Home » Blog, family, General, Liberalism, manhood, marriage, morality, philosophy, Progressives, Secular Humanism » The Homosexual Manifesto: Satire BECAUSE WE SAID SO!

The Homosexual Manifesto: Satire BECAUSE WE SAID SO!

While doing some research in response to the spineless reaction of Republicans in Indiana, I once again came across what is now known as the “The Homosexual Manifesto.”  I decided this time to delve a little deeper.  As is par for the course, this extremely distressing bit of propaganda is waved away as ‘satire.’  You’ll see why the gay community doesn’t want to be associated with the document when you read it, below.  This document was read into the Congressional record in 1987 after being published in the “Gay Community News” (February 15-21, 1987).

One example of a gay activist who accused the ‘right’ for ‘lying’ about this manifesto is here, where they write:

The trouble is that the version which these homophobes constantly quote always omits, as does the Congressional record, the vital two line preface to this editorial, which sets the essential context for the piece, i.e. it was intended only as sarcasm.

Wikipedia has this entry:

Gay Revolutionary Article

In 1987, Michael Swift published an article in the Gay Community News entitled, “Gay Revolutionary”.[4] The editors at the Gay Community News requested that Swift write an article as satirical proof of the so-called “Gay Agenda” that conservative right wing Christians were establishing. Thirty years after the articles publishing date, conservative religious groups continue to quote “Gay Revolutionary”, but omit the crucial first line of the piece, “This essay is an outré, madness, a tragic, cruel fantasy, an eruption of inner rage, on how the oppressed desperately dream of being the oppressor.” The original article has come to be known as The Homosexual Manifesto.

In my mind, this is another example of rampant dishonesty, illiteracy, and self-deception that is prevalent in our society–especially (but not limited to) the secular humanists.  Here are the first two lines again:

This essay is an outré, madness, a tragic, cruel fantasy, an eruption of inner rage, on how the oppressed desperately dream of being the oppressor.

The only thing that these two lines establish–if you are honest and literate, at least–is that what follows should not be seen as a ‘manifesto’ or ‘plan of action.’  It does make perfectly clear that what Michael Swift says next is what he really wants to do, and will try to do, and would do, if only he could.

The liberal site first mentioned says:

The piece was designed to poke fun at the outrageous homophobic nightmares that so many Conservatives had about homosexuals, by putting those nightmares into words and publishing them.

This ties in with the Wiki entry above which baldly asserts, that “The editors at the Gay Community News requested that Swift write an article as satirical proof of the so-called “Gay Agenda” that conservative right wing Christians were establishing.” It then also appeals to the first two lines as proof that the piece is satire.

Neither of these sources, nor any others that I have looked at, give any evidence whatsoever that this was the purpose of the ‘request.’  In the full text below, we seem to have the whole scope of the available information about the nature of the ‘request’:  “Michael Swift was asked to contribute an editorial piece

It is a sad fact that in contemporary society, what is generally understood as an ‘editorial piece’ will mean entirely different things, based on the post-modernistic relativistic viewpoint the reader brings to it.  Thus, to the Wiki author and the liberal previously mentioned, ‘editorial piece’ can just as easily mean ‘satirical piece.’  Because they say so.

I have not been able to find the original issue of the Gay Community News or any other corroboration about the ‘request.’  As far as I have been able to determine, even the assertion that “Michael Swift was asked to contribute an editorial piece” is just that:  an assertion.  I would be happy to see something definitive on this if anyone would like to provide it.  I’m not going to drop my concerns because a bunch of gay activists say something; I don’t consider the gay activist community to be trustworthy, and unlike Pence, I don’t particularly care what any one says about me.  But if you have something concrete, feel free to provide it.  While it would not change the demonstrable fact that there is a ‘gay agenda’ going back some 40  years, it would obviously take this piece out of play.

But that doesn’t mean we would no longer have documentary evidence of the kind of hateful vitriol that gay activists hide in their hearts and fantasies.  After all, if we take Swift at his word, what he is laying in front of us is his dream, once, or if, he is the oppressor.

By the by, I don’t put much stock in the fact that his last name was ‘Swift.’  Remember, ‘Swift’ is a real last name.  Remember?  Jonathan Swift.  That was his real last name.  That Michael has the same last name may just be coincidence.

This is the text, as found on a 2011 Fordham web page that can now only be accessed using the Waybackmachine.  It appears to be what one gay person really believed.  Enjoy!

Michael Swift: “Gay Revolutionary”

From Gay Community News, Feb. 15-21, 1987
(reprinted from The Congressional Record, with preface restored)


In 1987, Michael Swift was asked to contribute an editorial piece to GCN, an important gay community magazine, although well to the left of most American gay and lesbian opinion. A decade later this text, printed in the Congressional Record is repeatedly cited, apparently verbatim, by the religious right as evidence of the “Gay Agenda”. The video Gay Rights, Special Rights, put out by Lou Sheldon’s Traditional Values Coalition cites it with ominous music and picture of children. But when the religious rights cites this text, they always omit, as does the Congressional record, the vital first line, which sets the context for the piece. In other words, every other version of this found on the net is part of the radical right’s great lie about gay people. For a discussion of the whole “Gay vs. Religious Right” phenomenon see Chris Bull and John Gallagher: Perfect Enemies: The Religious Right, the Gay Movement, and the Politics of the 1990s, (New York: Crown, 1996)

This essay is an outré, madness, a tragic, cruel fantasy, an eruption of inner rage, on how the oppressed desperately dream of being the oppressor.

We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us.

Women, you cry for freedom. You say you are no longer satisfied with men; they make you unhappy. We, connoisseurs of the masculine face, the masculine physique, shall take your men from you then. We will amuse them; we will instruct them; we will embrace them when they weep. Women, you say you wish to live with each other instead of with men. Then go and be with each other. We shall give your men pleasures they have never known because we are foremost men too, and only one man knows how to truly please another man; only one man can understand the depth and feeling, the mind and body of another man.

All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked. Instead, legislation shall be passed which engenders love between men.

All homosexuals must stand together as brothers; we must be united artistically, philosophically, socially, politically and financially. We will triumph only when we present a common face to the vicious heterosexual enemy.

If you dare to cry faggot, fairy, queer, at us, we will stab you in your cowardly hearts and defile your dead, puny bodies.

We shall write poems of the love between men; we shall stage plays in which man openly caresses man; we shall make films about the love between heroic men which will replace the cheap, superficial, sentimental, insipid, juvenile, heterosexual infatuations presently dominating your cinema screens. We shall sculpt statues of beautiful young men, of bold athletes which will be placed in your parks, your squares, your plazas. The museums of the world will be filled only with paintings of graceful, naked lads.

Our writers and artists will make love between men fashionable and de rigueur, and we will succeed because we are adept at setting styles. We will eliminate heterosexual liaisons through usage of the devices of wit and ridicule, devices which we are skilled in employing.

We will unmask the powerful homosexuals who masquerade as heterosexuals. You will be shocked and frightened when you find that your presidents and their sons, your industrialists, your senators,your mayors, your generals, your athletes, your film stars, your television personalities, your civic leaders, your priests are not the safe, familiar, bourgeois, heterosexual figures you assumed them to be. We are everywhere; we have infiltrated your ranks. Be careful when you speak of homosexuals because we are always among you; we may be sitting across the desk from you; we may be sleeping in the same bed with you.

There will be no compromises. We are not middle-class weaklings. Highly intelligent, we are the natural aristocrats of the human race, and steely-minded aristocrats never settle for less. Those who oppose us will be exiled.

We shall raise vast private armies, as Mishima did, to defeat you. We shall conquer the world because warriors inspired by and banded together by homosexual love and honor are invincible as were the ancient Greek soldiers.

The family unit-spawning ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy and violence–will be abolished. The family unit, which only dampens imagination and curbs free will, must be eliminated. Perfect boys will be conceived and grown in the genetic laboratory. They will be bonded together in communal setting, under the control and instruction of homosexual savants.

All churches who condemn us will be closed. Our only gods are handsome young men. We adhere to a cult of beauty, moral and esthetic. All that is ugly and vulgar and banal will be annihilated. Since we are alienated from middle-class heterosexual conventions, we are free to live our lives according to the dictates of the pure imagination. For us too much is not enough.

The exquisite society to emerge will be governed by an elite comprised of gay poets. One of the major requirements for a position of power in the new society of homoeroticism will be indulgence in the Greek passion. Any man contaminated with heterosexual lust will be automatically barred from a position of influence. All males who insist on remaining stupidly heterosexual will be tried in homosexual courts of justice and will become invisible men.

“We shall rewrite history, history filled and debased with your heterosexual lies and distortions. We shall portray the homosexuality of the great leaders and thinkers who have shaped the world. We will demonstrate that homosexuality and intelligence and imagination are inextricably linked, and that homosexuality is a requirement for true nobility, true beauty in a man.

“We shall be victorious because we are fueled with the ferocious bitterness of the oppressed who have been forced to play seemingly bit parts in your dumb, heterosexual shows throughout the ages. We too are capable of firing guns and manning the barricades of the ultimate revolution.

Tremble, hetero swine, when we appear before you without our masks.

 

Share

31 Responses to The Homosexual Manifesto: Satire BECAUSE WE SAID SO!

  1. Yeeeeaaaah, trying to pass this off as ‘purely satire’ when coupled with trying to give pre-teens step-by-step instruction on anal sex…. Not really buying it.

  2. WHAT? I thought the Little Black Book was satire, too!

  3. I just realized! Mein Kampf was satirical all along as well, because… well just because.

  4. *sigh*

    And what does this manifesto, written by a gay person (whether seriously or with satirical intent), tell you about any other gay person? Anything? Or nothing?

    Do you want to be judged and profiled (and compared to Nazis, obviously, because EB is here) on the basis of the most stupid and incendiary thing ever written by a Christian?

    It’s actually hard for me to comprehend that THIS is not satire.

  5. Of course you would think it is satire, because you think every over the top thing is satire. 😉

    That makes it very difficult to talk to you about anything, because everything, and by everything I mean EVERYTHING is either ‘satire’ or ‘fringe’ or ‘outlier.’ There is NOTHING that you would take as indicative as a serious trend that could manifest in the future, or perhaps is already being manifested. At least, you have yet to give any weight to literally any corroboration I’ve made to any of my assertions. I’ve given you personally dozens and dozens of examples.

    On this score, the example of Mein Kampf is actually good. It would be like we were having this conversation say, around 1925. Despite giving you countless examples from across the world, you’d say, “It’s hard for me to comprehend that this is NOT satire.”

    As an aside, I have come across numerous instances now where Jews who believed that Hitler was deadly serious got out of Dodge, and lived, while those who didn’t think any person could really believe that stuff stayed put… and died.

    One of my favorite quotes is this one, written by the 1921 version of DH:

    One needs only to recall the days of the Spanish Inquisition or of the Salem witchcraft persecution to realize what fearful blunders human judgment is capable of, but it is unlikely that the world will ever see another great religious inquisition, or that in applying to man the newly found laws of heredity there will ever be undertaken an equally deplorable eugenic inquisition.

    I put this in my ““Oops” category, which will only get bigger as I continue to get my oodles of research posted at eugenics.us.

    You don’t think it is conceivable that gay activists could actually have such sentiments and have every intention of acting on them. This is certainly in part because you yourself are too kind to think in such terms, but as I’ve constantly told you, YOU are not the sole arbiter and only liberal in the world. Sorry, but on this issue, as on the eugenics and euthanasia issue, I’ve put the time in. I KNOW that many of them feel this way and that this fuels some of their behaviors.

    I don’t expect this to change your perspective, but sorry, your assertions amount to nothing compared to the stacks of books and papers–much of it written by the proponents themselves–I’ve read. Put another way, I’m not going to dismiss the conclusions I’ve drawn from huge amounts of research just because YOU SAY SO. See post title. 😉

    Instead of getting all bent out of shape about this, you could provide a real service and try to document whether or not this is really satire or not. This seems unlikely.

    I note that you said nothing about the Little Black Book.

  6. It’s also hard for you to comprehend we’re being a bit facetious. ; )

    I completely accept that satire or not, this was written by a single sad person and does not constitute the width and breath of every gay person’s opinion (even the usual irrationality of liberals to justify homosexuality under evolution, they would have a hard time justifying demonizing heterosexuality in turn).

    But given the mentioned efforts to influence the sexual morality of people at as young an age as possible, and indisputable efforts of the left to undermine the traditional family unit, I also believe SOME points are probably closer to the mark than liberals would like to admit.

  7. I didn’t say it was satire, I said it was the writing of one person. You think it says something profound about the motivations of thousands, or hundreds of thousands, of people – well that’s your insane cross to bear. Not my problem.

    I’m just a little tired of this join-the-widely-spaced-dots-that-all-somehow-lead-to-Hitler game that you have going. This latest document to add to your collection is nearly thirty years old – a lot more recent than some of your “smoking guns”, but still, I don’t recall seeing any heterosexuals being rounded up and shot recently. How does this compare to the Nazi’s timeline from being founded to seizing power?

  8. “All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked”

    I can see why two alleged libertarians would have a major problem with this

  9. “We shall sodomize your sons…. We shall seduce them in your schools,”

    Still noticibly avoiding the Little Black Book.

  10. “I didn’t say it was satire, I said it was the writing of one person. You think it says something profound about the motivations of thousands, or hundreds of thousands, of people – well that’s your insane cross to bear. Not my problem.”

    Of course, I didn’t say that, either.

    However, it would not be fair either to confine it to just ‘one person.’ It seems evident at least that “Michael Swift” was specifically asked by a gay magazine to pen the article, which I would think directly indicates that the staff thought that it was something its readers would want to read. Was it because the staff thought it would merely entertain? Or was it because they thought it would resonate?

    To say it reflects the views of just one person is absurd on its face. No magazine puts something out there that they don’t expect their readership to value. Not even a gay one.

    Which is why I think it does matter whether or not it was really satire or not and why you should care too. If the gay community c. 1987 felt this way and these sentiments motivated them, then that means something. If they saw it as absurdity and had a good laugh about it only, that means something, too.

    As it stands, as written, without any other corroborating context, it is certainly something that from my readings would resonate with other gay activists out there. They are anything but ‘gay.’ Pretty hostile people, really. Some of the most intolerant bigots I’ve ever encountered, actually.

  11. “Still noticibly avoiding the Little Black Book.”

    Bah, EB. People would NEVER hand out ‘how to’ guides for having homosexual sex to middle schoolers, or develop curriculum for 5th graders on how to safely have anal sex. NEVER.

    That’s just so… out there. Our cross to bear, I reckon. 😉

  12. Here’s a ‘fringe’ guy that I’m pretty sure would resonate with this letter, and is clearly very active in promoting some elements of it at least.

    http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/anti-bullying-speaker-curses-mocks-christian-teens.html

    He’s so ‘fringe’ that DH had never heard of him when he said not too long ago that people are having too many ‘damn’ babies and compulsory abortion should be on the table. But he’s got Obama’s endorsement–cuz Obama tends to endorse fringe people, right?–at least as far as ‘gay bullying’ goes. Or is it anti-gay bullying.

    I can’t keep it straight any more.

    Sorry, I shouldn’t have said ‘straight.’ I’ll pull a Pence and clarify what I meant there.

  13. Yeah, people would also never encourage women to work as a form of population control, or use aborted babies for vaccines and fuel for hospital ovens. It’s just so… so ‘fringe’ it’d never happen.

    And those students cheering Savage didn’t REALLY believe in his inflammatory remarks. They clearly were only satirical and reflected this sole individual if not. Because ‘fringe’ individuals obviously exist in a vacuum, and have no influence on others. 😉

  14. Those were just future journalists of America. Those folks are trained to keep their biases out their reporting. Nothing to worry about, there.

  15. Every social movement, no matter how laudable, has its crackpot & toxic elements.

    – The peaceful African-American civil rights movement had the Black Panthers & the Nation of Islam.

    – The feminist movement had and has deeply irrational man-hating elements.

    – Mainstream Christianity has Dominionists, Reconstructionists, Christian Identity, and numerous other authoritarian bigots & nut cases.

    It’s not wrong to notice these elements, to discuss them and observe the trends within their respective movements which might predispose more of their members to join the unsavoury fringe. But you can guarantee that some opponents of those movements will seize on those elements as being representative of the whole, in preference to engaging with what the non-lunatic elements are actually saying. That’s what you two are doing, and I think it’s lazy, blatantly partisan and unworthy of your intelligence.

    I am happy to discuss the Black Book in terms of itself – its origin, its impact and why it is not a good idea. I am not interested in discussing it as part of an unfalsifiable grand conspiratorial narrative of the hundred year plan to turn America Gay, or the REALLY slow march towards the inevitable liberal fascist state, or whatever other paranoid horror stories you two citizens of one of the freest nations in the world like to stoke your anxiety and sense of victimhood with of an evening. Not interested in the least in contributing to that endeavour.

