You might recall my post last week about The Gay & Lesbian Leadership Institute’s (GLLI) program to review resumes so that it can deliver to the next president a pool of qualified openly LGBT candidates for consideration when appointing executive branch positions.
This pricked up the ears of anti-gay Bam Bam Barber, who thought that he had just gotten wind of the Homosexual Agenda Master Plan Sequence #5. (OneNewsNow):
Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues at Washington, DC-based Concerned Women for America, says the project puts to rest the notion that there is no “gay agenda.” He says the homosexual lobby is committed to infiltrating the executive branch with people who define their identity based on changeable, sexually deviant behavior.Ah, yes, what about all those highly moral officials appointed by Dear Leader?“The ultimate goal, of course, being to have people who engage in these aberrant sexual behaviors in a position of power to influence public policy in such a way that they gain more power,” he explains.
Members of the homosexual lobby have done a masterful job of equating their chosen, changeable sexual behavior with immutable characteristics such as skin color, says Barber.
“They’re comparing apples to oranges, of course, because they are not the same,” he says of the homosexual lobby’s attempt at comparison. “They have hijacked the language of the genuine civil rights movement and, as such, in corporations around the country and in various governmental entities are considered minorities worthy of special consideration and special rights in terms of hiring practices.”
Barber says the idea that a declaration of immoral sexual behavior makes for a better resume and would be a key to landing a high-ranking government job is “frightening.”
14 Responses to “Bam Bam Barber’s found the Homosexual Agenda”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Works for me.
Err… what? The policy of a group allegedly run by women is set by a man? Oh right-wingers, will you ever stop cracking me up.
C’mon, Pam: Peter’s just peeved at being left out of the mix. In the name of pouring oil on troubled waters, let’s name him head Butt Boy.
let’s name him head in Butt Boy.
Non-Distinguished Butt Boy Emeritus.
“Members of the homosexual lobby have done a masterful job of equating their chosen, changeable sexual behavior with immutable characteristics such as skin color, says Barber”
WTF does this mean?
“chosen, changeable sexual behavior”?????
most of the gay people i know are GAY - its neither chosen (too bad, conservative assholes, but its really really not a choice) NOR is it “changeable”. i mean, i know some Bi people, but THEY aren’t changeable - they keep liking both males and females. WTF is he meaning by “changeable”??????? or is it just another way of fucking with the GLBT community? another way of tainting it?
Oh horrors! Gay people might try to get positions in the government, where they would…gasp…influence policy!
You’d think this was a democracy or something.
Why is a man the policy director for Concerned Women of America? One would almost think that it says something about how much, you know, concern they have for the female sex.
What. No seriously, WHAT? Sample resume of the future:
- Experienced in object oriented programming (JAVA, C++, ASP, PYTHON)
- A+ Certified for Networking and Security
- Highly experienced in bondage, fisting and watersports. Specializes in teh ghey.
Interviewer’s recommendation: I would hire this candidate
(Wait, have I watched a porn film with this as a plotline? Bam Bam, have you been watching too much porn again?)
Awwww man… how come he gets to find his copy of the Homosexual Agenda, and I haven’t even gotten mine yet. Not fair. Not fair at ALL.
I’m guessing that’s the same complaint they have about a non-Xtian (or not “big C” Xtian) having a role in the government. Any of those awful “thems” could dilute the power of the Christian elite since they’re goal is to ensure they are the only ones in a position of power to control public policy. The Christotheocracy must be in power to protect their ability to mandate public policy is consistent with church doctrine as mandated by the constitution. . .
Ah … I just lurve me the smell of projection in the afternoon, it smells like … like hypocrisy.
Consider the following, only slightly edited version of what Bam Bam Barber’s sayin’:
Also, I am still amazed at the righty-tighty ability to believe that sexual behavior is infinitely malleable yet gender roles are set in stone.
The idea is that everyone is really heterosexual, but will fuck anything.
So how do they get this idea? It’s rather simple. These people have three beliefs.
The Bible says that homosexual sexual behavior is an abomination.
The Bible says that salvation is open to everyone.
The Bible cannot be wrong.
One way to make these three statements work logically is to pretend that there are no people with an inborn same-sex sexual orientation. This would make homosexual behavior no different than any another sinful behavior, like adultery, theft, etc. This is why they continue to try to “cure” homosexuality, despite dismal success rates of “praying away the gay.”
The other way to make these statements make work logically is to acknowledge homosexual orientation, but still forbid the behavior. However, God doesn’t look very good in this scenerio, having created people who are forbidden from pursuing sexual relationships that are meaningful to them.
The bible says you can’t eat pork, catfish or mix meat and dairy (among other food proscriptions).
The bible says you can’t mix fabrics.
these and a multitude of other things are abominations that these “the bible is the complete and literal word of G-d” folks and yet, they can’t seem to follow the simplest of these rules. I guess we’ll have to agree that they’re ability to comprehend and follow the bible is about as good as their ability to comprehend science.
The bible says you can’t eat pork, catfish or mix meat and dairy (among other food proscriptions). - ol cranky
But those prohibitions have always been understood to apply only to us Jew-folk. Certain prohibitions against sexual immorality are supposed to apply to everyone. The relevent food prohibition would not be pork or shrimp, but blood sausage.
Also, the word translated as “abomination” in the context of non-scaled-fish aquatic food-eating literally means “disgusting” (and those creatures sure are, when ya think about it … although as Jewish scholars have pointed out for > 1000 years, if the laws of kashruth are about, and only about, cleanliness, we wouldn’t be allowed to eat chickens
) … whereas the verse(s) in question from Leviticus refer to a “toevah”. Roughly, a toevah is “that thing those people do that indicate how inferior they are to us”.
Of course, then that leads to the question of whether homosexuality, as we understand it today, could have been a “toevah”. There is ample evidence that Leviticus was referring to a different set of practices (pederasty, homosexual relations amongst soldiers, the use of homosexual — as well as heterosexual — prostitutes in religious rites) which could be called “facultative homosexuality” rather than someone who desired those of the same sex based on some innate or deep-seated inclination and engaged in behaviors, within the context of a relationship between equal partners, reflecting that desire.
It is true that the so-called Biblical literalist crowd often doesn’t comprehend the Bible, but let’s be somewhat careful when we talk about what it is they don’t get to make sure we are pointing out things they indeed don’t get.
I wonder if he’ll ever be able to sound out the word Constitution on its cover.