The minute we saw the cover of the Boston Globe Sunday magazine promising six kitchen makeover stories, we knew one would belong to a homosexual couple. (See "Yankee Ingenuity" for the gay couple's kitchen makeover.)
What even MassResistance wouldn't have expected was a second feature story in the same issue, called of all things, Coupling: Seats of Power. We read a male wife's simpering, affected confessions about his inability to drive, and how that onerous responsibility falls completely in his "husband's" lap.
The cutesy, excusifying tone is enough to make you nauseous. This fellow has truly taken on the identity of an annoying, demanding wife. For all his protestations of normality, their false, unnatural union is staring us right in the face.
"Our partnership is equal on every level except for one: He drives, I ride, and that's that. ... I don't drive.
"There, I said it. Let the snickering and eyebrow-raising begin. Like a dirty little secret that isn't that dirty (having a foot fetish, say, rather than shooting up drugs with used hypodermic needles), not driving isn't illegal, but it still occasions disbelief, judgment, even pity – and that's just from my husband.
"Considering that I have no good reason for this, and keeping in mind how long-suffering my husband has been, you might think I would have the good sense to keep my mouth shut when we're on the road and he's doing all the heavy lifting. Oh, no. I am the only traveling companion more irksome than a back-seat driver: a front-seat driver, directing my chauffeur from right there next to him in the passenger seat.
"If I think we're headed the wrong way, or going too fast, or annoying other drivers, I blurt out, 'Honey!' That's an innocuous word, you think, until you hear me say it, rendering the first syllable as a growl, and the second both high and shrill."
Etc., etc. Bear in mind we're not reading this in Bay Windows. It's the Boston Globe. Can you take it?
Sunday, June 12, 2005
8-Year-Old Expresses Natural Revulsion at "Gay Pride March"
The Boston Globe reports that yesterday's "Gay Pride March" saw 8,000 marchers and 200,000 spectators. Note the bias of the Globe headline: "Gays march for pride and justice" ! What a lovely parade it was:
"The event had a laid-back feel, as marchers -- some in leather vests, some in polo shirts, some in not very much at all -- made their way from Copley Square through the South End and on to Boylston Street in the hot weather.
"As usual, there were plenty of explicit displays of sexuality -- shirtless men in skimpy underwear dancing on floats and women wearing nothing but tape over their breasts.
"A trio of men protesting President Bush, wearing women's bathing suits with wigs, sent Elijah Berger, 8, scampering into his father's Berkeley Street restaurant, Laurel Grill & Bar. 'Being that it was his first pride parade, he was shocked to see men wearing women's bathing suits,' said his father, Russ Berger.
Who wouldn't be revolted?
But the Boston Globe (and the father?) implies this little boy just needs re-education (it was only his first time, after all). His reaction indicates his coercive indoctrination center (a.k.a. public school) has NOT done its job! How pleased the Globe must be with this family, who celebrated the perversion on the street:
"A number of onlookers said the parade was less racy than in the past. Beth Niernberg, 39, of Brookline, said she did not hesitate to bring her three young children, who set up camp in front of the Hard Rock Cafe on Clarendon Street.
"In another sign of the parade's increasing appeal to the mainstream, dozens of corporations, political campaigns, and church groups marched alongside gay activist organizations and dance club floats pumping house music."
One corporate sponsor (included in our "Hall of Shame"), Wainwright Bank, sponsored a float with "a blonde drag queen wearing a beaded yellow gown on a truck decorated with marigolds, daisies, and petunias." For another man who "wore a pink mohawk, a glittery feather boa, and sparkly jewels glued to his face, flamboyance itself was a political statement. 'If anything, the political climate of the past year has made me want to be out here even more,' " he said.
That's exactly the problem. You WILL be seeing much more of this perversion on our streets and in public places. If your little 8-year-old boy flees the scene in revulsion, you had better re-educate him, or you'll be called a BIGOT.
"The event had a laid-back feel, as marchers -- some in leather vests, some in polo shirts, some in not very much at all -- made their way from Copley Square through the South End and on to Boylston Street in the hot weather.
"As usual, there were plenty of explicit displays of sexuality -- shirtless men in skimpy underwear dancing on floats and women wearing nothing but tape over their breasts.
"A trio of men protesting President Bush, wearing women's bathing suits with wigs, sent Elijah Berger, 8, scampering into his father's Berkeley Street restaurant, Laurel Grill & Bar. 'Being that it was his first pride parade, he was shocked to see men wearing women's bathing suits,' said his father, Russ Berger.
Who wouldn't be revolted?
But the Boston Globe (and the father?) implies this little boy just needs re-education (it was only his first time, after all). His reaction indicates his coercive indoctrination center (a.k.a. public school) has NOT done its job! How pleased the Globe must be with this family, who celebrated the perversion on the street:
"A number of onlookers said the parade was less racy than in the past. Beth Niernberg, 39, of Brookline, said she did not hesitate to bring her three young children, who set up camp in front of the Hard Rock Cafe on Clarendon Street.
"In another sign of the parade's increasing appeal to the mainstream, dozens of corporations, political campaigns, and church groups marched alongside gay activist organizations and dance club floats pumping house music."
One corporate sponsor (included in our "Hall of Shame"), Wainwright Bank, sponsored a float with "a blonde drag queen wearing a beaded yellow gown on a truck decorated with marigolds, daisies, and petunias." For another man who "wore a pink mohawk, a glittery feather boa, and sparkly jewels glued to his face, flamboyance itself was a political statement. 'If anything, the political climate of the past year has made me want to be out here even more,' " he said.
That's exactly the problem. You WILL be seeing much more of this perversion on our streets and in public places. If your little 8-year-old boy flees the scene in revulsion, you had better re-educate him, or you'll be called a BIGOT.
Saturday, June 11, 2005
Pink Triangles and Police Lists in Bedford
The Phelps "God-hates-America" crew from Kansas came to Bedford last week (to protest the rainbow flag in the middle school). That's the anti-Catholic, anti-Semitic, anti-anyone-who-hasn't-yet-recognized-God's-grace hate group. Oh, by the way, the Phelps people don't approve of homosexuality either.
Those who don't think clearly, i.e. homosexual activists and their fellow travelers, use this latter element -- the Phelps disapproval of homosexuality -- to try to connect them with anyone who disapproves of homosexuality, or same-sex "marriage". Well, it doesn't wash.
One group of Bedford clergy tried to make it look like they spoke for all churches in town (when of course they didn't). They led a "diversity vigil" on the town common Monday night. Two hundred participants (including young children) smugly marched around, pumped up by their spiritual pride. The Bedford Minuteman played along, and spoke of of the "voice of unity" at this demonstration:
"A handful of anti-gay protesters from Kansas succeeded in galvanizing opposition on Bedford's Town Common Monday night as several hundred residents gathered at the stairs of First Parish [Unitarian] on the Common to hear the voice of unity.
" 'We are here to say that today is also a day that we may confirm the power of love that will not allow hate to grow,' the Rev. John Gibbons said from the steps of his church.
"He was joined by many members of Bedford's religious communities, including additional members from First Parish, St. Paul's Episcopal Church, First Church of Christ, Congregational, First Baptist Church and Burlington's Temple Shalom Emeth."
(The Catholic and Lutheran churches did not participate, as they do not support homosexual extremism and the coercive indoctrination of Bedford schoolchildren.)
The extremist demonstrators wrapped themselves in rainbow flags and wore pink triangles imprinted with "No Place for Hate". Their message, in other words: If you don't agree that homosexuality if fine, normal, and beautiful, and that same-sex "marriage" is a blessing from God, YOU ARE A HATER!
"We in this town will not let voices of division prevail," said one minister. Another praised the town's teachers and school administrators (who fly rainbow flags and propose middle school cross-dressing days) for "ensuring safety for the student population." A few days earlier, the Bedford Selectmen had adopted a "Unity Statement", which says "[W]e maintain a zero-tolerance policy of any and all forms of hate speech and hate crimes."
How convenient that they don't bother to define "hate speech and hate crimes." If a parent objects to the rainbow flag at the middle school, is that "hate speech"? If a citizen questions the "Day of Silence" at the high school, is that a "voice of division" which must be stomped out?
Apparently, the police agree with the minister who's worried "hate" might "grow" in town. We hear they are keeping a list of citizens who MIGHT be haters.
Those who don't think clearly, i.e. homosexual activists and their fellow travelers, use this latter element -- the Phelps disapproval of homosexuality -- to try to connect them with anyone who disapproves of homosexuality, or same-sex "marriage". Well, it doesn't wash.
One group of Bedford clergy tried to make it look like they spoke for all churches in town (when of course they didn't). They led a "diversity vigil" on the town common Monday night. Two hundred participants (including young children) smugly marched around, pumped up by their spiritual pride. The Bedford Minuteman played along, and spoke of of the "voice of unity" at this demonstration:
"A handful of anti-gay protesters from Kansas succeeded in galvanizing opposition on Bedford's Town Common Monday night as several hundred residents gathered at the stairs of First Parish [Unitarian] on the Common to hear the voice of unity.
" 'We are here to say that today is also a day that we may confirm the power of love that will not allow hate to grow,' the Rev. John Gibbons said from the steps of his church.
"He was joined by many members of Bedford's religious communities, including additional members from First Parish, St. Paul's Episcopal Church, First Church of Christ, Congregational, First Baptist Church and Burlington's Temple Shalom Emeth."
(The Catholic and Lutheran churches did not participate, as they do not support homosexual extremism and the coercive indoctrination of Bedford schoolchildren.)
The extremist demonstrators wrapped themselves in rainbow flags and wore pink triangles imprinted with "No Place for Hate". Their message, in other words: If you don't agree that homosexuality if fine, normal, and beautiful, and that same-sex "marriage" is a blessing from God, YOU ARE A HATER!
"We in this town will not let voices of division prevail," said one minister. Another praised the town's teachers and school administrators (who fly rainbow flags and propose middle school cross-dressing days) for "ensuring safety for the student population." A few days earlier, the Bedford Selectmen had adopted a "Unity Statement", which says "[W]e maintain a zero-tolerance policy of any and all forms of hate speech and hate crimes."
How convenient that they don't bother to define "hate speech and hate crimes." If a parent objects to the rainbow flag at the middle school, is that "hate speech"? If a citizen questions the "Day of Silence" at the high school, is that a "voice of division" which must be stomped out?
Apparently, the police agree with the minister who's worried "hate" might "grow" in town. We hear they are keeping a list of citizens who MIGHT be haters.
