Header Image (book)

aowheader.3.2.gif

Thursday, June 13, 2019

The June Force-Feeding

Celebrate LGBTQ Pride Month — or else! (graphic from The Patriot Post):


We've gone from Gay Pride Day to LGBTQ Pride Month. Sheesh. This is why, IMO...
LGBTQ Bigotry: Tyranny Masquerading as Tolerance.  A bit long, but important if we are to answer those who are promoting tyranny disguised as tolerance.

Meanwhile, we have this...Johns Hopkins Research: No Evidence People Are Born Gay or Transgender.

72 comments:

  1. Just as there are semi-functional idiots across the spectrum, there are likewise bigots across the same.

    Since we can't evolve as a society to simply let others live and believe as they wish....so long as they don't violate each other's Liberty.....or conspire to illogical mandates....we are destined to be consumed with wasted energies and contrived outrages.

    DoS guidance to our Embassy's (and VP Pence's statement) were absolutely appropriate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. CI,
      Question...

      Are any US embassies defying the DoS guidance?

      Delete
    2. I believe I've read that there are a couple...but I dont specifically remember.

      Delete
    3. I don't know which was worse, ComIntern or HomIntern.

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    6. Excellent....as long as they stay away from our children. I don't know a five year old who understands sexuality but having drag queens read to them at school because "drag queens just want to GIVE BACK" as was stated on the news the other night, seems overkill to me, and even damaging. Leave our KIDS ALONE. Live your life. I don't know a gay man who wears fishnet stocking OR false eyelashes; that diminishes any respect possible. The Tyranny of the Minority is working and it's our fault. And they're doing themselves harm, sadly.

      Delete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Franco,
      Thank you for your comment.

      "Revolutions" inevitably wind up supplanting one form of tyranny and oppression with another.

      Usually true, but not in the case of the American Revolution.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Franco,
      The sheer viciousness, arrogance and barbarism of the Old Testament

      I disagree!

      I also have a different view of Augustinianism, Calvinism, etc. But that is a discussion for another time. This blog post is not a theological one.

      All this gay agenda agenda smacks too much of reparations. I am a strong opponent of reparations of all sorts.

      Delete
    2. You can't deny the right's desire to use religion as a tool to control human sexuality.
      Trying to take religion out of the gay right's struggle is impossible.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. Franco,
      AOW has advanced the ages old attitude that rudeness, viciousness, cruelty, injustice and widespread destruction are AOK as long as they are visited on people whom I and "My Tribe regard as "wrong" and "obnoxious," etc.

      Huh?

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    7. Franco,
      I firmly believe that Jesus was sent to Earth to demonstrate the fallacy of Old Testament thinking

      Um, no. Jesus Himself said, "I came to fulfill the law and the prophets" -- that is, the Old Testament.

      The Scribes and Pharisees perverted the message of the Old Testament.

      Was there brute savagery and the genocidal persecution of whole tribes? Yes, indeed. But those tribes were even worse -- to the point of throwing their infants into the belly of the fire god.

      Once again, I remind you that this is not a theology blog post, nor is this blog post a discussion of the moral question of LGBTQ. THEREFORE, I WILL HEREAFTER DELETE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OF THIS THEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL COMPONENT. We are going too far afield and may even be sliding in the matter of reparations.

      Delete
    8. Franco,
      Addendum: Please do not push my buttons on this in this comment thread.

      And I do not appreciate your accusing me of something I DID NOT DO!

      Delete
    9. I think Franco believes that we should welcome the gay agenda with open arms, that they're just another oppressed minority demanding their rights.

      I disagree with this. In the days of old without "advanced medicine" there were no means OTHER than legal to prevent the rampant spread of STD's. This is no longer the case. We can now identify and cure many, but not all, STD's. But the "cost" of these cures fall disproportionaltly upon heterosexuals needing cures for cancer much more than cures for AIDS. And now they want us to pay for elective surguries for "trans" idiots. Wouldn't that money be better spent on treating mental illnesses (gender disphoria being a prime example)? Treat the root causes, not the "symptoms".

      Delete
    10. ...and ducky, yes, Religions had a vested interest in maintaining the public health. That's what Leviticus was ALL about.

      Delete
    11. ...and it's no coincidence that the "cities" controlled by Democrats are facing huge public health crises... Seattle and Los Angeles -homeless street living... San Francisco's "poop patrol", NYer's crapping on the subway rails...

      Delete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I choose not to participate or celebrate.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Comment found HERE (emphases mine):

    The purpose of the Gay/LGBTQ rights agenda is to advance Leftism/Marxism. Whether the average LGBTQ individual understands or agrees with that or not is irrelevant.

