop pandering to the sexual deviant crowd and started discriminating against sexual deviants. It is why the democratic party is so out of touch with the will of the people.

They're not deviants. It is a normal behavior. But I suppose you don't really care about sych inconsequencial things like that on your little crusade to descriminate against somebody.

Alex wrote:""The people" do not have the right to dictate what consenting adults can do".

Sure they do, it is called the penal code, the civil code, the welfare and institutions code, the vehicle code.....etc.....they are called LAWS and these laws tell people what they can and cannot do.

Good to know. So when the law is amended to allow gay people to marry (which it will be, don't you fret) you'll accept the legetimacy because it's the law, right?

YamiB claims the majority of citizens who don't approve of sexual pervert marriages on the basis of sexual pervsion are a "mob".

History calls it democracy. Schwarzeneggar had a mandate, and it was the Defense of Marriage Act overwhelmingly approve via the democratic process.

Sure. Much like America was a democracy when black people and women couldn't vote. Like someone famous said (Jefferson maybe) "democracy is the tyranny of the majority over the minority" or something to that effect.

Shamol claims most people support sexual pervert marriage. Not!

People didn't support equal rights for a long time too. What's your point? It's called evolution of morals.

Alex adds: "The people of California do not have the right to make that decision. Marriage is a personal issue left up to the consenting people who engage in it. The California courts will reverse it.

The California Constitution states: "A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws"

Notice how it says "person" as opposed to "those 18 or older"? That means adults and underage children are having their liberty to have sex with eachother removed.....and drunk drivers have their liberty removed, and heroin addicts have their liberty removed, and polygamists have their liberty removed, and necrophiles have their liberty removed, and zoophiles have their liberty removed....

I would rebut this...but it makes no sense.

Jmesrage quite excellenlyt pointed out typical democratic liberal puke hypocrisy:"Funny how liberals want to destroy the electoral colloge and talk about making every vote count,but when the people vote to make sure that only real marriages are recognized they want to throw the people's vote away.These scumbag liberals have the nerve to want to accuse Bush of voter fraud when they themselves want to steal the people's vote."

I don't think it's funny at all. In fact, I'm sure there was a large number of people like that when women were trying to get equal rights.

BinaryDigiti wrote: "The people of California should not have the right to make that decision"

But wait a minute, shouldn't "every vote count"?!?!?!!?!?!?!?

No. If 51% of the population votes to exterminate the other 49% it is wrong. Even if it is democratic.

BinaryDigit did slip up though; "It's ironic, but that's exactly why chicks love gay guys. They aren't hell-bent on sleeping with them. "


Actually, since I study the ways of my adversaries, most homosexuals are not exclusively so. Male homosexuals have this frequent tactic they pull where they insinuate themselves into the lives of women who don't have their typical guard up.....I have seen it time and time again where I have seen males who self identify as homosexual try to hit on women and I have had countless male homosexuals admit they do this.

Actually, it is highly doubtful you "study" your adversaries since gay males don't do this. Maybe you're thinking of bi males? I know. All these terms, it's so easy to get confused.

Youvegottobekidding spewed; "Second off.... Its not the ****ing governments buissuiness what you do."

Oh honey,look at the angry, hate filled bigoted homosexual! He doesn't think the government should enforce laws against drunk drivers, zoophiles, polygamists, necrophiles, heroin junkies, thieves, rapists, etc. because that would mean the "government is getting involved in our business"!

All of those things either a) involve hurting others or yourself, or b) don't involve two consenting adults. Next?

The bottom line is, considering male homosexuals have an average of 1000 acts of multiple anonymous sodomy partners throughout their rampant, rampaging sexual lifetime, this homosexual marriage nonsense has nothing to do with them now wanting to stay with one sexual perversion parnter, this has EVERYTHING to do with them politically forcing normal people to recognize these sexual deviants as a legitimate lifestyle and sexual behavior. After all, such is written right in their playbook; The Homosexual Agenda as strategized by Kirk and Madsen.

You're joking right? Where do you come up with this stuff? A little bird tell you?

Ah, another perfect example above of following The Homosexual Agenda script, including the "jamming tactic".

