Archive for Monday, December 4, 2006

Gay agenda

December 4, 2006

Advertisement

To the editor:

I wish to commend the voters in more than 20 states who have had the moral courage and common sense to pass changes to their state constitutions prohibiting same-sex marriage. They recognized that the prohibition is not discriminatory or unconstitutional, but want to protect the institution of marriage from unelected activist judges.

Jim Krieger, in the Nov. 25 Journal-World, states that, "The majority of Americans consider gays and lesbians as people undeserving of the same rights as the rest of us and think they should not be allowed to marry, simply because of who they are." He conveys his argument in terms of the civil rights movement of the 1960s.

This is a very disingenuous argument that is attempting to compare real discrimination of racial minorities to the false discrimination claimed by the homosexual movement. Homosexuals, as a class, are among the wealthiest and best educated class of people in the United States. I have had many conversations with minorities about the many different faces of discrimination they have suffered, and they agree that homosexuals don't deserve protected class status the same as race, gender, etc. They think the homosexual movement doesn't have a clue what real discrimination is all about.

The objective of the homosexual movement is to destroy traditional marriage between a man and a woman, not equal rights. Here is a plank, which speaks for itself, from the 1972 Gay Rights Platform, which demands: "Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit."

Jim Mullins,

Lawrence

Comments

sublime 8 years, 6 months ago

Im afraid you have opened up a huge can of worms, Jim.

Mkh 8 years, 6 months ago

"The objective of the homosexual movement is to destroy traditional marriage between a man and a woman, not equal rights."

What a bunch of bs, get a clue Jim!

"unelected activist judges"

I always find this conservative talking point hilarious. They criticize judges for making decisions about issues brought before their court. It's called their job!

jonas 8 years, 6 months ago

I'm afraid you are a freak'n idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about and is just making things up, Jim.

Kelly Powell 8 years, 6 months ago

homosexuals as a class, are among the wealthiest and best educated class of people in the united states.....you know what? replace homosexual with jew and this sounds familiar.....actually i do take offense at the use of the term "class" and i blame both sides of the issue for making this so.....yes, civil union should be an option for any couple or even triples or more.....and yes gay activist need to shut up once in awhile about how misunderstood gays are....Once again the middle pays the price for others to grandstand.

Ragingbear 8 years, 6 months ago

I would write a larger comment here, but I am too busy secretely brainwashing your children into being gay. Yes, soon, we will take over the world, where we no longer have any of you filthy "straight" people. The next stop, outlawing any sexual contact between a man and a woman. Then, from there, we will turn the entire universe gay.

Ok, really. What is wrong with people that they actually think what I wrote above is true? I mean, exactly how stupid are you people?

gr 8 years, 6 months ago

"Jim Mullins=Idiot"

because he disagrees with us.

ksmoderate 8 years, 6 months ago

RT spews:

"but if your a conservative and holler and shout and say naughty words and stand your ground, your a bigoted, uneducated, far-right, radical christian conservative wack-job."

Um....yeah!

jonas 8 years, 6 months ago

"Posted by gr (anonymous) on December 4, 2006 at 7:41 a.m. (Suggest removal) "Jim Mullins=Idiot" because he disagrees with us."

Right. Because it has absolutely nothing at all to do with the flimsiness and unprovability of his claims, his rediculous divisory line of logic between the "real" oppression of minorities and the "false" oppression of homosexuals, his lumping together of every homosexual into the singular grouping of "the gays," and his total lack of understanding on how the legal system is supposed to function. It's just because he has a different opinion than I do.

I'd like Jim to give us two sample populations. The sample population of those minorities that he has had "many conversations" with, and the sample population of homosexuals he has talked with to claim that "the gays" have an agenda at all.

mom_of_three 8 years, 6 months ago

Protect the institution of marriage from what? I have been married for 16 years and I don't feel threatened by any gay or lesbian marriage. It doesn't affect me at all, so why not let them have the same rights. It won't change what rights I have. If you have problem with the word marriage, than call it a civil union and get over it.

bankboy119 8 years, 6 months ago

This is a dead issue. This has been debated how many times on this forum?

