July 15, 2008
Hi Henry,
Remember the old Heinlein quote, "I've seen the future...and it doesn't work" ?
I've been reviewing the history of promoted gay/lesbian official trends over their last fifty years of activism. The pattern to it is now clear. For instance:
During the 60's, 70's and 80's, gays/lesbians/feminists endorsed denial of their mothers and fathers, blood relatives - calling for them to write off their straight families to join the gay 'family' as we saw parading in full deviant regalia in those gay parades. Women were told children were plot used by patriarchy to enslave them and hold them back.
They ridiculed monogamy, love and marriage as 'archaic vestiges of a patriarchal religion'.
With the help of wealthy old elite men's money, they had the media, entertainment industry, and public educational system at their disposal to promote the self indulgent, sex obsessed 'alternative lifestyles'.
Nobody wants to remember or speak of any of that, and out of thin air 'gay marriage' and homosexual right to adopt children or have sperm bank artificial insemination becomes the fashionable trend, and overrides the occupation of Iraq as most mentioned 'news', and somehow becomes the top 'issue' of the election year.
I'll take a stab at this:
What do Gays/Lesbians, and NGO's mean by 'family'?
When heterosexuals read or hear the word family, we think of mom, dad, brothers and sisters, Grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins.
To a lesbian feminist and gay activist attorney, or marketing specialist wordsmiths working on United Nations or NGO teams drafting 'soft law', "Family" doesn't refer to a heterosexual male and female union sanctified by God in the presence of the blood kin and clan of the couple, and their subsequent offspring. Break this down and you will see that the fundamental difference has to do with the blood kin relationship.
When lesbian/gay activists speak of 'family', what do they mean? Certainly 'Father' is absent from the lesbian definition. Generally 'family' for gays and lesbians refer to the 'gay and lesbian community', ie, an amalgam of individuals who's strongest relation to each other is a shared obsession with sexual relations with the same sex. A 'family' can be two guys that met in a bar and decided to move in together because they like to have sex with each other and other such males. There's nothing sacred in sex for it's own sake (ie, hedonistic thrills). Mating is a love bond which results in the co-creation of a human life. I use the word co-creation specifically, since homosexuals and lesbians cannot co-create offspring. What do homesexuals and lesbians think about when they're engaged in sexually stimulating their same sex 'partner'? Anything except creating a new human life. To say any homosexual has ever been lovingly visualizing the child of their 'union' is absurd, laughable.
It is the deep caring bond and commitment - love between sexual opposites who's natures compliment each other funadentally, and the aspect of creation of honored human life, which makes sex sacred, and only in that context. What then can be the gay/lesbian motive for adoption of children? What can be their motive for 'matrimony'?
It isn't orgasm that's sacred, even if it's 'shared'. Orgasm is a fleeting physical reflex.
Yet there's been a torrent of promotion from 'new age' literature that orgasm is sacred.
http://www.tantra.org/sacrorgs.html
New Age promoters dug up the theories of an ancient Hindu philosophy of 'sacred sex' called Tantra. Now, Tantra isn't a common belief or practice in Hinduism at all, and the 'tantra' packaged for the west bears little resemblance to what ancient tantra was about. New Agers extracted certain sexual rituals from the philosophy. In theory these rituals involved coitus between a man and woman, not strangers but husband and wife, and tried to make a science of spiritual energy being passed from the man into the receptive female, who passed the energy back into her spouse in a cyclical circuit. The idea was that the practitioners were supposed to be able through concentration to cause this energy to rise up from the base chakra up the spine through the heart chakra, and ultimately to the highest chakra.
In formal hinduism tantric practice was forbidden between individuals of the same sex. (sorry!).
New Age 'western' tantra emphasized orgasm as a sacred experience, and promoted it to lesbians. http://www.tantra.org/lesbian.html
"Lesbian love is sacred when it is visionary, interconnected and transformational. Through the power of love we come to know ourselves as both mothers/ creators of our lives and as daughters / caretakers of the earth. Our lives and our work can become expressions of this wisdom and power."
Mothers/ creators without the male principle. No 'Father'.. no sons. Lesbian culture is based upon the Greek 'ideal' of the myth of the Amazons. What exactly is the attitude of lesbian 'motherhood' towards children? Here's the handbook:
("Lesbian Motherhood: Stories of Becoming")
http://familiesjoinedbylove.com/bookstore/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=14&products_id=62
What a joke. Feminists have been at the forefront of every movement and NGO promoting gratuitous abortions. The infamous Chinese government's 'one child' policy was fronted by Maoist Chinese feminists. Feminists should consider these clues that they are being used to further a racist de-population agenda that has nothing to do with equality or civil rights.
But why did the planners of global de-population choose lesbians to raise up and empower to place on point to ramrod through genocidal policies which the public never would have condoned had they been presented at face value? I'll leave that question to lesbian/feminists to answer to.
There's also an active children's book industry for the genre of fictional illustrated stories of Gay Dads and Lesbian Moms.
One of these gained national attention in the States when alarmed parents filed suit over a book, "My Two Dads" becoming part of the first grade curriculum in Boston public schools. The parents were ridiculed in the media, the book stayed.
http://familiesjoinedbylove.com/bookstore/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=16&zenid=dee1e5051ea1cb80a8d5e236f9ef9589
This is all nothing less than culture creation - the deliberate imposition of theoretical social paradigms for the supposed benefit of less than 5% or the population. Homosexuals and lesbians have massive funding from foundations and politicians who serve a much larger business plan as a 'must be'.
Before Kinsey, homosexuals and lesbians were a minuscule number of sexual deviants, and as William S. Burroughs himself said and showed in his novels, they well understood they were diviants. Slaves to their own sexual self indulgence - and they couldn't break free. The wholesome live of committed love to one person, respect for one's parents and grandparents and loyalty and love of one's blood kin were the furthest things from the thoughts and lives of either homosexuals or lesbians in 1947 and before.
Not all homosexuals in America were as far gone as Burroughs, who was so obsessed with doing anything perverse that he lived entirely on the seamy, skid row side of town anywhere he went. (By preference - Burroughs wealthy family always paid his way and got him out of jams with the law, including his killing his wife in Mexico City). We've all heard the laments of the 'closeted' homosexuals of the past - men who kept their sexual obsession secret, even taking wives merely as social cover. When the media switched to raising deviants up as role models of an 'alternative, liberated lifestyle' during the 60's, we were supposed to relate to these men's self indulgent tales of how awful it had been only getting to indulge their obsessive vice by sneaking off to the seamy section of town. Never mind these men had married women who loved them under false pretenses, fathered offspring just to use as cover for what they were.
During the big push of feminist/gay rights during the 60's and 70's, children were reviled as a nuisance that only trapped women into the 'slavery' of motherhood, holding her back from 'finding herself', even shackling her to a man for economic reasons.
Yes, we do get to remember and mention these platforms of feminism and gay activism and ask for explanations for these flip flops, conflicted goals. It gives the impression that they've been making it up as they go along.
They haven't been making it up as they go along, though. Tracing the history and promoted trends over the last fifty years of these 'movements' shows a logic of gradualization of breaking down heterosexual society.
We're living through the brilliant results of fifty years of putting down the normal, healthy, sacred human instinct to love, mate, and commit to the cooperative relationship of the real family, community, and clan. Gays and lesbians should be asked to consider why the latest trend and mandate coming down from the activist NGO's and within government now promotes their taking on the expense and responsibilities which twenty years ago they denounced as 'backward'. Family is a lifelong commitment to offspring, marriage is a lifelong commitment to monogamy. Can they handle it?
Do they really want to?
Remember the old Heinlein quote, "I've seen the future...and it doesn't work" ?
I've been reviewing the history of promoted gay/lesbian official trends over their last fifty years of activism. The pattern to it is now clear. For instance:
During the 60's, 70's and 80's, gays/lesbians/feminists endorsed denial of their mothers and fathers, blood relatives - calling for them to write off their straight families to join the gay 'family' as we saw parading in full deviant regalia in those gay parades. Women were told children were plot used by patriarchy to enslave them and hold them back.
They ridiculed monogamy, love and marriage as 'archaic vestiges of a patriarchal religion'.
With the help of wealthy old elite men's money, they had the media, entertainment industry, and public educational system at their disposal to promote the self indulgent, sex obsessed 'alternative lifestyles'.
Nobody wants to remember or speak of any of that, and out of thin air 'gay marriage' and homosexual right to adopt children or have sperm bank artificial insemination becomes the fashionable trend, and overrides the occupation of Iraq as most mentioned 'news', and somehow becomes the top 'issue' of the election year.
I'll take a stab at this:
What do Gays/Lesbians, and NGO's mean by 'family'?
When heterosexuals read or hear the word family, we think of mom, dad, brothers and sisters, Grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins.
To a lesbian feminist and gay activist attorney, or marketing specialist wordsmiths working on United Nations or NGO teams drafting 'soft law', "Family" doesn't refer to a heterosexual male and female union sanctified by God in the presence of the blood kin and clan of the couple, and their subsequent offspring. Break this down and you will see that the fundamental difference has to do with the blood kin relationship.
When lesbian/gay activists speak of 'family', what do they mean? Certainly 'Father' is absent from the lesbian definition. Generally 'family' for gays and lesbians refer to the 'gay and lesbian community', ie, an amalgam of individuals who's strongest relation to each other is a shared obsession with sexual relations with the same sex. A 'family' can be two guys that met in a bar and decided to move in together because they like to have sex with each other and other such males. There's nothing sacred in sex for it's own sake (ie, hedonistic thrills). Mating is a love bond which results in the co-creation of a human life. I use the word co-creation specifically, since homosexuals and lesbians cannot co-create offspring. What do homesexuals and lesbians think about when they're engaged in sexually stimulating their same sex 'partner'? Anything except creating a new human life. To say any homosexual has ever been lovingly visualizing the child of their 'union' is absurd, laughable.
It is the deep caring bond and commitment - love between sexual opposites who's natures compliment each other funadentally, and the aspect of creation of honored human life, which makes sex sacred, and only in that context. What then can be the gay/lesbian motive for adoption of children? What can be their motive for 'matrimony'?
It isn't orgasm that's sacred, even if it's 'shared'. Orgasm is a fleeting physical reflex.
Yet there's been a torrent of promotion from 'new age' literature that orgasm is sacred.
http://www.tantra.org/sacrorgs.html
New Age promoters dug up the theories of an ancient Hindu philosophy of 'sacred sex' called Tantra. Now, Tantra isn't a common belief or practice in Hinduism at all, and the 'tantra' packaged for the west bears little resemblance to what ancient tantra was about. New Agers extracted certain sexual rituals from the philosophy. In theory these rituals involved coitus between a man and woman, not strangers but husband and wife, and tried to make a science of spiritual energy being passed from the man into the receptive female, who passed the energy back into her spouse in a cyclical circuit. The idea was that the practitioners were supposed to be able through concentration to cause this energy to rise up from the base chakra up the spine through the heart chakra, and ultimately to the highest chakra.
In formal hinduism tantric practice was forbidden between individuals of the same sex. (sorry!).
New Age 'western' tantra emphasized orgasm as a sacred experience, and promoted it to lesbians. http://www.tantra.org/lesbian.html
"Lesbian love is sacred when it is visionary, interconnected and transformational. Through the power of love we come to know ourselves as both mothers/ creators of our lives and as daughters / caretakers of the earth. Our lives and our work can become expressions of this wisdom and power."
Mothers/ creators without the male principle. No 'Father'.. no sons. Lesbian culture is based upon the Greek 'ideal' of the myth of the Amazons. What exactly is the attitude of lesbian 'motherhood' towards children? Here's the handbook:
("Lesbian Motherhood: Stories of Becoming")
http://familiesjoinedbylove.com/bookstore/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=14&products_id=62
What a joke. Feminists have been at the forefront of every movement and NGO promoting gratuitous abortions. The infamous Chinese government's 'one child' policy was fronted by Maoist Chinese feminists. Feminists should consider these clues that they are being used to further a racist de-population agenda that has nothing to do with equality or civil rights.
But why did the planners of global de-population choose lesbians to raise up and empower to place on point to ramrod through genocidal policies which the public never would have condoned had they been presented at face value? I'll leave that question to lesbian/feminists to answer to.
There's also an active children's book industry for the genre of fictional illustrated stories of Gay Dads and Lesbian Moms.
One of these gained national attention in the States when alarmed parents filed suit over a book, "My Two Dads" becoming part of the first grade curriculum in Boston public schools. The parents were ridiculed in the media, the book stayed.
http://familiesjoinedbylove.com/bookstore/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=16&zenid=dee1e5051ea1cb80a8d5e236f9ef9589
This is all nothing less than culture creation - the deliberate imposition of theoretical social paradigms for the supposed benefit of less than 5% or the population. Homosexuals and lesbians have massive funding from foundations and politicians who serve a much larger business plan as a 'must be'.
Before Kinsey, homosexuals and lesbians were a minuscule number of sexual deviants, and as William S. Burroughs himself said and showed in his novels, they well understood they were diviants. Slaves to their own sexual self indulgence - and they couldn't break free. The wholesome live of committed love to one person, respect for one's parents and grandparents and loyalty and love of one's blood kin were the furthest things from the thoughts and lives of either homosexuals or lesbians in 1947 and before.
Not all homosexuals in America were as far gone as Burroughs, who was so obsessed with doing anything perverse that he lived entirely on the seamy, skid row side of town anywhere he went. (By preference - Burroughs wealthy family always paid his way and got him out of jams with the law, including his killing his wife in Mexico City). We've all heard the laments of the 'closeted' homosexuals of the past - men who kept their sexual obsession secret, even taking wives merely as social cover. When the media switched to raising deviants up as role models of an 'alternative, liberated lifestyle' during the 60's, we were supposed to relate to these men's self indulgent tales of how awful it had been only getting to indulge their obsessive vice by sneaking off to the seamy section of town. Never mind these men had married women who loved them under false pretenses, fathered offspring just to use as cover for what they were.
During the big push of feminist/gay rights during the 60's and 70's, children were reviled as a nuisance that only trapped women into the 'slavery' of motherhood, holding her back from 'finding herself', even shackling her to a man for economic reasons.
Yes, we do get to remember and mention these platforms of feminism and gay activism and ask for explanations for these flip flops, conflicted goals. It gives the impression that they've been making it up as they go along.
They haven't been making it up as they go along, though. Tracing the history and promoted trends over the last fifty years of these 'movements' shows a logic of gradualization of breaking down heterosexual society.
We're living through the brilliant results of fifty years of putting down the normal, healthy, sacred human instinct to love, mate, and commit to the cooperative relationship of the real family, community, and clan. Gays and lesbians should be asked to consider why the latest trend and mandate coming down from the activist NGO's and within government now promotes their taking on the expense and responsibilities which twenty years ago they denounced as 'backward'. Family is a lifelong commitment to offspring, marriage is a lifelong commitment to monogamy. Can they handle it?
Do they really want to?