    Hope you both have a really nice day scanning the skies for the dreaded Pink FEMA Helicopters.

  16. Like SJ said, your reflexive and chronic denial to dismiss EVERYTHING you find extreme as just ‘the crackpots every ideology has’ makes it as difficult to talk to as it would have Herbert Walter. There is absolutely little doubt you’d dismiss such warnings as a “conspiratorial narrative” back then too.

    Because you steadfastly refuse to make any distinction between whether or not these ‘crackpot & toxic elements’ truly DO logically follow from the basic premise the ‘mainstream’ ideology adheres to. It’s what allowed the German National Socialist Workers Party to go from a ‘fringe’ to the dominant and controlling political party in the country – because people realized that the basic premises of evolution and eugenics truly DID demand/allow such things.

    For the liberal/gay agenda, we are not very comforted in your dismissal of such elements that lead to incidents like middle school kids being sexualized as early as possible, because such ‘toxic elements’ also DO follow from the premises YOU champion –

    When you deny sex has a rigid universal context, and thus society can determine that it can be practiced in anyway, don’t be surprised when people decide it can be practiced in ANYWAY.

    THAT is the key difference between what your ideology and ours DB. Because WE have a basic manifesto (i.e. the Bible) we can check to determine if there is indeed merit to said Dominionist, Reconstructionist, etc. YOUR ideology’s fundamental premise of Man being the ultimate power and authority, means it is ultimately all a matter of each individuals opinion.

    And thus even the “crackpot & toxic elements” become just as valid as yours.

  17. Attributing to your opponents the same tendencies as people who were historically very much in the wrong is very easy and subjective. Your remarks are just as valid and compelling as my opinion that, had you lived half a century ago, you would likely have denounced Martin Luther King as a communist agitator. Your opinion is as salient to me as mine is to you in this matter.

    Likewise, your opinion (which you pretend is a fact) about the key differences between our respective ideologies. As far as I’m concerned, the idea of consistency of interpretation – let alone a basic internal scriptural consistency – of your “basic manifesto” is a fantasy. One which allows you to assume an unwarranted superiority over non-religious opponents and to pretend that there aren’t enormous political, economic and social divisions even within mainstream Christianity, let alone the fringes. Until God himself shows up to arbitrate, your interpretation IS just as valid as theirs.

    The game of generalising extreme motivations can be played in both directions along the political spectrum. Tony plays it very eruditely, but it doesn’t alter the essential cheapness of the endeavour. You both have plenty of stated beliefs and political goals in common with the nut cases on your own side of the political debate. I, however, do you the courtesy of taking your stated reasons for those positions at face value – not assuming that you have been brainwashed or otherwise subtly influenced by those unpleasant characters.

  18. Sorry DH, but you’re just out of touch with reality, here. The ‘crackpots’ are mainstream. We live in two different universes. One is the real world; I live in this one, you in the other.

    The curriculum, public health manuals, etc etc, etc, do not originate and get deployed unless there are a sizable number of people who thought that what they proposed WAS reasonable.

    Again, just because these are not perspectives you don’t share, doesn’t mean that there aren’t multitudes that do. I think you should stop commenting on some of these posts. I think you take them personally. All you should do is register your own disagreement with the views of your fellow travelers and then move on. No offense, but you contribute absolutely NOTHING by way of showing that the trends I am documenting as ACTUALLY happening are NOT actually happening. If you did that, your participation here would make sense. Instead, all we get is a series of knee-jerk reactions, one after another, to whatever is presented.

    I’ve put too much work into this to be dissuaded by such reactions.

  19. “Attributing to your opponents the same tendencies as people who were historically very much in the wrong is very easy and subjective.”

    And it’s also possibly very accurate. For over 10 years, all your arguments boil down to is ‘deny, deny, deny.’ How is it then not appropriate to draw parallels to others through history that said ‘that could never happen’ and got it wrong?

    “Likewise, your opinion (which you pretend is a fact) about the key differences between our respective ideologies. As far as I’m concerned, the idea of consistency of interpretation – let alone a basic internal scriptural consistency – of your “basic manifesto” is a fantasy.”

