Log in

No account? Create an account
The New & Improved Homosexual Agenda 
19th-Apr-2006 08:52 am
This originally was the brainchild of my friends at annoy.com, which sourced and quoted my post "That's MISTER Faggot To You!" in the original piece. I loved it and thought it was genius. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE spread the word by posting the code at the bottom of the page in your own LJ/blog, and thank you in advance.


How many of you haven’t heard of the “Gay Agenda” or “Radical Homosexual Agenda”?

Although many claim there isn't one, here it is, the new, improved, radical homosexual agenda for 2006. A roadmap, if you will, towards destroying nuclear families, and reshaping society to the point that if your son isn’t blowing his professor, don’t expect any graduation ceremonies.

For all the fear-mongering pigs that use religion to marginalize, humiliate, electrocute and murder others, may this new Gay Agenda permeate your worst nightmares. Yes, Focus on the Family, Traditional Values Coalition, Concerned Dried-Up-Old-Cunts Women for America, American Family Association, Family Research Council, Eagle Forum, Alliance Defense Fund, Chrisitian Coaltion, Mission America, Morality in the Media, and all you other assholes, this means you.

*cue dancing leather queens in assless chaps on a pride float, drag queens painted for the back row with 6' hair, 1o" heels, and SEQUINS SEQUINS SEQUINS, dykes on bikes, "We Are Family" by Sister Sledge, and poppers for all!!!*

1. Gay men and lesbians should marry one another, and extol each other every tangible and intangible benefit the institution provides. They cannot stop gay marriage as long as gays are marrying. If you are gay and single without a desire to marry, marry a homosexual of the opposite sex anyway, and donate any marriage credits the government may offer to any gay organization seeking to destroy heterosexual norms.

2. Once benefits are secured, divorce. Wreck the sanctity of the institution by driving up the divorce rates from the current 52% to at least 80%.

3. Remember 52% of marriages end in divorce, the remaining 48% in death. There's nothing sanctimonious about that. Demand the institution and then wreck it. James Dobson was right about our evil intentions. We just plan to be quicker than he thought.

4. Get a gun and learn how to shoot. It's as much about arming bears as it is bearing arms. If you think you're protected by the Constitution, think again. If they don't allow you to marry, the next amendment will be to deny gays guns.

5. Reclaim Jesus. He was a Jewish queer to begin with, and don't let anyone forget it.

6. BAN DIVORCE. If the institution is so in need of protection, seek a constitutional amendment to ban divorce. One marriage, once.

7. Normalize - Thwart fashion and style sense inclinations so that homophobes cannot separate you from straights. Gay vague my ass. Make it gay impossible to tell.

8. Hate Crime laws are just the beginning. Once those are passed either federally or in all 50 states, begin campaign to eliminate homophobia entirely.

9. Like "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," thoughts or words equal conduct. Homophobic inclinations alone, even without any actions, should be criminal and punishable to the full extent of the law.¹

10. Penetrate the sperm banks to perpetuate the gene. Although the nature vs. nurture debate rages on, ensure that as many vials of semen contain gay genes.

11. Lie about your sexual orientation when giving blood. Screening of blood is either effective or not. If a celibate gay's blood is more dangerous than that of sexually promiscuous heterosexual, the problem is in the screening process, not the orientation of the donor. Faggot blood is God's blood.

12. Alternatively, set up blood banks for gay blood only. For us fags by us fags (~*FUFBUF*~).

13. Become surrogate mothers or males donate sperm to lesbian couples. If children of gays are to be put up for adoption, stipulate that heterosexuals are unfit for parenting such children, no matter how sad or desperate they may be.

14. If you are HIV positive, consider engaging in unprotected sex with pedophile priests and pastors. We have enough recruits from Christian schools and the military without us having to house perverts cloaked in religion. There's the Catholic Church for that.

15. Tithe. Make sure that gay representation permeates every level of governance.

16. Sneak gay subtext into every book, movie, video game, TV show or other media that you have access to. Nothing like subliminal messaging to equate queerness with Godliness. (Don't forget, they catch the obvious ones like Spongebob and Tinky Winky, but they'll miss Bart or Freddie from Grand Theft Auto because they're too well hidden. Don't worry, their badly parented, unsupervised kids will know it when they see it).

17. Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians etc. are fundamentally the same. Don't pledge allegiance to any one party. Make all parties grovel for your vote, not take it for granted.

