I’m Sick of Homosexual Marketing: Their lifestyle choices are imposing, and disrespectful

Personally I’m really sick of the whole social homosexual issue and don’t have much sympathy for the Indiana and Arkansas governors under protest from gay groups over their recent legislation which should be covered already by the 1st Amendment anyway. I’m not gay, and don’t personally associate with gay people because they typically don’t share my values, and I have no plans to change that value judgment. I think the Rocky Horror Picture Show was a terrible movie, and I hate gay pride parades because of all the stupid color combinations. Yet in spite of the opinions of the progressive left and right, that does not make me a homophobe—as they like to call people who don’t share their appreciation for anal intercourse—which is gross in any fashion—man or woman. When I look at people I try not to think about what kind of sex they enjoy, just as I don’t want to know if they like fried chicken or sushi. Whatever their choices—keep it to themselves, because I likely don’t want to know. Sex is a very small part of existence, so policy should not be built around any sexual orientation. Gay people don’t have a right to molest straight people with audacity and gross behavior in public—then cry foul when people don’t like what they see. When those people utter such, they don’t deserve to be called names and attacked socially by a collective mob to change their behavior under coercion, which is what has been happening in Indiana. At that point gay people lost their sympathy and have simply become bullies. They may have a rainbow inspired aggression—but they are still bullies.

An example of how gays step over the line all too often occurred when I was much younger—I was at a video game arcade using the rest room when a very wiry person came up to the stall next to me. Now it was a big bathroom so there were many other stalls he could have used, instead he stood right next to me. That was problem number one, because I don’t like people too close to me unless there is no other option—and there were options. Then he tried to have a conversation with me, which was mistake number two. I really don’t like to talk to people when using the restroom. I like to get finished as quickly as possible and get out of those places—because they usually smell bad. So I didn’t want to talk to him. Then he tried to look over the divider at my assets, and he was not shy about it. I’m not ashamed of anything there, so that didn’t bother me so long as I’m dealing with a heterosexual. But as it turned out, the guy was gay, and he asked me if he could perform oral sex. That was it. I called him a fag. He called me a hater and grabbed my shoulder to look me in the face as if he had authority to touch me, so I punched him. I heard a pop when my fist hit his face and he went down and stayed there. I stood there for a moment to see if he would move, which he did a little. I finished with my bathroom visit taking extra time to see if the guy would try to engage in conversation—but he didn’t. Instead he stood up, refused to engage in any further conversation not even bothering to wipe the blood from his face in the sink and left. It was a really strange ending to a really uncomfortable trip to the restroom.   He was obviously embarrassed that he ended up on the floor after trying to engage in sexual activity, and left quickly once he could stand again. I expected security to come, but they never did so after waiting around for about 15 minutes, I left never to see that guy again. If that had been today, I would have had an army of PC police there to put my face on the news and the newspapers would have written about it until they ran out of ink—but back then distinctions in such behavior were still judged as something negative—and the sentiment toward change has not enriched our culture. There have been similar incidents over the years, but that was the worst and most obvious—and the question I’ve always had is–why should I have to put up with those people?

Men and women have separate bathrooms for a reason, so that sexual conduct doesn’t get mixed together. But with gay people, there are no barriers, and they defiantly have the advantage because only they really know if they are gay or not. If a guy wants to use the stall next to me in the restroom, my wife has a right to know if some rival for her affection is trying to get a mental picture of her private affairs. If the guy is heterosexual, she doesn’t have a rival, but if he’s gay, she does. This is a problem, as a straight person, I should have a right to use the restroom without sexual advances—and in this modern society—you never know. If you’re endowed, you can’t hide that stuff behind a stall, so the eyes of a gay person can see everything clearly—if they want to. So where are the rights of heterosexuals in this whole discussion over non discrimination—because in order to protect ourselves from sexual advancements, one must make a value judgment against those who clearly are willing to cross the lines of acceptability?

It is baffling to me how critics of the new Indiana law interpreted The Religious Freedom Act. Gay advocates as reported by The Blaze in the following article reflect the lunacy.

