Homosexual Agenda

[Guest WorldEscrt Sean]

Many have heard Dr. Laura, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and others speak of

the "Homosexual Agenda," but no one has actually seen a copy of it. So, if you think you forgot to do something today, here's copy.

 

The Homosexual Agenda:

 

6:00 am: Gym

 

8:00 am: Breakfast (oatmeal, egg whites and mimosas)

 

9:00 am: Hair appointment

 

10:00 am: Shopping (preferably at Neiman's, Nordstrom's or Saks)

 

12:00 pm: Brunch

 

2:00 pm: Assume complete control of all U.S. Federal, State, and Local

Governments, as well as all other world governments, destroy all healthy

heterosexual marriages, replace all school counselors in grades K-12 with

agents from Colombian and Jamaican drug cartels, bulldoze all houses of

worship, secure total control of the Internet and all other mass media

 

2:15 pm: Be fabulous

 

2:30 pm: Mud mask and forty winks of beauty rest to prevent facial wrinkles

from the stress of world conquest.

 

4:00 pm: Cocktails

 

6:00 pm: Light Dinner (soup, salad with romaine, radicchio, arugula, and

balsamic vinaigrette dressing, and Pouilly Fuisse)

 

8:00 pm: The Theatre

 

10:30 pm: "Do a little dance, make a little love, get down tonight, get down tonight!

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

Yep, that's pretty much as I understand it... and why I signed up!! But I'm more of an evening guy myself .

:-)

[Guest Rookie]

Now I know what happened! I thought assuming complete control of all U.S. Federal, State and Local Governments was supposed to happen at 3PM followed immediately by cocktails - not the 2pm listed on the agenda!!! I hope I wasn't needed!

 

Oh well!

 

Rookie

[Guest Les]

you forgot:

 

be late for everything.

[BewareofNick]

Not to mention watching Queer as Folk!

[DaninWA]

Sean,

 

I realize that you are speaking tongue in cheek and I know my following statements are going to horrify many who read this post.

 

I spend alot of time driving through Northern Idaho and Montana where there are very few radio stations. Mostly what I can pick up is religious broadcasting. Dr. Laura is prominent on several stations. I have very rarely heard her even mention homosexuality. I have never heard her trash gay people or the "gay lifestyle".

 

Dr. Laura has very strong views, especially on personal responsibility. She expects people to accept responsibility for their actions and calls them on it when they try to weasel out of it.

 

Children come first with her. Her view is that a parent's primary responsibilities are the safety of his/her child and raising that child to be a responsible, caring adult.

 

I strongly disagreed with those people who tried to prevent her TV show from being aired. When we try to silence those who disagree with us, we implictly give them permission to do the same to us, and the ammunition they need to do it.

 

Personally, I want to see and hear Dr. Laura. I also want those people who hate gays to have a forum to spew their hatred, because these people invariably hate everyone who is different from them. They will gain adherents to their cause, but most people will see the hatred and dismiss them as the sick crackpots that they are.

 

When people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell speak against us, we know it and can counter their remarks with the truth. It's the quiet ones, those who have no public forum for their hatred,that worry me. We don't know who they are or what they are thinking and planning. And that's why they are the most dangerous.

 

We, as gay people, must persuade the general public with our arguments that we are not a threat. We are not out to turn their sons and daughters gay. We just want to live our lives in our way, as most people do.

 

Give all people a place in the open to speak their minds, good or bad. It's the best way to protect ourselves and others.

 

Dan

[BewareofNick]

With Dr. Laura's TV show, I couldn't agree more. She got far more attention than she deserved for it and I think the controversy prolonged the life of the show more than it would have had originally. The show failed because, let's face it, it sucked. It just didn't translate well to TV. Dr. Laura also has a face for radio too

 

It's the same thing with Falwell and Robertson. They showed their true colors by using the September 11th tragedy for their personal gain. What they didn't count on though was the backlash from their own followers. Quite frankly, I've never seen two people back pedal so fast in all my life.

 

They all exposed themselves for the hateful hypocritical people they are. Thank God for that!

[Guest windy]

hummm....

