The agenda - part 1

Dr.Who

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
6,776
Location
Horse Country
I have never started a thread on the gay issues until yesterday (or was it the day before?) I don't really care to and mostly just respond to other posts when I see inaccuracies no matter which side is being inaccurate.

But I would like to set the tone to separate the agenda from the need to respect all people just because they are people. People need to be respected but the gay agenda is actually larger than the gay agenda and includes a number of other groups and the agenda itself is larger than most of us realize.

What follows is an article that goes part of the way in exposing some of that agenda:
 
Werbung:
The following may not represent my views but as I see it is a source for data.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/07/the_gray_ladys_sexual_agenda_revealed.html

Giddy after the recent legalization of gay marriage in New York, the editors at the New York Times are laying out the left's post-gay marriage agenda in the paper's pages for all to see.

What they clearly want is a country that is sexually unrecognizable from the one we live in today, one where marital infidelity is accepted as a lifestyle choice and actually celebrated, and traditional marriage is legally marginalized and removed from the public square.

Times op-ed columnist Ross Douthat essentially laid out the cultural side of the left's and the Times' post-gay marriage agenda in a July column.

Gay marriage supporters called liberationists "hope that gay marriage will help knock marriage off its cultural pedestal altogether," Douthat explained.

To liberationists, if traditional marriage becomes the "gold standard" for relationships both gay and straight, the gay marriage movement will have "failed in its deeper mission," which he describes as introducing a "greater freedom than can be found in the one-size-fits-all rules of marriage."

The apparent hope is that legalized gay marriages will be more openly sexually promiscuous than straight marriage, providing an example that would then influence heterosexual couples to adopt the same open-marriage lifestyle.

In a June article called "Married, With Infidelities," the Times used gay activist and columnist Dan Savage's open marriage as the new model for straight marriages that should take root culturally from the legalization of gay marriage.

In the article the Times praised Savage for arguing against the American obsession with strict fidelity. "In its place he proposes a sensibility that we might call American Gay Male, after that community's tolerance for pornography, fetishes and a variety of partnered arrangements, from strict monogamy to wide openness," the Times article reads.

"A more flexible attitude within marriage may be just what the straight community needs," the article continues. "Treating monogamy, rather than honesty or joy or humor, as the main indicator of a successful marriage gives people unrealistic expectations of themselves and their partners."

While straight marriage has its share of infidelity, studies show that gay male marriages are often very different from traditional straight marriages. Gay partnerships are far more culturally accepting of infidelity before the fact, and in many it is even expected. According to the book Sex in America: A Definitive Survey, 100 percent of male gay couples in the study experienced infidelity in their relationships in the first five years and those who stayed together past the 10-year mark did so only by accepting the painful reality of infidelity in their relationships. Some 85 percent of the couples reported that their greatest relationship problems centered on issues related to outside relationships.

That's the cultural side of the left's new battle to take down marriage. In court, the new, post-gay marriage goal of the left will apparently be to attempt to remove marriage, and any special legal significance that comes with it, from the public square in much the same way they've sought to strip out God.

Before the new gay marriage law even hit the books in New York, Columbia University Law Professor Katherine M. Franke, a gay marriage supporter, was championing the next step.

"While many in our community have worked hard to secure the right of same-sex couples to marry, others of us have been working equally hard to develop alternatives to marriage," Franke explained in the Times:

Winning the right to marry is one thing; being forced to marry is quite another. How's that? If the rollout of marriage equality in other states, like Massachusetts, is any guide, lesbian and gay people who have obtained health and other benefits for their domestic partners will be required by both public and private employers to marry their partners in order to keep those rights. In other words, "winning" the right to marry may mean "losing" the rights we have now as domestic partners, as we'll be folded into the all-or-nothing world of marriage ... This moment provides an opportunity to reconsider whether we ought to force people to marry -- whether they be gay or straight -- to have their committed relationships recognized and valued.

You can see where they're going with this.

As gay marriage becomes more firmly established, the next set of lawsuits will be discrimination claims by domestic partners against any institution that legally recognizes marriage in a bid to put domestic partnership on an equal legal footing with marriage. Franke and others like her want the rest of the country to operate like New York City, where same-sex and opposite-sex couples can by law register as domestic partners and are entitled to the same benefits as married couples.

The acceptance of infidelity theme has been subtly pushed at the Times for over a year now. The paper caused major controversy in December when it fawningly profiled the marriage of a homewrecking couple, who met at the school their children both attended while married to other spouses, in the "Vows" section of its bridal guide.

But married couples aren't the only targets for the Times' sexual revolution. The paper just printed a piece suggesting that parents follow the Dutch model and allow their teenaged kids to bring their partners home for sex so they don't have to sneak around. So far, the Times hasn't been clear on whether mom and dad should go out to meet their own extramarital partners for sex, or whether they should bring them home, too, for one big family sleepover.
 