    Here is a list of some of the 1930s Frankfurt School goals for America:

    1. The creation of racial offenses
    2. Continual change to create confusion
    3. The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children
    4. The undermining of "schools and teachers" authority
    5. Huge immigration to destroy identity
    6. The promotion of excessive drinking
    7. Emptying of churches
    8. An unreliable legal system
    9. Dependency on the state or state benefits
    10. Control and dumbing down of media
    11. Encouraging the breakdown of the family

    The hard Left drives the Gay/LGBTQ movement. Thus, the endless array of new 'causes' that must be supported will continue unabated until the Left has destroyed Western Civilization/Capitalism and Marxism/Socialism is installed in America and worldwide.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. 6. The promotion of excessive drinking

      So those sneaky Frankfort school commies were behind the repeal of prohibition?


      Makes as much sense as the rest of that ridiculous list.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  9. Real people in the real world just want to live their lives and get along.

    Extreme hardcore activists demand total obeisance to the dogma.

    The left is purposely shredding our society.

    ReplyDelete
  10. SF + 1.
    My off-the-cliff-everything-they-do-is-wrong lefty town makes a BIG deal out of it. Now why is that? SF said it: "The left is purposely shredding our society."

    Pride goeth before a __________.

    ReplyDelete
  11. While homosexual couples are still targetted with violence and other forms of discrimination, there is no mystery about the legitimate purpose of Pride. SF's first sentence is the ultimate destination, but I don't think we're there yet.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Social acceptance is their "legitimate purpose"? Social shaming is also a "legitimate purpose." 'F the homos.

      Delete
    2. It is indeed the ultimate destination, but my assessment is less optimistic than SF's [depending on how he defines or measures "real people"].

      It seems a sizable element on both sides of the spectrum would wish to criminalize or otherwise prohibit, various activities....based on how it makes them feel. And yet both elements proclaim loudly [and ironically] that they support the fullest measure of Liberty and Freedom........

      Delete
    3. Anecdotal evidence suggests the broad middle just wants to get along, live and let live, and get on with their lives.

      It's unfortunate that the screaming extremes have hijacked the dialog.

      Delete
    4. Yep. Perhaps it's high time that the broad middle did some screaming....

      Delete
    5. FJ, I appreciate your point of view and would like to understand it* even when I violently disagree. Statements like "'F the homos" make that harder than it needs to be, and are beneath you.

      Social shaming has its place, but only against anti-social behaviour. I know that we disagree about whether gayness is anti-social, but could we come to an agreement over behaviours that are a great deal more antisocial: the attacks against gays, and the laws (with harsh penalties) and discriminations that gays still face around the world?

      * often quite a challenge!

      Delete
    6. CI,
      Perhaps it's high time that the broad middle did some screaming.

      Agree!

      But the media -- all the different sorts of media -- will do a blackout on it.

      Delete
    7. @jez,

      We all face discrimination around the world in one shape or another. Thats part of the beauty of variety and diversity of nation states. There are no "universal" rights that need be imposed from without world wide. Social conventions may vary. I favor those that downplay and discourage homosexuality. And I especially discourage those sexual practices being taken up by the greater society. STDs have enough pathways. We don't need to endanger the Public Health any more than necessary (species survival).

      Delete
    8. ...and so I say, "'F the homos" to shame those practices. It is not out of animus for its' practictioners.

      Delete
    9. ...for they are the "justifiers" for the practices requiring discouragement. And so they should take no "pride" w/o some corresponding shame/ responsibility. They should be thankful that the public is now willing to pay the additional health costs, instead of banning / outlawing them as was done in the past.

      Delete
    10. But I strongly oppose ANY efforts to make those practices acceptable to non-homosexuals. THAT is where your pride ends, and my shaming begins.

      Delete
    11. If your anti-gay rhetoric is distinct from the thoughtless homophobia that couples still frequently experience, you should say it differently, cos it's too easy to come away with the impression that you support the guys yelling slurs and throwing stones from their cars.
      As for sexual practices, i think you're on a fool's errand trying to make sex hygenic.

      Delete
    12. lol!

      I don't care about the feelings of gays. It's all sh*t they bring down upon themselves for their practices.

      Delete
    13. Should I feel bad for the feelings of smokers and NOT tell them that smoking (poles or otherwise) is BAD for their health?

      Delete
    14. Gay sex, more so than masturbation, IS the epitome of anti-social behavior.

      Delete
    15. Sir John Gielgud, Derek Jacobi and Ian McKellan said

      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
      Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."


      - Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio

      Delete
    16. No, it's not the epitome: I can see the argument against unsafe promiscuity, but it's a trivial observation that there exist many tendencies more anti-social than gay sex, some of which I believe your stance here encourages.

      Delete
  12. Jez... 100% yes on what Silver said. I guess the problem comes when we have to consider the role of government when people choose to not get along.