 

Dr. Laura is broadcast quite a bit in ID and MT?

 

I wonder if the those whackjobs know Dr. Laura is Jewish? They would blow the radio station if they knew. Their narrow-mindedness and hate doesn't stop with black or gay.

 

Some side notes:

 

I heard a rumor she is into kinky sex and beastiality.

 

This past Halloween I seen a young teen girl in costume as Dr. Laura. She trick-or-treated at my house. I still have nightmares.

[Guest Viewmaster]

>When we try to silence those

>who disagree with us, we implictly give them permission to

>do the same to us, and the ammunition they need to do it.

 

It is rare to read something that speaks volumes yet at the same time has been expressed in words both direct and succinct. You have both my admiration and thanks.

[phage]

I disagree. The fact that Dr. Laura does not blame every possible problem on the “homosexual agenda” ala Jessie Helms does not negate the fact that she attacks us and calls us “biological mistakes.” Not being a religious person, I find that much more offensive than being attacked as a godless aberration. I am greatly offended by someone claiming I am a birth defect.

 

Now, of course, the good doctor has the right to say it, but we also have the right to respond to it. When she seeks to profit from her words in a commercial venture such as a television show, we have every right to mount a commercial response such as a boycott.

 

We can’t afford to be complacent when attacked in the media. It is not a fair and noble system where the good guy will always win. If we don’t exert whatever influence we can muster...there will be no balance.

[DaninWA]

I did not suggest that we should be complacent when we are attacked. I said that we should persuade the general public with our arguments, not try to silence the person or people attacking us.

[Guest TruthTeller]

>Now, of course, the good doctor has the right to say it, but

>we also have the right to respond to it. When she seeks to

>profit from her words in a commercial venture such as a

>television show, we have every right to mount a commercial

>response such as a boycott.

 

The solution to "offensive" views is to demonstrate that they are wrong by persuading others that this is so. It is never a solution to try to ban those views from being expressed.

 

As was the case with Dr. Laura -- where gay people looked as fascistic as it gets by trying to prevent anyone who thinks what she thinks (and there are many) from having a forum -- efforts to prevent someone from expressing their view always backfires. It glorifies the target as a martyr, and makes those engaged in such efforts look like they have something to hide.

 

The fact is, there IS a debate in our society about whether homosexual relationships are equal in worth to heterosexual ones; whether they are of equal morality; whether laws ought to protect each equally, etc. Gay people will prevail in that debate by persuasing others that the Other Side is misguided, not by forcibly preventing the Other Side from having their say.

 

While a mere "boycott" is not tantamount to supression -- but instead is merely a choice as to how one spends one's own money -- the campiagn to keep her off the air went far beyond that. It was an organized campaign to pressure media executives not to broadcast her show, and had as its only objective the suppression of her views.

 

>We can’t afford to be complacent when attacked in the media.

> It is not a fair and noble system where the good guy will

>always win. If we don’t exert whatever influence we can

>muster...there will be no balance.

 

The vast majority of media institutions and media elites are against Dr. Laura's views, not for them. The notion that keeping her off the air for the sake of "balance" is thus abusrd.

 

As others have pointed out, I think it's best when people hear both sides of the debate, rather than one side of the debate getting suppressed. Gay people have the best chance of winning not by suppressing opposing views, but by winning the debate -- and to the extent that the other side is represented by an evil, ugly, self-righteous, annoying hypocritical whore like Dr. Laura, all the better.

[phage]

>While a mere "boycott" is not tantamount to supression --

>but instead is merely a choice as to how one spends one's

>own money -- the campiagn to keep her off the air went far

>beyond that. It was an organized campaign to pressure media

>executives not to broadcast her show, and had as its only

>objective the suppression of her views.

 

Pont taken. I have to admit that I was quite happy about the success of that campaign. I guess I could be a fascist-in-training because I was very pleased to see how effective the organized response was and how quickly many of the sponsors distanced themselves from her. A little taste of influence (power would be going too far) is a dangerous thing…

 

>As others have pointed out, I think it's best when people

>hear both sides of the debate, rather than one side of the

>debate getting suppressed. Gay people have the best chance

>of winning not by suppressing opposing views, but by winning

>the debate -- and to the extent that the other side is

>represented by an evil, ugly, self-righteous, annoying

>hypocritical whore like Dr. Laura, all the better.

