How exactly does gay marriage negatively affect traditional marriage?

[clv0116]

I think it would be illuminating to have someone who is a supporter of gay marriage enumerate the issues they feel it would solve. Try to be complete.

[LaGazelle]

Oh, I LOVE the "homosexuality is unnatural" ignorance argument.

 

If homosexuality is unnatural, why is it so prevalent in animals, in nature? Do dogs, bison, penguins choose to be homosexual? Bonobos, as a species, are completely bisexual- are they faking it too? (Here's something to educate yourself with: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior )

If homosexuality is unnatural, why is it so common for siblings to all be homosexual? Here is a study concerning the genetics of homosexuality that hasn't been discredited: http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1925

 

I would love for one of the Christians/bigots to respond to this!

 

Evolution hasn't be "proven", per se, but educated people can see that it is pretty clear it is the case- exactly the same for homosexuality. Maybe you should have some actual sources before you go throwning around inane nonsensical propaganda you heard in 1972.

 

I could spend more time on this, but it is absolutely not worth too much effort. Thanks for offering to educate me via Wikipedia - but no thanks. I am happy with a very good education from very good schools, which I have been fortunate to receive. Anyone on earth can add articles with the most spurious and unfounded, albeit common, claims to Wikipedia - it is therefore not a good source for true, accurate and factual information.

 

I would quickly like to point out that there are many things that other animals do, which may be natural to them, which are absolutely not natural for humans.

 

Also, humans possess not just bodies and carnal nature, they are blessed with sophisticated hearts, minds, souls, a capacity for high intelligence (well, most are...!) and that sets them apart from the rest of the animal kingdom.

 

In the same way that there are innate differences even between the genders of the human race, there are innate differences amongst the wide and varied species of the animal kingdom.

 

Hope that helps!

[so_tired]

Oh, I LOVE the "homosexuality is unnatural" ignorance argument.

 

If homosexuality is unnatural, why is it so prevalent in animals, in nature? Do dogs, bison, penguins choose to be homosexual?

 

I got the biggest laugh out of this. Because if you are going to use animal behavior to validate human behavior I've got a doozy for you.

 

I raise animals. Some of those animals (both male and female) will exhibit homosexual behavior when isolated from members of the opposite sex. Others of the group will repeatedly attack the animals exhibiting homosexual behavior until they stop.

 

Using your argument, does that mean it's quite alright for humans to attack gays?

 

(BTW, I don't think it is, it's just that your argument is ridiculous.)

[LaGazelle]

Quote:

Originally Posted by I Luv the Chariot OH

Oh, I LOVE the "homosexuality is unnatural" ignorance argument.

 

If homosexuality is unnatural, why is it so prevalent in animals, in nature? Do dogs, bison, penguins choose to be homosexual?

 

 

I got the biggest laugh out of this. Because if you are going to use animal behavior to validate human behavior I've got a doozy for you.

 

I raise animals. Some of those animals (both male and female) will exhibit homosexual behavior when isolated from members of the opposite sex. Others of the group will repeatedly attack the animals exhibiting homosexual behavior until they stop.

 

Using your argument, does that mean it's quite alright for humans to attack gays?

 

(BTW, I don't think it is, it's just that your argument is ridiculous.)

 

Indeed! Not to mention that the statement is itself contradictory since the poster in his/her efforts to prove that homosexuality is natural and not a choice, states that the examples listed "CHOOSE to be homosexual".

[sally4sara]

I feel my opinion is every bit as valid as yours. It's not awesome, but then neither is yours, yet your opinion is still valid.

 

The difference between my opinion and your opinion is not a question of validity of one over the other, but rather why you feel your opinion should be used to deny another person their rights.

I can have my opinion. I can write songs about it, a screenplay even, but I'm not trying to make my opinion a law that denies someone else the ability to do something *I* can do based on their gender and the gender of their partner.

 

You don't want them to be able to get legally married. You want to use your opinion and your comfort level to dictate their rights. You are not content to hold your opinion and comfort levels to your life and household. It must be applied to lives you will never live and households you wouldn't even visit.

 

Why do you think you should be able to do this?

 

And no, marriage hasn't always been ONLY for heteros. You said it yourself; you only know what you know because that is what you're use to in your life. You are not aware of anything else beyond it or you would know that your claim is false. Do you even care to find that out? It isn't applicable to your comfort level to know what you're talking about before you talk about it?

Gay marriage isn't new! It is just new to you. Seventeenth century China, ninteenth century Africa, Native American culture. Even Plato's Symposium was an argument for gay marriage. Men did marry men back then, after one was "altered". Plato argued that it was a pointless ritual since it was so common place. Especially among the politicians of his day!

