Here we go again in the Boston Globe. ("Sweet 'Buster' is far from radical...Episode under attack is absolutely ordinary") They're promoting the PBS children's show where Buster the Bunny visits families across the country, with an upcoming episode featuring families with two mommies in Vermont. And calling all of us who object intolerant, petty, full of hot air, and certainly not qualified "to shape our children's understanding"!
It's amazing how skillfully the homosexual activists twist our language! Words have lost their meanings and just become propaganda tools, playing on people's innocence, emotions, or kneejerk desires to be "with it". Radical is not radical. Abnormal is normal. The unusual is just "everyday" stuff. They well know how powerful AND RADICAL such visual images are to little children--who know in their guts that having two mommies or two daddies is WEIRD! Says the Globe: "[T]he most incendiary thing about the half-hour ... may be its nonchalance." EXACTLY! What it's conveying to the little children is that there's absolutely nothing out of the ordinary about two mommies.
The homosexual radicals also know that their propaganda with the older, hostage children in the high schools over the past decade has worked amazingly well. (Where do you think all the support in the polls for "gay marriage" comes from?) Now they want to get the kids de-sensitized at an even earlier age. How better than to serve up this pastoral postcard:
"The ... episode, which will air March 23 on Channel 2, gives us two lesbian couples, their cheerful children, a community that appears to embrace them, and a general atmosphere of profound ordinariness. Against the pastoral glories of Vermont, with maple trees dripping and cows in need of milking, the lesbian families are almost Waltonesque in their rural charm. For those who'd rather pathologize and exclude same-sex couples and their children, that normalcy must spark a lot of anguish. To them, showing and telling about lesbian families is the same as promoting.
"But 'Postcards From Buster' is a series that's specifically about cultural diversity, as an 8-year-old cartoon rabbit travels the continent with his pilot father. He meets everyday people and keeps a video diary about them and their lifestyles. The mood is nonjudgmental and innocent. In the offending episode, our sweet, big-eared hero is on an educational journey to a state known for, among many other things, syrup and civil unions. It makes perfect sense that he'd hang out with the children of one lesbian couple and then meet another. 'Boy, that's a lot of moms,' Buster exclaims, looking at his new pal Emma's family picture."
To top it all off, the article concludes implying equivalence between families of traditional faiths, and those of pagans engaged in anything-goes sexuality.
Saturday, January 29, 2005
Thursday, January 27, 2005
Hooray for our new Secretary of Education
The new Secretary of Education in D.C., Margaret Spellings, is off to a good start. She slammed Boston's PBS station, WGBH, for using federal funds to produce and distribute an animated children's show which includes same-sex "marriage" propaganda. The Associated Press reports that the network claims to have decided on its own not to distribute the episode to its 349 stations, though Boston's WGBH still plans to run it locally on March 23 and make it available to other stations.
The AP reports,
The not-yet-aired episode of "Postcards from Buster" shows the title character, an animated bunny named Buster, on a trip to Vermont – a state known for recognizing same-sex civil unions. The episode features two lesbian couples, although the focus is on farm life and maple sugaring.... "Ultimately, our decision was based on the fact that we recognize this is a sensitive issue, and we wanted to make sure that parents had an opportunity to introduce this subject to their children in their own time," said Lea Sloan, vice president of media relations at PBS."
Unbelievable! PBS acknowledges that this is a sensitive issue, and parents should have some rights in educating their children?? WGBH needs to hear from Massachusetts parents, that we don't want that episode running here either.
The AP reports,
The not-yet-aired episode of "Postcards from Buster" shows the title character, an animated bunny named Buster, on a trip to Vermont – a state known for recognizing same-sex civil unions. The episode features two lesbian couples, although the focus is on farm life and maple sugaring.... "Ultimately, our decision was based on the fact that we recognize this is a sensitive issue, and we wanted to make sure that parents had an opportunity to introduce this subject to their children in their own time," said Lea Sloan, vice president of media relations at PBS."
Unbelievable! PBS acknowledges that this is a sensitive issue, and parents should have some rights in educating their children?? WGBH needs to hear from Massachusetts parents, that we don't want that episode running here either.
Freak Shows Coming Soon to a Restroom Near You!