The following may not represent my views but as I see it is a source for data.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/07/the_gray_ladys_sexual_agenda_revealed.html

The article you cite has deep flaws. It says,
In the article the Times praised Savage for arguing against the American obsession with strict fidelity.
I read the complete NYT article. Nowhere does the NYT article praise Savage. Your source quotes the NYT article as saying,
"A more flexible attitude within marriage may be just what the straight community needs.
That was taken out of context. The actual quote is,
But Savage says a more flexible attitude within marriage may be just what the straight community needs.
In short, most of the NYT article was quotes from Savage. Yet the article you cite implies that the NYT was actually saying or thinking it. That is disingenuous at best. You should get out of the habit of believing things that you read from sites like the American Thinker and go to the original source if you want people to respect your opinion.

If there is a "gay agenda" and if it has undesirable features, there should be concern, but please do not believe that the mouthpiece of any possible "gay agenda" is Savage, or the New York Times.
 
Dr. Who/Lakeman has a history of being less than completely forthright in his postings about religion and homosexuality. This NYT article is just another example.:mad:
 
The article you cite has deep flaws. It says,
In the article the Times praised Savage for arguing against the American obsession with strict fidelity.
I read the complete NYT article. Nowhere does the NYT article praise Savage.

Based on your criticism I read the article too.

It does indeed praise Savage and uses words like "Moving article" , "Savages great contribution to family values", and "Savage prevailed". There is no doubt the author likes savage.

Your source quotes the NYT article as saying,
"A more flexible attitude within marriage may be just what the straight community needs.
I googled this quote and came up with over 2000 hits.

That was taken out of context. The actual quote is,
But Savage says a more flexible attitude within marriage may be just what the straight community needs.

I googled this quote and came up with 0 hits - a remarkably rare thing on the internet. I would also wonder, if it is indeed a quote from Savage why would save refer to himself in the sentence?

In short, most of the NYT article was quotes from Savage. Yet the article you cite implies that the NYT was actually saying or thinking it. That is disingenuous at best. You should get out of the habit of believing things that you read from sites like the American Thinker and go to the original source if you want people to respect your opinion.

So far your criticisms have turned out to be false (and nitpicking too as there is no real difference between a quote with the words "but he said" in front of it. You said it was taken out of context which implies that the new incorrect quote meant something different than other original but the the quote was completely accurate and meant exactly the same thing.

I never thought that American Thinker was the cat's meow but you have affirmed for me that they at least are accurate in their quotes.

If there is a "gay agenda" and if it has undesirable features, there should be concern, but please do not believe that the mouthpiece of any possible "gay agenda" is Savage, or the New York Times.

I find it hard to believe that anyone could doubt there is a gay agenda. I just always thought it was only about acceptance and marriage. Recently I have been seeing more and more evidence that it is about more than that.

I would never think that Savage as one man or the NYT as one paper would be "the mouthpiece" but I would think that they would be one voice each in a chorus.
 
Dr. Who/Lakeman has a history of being less than completely forthright in his postings about religion and homosexuality. This NYT article is just another example.:mad:

Or you are so zealously committed to your ideas that the only explanation for my disagreement with you is that I must lie.

I do think that there was ONE discussion we had about genocide in which I may have lost my mind for a while. I don't even remember exactly what I said but it may have included unintentional errors. AT that time looking back on some of my posts I wondered why I said what I said and what I meant. But then again if I had looked back farther I might have decided that I was completely right.
 
Based on your criticism I read the article too.

It does indeed praise Savage and uses words like "Moving article" , "Savages great contribution to family values", and "Savage prevailed". There is no doubt the author likes savage.

I googled this quote and came up with over 2000 hits.


So far your criticisms have turned out to be false (and nitpicking too as there is no real difference between a quote with the words "but he said" in front of it. You said it was taken out of context which implies that the new incorrect quote meant something different than other original but the the quote was completely accurate and meant exactly the same thing.

I never thought that American Thinker was the cat's meow but you have affirmed for me that they at least are accurate in their quotes.
I'm sorry but I simply don't agree with you. You are totally wrong in your post.
Do the following:
1. Go to the americanthinker link that you cited.
2. Go to the paragraph that starts "In the article the Times praised Savage..."
3. Click on the highlighted link. That is their cited NYT article.
4. Go to the middle of the second paragraph from the end on page one.
5. There is the phrase " But Savage says a more flexible attitude ...."
That is the paragraph that the American Thinker article quoted with the telling omission in bold face that I mentioned.

What's the difference? By that omission the American Thinker was accusing NYT. They should have been accusing Savage.

Next. While you have the NYT article in front of you, look at page 2.

On page 2 the NYT article was referring to an earlier Savage. This is where you found the bold faced phrases.
the son that he and Terry Miller, his husband, adopted as an infant, and you can hear it in the moving piece he read about his mother, who, on her deathbed, said she loved Terry “like a daughter.”

And you can hear it in the It Gets Better project, Savage’s great contribution to family values. Last September, in response to the reported suicides of several young men bullied for being, or seeming, gay, Savage prevailed on the very private Miller, whom he married in 2005 in Vancouver, to make a video about how their lives got better​

You took one of your phrases out of context and said it was proof that the author liked Savage: In short Savage prevailed on Miller to make a video. You didn't do very well on reading comprehension.

