Rudy Canoza
2008-12-18 16:53:14 UTC
The really strange thing is that the self-styled Great Defenders of
Queers would bother denying it, because stated broadly, the queer agenda
sounds like something the Great Defenders of Queers would be proud to
say publicly that they support. Here's how Justice Antonin Scalia
described it, in a dissent in Lawrence v. Texas:
Today's opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a
law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called
homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some
homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium
that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.
If you fancy yourself a Great Defender of Queers, how could you /not/ be
doing it as part of an organized movement aimed at "...eliminating the
moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct"?
In a queers' book called _After the Ball_ published in 1989, six points
of the queer agenda are explicitly laid out:
1. "Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible."
2. "Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers."
3. "Give homosexual protectors a just cause."
4. "Make gays look good."
5. "Make the victimizers look bad."
6. "Get funds from corporate America."
Agenda item #1 is exactly what we've been discussing recently in several
threads. This is exactly what is going on in the shrill insistence, for
example, that Alan Turing having been a queer is something that people
"need" to know; it's what's going on when NPR and the L.A. Times can't
go a day without broadcasting or publishing something about queers and
about *being* queer.
Yes, there is a queer agenda, and the servile promoters of it like
little Billy Zaumen just look stupid trying to deny it. They ought to
be proud to say they're a part of it.
Queers would bother denying it, because stated broadly, the queer agenda
sounds like something the Great Defenders of Queers would be proud to
say publicly that they support. Here's how Justice Antonin Scalia
described it, in a dissent in Lawrence v. Texas:
Today's opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a
law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called
homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some
homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium
that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.
If you fancy yourself a Great Defender of Queers, how could you /not/ be
doing it as part of an organized movement aimed at "...eliminating the
moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct"?
In a queers' book called _After the Ball_ published in 1989, six points
of the queer agenda are explicitly laid out:
1. "Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible."
2. "Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers."
3. "Give homosexual protectors a just cause."
4. "Make gays look good."
5. "Make the victimizers look bad."
6. "Get funds from corporate America."
Agenda item #1 is exactly what we've been discussing recently in several
threads. This is exactly what is going on in the shrill insistence, for
example, that Alan Turing having been a queer is something that people
"need" to know; it's what's going on when NPR and the L.A. Times can't
go a day without broadcasting or publishing something about queers and
about *being* queer.
Yes, there is a queer agenda, and the servile promoters of it like
little Billy Zaumen just look stupid trying to deny it. They ought to
be proud to say they're a part of it.