 

I agree wholeheartedly on the evil and ugly part, and I’m really going to show my left-of-liberal leanings here when I say that I do not trust a large portion of a typical Dr. Laura audience to actually enter a debate, listen to opposing views, and make anything that resembles an intelligent decision. I’m sure there are many, many intelligent people who listen in – DaninWA is an example of one – but I think there is also a large group of people who basically parrot the beliefs of a Dr. Laura or a Rush Limbaugh and don’t really think them through. Unfortunately, stupid people are allowed to vote also.

 

My rightwing Republican buddy is constantly telling me that it is this very attitude that so disgusts him about many liberals – that we think we know what is best for people – but there it is…I do not trust the great unwashed masses. I think it is a very short journey from “middle America” to “mob mentality” and I get worried when people with a public forum add fuel to the fire.

[Laurent]

Worrying when individuals with a public forum add fuel to th fire is a mark of wisdom. World history provides overwhelming support for your view.

[Guest TruthTeller]

>Worrying when individuals with a public forum add fuel to th

>fire is a mark of wisdom. World history provides

>overwhelming support for your view.

 

Actually, I think you'll find history proves exactly the opposite. The first thing successful tyrants do is stifle and punish dissent. That's because the biggest enemy of tyranny -- its greatest barrier --is free expression and free debate.

 

While the Founding Fathers of this country disagreed about most of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, the one which they all agreed upon was the First one, because allowing ALL views to be expressed is the bedrock of all other liberties.

[Laurent]

Your post reveals only a severely limited knowledge of world history, and this statement is the only time that I will respond to anything from you.

[DaninWA]

You'll probably lose all respect for me now. I listen to Rush Limbaugh. Also, Oliver North, Mike Gallagher, and G. Gordon Liddy.

[BewareofNick]

Laurent, someone is lacking in historical knowledge and it is not HTT.

 

Actually, I think you'll find history proves exactly the opposite. The first thing successful tyrants do is stifle and punish dissent. That's because the biggest enemy of tyranny -- its greatest barrier --is free expression and free debate.

 

While the Founding Fathers of this country disagreed about most of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, the one which they all agreed upon was the First one, because allowing ALL views to be expressed is the bedrock of all other liberties.

 

Adolf Hitler did not encourage debate and allow free speech. Neither did Josef Stalin..or Fidel Castro..or Saddam Hussein..or the Taliban..

They did exactly as HTT stated above.

 

Suppressing free speech is always wrong. Protesting against it is wonderful. Providing information to dispute others claims is wondeful, but silencing speech you don't like is wrong. It is unAmerican and as HTT so deftly points out, it is unconstitutional.

[BewareofNick]

Dan, you were assuming we had any respect for you to begin with. (j/k)

 

Seriously, so what if you listen to them? It's your right to do so. G Gordon Liddy is a whack job from way back.

 

As for Rush, he finally earned my respect when he called Falwell and Robertson on the carpet for their hateful remarks re:Sept 11th. AS rush stated when will people learn that the Religious Right and the Republican Party are not synonomous for one another. (and when will all GOP members finally kick the RR to the curb???)

[trilingual]

Gosh, I hate to spoil some people's party, but organizing to oppose crap like Dr. Laura, Jerry Falwell and their ilk and trying to get them off the air isn't unconstitutional. It only would be unconstitutional (in the U.S.) if the government were preventing them from expressing themselves. The First Amendment only pertains to control of speech by the government, not to actions by non-governmental entities. That's why newspapers and radio stations have the right to decide for themselves what news and advertising they'll carry, what editorial lines they'll take, etc.

 

In the case of Dr. Laura and Jerry Falwell, I think the campaigns against them were great. One of the things creeps like those two (and their backers) assume is that they're in a position of power that they can use to promote the oppression of a minority they despise: us. It just gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling all over to have them find out that we're now organized enough that we have some power of our own. Enough to get them off the air, or to force them to do some very fancy (in unconvincing) back-tracking.