And now in California's Bay area, public restrooms must play host to transsexual-transgendered freak shows. (Read the story in WorldNetDaily.) Imagine your little girl in the ladies' room as she observes a man/woman using the facilities. Bad enough little boys have to worry about homosexual pedophiles in men's restrooms. But now, even the ladies' rooms are unsafe!
Needless to say, Massachusetts' GLBT radicals won't let California hold the lead on such government-sanctioned depravity for long. Soon, the male and female logos will be removed from restroom doors. (This is already happening on politically-correct campuses across America.) You won't just run into the gender-identity-confused in hotel elevators anymore. You'll get to wash up next to them. "Men" will be wearing dresses to work, showing off their new breasts. And "women" will be showing off their newly flat chests. And you won't be able to object, or you'll be taken to court for hate speech, discriminatory treatment in the workplace, etc.
Same-sex "marriage" was only the beginning. The next frontier is transexual-transgender-gender identity liberation. And if you don't like it, you're a "hater".
Comment by JB (1/27/04):
I love the thing about the restrooms. My husband and I were at the Cheesecake Factory in the Cambridge Galleria Mall. I was getting cheesecake take out and he decided to use the restroom. Someone was in the small stall so he went into the handicapped. Well, first he sees the guy's hands from the other stall on top of the wall as if he was pulling himself up. He thought it was odd but didn't say anything. Next thing the guy shoves his backpack under the wall into the stall where my husband is, and then (how gross is the floor in a public restroom!) the guy gets on the floor and tries to slide under the wall into the stall where my husband is! My husband started swearing at him and tried to stomp on the guy's head..but with your pants down (literally!) what can you really do in that situation? Freaking perv just excused himself and went out of the bathroom as if nothing crazy had just occurred! My husband refused to make a scene in the place as I was all fired up to do.
I was horrified to say the least. And that is in a 'normal' men's room in a family restaurant in a shopping mall! Imagine what will be happening out in California now?
Needless to say, Massachusetts' GLBT radicals won't let California hold the lead on such government-sanctioned depravity for long. Soon, the male and female logos will be removed from restroom doors. (This is already happening on politically-correct campuses across America.) You won't just run into the gender-identity-confused in hotel elevators anymore. You'll get to wash up next to them. "Men" will be wearing dresses to work, showing off their new breasts. And "women" will be showing off their newly flat chests. And you won't be able to object, or you'll be taken to court for hate speech, discriminatory treatment in the workplace, etc.
Same-sex "marriage" was only the beginning. The next frontier is transexual-transgender-gender identity liberation. And if you don't like it, you're a "hater".
Comment by JB (1/27/04):
I love the thing about the restrooms. My husband and I were at the Cheesecake Factory in the Cambridge Galleria Mall. I was getting cheesecake take out and he decided to use the restroom. Someone was in the small stall so he went into the handicapped. Well, first he sees the guy's hands from the other stall on top of the wall as if he was pulling himself up. He thought it was odd but didn't say anything. Next thing the guy shoves his backpack under the wall into the stall where my husband is, and then (how gross is the floor in a public restroom!) the guy gets on the floor and tries to slide under the wall into the stall where my husband is! My husband started swearing at him and tried to stomp on the guy's head..but with your pants down (literally!) what can you really do in that situation? Freaking perv just excused himself and went out of the bathroom as if nothing crazy had just occurred! My husband refused to make a scene in the place as I was all fired up to do.
I was horrified to say the least. And that is in a 'normal' men's room in a family restaurant in a shopping mall! Imagine what will be happening out in California now?
Monday, January 24, 2005
PRIVATE vs. PUBLIC: "Gays" say there's no difference
If you have the stomach, take a look at the recent article in Boston's GLBT newspaper, Bay Windows. Just as we said in our piece below (Worcester Police Recognize "Unnatural" Acts), radical homosexuals aim to eradicate any concept of "public lewdness". And sure enough, their take on the story out of Worcester is that those arrested for unnatural acts and indecent exposure were not violating any laws.
The homosexual legal argument goes like this: The patrons at the "gay" porn theater would all have expected that such behaviors were going on, and would be in sympathy with it. Unless the intent of those engaged in these acts is to offend others, there is no crime. As one patron said, "Nobody goes in there that doesn't know what's happening. Anyone who goes in there is immediately primed to sex. Why are they going? ... [because] they either want to watch or take part."