Whatever.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, "Rome is burning and those who are burning it are still fueling the fire and smiling all the while."

prioress 8 years, 6 months ago

This is a dead issue.

Dead issues are what the R's are all about......gay marriage; flag burning; the blessings of the frozen cells, etc. If they had any real policy ideas, they'd talk about them.

bankboy119 8 years, 6 months ago

Republicans have real policy ideas in defending what this country stands for, getting social security changed so that this country doesn't go bankrupt as fast, trying to keep taxes lower (yes taxes will probably skyrocket once the house and senate become Dem controlled in January), protecting the flag from America haters (it's not a dead issue, if you hate this country then leave) among defending everything the leftists are trying to bring at them.

The left's policies are turn America into a welfare state and let anybody and everybody do whatever they want as long as God, oops! I mean the G word isn't involved. Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, Wiccans are all fine, but those damn Bible thumpers that believe in right and wrong are not allowed any rights. Oh, and the best argument from the left, "We don't know what we're doing but we sure know that the right is wrong."

ControlFreak 8 years, 6 months ago

This isn't a partisan issue. I've plenty Democrats against "gay marriage."

Marriage is a piece of paper that dictates to the general populace that two people pledged themselves to each other. It also blends property and money unless there is a prenuptual agreement. Plus there is a small tax break.

A piece of paper does not determine my devotion to my spouse.

I piece of paper does not determine how long a relationship will last. It certainly won't cause a relationship to last longer or shorter.

ControlFreak 8 years, 6 months ago

I meant to say, "I've heard plenty..." not "I've plenty..." It's not like I'm hoarding Democrats or something. :)

KsTwister 8 years, 6 months ago

This election was not a platform for abortion or gay marriage. And the next election will not be either.

bankboy119 8 years, 6 months ago

sb, there's a difference between wearing an actual flag and wearing clothes with a flag on them. So by wearing clothing with the "likeness of the flag" on them as a sign of respect and patriotism would not make them "America haters."

Also, burning the flag to dispose of it instead of just throwing it in the trash is also different than burning the flag because they hate what it stands for.

ksmoderate 8 years, 6 months ago

I see your point Bankboy, but I can't remember seeing anything in the last several years about Americans burning flags in protest? How much of a "problem" is this? I'm sure if there were Americans publicly protesting our gov't. by burning flags the media would pick up on this?

bankboy119 8 years, 6 months ago

moderate, just doing a quick search on flag burning the first story I found was about immigrants who were burning the flag back in March. I believe that this was a bigger issue back at the beginning of the year because illegals were the ones leeching off this country and at the same time turning around and burning our flag. If you look up the "immigration day" or whatever they tried to celebrate back in....May? I believe there was media coverage on this.

bankboy119 8 years, 6 months ago

Actually Agnostick I had not seen any news on that. Instead of trying to spin the debate in your favor by bringing up a separate issue why don't you try and tackle the one at hand.

A) In my opinion, hanging the flag upside down in a form of protest is different than completely burning the flag. I don't know that "desecration" is the correct word for what they are doing but it is entirely disrespectful. That may be splitting hairs, but there is not damage being done to the flag by hanging it upside down besides the normal wear and tear.

B) I do not agree with what they are doing because I believe in "United we Stand" and that there are better ways to protest than to hang the flag upside down. Even if they do not agree with decisions that have been made recently they should hang the flag right side up because they still respect this country and what it stands for.

ControlFreak 8 years, 6 months ago

So the post office should quit printing the flag on stamps too.

Is it the material of the flag that should be used or just the pattern of the flag?

What if you used stripes but no stars, would it still count?

bankboy119 8 years, 6 months ago

Well sb, I'll concede the wearing of the flag argument to you because I understand the arguments in the flag code about wearing the flag or advertising with it etc. The arguments against using the flag in those ways were made because those people held the flag in such high regard that they did not want it relegated to a symbol that lost its meaning (which it obviously has) and for people to take it lightly (which they do.)