    The idea that man will willingly choose, across cultures and beliefs, to live and let live has never been shown to have legs in reality.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Live and let live was pretty much THE attitude amongst the centrist/conservatives I grew up with and hung with in college. "Tolerance" and then "acceptance" were the key words. Few saw any issue with the first. Then acceptance morphed into "celebration" (the goal all along) and "tolerance" was nowhere to be seen in the shoe on the other foot. Sad.

      Delete
  13. ... Ah, love, let us be true 

    To one another! for the world, which seems 

    To lie before us like a land of dreams, 

    So various, so beautiful, so new, 

    Hath really neither joy, nor love, nor light, 

    Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain; 

    And we are here as on a darkling plain 

    Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight, 

    Where ignorant armies clash by night.



    ~ excerpted from Dover Beach - Matthew Arnold (1867)

    ReplyDelete
  14. This thread has strayed off the rails. This blog post was never about the merits or flaws of the LGBTQ life style. That discussion is for another time.

    Now, let me ask this question....

    Does enforcing the embrace of Gay Pride Month really accomplish a laudable goal? Not to mention violating the rights of those who do not embrace Gay Pride Month!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well AOW... Embracing Gay Pride Month, or day, or week, could in fact violate the rights of those who do not embrace that celebration.

      But couldn't that be possible with any of these proclamations? I dare say Neo Nazi's are too keen on Martin Luther King Day or any Jewish holidays. Maybe some people who lost relatives in Vietnam are not too keen when certain areas of our country, like Garden Grove, CA, celebrate Tet.

      We celebrate stuff like this way to much IMO. Someone is always going to be offended or claim their rights are being violated.

      Delete
    2. It does not. Government has long run astray of its prime directive to serve the people - ALL of its people. The State should always protect the Rights and Liberties of the Citizen....but not ever take an official position with respect to social 'acceptance' of any cause.

      I hold this opinion equally with regard to race, sexual orientation and religion.

      Delete
    3. Dave Miller, That was s pretty Lame answer.

      Delete
  15. Another question...

    Does force-feeding ultimately result run the risk of a strong and ugly backlash on the part of those who are getting force fed?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. YES! Even liberals (good, open-minded people who lean left) are popping up everywhere in opposition to the extremes of leftwing progressive political correctness.

      Delete
  16. @ AOW

    People who do not care what adults do in the privacy of their own homes will not allow themselves goaded into a "backlash" against any particular life style. If a backlash occurs, it will likely be a repudiation of the political agenda associated with the "force feeding" of children into aberrant lifestyles. We’ll see the result of this at the polls in state and national elections. The degree to which we see this manifestation at the polls will likely reflect regional attitudes. There will be no national endorsement except in the minds of a jaundiced press.

    ReplyDelete
  17. AOW asked an important question: does this force-feeding produce an ugly backlash?

    Yes. Emphatically yes. Gay-rights people embarked upon a crusade decades ago. And by human rights and civil liberties standards, it was a righteous one. They have won.

    If I were a conspiracy-minded person, I would wonder if leftists were not using all the hot button issues, women's rights, the historical wrongs done to black people, etc, to drive wedges into the fissures of our society, and crack it into pieces that cannot be put back together again.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Despite the human tendency to want to dominate others, live and let live does work in a healthy, well-governed society.

    The concept breaks down when people start pushing hot buttons and backing people into corners.

    A welcoming church community, with doors wide open, food and fellowship is one thing, inviting all.

    But its going to far and creating a hostility towards Christianity when tract-clutching Christians infest store parking lots, asking people if they have been saved, and pinning them down, forcing them to either lie to get out of it or outright reject Christ's message. That is not the way to bring people to Christ. Nor shout-shaming or other forms of abuse.

    Same with LGBTQ rights. You can get me to go so far. I wish violence on no one, and people attacking anyone, verbally or physically, for whatever reason, needs to be prosecuted.

    But the left won't accept that anymore. You have to say it like it's stated in the Little Red Book: Not, all lives matter, including those of black people. NO. "Black Lives Matter."

    You state it the way they tell you to state it, or you are the enemy.

    It's a bridge too far, and they know it. They want the chasm, and they want the enemy (us) on the other side. For the dictatorial left, its purity uber alles.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's much truth in what you say, but one side has a long history of legislating prohibition and discrimination....a certain amount of pendulum swing has to be expected.

      Delete
    2. CI: Sure.

      Two thoughts.

      Our society has proved flexible and people adapt to changes and new ways of looking at issues, even those who retain strongly-held traditional views. This toleration speaks well of us and of the foundations of our civilization.

      History and classical literature spill over with stories of how those seeking revenge end up destroying themselves and those around them.

      Delete

We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective