.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

American Values Under Attack Image by FlamingText.com
Image by FlamingText.com

"Fighting the world wide web of wicked wrong doers."

Welcome. The aim of this site is simple - to rail against the slow, but steady chipping away of traditonal American values by a host of groups & individuals bent on destroying them.

“We know the race is not to the swift nor the battle to the strong. Do you not think an angel rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm?" - John Page 1776

And crown thy good with brotherhood.... ....from sea to shining sea line07-b.gif Your commentator - Francis Lynn...MySpace Profile...E-mail

Tuesday, June 22, 2004

What Green Really Wants....

The color Green found true love. Green wanted none other. Green also found a satisfying sexual relationship after a long & unfulfilled series of one night stands & relationships that went nowhere. Green was ready to settle down for life.

The object of affection for Green was, well.....another Green.

Yes. The two Greens met in a Green club. It was love at first blush (which would be the color green, by the way). After a whirlwind romance they were ready to commit to each other.

They decided it was time to get married. But, woe to them -
marriage was not allowed for 2 Greens. Red & Blue can marry, Orange & Brown can marry, Black & Blue can marry. Even some Greens marry other colors to hide their Greenness (closet Greens - which is different than Drag Greens). But sorry to say, same-color Greens cannot.

The Greens were only a tiny, tiny fraction of the spectrum, 3-5 percent, maybe. The other colors that made up the vast majority of the spectrum married freely amongst each other. This hetero-color population overwhelmingly disapproved of homo-color marriage. They were not advocating discrimination of Greens. But marriage was a unique institution designed legally, religiously, biologically, anthropologically & culturally for hetero-colors. And they could make baby hues, something two greens would find impossible no matter how hard they tried to blend.

The Greens, on the other hand, saw this as blatant discrimination & a violation of their equal colors. They were not satisfied that they were offered 'color unions'. They were not satisfied that they now had the opportunity to enter into contracts between two Green couples for legal & medical reasons. Companies were beginning to slowly offer benefits to same color partners.

No - it was equal rights, equal colors that they demanded.
They equated their cause with the Black color cause of the 1960's. But this is reaching a bit - Black was slave to White, Black had basic color dignity denied them. The Green cause does injustice to the Black cause by latching on to its' mantra. But - hey - it gets attention.

Green uses the intimidating phrase 'greeno-phobic' if you dare to dislike their lifestyle or disagree with them. "Green-Bashing' is another word used with the same gusto.

The Greens introduce homo-greenialty into class rooms to indoctrinate small children into acceptance of their life style. Nationally, the Greens use the courts as a means of thwarting the will of the people, knowing that one or two sympathetic & rogue judges can decide to overrule that will.

But what Green really wants - above & beyond the claims of inequality or benefits - is simple - Validation. A marriage license gives them validation for their life style, validation that they are on the same moral level as hetero-colors. But they are not.

Not being able to get married has them green with envy.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

What could you possibly have against homosexuals? And yes, the irrational fear of homosexuals is called homophobia. Homosexuals are no different from everybody else, just as blacks aren't so incredibly different or as Jews aren't so incredibly different. They're just a little different. They can have blue eyes or brown eyes or green eyes or grey eyes, or be Republican or Democrat, or have blond hair or brown or black. The only real difference is what sex they love.

That doesn't bother me. I'm not so insecure with my sexuality that I feel that seeing two men together is going to make me gay. Only people who don't understand that homosexuals are just the same as you and me have problems with them. And that's sad. Because Jesus never talked against homosexuals, but he did have a few choice words about people who judge and condemn others while pretending to live a pious life.

Remember, every time you point a finger, you have three pointing right back at you.

And yes, you are a homophobe. And yes, hating your neighbor is a sin. Repent and ye shall be saved.

4:41 PM  
Blogger Francis Lynn said...

Geesh - I'm a homophobe? You are reacting just the same as the homosexuals & as I pointed it out in my post. It is a typical knee-jerk reaction to anything that is contraire to the homosexual side - use the buzz words of homophobe & gay basher. I couldn't care less what people do in the privacy of their lives. Whatever turns them on, baby.

I singularly object to homosexuals marrying. They can do whatever else they please. For your information, did you know that even some homosexuals do not believe in same-sex marriage? Does that make them homo homophobes or gay gay bashers?

5:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Even some Republicans don't like Bush.


Are you going to belittle them too?

8:43 PM  
Blogger Francis Lynn said...

Even some Democrats don't like Kerry.


Are you going to belittle them?

Your point being??

11:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

One argument you give for not allowing marriage is that they are not able to biologicaly produce a child. This is true of many heterosexuals and these days can be medically checked for. Should these people be able to marry?