As for burning the flag,

Section 4, subsection(k) The Flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning.

those that I have brought grievance against for burning the flag do so to flags that could still be an "emblem for display," or they are the ones who have treated the flag so badly because they hate what it stands for that it should be burned. When they burn the flag they are not "destroying it in a dignified way" they are doing it in a way that desecrates it because, again, they hate what it stands for.

ControlFreak 8 years, 6 months ago

Also, those shirts that have the stars on the left pocket and the vertical stripes...

Wouldn't that make the flag vertical instead of horizontal? That's similar to upside down, it's not displayed correctly anyway.

Kim Gouge 8 years, 6 months ago

"They think the homosexual movement doesn't have a clue what real discrimination is all about."

What is real discrimination all about Jim Mullens, you white, heterosexual average in every way man? Please enlighten us all. I agree with what was said so many times before...you are an idiot.

staff04 8 years, 6 months ago

Agnostick-

Spot on.

And funny in presentation!

bankboy119 8 years, 6 months ago

The Supreme Court has been wrong before. The decisions that were made on the issue of flag burning, Texas v. Johnson and United States v. Eichman, involved the SC declaring laws that were passed unconstitutional. SC legislating from the bench. If the justices were actually doing their job, not creating laws but deciding whether or not laws that had been passed had been broken, then flag burning should not be allowed.

You are correct that there are some things under free speech which are still not acceptable.

ilovelucy 8 years, 6 months ago

Jim Mullins has always been an over the top extreme right wing nut. It's just what I would expect from someone as ignorant, prejudiced and stupid as he is. I always have a good laugh at his latest diatribe. He gives the Republican party a bad name. Jim, Jim, go away. Come again some other day. Like about 500 years from now.

gr 8 years, 6 months ago

Heh, heh.

Bankboy: "those that I have brought grievance against for burning the flag do so to flags that could still be an "emblem for display," or they are the ones who have treated the flag so badly because they hate what it stands for that it should be burned. When they burn the flag they are not "destroying it in a dignified way" they are doing it in a way that desecrates it because, again, they hate what it stands for."

How does someone burning the flag hurt you?

BunE 8 years, 6 months ago

To all:

I am planning a day of burning flags while aborting a fetuses during a same sex marriages while taking bong hits and cursing jesus, mohammed and krishna. For good measure, I refuse to have yellow ribbon magnet.

Who's with me!?

Rob Gillaspie 8 years, 6 months ago

"...the homosexual movement doesn't have a clue what real discrimination is all about."

Really? Tell that to Matthew Shepard's family. Go on, I dare ya, Jim. I'll spring for the quarter. Make that call, then write a follow-up letter to the editor telling us all about it.

Mr. Mullins, I submit that you are such an imbecile that you can't even PRONOUNCE discrimination, much less define it. I mean, I feel REAL sorry that you have to sit at the whites-only lunch counter every morning with your "oppressed" group of upper-middle-class anglo- protestants... Living every day under the constant fear of being beaten and killed for being white, married, and conservative... It's gotta be real tough for you, man. Real tough. Let me crack open my violin case and play you a song...

"You can cryyyyy me a riverrrrr.... Cryyy me a riverrrrr...."

Jamesaust 8 years, 6 months ago

The 1972 Gay Rights Platform! Goodness, I can almost smell the tear gas, see the glowing embers of thousands of lit doobies, and imagine the longhaired hippies making love in the streets not war in Vietnam. haha

Wasn't that Platform passed by a bunch of libertarians? And if anyone wanted the government to get out of the marriage racket, wouldn't it be libertarians? And isn't the origin of the government issuing "marriage licenses" in the U.S. one of separating the races? (hmmm....I think so!)

Isn't that about the same time that the activist Supreme Court struck down laws criminalizing black people from marrying white people - the laws supported by three-quarters of Americans at the time? Ooopss, sorry, I keep making the mistake of equating hatred and bigotry as being "real discrimination."

