STEW STUMPS FOR SODOMITES

*


In the 7-23 Oshkosh Northworstern, Executive Editor Stew Rieckman explained his editing rationale for the homosexual marriage issue. If he wasn't before, Stew is now out of the closet as a fervently biased homosexual marriage supporter.

Let's look at key portions of his editorial:

"Some are calling it censorship. As an example, one letter writer expressed the opinion that claiming a gay lifestyle is akin to the 'big lie' strategy espoused by Adolph Hitler and the Nazis. ... any comparative use of Hitler and the Nazis is a backdoor attempt to demonize gays."

A "backdoor attempt"? Should you really be using such incendiary homosexual terminology, Editor Rieckman?

The Hitler "big lie" strategy was employed by the Nazis. The lavendar lobby is indeed pulling a well-known and often used play out of Hitler's playbook, and exposing that is not an attempt to demonize anybody. It's the TRUTH. That letter was submitteed by WMD stalwart Al Doyle.

BTW, "demonize gays"? Your routine use of the term 'gay' is an attempt to soften the image of the perverts. Why not use the neutral, clinical term 'homosexual'? What's wrong with the biblical term 'sodomite'? Or their own term 'queer'? Stew's term is much more biased and endearing to the homosexuals.

Oh, also, any of you who read this blog know that Wisconsin's sodomite State Senator, and spearhead to subvert this bill, Tim Carpenter, called me "Hitler" at a joint-session public meeting on this bill in Madison. Where was Editor Reickman's outrage? He admitted in his rejection letter to my fiancee that he reads this blog.

'We will not get into conflicting scientific theories, research, or studies about whether homosexuality is genetic or a choice."

The sodomites already make the claim that it is, so Stew here is censoring our ability to refute that claim with medical and scientific information. That is his response to a letter I submitted.

The fact that many have forsaken the homosexual lifestyle proves that it is a choice. And what's wrong with presenting the scientific claims of both sides? Nothing, unless Stew is afraid that even printing both sides, the evidence would not favor his side. He sounds like an evolutionist, scared to death to face the truth square on, scared to even face a fair, two-sided presentation.

We will not drag our readers into a graphic description of sexual acts engaged in by gay couples. The mere existence of pornographic material depicting lurid sex between heterosexual couples would argue that neither camp has captured the moral high ground.

We are not asking to graphically display "lurid" homosexual (or heterosexual) pornography. ANY sexual activity between homosexuals is immoral and perverted. The "normal" act of homosexuals, one man inserting his penis into another man's anus, is unnatural and repulsive enough. The fact that the average homosexual has over 100 different partners is shocking enough. We don't even have to expose the feculant behavior that goes in in "gay" bathhouses.

That was another letter by Al Doyle, and was written using clinical terms so as not to be graphic and offensive. The very fact that even describing the most mild of homosexual acts in clinical terms is so disgusting proves that society has no business codifying the behavior as "marriage". It also shows that an editor of a family newspaper should be fighting against this perversion - since his own editorial position is an admission that homosexuality is disgusting and abhorrent.

Notice how Stew's editorial guidelines have been written to specifically eliminate opposing letters from WMD members, but hardly hinder any from the queer lobby? Just a coincidence?

"We are not going to permit loaded, pejorative language like 'gay bashing' or 'depraved lifestyle'."

Stew, using 'gay' instead of 'homosexual' is loaded language. Your hypocrisy is appalling. Some terms are simply TRUE, even if they may be negative of offensive. Should the Northworstern ban such loaded, pejorative terms as 'child molester' so as not to offend NAMBLA? But I agree with the idea of eliminating senseless name calling.

"Letters that exchange deuling Bible verses, sometimes called Bible Bingo, will no longer be accepted."

Although I agree the repetitive slinging of Bible verses is overdone, it's obvious which side gains greatly from squelching scripture.

So our pro-marriage side cannot:

1. Use the Bible.
2. Present scientific and medical evidence to counter claims already made by homosexuals.
3. Use truthful analogies to expose tactics of the lavendar lobby.
4. Give any description of what homosexual activity entails.

and the pro-homo side cannot:

1. Use the Bible (and that prohibition works in their favor).

"Besides, one person's definition of censorship is another person's definition of editing".

Oh Stew! You call your blatant, one-sided censorship 'editing'? That's hilarious! You missed your calling. With the ratings of Saturday Night Live going down steadily, a comedian with your comic skills would bring them back to the glory days of Bill Murray and Eddie Murphy.

LET'S TRY AGAIN

*

Here's one that eidtor Rieckman might not censor:

Dear Editor,

Kevin McGee rebuked Richard Ives for his support of the one man/one woman marriage bill. McGee used the same old arguments that we should “judge not”, “cast (not) the first stone”, and leave the judgment up to God and treat homosexuals with “charity, mercy and compassion”.

Does that argument really hold water? What if we replace homosexuals in his letter with other people the Bible considers immoral?

Should we “judge not” adulterers, polygamists, and pornographers?

Rapists, and those who commit bestiality, are judged as criminals and incarcerated. Should we treat them with “charity, mercy and compassion” and let them free?

Should we not “cast the first stone” at child molesters or spouse beaters? Should we leave the judgment up to God and leave such people alone?

McGee’s argument obviously is ridiculous. If something is immoral, it should be judged and rebuked. When homosexuality rears up, it should be dealt with. But, that cannot happen unless the homosexuals flaunt their behavior publicly and demand others accept their behavior. However, that’s not even what this bill does. It simply defines marriage as between one man and one woman - as it always has been. It does not criminalize homosexuality.

The context of the passages McGee referred to is hypocritical judgment. We should not pass a judgment on others we wouldn’t pass on ourselves. If we commit crimes, we should be judged.