11:44 AM  
Blogger Francis Lynn said...

We're talking the norm here - the vast majority of heterosexuals can reproduce. Debaters like to pick the singuar or extreme, looking to invalidate the whole. It doesn't work.

1:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

With genetic science going the way it is, gays will be able to reproduce also. I take it you would accept gay marriage then.

4:01 PM  
Blogger Francis Lynn said...

The day I see a homosexual 10cc dialated then I may reconsider.

4:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Do you mean 10cm? I don't think you're talking about cubic centimeters, which is a unit of measuring liquids. Conservatives...

6:36 PM  
Blogger Francis Lynn said...

Typo - of course cm - thank you. Although 10cc would pose an interesting situation.

8:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Francis, (now why would someone with that name be homophobic, first you set one standard for acceptance and then you change it to something else. I hate discussions with people who set moving targets. Are you related to John Kerry?

8:14 AM  
Blogger Francis Lynn said...

Go to the 'Toasters Are Apolitical' post & read the comments. There is a discussion about cocaine which a have a funny feeling that you might be interested in.

2:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Funny, someone else thinks that your ideas are irrational. Please go to the website "How to Debate Effectively and Rationally". And read:

"On Debating"…" One principle aim of The Truth Tree is to increase awareness of the importance of rational debating. But constructive debating is an art. With all this in mind, the following suggestions are offered" … " Do not impute ridiculous or malevolent ideas to your opponent. " … " One frequently sees references by conservative speakers and writers to the idea that gay activists want "special privileges." This would be ridiculous if it were true. It isn't true, but speaking as if it were true and well known to all is egregiously unfair to listeners or readers who may not be well informed."


By the way should enjoy the Back Fugue on this site. Have a good day!

3:31 PM  
Blogger Francis Lynn said...

Oh, Gawd. And what ridiculous ideas have I imputed to my opponents? Aren't they the ones who collectively scream the overused word "homophobe" because I happen to have a different opinion then they?

I went to the The Truth Tree site. Their position papers are revealing - straight out of the Liberal manifesto. So I know from whence you are coming. What is particluarly disturbing about the site to me is one sentence in their position paper on child abuse: "The Truth Tree's position on sexual abuse is that the mere occurrence of some sexual activity between an adult and a child is not necessarily abusive." Enough said.

But the music is good. Have a nice day.

10:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There you go again changing the topic. Sorry that they have that opinion but just because they say something stupid doesn't mean ALL their opinions are irrelevant. If that sort of reasoning was true then you would have been the biggest idiot in the world the first time you opened your mouth. But you must have said something true at least once in your lifetime.

What is their stance on homosexuality? Read on. If you disagree with a point of their stance (and I know you will disagree with the idea of gays becoming scout leaders but wouldn't some gay men make good girl scout leaders)it does not mean that every point is fallacious.

Gay Issues
by Ron & Remi
Express your opinion and debate with others here.
This essay was last modified on Sunday, 19-May-2002 08:58:28 EDT

In Tolkien's Silmarillion, a sea god named Ulmo, pictured here, comes up rivers at certain times and blows his horn. Whoever hears Ulmo's horn can never thereafter rid himself of the sea-longing. Perhaps many of us have unaccountable longings, some more sanctioned by society than others.
Gay people of both sexes have heard some similar call, speaking figuratively of course. Many recall being strongly attracted to members of their own sex from a very early age. The best scientific evidence to date suggests that this fairly common talent is largely controlled by genetic or prenatal factors. This tendency comes in all degrees and in more than one form. Harry Stack Sullivan famously said that there were at least sixteen different personality configurations which straight society labels as "gay". Bisexuals would be just one of these. In this regard, gayness is very similar to the heterosexual orientation. For an excellent summary of the latest research in this area see A Separate Creation by Chandler Burr. This book can be ordered directly from The Truth Tree's library.

