What a fine day it has been, fellow Hammies! Facebook once again pulled the trigger on us, so, now our NEW website will be up and running even faster than we expected. This is a golden opportunity for us to create an opening week 'Coming Out Party', where all of our fans can submit photos of themselves with their spouses, we will post them and then the winner will win a FREE 'Straight Pride' T-Shirt! We're going live soon, so, make sure you snap those pictures. Remember to keep them classy and keep them hetero.
We are still hard at work getting our new website up and running. You'll find more material (without censorship), more content, more interaction and more good old fashioned hetero fun.
You can bookmark the web address now at www.heterosexualawarenessmonth.com
Stay tuned for more information.
We are back on facebook with Heterosexual Awareness Month after our 30 day timeout. You can find it us at https://www.facebook.com/pages/Heterosexual-Awareness-Month/410539992371974
See you there for more fun!
If anyone is surprised or shocked at how social norm's and attitudes can change so quick and indeed,without so much as a fight but a "Trojan Horse" cave in,let's examine how by looking at "Modern" day Britain.Not so long ago in this once great and proud country,the sin of Sodomy was once regarded as a prisonable offence and a more moral and decent society pursued those who sought to corrupt our society.Today,Homosexual relations is regarded as the equal of opposite sex marriage in Britain and her children are being taught in schools the very same thing.You see,people who relaxed their attitudes towards Homosexuality in the early days of Homosexual championing,were simply lied to.
The Conservative government had not in any way campaigned for it during the election, and Prime Minister David Cameron had effectively said he would not pursue it, as had the gay lobby and its political champions. The United Kingdom, you see, had introduced civil partnerships for homosexuals in 2004, and one of the reasons the proposal was passed was because its backers gave their word that it was not “a stepping stone but the end of the road.” That was always a lie—they knew it was always a lie, and gay marriage was always the intention. Just as the same people are lying now when they say that nobody will be punished, prosecuted, or dismissed for opposing the phenomenon or refusing to teach and proclaim it.
Indeed, the deconstruction of marriage began not with the gay community asking for the right to marry but with the heterosexual world rejecting marriage itself. The term “common-law marriage” says it all. Marriage is many things but it is never common. Yet with this semantic and legal revolution, desire and convenience have replaced commitment and dedication. The qualifications, so to speak, have been lowered.
And one does indeed have to qualify for marriage, just as one, for example, has to qualify for a pension or a military medal. People who have not reached the age of retirement don’t qualify for a pension; people who don’t serve in the armed forces don’t qualify for a military medal. It’s not a question of equality but requirement. A human right is intrinsic, a social institution is not.
The four great and historic qualifications have always been number, gender, age, and blood. Two people, male and female, over a certain age, and not closely related. Responsible and moderate societies have sometimes changed the age of maturity but incest has always been condemned and, by its nature, died out because of retardation.The next set of lies are already ringing in our ears,nobody will be punished, prosecuted, or dismissed for opposing the phenomenon of Homosexual "marriage" or refusing to teach and proclaim it.History tells us that is more lies.
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” - Aristotle
We must define terms before we proceed to use them. The word 'Tolerance' has its roots in the early 1400's, according to Dictionary.com. It states the following:
'1412, "endurance, fortitude," from O.Fr. tolerance (14c.), from L. tolerantia "endurance," from tolerans, prp. of tolerare "to bear, endure, tolerate" (see toleration). Of authorities, in the sense of "permissive," first recorded 1539; of individuals, with the sense of "free from bigotry or severity," 1765. Meaning "allowable amount of variation" dates from 1868; and physiological sense of "ability to take large doses" first recorded 1875. Tolerant is recorded from 1784. The verb tolerate is attested from 1531'
Here is a more modern definition of the word from the same source:
tol·er·ance [tol-er-uhns] Show IPA noun 1. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry. 2. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own. 3. interest in and concern for ideas, opinions, practices, etc., foreign to one's own; a liberal, undogmatic viewpoint.
So, we see that there are key phrases and words: 'concern for ideas', 'opinions', 'practices', 'liberal, undogmatic viewpoint', 'to bear', 'endure'.
Historically, tolerance was used to describe different religious groups within the same vicinity. Religious 'Intolerance' was one of the reasons that the Huguenots left Europe to come to the United States. Its use has now been expanded to include, most notably, sexual orientation. Why do we bring this up, you may be wondering? Well, the simple fact is that words such as 'tolerance', while mainly used by certain groups, are actually a two way street. It's not like using the term 'car' and pointing to a bicycle, and then someone objects and says, 'Well, no, that is a bike', and the person objects and says, 'No, cars are a means of transportation, and this is my means of transportation'. All cars are a means of transportation, but, not all means of transportation are cars. Cars are specific to their design and specifications, and are classified as such. The word 'Tolerance', however, was never classified to be associated with any group. While it was traditionally used to define a small group's existence amongst a larger group, it was never really a word strictly defined, like 'car'. What we now see, and what we now have in our midst, is a group of people who identify themselves through their sexual orientation that have attached that word to themselves SPECIFICALLY. We are now trained that this must be so, because they have taken ownership of this word. On top of that, there is an inherent double standard that exists. While the sexual revolution was happening, we saw a lot of 'Tolerance' for homosexuality and promiscuity. We needed to tolerate everything that they did, because being labeled 'intolerant' is something that no one wants. However, those groups demanding 'Tolerance' did not need to give it to others. 'Why?', you ask? Well, because we are in the majority, and the majority always has the ability to suppress the desires and wants of the minority. That is what they say, anyway. Well, we gave them what they wanted, in our 'open-minded' 'Tolerance'.