Thursday, June 09, 2005
Gays Confirm: "Pride Week" = Nonstop Orgies for Many
Bay Windows, our favorite Thursday read, informs us on the true meaning of "Gay Pride Week". If you go to this week's Opinions/Columns , there are many anecdotal jewels which will help you understand what the "lifestyle" is all about. Try the guest piece on "circuit parties". Very interesting.
Is this really a "lifestyle" we want promoted to our boys, and our neighbors' boys, in our public schools? And by our state government? Homosexuality, especially the male variety, often means this sort of thing (going on all over in Boston this week):
When people find out you used to be a slobbering drug addict they eventually - usually after they've had a few drinks - work up enough courage to ask some variation of the question: "What was your most embarrassing moment?" which, loosely translated, means: "At what point did you realize you were such a mess you needed help?"
I always have the same response: Do I have to pick just one?
The thing about doing crystal meth is that the bar gauging what constitutes aberrant behavior keeps getting lowered on you. Things that would have seemed odd when I started doing it seemed commonplace by the end. Why wouldn't it seem strange to find yourself dashing madly around London with your barrister/escort friends at 4 a.m. looking for lube - even as you never saw daylight or any of the rest of that beautiful, historic city while there? Doesn't everyone do that? You say you went three days without eating anything solid or sleeping a minute? Isn't that normal?
So rather than try to pick any single event, I always say that one question stands out in my mind more than any other: How was I ever so shallow to have spent so much time at circuit parties?
With Pride season upon us - and its attendant ramping up of the schedule for these parties - it seems appropriate to revisit the popularity of these events. Events that see tens of thousands of mostly gay men spend countless hours at the gym preening like waxed, tan debutantes, and then two to three days getting so shit-faced they don't remember much of the weekend. (And then complain that they never meet anyone nice.)
Oh, I can hear the protests now: I've heard all of the expansive bullshit about how these events are transcendental in nature; how even as you're surrounded by blaring music and thousands of sweaty, shirtless glassy-eyed men who will never remember your name, you feel as one with your brothers. Never mind that nearly all of your brothers couldn't pick you out of a line-up the following day...
Don't get me wrong: I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with going to a circuit party - just not as the way of life they've become for many people. I don't even think there's anything inherently wrong with getting high in moderation - though some of us clearly have a problem with that moderation concept....
I've heard it said that circuit parties offer something lost and found again: the dances, crushes and wild abandon many of us were denied in high school and college because while we were partying with our friends we were also carrying a secret that prevented us from truly letting go and celebrating.
In the end, everyone is avoiding the really hard part: developing our humanity and gaining the ability to make emotional connections with one another on an everyday basis. For gay men, that means developing something that is sorely lacking in many of us: the ability to treat one another as something other than pieces of meat. Now that would be something of which we can be proud.
Is this really a "lifestyle" we want promoted to our boys, and our neighbors' boys, in our public schools? And by our state government? Homosexuality, especially the male variety, often means this sort of thing (going on all over in Boston this week):
When people find out you used to be a slobbering drug addict they eventually - usually after they've had a few drinks - work up enough courage to ask some variation of the question: "What was your most embarrassing moment?" which, loosely translated, means: "At what point did you realize you were such a mess you needed help?"
I always have the same response: Do I have to pick just one?
The thing about doing crystal meth is that the bar gauging what constitutes aberrant behavior keeps getting lowered on you. Things that would have seemed odd when I started doing it seemed commonplace by the end. Why wouldn't it seem strange to find yourself dashing madly around London with your barrister/escort friends at 4 a.m. looking for lube - even as you never saw daylight or any of the rest of that beautiful, historic city while there? Doesn't everyone do that? You say you went three days without eating anything solid or sleeping a minute? Isn't that normal?
So rather than try to pick any single event, I always say that one question stands out in my mind more than any other: How was I ever so shallow to have spent so much time at circuit parties?
With Pride season upon us - and its attendant ramping up of the schedule for these parties - it seems appropriate to revisit the popularity of these events. Events that see tens of thousands of mostly gay men spend countless hours at the gym preening like waxed, tan debutantes, and then two to three days getting so shit-faced they don't remember much of the weekend. (And then complain that they never meet anyone nice.)
Oh, I can hear the protests now: I've heard all of the expansive bullshit about how these events are transcendental in nature; how even as you're surrounded by blaring music and thousands of sweaty, shirtless glassy-eyed men who will never remember your name, you feel as one with your brothers. Never mind that nearly all of your brothers couldn't pick you out of a line-up the following day...
Don't get me wrong: I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with going to a circuit party - just not as the way of life they've become for many people. I don't even think there's anything inherently wrong with getting high in moderation - though some of us clearly have a problem with that moderation concept....
I've heard it said that circuit parties offer something lost and found again: the dances, crushes and wild abandon many of us were denied in high school and college because while we were partying with our friends we were also carrying a secret that prevented us from truly letting go and celebrating.
In the end, everyone is avoiding the really hard part: developing our humanity and gaining the ability to make emotional connections with one another on an everyday basis. For gay men, that means developing something that is sorely lacking in many of us: the ability to treat one another as something other than pieces of meat. Now that would be something of which we can be proud.
Wednesday, June 08, 2005
Gay Pride Flags Fly Without Court Order in Massachusetts
In Florida, a federal judge orders the city of St. Augustine to fly "gay" pride flags on a major bridge. In Massachusetts, no such orders are needed. The homosexual activists, along with their fellow travelers and fools like Mayor Menino of Boston, already control the flagpoles and schools halls of this "commonwealth".
Last Friday in Boston, in honor of "Gay Pride Week", the rainbow flag was raised at City Hall Plaza. At the Glenn Middle School in Bedford, the rainbow "freedom" flag has been hanging in the hall with flags of nations for over a year. Who needs federal judges here?
From WorldNetDaily:
A federal judge is siding with homosexual activists in America's oldest city, ordering St. Augustine, Fla., to fly 49 "gay-pride" flags on its Bridge of Lions.
...[The judge's] decision was based in part on First Amendment violations and "irreparable harm and loss if they are prohibited from flying their rainbow flags during the week of the annual gay pride celebration," according to the Florida Times-Union.
... The "gay-pride" flag, designed by Gilbert Baker, debuted in 1978 at San Francisco's Gay and Lesbian Freedom Day Parade, with the colors said to represent life, healing, the sun, harmony and spirit.
Last Friday in Boston, in honor of "Gay Pride Week", the rainbow flag was raised at City Hall Plaza. At the Glenn Middle School in Bedford, the rainbow "freedom" flag has been hanging in the hall with flags of nations for over a year. Who needs federal judges here?
From WorldNetDaily:
A federal judge is siding with homosexual activists in America's oldest city, ordering St. Augustine, Fla., to fly 49 "gay-pride" flags on its Bridge of Lions.
...[The judge's] decision was based in part on First Amendment violations and "irreparable harm and loss if they are prohibited from flying their rainbow flags during the week of the annual gay pride celebration," according to the Florida Times-Union.
... The "gay-pride" flag, designed by Gilbert Baker, debuted in 1978 at San Francisco's Gay and Lesbian Freedom Day Parade, with the colors said to represent life, healing, the sun, harmony and spirit.
Tuesday, June 07, 2005
Mother Lost Two Sons to "Gay" Lifestyle
Remember this is "Gay" Pride Week in Boston. One of the special events is a display of the "AIDS Memorial Quilt" at Quincy Market. The quilt is composed of 45,000 panels and includes the names of 82,000 people who died of AIDS (19% of the total nationwide).
A very sad story in the Boston Herald ("Quilt makes big impression for mom who lost both sons", June 5), briefly (and confusingly) profiles a mother who lost two sons to the "gay" lifestyle. How can this story be part of a celebratory "pride week"? There seems to be some disconnect...
The woman found out one of her sons was "gay" when he told her at age 15. He committed suicide at 27 in a Florida hotel room, 19 years ago. Her younger son, also "gay", died of AIDS 17 years ago.
The story says she still has trouble accepting these deaths. She said, "You don't know what you've lost until it's gone.... I hear the way some parents talk to their children, and I feel like telling them, 'Love them. No matter what, just love them, because tomorrow, they could be gone.' "
In light of her sons' needless and tragic deaths in the "gay" lifestyle, how can the article push us to celebrate "gay pride"? Should we be celebrating the lie that tells us that "gay" life is gay, that homosexual sex is safe and OK?
A very sad story in the Boston Herald ("Quilt makes big impression for mom who lost both sons", June 5), briefly (and confusingly) profiles a mother who lost two sons to the "gay" lifestyle. How can this story be part of a celebratory "pride week"? There seems to be some disconnect...
The woman found out one of her sons was "gay" when he told her at age 15. He committed suicide at 27 in a Florida hotel room, 19 years ago. Her younger son, also "gay", died of AIDS 17 years ago.
The story says she still has trouble accepting these deaths. She said, "You don't know what you've lost until it's gone.... I hear the way some parents talk to their children, and I feel like telling them, 'Love them. No matter what, just love them, because tomorrow, they could be gone.' "
In light of her sons' needless and tragic deaths in the "gay" lifestyle, how can the article push us to celebrate "gay pride"? Should we be celebrating the lie that tells us that "gay" life is gay, that homosexual sex is safe and OK?
Why Homosexuals Want to Destroy the Catholic Church
The anything-goes crowd is fuming about the new Pope's recent description of same-sex "marriages" as "pseudo-matrimony". (Boston Globe, 6/7/05: "Pope says gay unions are false; Sees a weakening of marriage.")
''The various forms of the dissolution of matrimony today, like free unions, trial marriages and going up to pseudo-matrimonies by people of the same sex, are rather expressions of an anarchic freedom that wrongly passes for true freedom of man," he said.
Note that the Church's condemnation includes heterosexual unions outside of marriage. So how can Charles Martel (of the Mass. Religious Coalition for the Freedom to Marry) claim that, ''The pope is creating a dangerous climate of inciting hatred towards gays and lesbians, and needs to be held accountable in attempting to encourage civil societies to perpetuate this prejudice."
What nonsense! Is the Pope also creating a dangerous climate of hatred towards unmarried hetero couples engaging in sexual activity? We think not.
But it's no wonder the homosexuals targeted the Catholic Church decades ago. When you come across a solid doctrinal statement, as in the new Pope's writings while he was still Cardinal Ratzinger (and the Pope's doctrinal "enforcer"), you'll understand. He wrote in 2003:
''Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development."
You don't have to be Catholic to appreciate what he signed onto in 1986:
''It is only in the marital relationship that the use of the sexual faculty can be morally good. A person engaging in homosexual behavior therefore acts immorally. ... This does not mean that homosexual persons are not often generous and giving of themselves, but when they engage in homosexual activity they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent."