 

Yet you claim this:

 

I didn't say they shouldn't use the word because I am not used to it... I said that I don't want them to use the word because it completely changes the meaning of the word that has always been between heterosexuals. Which it has.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20464004

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

 

You're going on what is common to you; NOT anything FACTUAL.

 

Why can't people who seek to limit the rights of others at least keep to facts and truths in their attempts?

 

Also, I never talked about how a gay couple chose to refer to themselves in private. I spoke ONLY of legal marriage. They can call themselves married if they want, I couldn't care less. But the debate about gay marriage has never been "how they refer to themselves". It's about how society refers to them, and how their unions are legally defined. That changes many things for many people. The fact that you don't want to see it doesn't mean there is no adverse outcome for others.

 

Okay. In what way will it change things for you? You already know gays exist. You know they have sex.

Someone please tell me how two people getting married is going to change things for anybody?

 

Claiming that disallowing the use of the WORD marriage is discriminatory is the most ridiculous argument.

 

If people who don't live in a manner you or certain religions agree with can still get legally married, it is discriminatory that gays cannot also be afforded this right.

You say you don't care, I've shown marriage hasn't always been hetero....no one has been able to show how it will really effect anyone....

explain again why you want to prevent them from the use of a particular word?

[clv0116]

..... used to deny another person their rights.

 

Rights in what sense of the word?

[sally4sara]

LaGazelle.............

 

You never explained to me how two people getting married is having something shoved down your throat? You never explained to me how two people getting married denies other people their rights?

 

It shouldn't be hard to explain what with your excellent education from excellent schools.

 

How will any two people getting married effect you or anyone else so greatly as to feel YOUR rights have been taken from you?

 

Hell, I just met a Burmese 85 year old this past weekend that has lived in the U.S. for 5 years now and never even pondered that one guy might even like kissing on another guy or one female might want to marry another female.......she thinks I'm making it up!

 

So!

 

How have the states that have passed gay marriage impacted her life? I need to know so I can explain it to her.

[silktricks]

S4S, it's evident that you aren't clear on what I've actually said as opposed to what you believe I have said. It's also evident that you have used official sanction of homosexual unions in the past to mean the same as marriage. Since I am completely in accord with your argument that there should be official sanction of homosexual unions with those unions receiving all of the same rights, then it appears we are actually in agreement.

 

I haven't found it important to attack either your intelligence or your integrity, and I'd appreciate it if you would stop doing so to me.

 

Thank-you.

 

Oh yes, and if you actually want to change a person's opinion???? Attacking them doesn't help.

[sally4sara]

S4S, it's evident that you aren't clear on what I've actually said as opposed to what you believe I have said. It's also evident that you have used official sanction of homosexual unions in the past to mean the same as marriage. Since I am completely in accord with your argument that there should be official sanction of homosexual unions with those unions receiving all of the same rights, then it appears we are actually in agreement.

 

I haven't found it important to attack either your intelligence or your integrity, and I'd appreciate it if you would stop doing so to me.

 

Thank-you.

 

Oh yes, and if you actually want to change a person's opinion???? Attacking them doesn't help.

 

I even quote you and you think I don't know what you said?

 

When talking about world history, it might be prudent to recognize not everyone in the world speaks English.

 

I do not tell you you are stupid. You read and draw your own conclusion of how your argument comes across to others. I DO think you're ignorant on the subject, but so is anyone till they learn more. Stupid remains unchanged by exposure to knowledge. Ignorant does not imply the inability to learn. You decide with one you are.

I ask you how you would be effected, the thread title asks too. You have not answered this. I cannot help that you approached a thread asking for information armed only with an opinion. You only maintain that you're being attacked when asked for something in the way of supporting your claim that gay marriage will change something for you. I cannot help that you feel attacked when asked to support your claim. I am only pointing out that the things you claim have no basis. If you don't wish to appear as though you have a low intelligence level, you could always try to support your points with actual facts.

 

Our country will see more tax revenue if gay marriage becomes legal nation-wide. The marriage penalty will really hit couples more likely to not have children and both spouses working. That is why it will pass.

 

The only reason why some states will allow the word to be denied while still allowing them to marry, is to appease the morality brigade.

 

That way a profit gets made off their relationship while conservatives still get to feel smug about keeping a word that was never only for them.

[clv0116]

When talking about world history, it might be prudent to recognize ....

 

I think "Marriage" is in fact an English word. If we want to discuss gay "kasal" I guess that would maybe be a different thread. I really doubt most Americans would be offended to offer gays the chance to have an "Abielu License" issued instead of a Marriage License.

 

I might be wrong, but the debate really seems to center on the use of the specific word "Marriage".

