Your opinion and argument to support it might be a bit more acceptable if it wasn't prefaced by the malicious remark "Bloody queers". So it's a specious argument, imo.
The fact of the matter is that in the minds of many - including me, they are bloody queers
. Anyone with any kind of self respect or intellect isn't going to have a liberal HR-friendly version of 'newspeak' shoved down their throats to replace a time tested and evolutionary lexicon simply because a few champagne socialists with weak sensibilities, "took offence".
And I should point out again, you're STILL trying to attack the legitimacy of my argument instead of admitting it's a legitimate thread of thought and countering it. You're living the very blueprint I put forth in an earlier post.
this is enough to underline my point, which is that you created this incredibly long post, and STILL haven't defined what you believe is the 'sweeping and aggressive homosexual agenda' (political or otherwise).
Only the political is relevant in this context. I would argue that a current of thought with the goal of manufacturing a paradigm shift in Western values (over time), to make sexuality and sexual experience less dependent on gender would be the greater objective of the agenda. Through massive, constant and continual public exhibition of homosexual behaviour and micro-culture, the public will eventually - "warm up" to the idea of homosexuality as a 'sexual preference'. If you couple this with absolutely ridiculous amounts of intimidation and attempts to attack the legitimacy of credible opposition forces, i.e. individuals who disagree that homosexuality is a constructive force in society, and should be an accepted sexual preference - you have an absolute perfect storm of conditions for successful terra-forming of the entire argument to your favour.
Those quotes were by Fish a.k.a. David T., who seemingly can get away with calling anyone a racist or anything else if he disagrees with them. Don't expect much insight there.
Well that's just the problem. In typical Liberal fashion, they attempt to crush all dissent and debate on critical societal issues that don't suit the well heeled upper middle-class views of their faithful. When a few people actually call them on this, depending entirely on what the issue at hand is: you will get labelled as something extreme (usually 'Nazi' or something of that nature). Keep in mind this is no matter how reasonable or moderate your position is.
It's essentially half assed thought control. Sadly it works on some people.
The 'truth'? They have their agendas, and so do the rest of us. I'm willing to entertain theirs as legitimate, albeit detestible and oppositional. They won't even entertain that anything but their position is acceptable. Fortunately, there are plenty of people who do not accept or bow to this kind of shit.
Consider this - if you hadn't referred to gay people a "bloody queers" at the very beginning of this Thread, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now
You're not afraid of a little argument with the scary old gael are ya girl?
And then when you're called on it you got all high and mighty and started slinging out the accusations left and right using overused terms like "political agenda of homosexuals" and "homosexual agendas" in long-winded tirades that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you would make a perfect politician
Man up and admit that you chose the wrong approach altogether.
No. We're back to square one here unfortunately. I'm comfortable in my opposition to homosexuals, I don't see it as illegitimate or otherwise unacceptable. Those feelings are the colour of your sheets - not mine
. I kind of like the swarm anyway.
Think you can do that?
Somewhat of a leading question.
Yeah, I'm gay and of French Canadian ancestry so unrepentantgael has insulted me twice already on these forums.
And yet somehow you're still alive?
Proves my point that there is no need to squash and shut down debate to 'protect homosexuals' - this man is a queer and he takes a position in the proverbial firing line of everyone else. His ideas drifting on the merit of them alone, and not who
think I should make some IRA threads and go on about how everybody of Gaelic or Celtic ancestry is a terrorist
Only the good ones were anyway.
This thread is about the Rosie O'Donnell Cruise
Yeah, admittedly you're right. I went out of my way to politicize it further then it really was on it's own - and to be honest I don't think anyone is any worse for it.