http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57026
This is just insane. I can't believe that governments in Canada (City, County, Provincial, etc.) are being pressured to fly Gay-Pride Rainbow flags on government buildings. And apparently, some of them are doing it!
And what happens when one city's mayor refuses to do it? Heh... well - of course he is a hate filled bigot who is inciting genocide and should be put in prison and have all of his assets seized and his children taken away from him for filling their minds with 'unapproved' ideas, which are evil.
Well ... that didn't quite happen, but that is what this "movement" would like to see happen. I am afraid it won't be long before they are successful.
Here (archive) is another article on the same situation.
But truly, this whole issue deserves some serious attention. And this is the kind of thing I think about all the time: the propaganda, the doublespeak, the "goodthink" "badthink" that is being pushed incessantly into the public consciousness.
I mean, think about it: A Gay Rights Flag. What the heck is this? Why should governments be pressured to fly such a flag? And why should government officials who refuse to be vilified?
To examine the meaning of such a symbol, we must first explore what is meant by "Gay Rights".
The term "Gay Rights" as defining a movement implies that there are certain, inalienable rights that homosexual humans are being denied and that other humans are not being denied. What could these rights possibly be? What rights have I been given, as a man who does not practice homosexual acts, that a man who does practice homosexual acts has been denied?
The most common reply would be: that I have the right to get married, whereas the "homosexual" does not.
That is correct. In my state I do have the right to marry to the woman of my choice, provided I am not already married to another. However, I know of no government that has denied the right of a man who practices homosexual acts to marry the woman of his choice.
Of course, this is not what the promoter is suggesting in his use of the word "marriage". And this is the subtle doublespeak used by the promoters of the "Gay Rights" movement. We know of course, that marriage by definition is that sacred covenant between a man and a woman and has no other definition. Form follows function, and marriage is the human function that unites the forms of woman and man in the covenant upon which all societies are based, and by which all societies are maintained.
Should men be allowed to marry men, or their pets, or perhaps inanimate objects, or _insert_idea_here_? Such concepts are utter foolishness, and are not a "marriage", but a "mashing together" of incompatible parts towards an unprofitable end.
Really, this one issue seems to be the crux of the "Gay Rights" movement. It seeks the normalization and legitimization of all homosexual activity. Even further, it demands the promotion and celebration of this activity as well. It then insists that political and legal penalties be enacted against anyone that speaks out against these things, or even those who fail to celebrate them.
Never mind that the vast majority of people in the United States and Canada have religious and personal convictions which prohibit them from supporting such a harmful condition as homosexuality. These convictions, no matter how normal or historical or implied by common sense, can no longer be tolerated.
I will post more on this soon.
