Dear Fellow Homosexuals and Others:
This top-secret communique hereby officially announces the scrapping of the covert program formerly known as "Operation Tolerance."
It appears that the details of our plans have been discovered and published recently by the American Family Association.
Our oath of allegiance, which we carefully hid on a random webpage at Tolerance.org and contained our top-secret passwords "ignorance," "insensitivity," and "bigotry", has been revealed by Don Wildmon of the AFA.
"If you are a person who accepts the homosexual lifestyle, then you are tolerant," he explained. "If you don't, then you are a bigot who is motivated by ignorance and hate."
We are currently investigating the security breach that led to the exposure of our passwords and hidden agenda to turn America queer.
We can be grateful that our secret handshake remains confidential.
The fate of Operation SpongeBath for the Mind, our top-secret brainwashing video project utilizing disco music and underground gay-movement leaders SpongeBob SquarePants, Jimmy Neutron, Winnie the Pooh, Clifford the Big Red Dog and others is currently under discussion. At present we feel it is imperative to do all we can to ensure the distribution and success of Operation SpongeBath before the heterosexuals can counter-attack. We remember too well with sadness last year's shocking pro-heterosexual propaganda, such as that allegedly "amateur" video of Paris Hilton promoting the heterosexual lifestyle, as well as the gratuitous display of a female's breast during the straight movement's annual orgy of "masculinity" known as the Super Bowl, which also included numerous advertisements for sexual performance drugs, which as we all know are used to give closeted gay men erections to fool their clueless wives.
This directive will have no effect on the ongoing Operation Brad Pitt.
Thank you.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
After reading your post, I added the following to my blog:
Andy pointed out this article on his blog.
Don Wildmon of the American Family Association says "What if these television characters were singing about personality, but then when children went to the website, or when the teacher opened up the accompanying lesson plan, the topic was Christianity? A lot of people would be angry with that kind of approach. And that's why many Christians will be upset with the strategy taken by the We Are Family Foundation."
Well, first of all, there is a separation of church and state that prohibits teachers from teaching Christianity (though we may teach about it, for example, when looking at Puritanism, world religions, etc.)
Secondly, there is a difference between teaching about diversity and tolerance and teaching that there is only one right religion.
Thirdly, as almost any gay person will tell you, they don't live a lifestyle, but they live a life. Being gay is NOT a choice. What straight person can ever claim that he/she "decided at 3:36 this afternoon to be attracted to the opposite sex and to fall in love with the opposite ses." Why do straight people think we gays sit down, make charts looking at the pros and cons, and decide to be gay??
I have got to add this to my blog!!! GREAT
We all know that Operation Brad Pitt was just a diversion created by the government (cut and paste tapes of Brad and Agelina "having phone sex" conveniently replayed on telephone line until Jennifer had to use the phone) to keep the press busy when they announced that the US was withdrawing from the WMD search! poor Brad and Jenn, mere pawns of the Government....
Rachel C, mere Andy blog worshipper
Actually Rachel, the recent breakup was the result of the success of Operation Brad Pitt: Phase II (Project Anniston), codenamed "Bitch Switch." The resulting media circus was purely coincidental; please know that the Homosexual Agenda is firmly committed to thwarting the administration of George W. Bush at every step, and we would never intentionally function in complicity with him.
Phase III (La Jolie Fille du Pitt) is also part of our master plan; if you saw Angelina's recent performance in "Alexander" (no, of course you didn't) you might have noticed that she came dangerously close to revealing her true identity in the film, a drag queen. (She performs covertly under the name Augusta Wind.) This is part of the transition phase. Everything is proceeding exactly according to plan! Muah hahahahahahaha!
Did the AFA support the showing of Janet Jackson's breast? It seems that you are grouping together all of the groups that taboo homosexuality. You should not accept bigotry, but isn't a bit of weariness acceptable on the part of society? After all, homosexuality is denounced in the Bible, as well as age old standards of decency.
Our problem with homosexuality is that it has no definition other than a sexual relationship between two people of the same sex. Conventional courtship is a social relationship, not a sexual one. This is one sides point of view.
Okay, ummm...first of all, this post is a satire, so no, I did not really think the AFA was into Janet Jackson's boob. In fact, I'm pretty sure they were more appalled than I was.