McGee also said that he and Ives are “different types of Christians”. The only type of Christian in the Bible is one who receives the Lord Jesus Christ as Saviour by believing He died on the cross, and rose again, to take away our sin debt.

POLL-ITICS of DECEPTION

*

The polls in Wisconsin have been favoring preserving traditional marriage by a 60% - 40% margin (counting undecideds it would be about 55% - 35% - 10%).

A recent lone poll noted in the previous article claims the numbers are about even. Detractors insist this poll is representative of Wisconsin, but I contend it's representative of Madison, the homosexual hotbed of Wisconsin. Yes, the poll says it's of *Wisconsin* residents - but Madison residents ARE Wisconsin residents.

You ask, do I suspect the pollsters and reporters are being dishonest? My answer - YES. We see their bias here below.

Another poll came out this week. It used almost identical criteria to the previous poll. You can find it at http://www.uwsc.wisc.edu/BP22PressRelease_Death_Samesex.pdf

This poll comes in at 53% - 44%. Traditional marriage again enjoys a substantial, almost double-digit, margin.

I wonder why this poll wasn't blazed across the top of a page in the Oshkosh Northwestern to show a trend like the previous one? Instead it was a one-column article running down the side of a page.

Not only that, the headline reads:

State mixed on ban

Half support ban on gay marriage

You could say a 99% to 1% poll was "mixed", but the term implies an even mix. Saying HALF support ban implies the poll is 50/50, when the truth is the traditional marriage side has a significant edge.

Just wording it as a "ban" on "gay marriage" (as the Northwestern always does), shows bias. The bill is to preserve marriage between one man and one woman, but that sounds positive, while 'ban' gives that side a negative connotation. Also, they consistently use 'gay', rather than homosexual, sodomite, or queer, for the same reasons.

Stew Rieckman says he enjoys this blog. I'd enjoy it much more if he would stop showing such a blatant bias in favor of the sodomite lobby. I'd love to report that editor Rieckman is printing both sides of the issue fairly, but that would be dishonest on my part.

ANOTHER NORTHWESTERN DECEPTION!

*

Action Wisconsin and Fair(y) Wisconsin hardly need their own websites promoting the homosexual agenda. The Oshkosh Northwestern does an even better job promoting the sodomite side of things than the queer's own outlets.

An illustration appears in this letter by my fiancee (yes, Action Wisconsin and the Oshkosh Northwestern will probably be offended that I am engaged to a member of the opposite sex). I'll be surprised if the "unbiased" executive editor, Stew Rieckman, allows this to see the light of day.

Am I accusing him of censoring the truth, you ask. YES.

Dear Editor,

Once again an edition of the Oshkosh Northwestern appears to have been published by the “Fair Wisconsin” group supporting homosexual marriage.

An article in Sunday’s paper claimed that the polls now show a nearly even split of those favoring the bill to define marriage as between one man and one woman, and those opposed to traditional families.

The polls have been running at least 60%-40% in favor of upholding traditional marriage and this makes it look like the gap is narrowing toward homosexual marriage,

The only problem is that the poll was from Madison - the hotbed of homosexuality in Wisconsin. It’s actually surprising that even in Madtown, the sodomite agenda lost 49% to 48%.

To print a Madison poll as representative of the state of Wisconsin couldn’t have been more deceptive and irresponsible if the Northwestern actually did allow Fair Wisconsin to approve that edition. The Northwestern staff ought to be ashamed of themselves for so blatantly shilling for the sodomite agenda while pretending to be reporting a news item.

Is the Northwestern really that stupid, or do they think their readership is that stupid?

NEW Northwestern!

*
Stew Rieckman has done it again! He has nixed a letter to the editor which exposed the oft-repeated sodomite lie that they were "born gay".

It cannot be just a coincidence that this same point keeps getting edited out of letters. He has edited that point out of two of Dick Ives' letters, despite the fact that one of them was an item-by-item respoonse to a pro-homo letter. IOW, the pro-homo was allowed to make the claim that he was "born that way" (or made by God that way), but Ives was not allowed to refute that lie.

The same point has been culled from letters by Al Doyle, Jared Longsine, myself, and others. So this time I wrote an entire letter addressing that lie. I used pro-homo sources. Stew had absolutely no reason to refuse this letter, except to censor the truth.

Here is the letter:

Dear Editor,

The homosexual movement is getting a lot of mileage out of the idea that homosexuals cannot help their orientation because they were “born that way”.

There’s one minor problem with that claim - it’s totally false.

That’s not just the allegation of those who hold to one-man/one-woman marriage. That’s the claim of Dr. Robert Spitzer, one of the main forces behind the American Psychiatric Association's 1973 decision to remove homosexuality as a mental illness from the APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. Dr. Spitzer is now convinced that men and women who have a homosexual orientation can change. His findings were published in Archives of Sexual Behavior (Vol. 32, No. 5, October 2003, pp. 403-417).

One of the most compelling articles to dispel the notion that homosexuality is genetically determined, fixed, and unchangeable is: "The Innate-Immutable Argument Finds No Basis in Science: In Their Own Words: Gay Activists Speak About Science, Morality, Philosophy," by Drs. A. Dean Byrd, Shirley Cox, and Jeffrey Robinson. This essay is published on the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality web site.

In studies conducted by Diana Shrier and Robert Johnson in 1985 and 1988, males who had been sexually abused as children were almost seven times as likely as non-molested boys to become homosexuals.
Dr. Gregory Dickson's study shows an alarming 49% of homosexuals surveyed had been molested compared to less than 2% of heterosexuals.

Homosexuals are not born, they are made. Homosexuality is a choice, according to the above pro-homosexual sources.