I am very sure, Mrs. Clinton, that you yourself have heard countless horror stories about the many self-identified "gay male" Americans who routinely and habitually refer to biological females in this country as "bitches." I myself shall never forget the unpleasant experience I had as an always-celibate single male resident of Prather Dormitory on the campus of the University of Texas at Austin, when I was subjected inside my own dorm room to the background noise of endless conversations from a self-identified gay male neighbor of mine stating his name as "Joey" --- conversations in which "Joey" repeatedly told his heterosexual male roommate or friends of Joey visiting him in his dorm room that a "bitch", and I quote exactly a favorite epithet of his, had somehow offended Joey earlier that week.
Mrs. Clinton, during your campaign did you find that a significant share of the child-less Americans, and that of course includes lots of self-identified "gay adult persons", somehow resent married couples who engage in procreational intercourse and either father or give birth to new children in this nation? Do you regard that resentment of heterosexual adult couples as unjustifiable on the part of childless Americans?
Mrs. Clinton, strong support for public schools is of course a major theme of yours, and most of those public schools are funded in large part by local property taxes. Does it offend you, Mrs. Clinton, when you are told that many single persons---and, I might add, many of the self-identified "gay adult persons" residing in any given school district----vote against increased funding for public schools in their district, and even declare angrily that "Since I don't have any children of my own, why the hell should I be expected to help finance public schools in the city where I live?"
Mrs. Clinton, you have also professed to champion the cause of Freedom of Speech in this country. This raises the follow-up question of whether you strongly support the legal right of any American citizen, regardless of their own religious or political identity, to lawfully and in a civil manner verbalize criticism of the so-called "gay subculture" or of any cited "gay media company" or "gay business" or "gay group" or "gay activist," with most Constitutional scholars in our nation apparently agreeing that the Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion clauses of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution uphold the legal right of any American citizen to lawfully verbalize criticism of any group or community or organization or subculture in this country.
Mrs. Clinton, do you oppose attempts by the so-called "gay community" or the so-called "gay rights movement" in this country to censor or suppress or prohibit or restrict lawfully-stated criticism of their cited "community" or "movement" by law-abiding and honest and non-alcoholic persons whose own priorities and moral values and religious values and lifestyle conduct favor morally and aesthetically straight heterosexual men and morally and aesthetically straight heterosexual women as their own friends and associates and co-religionists.
Mrs. Clinton, do you agree that individuals who violate the law through their assertion of what they see as their "gay rights" should, in fact, face punitive consequences that are, of course, lawfully administered?
Mrs. Clinton, does it bother you in any way to be informed by me at this time that the non-Christian and permanently drinking-alcohol-free, anti-tobacco-minded, anti-marijuana-minded, anti-illicit-drug-minded, anti-facial-hair-minded, anti-tattoos-minded, anti-profanity-in-everyday-speech-minded, anti-thought-control-projects-minded, anti-anonymous-communications-minded, anti-compelled-speech-minded, "Progressive Prohibitionist Religion" that I myself have founded in Texas is a religion with very stringent membership-eligibility requirements for which I would estimate that 99 percent or more of the persons most likely to qualify as prospective new members of fully independent and new religion are, in fact, law-abiding heterosexual men and law-abiding heterosexual women, and I would further estimate that significantly less than 1 percent of all of the self-identified homosexual, gay, effeminate male adult, lesbian, transsexual, transvestite adult persons in this country might ever at any time conceivably qualify for membership in my own "Honors Society" religion, as I also refer to it.
Mrs. Clinton, I myself in 1983 or 1984 had a local telephone conversation with a self-identified "bisexual" male adult person in Minneapolis, Minnesota, who confessed to me on the telephone that a psychologist had diagnosed him as a "pathological liar" based on one total meeting with himself in the Twin Cities of Minnesota.
The inevitable follow-up question on this is: Do you acknowledge the human right of Americans who are law-abiding and HONEST to NOT associate with individuals who either appear to be "pathological liars" or who directly confess that they themselves are "pathological liars", even if those liars identify themselves as being either "gay" or "bisexual" or "effeminate male adult persons"?