Further, as long as the patrons have "a reasonable expectation of privacy" in the theater, their sex acts should be considered private! (I guess it's pretty dark in there. And the seat backs are high. So ... it's private.) Our beloved Mass. Supreme Judicial Court ruled in 2002 that no one can "be prosecuted for 'unnatural acts'--one of the state's two sodomy laws--if they are engaging in behavior that is private and consensual," according to the Bay Windows story.
Have you wondered why the police are so hesitant to make arrests like those in Worcester? Why you have to be wary of public restrooms or parks? A sad example: In two of our towns proudest of their history, Lexington and Concord, the police seem to have given up on controlling the open homosexual sex polluting the Minuteman Park and Estabrook Woods. The Police Chief of Concord even admitted a few years ago at a public meeting that he was "scared" to go into the woods and break up this activity, though residents complained bitterly about the thoroughly-engaged male couples, and the mattresses in the high grass, and the condoms littering the paths.
Bay Windows explains:
Public sex cases often turn on the question of "a reasonable expectation of privacy," i.e. whether a particular place is isolated enough that a reasonable person would see no significant risk of being discovered. It's an issue that the Massachusetts State Police confronted with GLAD's assistance in 2001, when the organization settled a harassment case against the department on behalf of a gay man who alleged he was being harassed at a highway rest stop in Wareham by a state trooper. As part of the settlement, the State Police adopted guidelines preventing troopers from deliberately trudging into wooded areas near rest stops looking for men who were having sex. At the time, GLAD's Gary Buseck said the guidelines essentially instructed troopers that "not everything done outdoors is public." There is a significant body of law about what constitutes a public or a private place and depending on the circumstances, said Klein, and a movie theater may not necessarily be public place. [sic]
and sick.
The homosexual legal argument goes like this: The patrons at the "gay" porn theater would all have expected that such behaviors were going on, and would be in sympathy with it. Unless the intent of those engaged in these acts is to offend others, there is no crime. As one patron said, "Nobody goes in there that doesn't know what's happening. Anyone who goes in there is immediately primed to sex. Why are they going? ... [because] they either want to watch or take part."
Further, as long as the patrons have "a reasonable expectation of privacy" in the theater, their sex acts should be considered private! (I guess it's pretty dark in there. And the seat backs are high. So ... it's private.) Our beloved Mass. Supreme Judicial Court ruled in 2002 that no one can "be prosecuted for 'unnatural acts'--one of the state's two sodomy laws--if they are engaging in behavior that is private and consensual," according to the Bay Windows story.
Have you wondered why the police are so hesitant to make arrests like those in Worcester? Why you have to be wary of public restrooms or parks? A sad example: In two of our towns proudest of their history, Lexington and Concord, the police seem to have given up on controlling the open homosexual sex polluting the Minuteman Park and Estabrook Woods. The Police Chief of Concord even admitted a few years ago at a public meeting that he was "scared" to go into the woods and break up this activity, though residents complained bitterly about the thoroughly-engaged male couples, and the mattresses in the high grass, and the condoms littering the paths.
Bay Windows explains:
Public sex cases often turn on the question of "a reasonable expectation of privacy," i.e. whether a particular place is isolated enough that a reasonable person would see no significant risk of being discovered. It's an issue that the Massachusetts State Police confronted with GLAD's assistance in 2001, when the organization settled a harassment case against the department on behalf of a gay man who alleged he was being harassed at a highway rest stop in Wareham by a state trooper. As part of the settlement, the State Police adopted guidelines preventing troopers from deliberately trudging into wooded areas near rest stops looking for men who were having sex. At the time, GLAD's Gary Buseck said the guidelines essentially instructed troopers that "not everything done outdoors is public." There is a significant body of law about what constitutes a public or a private place and depending on the circumstances, said Klein, and a movie theater may not necessarily be public place. [sic]
and sick.
Thursday, January 20, 2005
Women Raping Women
The Springfield Republican reports that two women have been charged with the rape and assault of another woman, in a "sexual encounter that a prosecutor said started out consensual and turned into a rape involving handcuffs and knives."