 

In many democratic countries outside the U.S., Dr. Laura and Falwell might have more difficulty peddling their hate, because advocating hatred towards specific groups is illegal. After all, there are limits to the right to free speech, even in this country. Slander and libel are illegal, and you can't falsely yell "fire" in a crowded theater. I could live with penalties on hate speech in the U.S. I'm sure not everyone on this board would agree with me, so you really don't need to post 50 zillion flames about it! :-)

[Guest TruthTeller]

>Gosh, I hate to spoil some people's party, but organizing to

>oppose crap like Dr. Laura, Jerry Falwell and their ilk and

>trying to get them off the air isn't unconstitutional. It

>only would be unconstitutional (in the U.S.) if the

>government were preventing them from expressing themselves.

 

Nobody said it was unconstitutional - just that it appeared thuggish, fascistic, and as though gay people have something to hide by preventing those with dissenting views from having a forum.

 

>In the case of Dr. Laura and Jerry Falwell, I think the

>campaigns against them were great. One of the things creeps

>like those two (and their backers) assume is that they're in

>a position of power that they can use to promote the

>oppression of a minority they despise: us.

 

I think the only thing they assume is that they should have the right to express their veiws. Preventing Dr. Laura from being on the air does not eliminate the views that she advocates. If anything, it makes them stronger by turning her into a martyr and giving people the sense that gay people are not really interested in liberty, but instead, in raw power which they want to use to restrict the freedoms of others.

 

>It just gives

>me a warm and fuzzy feeling all over to have them find out

>that we're now organized enough that we have some power of

>our own. Enough to get them off the air, or to force them

>to do some very fancy (in unconvincing) back-tracking.

 

Will it give you just as warm and fuzzy feeling when the power dynamic changes - as it always does - and these tactics are used to prevent your views from being aired, rather than those views which you oppose?

 

>In many democratic countries outside the U.S., Dr. Laura and

>Falwell might have more difficulty peddling their hate,

>because advocating hatred towards specific groups is

>illegal.

 

Right - that's one of the things that distinguishes the United States from most other countries in the world. We don't have laws that make it a crime to express certain views. It's amazing, and alarming, how many people such as yourself apparently envy other countires where the expression of particular views is criminalized.

 

>I

>could live with penalties on hate speech in the U.S. I'm

>sure not everyone on this board would agree with me, so you

>really don't need to post 50 zillion flames about it! :-)

 

Do you "hate" Dr. Laura and Jerry Falwell any less than they hate you? You want to turn them into criminals because of what they THINK and BELIEVE - that sounds pretty hateful to me.

[Guest jeremyred18]

Um........I didn't exactly read any of the posts, I just wanted to say, I am so gay! I love you all, thank you and goodnight!

[BewareofNick]

That was the scary part of the protest against Dr. Laura. The opposite side wasn't just interested in protesting and presenting the other side of the debate, they wanted her silenced. It became somewhat ugly here in the ATL when protestors converged on the FOX 5 TV station that was carrying the show. I have always felt that if you give the whackos enough rope, they will eventually hang themselves (as Dr. Laura did).

[phage]

Why do you say she hung herself? I admit that she provided the rope, but it was gay activists who tied the noose and provided the scaffold. Without that gay backlash, she would probably still have her public forum. (Okay, maybe not…I saw the show and it really was horrible.) I think it’s important for the gay “movement” to use its influence and demonstrate that we are no longer an easy mark. The true haters will still carry on, but at least the dilettantes will think twice.

[BewareofNick]

>Why do you say she hung herself? I admit that she provided

>the rope, but it was gay activists who tied the noose and

>provided the scaffold. Without that gay backlash, she would

>probably still have her public forum. (Okay, maybe not…I

>saw the show and it really was horrible.) I think it’s

>important for the gay “movement” to use its influence and

>demonstrate that we are no longer an easy mark. The true

>haters will still carry on, but at least the dilettantes

>will think twice.

 

 

She hung herself because her show was horrid and the public just wasn't interested. Towards the end of her run, she had to have staffers to fill the seats in her audience becasue she couldn't even give the tickets away.