At the risk of appearing self-congratulatory myself on the subject of honesty, I am reminded, Mrs. Clinton, that my oldest brother, Kent Neal McMillan of the Austin area of Texas, did kindly state to me on the telephone several years ago, during a local phone call I made to his and his wife's home from my apartment unit in northwest Austin, that "I'm (Kent McMillan) sure you (John McMillan) are more honest than any of your previous roommates were." I should probably add that in that phone conversation, I had not specifically stated to Kent that any of my own previous roommates were, in my stated opinion, pathological liars.
Mrs. Clinton, do you agree that an individual who knowingly lies about his own age in a letter or in-person meeting with a new acquaintance or prospective dating partner, has thereby lost all credibility as a prospective "roommate" or "housemate" or "friend" or "romantic partner" or "employee" or "employer" or "business associate" or "marriage partner" or "dating partner" or "sex partner" for the latter individual?
Mrs. Clinton, do you subscribe to the view that any individual who knowingly tells a lie by stating to any other human being that he himself is "HIV-negative"----when he in fact knows that he is instead "HIV-positive"----is being dishonorable and possibly criminal, regardless of whether the cited liar refers to himself as being "gay" or "bisexual" or "homosexual" at the time of that cited incident?
Mrs. Clinton, have you made any attempt to identify what percentage of the "legal marijuana" farmers or the "legal marijuana" business owners currently being permitted by the government to operate those types of businesses in a cited U.S. city or county or state, are, in fact, self-identified "gay" or "bisexual" or "lesbian" Americans? Are you sympathetic in any way toward those Americans who maintain that the emergence of a "legal marijuana industry" and a "legal medical marijuana" industry in this country is, in fact, quasi-treasonous and pervasively injurious to American society and American moral values?
Ms. Clinton, you have indicated that "gay rights", as you put it, is a cause you have chosen to champion. Now, if you were to learn that any given owner of any given gay nightclub or any given "gay bathhouse" or any given "gay resort" inn or any given "gay" media company operating in this nation, is, in fact, someone with ties to organized crime, would you as President of the United States seek to protect your own "pro-gay-rights" reputation by asking the FBI to "ignore any and all organized crime ties that are linked to any cited gay-owned or gay-theme business, since any such criminal-investigation by the FBI would undermine my own 'Gay Rights' message as U.S. President," as you might possibly put it in a secret memo to the Director of the FBI.
Mrs. Clinton, are you worried that if self-identified gay male persons or lesbian persons or bisexual persons are permitted by the government to adopt a child, even though they themselves sometimes or frequently consume alcohol or marijuana or any other illicit drug as part of their planned 'parenthood' lifestyle, this might pose a possible threat to the human rights and legal rights of that child, through increased risk of pederastic crimes victimizing that minor or through increased risk of physical abuse victimizing that minor?
Mrs. Clinton, would you feel better about the Roman Catholic Church if the Pope were to issue an edict requiring all priests and all nuns throughout the entire world to lead permanently alcohol-free lifestyles at all times, it being likely that this edict would help to reduce the incidence of pederastic crimes and other sex crimes by priests and nuns.
Mrs. Clinton, do you agree that truly conscientious and kind Americans wishing to protect the health of themselves and their coworkers should have the legal and human right to "go beyond what federal law requires" by providing a work supervisor of theirs with a photocopy of their most recent HIV-negative medical test results that cite their own legal name and date of birth or social-security number on that medical report?
This question is posed to you partly because of casual-contact scenarios that could occur at a workplace in which an employee falls unconscious, for instance, and another employee would appreciate knowing from a supervisor whether the unconscious employee was very recently cited in a medical report as HIV-negative, before that coworker is willing to then perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation on that unconscious employee.
Mrs. Clinton, do you agree that all permanently-marijuana-free and illicit-drug-free Americans, regardless of their own cited "sexual" or "gender" identity, should enjoy the legal right and human right to associate in their personal life exclusively with other Americans who---like themselves in that very important way----lead permanently-marijuana-free and permanently-illicit-drug-free lifestyles?
Mrs. Clinton, I am sure you may recall a magazine headline in a prior decade, and I believe it was in "Newsweek" magazine, which declared that "The Party is Over," and I believe that article referred to the sobering acknowledgement by many of the self-identified gay male adult persons in the United States that the AIDS crisis was making it less desirable for them to pursue a series of orgies and sex-theme parties than in the days before the AIDS crisis.