''The various forms of the dissolution of matrimony today, like free unions, trial marriages and going up to pseudo-matrimonies by people of the same sex, are rather expressions of an anarchic freedom that wrongly passes for true freedom of man," he said.
Note that the Church's condemnation includes heterosexual unions outside of marriage. So how can Charles Martel (of the Mass. Religious Coalition for the Freedom to Marry) claim that, ''The pope is creating a dangerous climate of inciting hatred towards gays and lesbians, and needs to be held accountable in attempting to encourage civil societies to perpetuate this prejudice."
What nonsense! Is the Pope also creating a dangerous climate of hatred towards unmarried hetero couples engaging in sexual activity? We think not.
But it's no wonder the homosexuals targeted the Catholic Church decades ago. When you come across a solid doctrinal statement, as in the new Pope's writings while he was still Cardinal Ratzinger (and the Pope's doctrinal "enforcer"), you'll understand. He wrote in 2003:
''Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development."
You don't have to be Catholic to appreciate what he signed onto in 1986:
''It is only in the marital relationship that the use of the sexual faculty can be morally good. A person engaging in homosexual behavior therefore acts immorally. ... This does not mean that homosexual persons are not often generous and giving of themselves, but when they engage in homosexual activity they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent."
Monday, June 06, 2005
Margery Eagan's Obsessions
Margery Eagan, for some reason hired by the Boston Herald as a columnist, has a curious obsession, or two. First, she seems to be obsessed by the issue of homosexuality. I guess she has plenty of company on that score, at least in this state.
But what of her obsession with our friend Brian Camenker (director of Article 8 Alliance)? For the second time in a month, she has singled him out for abusive treatment in her not-so-witty column. Why? Is he dashingly handsome? (I think not. ... Sorry, Brian.) Has she been publicly debating him? (No.) Has she been calling him on the phone to chat? (No.)
It must annoy her no end that he points out the BIG LIE of the "gay" movement. While most of the "elite" of this state have agreed to avert their eyes to the public health scandal of homosexual sex, Brian refuses to do so. And he refuses to let the lisping, self-professed intellectuals intimidate him.
Margery's back must be up because she knows in her gut that her "chic" acceptance of all things "gay" is, as Brian puts it, "a house of cards". And when it comes crashing down, Margery will be exposed for the fool she has always been. Her sour attacks on a man of courage and principle suggest her own insecurities.
Today's column makes fun of Brian for his objection (quoted in a Herald story) to the "Queer Eye" guys throwing out the first pitch at a Red Sox game. From her childish and bitchy screed, here's her amateurish attempt to link Brian and Fred Phelps (of the wacky Kansas Westboro Baptist Church [WBC] protesters):
"I am of course aware that many people find nothing funny in all this foolishness [queer pitching at Fenway Park]. Indefatigable anti-gay crusader Brian Camenker, for one. He's a veritable Energizer Bunny in the war to preserve what's righteous and pure. He's outraged. Again. ... Maybe Brian and Fred would like their own movie title: 'The Unnatural'? Think they'd like that? But how natural, or not, are these two in the wee, wee hours?"
Margery does get a bit carried away with her sexual innuendoes in this piece. But more to the point, doesn't she realize that Fred's group doesn't like Jews (Brian is Jewish), Catholics (many of the Article 8 supporters are Catholic), or David Parker? They are all on the WBC hit list, too.
But what of her obsession with our friend Brian Camenker (director of Article 8 Alliance)? For the second time in a month, she has singled him out for abusive treatment in her not-so-witty column. Why? Is he dashingly handsome? (I think not. ... Sorry, Brian.) Has she been publicly debating him? (No.) Has she been calling him on the phone to chat? (No.)
It must annoy her no end that he points out the BIG LIE of the "gay" movement. While most of the "elite" of this state have agreed to avert their eyes to the public health scandal of homosexual sex, Brian refuses to do so. And he refuses to let the lisping, self-professed intellectuals intimidate him.
Margery's back must be up because she knows in her gut that her "chic" acceptance of all things "gay" is, as Brian puts it, "a house of cards". And when it comes crashing down, Margery will be exposed for the fool she has always been. Her sour attacks on a man of courage and principle suggest her own insecurities.
Today's column makes fun of Brian for his objection (quoted in a Herald story) to the "Queer Eye" guys throwing out the first pitch at a Red Sox game. From her childish and bitchy screed, here's her amateurish attempt to link Brian and Fred Phelps (of the wacky Kansas Westboro Baptist Church [WBC] protesters):
"I am of course aware that many people find nothing funny in all this foolishness [queer pitching at Fenway Park]. Indefatigable anti-gay crusader Brian Camenker, for one. He's a veritable Energizer Bunny in the war to preserve what's righteous and pure. He's outraged. Again. ... Maybe Brian and Fred would like their own movie title: 'The Unnatural'? Think they'd like that? But how natural, or not, are these two in the wee, wee hours?"
Margery does get a bit carried away with her sexual innuendoes in this piece. But more to the point, doesn't she realize that Fred's group doesn't like Jews (Brian is Jewish), Catholics (many of the Article 8 supporters are Catholic), or David Parker? They are all on the WBC hit list, too.
Saturday, June 04, 2005
Red Sox Fall for Queer Propaganda
Hitler used the Nuremberg stadium for his propaganda rallies. Now, the queer activists have somehow secured Fenway Park for their latest assault on normal Americans!
One of the "stars" of the Bravo series "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" will be throwing out the first pitch at Sunday's Red Sox game. And some of the Sox players are featured in a "Queer Eye" episode set to air June 7. All to celebrate "Gay Pride" week here in Boston.
We're told to "lighten up", it's all just good fun, according to the Boston Globe ("Sox prove good sports primping for 'Queer Eye' "). Did you get that? If you don't go along with this queer politicization of Red Sox Nation, YOU are the bad sport. Sadly, the players don't understand how they're being used by the savvy queer propaganda movement. From the Globe:
"Who said gay was bad?" [Sox player Kevin] Millar says at one point, swathed in a white bathrobe, sinking his feet into a tub of water laced with rose petals. "I am now gay!"
But as we all know, gay doesn't just mean soaking your feet in rose water. It's more usually connected with activities described in the Little Black Book, which often leads to lives filled with loneliness, unhappiness, and disease.
Thank God for WEEI "sports-talk agitators" (as the Globe calls them), who still know in their gut that this stuff is bad for America. For this, and pitcher Mike Timlin's honesty, they are castigated by the Globe: "[They] have been working to drum up outrage about the cross-promotions ... and goaded reliever Mike Timlin into joining in. (He said, on the air, that gays are 'not living correctly'.)"
Sen. Jarrett Barrios, openly "gay" state senator, says it's the critics of "Queer Eye" at Fenway who are making the queer opening pitch at Fenway a political issue. (Boston Herald, "Some see Red over Sox pitch for 'Queer' " .) Excuse me? The queers have politicized the ball game.
A group defined only by its sexual behavior, which happens to be demanding special rights (e.g., "marriage") across the country through political means, is now receiving special recognition by the Red Sox management. We all know that "Queer Eye" is not just innocent old-Disney-style entertainment -- it's politicized entertainment.
The Globe makes the propaganda technique of "Queer Eye" crystal clear (perhaps without intending to do so):
"But another advance is the way the show plays with old stereotypes of sports machismo. There's something deliciously modern about watching Mirabelli, hand extended delicately for a manicure, razzing Millar about his hair. And about the mix of fear and pride on Wakefield's face when Carson Kressley sits on his lap, pats him encouragingly on the shoulder, and says, 'You're so good; you're so comfortable!'
"That has always been the best conceit of ''Queer Eye": the way it acknowledges its straight protagonists' unease, then watches them evolve. Most episodes end with their deep appreciation for the Fab Five's humanity and practical tips." [Emphasis added.]
No, this isn't just something we should "lighten up" about. It's very serious business. Check out Congressperson Barney Frank's proposed hate crimes legislation. And look at Canada and Sweden, where not a word can be uttered or printed criticizing homosexuality. It won't be long before they start using stadiums for public floggings of the "intolerant" citizens who courageously speak out, once speaking the truth becomes a "hate crime" ... unless America wakes up.
One of the "stars" of the Bravo series "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" will be throwing out the first pitch at Sunday's Red Sox game. And some of the Sox players are featured in a "Queer Eye" episode set to air June 7. All to celebrate "Gay Pride" week here in Boston.
We're told to "lighten up", it's all just good fun, according to the Boston Globe ("Sox prove good sports primping for 'Queer Eye' "). Did you get that? If you don't go along with this queer politicization of Red Sox Nation, YOU are the bad sport. Sadly, the players don't understand how they're being used by the savvy queer propaganda movement. From the Globe:
"Who said gay was bad?" [Sox player Kevin] Millar says at one point, swathed in a white bathrobe, sinking his feet into a tub of water laced with rose petals. "I am now gay!"
But as we all know, gay doesn't just mean soaking your feet in rose water. It's more usually connected with activities described in the Little Black Book, which often leads to lives filled with loneliness, unhappiness, and disease.
Thank God for WEEI "sports-talk agitators" (as the Globe calls them), who still know in their gut that this stuff is bad for America. For this, and pitcher Mike Timlin's honesty, they are castigated by the Globe: "[They] have been working to drum up outrage about the cross-promotions ... and goaded reliever Mike Timlin into joining in. (He said, on the air, that gays are 'not living correctly'.)"
Sen. Jarrett Barrios, openly "gay" state senator, says it's the critics of "Queer Eye" at Fenway who are making the queer opening pitch at Fenway a political issue. (Boston Herald, "Some see Red over Sox pitch for 'Queer' " .) Excuse me? The queers have politicized the ball game.
A group defined only by its sexual behavior, which happens to be demanding special rights (e.g., "marriage") across the country through political means, is now receiving special recognition by the Red Sox management. We all know that "Queer Eye" is not just innocent old-Disney-style entertainment -- it's politicized entertainment.
The Globe makes the propaganda technique of "Queer Eye" crystal clear (perhaps without intending to do so):
"But another advance is the way the show plays with old stereotypes of sports machismo. There's something deliciously modern about watching Mirabelli, hand extended delicately for a manicure, razzing Millar about his hair. And about the mix of fear and pride on Wakefield's face when Carson Kressley sits on his lap, pats him encouragingly on the shoulder, and says, 'You're so good; you're so comfortable!'
"That has always been the best conceit of ''Queer Eye": the way it acknowledges its straight protagonists' unease, then watches them evolve. Most episodes end with their deep appreciation for the Fab Five's humanity and practical tips." [Emphasis added.]
