I just found this on Alpha Tango Spooks. Story about it here (http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2018906954_gaygeneral13.html).
I wouldn't bring it up at all, except in the ATS thread, I saw this:-
Should it really rate a mention, so what if she is gay? do we cheer when a hetrosexual gets promoted?
Equality means making it a nothing issue, her performance as a leader has nothing to do with her performance in bed.
This is a statement that I agree with, and I feel that the fact that this is plastered all over the media, offers additional evidence of a belief of mine that has been slowly developing for a while, now. Namely, that many in the gay movement are fascist hypocrites, who insist on having things both ways. They claim to want equality and normalisation, yet at the same time, they also insist on their supposed right to broadcast their difference.
I know I'm probably going to have disapproval expressed towards me for making this statement, and further, I also know that none of you have likely thought of this issue yourselves. That to me, again, is yet another indicator of the chronic fascism and hypocrisy associated with the gay movement. There is a correct and an incorrect answer, as far as a person's attitude towards homosexuality in general is concerned; and if you happen to give (or even think) anything even slightly deviating from said correct answer, woe betide you.
But enough about that. I've already seen enough to know that Fabian Socialist political correctness always trumps freedom. The secondary issue is that gays apparently do not understand that this type of double standard ultimately will not help them. I truthfully have nothing against homosexuality, within a context of long term monogamy at all; promiscuity is dangerous in terms of the spread of disease, but that is a danger among heterosexuals as well.
The point, however, is that I have recently become increasingly alienated from the gay movement, not because of their sexual orientation, but because of their political behaviour. Their orientation has nothing to do with their tendency to become militant towards anyone who remotely disagrees with them, and that is what I object to.
I want a scenario where gays are given marriage rights to the same degree as heterosexuals, and then after that, for them to sit down and shut up. I am particularly tired of hearing about them engaging in militant activism towards private organisations, such as the Boy Scouts of America, who as far as I am concerned, should have every right to choose who they do or do not admit, whether the individuals they are refusing entry to are gay or otherwise.
In the case of the BSA in particular, the point in my mind, has nothing to do with sexual orientation. It has to do with the fact that, in general terms, I believe that the right to freedom of association, should also include the right to free disassociation as well. In other words, if they don't want gays around, they shouldn't have to have them around; and if the gays don't like that, too bad.
The appropriate response is for the gays to make their own scouting organisation. That way, the freedom of both groups is preserved; not the will of one, forcibly imposed on the other, which is what the gays want. As I said, they are fascist.
To Hell with Martin Luther King, as far as I'm concerned; in this particular case, at least. Segregation is not always a bad thing; and if you think it is, before you respond from a basis of pure emotion, stop and think about where the opinion you are about to express, comes from. Is it really your own opinion, or has it come to you via David Rockefeller and Karl Marx, who want everyone to believe in "unity," at all costs, as a precursor for their craved one world government?
im not gay but have friends who are.
i agree with most of what you say.the thing is ,these folks have been murdered for their way of life.kinda like pot smokers these days.i see why they are extreme.i wish the pot smokers were this militant.
marriage is a religious term.separation of church and state.the state should only recognize civil unions.a couple would get a civil union license.the state would recognize people trained in civil unions.the qualifications would be very
liberal.
civil unions would hold the same legal power as marriage,maybe more.
Good for her, as with any advancement within ranks...no difference at all.
Were all just souls in a meatsuit...with both female and male attributes in our energetic forms.
Cant help we got stuck with penises or vaginas, just the way the cracker crumbles I guess!
Le