Stereotyping is not justified here any more than in matters of race, gender, or religion. When a person announces that he or she is gay, there is just no reason to conclude that we know other things about him or her such as moral character, dependability, or social maturity. Prejudice against gays can be especially vicious because it has to do with sexuality, about which many irrational attitudes are widespread in modern society. Sexual behavior, whether heterosexual or otherwise, is not usually considered to be commensurate with ideas of dignity. That is why most people want privacy for their sexual lives. Thus it is easy to ridicule people whose sexual behavior fails to meet a standard which may have been set by a religious group or by secular tradition. Discrimination against gays (male or female) must be strongly opposed by anyone who values human rights.
The Truth Tree believes that all human beings deserve equal treatment under the law. For gays, this includes :
 Domestic partnership for gay couples with all the legal rights that entails, including:
 the right to medical and dental benefits
 leave in the event a spouse becomes seriously ill
 the right to hospital visitation
 funeral leave in the event of the death of a spouse
 Social Security- the rights of a gay spouse to survivor benefits
 the right to inheritance
 the right to adopt a child
 the right to file taxes as a married couple
 The right of gays to serve their country in the military without being summarily discharged for the mere fact of being gay
 The right of gays to be employed as teachers, priests, rabbis, imams, or Scout leaders
 The right of a gay person to marry an immigrant who can gain U.S. citizenship thereby
In other words, the same rights, not "special rights", that heterosexuals enjoy. A heterosexual married person looking at the list above may be astonished to realize that gay couples have none of the rights that straights take for granted.
"Not making an issue of being gay" is what some gay people have done in the past, out of fear or uncertainty. This immobilization burdened modern gays with a legacy in which they cannot adopt children, cannot marry, cannot stay in the military, and can be fired at the drop of a hat with no legal recourse. Gays are taxed as single persons even if they have a partner. A gay employee seldom receives medical benefits for his spouse. If the spouse gets cancer, there is no insurance coverage, and if the spouse dies, the employee gets no funeral leave, under most companies' policies today. When a gay person dies, long-lost relatives can descend upon the estate and claim all the possessions while the gay spouse does not even have the right to the home he has lived in for 30 years. If someone falls in love with a foreigner of the same sex, that spouse cannot become a US Citizen by marriage, as would be the case with a straight couple.
Furthermore, violence and discrimination against gays is an epidemic, with many violent criminals drawing justification and support from right-wing fundamentalist preachers, rabbis and imams who vilify gay citizens using the same underhanded tactics as Goebbels, the Nazi Minister of Propaganda, practiced prior to his suicide. If perfect justice were to be done, these hate-mongers would not be allowed to hide behind the cloth but would be arrested and brought before a United Nations Human Rights Tribunal and tried for their complicity in hate-crime murders. There is a distinction to be made between "freedom of religion" and incitement to violence.
In some areas, even today in the year 2000 in the wealthiest and strongest democracy on Earth, all too often, no charges are brought against those who insult, curse, rob, and physically harass gays because of their sexual orientation. One of the tragic lessons that gay young people learn growing up is that their society, whether democratic or not, will not protect them, that in some cases even the police cannot be trusted, and that non-gay students will "look the other way" while gays are being victimized.
Gay people often "think twice" before calling law enforcement on any matter because of homophobia among local police. Gay bashers are aware of this and think they can commit acts of violence, theft and even murder against gays with little or no risk to themselves. Gay Americans who are at risk might be well advised to purchase legally registered firearms from licensed dealers. They should consult with experts and train at shooting ranges in order to learn effective and legal strategies for self defense.
The present situation in society is the legacy bestowed by "not making an issue" of being gay. Matthew Shepard (1976 - 1998) didn't "make an issue" of being gay, but his attackers certainly did. Let it be known throughout the world that we do not want to bury any more of our gay sons or daughters.
Not being politically active is indeed a luxury, but it is the luxury of the majority, already comfortably ensconced in the laws & customs of our country. For those who have gaping holes in their civil protections and who face all the discriminations enumerated above, political activism has become absolutely necessary. And it may well be the only possible courageous response to the current injustice which is so pervasive in our society.
On the other hand, making sexuality the centerpiece of one's life is, for most people, undesirable. It is a risk, though, that gay activists must take and cope with. It is analogous to making race the centerpiece of one's life in order to bring about improvement in race relations.
It is easy to draw parallels between gay activism and the civil rights movement. One has heard the standard argument, "All right, so you're (black/gay). Why make such a fuss about it?" There are good reasons to make a fuss, because otherwise injustice and discrimination will just continue unabated. And making a fuss often involves behaving in a socially unaccepted way. Sit-ins are an example of this in the civil rights movement.
The conservative rhetoric here is, "That's not the way to get constructive change to come about. It won't work. It will only make matters worse."
But history shows that sometimes civil disobedience and other departures from polite behavior do work. We invite our readers to study more about the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s and onward. The current campaign by GLAAD against the bigoted talk show host, Dr. Laura, who slanders gays as "biological errors" is a contemporary example of effective gay activism. And Eagle Scouts are turning in their badges to protest the exclusion of gay boys from the Boy Scouts of America. We encourage all readers, straight or gay, to take an active role with GLAAD and fight the good fight against bigotry. Guides for activists may be found at this page of the Queer Resources Directory. With the excellent information contained on that page, especially the primer from the NGLTF, you can begin fighting for your rights in an effective manner. Remember...
"All that is required for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing."