The Homosexual Agenda, Chapter 1, verses 2-25: "In the early stages of any campaign to reach straight America, the masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed and gay rights should be reduced to an abstract social question as much as possible. First let the camel get his nose inside the tent--only later his unsightly derriere! "

The Homosexual Agenda, Chapter 2, verses 22-26: "As far as gays can tell, they were born gay, just as you were born heterosexual or white or black or bright or athletic. Nobody ever tricked or seduced them; they never made a choice, and are not morally blameworthy. What they do isn't willfully contrary - it's only natural for them. This twist of fate could as easily have happened to you!"

The Homosexual Agenda, Chapter 3, verses 6-10: Our campaign should not demand direct support for homosexual practices, should instead take anti-discrimination as its theme. The right to free speech, freedom of beliefs, freedom of association, due process and equal protection of laws-these should be the concerns brought to mind by our campaign."

The Homosexual Agenda, Chapter 4, verses 1-5: "[4] MAKE GAYS LOOK GOOD. In order to make a Gay Victim sympathetic to straights you have to portray him as Everyman. But an additional theme of the campaign should be more aggressive and upbeat: to offset the increasingly bad press that these times have brought to homosexual men and women, the campaign should paint gays as superior pillars of society. Yes, yes, we know--this trick is so old it creaks. "

Now notice that he referred to those who oppose sexual perverts from being able to marry based upon their sexual perversion as "bigots"?
That "jamming' tactic comes straight out of The Homosexual Agenda, Chapter 5, verses 16-18: "A campaign to vilify the victimizers is going to enrage our most fervid enemies, of course. But what else can we say? The shoe fits, and we should make them try it on for size, with all of America watching."

The Homosexual Agenda, Chapter 6, verses 9-10 :"... We intend to make the antigays look so nasty that average Americans will want to dissociate themselves from such types."

Seriously, I don't know where one gets this "Homosexual Agenda", but I'd really like a copy. Looks like a funny read. And about as factual as Harry Potter.

 

[Navy Pride]

I get a huge kick out of you people from the left........You always cite those phoney liberal media polls to make a point..........You did the same thing before the 2002 and 2004 elections when all the polls said that Republicans would lose seats in both the senate and house and because President Bush's approval rating was in the mid forties he could no be reelected.....Well we know what happened in both instances, you lost and you will continue to do so.....

The people of California by a huge margin said no to gay marriage as has every referendum in every state that has held one.........When is it going to dawn on you that the huge majority of the American people believe that marriage should remain as between a man and a woman.........

I hope this President as his final act gets a consitutional amendment through banning gay marriage...........

Now come back with your usual insults and name calling to people that have a difference of opinion from your own........

 

[Kelzie]

I get a huge kick out of you people from the left........You always cite those phoney liberal media polls to make a point..........You did the same thing before the 2002 and 2004 elections when all the polls said that Republicans would lose seats in both the senate and house and because President Bush's approval rating was in the mid forties he could no be reelected.....Well we know what happened in both instances, you lost and you will continue to do so.....

The people of California by a huge margin said no to gay marriage as has every referendum in every state that has held one.........When is it going to dawn on you that the huge majority of the American people believe that marriage should remain as between a man and a woman.........

I hope this President as his final act gets a consitutional amendment through banning gay marriage...........

Now come back with your usual insults and name calling to people that have a difference of opinion from your own........

Phony liberal media polls...not sure what you're talking about.

And I can see why you would be tickled if the president got a descriminating law passed. Maybe while he's at it, he can get rid of that whole "equal rights" thing. :roll:

 

[InDefenseofSanity]

Kelzie the Homosexual Agenda operative writes; "They're not deviants. It is a normal behavior."

Perhaps an English language lesson is needed by you: Normal: according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle b : conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern.

Although most homosexuals parrot the 10% lie created by homosexual political extremists when they lied about Kinsey's 4% finding since discredited by Kinsey himself to a much lower percentage, it would seem that there is not a credible homosexual argument that they make up as much as 40% of the population, therefore, by very definition, homosexuality is abnormal AND deviant. Leave it to you to claim homosexuality is normal!