The details of this sordid encounter remind us that one of the dangers of the lesbian "lifestyle" is a higher incidence of domestic violence than in heterosexual relationships. It also brings to mind just how dangerous the kinky, pansexual world can become, and how quickly people can slide down that slippery slope into dangerous perversions, including the sort of sadism described in the article.
Maybe they had just gone to see the highly touted new movie romanticizing the Marquis de Sade. Or the lie-filled movie on the pervert Kinsey who is largely responsible for leading our society in this sorry direction. (Both movies received high praise in the Boston Globe and major media, of course.)
But if two (or three people) love each other, what business is it of mine what they do in the privacy of their own bedroom?
The details of this sordid encounter remind us that one of the dangers of the lesbian "lifestyle" is a higher incidence of domestic violence than in heterosexual relationships. It also brings to mind just how dangerous the kinky, pansexual world can become, and how quickly people can slide down that slippery slope into dangerous perversions, including the sort of sadism described in the article.
Maybe they had just gone to see the highly touted new movie romanticizing the Marquis de Sade. Or the lie-filled movie on the pervert Kinsey who is largely responsible for leading our society in this sorry direction. (Both movies received high praise in the Boston Globe and major media, of course.)
But if two (or three people) love each other, what business is it of mine what they do in the privacy of their own bedroom?
Wednesday, January 19, 2005
Worcester Police Recognize "UNNATURAL" Acts
The Worcester Telegram & Gazette reported a "sex raid" last weekend (Jan. 14-15), leading to the arrest of male homosexuals in a "gay" movie theater who were engaging in "unnatural acts". (See the New England Cable News video: click on "Police sting".) Also in that part of town, men seeking female prostitutes were arrested. In all, seventeen were taken into custody on Friday and Saturday. Not only that, but the local news censured those arrested by publishing their names! Just like the good old days.
But wait -- how can this be? I thought male homosexual behavior was entirely natural and good, and worthy of societal approval ... And what's wrong with "sex workers" making a living?
The good news here is that some of our law enforcement officials still know the difference between "natural" and "unnatural".
The bad news is, the rest of our state government doesn't think there is any distinction between "natural" and "unnatural". The Supreme Judicial Court, the Governor, and the leadership in the Legislature seem to think such behaviors are worthy of state sanctions, including the ultimate sanction of "marriage".
And the U.S. Supreme Court (according to its 2003 Lawrence v. Texas ruling) would disagree with the Worcester Police! As Justice Scalia pointed out, "This [2003 ruling] effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation. State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity ... Every single one of these laws is called into question by today's decision."
This is where the homosexual extremists and their fellow travellers want us to go: No anti-sodomy laws, legalized prostitution, no age of consent restrictions (the concept of pederasty negated), no restrictions on the number of parties in a "marriage", no such thing as public lewdness, etc.
How long until the radical homosexuals legally challenge the Worcester Police? From the Worcester T & G:
January 17. 2005 4:45AM
Police make multiple arrests in sex raids
By Milton J. Valencia TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF
WORCESTER— It was supposed to be a simple reconnaissance trip, a test to see if word had spread that police were watching. Instead, two vice squad officers checking inside the Paris Cinema on Franklin Street on Saturday afternoon found six men engaging in sexual acts in the theater. They, just as 11 men the night before, were arrested.There’s a quality-of-life issue and a public health issue, police said. ...
On Friday, the sting went into its final mode, with a police raid to catch people in the acts. Eleven people were arrested immediately, seven on charges of engaging in unnatural acts and four on charges of indecent exposure. Then on Saturday, police found the same thing and six other men were arrested. During the chaos of police flashlights and handcuffs, other patrons sat quietly enjoying their movie. Their clothes were on and they paid no attention to the raid.
But wait -- how can this be? I thought male homosexual behavior was entirely natural and good, and worthy of societal approval ... And what's wrong with "sex workers" making a living?
The good news here is that some of our law enforcement officials still know the difference between "natural" and "unnatural".
The bad news is, the rest of our state government doesn't think there is any distinction between "natural" and "unnatural". The Supreme Judicial Court, the Governor, and the leadership in the Legislature seem to think such behaviors are worthy of state sanctions, including the ultimate sanction of "marriage".