We are in the midst of a national debate on homosexuality. The two contestants are a strange confederacy of Christian, Jewish and Muslim fundamentalists and Republican lawmakers on one side, with socially liberal Democrats, civil libertarians, scientists, psychologists, psychiatrists, human rights organizations, and gay activist groups on the other. If the past history of progressive enlightenment and liberalization in the area of sexual behavior is any guide, the ultimate outcome of this public debate will favor the liberal viewpoint. Churches and church organizations have come out in favor of recognizing gay marriages, gay clergy, and the need for non-discriminatory legislation. Click here for an article on the liberal Christian movement to welcome and honor gays in the Church.
It seems self-evident that anything encouraging monogamy also encourages social stability and happiness. The fundamentalists and other anti-gay groups, by attacking the concept of gay marriage, are undermining that stability and happiness. These groups must accept their share of the blame for the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS, because they have cast homosexuals out of the churches and out of many professions such as teaching, and created social conditions in which homosexual monogamy is discouraged. Any time a group of people is forced into pariah status, terrible injustice and needless suffering ensues. Consider India's caste system!
Many corporations and city and county governments extend benefits to "domestic partners" comparable to those given to heterosexual spouses. These progressive changes are decried by conservative, fundamentalist groups as being a "sinful" falling away from God's commandments. Pat Robertson believed God would punish Disney World, and the entire state of Florida, with hurricanes, earthquakes, and terrorist attacks for permitting Gay Pride celebrations and extending benefits to domestic partners of their employees. Instead, he suffered severe financial loss because of fire damage to one of his homes. Poetic justice!
The Truth Tree's position on this controversy is that it is a tempest in a teapot. The arguments are all very familiar. They were used in debates about masturbation, birth control, sex education, and pre- and extramarital sex. Soon we will look back with amusement at these immature antics.

One good result of all this debate is that heterosexual members of society are receiving an education on the nature of homosexuality. There used to be such a tight censorship on this subject that young people could not even put a name on the problems they confronted every day. Heterosexuals are more accurately aware of the tragedies that traditional attitudes have created.
Young people, through no "choice" of their own, simply find that they are very strongly attracted to members of their own sex. Growing up in a world where such feelings are considered bad is a severe test of any young person's self-esteem. It is especially difficult when the young person realizes that he is being scorned for something which he sees clearly is very good and positive. It is not difficult to understand why society would punish the acting out of hate, but in this instance society is punishing love. This just doesn't make sense to teenagers caught up in this dilemma. To read what gay teenagers have to say, click here.

Many gay males are themselves masculine in appearance and behavior and are attracted to other males who are masculine in appearance and behavior. They are thus attracted to people who possess attributes that they want for themselves. Many lesbians are themselves feminine in appearance and behavior and are attracted to other females who are feminine in appearance and behavior. The heterosexual male or female, however, is attracted by appearance and behavior that he or she would not want for himself or herself. In this sense, gay people appear to be more consistent than their heterosexual friends! This curious aspect of human sexuality has seldom been discussed.
The opponents of the gay rights movement try to make a moral issue of homosexual behavior. They point out that the Bible proscribes homosexual behavior between males. In the recent past, the Bible was also used to defend slavery of African-Americans throughout the American South, and the subsequent Jim Crow laws that kept African-Americans as second-class citizens. The Bible has been used to keep women subservient to, and legally inferior to, their husbands or indeed any adult male. The Bible has been a weapon used against Jews, Muslims and other minorities as well. Fundamentalists often refuse to admit that there are important genetic factors and emphasize that gays "choose" their "lifestyle." (Yet religious groups benefit from laws that prohibit religious persecution even though religion is something people really do choose.) They place full page ads in newspapers claiming that there are "thousands" of gays who have changed and become heterosexual. They fail to mention that bisexuality exists along with homosexuality, and that some people are capable of attraction to both genders. Experienced clinical psychologists and psychiatrists know that when sexual orientation is very strong in one direction, there is no known method of "therapy" that will change it. Freud knew this as is shown in his famous letter to the mother of a gay son. You can read his letter here. Also consider the experience of the ancient Greeks here.
About one person in ten is left handed. They are left handed because in growing up they just found that they could use their left hand much more easily than their right for writing and other skills requiring fine coordination. Fortunately there are few if any religious groups who consider it a sin to be left handed, but if there were they would probably insist that left handed people "chose" to use their left hands! They would say that they knew of cases where people changed from being left handed to being right handed. There would probably be sermons preached on the subject in which left handedness would be recognized as an unfortunate tendency but that giving in to actually writing with your left hand would be exercising a moral choice and therefore would be sinful! So they would advise left handed people not to practice their left handedness except, perhaps, in private. Perhaps they would advise left handed people to get jobs in which they are not required to write!
The American Psychological Association issued a summary statement on homosexuality in July of 1994. They said,
"The research on homosexuality is very clear. Homosexuality is neither mental illness nor moral depravity. It is simply the way a minority of our population expresses human love and sexuality. Study after study documents the mental health of gay men and lesbians. Studies of judgment, stability, reliability, and social and vocational adaptiveness all show that gay men and lesbians function every bit as well as heterosexuals.
"Nor is homosexuality a matter of individual choice. Research suggests that the homosexual orientation is in place very early in the life cycle, possibly even before birth. It is found in about ten percent of the population, a figure which is surprisingly constant across cultures, irrespective of the different moral values and standards of a particular culture. Contrary to what some imply, the incidence of homosexuality in a population does not appear to change with new moral codes or social mores. Research findings suggest that efforts to repair homosexuals are nothing more than social prejudice garbed in psychological accouterments."
(The image at the top of this page is by John Howe and is titled, "Ulmo, god of waters." It depicts Tuor's meeting with Ulmo in "Unfinished Tales: Of Tuor and His Coming to Gondor" by J.R.R. Tolkien. The music by Tchaikovsky was chosen for four reasons: 1) Tchaikovsky was gay, 2) It is very good music, 3) It is bright and happy, and 4) David Siu has done an excellent job of making a midi file out of it.)