    And this just further illustrates my point – you see no distinction between an extreme irrespective of it’s claimed ideology, and an extreme that logically follows from it’s claimed ideology. Not only do you not acknowledge the distinction, I’m not even sure you recognize that the latter is even possible.

    That Christianity has a central text one can look up to (theoretically) put a check on whether certain behavior and acts logically follow, and atheism doesn’t IS a fact, DB. That you personally believe it’s internally consistent or not or that we can interpret it accurately or not is irrelevant. Judaism and Islam have one respectively as well. This IS a fundamental distinction between these ideologies and yours. And that distinction DOES place them as being inherently superior in determining whether or not a behavior/act is ‘just this one guy’s opinion’ or whether it’s ‘what everyone who adheres to this should do.’

    These are the simple facts.

    That you ignore these facts just shows JS is entirely correct in saying you don’t live in the real world as we do.

  20. “I am not interested in discussing it as part of an unfalsifiable grand conspiratorial narrative of the hundred year plan to turn America Gay,”

    For anyone interested in reality as it really is, they may wish to look into

    http://www.amazon.com/After-Ball-America-Conquer-Hatred/dp/0452264987

    and compare the plan described in it with the history of the last 20 years or so, they can decide for themselves if DH’s comment here is even remotely defensible.

    You can believe bald assertions and reflexive denials, or you can believe what is unfolding before your own eyes; presently in Indiana, and soon in Arkansas.

    I have a whole list of works that explicitly call for ‘brainwashing or otherwise subtly influencing’ people, pretty much all of them originating from liberals, progressives and secular humanists that I can discuss with you at director@athanatosministries.org if you are so inclined. (At some point, a series of posts will be made to the same effect, I hope.) You can ponder the utter incoherence of the argument that would say, “Oh, yea, all those people said those things and believed them fervently, but they didn’t really mean it [or they were ‘fringe’] and certainly they didn’t ever act on them. The fact that these viewpoints/attitudes/policies are now mainstream… THEY AREN’T because I SAID SO.”

  21. Ok, I’ll tell you what. I’ll check back in with you guys in ten years (will that be sufficient?). If at that time Christianity is outlawed, homosexuality is compulsory, on-demand infanticide is legal or the sterilisation/killing of the “genetically unfit” is commonplace, then I will both look and feel pretty silly, and will happily admit that you were right and I was resoundingly wrong.

    Is there any future set of conditions under which you would be prepared to stipulate the same consequences for yourself?

  22. You packed a lot into that, when all we were doing is talking about the homosexual agenda. You deny there isn’t one, and the whole substance of your argument is the denial. I say there is one, and I provide evidence to that effect. Your comment, being off topic, suggests that the roots of your denial stem from something else entirely.

    Any way, I wouldn’t make a time frame, and there are some other factors. For example, I think that Europe serves as a leading indicator. But that being so, it doesn’t mean that homosexuality will be compulsory, because Europe is becoming increasingly Islamic. Try being a homosexual in a country with Sharia law! Left unchecked, who knows what depths liberalism would bring us. However, I think it is more likely in 10 years that England will be renamed Englandastan then it will be Englibutopia.

    Which highlights another bit of high hypocrisy of the left. Libs in the US are going after Indiana and Arkansas (just the latest, mind you) where conceivably the worst outcome might be that a gay couple has to go elsewhere for a wedding cake. In the meantime, they’re literally killing homosexuals throughout the Middle East. What do the libs have to say about that?

    Crickets.

    And yet its Christianity that is deemed the vital threat to gays.

    Don’t worry, I know the source of the disparity. Christians are decent, law-abiding folks who in their wildest expression of angry passion will at most lead a boycott. The Muslims will slice your head off.

    Let’s see how things are in 10 years in Europe and America vis a vis Muslim immigration and then I’ll be willing to lay odds on the depths to which progressives will be able to sink in that time.

  23. I used the woe “or” deliberately, indicating that I would take any one of the contingencies I mentioned in isolation as evidence of my wrongness. Your comment about a lack of condemnation for the persecution of homosexuals under Islamic law seems wilfully blind from my point of view. But I guess that focusing on how gays in the US are comparatively lucky to be alive is a useful displacement activity to avoid the implications of separate-but-equal being reinstated under the banner of religious freedom. Not so different from the rationale for the earlier iteration IMO.

    Anyway, I’ve laid out my terms for falsification. I will await yours with interest.

  24. * word, not “woe”.