And the U.S. Supreme Court (according to its 2003 Lawrence v. Texas ruling) would disagree with the Worcester Police! As Justice Scalia pointed out, "This [2003 ruling] effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation. State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity ... Every single one of these laws is called into question by today's decision."
This is where the homosexual extremists and their fellow travellers want us to go: No anti-sodomy laws, legalized prostitution, no age of consent restrictions (the concept of pederasty negated), no restrictions on the number of parties in a "marriage", no such thing as public lewdness, etc.
How long until the radical homosexuals legally challenge the Worcester Police? From the Worcester T & G:
January 17. 2005 4:45AM
Police make multiple arrests in sex raids
By Milton J. Valencia TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF
WORCESTER— It was supposed to be a simple reconnaissance trip, a test to see if word had spread that police were watching. Instead, two vice squad officers checking inside the Paris Cinema on Franklin Street on Saturday afternoon found six men engaging in sexual acts in the theater. They, just as 11 men the night before, were arrested.There’s a quality-of-life issue and a public health issue, police said. ...
On Friday, the sting went into its final mode, with a police raid to catch people in the acts. Eleven people were arrested immediately, seven on charges of engaging in unnatural acts and four on charges of indecent exposure. Then on Saturday, police found the same thing and six other men were arrested. During the chaos of police flashlights and handcuffs, other patrons sat quietly enjoying their movie. Their clothes were on and they paid no attention to the raid.
Tuesday, January 18, 2005
Fantasyland in Massachusetts
There are so many fantasies in this story in the Boston Globe ("Bid seen weakening to ban gay marriage"1-18-05), it's hard to know where to begin.
First of all, does anyone think our legislature is serious about their amendment banning same-sex "marriage" ...
-when the Senate President, Travaglini, attends same-sex "weddings"?
-when the new Speaker of the House, DiMasi, is a huge, open supporter of same-sex "marriage"?
-when they unconstitutionally threw out the citizens' referendum in 2002 which would have banned same-sex "marriage"?
-when they know that the amendment's allowing civil unions will certainly kill it if it did go to the voters?
Does the legislature really believe that any amendment banning same-sex marriage will withstand review by our current Supreme Judicial Court? The four SJC justices made it very clear that they are the supreme arbiters, that same-sex "marriage" is legal, and that civil unions fall short -- end of argument!
So why this charade? For sure, the legislators are playing the citizens of this state for fools, stringing them along, making it look like they're trying to do something about this mess. (And they know that the majority in this state do NOT want same-sex "marriage".)
Equally if not more disturbing, why is the Massachusetts Family Institute wasting precious time, energy, and resources on a new citizens' petition to ban same-sex "marriage" and civil unions? Don't they understand that the same rogue Court is sitting, just waiting to overturn any such law? Don't they get it -- that the legislature would likely repeat their action of 2002, and not even allow the petition to come to a vote on the floor, much less go to the voters?*
It's the JUDGES, stupid! REMOVE the SJC 4!
*from the Globe article:
The final outcome is far from clear, particularly if eight social conservatives [legislators] who also oppose the amendment because it creates a system of civil unions for gay couples continue to vote against the measure.
So far, that bloc of conservatives is showing no signs of moving toward supporting the amendment and would like to hold out for a strict constitutional ban on marriage with no references to civil unions. Crews [former president of the Mass. Family Institute], while predicting the amendment's likely demise, showed no signs that he would work to save it. "If that happens, I'm not going to cry about that," Crews said.
Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, said the big question will be whether all social conservatives will continue to oppose the amendment or will move to support it. "It's a toss up right now," he said of the vote count.
He said the institute is trying to decide whether to hope for the amendment's defeat and filed [sic] a citizens petition for an amendment that would ban gay marriage and not create a system of civil unions. "That is something that is still in the decision mode," he said.
First of all, does anyone think our legislature is serious about their amendment banning same-sex "marriage" ...
-when the Senate President, Travaglini, attends same-sex "weddings"?
-when the new Speaker of the House, DiMasi, is a huge, open supporter of same-sex "marriage"?
-when they unconstitutionally threw out the citizens' referendum in 2002 which would have banned same-sex "marriage"?