Crispian Paul 8 years, 6 months ago

Seriously, I will echo this....if you believe same sex marriage will denigrate the state of marriage, think about the fact that straight married couples have done a fine job of this on their own. At 52% national divorce rates, staggering numbers of affairs, higher numbers of heterosexual spousal abuse than in homosexual couples and the fact that straight people choose to live together "out of wedlock" quite frequently in this day and age, who cares what homosexual couples do with their relationship status. It was stated above that gay Americans face no "real" discrimination due to the fact they they attain higher levels of income and education statistically. A comparison was made to the "real" discrimination experienced by ethnic minorities and that experienced by homosexual Americans. Well, the science is beginning to clearly show there is a biological basis for being gay (i.e. homosexual behavior has been observed in the animal kingdom, there are certain brain and chemical differences being noted by scholars, etc). So if one cannot choose to be gay any more than they can "choose" to be black, white or any other ethnicity, why should they be punished by being denied those rights given to any other person in this country.

Crispian Paul 8 years, 6 months ago

PS....I think my friends may have made me gay. Is there a treatment for this? Aparently, it rubs off on others....there's a guy who waits at the end of my block waiting to turn all the Jr. High kids gay.

Crispian Paul 8 years, 6 months ago

I was re-reading some of the posts regarding Liberals and saw that we are referred to, essentially, as a bunch of non-Christian bigot-hating Bigots. Well, there was a study whose results were shown on 20/20 recently. Can't remember what university it was done at, but the point of it was regarding people with strong political viewpoints. The theory was that if you are strongly liberal, for example, and spend time with strong conservatives, your views may be shifted or altered and vice versa. What they found, though, was that the more time you spend with anyone with strong political views, regardless of if they are the same or different than yours, it actually soldifies and strengthens your view point, so I think is definitely not exclusive to Conservatives or Liberals. As a liberal social worker,, who knows Jim Kreider, the point is not to say that "Bible thumpers" as someone said above, are wrong and every other belief system is right because it is a minority, but to say that you should believe in whatever you choose, think about the world however you want, but don't assume or force anyone to be like you. I honestly sometimes can't believe that there are people who think they can speak with authority on other's political views, using gross generalizations, when they do nothing to look outside their own box. At least I am aware and try to educate myself on what the "conservative" ideology is.
Also, many liberals DO want taxes raised, but not to turn us into a "welfare" state (that term cracks me up) but rather to provide a good foundation for ANY person in this country to get a good start. Imagine if all Americans started life with medical and dental care, good food, warm, safe housing and appropriate clothing. Kids would probably not drop out at a 60% rate as they do in many places (like where I went to school). In Europe, where there is government sponsored Healthcare and preventative care, shorter work weeks and government paid vacations, they have higher productivity rates, less absenteeism and more children attaining higher levels of education. I don't think it's blaspheme to desire that all have an equal start in life.

packrat 8 years, 6 months ago

"Posted by scenebooster (anonymous) on December 4, 2006 at 11:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"The Supreme Court has been wrong before."

Ahh, you must be referring to the election of 2000..."

All the Supreme COurt did in 2000 was to tell the State of Florida to follow its own election laws.

It you search, you can find where many different groups conducted recounts in Florida and they all confirmed President Bush's victory.

The Supreme Court has been wrong before. The biggest traversity in recent history has been the decision which Justice Souter authored which stated that cities may condemn personal property to hand over to private companies. The private company then can develop anything which will improve the tax base. http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/24/scotus.property/

Kodiac 8 years, 6 months ago

"who knows Jim Kreider" -- Crispian

Why did you bring this name up? I can't figure out what this is in reference to. There was a letter recently called Equal Rights by a person named Jim Krieger but not Kreider. I happen to know Jim Kreider and I am fairly sure he did not or would not write the letter titled Equal Rights. So I am wondering why did you bring this name up.

Crispian Paul 8 years, 6 months ago

I must have misread the letter from Jim Mullins where he references Jim speaking as a part of the "gay agenda"...If I misread, sorry.

jonas 8 years, 6 months ago

"Posted by bankboy119 (anonymous) on December 4, 2006 at 10:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The Supreme Court has been wrong before. The decisions that were made on the issue of flag burning, Texas v. Johnson and United States v. Eichman, involved the SC declaring laws that were passed unconstitutional. SC legislating from the bench. If the justices were actually doing their job, not creating laws but deciding whether or not laws that had been passed had been broken, then flag burning should not be allowed."

