The Gay Agenda. What's Really in their Closet

Those who are closest to me know that I've been kicking around this theory regarding the gay agenda and the cession of power that will undoubtly be yielded by non gays if the agenda is pushed to the forefront. I need to inject this caveat, lest someone accuse me of being homophobic. I am not, nor have I ever been afraid of gays (should I be?). I've had gay coworkers that I would spend time with (in group settings...watch it now), outside of work. I've had gay neighbors, and I even have a gay brother. Doesn't necessarily make me a supporter of their agenda, but it definitely should illustrate no ill feelings on my part toward them.

With that said, I've been wondering what the hell's been going on with our society. Several years ago a close friend of mine said that he recognized a feminizing of the American male. I didn't quite understand what he meant, but I filed it away like I do most things I don't understand with the hopes that some related stimuli will retrieve it at the appropriate time (happens this way for me all the time). I've noticed that their has been, over the years, a subtle attack on the heterosexual male. Think about how his image has been portrayed over the past couple of decades. It used to be he was a dedicated father (i.e. Father Know's Best and The Brady Bunch to name a few). Fast forward to the 90's and we have Homer Simpson and Al Bundy. The male as head of household has been reduced to a neanderthal whose limited intellectual ability always has the family in hot water. Whose image is this of the American male head of household? It isn't the heterosexual American male's image of himself-this much I can assure you. There are very few positive images of fathers on television these days. My Two Dads has me deeply concerned. The title itself seems like a primer. Once you get used to the title, even though the two characters in this sitcom are hetero, how easy would it be to portray two gay males as father types in the future (Six Feet Under anyone?)-you're already comfortable with the phrase my two dads.

Again, I'm not a homophobe, I just have to say that when an agenda is pushed to the forefront, power has to be ceded somewhere and it is usually ceded at the opposite polar end of the emerging agenda. This is why white's were up in arms during the civil rights era-they knew that any gains realized by blacks would somehow impact their social and economic standing. If a gay agenda is pushed to the forefront, heterosexual males would have to cede position in order to make way.

This isn't the first push in this direction. In my opinion, the Women's Liberation movement was a front for the gay agenda. First of all, most of the rights that the Women's liberation movement in the 60's pushed for (equal pay for equal work, bra burning (what man in his right mind would be against a bra-less woman), financial autonomy etc.), most women are silently retreating. Women have discovered that the work place isn't necessarily where they want to be and have started a slow, but steady migration back into the realm of homemaker. The Stay At-Home Mom's or SAHM's are proof that, to some women, the grass wasn't greener on the other side and that the pressures of dealing with the work place for some outweigh the benefits. What's been lost in the process is a generation of children who have been raised on fast-food and MTV.

Furthermore, I believe that the Women's Lib movement of the 60's and 70's was also pushed to the forefront to minimize and diffuse any gains that might have been realized by African-Americans during the civil rights era. The biggest benefactors of the civil rights era were white women. Definitely not black women and most certainly not black men. Most of the the jobs that went to white women were jobs held by black men. When there's an influx of workers into the workforce, more jobs aren't created, and if they are, they are created by bisecting the duties and the pay of one job description to make another.

My suspicions were further confirmed when I analyzed the last election, and once I share this with you, you might see the brilliance shrouded in the deception-I for one have come to admire it. Before I go forward, again, I have to say this is all theory and supposition on my part. It's my independent analyses of facts. It is neither scientific nor is it backed by any intense primary, secondary, or tertiary research-just my analysis of factual data. If you ask most Christians in this country about their experience with the 2004 election, they will probably tell you that they witnessed a demonization of gays. They won't call it that, but ultimately that's what it was. From what I understand, the republicans made their way to churches across the nation, showing them images of gay pride parades and festivals and warning Christians that if they voted for the liberal Democrats, this is what they would be voting for. No Christian in his or her right mind is going to vote for that which is considered an abomination by their religious doctrine. Now here comes the trick, and I'm basing this solely on the recent homosexual revelations that have taken place in the Republican party: Gays used anti-gay rhetoric to convince those most vulnerable to their rhetoric to vote for them....in droves! Brilliant!