-when they know that the amendment's allowing civil unions will certainly kill it if it did go to the voters?
Does the legislature really believe that any amendment banning same-sex marriage will withstand review by our current Supreme Judicial Court? The four SJC justices made it very clear that they are the supreme arbiters, that same-sex "marriage" is legal, and that civil unions fall short -- end of argument!
So why this charade? For sure, the legislators are playing the citizens of this state for fools, stringing them along, making it look like they're trying to do something about this mess. (And they know that the majority in this state do NOT want same-sex "marriage".)
Equally if not more disturbing, why is the Massachusetts Family Institute wasting precious time, energy, and resources on a new citizens' petition to ban same-sex "marriage" and civil unions? Don't they understand that the same rogue Court is sitting, just waiting to overturn any such law? Don't they get it -- that the legislature would likely repeat their action of 2002, and not even allow the petition to come to a vote on the floor, much less go to the voters?*
It's the JUDGES, stupid! REMOVE the SJC 4!
*from the Globe article:
The final outcome is far from clear, particularly if eight social conservatives [legislators] who also oppose the amendment because it creates a system of civil unions for gay couples continue to vote against the measure.
So far, that bloc of conservatives is showing no signs of moving toward supporting the amendment and would like to hold out for a strict constitutional ban on marriage with no references to civil unions. Crews [former president of the Mass. Family Institute], while predicting the amendment's likely demise, showed no signs that he would work to save it. "If that happens, I'm not going to cry about that," Crews said.
Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, said the big question will be whether all social conservatives will continue to oppose the amendment or will move to support it. "It's a toss up right now," he said of the vote count.
He said the institute is trying to decide whether to hope for the amendment's defeat and filed [sic] a citizens petition for an amendment that would ban gay marriage and not create a system of civil unions. "That is something that is still in the decision mode," he said.
Sunday, January 16, 2005
Former Acton School Committee Member's "Queer Politics" Blog & Bisexual Coming-Out Party
Now we see a former school committee member in Acton aggressively promoting "queer politics" (his words) in the community. Not unexpected, since our state now condones same-sex "marriage"! Who could be so unenlightened as to object? The Supremes have spoken! Watch for more & more open radical homosexual activism across the state.
See Jesse Liberty's "Queer Politics" blog.
Liberty is also the proud founder of ActonEquality. They are sponsoring a meeting on Jan. 29 in Littleton to mobilize the NW ex-urbs of Boston to oppose any constitutional amendment banning same-sex "marriage". His "opposition" list includes Article 8 Alliance, the Mass. Family Institute, and MassNews.
Liberty's queer advocacy has been going on for some time in Acton. He led the charge against the Boy Scouts distributing notices in the elementary schools there a few years ago, as reported in Massachusetts News back in 2001. ...Wow, he's everywhere, including reviewing queer books for Amazon.com.
Not to get too personal (though we're sure that since Liberty is an "out bisexual", he won't mind), but we thought you might like to read more about this happily married man who lives with his wife and two children in Acton.
His bisexual coming out story recently appeared on the Human Rights Campaign website. He emphasizes that he has lived his whole marriage as a monogamous heterosexual. But we wonder -- isn't such a prideful statement implied DISCRIMINATION against non-monogamous bisexuals???
Maybe Liberty will soon make amends, and advocate for those who wish to marry BOTH a male and a female (at the same time). After all, there is no rational reason to limit marriage to only two people! And please be sure not to exclude transsexuals/ transgendered in these group marriages -- a sure way to keep the marriage interesting!
See Jesse Liberty's "Queer Politics" blog.
Liberty is also the proud founder of ActonEquality. They are sponsoring a meeting on Jan. 29 in Littleton to mobilize the NW ex-urbs of Boston to oppose any constitutional amendment banning same-sex "marriage". His "opposition" list includes Article 8 Alliance, the Mass. Family Institute, and MassNews.
Liberty's queer advocacy has been going on for some time in Acton. He led the charge against the Boy Scouts distributing notices in the elementary schools there a few years ago, as reported in Massachusetts News back in 2001. ...Wow, he's everywhere, including reviewing queer books for Amazon.com.