Can you elaborate on this? What is your justification for saying that the supreme court was CREATING laws in deeming flag-burning laws unconstitutional? If a literal, non-elaborative reading of the constitution is considered, then how can you view burning a flag to be an illegal act? Is the word flag even used in the constitution? I don't think that it is.

"You are correct that there are some things under free speech which are still not acceptable."

Yes, but in general those things are things that have a real damaging effect on real people. I don't think this fits that scenario.

jonas 8 years, 6 months ago

Crispian:

"theory was that if you are strongly liberal, for example, and spend time with strong conservatives, your views may be shifted or altered and vice versa. What they found, though, was that the more time you spend with anyone with strong political views, regardless of if they are the same or different than yours, it actually soldifies and strengthens your view point"

Wouldn't that make sense in the context that most people these days that hold a really strong political viewpoint spend most of their time talking empty rhetoric and creating elaborate, stereotyping and ultimately rediculous straw-man arguments?

Of course, I only REALLY talk politics here, so maybe that distorts my perception somewhat.

Charles L Bloss Jr 8 years, 6 months ago

I really don't care what people do sexually in the privacy of their homes. Why is it such a big deal to everyone? There have been homosexuals since the dawn of civilization. Remember Sodom & Gomorrah? There is evidence that people are born that way. It is a morality issue for religion, but as far as the occurrence of homosexuality it will always be with us. I know gay men, and lesbian women, they are no different from me, except for their sexual preference. They are human beings and deal with the same things I do on a daily basis. So if it offends you, leave these people alone and go about your business. Thank you, Lynn

catnip 8 years, 6 months ago

Here is a plank, which speaks for itself, from the 1972 Gay Rights Platform, which demands: "Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit."

OK, here is a plank from the 1972 GOP platform:

We will continue to seek a settlement of the Vietnam war which will permit the people of Southeast Asia to live in peace under political arrangements of their own choosing. We take specific note of the remaining major obstacle to settlement-Hanoi's demand that the United States overthrow the Saigon government and impose a Communist-dominated government on the South Vietnamese. We stand unequivocally at the side of the President in his effort to negotiate honorable terms, and in his refusal to accept terms which would dishonor this country.

HMMMMMM

Tychoman 8 years, 6 months ago

This letter makes me retch. Jim Mullins is, in every sense of the word, a tool for writing this letter. I honestly can't believe it got published.

Against gay marriage? Don't get one!

Poon 8 years, 6 months ago

Put on yer tinfoil hat. Here come the gays in their black helicopters!

packrat 8 years, 6 months ago

"The study indicates, for example, that Bush had less to fear from the recounts underway than he thought. Under any standard used to judge the ballots in the four counties where Gore lawyers had sought a recount -- Palm Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade and Volusia -- Bush still ended up with more votes than Gore, according to the study. Bush also would have had more votes if the limited statewide recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court and then stopped by the U.S. Supreme Court had been carried through. "

Get over it the neo-con won twice. If the Democrats had actually run an honorable candidate in 2004, I would have voted for him instead of a third party candidate.

ThePoolBoy 8 years, 6 months ago

Buddy of mine sent this my way... too funny!

The "Official Gay Agenda" by Jerry Fallwell:

6:00 am Gym 8:00 am Breakfast (oatmeal and egg whites) 9:00 am Hair appointment 10:00 am Shopping 12:00 PM Brunch

2:00 PM 1) Assume complete control of the U.S. Federal, State and Local Governments as well as all other national governments, 2) Recruit all straight youngsters to our debauched lifestyle, 3) Destroy all healthy heterosexual marriages, 4) Replace all school counselors in grades K-12 with agents of Colombian and Jamaican drug cartels, 5) Establish planetary chain of homo breeding gulags where over-medicated imprisoned straight women are turned into artificially impregnated baby factories to produce prepubescent love slaves for our devotedly pederastic gay leadership, 6) bulldoze all houses of worship, and 7) Secure total control of the INTERNET and all mass media for the exclusive use of child pornographers.