Again, I was reminded of this this morning when I discovered the following revelation regarding Senator Larry E. Craig, Republican of Idaho. The Senator was arrested June 11th for solicitous sexual behavior in, of all places, the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport men's room. An undercover sting operation was being conducted by local law enforcement after reports of sexual activity in the men's restroom. It is reported that the Senator brushed his foot against a plain clothes officer's foot several times and waived his hand under the stall, reportedly a known signal to engage in lewd sexual activity. Allegedly, the Senator repeated this behavior until the officer, situated in the adjoining stall, showed his badge under the divider. The Senator claims that the officer misconstrued his intent. I don't know about you, but if someone behaved this way in the stall next to me, I'm not sure exactly what, other than you being deaf and needing toilet paper, your intent would be but a proposition of some sort.



Then there's the case of the Republican Governor of New Jersey, James McGreevy coming out of the closet and annoucing to the world that he was a gay American. There's Republican Representative Mark Foley's announcement of the same ilk. There are also rumors, all though none confirmed because no one wants to go on record regarding the matter, of the Republican Governor Rick Perry being gay. Again I have to reiterate the last entry has been reported as simply rumor, there are no factual data substantiating the claim. However, it has garnered enough attention to run in the Austin Chronicle.

I attribute many of these revelations to that bigoted, racist, pornographer, Larry Flynt-a man I for whom I have much admiration. He may have ran some seriously racist pictorials in his day, but make no mistake, Mr. Flynt is no friend of the U.S. government. And after offering a reward of $1 million to anyone who had proof of sexual improprieties conducted by Republicans, he opened a can of worms that leveled the playing field and made everyone's sexual misconduct fair game. In comparison, these revelations make indiscretions of former president Bill Clinton, who received a blow job in the oval office, seem like a college frat boy prank. In my opinion, we're sexual creatures and regardless of what our sexual orientation is, we're going to act on impulse. One has to decide what they consider more an abomination-engaging in a heterosexual act with a woman other than your wife in the oval office, or soliciting sexual favors in the men's room at an international airport. I think this one's a no brainer for Christians and non Christians alike. Of course both are considered sins in the bible, but if you had to pick a leader who indulged in either of two evils, which would you choose?

I think the attack on heterosexual males not only by mainstream media, but by the judicial system as well, indicates a hidden agenda that can, in my opinion, be directly linked to a perpetuation of a gay agenda. Who else poses a threat to the gay agenda? Certainly not women. (Most) women embrace gays-if you ever see a heterosexual woman with a gay male, you'd swear they were kindred spirits. There's a certain sisterhood that occurs between the two. And subconsciously I believe that the heterosexual female begins to wish that her mate was as sensitive and understanding as the gay male. She doesn't fully realize that for her husband to espouse any of this individual's behavior, it would make him less and less male. Furthermore, the survival of the species depends upon him being who he is. Never mind that-she needs a shopping buddy and My husband just doesn't understand.

Historically, if you've wanted to infiltrate a people, the easiest access is through their women. You can alter the blood line biologically and alter the social system through mental manipulation of a woman's inherent susceptibility to propagated stimuli. It is my belief that this is why the American man is having so many problems with his woman. She's been co-opted. The only time she has a problem with the gay male is:

A. When he's after her man and
B. When he's duped her into believing that he's hetero when in fact he isn't.

Other than that he's a pleasant distraction.

I'm not advocating the elemination of any group. In fact I believe that gays, lesbians, transgendered, and bi-sexuals should enjoy the protection under the law as any other citizen. I just have a problem with them seizing power and altering the very basis on any civilized society, the natural family structure. Make no mistake about it, the family structure as we've known it in the past is under attack! Women are encouraged to buck the system and behave counter to what would be considered acceptable in a family setting. She, almost sanctioned by law, can attack her husband and then have him arrested for spousal abuse. Women have used the court system time and time again to exact revenge on men and it seems obvious that this is their intent but the system somehow still allows this type of behavior. I don't think women even realize that they've been co-opted by a group of individuals that have but one use for them-reproduction to keep the species alive and flourishing.

Imagine this, and I have to admit this is some War of the Worlds stuff but here goes: Let's say that what I've detailed is true and the gay agenda is total domination. Gays have no use for heterosexual males so kiss them goodbye. And what would become of our beloved women? Well they would be held in captivity and used for breeding purposes only. They could be artificially inseminated to produce offspring whose males are indoctrinated into the lifestyle and whose females would be remanded to breeding camps. Scary? Now this is totally a figment of my imagination, but is it beyond the realm of possibility?

You decide.

TPOKW?