The inevitable question from it all is simply this: Do you agree that any American citizen, regardless of their own cited "sexual identity" or "gender identity" or age, should enjoy a full legal and human right to pursue and enjoy a completely celibate and non-sexual lifestyle on a 24-hour-a-day-and-year-round basis, if they so decide?
Mrs. Clinton, I believe you have publicly stated that you support the legal right of self-identified "gay Americans" to marry another person of the same gender in a strictly mutual-consent context. An inevitable follow-up question is simply this: Do you also fully support the legal right of all self-identified "gay" Americans to request and obtain a marital divorce from their marriage partner?
I raise this latter question because, as I'm sure you must be very aware, it would tantamount to your advocating slavery in flagrant violation of the U.S. Constitution if you were to yourself say on the one hand that you support "gay marriages," but, on the other hand, you were to then somehow state that you do not support a self-identified gay person's legal right to obtain a divorce from a marital partner that "gay person" believes himself to to be incompatible with.
Mrs. Clinton, I'm sure you are aware that in south Florida, for instance, historically many people equate "gay rights" there with their asserted "legal right" to get drunk inside a gay bar or gay nightclub at a later time in the morning, and I forget whether that is 4 a.m. or 5 a.m., than in most other U.S. states. Do you really and truly believe, Mrs. Clinton, that the so-called "gay rights" agenda that supports the sale of alcohol inside bars and nightclubs after 2 a.m. in the morning, is somehow "strengthening" the "human rights" of any American citizens?
Do you agree, Mrs. Clinton, that a principled approach to human rights issues is, in fact, frequently condemnatory toward much of the conduct being pursued by many of the Americans who call themselves "gay rights activists" or "gay rights supporters" or "gay" persons? For instance, those who continue drinking inside a gay bar until closing time in south Florida will allegedly pose a threat to the safety of other motorists if they then attempt to drive away from that gay bar's parking lot.
Mrs. Clinton, does it surprise you that a lifelong non-smoker and law-abiding gentleman such as myself prefers to associate, professionally and personally and also through my religious life, with other non-smokers, and do you acknowledge the accuracy of my own very emphatic belief that 99 percent of all of the law-abiding male adult non-smokers in the United States of today are heterosexual in sexual identity per se.
Mrs. Clinton, does it surprise you that as an anti-marijuana-minded religious gentleman, I prefer to EXCLUDE those who consume marijuana from my own personal life and, as much as possible, from my career life as well.
Mrs. Clinton, can you understand why a law-abiding and non-profane gentleman such as myself prefers to myself associate with other law-abiding non-profane persons who refrain from verbalizing obscenities or profanity in everyday conversations with myself or others? Can you also understand why I myself personally believe very strongly that 98 percent or 99 percent of adult men of the United States who are the most appropriate as prospective friends or employees or employers of mine, from that very important standpoint as well, are,in fact, heterosexual in sexual identity per se?
Mrs. Clinton, can you understand why individuals who almost never talk about sex per se or sexual identity per se with their friends and acquaintances and coworkers, do not feel comfortable about socializing with individuals who do talk frequently about sex, sex partners, sexual identity, and related topics?
Mrs. Clinton, can you yourself understand why it is emotionally liberating to a morally and aesthetically straight gentleman, someone with a high aptitude for platonic involvements and a strong sense of platonic purpose in life, when he is given the opportunity to work with male coworkers who do NOT grab him, pinch him, deliberately and frequently rub up against him, put their hand on his shoulder or body or neck, or pat his behind during working hours for each of those persons at a restaurant workplace, for instance?
Mrs. Clinton, I am reminded of a sad story from the 1970s about a reporter for a student newspaper at a college campus in the midwest who stated to me that when he politely attended a meeting of a gay student group on that campus in order to report on that meeting for his student newspaper, "the gay men in that student group insisted on grabbing me and having lots of physical contact with me and repeatedly stating that they wanted to have sex with me" (approximate quote). In moments like that, are you completely sure that your own statedly enthusiastic support for the so-called "gay rights movement" would be a basis for your somehow congratulating those gay male adult persons on their conduct toward a newspaper reporter seeking to report on their meeting without having any physical contact with any of the members of that group?