2:30 PM Get forty winks of beauty rest to prevent facial wrinkles from stress of world conquest 4:00 PM Cocktails 6:00 PM Light Dinner (soup, salad, with Chardonnay) 8:00 PM Theater 11:00 PM Bed (du jour)

Have a great night!

Tychoman 8 years, 6 months ago

Some of these posts aren't helping...except for #5, poolboy.

Tychoman 8 years, 6 months ago

Laughable...homosexuals as a class. You can't refer to homosexuals as a class any more than you can to heterosexuals.

Daniel Kennamore 8 years, 6 months ago

Every time i start to think that the United States really does lead the world in open-mindedness and progressive government and society...i read one of these op ed's and message board conversations and get reminded how even South Africa is more progressive then the U.S.

Jim Mullins, and anyone who agrees with him should be ashamed.

Becca 8 years, 6 months ago

Dear Mr. Jim Mullins: What freaking planet did you fall off? How did you come up with all this bullsh*t that you're posting? Because that's all it is. None of what you say is true. Gay people won't destroy the "institution of marriage" any worse than straight people have. Homophobes like you really crack me up, because you don't have any clue about anything you're talking about, and just spew fundamentalist christian propaganda. Tell me something, how is Fred Phelps these days?

Crispian Paul 8 years, 6 months ago

I think my cubicle mate just rubbed "gay" off on me....

gr 8 years, 6 months ago

logicsound04: "I know it may seem odd, but wealthy people can be discriminated against just as well as poor people. At any rate, your argument is hollow, because it is ridiculous to make such unfounded generalizations."

That's right!

And the rich pay a higher tax rate than anyone else. How equal is that? At least homosexuals, who aren't rich, aren't treated unfairly with a different tax rate.

Stop the discrimination of the rich!

ControlFreak 8 years, 6 months ago

Marion,

I think the spray on condoms would work a lot like the spray on body latex (or non-latex for those allergic). When it dries, you just peel it off. :)

The issue for those developing the condom would be making it thin enough for feeling but strong enough to avoid rupture and leakage.

gr 8 years, 6 months ago

Something tells me that Mary and Heather aren't using "normal" means to having a baby between them. I bet there's a male involved and that would be going against their "natural genetics". (As in, yeah, ha-ha).

Kodiac 8 years, 6 months ago

"Something tells me that Mary and Heather aren't using "normal" means to having a baby between them. I bet there's a male involved and that would be going against their "natural genetics". (As in, yeah, ha-ha)." -- Gr

Or you do have the immaculate conception option which would also not be considered to be "natural or normal" either now would it?

gr 8 years, 6 months ago

Kodiac,

Ha, Ha. But, good point. Notice, that to get tax breaks (if you will), Mary married Joseph rather than moan and groan about discrimination.

logicsound04: "Wealth is not a trait inherent to a person--it can be gained and lost, "

So, if you don't want to be discriminated against, lose your wealth type of mentality, huh? But, a more interesting point you have made is that the moaning and groaning homosexuals do about tax breaks is unjustified.


In other news, I've read that with the Alternative Minimum Tax, there is one rate/one limit no matter whether you are married or not. So, if you have two incomes, you are penalized more than with only one. Does anyone know if that's true?

To put it in terms like they do about poor people, since most rich are married, and since rich (middle class, actually) have to pay AGT, this is targeted discrimination against married people.

Homosexual claim of unfair taxes: IS DENIED.

Linda Endicott 8 years, 6 months ago

If you believe in the biblical version, gr, Mary married Joseph because God told her to.

Not to mention that back then, with social laws as they were, an unmarried pregnant woman could have legally been stoned to death.

skewed_veiw 8 years, 5 months ago

I've see the gays on a platform. they were dancing and singing it was FABU!!!!

gr 8 years, 5 months ago

logicsound04, (Oh, I get it, "sound" like)

Lesson in logic:

A=B B=C

No one needs to specifically say the point, A=C.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.