Then she goes on to use The Homosexual Agneda strategy technique they call "jamming": "But I suppose you don't really care about sych inconsequencial things like that on your little crusade to descriminate against somebody."

Notice how she uses the anti-religious term "crusade" just like the IslamoFascists use? Notice also how she interjects the Homosexual
Agenda buzzword tactic "discrimnation"?

She continues on with her scripted Homosexual Agenda tactic by trying to equate homosexual deviancy with some immutable physical characteristic like being born negro....that is right out of The Homosexual Agenda....

She continues: "Sure. Much like America was a democracy when black people and women couldn't vote. Like someone famous said (Jefferson maybe) "democracy is the tyranny of the majority over the minority" or something to that effect."


Yeah, we discriminate against zoophiles, pedophiles, necrophiles, polygamists, coprophiles, all of which use your exact same argument, although I am sure that you think that of all the sexual deviancies, only your particualr deviancy of homosexuality gets to make those arguments. How convenient!

She adds; " don't think it's funny at all. In fact, I'm sure there was a large number of people like that when women were trying to get equal rights.
"

Notice how she repeats the equal rights nonsense? Right back to the scripted Homosexual Agenda she goes! hey, pedophiles want equal rights too! What is wrong with a 6 year old girl loving a 80 year old fat man?! Or a Motehr marrying her son! Right?! Opposing that would be bigoted, mean spritied, wrong hgeaded and INTOLERANT! lol

As to your false claim that allotehr sexual behaviors hurt one participant, how does necrophilia hurt the piece of excrement? Or how does the dog who chases after his female human partner hurt her? Do you really think in light of the male homosexual AIDs epidemic that homosexuality doesn't hurt its practioners?!

She finishes; "Seriously, I don't know where one gets this "Homosexual Agenda", but I'd really like a copy. Looks like a funny read. And about as factual as Harry Potter."


This is the Homosexual Agenda tactic called "camp". The Homosexual Agenda is a propaganda strategy campaign written by two homosexuals, Marshal Kirk and Hunter Madsen in a book called "After the Ball.

Kirk is a researcher in neuropsychiatry. Hunter Madsen received a doctorate in Politics from Harvard in 1985 and is an expert on public persuasion tactics and social marketing, who has designed commercial advertising on Madison Avenue and served as a consultant to homosexual media campaigns across the country, and appears frequently on national media as an advocate for homosexual special rights.

The homosexual authors called for homosexuals to repackage themselves as mainstream citizens demanding equal treatment, rather than as a promiscuous sexual minority seeking greater opportunity and influence. In the late ‘80s issued a call for homosexual activists to adopt "carefully calculated public relations propaganda." An ADMISSION TO USING PROPAGANDA!

Writing just as the AIDS crisis hit its greatest momentum, the authors saw this male homosexual disease as an opportunity to change the public mind. "As cynical as it may seem, AIDS gives us a chance, however brief, to establish ourselves as a victimized minority legitimately deserving of America's special protection and care," they wrote.

Kelzie, your tactics read right out of this Homosexual Agenda.....including your use of the "jamming" tactic: Their strategy came dressed up in marketing jargon: “Desensitize, jam and convert.” As it turns out, though, you could use one word to summarize all those others: manipulation:

Desensitization, write Kirk and Madsen, means subjecting the public to a “continuous flood of gay-related advertising, presented in the least offensive fashion possible. If straights can’t shut off the shower, they may at least eventually get used to being wet.”

Again, this doesn’t mean conventional advertising. “The main thing is to talk about gayness until the issue becomes thoroughly tiresome,” they say. “If you can get [straights] to think homosexuality is just another thing — meriting no more than a shrug of the shoulders — then your battle for legal and social rights is virtually won.” Turn on the TV practically any night, watch the endless stream of gay characters and references, and you’ll get the idea.

Jamming means, simply, smearing anyone who disagrees with their agenda. “Jam homohatred [i.e., opposition to homosexuality] by linking it to Nazi horror,” urge Kirk and Madsen; associate all detractors with images like “Klansmen demanding that gays be slaughtered,” “hysterical backwoods preachers,” “menacing punks,” and a “tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed.”