Mrs. Clinton, are you personally shocked by the alarmingly high percentage of all of the self-identified gay adult Americans who have adopted the outlook that if they are physically attracted to another human being, sexual consummation of that attraction must take place later that day or later that night or an 'orgasmic opportunity', as they well put it, was somehow squandered, in their view?
Mrs. Clinton, I'm sure you have heard many horror stories about self-identified gay men at the workplace who choose to conduct themselves as if a cited 'straight' coworker did not exist as a human being or as a coworker, and is a 'non-entity' in those gay employees' eyes. Back in 1983 or 1984, as I waited for a municipal bus at a bus stop in Minneapolis, Minnesota, a self-identified heterosexual adult Anglo gentleman at that same bus stop volunteered to me that he was employed at that time as a waiter inside a large Chinese restaurant in downtown Minneapolis, and "all of my gay coworkers there treat me like a non-entity. They completely ignore me throughout each of my workshifts, and I find their conduct toward me offensive and cruel!" I guess my question on that is: Mrs. Clinton, how can you reconcile your own seemingly unequivocal support for "gay rights" with conduct at the workplace by actual gay male adult persons that you cannot help but deplore?
Mrs. Clinton, I'm sure you are aware that many Americans have speculated on what might account for the oft-cited abrasiveness and tendency toward sarcastic rejoinder and verbalized cynicism that many self-identified gay adult persons are either famous or infamous for, depending on your point of view. In view of your own cited message of cheerful optimism and politeness toward all, how can you reconcile this everyday reality with your own seemingly unambivalent support for "gay rights" in this country?
Mrs. Clinton, you appear to be the type of lady who would deplore flippancy and depravity. In view of those commendable traits of yours, how can you explain your seemingly unambivalent support for the so-called "gay rights movement," when millions of Americans vividly recall having read or watched media reports about the tragically perverse "Hurricane Parties" being hosted in south Florida in a festive "celebration" of an approaching hurricane there, with some or many of those "Hurricane Party" hosts apparently having been appallingly flippant gay male adult persons, as I'm sure you must be painfully aware. When you hear about cases like that----Hurricane Parties that have sometimes led to the death of party participants as the Hurricane destroyed their home, do you ever feel like slapping gay male adult 'Perverse Party' hosts of that type to remind them to conduct themselves in a more prudent, more proper, more responsible manner?
Mrs. Clinton, I'm sure you are very aware that your Democratic Party ideology so often exalts tolerance toward any and all law-abiding forms of human diversity. The question still arises, though, whether your own sense of smell, your nostrils, if you will, is or are ever offended by the cheap and tawdry perfume scent that so many of the self-identified gay male adult Americans choose to dab on their own body before they go out in public? Even if your own nostrils are not offended by that particularly overpowering and pungent scent, a scent that reminds many Americans of the scent of a sexual prostitute, can you at least understand why Americans who find that particular "gay-perfume scent" hideous choose to minimize their own involvements with individuals who choose to inflict that scent on other human beings? And, finally, Mrs. Clinton, can you understand why Americans who recognize that wince-inducing scent as the scent of a sexually promiscuous gay male adult person apparently seeking to somehow announce their "availability" for yet another sex partner for that evening, feel a certain amount of moral revulsion toward that notoriously unpleasant gay-perfume scent?
Mrs. Clinton, can you understand why Americans who prefer a non-abrasive, polite, calm, cheerful, smiling, constructive, honorable style in a coworker or work supervisor, will often find themselves complaining about a stereotypically abrasive, dyspeptic, self-righteous but often-dishonest, gay male adult coworker or supervisor?
Mrs. Clinton, if you were to learn about a self-identified gay male adult newspaper editor of a general-circulation regional semi-weekly Floridian newspaper in the late 1970s, Donald Crull, who habitually during a busy period in each workday AFTER or before the lunch break, spent at least 60 consecutive minutes inside his editor-in-chief's office interacting in a personal manner with a 20-year-old male janitor for that newspaper with whom that male editor was reportedly having a sexual relationship---this without the editor permitting any "interruptions" during that one-hour-or-longer period for news and editorial-related questions from reporters or assistant editors----would you agree that this is an example of how "gay rights" is often being abused as a theme in an ostentatiously reckless and flippant manner by many of the self-identified gay adult Americans?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please Leave Your Comments Here.