No, this isn't just something we should "lighten up" about. It's very serious business. Check out Congressperson Barney Frank's proposed hate crimes legislation. And look at Canada and Sweden, where not a word can be uttered or printed criticizing homosexuality. It won't be long before they start using stadiums for public floggings of the "intolerant" citizens who courageously speak out, once speaking the truth becomes a "hate crime" ... unless America wakes up.
Thursday, June 02, 2005
Lexington Homosexual Activists Can't Handle the Truth, Blind to Irony
Permit MassResistance this observation: The radical homosexual activists have no sense of humor, no sense of irony, no subtlety, and little sense of imagination. And clearly, they are unhappy and angry people.
It came to our attention that Lexington uber-activist Meg Soen's "wife", Cecilia d'Oliveira, published a letter in the Lexington Minuteman today attacking yours truly. She seems not to have gotten the points intended by this blog's various references to the GLBTQI crowd in Lexington. Yes, we did write these words: "the jackbooted thugs currently in control of the Lexington schools"; "the fascists of Lexington are marching in lockstep!"; "Lexington lemmings"; and (MassResistance's favorite) "Lexington LGBTQI Fourth Reichers".
So let us try to explain to our friends what they just don't get:
It came to our attention that Lexington uber-activist Meg Soen's "wife", Cecilia d'Oliveira, published a letter in the Lexington Minuteman today attacking yours truly. She seems not to have gotten the points intended by this blog's various references to the GLBTQI crowd in Lexington. Yes, we did write these words: "the jackbooted thugs currently in control of the Lexington schools"; "the fascists of Lexington are marching in lockstep!"; "Lexington lemmings"; and (MassResistance's favorite) "Lexington LGBTQI Fourth Reichers".
So let us try to explain to our friends what they just don't get:
- We thought we'd treat the radical homosexual activists and their fellow travelers to their own tactics, and call them some names. They don't like it very much.
- The Nazi allusion is a particular favorite with radical homosexuals for branding their opponents. Brian Camenker (director of Article 8), who is Jewish, has often been called "Mr. Hitler" and "Nazi". Ironies abound here. It is the radical homosexuals who are experts in Hitlerian propaganda, and who are perfecting totalitarian thought-control, defining their concept of "hate speech" and hate crimes", and repeating their BIG LIES that unnatural sex practices and family structures are perfectly natural and a "civil right" to boot.
- This blog has also pointed out that Ms. d'Oliveira's "wife" Meg Soens led a workshop at GLSEN's infamous "Fistgate" conference in 2000 on how to incorporate gay and lesbian issues into the elementary curriculum. Sound familiar? See Who's In a Family, the arrest of David Parker, etc. (Oh, but we forgot... There's no homosexual curriculum in the schools!) What a coincidence Ms. Soens is a parent at the same school with the Parker family.... Funny, Ms. d'Oliveira doesn't mention these facts in her letter, though she does note we're looking at something "statewide" going on. (Yeah, there's homosexual propaganda in every school in Massachusetts, not just in Lexington!)
We suspect that Ms. d'Oliveira is also burning mad because we linked to Meg's and her "wedding" photo.
P.S. Article 8 Alliance is behind anti-judicial-tyranny legislation, not "anti-judicial" legislation (as Ms. d'Oliveira labels it). And Article 8 is behind anti-gay-"marriage" legislation, not "anti-gay legislation". This means we're happy for Cecilia and Meg to live together. Just don't make us, and our children, call it "marriage".
Brilliant Jurist Margaret Marshall Interviewed on NECN
Margaret Marshall, Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) and prime mover behind the same-sex "marriage" ruling, was interviewed by Chet Curtis on New England Cable News last night (6-1-05). ["One-on-one with Margaret Marshall"]
Marshall began by saying, "I am a conservative. I conserve institutions; I conserve the Constitution." She said she protects the three branches of government. She said it's her job at the SJC to be sure laws are impartially interpreted. (Clearly, Marshall was NOT impartial in her same-sex "marriage" ruling. See www.Article8.org.)
Marshall also said, "I'm a new judge. I'm finding my way." After deciding a case, she doesn't dwell on it. She just moves on to the next case.
She stumbled quite a bit in this interview, often having trouble finding the right word or phrase. She certainly did not come across as highly articulate.
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
"Annie's Mailbox" Shows Pro-Homosexual Bias
Annie's Mailbox, a syndicated advice column appearing in the Boston Globe, shows its pro-homosexual bias. In today's advice, a father who struggles with accepting his homosexual son is castigated as closed-minded. ("House is divided after father shuns gay son and partner.")
The mother is told to "encourage your husband to be more open-minded, and help [your son] forgive his father." The father needs forgiveness. It is the father who is at fault.
"Annie" ends with a referral to PFLAG (Parents, Family and Friends of Lesbians and Gays), a group which embraces the radical homosexual activist agenda.
Why doesn't Annie give contact info for PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays)? They offer support and advice on how to love the family member who's been drawn into the homosexual "lifestyle", while at the same time not approving of that choice.
The mother is told to "encourage your husband to be more open-minded, and help [your son] forgive his father." The father needs forgiveness. It is the father who is at fault.
"Annie" ends with a referral to PFLAG (Parents, Family and Friends of Lesbians and Gays), a group which embraces the radical homosexual activist agenda.
Why doesn't Annie give contact info for PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays)? They offer support and advice on how to love the family member who's been drawn into the homosexual "lifestyle", while at the same time not approving of that choice.
Monday, May 30, 2005
Foreign STD Appears in Boston Gay/Bisexual Community
The health risks of homosexual sex are real and serious. This simple fact has been underplayed or swept under the rug for decades now. A whole generation of GLBT-identifying young people are uninformed or underinformed. Look at the content and style of the Little Black Book (produced by the AIDS Action Committee of Mass. for male teens and young men). "Safer sex" is supposedly the premise of the booklet, while it allows that it's more fun to do it naked, plus it assumes and encourages multiple partnering.
Now the Boston Globe (Monday, May 30) has a front-page report: "A foreign STD sets off worry in Hub: May signal return of risky sex habits." You have to read down to the seventh paragraph, on the inside page, to get to this fact: "So far, episodes of the disease [LGV] in the United States appear to be limited to gay and bisexual men, and infectious disease specialists said they fear that it could be another signal that after years of hewing to safe-sex practices, gay men are returning to riskier behaviors."
Health officials fear this outbreak of LGV "could herald a new wave of infections of an even more dangerous disease, AIDS."
'' 'We hadn't seen an LGV case for years,' [Dr. Alfred DeMaria, state director of communicable disease control] said. 'It's definitely a sign of unsafe sex, and that's a concern in terms of other sexually transmitted diseases and HIV. Now, I think we're at the point that people need to pay attention to it.' "
"Studies demonstrated that patients infected with gonorrhea and syphilis were far more likely to become infected with HIV -- and not just because it indicated sexual risk-taking. The sores generated by a condition such as syphilis, researchers found, provide a portal for the AIDS virus to get into the bloodstream. They fear the same could be true with LGV."
The return of LGV to North America, after being seen only rarely in recent decades, "illustrates the increasing globalization of infectious diseases in an era of rapid air transit and frequent travel for work and pleasure, disease specialists said." Dr. Daniel Cohen of the Fenway Community Health clinic said, "This is probably a case of biological tourism."
As a group, gays are very well off and often partake of sex adventure travel (or as the Globe puts it, "pleasure" travel).
Now the Boston Globe (Monday, May 30) has a front-page report: "A foreign STD sets off worry in Hub: May signal return of risky sex habits." You have to read down to the seventh paragraph, on the inside page, to get to this fact: "So far, episodes of the disease [LGV] in the United States appear to be limited to gay and bisexual men, and infectious disease specialists said they fear that it could be another signal that after years of hewing to safe-sex practices, gay men are returning to riskier behaviors."
Health officials fear this outbreak of LGV "could herald a new wave of infections of an even more dangerous disease, AIDS."
'' 'We hadn't seen an LGV case for years,' [Dr. Alfred DeMaria, state director of communicable disease control] said. 'It's definitely a sign of unsafe sex, and that's a concern in terms of other sexually transmitted diseases and HIV. Now, I think we're at the point that people need to pay attention to it.' "
"Studies demonstrated that patients infected with gonorrhea and syphilis were far more likely to become infected with HIV -- and not just because it indicated sexual risk-taking. The sores generated by a condition such as syphilis, researchers found, provide a portal for the AIDS virus to get into the bloodstream. They fear the same could be true with LGV."
The return of LGV to North America, after being seen only rarely in recent decades, "illustrates the increasing globalization of infectious diseases in an era of rapid air transit and frequent travel for work and pleasure, disease specialists said." Dr. Daniel Cohen of the Fenway Community Health clinic said, "This is probably a case of biological tourism."
As a group, gays are very well off and often partake of sex adventure travel (or as the Globe puts it, "pleasure" travel).
Sunday, May 29, 2005
Convicted Polygamist in Stoneham: "What's the big deal?"
The Globe Northwest reports on a 40-year-old Stoneham, Massachusetts man who has been found guilty of polygamy and fined $500. The man claims he thought he was divorced from his first wife, but wasn't really. ("2 wives, 1 forgetful husband, $500 fine.: Man pleads guilty in polygamy case." May 29, 2005. No link available.)
According to the Globe, "Polygamy, the practice of having more than one spouse at a time, is illegal in Massachusetts. It carries a maximum penalty of five years in state prison, but is rarely prosecuted."
The polygamist, Joseph Angi, "doesn't understand the fuss." He said, "I'm guilty; yeah, what's the big deal? [In Massachusetts] we let gays marry each other."
MassResistance agrees with Mr. Angi. We don't understand why he's been prosecuted. What rational basis is there to deny him the right to marry several women at once? He just happened to hook up with his grade-school sweetheart recently, his "first kiss". It's all about love. What right does the state have to stand in the way?
According to the Globe, "Polygamy, the practice of having more than one spouse at a time, is illegal in Massachusetts. It carries a maximum penalty of five years in state prison, but is rarely prosecuted."
The polygamist, Joseph Angi, "doesn't understand the fuss." He said, "I'm guilty; yeah, what's the big deal? [In Massachusetts] we let gays marry each other."
MassResistance agrees with Mr. Angi. We don't understand why he's been prosecuted. What rational basis is there to deny him the right to marry several women at once? He just happened to hook up with his grade-school sweetheart recently, his "first kiss". It's all about love. What right does the state have to stand in the way?
Saturday, May 28, 2005
Barney Frank: New Hate Crimes Law Needed for "Gender Identity"
Back in 2000, Massachusetts Congressperson Barney Frank first pushed to include "gender identity" in proposed legislation. He added the words "gender identity, characteristics, or expression" to a domestic-violence grants bill (which thankfully went nowhere).