18. Ensure that you preserve DNA samples to be used for cloning purposes if necessary.

19. Join the military and rise in the ranks (as has always been the case). When enough gay servicemembers come out en masse it will force the military to drop their outdated policy, and admit that probably 25% or more only happen to shoot straight.

20. Ensconce yourself in virulently homophobic organizations like the Boy Scouts and Southern Baptists or Concerned Women for America. The more indispensable homos they have in their fold, the more hypocritical their ultimate exposure. And any bad behavior can simply be blamed on their organizations.

21. If you're a sick pedophile, join the Catholic Church. They'll be good to you and shelter you like they always have.

22. Recruit straight men and women. We're accused of it anyway, so we may as well give the accusation legs. And remember, when push comes to shove, a six-pack or a joint goes a long way.

23. If you're male, give Concerned Women for America a raison d'être by fucking their husbands, sons and fathers. And of course, you dykes will know exactly what to do with their daughters. At least those that aren't already teaching us in our beds.

24. Bombard the Federal Communications Commission any time anything remotely offensive to gay people appears on the airwaves. Homophobia is indecent, and our children must be sheltered from it. They want to regulate decency. Let's keep them really, really busy.

25. Create facilities that recondition homophobic deviancy. Certain religious groups have attempted to "straighten" gay children. If their assertions are correct, children exercising homophobic tendencies can be corrected using electro-therapy. Turn eradicating homophobia and encouraging the gay lifestyle from a cottage industry into a multi-billion dollar cash cow.

26. Turn "Heather has a Mommy and a Daddy. Don't Blame it on Her" into a best seller.

27. Most gay children are born of heterosexual parents. If they want to eradicate homosexuality, vasectomies and hysterectomies are fabulously effective. Safer than condoms and abstinence!

28. Some are still attempting to define homosexuality as a disease. Let them move forward. Once passed in any region -- local, state or federal -- take full advantage of employment protection legislation and related compliance including Medicaid and workers compensation. They can call us names but it's going to cost them. Big.

29. Until marriage is equal, heterosexuals should be forbidden from wearing wedding rings in public. The blatant flaunting of their sexuality is inappropriate, and we don't need our children conjuring up penises and vaginas every time they spot a wedding ring. Gay marriage would neutralize that consequence.

30. Heterosexual public displays of affection can be confusing for gay kids. There should be no hugging or physical touch between heterosexuals in public places. Brief handshakes or a brief affirmative hand on a shoulder is okay.

31. Any literature or educational material in any school or public library should display warnings if they contain heterosexual content.

32. The Tinky Defense - San Francisco Supervisor, Dan White, blamed Twinkies for murdering gay Supervisor, Harvey Milk and Mayor, George Moscone. It worked. If you happen to kill a heterosexual, simply blame Jerry Falwell's Tinky Winky obsession as the reason. You were purple with rage.

33. Any homophobic persons, even former homophobes that have been rehabilitated, should be required to register using the same model as child molesters. There should be strict limitations pertaining to their proximity to any gay bars, clubs, gyms or institutions that are predominantly gay. Parents of gay children need to be aware of the dangers such individuals present, and should be aware of their presence in their neighborhoods.

34. If accused of having a Gay Agenda, point to this page and respond, "it's not an agenda, it's the Gospel."

¹In the words of Lewis Black, in reference to the thoughts (but not necessarily usage of) profanity: "...if you think it, then you said it asshole! Even Jews believe that!"


So-called Christians, who would sooner stone Jesus to death than take heed of his caution, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone,” use it as a scare tactic, and more importantly as a fundraising tool. The Orthodox Jews who would have been happy to let certain wings of German concentration camps housing victims sporting pink triangles continue gassing. Muslim extremists who stone homosexuals to death like they do their raped daughters, calling it “honor killing.”

A fusion of psycho-babble and political correctness on both sides has introduced terms like heternormalism, homodeviancy, and a slew of other ridiculous terms tossed about in frantic fundraising letters. Homosexuals are penetrating schools and the military and seek nothing less than the destruction of your family and rape of you children if one was to believe Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Lou Sheldon, Jerry Falwell, Donald Wildmon, Phyllis Shafly, Beverly LaHaye, and the ever expanding pool of shrieking, self-appointed moral guardians.

