Not continued from previous post. I know I said I would, but I had half a bottle of Tanqueray instead. Fuck it.
It’s late September again, and you know what that means. No, I’m not talking about Talk Like a Pirate Day. Or Ask a Stupid Question Day. Or even the immensely more kickass Elephant Appreciation Day. No, for the seething masses of Christian Conservatives in America, late September means only two things: A) Rod Stewart REALLY should be back at school, and B) the Value Voters Summit.
For those who don’t follow the effervescent soup that is political lexicography (ie: those of you with a life), “Value Voters” are the democratic equivalent of fast-food “Value Meals”: generally bad for you but cheap as hell. All a politician needs to do to court these folks is pray publicly (in direct contravention of Matthew 6:5-6), oppose abortion and homosexuality, and not be an ethnic minority.
Actually, that’s not entirely fair. This year’s Summit had five black speakers over the course of the three-day event. That’s almost two black people a day! It’s also two more African-Americans than they had in 2008, when Barack Obama gave black people the right to vote.* They don’t have any Asians or Latinos yet, but they do have Stephen Baldwin, a.k.a. “The Other White Baldwin”, so that should be enough.
*…for a candidate that doesn’t despise or patronize them.
The ’09 Summit was a doozy, featuring such riveting sessions as “The New Masculinity” (an anti-movement to feminism) and “Global Warming Hysteria: The Face of the New Pro-Death Agenda”. There, attendees learned about startling advances in the field of Biblical environmentalism, which could help end Obama’s policy of coercing abortions to fight global warming. (I swear to Cthulhu, this is real. I’d give half an inch off my wang to be able to make up shit this good.)
The event that really caught my eye, though, was the first of the breakout session meetings: “True Tolerance: Countering the Homosexual Agenda in Public Schools”. Now, anyone who knows me will tell you that I’m a veritable bastion of tolerance. Most days, I don’t even think about lynching until well into the afternoon. If I see a gay person on the street or in the workplace, I won’t condemn them as the abominations they are to their actual faces. Not while I’m sober, at least. Every right-thinking person has to draw the line somewhere, though. For me that somewhere is having an agenda. It’s just a sneaky word. Merriam-Webster has the etymology as the neuter plural of agendum. Did you catch that? The NEUTER plural. “Agenda” is neither male nor female, but some kind of godless ladyboy word. Why should we be surprised that the gays have one?
Enthralled but fearful, I set out to determine what this mysterious agenda is. After asking several gay people at random, all I managed to figure out is that A) homosexuals are a surprisingly secretive bunch of folks, and B) I really need to do something about my pores. Undeterred, I turned to the one source I can always rely on: Conservapedia. Conservapedia, in case you don’t know, is an open-edited, user-generated online encyclopedia for people who don’t have time for the rigorous neutrality, vetting, and professionalism typically associated with Wikipedia. In fact, Conservapedia maintains that Wikipedia’s stated goal of academic neutrality makes them liberally biased. I suppose facts, like my testicles, naturally lean left. In order to hit the center, you have to aim to the right. If you really can’t be bothered to check out the site, I’ll sum it up this way: Their article on Phyllis Schlafly is five times larger than their entry on the NAACP. Really.
Luckily for me, Conservapedia came through with an astounding article on the Homosexual Agenda. It’s forty-five times longer than the NAACP article, meaning that the Homosexual Agenda is more important than nine Phyllis Schlaflys. It is unknown how Conservapedia acquired this information, or how many brave men had to sit through the Winter Olympics to get it. What is known is that the Homosexual Agenda is “a set of beliefs and objectives designed to promote and even mandate acceptance and approval of homosexuality”. Are you getting this? Gay people want to be accepted and approved of. We are truly through the looking glass here, people. The article states that some homosexuals even go so far as to “…tell seven- or eight-year-old boys, ‘If you only like boys, there’s a chance you may be homosexual’…” How dare they declare tautologies to impressionable youngsters? Won’t somebody PLEASE think of the children? Luckily, the foolish homosexuals’ efforts are all for naught in this particular endeavor. As the insightful article explains, “Well, at that age, all members of the opposite sex have cooties.”
And don’t think that the Great Gay Plot only entails their unique brand of accepto-fascism. No, the stalwarts of liberty at Conservapedia go on to detail eleven specific goals of the Homogenda. Some of these goals are predictable, such as “11. Pushing for legalized adoption by gay individuals and couples” and “1. Destroying Christian morals”. Some are utterly devious, though. Number seven on the list is “Stopping children as young as 5 years old from attending therapy to repair their sexual preference”. Can you imagine? What kind of America is this where people can’t send their five-year-olds off to be sexually repaired? The most disturbing bulletpoint, however, is easily number ten: “Undermining the resolve of latent homosexuals so that their will becomes too weak to resist the temptations of homosexuality.”
This, it seems to me, is the true threat of the Homosexual agenda. Not content to merely be gay, and thus unaccepted and disapproved of, homosexuals want to recruit others to their side. And should we really believe that they’ll stop with latent homosexuals? Of course not! After them, it will be the bisexuals, then the transexuals, then the metrosexuals, and then… all of us. Every man woman and child, queer as a three-dollar bill. Conservapedia explains it thusly: “…if all Americans turned homosexual it would only take a few generations for the United States to lose most of the population of the country through lack of procreation. This would make the US more vulnerable to attack by our enemies.” Chilling, isn’t it?
Since I’ve never even heard of in vitro fertilization, I am forced to accept this unhappy but clearly logical conclusion. Homosexuals want nothing less than the complete downfall of this great nation. They know full well how alluring gayism is, and they will do everything in their power to make us succumb to our unnatural lusts. We must take a stand now! I call on all straight people to say NO! America will NOT come out of the closet! We will NOT fall passionately into the safety of your oiled, rippling arms and purr like contented kittens against your soft yet manly chest! Our wives will NEVER surrender to their sapphic desires to be touched like only a woman can. We REFUSE to experience hot girl-on-girl action or the exquisite pleasure of knowing another man’s taste!