Now Barney is at it again on a more serious level, with support of others in Congress. Reps. John Conyers, Christopher Shays, and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen have joined him as sponsors of the "Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2005" (announced May 26, 2005). According to Barney's press release, "The legislation will give federal protection to victims of hate crimes perpetrated on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, disability or gender identity."
The latter phrase, according to the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, includes "gender-related characteristics", "making it clear that transgender people are covered under the bill.... Previous versions of the bill covered actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation and disability."
Now, the problem with "gender identity" is that it is defined solely by the person claiming it -- this, according to "trans" activists themselves. They explain that one's gender identity can change over time -- over a day, over a year, over a decade. It's fluid. They even say that the concept of how many genders there are presents difficulties: Are there only two genders? Well, not really. Gender is a social concept, and there can be three, four, five genders. Just depends on how you look at it, and who you are.
Is this difficult concept -- "gender identity" -- defined in the legislation? Is the older term "sexual orientation" ever defined? How can we have legislation covering such bizarre concepts which (even among the homosexual and "trans" activists) constantly change their meaning? Recently, we learned that even the word "transgender" is outdated ("a political term from the 90's"), now out of favor due to its possible implication that there are only two genders!
If passed, Barney's legislation could have an especially pernicious effect in Massachusetts, given the lawless state of affairs here. Frank's press release states:
"Under federal hate crimes legislation, the primary responsibility in prosecuting these crimes lies with the state. The legislation operates to give assistance to the states. Extending the federal law would allow state and local authorities to take advantage of federal investigative resources and personnel in bringing cases based on state law."
We are wading into dangerous waters. Even before things got this wacky, Pat Buchanan and others warned us about legislation targeting "hate crimes" based on the victim's "sexual orientation". Just imagine how weird things will get if "gender identity" is covered. Buchanan wrote back in 1998:
"[T]eenagers who drive through a gay area yelling taunts would be guilty of a verbal hate crime. But a homosexual who murdered an 8-year-old boy he raped would not.
"A conservative congressman who yelled an epithet for gay as he punched Barney Frank in the nose could be charged with a hate crime. But if Barney Frank called a conservative congressman a 'fascist' and punched him in the nose, he could not.
"Painting a swastika on a wall is a hate crime, but the Terrence McNally play running in New York, in which actors portray Jesus and his apostles in simulated homosexual sex, is avant-garde artistry. ...
"To prove America's wickedness, leftists carefully tweezer out of all U.S. crime statistics the tiny number of outrages that make their point. Then, their publicity organs go into overdrive to exploit the few outrages to propagandize for new laws."
Now Barney is at it again on a more serious level, with support of others in Congress. Reps. John Conyers, Christopher Shays, and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen have joined him as sponsors of the "Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2005" (announced May 26, 2005). According to Barney's press release, "The legislation will give federal protection to victims of hate crimes perpetrated on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, disability or gender identity."
The latter phrase, according to the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, includes "gender-related characteristics", "making it clear that transgender people are covered under the bill.... Previous versions of the bill covered actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation and disability."
Now, the problem with "gender identity" is that it is defined solely by the person claiming it -- this, according to "trans" activists themselves. They explain that one's gender identity can change over time -- over a day, over a year, over a decade. It's fluid. They even say that the concept of how many genders there are presents difficulties: Are there only two genders? Well, not really. Gender is a social concept, and there can be three, four, five genders. Just depends on how you look at it, and who you are.
Is this difficult concept -- "gender identity" -- defined in the legislation? Is the older term "sexual orientation" ever defined? How can we have legislation covering such bizarre concepts which (even among the homosexual and "trans" activists) constantly change their meaning? Recently, we learned that even the word "transgender" is outdated ("a political term from the 90's"), now out of favor due to its possible implication that there are only two genders!
If passed, Barney's legislation could have an especially pernicious effect in Massachusetts, given the lawless state of affairs here. Frank's press release states:
"Under federal hate crimes legislation, the primary responsibility in prosecuting these crimes lies with the state. The legislation operates to give assistance to the states. Extending the federal law would allow state and local authorities to take advantage of federal investigative resources and personnel in bringing cases based on state law."
We are wading into dangerous waters. Even before things got this wacky, Pat Buchanan and others warned us about legislation targeting "hate crimes" based on the victim's "sexual orientation". Just imagine how weird things will get if "gender identity" is covered. Buchanan wrote back in 1998:
"[T]eenagers who drive through a gay area yelling taunts would be guilty of a verbal hate crime. But a homosexual who murdered an 8-year-old boy he raped would not.
"A conservative congressman who yelled an epithet for gay as he punched Barney Frank in the nose could be charged with a hate crime. But if Barney Frank called a conservative congressman a 'fascist' and punched him in the nose, he could not.
"Painting a swastika on a wall is a hate crime, but the Terrence McNally play running in New York, in which actors portray Jesus and his apostles in simulated homosexual sex, is avant-garde artistry. ...
"To prove America's wickedness, leftists carefully tweezer out of all U.S. crime statistics the tiny number of outrages that make their point. Then, their publicity organs go into overdrive to exploit the few outrages to propagandize for new laws."
Friday, May 27, 2005
Globe Pushing Us Into the Bedroom
We thought we were supposed to stay out of others' bedrooms? Why then does the Boston Globe push us into the bedroom--and force us to focus on the bed--of a prominent queer couple?
The Globe's "queer eye" story features the director of the Gay Men's Chorus and his partner, who teaches at Boston Conservatory. We are treated to color photos of their beautifully decorated, just so right South End brownstone. In their bedroom:
"there's an eye-catching zebra skin and on the bed there's a buffalo skin -- both shot by [one of their] brothers. A large mahogany bed crafted by a South Carolinian dominates the room. On the back of it there's a plaque with the date the bed was made and who it was made for. The couple has added another plaque with their names and the date they bought the bed at auction so that its history will be preserved.
"The idea for [the dining room] was to be a jewel box, a really intimate space. The walls are padded so it's very quiet at night."
This is all part of the campaign to normalize queer life. The "living" sections of the paper are often employed in this propaganda war. At least we're spared the term "husband". (Guess they're not quite ready to tie the knot.)
The Globe's "queer eye" story features the director of the Gay Men's Chorus and his partner, who teaches at Boston Conservatory. We are treated to color photos of their beautifully decorated, just so right South End brownstone. In their bedroom:
"there's an eye-catching zebra skin and on the bed there's a buffalo skin -- both shot by [one of their] brothers. A large mahogany bed crafted by a South Carolinian dominates the room. On the back of it there's a plaque with the date the bed was made and who it was made for. The couple has added another plaque with their names and the date they bought the bed at auction so that its history will be preserved.
"The idea for [the dining room] was to be a jewel box, a really intimate space. The walls are padded so it's very quiet at night."
This is all part of the campaign to normalize queer life. The "living" sections of the paper are often employed in this propaganda war. At least we're spared the term "husband". (Guess they're not quite ready to tie the knot.)
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
BAGLY Pushing Our Children Into Sex Changes
BAGLY (Boston Area Gay & Lesbian Youth) has reposted its photos on their home page, which they took down for a few weeks before their GLBTQIA prom at Boston City Hall on May 21. (Why had they taken them down? Worried inquisitive parents would see where their children were going, and what they were being drawn into?)
As we said some weeks back, we found these photos very disturbing, especially the second frame down: an apparent trans female-to-male young person.
These photos are even more disturbing now that we have learned more about the Executive Director of BAGLY, Grace Stowell. Stowell recently presented a session on "trans" youth at the now infamous GLSEN conference at Brookline High School on April 30.
Not content with pushing "straightforward" male homosexuality, lesbianism, and "bisexuality", the latest trendy radical perversion is the "trans" lifestyle: transgender, transsexual, and "intersex". (We're still trying to figure out what this all means.)
The gay/straight alliances in the high schools, the "diversity" assemblies, and the Day of Silence all point our children to this scary world. BAGLY, according to Ms. Stowell, now attracts a large number of "trans" youth. Their website directs children to a transsexual "health" website, Transgender Care (specializing in "medical feminizing"). Here our young people can research illustrated topics such as:
As we said some weeks back, we found these photos very disturbing, especially the second frame down: an apparent trans female-to-male young person.
These photos are even more disturbing now that we have learned more about the Executive Director of BAGLY, Grace Stowell. Stowell recently presented a session on "trans" youth at the now infamous GLSEN conference at Brookline High School on April 30.
Not content with pushing "straightforward" male homosexuality, lesbianism, and "bisexuality", the latest trendy radical perversion is the "trans" lifestyle: transgender, transsexual, and "intersex". (We're still trying to figure out what this all means.)
The gay/straight alliances in the high schools, the "diversity" assemblies, and the Day of Silence all point our children to this scary world. BAGLY, according to Ms. Stowell, now attracts a large number of "trans" youth. Their website directs children to a transsexual "health" website, Transgender Care (specializing in "medical feminizing"). Here our young people can research illustrated topics such as:
- penile inversion method of gender reassignment
- male to female gender reassignment surgery (creation of "neo-vaginal canal")
- breast implantation and complications
- hair removal and electrolysis pain
- minimally invasive facelifts and feminization
And they can link to the Transgender Directory Project, including 1300 transgender websites! We would guess that Dr. Carl Bushong (behind the Transgender Care site) must be a BIG donor to BAGLY...
We are certain that BAGLY could not possibly be sexist, and must certainly provide our children with female-to-male surgical advice as well, such as breast removal information.
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Little Black Book - BAGLY Connection
So much perversion, so little time! We thought it might help to lay out some of the connections between the individuals, government entities, venerated institutions, and professional associations busy perverting our youth:
The AIDS Action Committee published the Little Black Book available at the GLSEN Conference at the Brookline High School (passed out at the Fenway Community Health table). Then there's BAGLY (recommended as a resource in the LBB), and its executive director, "trans male-to-female" Grace Stowell [scroll down in the Bay Windows story for photo], who presented a "trans" workshop at the GLSEN conference. Check out these groups and the people who run them:
YOUTH are targeted by BAGLY. They say their organization is for young teens (under 18) up to age 22. (Fenway Community Health and GLSEN claim that at the GLSEN conference, the Little Black Book was intended just for age 18 and over. But BAGLY is mentioned twice in the LBB. And there's a paragraph on coffee houses in the LBB, for those who aren't old enough for the bar scene. It's hard to tell what the LLB target age is, on the younger end... Very possibly under 18, judging by its tone.)