If gay bashing, teen suicide and genuine attempts by politicians and Presidents to actually amend America’s constitution to explicitly deny rights to homosexuals weren’t clear and present dangers, the notion of a “gay agenda” would be laughable. How strong can a marriage be – a supposedly sanctified institution – if two members of the same sex marrying will destroy it? How learned can a behavior be, if despite your best parenting efforts to instill heterosexuality onto your children, they can be so easily evangelized by radical homosexuals.

Many gay people who simply want the right to serve their country, marry or work without fear of discrimination for being open about who they are have no agenda beyond that. A blogger calling himself jesus_h_biscuit sums it up this way: Homosexual Agenda: 1. Quality time w/family 2. Be treated equally 3. Buy milk

Despite the tongue-in-cheek nature of this piece, it can, and likely will, be taken out of context, and used destructively by bigots and homophobes with ill intentions. From the other side, I'll be criticized for irresponsibly kindling the already raging fires by providing fresh fodder. I've already battled it out on the radio with Robert Peters from Morality in the Media, who appeared to have a peculiar fixation on the penis. (Hopefully not mine), and Concerned Women for America called me an obscene pornogrpaher or something to that effect in one of their polemic press releases. So let me give them what they really want to hear. As if James Dobson needs anything more – in his book Marriage Under Fire, he posits the theory that homosexuals don’t really want to get married, but in fact are plotting a 60 year conspiracy to destroy the family. Fucking idiot. It’s a ten year plan!

Copy & paste this code to link to this post in your own journal:

1. Right-click inside the text box above, press Ctrl + A to copy (Ctrl + C) all of the code.
2. Paste (Ctrl + V) into your own LJ or blog update portal or client, and post.

Here's what will appear in your post:


proudly brought to you by jesus_h_biscuit

19th-Apr-2006 01:07 pm (UTC)
Oh goodie! I totally misplaced my 2005 copy! I'm such a bad homosexual... ;)
19th-Apr-2006 01:55 pm (UTC)
What's perhaps the saddest is that "[d]espite the tongue-in-cheek nature of this piece, it can, and likely will, be taken out of context, and used destructively by bigots and homophobes with ill intentions" is true. -_-
19th-Apr-2006 03:01 pm (UTC)
I'm not sure if I completely understand point 14.
22nd-Apr-2006 04:48 am (UTC)
Pure un-adulterated sarcasm of exemplifying the HIV+/queer stereotype.
19th-Apr-2006 03:36 pm (UTC)
In your handy dandy copy & paste box the link to this entry is broken.

This is lovelyand amusing and I have linked it from my journal.
19th-Apr-2006 05:05 pm (UTC)
19th-Apr-2006 03:51 pm (UTC) - I am with you 1 bajillion percent:
But I think the link should point towards


because the standard embedded link gives you an error :)
19th-Apr-2006 03:58 pm (UTC) - Brilliant!!!
Made my morning....Thanks for sharing xoxoxoxo
19th-Apr-2006 04:05 pm (UTC)
I have some points of disagreement with your Gay Agenda.

First, one marriage, once? What about those of us who were widowed? Don't we get to marry again?

Second, no wedding rings? That doesn't work for me. If my gay friends get to wear their wedding rings (and they do), so do I!

No adoption by straights - even accepting, loving straights - of the children of gay partners who decide to put up a child for adoption? I'd rather see straights have to qualify for adoption at all by demonstrating welcoming attitudes, because after all, your child is your child no matter what his or her orientation or gender determination (and this would force the transgender issue, too, which is all to the good - if your child is trans, she's still your child, and you have to welcome that, you fucking bigoted Xtians). And no more forcing intersex children into one or the other gender arbitrarily at birth. Let the person decide as an adult about gender.

