Wtern societi are gog through many fundamental chang - perhaps none so far-reachg as those phed by promoters of the gay agenda.
Contents:
- THE GAY AGENDA BLUEPRT: A PLAN TO TRANSFORM AMERI
- FALLY THE GREAT GAY AGENDA IS WORKG! TWICE AS MANY OF NOW INTIFY AS LGBTQ+
- LGBTQ+ BANDS: OUR TOP 10 FAVORE GAY BANDS
- THE GAY AGENDA PARTY AND POSE THEIR WAY PAST ANY SHA
- THE ‘GAY AGENDA,’ EXPLAED
- THE GAY AGENDA
- WHAT'S BEHD THE GAY AGENDA?
THE GAY AGENDA BLUEPRT: A PLAN TO TRANSFORM AMERI
The startlg shift Amerin attus toward gays and same-sex marriage is not the rult of chance or random events. More than a quarter century ago, gay strategists laid out a plan to transform the natn—wh astoundg succs. * the gay agenda band *
In the November 1987 edn of Gui, a magaze for homosexuals, the two men thored an article tled “The Overhlg of Straight Ameri. ” There Kirk, a rearcher nropsychiatry, and Madsen, a public relatns nsultant, laid out a blueprt to fundamentally change Amerins’ attus toward homosexuals and homosexualy. In 1989 they expand that blueprt to a 398-page book tled After the Ball: How Ameri Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays the 90s.
FALLY THE GREAT GAY AGENDA IS WORKG! TWICE AS MANY OF NOW INTIFY AS LGBTQ+
In this article, we will take a look at our top 10 LGBTQ+ bands, their liv, and the achievements of the great gay bands the dtry. * the gay agenda band *
The article began by statg: “The first orr of bs is sensizatn of the Amerin public ncerng gays and gay rights. We do not need and nnot expect a full ‘appreciatn’ or ‘unrstandg’ of homosexualy om the average Amerin. Gallup polls 1989 showed that only 19 percent of Amerins believed people were born homosexual, wh 48 percent believg was due to environmental factors such as upbrgg.
LGBTQ+ BANDS: OUR TOP 10 FAVORE GAY BANDS
By 2015 those numbers had dramatilly shifted to 51 percent believg homosexuals were born that way and only 30 percent attributg to other factors.
(This is spe of the fact that extensive geic rearch and many studi of intil tws where only one was homosexual have disproven geic termism. Well-rearched surveys (as opposed to some wh markedly skewed sampl and/or methodology) have nsistently placed the homosexual populatn of Ameri at around 2 to 3 percent—yet the fluence of homosexuals on Amerin culture is vastly out of proportn wh their actual numbers. The way to benumb raw sensivi about homosexualy is to have a lot of people talk a great al about the subject a ntral or supportive way...
Constant talk builds the imprsn that public opn is at least divid on the subject, and that a sizable segment accepts or even practic homosexualy.
THE GAY AGENDA PARTY AND POSE THEIR WAY PAST ANY SHA
In the early stag of any mpaign to reach straight Ameri, the mass should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavr self. B by b over the past ten years, gay characters and gay them have been troduced to TV programs and films...
THE ‘GAY AGENDA,’ EXPLAED
Have you noticed the number of homosexual characters appearg TV programs and how they are overwhelmgly picted posively? A USA Today article last year reported 32 regularly appearg bisexual or homosexual characters primetime work scripted seri for the 2014-15 televisn season, wh another 64 appearg ble TV shows (Bill Keveney, “Y, You Really Are Seeg More LGBT Characters on TV, ” Oct.
THE GAY AGENDA
If a child grows up hearg about the gay liftyle and seeg portrayed posively his entire life, won’t that make seem normal?
Kirk and Madsen also scribed a strategy by which the homosexual movement uld unter and largely nullify opposn om Ameri’s church.
They wrote: “When nservative church nmn gays, there are only two thgs we n do to nfound the homophobia of te believers. This means publicizg support for gays by more morate church, raisg theologil objectns of our own about nservative terpretatns of biblil teachgs, and exposg hatred and nsistency.
WHAT'S BEHD THE GAY AGENDA?
This they have certaly acplished—enlistg liberal scholars to expla away biblil teachgs about homosexual practic, reterpretg their pla meang. They ntued: “Send, we n unrme the moral thory of homophobic church by portrayg them as antiquated backwaters, badly out of step wh the tim and wh the latt fdgs of psychology. Those who hold to biblil teachgs about homosexualy and marriage are nmned as bigots, homophob and backward thkers who are a threat to progrs.
Some who have stood up have been fed, orred to attend pro-homosexual “sensivy trag, ” lost jobs or had their bs sued out of existence by ernment agents and agenci that support the homosexual agenda.
“In any mpaign to w over the public, gays mt be st as victims need of protectn, ” Kirk and Madsen wrote. “If gays are prented, stead, as a strong and priful tribe promotg a rigidly nonnformist and viant liftyle, they are more likely to be seen as a public menace that jtifi ristance and opprsn. For that reason, we mt forego the temptatn to stt our ‘gay pri’ publicly when nflicts wh the Gay Victim image, ” they wrote.