Magazine uses Sesame Street Characters to Celebrate Marriage Equality Ruling

[TracerBullet]

Yes I know the homosexual community asserts it's satire as do you.

Anyone who is honest enough to actually read what wasprinted will assert that it is satire. It sys itself it is satire. Choppingout the fact it is a parody of so many claims of homophobes to try to pretendthis is representative of gays and lesbians everywhere is just dishonest

But I remember when homosexual activists belonging to organizations like Act Up were throwing their body fluids through the open windows of families in traffic back in the 1980's when that was written.

No one else seems to remember this. Can’tfind any news articles or police records.

Please provide reference this for us all.

I remember when such comments weren't satirical at all but rather aligned perfectly with the actions of homosexual activists. But you were just a kid then. Probably not even yet dreaming of distorting God's Word so badly to push the homosexual agenda.

I may have been young but I was also opposed to prejudiceand discrimination

 

[TracerBullet]

You mean exactly like you do with homosexuality. Yes there were some, unfortunately who fell into that error for a time.

So untold numbers of intelligent educated theologians fromdozens of country and over many generations were all just wrong. Wow

But the genuine Christian scholars at the top universities were united in a proper exegesis regarding slavery and racism exactly as their predecessors had been all the way back to the Christ and the apostles themselves.

Like who exactly?

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

I disagree. I don't think that anyone (e.g. meaning everyone) who reads Swift's statement sees it as satire.

But I certainly do remember it clearly because even though it was short-lived, local news coverage did cover it on television back in the day back before cable TV when we still used antennas. This was before the Internet was available to the public, before people carried cell phones, had portable video, and all that. The newspaper stories would be on old microfilm. I doubt news stations store local news tape stories that long but I don't know as I'm not in the business.

What stopped it cold was the public backlash and they quickly started tossing water instead and I never heard of them flinging body fluids again afterwards. I also recall reading pieces of early homosexual activitists whom were dying of AIDS stating they wanted to get AIDS into the mainstream hetrosexual population to get medical science moving on a cure.

Oh well, it was a long time ago.

Anyone who is honest enough to actually read what wasprinted will assert that it is satire. It sys itself it is satire. Choppingout the fact it is a parody of so many claims of homophobes to try to pretendthis is representative of gays and lesbians everywhere is just dishonest

No one else seems to remember this. Can’tfind any news articles or police records.

Please provide reference this for us all.

I may have been young but I was also opposed to prejudiceand discrimination

 

[TracerBullet]

I disagree. I don't think that anyone (e.g. meaning everyone) who reads Swift's statement sees it as satire.

Maybe that is because his statement that it is satire, (whichis the first sentence of the paragraph you quote) is never shown by thosetrying to misrepresent what this person wrote.

 

[TracerBullet]

We are all still waiting for you to provide evidence for this ever happening

But I remember when homosexual activists belonging to organizations like Act Up were throwing their body fluids through the open windows of families in traffic back in the 1980's when that was written.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Having lived through that period and seeing what I saw, I didn't know it was satire until I read your reply as I've never had the benefit of reading the full piece he wrote in its entirety. I'd like to see a link to the original if you know where one is online just so I can tell others when they post it that it is satire.

Maybe that is because his statement that it is satire, (whichis the first sentence of the paragraph you quote) is never shown by thosetrying to misrepresent what this person wrote.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Well Inspector Clouseau, I have my memories and I never said I could provide you digital proof of them. Truthfully, a lot of low level events that happened from the period never made it to the Internet (especially if it wasn't politically correct which that was not).

As for waiting, I'm still waiting on you to start acting like a decent human being. I suppose we'll have to wait on each other. You wait for me to produce something from the 80's that didn't make it to the Internet and I'll wait for you to become a decent human being.