MSNBC host Ed Schultz clashed with a conservative guest from the Heritage Foundation Tuesday night over Indiana’s controversial religious freedom law.

The liberal host opened up his show asking Ryan Anderson, “How does this law open it up for blatant discrimination?”

“This law doesn’t open the door for discrimination,” Anderson quipped back. “This is the law that’s been on the federal books … and it governs over 30 states.”

“Wait a minute, that’s not true,” Schultz responded, contending those laws don’t have “the definition of a person connected to a corporation.”

“No, no it does,” Anderson rebutted. “The Supreme Court held just last term that the definition of person in the federal RFRA includes corporate persons.”

“Cut his mic off! Cut his mic off! We’ll bring him back if he wants to be courteous.”

Share:

Schultz disagreed and reiterated his view that the law opens the door open for discrimination against gay and lesbian individuals.

“Corporations do have rights!” Anderson said. “The New York Times has free press rights. It goes not just to each reporter, but to the institution. … In the same way, people who form organizations also have their religious liberty rights protected.”

Schultz then asked Anderson if it was the position of the right-wing that business owners should be permitted to tell gay people to “get the hell out” of their restaurants.

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/03/31/msnbcs-ed-schultz-loses-it-on-conservative-guest-over-controversial-indiana-law-cut-his-mic-off/

To make matters even worse, members of the UConn coaching staff are boycotting the Final Four in Indianapolis because of the Religious Freedom Act saying “UConn is a community that values all of our members and treats each person with the same degree of respect, regardless of their background and beliefs, and we will not tolerate any other behavior.” Well, given that they are a progressive institution to begin with, their statement is consistent with the teachings of the progressive movement—but they fail to identify one glaring issue. In order for this whole thing to work—this equality thing, it requires people like me to put up with swanky perverts who want to turn our bathrooms into pick-up joints and to treat them with some level of restraint. If I were to walk into a women’s bathroom undoubtedly there would be quite a stir as woman would likely scramble to cover their private parts from my male eyes. But we are supposed to disregard this restraint in the presence of gays and allow them to view without any feelings of guilt the fruits of our privacy for the benefit of their sexual perversions. The action on their behalf requires nothing. But for someone like me, it requires an abandonment of value and preservation reserved typically between the sanctity of a husband and wife.

If there is a business that typically caters to a religious crowd, don’t they have a right to discriminate against those who might drive away other members of their business who seek refuge in their endeavors? Don’t straight men and women have a right to use the restroom without being eye candy to the deviant—or will UConn protest the term deviant to describe a person who spends too much time thinking about sex? Don’t businesses have a right to sport productive enterprises that might be negatively impacted by a couple of dudes making out in public with pink tights and a hat full of flowers? Of course they would. To argue otherwise is insane. Yet the progressives have done just that and revealed to what extent they wish to impose themselves on society. They want normal people to lower their expectations to the level of the valueless, and to allow themselves to be sacrificed to the mass whims of collectivism. And when faced with such a vile understanding, the conservatives don’t even have the guts to speak out against it—except for Ryan Anderson from the Heritage Foundation. He defended the law quite well and you saw what progressive Ed Schultz did—he cut off his microphone.

The only way that gays can win their position is to stop the debate against them with name calling, or break down any moral retribution that might be cast in their direction due to them being entirely too focused on sex instead of higher elements of mental acuity. In both cases they act as a parasitic organism against society at large, and personally, I’m tired of hearing about their feelings. Homosexuals represent between 2% to 10% of the total population depending on the survey source. At best they are asking 90% of the rest of the country to put up with their marketing efforts toward finding more dating options. That’s pretty much what it boils down to. And for the rest of us, particularly me, I’d say we’ve heard enough from them. I’d like to go to the can without worrying about some rainbow princess trying to watch me, and if two drag dressing transvestites want to suck face in a business of mine, I should have a right to toss them out to keep from intruding on the privations of the other customers, and all their kids. At some point enough is enough, and we’re there.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.