Men can no longer gather with men to do good works (through groups such as the Rotary Club). Women sued to be allowed in. Men don’t sue to get into female-only groups. So this destroyed service clubs.
The only place that men can gather with men are religious places and strip clubs.
When news broke last week that the homosexual lobby in New Jersey had won a decision against online dating service eHarmony, we were once again reminded that the pursuit of “equal rights” for homosexuals is often an attempt to impose their agenda. It would behoove us to learn from this that the Left, and particularly the militant homosexual wing of the Left, will not stop until they have defiled all that we hold dear and have corrupted all we hold incorruptible.
In what proved to be another case of discrimination victim (gay Eric McKinley) vs. business owner and “bigot” (Neil Clark Warren, founder eHarmony), we learned that McKinley had gotten his little feelings hurt when he learned that eHarmony had no options for men to meet men on their website. According to USA Today, when McKinley saw that only straight couples could meet on eHarmony he found it “very frustrating… very humiliating to think that other people can do it and I can’t."
McKinley filed suit in 2005, and with the help of the New Jersey Civil Rights Division, reached a settlement which resulted in eHarmony paying $5,000 to McKinley, $50,000 to the New Jersey Civil Rights Division, and opening a sister site for gays which will “include photos of same-sex couples, as well as individual same-sex users, in advertising materials used to promote its same-sex matching services.”
Dennis Prager said on his radio show Friday: "It’s not gays, it’s the Left. The Left wants you to attack the gays, that way they’re not attacked. There’s the Left in every group — Jews, Christians, Hispanics… The Left wants you to attack gays so they can say the public is anti-gay. It’s not. It’s anti-Left. Many gays think this is crazy. That if you want to meet gays, you go to a separate website."
Prager applauded eHarmony for fighting for three years to not match gays. "Companies do not have unlimited funds. The state has unlimited funds [to sue]."
"Those conservatives who are angry at eHarmony. What should they have done? Gone out of business?"
"At least it is a separate website but that will be challenged. Separate but equal will be challenged. This is what you get for electing Democrats. They run New Jersey. They put up the Attorney General. They have trial lawyers as one of their two biggest constituencies for giving money.
"They’re smart. They send up smokescreens. It’s the Right taking our liberty. The Patriot Act…
"A viable company can’t say they only want to match men and women anymore. What if a company just wants to match Christians? Or African-Americans? Or Jews to meet Jews?"
"God forbid a golf club is only for men. It is might as well be Jim Crow. Everything is compared to Jim Crow.
"I remember when I first moved to California [circa 1977] and I joined the Simi Valley Rotary Club. It was all men. It was a place for men to do good works. That was all they did. I was blown away at the goodness of the Rotary Club. Do you know what macho was? Setting up a scholarship for retarded kids in your neighborhood. Guys would compete to do good works.
"Don’t blame women. The Left argued it’s not fair that the Rotary Clubs were for men. Same thing with the Boy Scouts. You do as we say or we destroy you. That’s the Left. And they can thanks to lawyers and the Democratic Party.
That the news media were biased in the 2008 presidential election is now acknowledged by fair-minded people, left or right
As Time Magazine’s Mark Halperin said this weekend at a Politico/USC Conference on the 2008 election: “It’s the most disgusting failure of people in our business. … It was extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage."
Given how obvious this bias is, the question is not whether liberals in the media tend to offer biased reporting. The question is why? Why can’t liberal news people report the news without any slant?
The answer is that for people on the left, all — I repeat, all — professions are a means to an end, not ends in themselves. That end is the social transformation of society, meaning the promoting of “social justice” as the left understands that term.
For most liberal news reporters, therefore, the purpose of news reporting is not to report news as objectively as possible. The purpose of the media in general and of reporting specifically is to promote social justice and the social transformation of society.
For most liberal judges, the primary purpose of being a judge is to promote social justice and transform society. That is why liberal judges are so much more likely to be judicial activists than conservative judges. Most liberal judges do not see their roles as merely adjudicating a dispute according to the law. They see their role primarily as using the law and their power to rule on the law to promote social justice.
For most university professors — and many high school teachers, as well — outside of the natural sciences and math, the same holds true. The task of a teacher is to teach, i.e., to convey the most important information as honestly as possible. But, again, this conflicts with the social justice goal of the left. History teachers who merely teach history are of little use to the left. History — and English and political science, and sociology and other liberal arts — teachers must use their classroom to produce young people who will wish to engage in society-transforming work for social justice.
For most liberals in the arts (there are very few conservatives in the arts) there is no denial of their having an agenda. They state quite candidly that the purpose of the arts is to challenge the (conservative) status quo, to raise political and social consciousness by advancing a “progressive” political and social agenda. The artist whose agenda is merely to produce beautiful art is looked upon as a reactionary buffoon, and is not likely to be taken seriously — no matter how talented — in the worlds of music, dance, painting, and sculpture.
Even the natural sciences are increasingly subject to being rendered a means to a “progressive” end. There was the pseudo-threat of heterosexual AIDS in America — science manipulated in order to de-stigmatize AIDS as primarily a gay man’s disease and to increase funding for AIDS research. There are the exaggerated secondhand smoke data popularized so as to decrease smoking and fight “Big Tobacco.” And now we have the scientifically questionable belief in man-made carbon emissions causing global warming leading to natural catastrophe — and recommended “solutions” many of which, if adopted, will serve the goal of undermining corporate capitalism.
The best analogy of the directing of all human endeavors toward a left-wing purpose would be those early medieval centuries of European life when just about everything man made was supposed to reflect a religious consciousness. Virtually nothing stood apart from the Church. The arts were religious, the sciences were handmaidens of theology, and schools were religious in nature.
Most moderns look upon that period as a dark age — perhaps a bit unfairly at times. But the people who most scorn what they deem the religious “Dark Ages” are trying to building a secular-left dark age in our time. Because the left is a religion, a substitute for the Christianity it seeks to displace.