Not to get too personal (though we're sure that since Liberty is an "out bisexual", he won't mind), but we thought you might like to read more about this happily married man who lives with his wife and two children in Acton.
His bisexual coming out story recently appeared on the Human Rights Campaign website. He emphasizes that he has lived his whole marriage as a monogamous heterosexual. But we wonder -- isn't such a prideful statement implied DISCRIMINATION against non-monogamous bisexuals???
Maybe Liberty will soon make amends, and advocate for those who wish to marry BOTH a male and a female (at the same time). After all, there is no rational reason to limit marriage to only two people! And please be sure not to exclude transsexuals/ transgendered in these group marriages -- a sure way to keep the marriage interesting!
Saturday, January 15, 2005
Protect your children from homosexual propaganda in our schools!
http://www.parentsrightscoalition.org/
See what's going on our public schools ... what they don't want you to know. Learn about the new Parental Notification "opt-in" bill pending in the Massachusetts legislature, which will go far to eliminate the homosexual propaganda in our schools.
See what's going on our public schools ... what they don't want you to know. Learn about the new Parental Notification "opt-in" bill pending in the Massachusetts legislature, which will go far to eliminate the homosexual propaganda in our schools.
Thursday, January 13, 2005
Promoting Perversion at a Massachusetts High School
Read the WorldNetDaily article.
So ... we tell our teenagers not to smoke and drink, but at the same time tell them that if they "feel different", maybe they need to have a sex-change operation. Nothing unhealthy about removing one's breasts or male organ and injecting hormones of the opposite sex. (But if they're not ready to go that far, they can try cross-dressing at school.)
But wait a minute -- what does "opposite sex" mean, anyway??? According to Newton North High School, "Effective multicultural education suggests a re-examination of the history, social constructs and dynamics related to race, class, gender, ethnicity, economics, and culture that impact curriculum and instruction."
Got it? Gender is just a "social construct", meaning God did not make you male or female, society did. It was not enough to push for "rights" for gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. Now we must promote transgenderism and transsexualism. And if the parents aren't with it enough to do so, the schools must step in.
For more details, see freenewton.com/
So ... we tell our teenagers not to smoke and drink, but at the same time tell them that if they "feel different", maybe they need to have a sex-change operation. Nothing unhealthy about removing one's breasts or male organ and injecting hormones of the opposite sex. (But if they're not ready to go that far, they can try cross-dressing at school.)
But wait a minute -- what does "opposite sex" mean, anyway??? According to Newton North High School, "Effective multicultural education suggests a re-examination of the history, social constructs and dynamics related to race, class, gender, ethnicity, economics, and culture that impact curriculum and instruction."
Got it? Gender is just a "social construct", meaning God did not make you male or female, society did. It was not enough to push for "rights" for gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. Now we must promote transgenderism and transsexualism. And if the parents aren't with it enough to do so, the schools must step in.
For more details, see freenewton.com/
Wednesday, January 12, 2005
The Health Risks of Gay Sex
By John R. Diggs, Jr., M.D.
It's against nature, and it's UNHEALTHY. While the politically correct don't want anyone to talk about this subject, we must. There is a huge public health issue here.
Read Dr. Diggs' article.
It's against nature, and it's UNHEALTHY. While the politically correct don't want anyone to talk about this subject, we must. There is a huge public health issue here.
Read Dr. Diggs' article.
PUBLIC ENEMY #1 in our schools: GLSEN
What is GLSEN (the Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network)? The Traditional Values Coalition has put together all the background you need to understand public enemy #1 in our schools. GLSEN is behind the curriculum materials promoting homosexuality and transgenderism, propaganda assemblies, the so-called "Gay/Straight Alliance" clubs, the "Day of Silence" each April, etc.
Find out more about GLSEN.
Find out more about GLSEN.
Gay Marriage "Rights" Are Nonsensical
By Thomas Sowell
Read the article in Human Events.
The portrayal of same-sex "marriage" as a "civil rights" issue is outrageous, but if you repeat the lie often enough, gullible people will buy into it. As Thomas Sowell points out, "Marriage is not a right extended to individuals by the government" but rather "a restriction on the rights they already have." Homosexuals already had the right to enter into any contracts they wanted, write wills as they pleased, vote, etc. These are civil rights.