    By the way, you know they kill Christians in some parts of the Middle East too right? Does that undermine your lamentations of anti-religious persecution in the US at all?

  25. “By the way, you know they kill Christians in some parts of the Middle East too right? Does that undermine your lamentations of anti-religious persecution in the US at all?”

    Seeing as I’ve drawn attention to the killing of Christians by Muslims, your comment has me scratching my head.

    What I think you are saying is that I ought to welcome ‘anti-religious persecution’ in the US since, theoretically such efforts would undermine Islamicism in the U.S., which I would welcome. Is that what you are saying?

    We’ve come to an impasse. You think opposition to gay marriage is “Not so different” to making blacks ride on the back of the bus and we are on the verge of placing gays in the precarious need of their own ‘Selma.’ In the meantime, they’re handing out graphic ‘how to’ manuals on how to safely have gay sex at middle and high school fairs, extolling the virtue of anal sex in curriculum in Chicago, and homosexual 6th graders are making out on television shows geared to the very same age group (The Fosters). Oh yea, and one state law or amendment after another that opposed gay marriage has been tossed out; in less than ten year’s time, near universal support for traditional marriage has fallen (magically, on your view) such that the mongrel hordes are now attacking Indiana for passing a law that is virtually identical to the one that the DEMOCRATS passed in 1990s, which Clinton signed.

    Oh yea, man. Those poor gay people. If we don’t hurry up, we’re going to be packing them into their own schools ANY MINUTE NOW.

    You’re out of your mind. 😉

    You are moving the goal posts with your falsification bit. No one was talking about the things in your list. You, evidently, were thinking about them anyway. I’ve been making some claims here and there and I’ve been corroborating them. The full extent of your argument was “they don’t mean that” or “he was joking” and now “oh yea, well in 10 years if the sun doesn’t explode that will prove you were wrong!”

    The fact that you can’t meet the evidence I produce says everything.

    But what do you expect from someone who thinks that gays are actually losing! lol

    I have not personally seen anything out of the gay community that shows even a smidgen of concern about the assault on gays by Muslims. They are all worried about NOT BEING SERVED PIZZA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH. But instead of calling me willfully blind, why don’t you do me the courtesy, and just for once, actually PRODUCE EVIDENCE.

    It is fitting that in this post, where I took certain liberals for task for defending their position merely by piling assertion on top of assertion, you’ve followed suit. I find this ironic, since I’ve specifically invited people to produce for me actual evidence that shows that this ‘manifesto’ was tongue in cheek. I’m not willfully blind. I’m INVITING documentation. Instead, of helping me ‘see’ all you’re doing is giving me cheek. 😉

    I don’t need you for that. I’ve got kids. 😉

  26. This is pretty astute:

    “But we still misrepresented the bill, lied about it, shared articles on social media that labeled the legislation as intentionally, undeniably anti-gay, and dismissingly enclosed the phrase “religious liberty” in scare quotes. Just as we did with such success in Arizona, we screamed that this bill would unlock the gates of hell and allow a horde of bigoted devils to deny Hoosier homosexuals a chicken salad sandwich, all while knowing that, because sexual orientation isn’t a protected class in Indiana, these beasts have already been free to do so this entire time and yet, annoyingly, chose not to. But we had already laced up our boots for the march on New Selma and we’re weren’t going to take them off just because the modern-day segregationists wouldn’t do us the courtesy of existing.”

    thefederalist.com/2015/03/31/gay-marriage-isnt-about-justice-its-about-selma-envy/

    The Pizza comment has to do with the two minutes of rage unleashed on account of a fabricated attempt to malign opposition:

    http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/04/01/story-about-1st-business-to-publicly-vow-to-reject-gay-weddings-was-fabricated-out-of-nothing/

  27. At times, what I don’t understand is the reason why some refuse to abide or accept the LAWS of GOD and the laws of creation while they accept man made laws? we should take or leave it, the laws o f GOD is superior to man-made laws and will be judged by the laws of GOD and creation.

  28. The full extent of your argument was “they don’t mean that” or “he was joking”

    Forgive me, as I haven’t read the whole post, but I thought from my limited reading that DB went to pains to point out that that wasn’t his argument…?

  29. […] recognized this quote, and have referenced it on this very blog, calling attention to the transparent attempt to deflect criticism of the gay agenda in America.  […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*