Secondly, excuse me very much, but how dare you? You know, I work for an organization that is working to achieve full civil recognition for same-sex couples in this country. Our clients, who are just a sampling of millions of similar couples across America, are outstanding people. These people are deeply committed to each other, they share a real emotional bond and the absolutely and truly love each other. How dare you reduce it all to sex.
Although, you know what? You actually have a point. The fact that our orientation leads us to a relationship with a partner of our own gender is the ONLY DIFFERENCE between us and heterosexual partnerships. Ours are every bit as complicated, as fulfilling and as meaningful as yours. I try to be polite on my blog, but FUCK YOU, because that hurt.
I didn't think I was hurting anyone! I'm just presenting an opposing viewpoint. Homosexuals should have equal rights, but they also have a responsibility to understand the opposition of the mainstream. This is the smartest approach for your side, as a gentle approach to the mainstream rather than a "splash" provides you with the upper hand in getting them to tolerate your ways.
I'm on your side in many ways, and didn't think I would offend you. I just think we should get all opinions out in the open, and the opinion I put forward is a popular one. You should not be stifled by the mainstream, but you should also not be alienated from it, as you are alienating yourself from me by using explitives so excessively.
I can accept that you did not intend to offend, so I apologize if I offended you.
But I have heard this argument before, that the gay community has to try to "understand" how the people who don't approve think. The flaw in this is that we know full well how they think. None of us grew up "gay." We all grew up in a world that expected us to be straight and all of us struggled intensely to conform to what we had always been taught was normal. Even gay friends of mine who grew up in atheist or agnostic households struggled against the prevailing idea that homosexuality is wrong. (Now, I am 31, and given the way times have changed, it's quite possible that the coming-out process is different now for younger people in certain parts of America and in certain households.) So, no, I would say we do NOT need to try to understand; trust me, we get it. It's the "opposition," as you put it, that needs to try to understand.
And what they need to understand is that we are talking about what is guaranteed to all Americans in the constitution. If I marry another man, you will not be required to approve. You will not be required to tell your children that it's okay. Churches or other religious institutions will not have to perform ceremonies they think are immoral. But under the constitution, it is not possible to take one group of people separated by an arbitrary characteristic like sexual orientation and assign them a set of civil rights different than the rest of the voting, tax-paying population. This is not about "forcing" our "lifestyle" on people who oppose it, this is about granting all Americans the freedom to live their lives as guaranteed by our most basic standards of law.
I do try to understand, and it sounds like you're pretty open-minded yourself.
I know you have more stake in gay marriage than I, but objectively we should look at the issue, not as one of gay rights, but as one of marriage in order to best understand the subject. Marriage is a millenia old institution that has always been defined as the civilly sanctioned and recognized bond between man and woman. It is a civil, as well as a social institution. To change the definition of marriage is to make the institution subject to any social change occuring at the time.
It ultimately endorses homosexuality among children, whether they are gay or not, which, as you know leads to a great deal of confusion and pain at the stage at which they are "deciding" what they are. When it becomes one among many norms, this is the ultimate result, and, not to agree with Operation Tolerances satirical punchline, but, it seems at times that this may be your goal: To normalize homosexuality in order to destroy taboos that plague you. In the process, there is damage done to many confused children.
Third argument, if civil unions are accessible: Why not take civil unions rather than marriage? If you are already breaking with the norm of heterosexuality, what's wrong with breaking the norm of conventional marriage. Could it be that, not social/emotional incentives, but monetary incentives are what your side is after? Obviously marriage involves legal aspects including tax and estate comforts that you can't get with civil unions, but what are really your reasons for preferring marriage to civil unions?
You're engaging in quite a bit of happy-smiley revisionist history, here.
The history of marriage as it stretches back across the centuries and millennia is not a pretty one. For the vast majority of mankind's history, the woman has been viewed as man's property, with little or no rights of her own. Girls the age of 12 or younger were bartered and betrothed as pawns in political and financial arrangements. This concept of man and woman as equal partners in a relationship is pretty much unique to western culture and has appeared in the last half-century or so.