We are all still waiting for you to provide evidence for this ever happening

 

[TracerBullet]

Having lived through that period and seeing what I saw, I didn't know it was satire until I read your reply as I've never had the benefit of reading the full piece he wrote in its entirety. I'd like to see a link to the original if you know where one is online just so I can tell others when they post it that it is satire.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/swift1.asp

 

[TracerBullet]

Well Inspector Clouseau, I have my memories and I never said I could provide you digital proof of them. Truthfully, a lot of low level events that happened from the period never made it to the Internet (especially if it wasn't politically correct which that was not).

As for waiting, I'm still waiting on you to start acting like a decent human being. I suppose we'll have to wait on each other. You wait for me to produce something from the 80's that didn't make it to the Internet and I'll wait for you to become a decent human being.

Didn’t make it to the internet. Or any newspapers. Or any police reports…

 

[JimJimmers]

Didn’t make it to the internet. Or any newspapers. Or any police reports…

You read every single newspaper and police report from 1980 to 2013? Good going!

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

There might be some microfilm on it somewhere possibly but that's about it. You can only find preserved media for the really big homosexual activist national news stories from that time on the Internet like when ACT UP invaded New York's St. Patrick's Cathedral in 1989 and assaulted everyday family people while desecrating the consecrated Host by throwing it on the ground and stamping on it.

Hundreds of homosexuals stood outside screaming and attacked a passerby while burning an effigy of a Cardinal in the street because the Cardinal was for abstinence and monogamy. They carried signs that said "Christ was a homosexual" and the like.

They issued a press release afterwards saying it was morally OK for them to "invade any space" and "disrupt any speech" and then a year later they tossed the same church again.

No body fluids at that event but you get the idea of what they were doing.

You read every single newspaper and police report from 1980 to 2013? Good going!

 

[TracerBullet]

You read every single newspaper and police report from 1980 to 2013? Good going!

Apparently you aren’t aware that the archives of pretty muchevery major newspaper in the country are digitized and searchable

 

[TracerBullet]

There might be some microfilm on it somewhere possibly but that's about it. You can only find preserved media for the really big homosexual activist national news stories from that time on the Internet like when ACT UP invaded New York's St. Patrick's Cathedral in 1989 and assaulted everyday family people

Blatant lie. No onewas assaulted or harmed in any way.

while desecrating the consecrated Host by throwing it on the ground and stamping on it.

the act of one individual

Hundreds of homosexuals stood outside

4,500 protestors from many organizations

screaming and attacked a passerby

Blatant lie. No one insideor outside of the cathedral was assaulted or harmed in any way

while burning an effigy of a Cardinal in the street

Blatant lie. No effigyof anyone was burned.

because the Cardinal was for abstinence and monogamy.

Actually it was in protest of the church using its politicalinfluence to disrupt education on HIV/AIDS and the promotion of discrimination

They carried signs that said "Christ was a homosexual" and the like.

False. No such signwas present. I’m doing some researchto find out just when this fib was started and by who

They issued a press release afterwards saying it was morally OK for them to "invade any space" and "disrupt any speech" and then a year later they tossed the same church again.

No body fluids at that event but you get the idea of what they were doing.

The Cardinal decided to involve the church in politics andthe suppression of information and the promotion of discrimination and theadvancement of a disease. Let’s notpretend that he was in any way a victim

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Great then you should have no problem. Just pay your fees and off you go. Have fun.

Apparently you aren’t aware that the archives of pretty muchevery major newspaper in the country are digitized and searchable

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

So you were there and know for a fact that Catholic parishioner accounts are all blatant lies then? Please provide empirical evidence proving their accounts are all lies because if they're telling the truth and you're wrong, according to your own "logic" that makes you a "blatant liar."

You can start on that by interviewing the folks over at Catholics Citizens when you've finished your research on the nation's newspaper archives.