Yes the author admired the earlier years of Savage on gays surviving bullies and finding that things get better when they get older.

The author distances himself from Savages ethics later in the article. So I stand by my assessment that American Thinker and now you are lacking candor.
 
I'm sorry but I simply don't agree with you. You are totally wrong in your post.
Do the following:
1. Go to the americanthinker link that you cited.
2. Go to the paragraph that starts "In the article the Times praised Savage..."
3. Click on the highlighted link. That is their cited NYT article.
4. Go to the middle of the second paragraph from the end on page one.
5. There is the phrase " But Savage says a more flexible attitude ...."
That is the paragraph that the American Thinker article quoted with the telling omission in bold face that I mentioned.

What's the difference? By that omission the American Thinker was accusing NYT. They should have been accusing Savage.

The article quotes a variety of authors.Savage was just one of them. I was under the impression that all of them were employees of the NYT. In researching it further it appears that Savage is a regular in the NYT but his pieces are paid for one at a time. Is that the crucial difference or does the AT have a point when it accuses the NYT and cites Savages work as if they two share he same view? I think it depends upon how much they share the same view.

Next. While you have the NYT article in front of you, look at page 2.

On page 2 the NYT article was referring to an earlier Savage. This is where you found the bold faced phrases.
the son that he and Terry Miller, his husband, adopted as an infant, and you can hear it in the moving piece he read about his mother, who, on her deathbed, said she loved Terry “like a daughter.”

And you can hear it in the It Gets Better project, Savage’s great contribution to family values. Last September, in response to the reported suicides of several young men bullied for being, or seeming, gay, Savage prevailed on the very private Miller, whom he married in 2005 in Vancouver, to make a video about how their lives got better​

You took one of your phrases out of context and said it was proof that the author liked Savage: In short Savage prevailed on Miller to make a video. You didn't do very well on reading comprehension.

Yes the author admired the earlier years of Savage on gays surviving bullies and finding that things get better when they get older.

The author distances himself from Savages ethics later in the article. So I stand by my assessment that American Thinker and now you are lacking candor.

I stand by my earlier assessment that Oppenhiemer, representative of the NYT, does indeed praise Savage. You seem to be saying that he does priase savage but he does not do so 100%. That still makes the AT author right that Oppenhiemer of the NYT praises savage.

The quote that you believe was taken out of context still demonstrates that Oppenheimer admires Savage. The word prevailed was chosen by Oppenhiemer and he could have chosen any one of many words - he chose the favorable "prevailed" with its images of victory when he could have used a more neutral word. The other quotes you provided are more than enough to show that Oppemnhiemer lkes savage even if one threw out that one.
------------------------------------------

All that being said if the AT was accusing the NYT and I posted what they said as an example of what the AGenda of gay activists is then it still shows us the agenda of the gay activists whether they are all employed but the NYT or they merely write op-ed pieces and other columns for them.

Are you really trying to throw out data that we can use to analyze the gay activists agenda because the AT quoted Savage directly rather than quoting Oppenheimer who quoted Savage? Did you really try to tell us the words "but he" changed the meaning? I think your comments are still nitpicking.
 
Coming to a theater near you:

Well, a school anyway:

"The British Department of Education labeled at least 50,000 school children in Britain as racists and homophobes, the Daily Mail has reported in two stories since January. At least 20,000 three- and four-year-old racists, the government apparently believes, are a major threat on the sceptr’d isle.

The newspaper stories detail the contents of two reports from the Manifesto Club, a group that has twice gathered information from the British Department of Education, which keeps an Orwellian watch on children and what they say to each other.

Indeed, the law in England requires schools to track every possible negative utterance that comes out of a child's mouth."
...

http://www.thenewamerican.com/world...uk-govt-labels-school-kids-racists-homophobes
 
"Homosexual activists have launched a petition drive aimed at forcing PayPal, an online e-commerce business, to stop handling donations made to a group of organizations that promote traditional family values, and which are battling the "gay" agenda. The group All Out is demanding that PayPal immediately suspend the online accounts of 10 mostly Christian organizations it calls “anti-LGBT extremist groups.” LGBT, an acronym for “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender,” is one of the most recent labels aggressive homosexuals have coined to describe their “community.” "

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnew...vists-demanding-paypal-drop-pro-family-groups

As an aside, in recent years we have all learned a new word: "homophobe" which somehow means those who hate gays rather than as the roots of the word would indicate should mean those who are afraid of gays (the greek for hate is "mis" or "miso".) Though we understand the meaning it captures. (why we do is further complicated by the fact that "homo" just means same and is not the same as homosexual which means "same sex". So a homophobe should be one who is afraid of sameness.)

The article above introduced a new word too: "Homofascist". Again while those in the movement called the gay agenda are not literally fascists the word captures the intent quite well. It is that aspect of it that I oppose. I do not care if people are gay or not but the imposition of something called tolerance that is not really tolerance should not be tolerated. Maybe we should coin a word to mean those who hate traditional norms. The homofascist could be called misnormative.
 
Werbung:
Back
Top