Sorry, my religion doesn't "do" Gospel. :-)

Otherwise, I *love* the New Gay Agenda. It rocks!
19th-Apr-2006 04:39 pm (UTC) - I'm stealing it ...
... but I would suggest you put this instead in your box-code thingy (I changed the direct link and it works like a charm now, leading directly to this entry):


proudly brought to you by jesus_h_biscuit

You get pretty kissing pirates for your trouble. :-)
19th-Apr-2006 05:06 pm (UTC) - Re: I'm stealing it ...
19th-Apr-2006 04:44 pm (UTC) - Fianlly...
Something I can get behind. AND I could get behind you too *wink*

(for the record online friend of City of Dis)
19th-Apr-2006 05:21 pm (UTC)
The only thing that bugged me about that despite that it's mostly tongue-in-cheek, there were some serious points there and to mix them up with any suggestions that are about the spread of HIV annoyed me a lot. I lost a couple of good friends to AIDS and take it deadly seriously. I'm all for complete equal rights for gays, but as was mentioned, some of this could be taken out of context and just give idiots like James Dobson more ammunition to gain supporters. Still, overall, well said.
25th-Jun-2006 02:26 pm (UTC)
I agree. #7 says "closet" to me, and #14 -- right, infect pedophiles who will do even greater damage to the kids they abuse? When you talk about spreading aids, brother, you guarantee I won't crosspost this.

The first six items are terrific, and get your point across. After that, you get so specific and so machiavellian that there's no way such a large and diverse group could agree on it.
19th-Apr-2006 07:34 pm (UTC)
I think #11 isn't quite right.

If a celibate gay's blood is more dangerous than that of sexually promiscuous heterosexual, the problem is in the screening process, not the orientation of the donor. Faggot blood is God's blood.

The problem is that at the American Red Cross, you're not asked if you're gay. You're asked if you've had sexual contact with another man. A celibate gay can, indeed, donate.

Sorry - just being anal retentive.
20th-Apr-2006 01:13 am (UTC)
It depends on how celibate you are. If you have had sex with another man since 1978, you are not celibate enough. You can choose to be celibate even if you have had sex in the past.
19th-Apr-2006 09:33 pm (UTC)
If it is possible to shit myself laughing and be moved emotionally at the same time, you've done it.
19th-Apr-2006 11:36 pm (UTC) - Wow
That was totally phenomenal. Thank you so much - i laughed and i agreed and i have posted it in my LJ to spread the wealth.
20th-Apr-2006 12:18 am (UTC)
Just... *stands up and claps*
20th-Apr-2006 01:45 am (UTC)
On a serious note:

It seems to me, concerning #17, that it would lend character to a meritocratic society if there weren't party platforms at all.

Politicians should be voted for purely by their views on select issues. Anyone who cannot think beyond the simple republican/democrat dichotomy shouldn't be voting anyway. The existence of well defined parties leads to partisanry and division. How rare it is that democrat and republican alike can step outside the accepted bounds of their party to promote legislation that truly reflects their own values and that of the people.

It is difficult, of course, in that the human brain is surpassingly skilled at generalizing paradigms into neat categories. Or, in adolescentspeak, 'using labels.'

Thousands of years have shown us that candidates rarely having the shining, virtuous quality of their namesake. Naturally the call of power draws the worst among those to wield it: those that want power. Our current system of government promotes this corruption in that the only people that ever do get elected are the rich. Perhaps democracy would be served better if election did not rely on campaigns of disingenuity, corporate backing, and the oversimplification of serious issues in order to appeal to an overlong present unthinking mindset of the masses. People could be presented with each issue of interest during that period of time individually and vote according to their views. I'm envisioning a format something like internet contagion memes, where each answer conveys a percentage to the candidate whom agrees.

In some manner the people would need to express which political issues they wanted to vote on, perhaps a polling quarter some period of time before the actual elections. As for the candidates themselves, as they would obviously not be running a campaign to win the people over through the preponderance of their own charms... Education is the quality that needs to be reviewed, perhaps by a judiciary council well equipped with experience in legal discernment to judge whether a political candidate has a proper understanding of the law in order to use their position effectively. Perhaps the candidates' academic performance in some sort of program that would prepare them for the election time would fall under a hierarchy in which those who performed better were placed as candidates for higher positions within the hierarchy to run for, effectively giving the most responsibilities and power to the smartest, and lower positions along the hierarchy to those who performed with less profundity. A government position concerning a local district as opposed to the presidency, for example. This would still mean that the majority of politicians would be lawyers, of course, but if they came from more affluent backgrounds, at least they would not have the luxury of falling back on the support of enterprises, as business should have as little to do with government as government has to do with business - a TRUE capitalism.

Hmm, well you got me to musing over things. Sorry for soiling your satire with this babble.

Page 1 of 4
<<[1] [2] [3] [4] >>
This page was loaded Apr 22nd 2019, 12:21 pm GMT.