And I never said there weren't other organizations supporting ACT UP in these attacks. I'm reading WHAM was there as well. But books such as 'The Last New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice' recount that ACT UP members led the charge in every respect which every account I can find confirms including ACT UP documentary filmmaker Jim Hubbard who writes on his film's website:

"“Stop the Church” was ACT UP’s most controversial action. Many members also felt it was the most effective. It represents an example of how a shared strategy can inspire different and even competing tactics. In December 1989, ACT UP chose to organize a direct action at Saint Patrick’s Cathedral when the Catholic Church spearheaded policies to keep condoms out of New York City public schools."

What part of "In December 1989, ACT UP chose to organize a direct action at Saint Patrick's Cathedral" do you find confusing?

Here's a quote from a later 1994 demonstration:

"When the marchers reached [St. Patrick's] Cathedral, they yelled - in unison - four letter epithets and pointed their middle fingers at those on the steps of the church. Some were dressed as Cardinals, others as nuns and priests, and many wore nothing at all. They sat down in the street, did satanic dances and generally showed as much disrespect as they could."

Furthermore, "Every June, gay pride marches could be counted on to produce their share of grotesquely anti-Catholic imagery. Among the flagrant attacks were men in jock straps simulating oral sex in front of St Patrick's Cathedral during Sunday mass."

No assaults in 1994 though. I guess we can call that an "improvement" in homosexual activist "tolerance."

 

[TracerBullet]

Great then you should have no problem. Just pay your fees and off you go. Have fun.

Publicly available BTW


And then there are all the network news agencies like ABCand CNN.

You would think that some journalist somewhere would havedocumented an assault like this.

 

[TracerBullet]

So you were there and know for a fact that Catholic parishioner accounts are all blatant lies then? Please provide empirical evidence proving their accounts are all lies because if they're telling the truth and you're wrong, according to your own "logic" that makes you a "blatant liar."

Well, all one has to do is check the police records…none ofwhich mention anyone being assaulted. The reports also don’t include any mention of anything burning(considering such an act is a crime the police would be the first to mentionit)

Or read the extensive coverage of the incident in the NewYork Times. Which also say no one wasassaulted.

Or view the tapes of the incident – which show no one beingassaulted.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Well my memories involve a couple of local events televised by local news stations, as I stated. I'm not sure why you assume ABC and CNN would be sent copies of every local news stories from the 1980's. Please provide evidence showing that ABC and CNN have massive libraries of old tapes sent to them from every local news station in the country between the years 1980 and 1990. Thanking you in advance.

Publicly available BTW

And then there are all the network news agencies like ABCand CNN.

You would think that some journalist somewhere would havedocumented an assault like this.

 

[TracerBullet]

Well my memories involve a couple of local events televised by local news stations, as I stated. I'm not sure why you assume ABC and CNN would be sent copies of every local news stories from the 1980's. Please provide evidence showing that ABC and CNN have massive libraries of old tapes sent to them from every local news station in the country between the years 1980 and 1990. Thanking you in advance.

Pause to think about this for a second. You aretrying to say that a horrific assault on parents and children was committed bya nationally recognized gay organization but not a single news outlet eitherprint or televised ever made even the slightest mention of it.

Yeah.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

More than a hundred of them were arrested but I'm not aware if any were charged with assault or not. It would be unlikely in my opinion because they weren't beating people down but rather pushing them around. The latter constitutes assault but it's rarely prosecuted as such compared to the former. It was a chaotic scene but I'm not aware of the mainstream liberal press (e.g. New York Times, etc...) interviewing a single parishioner during or after the event. The Catholic Media Coalition did; however. And they say they were assaulted (as in pushed around) and that the activists did burn an effigy. For more information, contact the Catholic Media Coalition.

Well, all one has to do is check the police records…none ofwhich mention anyone being assaulted. The reports also don’t include any mention of anything burning(considering such an act is a crime the police would be the first to mentionit)

Or read the extensive coverage of the incident in the NewYork Times. Which also say no one wasassaulted.

Or view the tapes of the incident – which show no one beingassaulted.