What's not new is committed, stable relationships between same-sex couples; it's just that gays have been historically marginalized, so it's convenient for social conservatives to act like this is some overt change that's happening. We've always been here.
It's not about "changing" the definition of marriage; it's about admitting that the present definition of marriage is not based on reality and is unconstitutional.
Adolescents are always confused and always going through pain of some sort or another; that's what adolescence is. Trust me, no one decides to be gay. Some people might try to tell you it's possible, but it's not. No one would choose to put themselves through what you straight people make us live through. If choosing to be gay were so simple, why is choosing to turn straight so hard for so many people? Gay people are not out converting anyone, because we all know you either are or you aren't. I wish straight people knew that.
If anyone is causing damage and confusion to children, it's the bigoted straight community which teaches children that they are morally and spiritually inferior, and that their affections are not only not equal to those of their heterosexual friends and relatives, but actually a perversion.
The reasoning against civil unions has its origin in the 14th Amendment, in Brown v. Board of Ed, and its full embodiment in the recent Massachusetts Supreme Court decision: separate is not equal. Saying "marriage" is for these people and "civil unions" are for these people creates an unconstitutional 2nd-class status for gay Americans.
Firstly, marriage has in many cases been a sham, but for those who are engaged in the Judeo-Christian values system through increased piety and biblical devotion, marriage is, as a rule, more equal and successful. It is the absence of God in relationships that makes them fail all too often in our society.
Your last statemet says it all, Andy. You, as a supporter of the redifinition of marriage (It IS the changing of the definition from that of a "man and woman" to "any two people")see this as a personal struggle that encompasses injustice toward individuals. I see it as a struggle over "relationships" and how they may be defined by the state. Even if many homosexuals exist in the United States, it does not change the fact that marriage between any two people is a stretch. Frankly, though I have been playing the part of Devils advocate a bit on this subject, of which I am somewhat impassionate (Were I passionate I would denounce civil unions), actually believing that all matters of marriage are up to the state. You didn't fully answer my question.
Let me rephrase my queries for you. What is the difference between marriage and civil unions? Why do the shortcomings of civil unions so strong that they will compell you to denounce settlement on them in favor of marriage? Be honest, aren't you simply engaged in this struggle to normalize homosexuality in our society? Is this not the goal of the LGBT organization?
First let me say I don't think it's doing a lot of good to have this discussion in the dark passages of my archived entries, because I think it would be helpful if other readers could chime in. So I'll try to work in a post in the near future to which you could object, LOL.
You're engaging in semantics a bit, which is fine because a) that's what legal work is about and b) if we're talking definitions, then yes, semantics are appropriate. I do see your argument about the "definition" of marriage. However, what the LGBT civil rights movement is doing is actually not pushing for some enormous change; if we seek to "redefine" marriage, it's because, as I said, that definition does not reflect reality. We are not changing reality, merely asking the government to recognize what already is and has been since time immemorial.
Homosexuality is normal, we're not trying to "normalize" it. We're just trying to get you to understand what is true and ensure that the government upholds its responsibilities to protect all citizens equally.
As I've said, civil unions are unacceptable because they would create a government-imposed 2nd class status, which is unconstitutional. The only acceptable alternative is having the government drop the word "marriage" altogether and allowing that to become a purely religious notion and to adopt civil unions for any two persons entering into a life partnership.
Well, since we've reached a stalemate, and I'm lukewarm on gay marriage anyway (as impassioned as my writing may have been) I guess I'll wait for your next passage. Hopefully I've given you some inspiration for arguments to counter for the next post. I think this is somewhat a symantics issue, but it's also an issue of sensitivity toward the majority. If you can understand that heterosexuals are not going to want their kids exposed to something that confuses them sexually later on, and that they percieve as not being normal, but wrong, then they should try to understand your need for equal acceptance and rights in society. As far as the constitution is concerned, I don't see any direct violation of your equal protection in our laws or Constitution, except for the outrageous and impractical sodomy laws in some states, which you should by all means try to reverse, but civil unions do not put you in a second class, they put your union in a separate category. When examining cases such as these, it seems wisest for you, as a lawyer, to put aside you passion and interest for the sake of reaching a conclusion in synthesis with the objective interpretation of the law that prevails in these cases.
Post a Comment