We are now 40 years into all of this 'Tolerance', so, what is the next phase for this word? Well, as odd as it may sound, the community that has claimed ownership of this word, is hard pressed to give it up. In fact, they are so adamant about hanging on to it, that if you 'Tolerate' them, but, do not accept and AGREE with them, then you are lacking tolerance. Wait a minute..........let's go back to our definition: "to bear, endure, tolerate" "interest in and concern for ideas, opinions, practices". Uh oh........did you notice the difference? The first definition is from the 1400s, while the second one is from the 20th Century. Ah, so, the definition has now changed from 'enduring', to, 'Being interested in' others beliefs. Well, isn't that interesting? So, if you are not INTERESTED in homosexuality, you are intolerant? By their definition, you are. But, according to the old definition, you could 'Tolerate' it and still be opposed to it, probably even vocally. What's wrong with that? That is actually quite normal. We encounter things every day that we do not agree with, but, 'Tolerate'. Well, according to the homosexual lobby, EVERYTHING is wrong with that. Before I became affiliated with HAM, I took more of an ambivalent view of homosexuality; I never associated with anyone who was. I was, and still do, object to their lifestyle. However, if I was in someone's presence who WAS homosexual, I would never turn my nose up to that person. I would never proselytize or preach. Nothing like that. I'm a pretty friendly person. It's just part of who I am. That said, when I saw the kinds of information transmitted to the page, publicly or privately, by this group of people and their supporters, I was pretty shocked, as I thought they were generally timid, shy and peaceful. They most certainly are........until you dare question or object to what it is that they do.
The dilemma we now face, and that we are now entrenched in, is a group of people who are still in the minority (homosexuals), still crying out for 'Tolerance', when it has already been granted to them, but, the majority of people (heterosexuals) are divided into those who back the move for 'Tolerance', and those who are tired of giving up ground. Here is the best part: The people who support homosexuality and more 'Tolerance' are now in the majority, and STILL calling for more of it. Ain't that something? It's not like you have a few thousand people with no one to speak up for them. Even the PRESIDENT is on board with 'Tolerance'. I suppose that if you say something loud enough and often enough, eventually everyone agrees with it. If that is the case, then, who is in the minority and who is in the majority?
I will leave it up to the reader to make what they will of this word, as I believe everyone has the duty to think for themselves, and ought to do it for their own good, and for the good of their children. However, I have never been more concerned and awake since this word, being used by a certain group, met my group. I owe a debt of thanks to that group, as they have really galvanized me to look at the world around me and see what is going on, and to see if there is something that I can do to preserve what little sanity we have left in this world.
'When you find peace within yourself, you become the kind of person who can live at peace with others.' - Peace Pilgrim Quote
We are still working with Facebook to get our page back, currently they are saying our account has been suspended. Facebook stated:
"Upon investigation we found that your Page obtained a large number of likes" and then went on to say "We strongly discourage Pages from obtaining likes by questionable methods such as:
-Like-exchanges (getting users to like each other’s Pages), like-sellers, etc -Misleading and incentivizing users to like your Page".
Does this smell of something funny to you? We know we have never used like-exchanges, like-sellers nor misleading or incentivising users to like our page. Just good quality material and a hot topic.
At this time they say our page will be back up after a 30 day suspension. We have submitted an appeal.
LEW WATERS has written an excellent article about Heterosexual Awareness Month and the bias shown by Facebook. Check it out:
Today Facebook decided to limit free speech for traditional marriage and supporters of Heterosexual Awareness Month. You can help by sharing the below press release with any media outlet you can contact.
We are launching a full scale media attack and need your help
For Immediate Release
RE: Traditional Marriage Supporters, Heterosexual Awareness Month, Deleted by Facebook
We'd like to bring your attention to the supporters of traditional marriage being silenced by Facebook. Our original page (Heterosexual Awareness Month) was shut down by Facebook today. We did not receive any notice.
We did not approach the protection of marriage as many others have done in the past, but with a humorous and more satirical point of view. We had almost 6400 fans, we kept our posts as clean and fun as possible, and we were shut DOWN. How's that for First Amendment rights? Someone remind me again about equality. Being a heterosexual is now considered "in violation of policy," apparently.