Some interesting background on BAGLY from the April 21, 2005 issue of Bay Windows:
From its founding until the early '90s the organization functioned as an all-volunteer group, and it survived financially through fundraisers at bars, private donations and special events like a youth-run carnival. Both Klein, who was the group's first elected president, and Stowell, who has been BAGLY's executive director since 1995, remember that in the early days, the young people who attended BAGLY's meetings came from incredibly diverse backgrounds.
"One of the things that is really extraordinary about BAGLY is that BAGLY in 1980 was the most diverse group of people I've ever been involved with anywhere in every sense. It was diverse racially, it was diverse in terms of class, it was diverse in the general range of life experiences that people had," said Klein. He said those experiences ranged from college and high school students to runaways, hustlers and drag queens who lived on the street.
That diversity made for some interesting discussions at the group's Wednesday meetings. Klein said during a discussion on hustling and prostitution, members of the group who were hustlers shared their own firsthand experiences with the other youth. The discussions could also get quite heated.
Defrocked Catholic priest Paul Shanley, who was convicted in February of raping an altar boy, came to a meeting to discuss sexuality and religion. The priest, who had built a reputation of ministering to sexual minority youth, did not receive a warm welcome from the BAGLY youth.
"He was attacked by the kids. People were all over him," recalled Klein. "They kept asking him, 'Are you gay? Are you gay,' and he said, 'I refuse to answer that.'"
The group had major successes and major setbacks in the early days. By the end of 1981 BAGLY was unable to afford the rent at its Tremont Street space, and it moved to its present location at St. John the Evangelist Church in March 1982. Yet one of its early successes was holding the first BAGLY prom in the summer of 1981. According to Stowell, the prom was the brainchild of youth steering committee member Michael Pumphret, a South Boston youth who passed away during the early days of the AIDS epidemic.
"It was Michael's idea to have a prom that would be for us, for GLBT youth, because most could not go as openly gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender to their high school prom, or [they] certainly could not bring a same-sex date," said Stowell. She added that the first prom, held in the basement of Arlington Street Church, drew between 50 and 75 kids, and it became a yearly event that continues to this day.
Another early success was BAGLY's response to the AIDS crisis. "I remember very vividly the BAGLY meeting in the summer of 1981.... A young person, one of the youth came into the Wednesday meeting saying, 'Did you hear, did you hear about the gay cancer?'" said Stowell. BAGLY's membership was hit hard by the epidemic.
Stowell said the first youth affiliated with BAGLY died of AIDS in 1986."Unfortunately the first of many," said Stowell. In 1983, before schools were doing AIDS education, BAGLY brought in speakers from the newly formed AIDS Action Committee to talk to them about safe sex and prevention.
"I remember [AIDS Action Founding Executive Director] Larry [Kessler] coming with a man who was HIV infected and talking about the experience," said Cranston. "It was the only AIDS education any kids were getting. BAGLY was ahead of the curve by three or four years."
The AIDS Action Committee published the Little Black Book available at the GLSEN Conference at the Brookline High School (passed out at the Fenway Community Health table). Then there's BAGLY (recommended as a resource in the LBB), and its executive director, "trans male-to-female" Grace Stowell [scroll down in the Bay Windows story for photo], who presented a "trans" workshop at the GLSEN conference. Check out these groups and the people who run them:
- GLSEN (Gay/Lesbian/Straight Education Network: behind homosexual curriculum in our schools, Day of Silence, Gay/Straight clubs in the high schools, and the infamous Fistgate and LBB conferences).
- AIDS Action Committee (publishers of Little Black Book).
- BAGLY (Boston Area Gay & Lesbian Youth, sponsor of last weekend's Youth Pride day in Boston, and GLBT Prom at Boston City Hall) - for youth, young teen to 22. Grace Stowell, trans male-to-female, Executive Director.
- Paul Shanley, defrocked priest & child rapist, invited to speak to youth at BAGLY. The youth seemed to have been frustrated with him for not being open about his homosexuality [see article below].
- Mayor Thomas Menino and Boston City Hall, sponsor of Youth Pride and big supporter of AIDS Action Committee.
- Harvard School of Public Health: Transgender health sessions with Grace Stowell.
- Mass. Chapter, National Assoc. of Social Workers: Grace Stowell instructs on GLBT youth.
- Bay Windows, Boston area "gay" newspaper.
Look at the AIDS Action Committee - BAGLY connection. In the Little Black Book, supposedly intended for male homosexuals 18 and over (according to the latest statements from the Fenway Community Health Center, which passed it out at the April 30 GLSEN conference), we see this passage:
BAGLY is the Boston Alliance of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgendered and Questioning Youth. It is BAGLY's mission to serve the youth community by being a source for information about the life-long journey of coming out. BAGLY is youth led and adult supported. BAGLY holds weekly meetings where youth, 22 and under, can meet new friends and learn about each other's experiences while they plan and coordinate events. Contact BAGLY at - voice ~ 617-227-4313 fax ~ 617-227-3266YOUTH are targeted by BAGLY. They say their organization is for young teens (under 18) up to age 22. (Fenway Community Health and GLSEN claim that at the GLSEN conference, the Little Black Book was intended just for age 18 and over. But BAGLY is mentioned twice in the LBB. And there's a paragraph on coffee houses in the LBB, for those who aren't old enough for the bar scene. It's hard to tell what the LLB target age is, on the younger end... Very possibly under 18, judging by its tone.)
Some interesting background on BAGLY from the April 21, 2005 issue of Bay Windows:
From its founding until the early '90s the organization functioned as an all-volunteer group, and it survived financially through fundraisers at bars, private donations and special events like a youth-run carnival. Both Klein, who was the group's first elected president, and Stowell, who has been BAGLY's executive director since 1995, remember that in the early days, the young people who attended BAGLY's meetings came from incredibly diverse backgrounds.
"One of the things that is really extraordinary about BAGLY is that BAGLY in 1980 was the most diverse group of people I've ever been involved with anywhere in every sense. It was diverse racially, it was diverse in terms of class, it was diverse in the general range of life experiences that people had," said Klein. He said those experiences ranged from college and high school students to runaways, hustlers and drag queens who lived on the street.
That diversity made for some interesting discussions at the group's Wednesday meetings. Klein said during a discussion on hustling and prostitution, members of the group who were hustlers shared their own firsthand experiences with the other youth. The discussions could also get quite heated.
Defrocked Catholic priest Paul Shanley, who was convicted in February of raping an altar boy, came to a meeting to discuss sexuality and religion. The priest, who had built a reputation of ministering to sexual minority youth, did not receive a warm welcome from the BAGLY youth.
"He was attacked by the kids. People were all over him," recalled Klein. "They kept asking him, 'Are you gay? Are you gay,' and he said, 'I refuse to answer that.'"
The group had major successes and major setbacks in the early days. By the end of 1981 BAGLY was unable to afford the rent at its Tremont Street space, and it moved to its present location at St. John the Evangelist Church in March 1982. Yet one of its early successes was holding the first BAGLY prom in the summer of 1981. According to Stowell, the prom was the brainchild of youth steering committee member Michael Pumphret, a South Boston youth who passed away during the early days of the AIDS epidemic.
"It was Michael's idea to have a prom that would be for us, for GLBT youth, because most could not go as openly gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender to their high school prom, or [they] certainly could not bring a same-sex date," said Stowell. She added that the first prom, held in the basement of Arlington Street Church, drew between 50 and 75 kids, and it became a yearly event that continues to this day.
Another early success was BAGLY's response to the AIDS crisis. "I remember very vividly the BAGLY meeting in the summer of 1981.... A young person, one of the youth came into the Wednesday meeting saying, 'Did you hear, did you hear about the gay cancer?'" said Stowell. BAGLY's membership was hit hard by the epidemic.
Stowell said the first youth affiliated with BAGLY died of AIDS in 1986."Unfortunately the first of many," said Stowell. In 1983, before schools were doing AIDS education, BAGLY brought in speakers from the newly formed AIDS Action Committee to talk to them about safe sex and prevention.
"I remember [AIDS Action Founding Executive Director] Larry [Kessler] coming with a man who was HIV infected and talking about the experience," said Cranston. "It was the only AIDS education any kids were getting. BAGLY was ahead of the curve by three or four years."
Sunday, May 22, 2005
AIDS Action Committee Is In Denial
On May 17, 2005, among those homosexual activists sneering and jeering Brian Camenker at the Article 8 press conference on Boston City Hall Plaza was none other than the founding director of that venerable institution, the AIDS Action Committee of Massachusetts -- Larry Kessler.
Mr. Kessler was there to keep tabs on the Resistance. Little did he know that his organization was about to be exposed through the Little Black Book as endangerers, not protectors, of the public health.
For years now, AIDS has been so politicized that few have dared to speak the truth: that AIDS got its start and primarily spread due to male homosexual practices, as described in the Little Black Book. What a farce the AIDS Action Committee is. They certainly are an action committee of a sort: promoting actions of unsafe sex.
Bay Windows' latest issue -- even after the expose of the Little Black Book -- continues to pretend that the AIDS Action Committee is an asset to public health, when in fact it is clearly compounding this public health crisis. Out of one side of his mouth, Mr. Kessler says that gays are "in denial" about the disease, and this is very bad. Out of the other side of his mouth, he produces a booklet that encourages the grossest of homosexual practices and makes light of taking precautions. From Bay Windows:
What, exactly, is safer sex?
And how can men who have sex with men be persuaded to engage in it?
By Ethan Jacobs
May 19, 2005
[excerpts]
"What's the biggest factor that leads gay and bi men to have risky sex? Some would say it's the influence of crystal methamphetamine and other club drugs. Others say it's the fatigue men feel after two decades of being forced to use condoms. AIDS Action Founding Director Larry Kessler, who has fought on the front lines since the beginning of the epidemic, says one of the major obstacles facing AIDS prevention workers has been denial, and not just within the gay community. In the early '80s he remembers gay men in Boston dismissing AIDS as a New York disease. By 1986 and 1987, as Bostonians were seeing AIDS devastate their own community, Kessler remembers people in Worcester writing off AIDS as a Boston disease.
"That was just a metaphor for what occurred in so many communities over time. Men who have sex with men [who did not identify as gay] didn't think they were at risk because it was a gay thing. Black men didn't think they were at risk because it was a white gay thing. Women didn't think they were at risk because it was a male thing," remembers Kessler. 'Today I think we still have that denial.'
"Gay and bi men, along with the other men who fall under the broad category of men who have sex with men (MSM) [Note from MassResistance: not to be confused with the other MSM -- the mainstream media; though there is quite a strong link between the two!], appear to be suffering from a particularly strong case of denial. Since 2000 the largest percentage of new HIV infections each year in Massachusetts has been among MSM."