3:26 PM  
Blogger Francis Lynn said...

Your first comment is in error - I would not be the biggest idiot - I'd be somewhere in line behind you.

Second: I fully understand what homosexuals want or think they deserve. Just because they want or think they deserve something on their shopping list doesn't mean they should have it.

Item: I believe that homosexuality is not a choice.
It comes with birth. I believe that homosexuality, bi-sexuality, & other such are permutations from the norm, i.e., heterosexuality. How or why this is so is beyond me to explain.

Item: Personal Maltreatment. Homosexuals on a personal basis should be treated with equal respect as any other member of society. One may not agree with the lifestyle, but they must be treated with respect.

Item: Public Discrimination. Homosexuals should have equal access to public facilities as is with the general public. Homosexuals should have equal access to most of the benefits enumerated in your post, with some exceptions.

Item: Domestic Partnership Contract/Agreement
Under this contract:
a. yes to medical/dental benefits
b. yes to medical leave
c. yes to hospital visitation
d. yes to funeral leave
e. yes to inheritance
f. yes to military service
g. yes to public teacher employment
h. yes to Social Security benefits
Along with a Domestic Partnership Contract & the benefits I listed, comes the responsibilty,i.e. separation or nullification of the contract & the inherent legal issues that follow.

i. unsure about tax filing as a couple
j. unsure about immigrant domestic partnership.

k. no to marriage as it is now defined
l. no to child adoption
m. no to serving as private school teachers,
Boy Scout leaders, priests, Rabbis, Imams.

The "No's":
Marriage: Without going into a few thousand years of history, & personal feelings - marriage should be restricted to male/female. It was designed for male/female & must remain so.

Child Adoption: Spare me the "homosexuals can give a child as much love" or "what about all the unwanted children out there" or "what about all the heterosexual child abuse." All things being equal, children need heterosexual rearing. The studies I've read indicate that this is the best avenue. I recognize that there are plenty of single parent families & there are children being reared by homosexuals. This in itself should not give argument to adoption by homosexuals. And there is "divorce" of homosexual couples - another issue. Heterosexual divorce is painful enough for children.

Boy Scouts, Priests, et al:
This issue primarily concerns the right of free association, such as the Boy Scouts. A private group of people or a private organization should be able to associate with who, or who not, they please.
If the tenets of their group require belief in God or
a belief in heterosexality, who is it for any atheist or homosexual to demand access to an organization which is antithetical to their beliefs?

Priests & Rabbis fall in the same category. If the tenets of a religion admonish homosexuality, rightly or wrongly, why should they be required to accept in a leadership position someone who is contrary to their tenets? It makes no sense.

Whether or not the Boy Scouts or a religion accepts homosexuals is something they have to work out internally. But it is reprehensible that it be imposed upon them by a government agency.

As they say, two out of three ain't bad. I've mostly agreed with your shopping list. However, there are a few items that are sacrosanct. It bothers me that homosexuals see their position as an all or nothing proposition, & in demanding their "equal rights" & "civil rights" they disrespect & care less for the "rights" of others.

2:07 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Free JavaScripts provided
by The JavaScript Source