So the issue is not individual rights, Sowell points out. "What the activists are seeking is offical social approval of their lifestyle. But this is the antithesis of equal rights. If you have a right to someone else's approval, then they do not have a right to their own opinions and values."
Read the article in Human Events.
The portrayal of same-sex "marriage" as a "civil rights" issue is outrageous, but if you repeat the lie often enough, gullible people will buy into it. As Thomas Sowell points out, "Marriage is not a right extended to individuals by the government" but rather "a restriction on the rights they already have." Homosexuals already had the right to enter into any contracts they wanted, write wills as they pleased, vote, etc. These are civil rights.
So the issue is not individual rights, Sowell points out. "What the activists are seeking is offical social approval of their lifestyle. But this is the antithesis of equal rights. If you have a right to someone else's approval, then they do not have a right to their own opinions and values."
Tuesday, January 11, 2005
Strategy for Restoring Sexual Sanity
By the Rev. Earle Fox
Speaking the truth with compassion.
Read about the roots of our society's "pansexual" plague, and what we can do to halt it.
Speaking the truth with compassion.
Read about the roots of our society's "pansexual" plague, and what we can do to halt it.
How Homosexual Extremists Have Controlled the Debate
DECIPHERING 'GAY' WORD-SPEAK AND LANGUAGE OF CONFUSION
By Scott D. Lively, Esq. (2002)
If you've never stopped to think about the danger of accepting and employing the term "sexual orientation", you'd better read this article. Lively is the co-author of The Pink Swastika (which documents the important role of pagan homosexual perversion in the Third Reich), and heads Abiding Truth Ministries.
"He who defines the terms controls the debate -- and by extension, public opinion. On this issue the terms have been defined (in many cases invented) by the talented sophists of the 'gay' movement. ...
"Among the most common terms and concepts in the 'gay rights' debate are: homosexuality, sexual orientation, heterosexism, diversity, multi-culturalism, inclusiveness, discrimination, homophobia and tolerance. These words and phrases are used by 'gay' sophists to frame the question of homosexuality as a civil rights issue. It is a context chosen to favor homosexuals to the extent that they cast themselves as victims and their opponents as oppressors, yet even within this context, 'gay' arguments are easily refuted."
Note the date of the article, 2002, before the US Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence v. Texas (2003) that states do not have the right to outlaw sodomy. Dissenting Supreme Court Justice Scalia said of that decision: "This effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation. State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity ... Every single one of these laws is called into question by today's decision."
This 2003 Lawrence ruling was the ultimate victory for the gay "newspeak" Lively analyzes: The new concepts of homosexuality and sexual orientation, defined as innate characteristics as opposed to behavior, had won the day and paved the way for the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's "legalizing" same-sex marriage.
By Scott D. Lively, Esq. (2002)
If you've never stopped to think about the danger of accepting and employing the term "sexual orientation", you'd better read this article. Lively is the co-author of The Pink Swastika (which documents the important role of pagan homosexual perversion in the Third Reich), and heads Abiding Truth Ministries.
"He who defines the terms controls the debate -- and by extension, public opinion. On this issue the terms have been defined (in many cases invented) by the talented sophists of the 'gay' movement. ...
"Among the most common terms and concepts in the 'gay rights' debate are: homosexuality, sexual orientation, heterosexism, diversity, multi-culturalism, inclusiveness, discrimination, homophobia and tolerance. These words and phrases are used by 'gay' sophists to frame the question of homosexuality as a civil rights issue. It is a context chosen to favor homosexuals to the extent that they cast themselves as victims and their opponents as oppressors, yet even within this context, 'gay' arguments are easily refuted."
Note the date of the article, 2002, before the US Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence v. Texas (2003) that states do not have the right to outlaw sodomy. Dissenting Supreme Court Justice Scalia said of that decision: "This effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation. State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity ... Every single one of these laws is called into question by today's decision."
This 2003 Lawrence ruling was the ultimate victory for the gay "newspeak" Lively analyzes: The new concepts of homosexuality and sexual orientation, defined as innate characteristics as opposed to behavior, had won the day and paved the way for the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's "legalizing" same-sex marriage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)