"Yet according to HIV prevention specialists, any approach to HIV prevention that stigmatizes men who have risky sex could actually have a negative impact on prevention efforts. Benjamin Perkins, director of AIDS Action's Men's Action Life Empowerment (MALE) Center, a wellness center targeting MSM set to open in June, says such an approach may drive those most at risk for infection away from prevention services. 'Who's going to admit to having unprotected sex if they're going to be so stigmatized?' argues Perkins. 'I think it's very seductive, the idea [of a 'get tough approach'], but I think ultimately in the long term it ends up causing more harm than good.' "
Mr. Kessler was there to keep tabs on the Resistance. Little did he know that his organization was about to be exposed through the Little Black Book as endangerers, not protectors, of the public health.
For years now, AIDS has been so politicized that few have dared to speak the truth: that AIDS got its start and primarily spread due to male homosexual practices, as described in the Little Black Book. What a farce the AIDS Action Committee is. They certainly are an action committee of a sort: promoting actions of unsafe sex.
Bay Windows' latest issue -- even after the expose of the Little Black Book -- continues to pretend that the AIDS Action Committee is an asset to public health, when in fact it is clearly compounding this public health crisis. Out of one side of his mouth, Mr. Kessler says that gays are "in denial" about the disease, and this is very bad. Out of the other side of his mouth, he produces a booklet that encourages the grossest of homosexual practices and makes light of taking precautions. From Bay Windows:
What, exactly, is safer sex?
And how can men who have sex with men be persuaded to engage in it?
By Ethan Jacobs
May 19, 2005
[excerpts]
"What's the biggest factor that leads gay and bi men to have risky sex? Some would say it's the influence of crystal methamphetamine and other club drugs. Others say it's the fatigue men feel after two decades of being forced to use condoms. AIDS Action Founding Director Larry Kessler, who has fought on the front lines since the beginning of the epidemic, says one of the major obstacles facing AIDS prevention workers has been denial, and not just within the gay community. In the early '80s he remembers gay men in Boston dismissing AIDS as a New York disease. By 1986 and 1987, as Bostonians were seeing AIDS devastate their own community, Kessler remembers people in Worcester writing off AIDS as a Boston disease.
"That was just a metaphor for what occurred in so many communities over time. Men who have sex with men [who did not identify as gay] didn't think they were at risk because it was a gay thing. Black men didn't think they were at risk because it was a white gay thing. Women didn't think they were at risk because it was a male thing," remembers Kessler. 'Today I think we still have that denial.'
"Gay and bi men, along with the other men who fall under the broad category of men who have sex with men (MSM) [Note from MassResistance: not to be confused with the other MSM -- the mainstream media; though there is quite a strong link between the two!], appear to be suffering from a particularly strong case of denial. Since 2000 the largest percentage of new HIV infections each year in Massachusetts has been among MSM."
"Yet according to HIV prevention specialists, any approach to HIV prevention that stigmatizes men who have risky sex could actually have a negative impact on prevention efforts. Benjamin Perkins, director of AIDS Action's Men's Action Life Empowerment (MALE) Center, a wellness center targeting MSM set to open in June, says such an approach may drive those most at risk for infection away from prevention services. 'Who's going to admit to having unprotected sex if they're going to be so stigmatized?' argues Perkins. 'I think it's very seductive, the idea [of a 'get tough approach'], but I think ultimately in the long term it ends up causing more harm than good.' "
Saturday, May 21, 2005
One-Year Anniversary & the Little Black Book
The "gays" have celebrated their one-year anniversary of same-sex "marriage". The Boston Globe, along with the gay newspaper Bay Windows, thought the more important commemoration was the photo op with the newly "married" couples in front of the State House.
But the true seminal event took place before far fewer members of the mainstream media, in Boston City Hall Plaza (site of the first same-sex "marriages" last May 17). Article 8 Alliance held its press conference there on the effects of one year of same-sex "marriages" on the state, surrounded by jeering gay activists who had no idea what was about to hit them -- the Little Black Book. And surrounded by reporters who mostly sneered, and ignored what Brian Camenker had to say. (He didn't just mention the Little Black Book. Reporters might want to review their notes.)
We watched as reporters for the MSM glanced at each other knowingly, dismissively. They're just so "with it", so condescending towards those silly people with signs warning about judicial tyranny, and the homosexual agenda.
Well, we think the media might be paying attention now. For years, warnings about the radical homosexual agenda have been ridiculed. Now, with Article 8's expose on GLSEN and the Little Black Book, people across America are shocked. Even left-leaning columnists (Margery Eagan and Beverly Beckham of the Boston Herald) have had to acknowledge the filthiness, degradation, and danger in the Little Black Book.
This is where the radical homosexuals, GLSEN, BAGLY, et al. are taking OUR children. Now you've seen the putrid truth of the so-called "SAFE SEX" message exposed in the Little Black Book. What else is out there? What has GLSEN been disseminating to our children in their "Gay/Straight/Bisexual/Transgender/Questioning/Intersex/Allies club meetings? Do you know?
How could you know what's going on in these gay/straight clubs? Your child can attend without the school notifying you. The homosexual activists sponsoring these clubs (GLSEN) are totally unaccountable, outside of the law. Are you concerned now? Do you know what they're telling our children? What Little Black Books they're handing out? Where they're telling them to go to meet others who share their concerns, who understand their feelings and problems?
MassResistance knows. Stay tuned.
But the true seminal event took place before far fewer members of the mainstream media, in Boston City Hall Plaza (site of the first same-sex "marriages" last May 17). Article 8 Alliance held its press conference there on the effects of one year of same-sex "marriages" on the state, surrounded by jeering gay activists who had no idea what was about to hit them -- the Little Black Book. And surrounded by reporters who mostly sneered, and ignored what Brian Camenker had to say. (He didn't just mention the Little Black Book. Reporters might want to review their notes.)
We watched as reporters for the MSM glanced at each other knowingly, dismissively. They're just so "with it", so condescending towards those silly people with signs warning about judicial tyranny, and the homosexual agenda.
Well, we think the media might be paying attention now. For years, warnings about the radical homosexual agenda have been ridiculed. Now, with Article 8's expose on GLSEN and the Little Black Book, people across America are shocked. Even left-leaning columnists (Margery Eagan and Beverly Beckham of the Boston Herald) have had to acknowledge the filthiness, degradation, and danger in the Little Black Book.
This is where the radical homosexuals, GLSEN, BAGLY, et al. are taking OUR children. Now you've seen the putrid truth of the so-called "SAFE SEX" message exposed in the Little Black Book. What else is out there? What has GLSEN been disseminating to our children in their "Gay/Straight/Bisexual/Transgender/Questioning/Intersex/Allies club meetings? Do you know?
How could you know what's going on in these gay/straight clubs? Your child can attend without the school notifying you. The homosexual activists sponsoring these clubs (GLSEN) are totally unaccountable, outside of the law. Are you concerned now? Do you know what they're telling our children? What Little Black Books they're handing out? Where they're telling them to go to meet others who share their concerns, who understand their feelings and problems?
MassResistance knows. Stay tuned.
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
GLSEN Says "Scariest Part is When the 'Push Back' Comes"
Yes, GLSEN Boston, that title is a quote from one of your conference sessions at Brookline High School on April 30, 2005.
Yes, GLSEN, we were there! And we weren't just there to pick up the LITTLE BLACK BOOK. We know that what you fear most is when the parents and general public "PUSH BACK". Well, guess what? We're pushing back! That's the meaning of "resistance".
The "gays" thought that at most they might see a little demonstration against their filthy program in front of Brookline High School. Bay Windows reported its disappointment when the resistance didn't show. But the resistance had a better idea.
The radical homosexual movement has had its way, UNCHALLENGED, in Massachusetts for so long they don't know what's hitting them. GLSEN did trip up a bit with their "Fistgate" conference in 2000. But with "gay marriages" in Massachusetts, they thought they were home free in 2005 and could DO ANYTHING THEY WANTED WITH OUR CHILDREN.
Lies, lies, and more lies from GLSEN. Yesterday, on May 17, they tried to say that Article 8 had planted the Little Black Book at their conference. Now GLSEN is retracting their lie. Too many people got on the case from around the country. THANK GOD FOR THE INTERNET and BLOGS.
Stay tuned!
Yes, GLSEN, we were there! And we weren't just there to pick up the LITTLE BLACK BOOK. We know that what you fear most is when the parents and general public "PUSH BACK". Well, guess what? We're pushing back! That's the meaning of "resistance".
The "gays" thought that at most they might see a little demonstration against their filthy program in front of Brookline High School. Bay Windows reported its disappointment when the resistance didn't show. But the resistance had a better idea.
The radical homosexual movement has had its way, UNCHALLENGED, in Massachusetts for so long they don't know what's hitting them. GLSEN did trip up a bit with their "Fistgate" conference in 2000. But with "gay marriages" in Massachusetts, they thought they were home free in 2005 and could DO ANYTHING THEY WANTED WITH OUR CHILDREN.
Lies, lies, and more lies from GLSEN. Yesterday, on May 17, they tried to say that Article 8 had planted the Little Black Book at their conference. Now GLSEN is retracting their lie. Too many people got on the case from around the country. THANK GOD FOR THE INTERNET and BLOGS.
Stay tuned!
Lexington Battle Rages On
Yesterday, the newly formed Lexington Parents for Respect held a news conference, then proceeded to confront the Lexington School Committee over the arrest of fellow parent David Parker. (Mr. Parker was not able to attend the meeting, as he would have been arrested for trespassing on school property.) The homosexual agenda in the schools there is out of control, and these parents weren't going to take it any more.
The parents had just learned of GLSEN's latest treachery: handing out the Little Black Book at its April 30 conference, attended by some Lexington students.
MassResistance hears that the School Committee and Superintendent Hurley were literally shaking by the end of the meeting last night. They are not used to hearing the truth, as it was spoken by members of Lexington Parents for Respect.
But the jackbooted thugs currently in control of the Lexington schools don't know when to stop lying. (Go ahead, Lexington lemmings, run yourselves right off the cliff!) They continued to call the concerned parents and Article 8 "liars" all day today.
Did they really believe GLSEN??? Did they really think that the LITTLE BLACK BOOK was not given out at the GLSEN conference on April 30? THESE PEOPLE ARE LIARS at worst, and gullible fools at best.
The parents had just learned of GLSEN's latest treachery: handing out the Little Black Book at its April 30 conference, attended by some Lexington students.
MassResistance hears that the School Committee and Superintendent Hurley were literally shaking by the end of the meeting last night. They are not used to hearing the truth, as it was spoken by members of Lexington Parents for Respect.
