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.