But the jackbooted thugs currently in control of the Lexington schools don't know when to stop lying. (Go ahead, Lexington lemmings, run yourselves right off the cliff!) They continued to call the concerned parents and Article 8 "liars" all day today.
Did they really believe GLSEN??? Did they really think that the LITTLE BLACK BOOK was not given out at the GLSEN conference on April 30? THESE PEOPLE ARE LIARS at worst, and gullible fools at best.
How sad to see young people being used by these adults. One young Lexingtoninan named Eva Rosenberg, student leader of the Lexington High School "Gay/Straight Alliance (also a GLSEN Boston Board youth member, and a GLSEN "National Jump-Start Student Organizer") said on the town's online discussion group:
The "word 'gay agenda' is a laughable term... The little black book WAS NOT GIVEN OUT. Please check your facts. As an attendee, presenter, and organizer at/of the conference, I can emphatically say that no such explicit materials were handed out-and I believe my word, and the word of other attendees/planners/etc who say that they would nver approve of such materials being given out in such context, should be respected over the word of those who were not at the conference. Even the AIDS Action Committee itself denies any connection with GLSEN Boston! Yes, there were Lexington students at the conference, I am proud to say. I am proud to work with GLSEN and encourage you to check your facts before you spread malicious lies that only contribute to hateful treatment of GLBT individuals."
What do you suppose Eva might have to say now that GLSEN has retracted its smear of Article 8, and admits the Little Black Book was given out at the conference?
Another Lexington contributor called the report about the Little Black Book "just inflammatory nonsense ... this stuff makes people angry and hateful and paranoid ..."
Then there's an email from the Chairman of the Lexington School Committee, Helen Cohen, who referred to "the rumor about graphic material handed out at the meeting in Brookline."
One enlightened and progressive Lexingtonian, Glenn Parker, said that even if the Little Black Book was passed out, there was nothing terribly offensive about it. The Lexington Parents for Respect people are just a bunch of repressed Victorian prudes who never came to terms with their own sexuality:
"I read the 'extremely vulgar, vile, offensive and graphic' Little Black Book, so generously published online by Article 8 (with no concern fortheir blatant copyright infringement).
In brief, it's a wonderful book!
"If I were young and sexually active (or soon to be) and gay, this book would be an absolute godsend. The information is presented in an open and clear manner, and it offers awealth of information about how to live a happy and safe life as a gayperson in Massachusetts. I think this book will literally save lives.
"Now, if you are generally squeamish about sex, and/or completely repulsed by the idea of gay sex, this book is not for you (unless, likesome notable right-wing activists, you are simply in denial about yoursexuality). Like adolescents who refuse to admit that their parents "do it" (ignoring how they themselves came into being), some people are going to be downright terrified by this book.
"The idea that this book might be interesting and relevant to some of their own family's adolescents is probably the last straw. I'm trying to picture Bree Vandecamp (from Desparate Housewives) at a GLSEN program. The histrionics about how this book is being distributed are amusing, and I put no stock in accusations about 'endangering minors' coming from such patently biased sources. If you want to get serious, find a statement directly from GLSEN about how they use this book and for whom they think it is appropriate. Then we can talk about it like grownups."
Monday, May 16, 2005
AIDS Action Committee and the Tangled Boston Social/Political Web
The Article 8 Alliance is exposing the unbelievable social and moral treachery of groups such as GLSEN (Gay Lesbian Straight [Re-] Education Network) and the AIDS Action Committee, and where these groups are leading our young people.
As MassResistance began looking into this new "high society" of Boston -- [Why aren't we ever invited to their parties?] -- we remembered seeing the AIDS Action Committee's Executive Director on Boston Magazine's list of the "Thirty-Five Gay Power Players" in Massachusetts.
Rebecca Haag (Mass. AIDS Action Committee Exec. Director) "made a name for herself in the corporate world, including as a vice president at Burlington's high-tech Wheelhouse Corporation, then left it two years ato to lead AIDS Action, which annually helps 2,500 people with AIDS."
Does AIDS Action "help" by distributing the "Little Black Book" ?? Or does it promote dangerous homosexual sex?
We also noted that Haag "and partner Mary Breslauer (number 13) [on the Boston Magazine Gay Power Players list] moonlighted last year as models in an ad for the Brookline boutique the Studio, co-owned by Theo Epstein's mom, Ilene."
Then we checked out #13, Mary Breslauer: "Longtime political scenester Breslauer led Tom Reilly's 1998 charge for attorney general... Last year she was an original host of WFNX's gay-focused One In Ten [...Don't they mean One in a Hundred?] radio program. Last year, she was a major lobbying force for same-sex marriage and advised the Kerry campaign on gay and Lesbian issues. She's also on the board of the Human Rights Campaign."
This is the new social elite of Boston. Promoting unhealthy lifestyles wherever they turn.
As MassResistance began looking into this new "high society" of Boston -- [Why aren't we ever invited to their parties?] -- we remembered seeing the AIDS Action Committee's Executive Director on Boston Magazine's list of the "Thirty-Five Gay Power Players" in Massachusetts.
Rebecca Haag (Mass. AIDS Action Committee Exec. Director) "made a name for herself in the corporate world, including as a vice president at Burlington's high-tech Wheelhouse Corporation, then left it two years ato to lead AIDS Action, which annually helps 2,500 people with AIDS."
Does AIDS Action "help" by distributing the "Little Black Book" ?? Or does it promote dangerous homosexual sex?
We also noted that Haag "and partner Mary Breslauer (number 13) [on the Boston Magazine Gay Power Players list] moonlighted last year as models in an ad for the Brookline boutique the Studio, co-owned by Theo Epstein's mom, Ilene."
Then we checked out #13, Mary Breslauer: "Longtime political scenester Breslauer led Tom Reilly's 1998 charge for attorney general... Last year she was an original host of WFNX's gay-focused One In Ten [...Don't they mean One in a Hundred?] radio program. Last year, she was a major lobbying force for same-sex marriage and advised the Kerry campaign on gay and Lesbian issues. She's also on the board of the Human Rights Campaign."
This is the new social elite of Boston. Promoting unhealthy lifestyles wherever they turn.
Sunday, May 15, 2005
Boston Globe Polls on Gay Marriage Unbelievable
Which poll of adults around the country seems more believable: The Boston Globe's, or Gallup's?
Boston Globe (May 15, 2005)
"Overall, do you approve or disapprove of gay and lesbian couples being allowed to get married?"
50% Disapprove
37% Approve
11% Neutral
2% Don't know
The Boston Globe also asked this same group of 760 US adults over 18 (not identified as voters): "If a gay or lesbian couple gets married in Massachusetts, should their marriage be recognized as legal in all 50 states?"
46% Yes
50% No
4% Don't know
(One obvious disconnect: How could only 37% of the Globe sample approve of gay "marriage", but 46% believe that Massachusetts gay "marriages" should be recognized by other states?)
Compare the Globe results to a Gallup poll, which showed a large percentage of Americans disapproving gay "marriage":
CNN/USA Today/Gallup (March 2005)
68% say gay "marriages" should NOT be considered valid
28% say gay "marriages" should be considered valid
(reported in the Globe story)
The Gallup website gives this report, dated April 19, 2005:
Americans Turn More Negative Toward Same-Sex Marriage
Fifty-seven percent favor a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and woman, by Frank Newport
Support for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would define marriage as "being between a man and a woman, thus barring marriages between gay or lesbian couples," has risen to 57% in a recent Gallup Poll. This is the highest measured across seven times the question has been asked using this wording since the summer of 2003. About two-thirds of Americans also believe more generally that same-sex marriages should not be recognized by law as valid.
Boston Globe (May 15, 2005)
"Overall, do you approve or disapprove of gay and lesbian couples being allowed to get married?"
50% Disapprove
37% Approve
11% Neutral
2% Don't know
The Boston Globe also asked this same group of 760 US adults over 18 (not identified as voters): "If a gay or lesbian couple gets married in Massachusetts, should their marriage be recognized as legal in all 50 states?"
46% Yes
50% No
4% Don't know
(One obvious disconnect: How could only 37% of the Globe sample approve of gay "marriage", but 46% believe that Massachusetts gay "marriages" should be recognized by other states?)
Compare the Globe results to a Gallup poll, which showed a large percentage of Americans disapproving gay "marriage":
CNN/USA Today/Gallup (March 2005)
68% say gay "marriages" should NOT be considered valid
28% say gay "marriages" should be considered valid
(reported in the Globe story)
The Gallup website gives this report, dated April 19, 2005:
Americans Turn More Negative Toward Same-Sex Marriage
Fifty-seven percent favor a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and woman, by Frank Newport
Support for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would define marriage as "being between a man and a woman, thus barring marriages between gay or lesbian couples," has risen to 57% in a recent Gallup Poll. This is the highest measured across seven times the question has been asked using this wording since the summer of 2003. About two-thirds of Americans also believe more generally that same-sex marriages should not be recognized by law as valid.
Adoption by Gay Couple Presented as Normal
Here we go again with the Boston Globe's managed news. The Globe Magazine (5-15-05) runs a feature pushing the normality of two "married" men wanting to adopt a child. ("Special Delivery: Selling ourselves in a 'Dear Birth Parent' letter is a high-stakes assignment.")
The author describes his, and his "husband's", angst as they compose their "Dear Birth Parent" letter. They want to be chosen as the adoptive parents so badly! He discusses how he has to "Disneyize" the letter and keep it "homogenized, kowtowing to an imagined collective consciousness that is easily offended and must not be provoked."
Obviously, the "married" couple's photo will reveal that they are both male. But the birth parents could be turned off by too much talk about a dog, or a report of TV shows they don't like, as easily as the fact that the adoptive parents are a gay couple, the author implies.
MassResistance has pointed out how well this sort of propaganda works, tugging on all of our emotions. ("Adoptions by Homosexual Couples Were Key.") These guys just want to have a child to love. See, gay households are no different from straight!
The author describes his, and his "husband's", angst as they compose their "Dear Birth Parent" letter. They want to be chosen as the adoptive parents so badly! He discusses how he has to "Disneyize" the letter and keep it "homogenized, kowtowing to an imagined collective consciousness that is easily offended and must not be provoked."
Obviously, the "married" couple's photo will reveal that they are both male. But the birth parents could be turned off by too much talk about a dog, or a report of TV shows they don't like, as easily as the fact that the adoptive parents are a gay couple, the author implies.
MassResistance has pointed out how well this sort of propaganda works, tugging on all of our emotions. ("Adoptions by Homosexual Couples Were Key.") These guys just want to have a child to love. See, gay households are no different from straight!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)