[silktricks]

I even quote you and you think I don't know what you said?

Not when you then claim that what I said is indeed not at all what was stated

 

When talking about world history, it might be prudent to recognize not everyone in the world speaks English.

.

The fact that you don't seem to see that the above statement is insulting shows to me that this conversation is meaningless and a waste of my time.

 

I DO think you're ignorant on the subject

as do I with you, but so is anyone who is so intent to win an argument that they use information discrediting their argument in an attempt to prove it.

I ask you how you would be effected, the thread title asks too. You have not answered this.

I actually did answer this-- I said it didn't but am opposed to the use of the word marriage as t changes the meaning of the word. Surely you remember that, as you've been quite rude about it for some time now

You only maintain that you're being attacked when asked for something in the way of supporting your claim that gay marriage will change something for you. I cannot help that you feel attacked when asked to support your claim.

repeating a falsehood does not make it true

 

Now I'm done. This is truly a waste of energy- besides my fingers are sore from typing on this stupid blackberry

[sally4sara]

as do I with you, but so is anyone who is so intent to win an argument that they use information discrediting their argument in an attempt to prove it.

I actually did answer this-- I said it didn't but am opposed to the use of the word marriage as t changes the meaning of the word. Surely you remember that, as you've been quite rude about it for some time now repeating a falsehood does not make it true

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage

 

mar·riage: Pronunciation: \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\ Function:noun Etymology:Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marryDate:14th century 1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected ; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities3: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>

 

Dictionaries often have more than one entry per word.

 

Here is from dictionary.com:

 

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage

 

Even more entries not all applying to anyone gender specific.

 

There will be no change because it hasn't always meant what you think it has meant. Even when you look at the original word in French, it's French meaning does not indicate a gender AT ALL.

Even if you look at it's legal definition. It has only been getting legally defined as you describe in this country just recently. It is not yet been nationally defined in our legal system.

 

If you want it to remain defined as it always has, then you need to support gay marriage.

 

I was probably rude again somewhere in here.......

[sally4sara]

Waded RIGHT back into the cesspool of irrational thought processes, eh s4s? You're just a glutton for punishment!

 

No no, donna, didn't you read?

 

I'm up in here jamming things down their throats.

 

And when I say jamming, I DO mean it the way that sounds.

[Island Girl]

I personally love dictionary.com 's definition which includes these:

 

5. any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song.

6. a formal agreement between two companies or enterprises to combine operations, resources, etc., for mutual benefit; merger.

7. a blending or matching of different elements or components: The new lipstick is a beautiful marriage of fragrance and texture.

8. Cards. a meld of the king and queen of a suit, as in pinochle. Compare royal marriage.

9. a piece of antique furniture assembled from components of two or more authentic pieces.

10. Obsolete. the formal declaration or contract by which act a man and a woman join in wedlock.

 

 

I guess because the word can also be used to describe furniture it "changes the meaning of the word" and many have just had their marriage vows nullified or changed in some way. Especially since I put it in print. "ooooops!"

 

BTW my mother said "it is the perfect marriage of spice and texture" earlier today. I can't fathom the number of traditional marriages that fell apart because she used the word that way.

 

I explained to her the destruction caused by throwing around that word in such a haphazard way but who knows how much havoc that was unleashed!

[NoIDidn't]

Hilarious, s4s, do you really feel you haven't attacked Silk? You said: "stupid remains unchanged by exposure to knowledge". LOL. Too funny. You called her stupid, in so many words. That's an attack.

 

Then you said: "You read and draw your own conclusion of how your argument comes across to others". Let's see, her opinion seems to only have upset you, donna, IG, and Chariot.

 

And you are putting words into her mouth. All she wants to keep is a word. She has said over and over again that she supports unions. Its you that has made an illogical leap to her "denying the use of a word" to mean "denying them their rights".

 

Hilarious. How her argument comes across to others? LOL. Kettle, anyone?

[NoIDidn't]

The reason that people are starting to feel that it is being "jammed" down their throats is because of the manner in which it is being done.

 

Again, this is my last time defending Silk's right to her opinion, jumping on her for having an opinion about the use of a word is "jamming". The response to her opinion has been overboard and has included things she never even said.

 

Anyone that gives a contrary opinion is told that they are "wrong", or they are "bigots", or something else inflammatory or insulting.

 

Really? Why ask a question if you are going to disagree with the answers that you don't like? Every answer to the question of "how gay marriage affects traditional" is going to be subjective (based on a person's personal filters and life experiences) and not objective (considering only the facts and potential outcomes of certain actions).

 

I'm getting tired of hearing about gay marriage everywhere in the Media. I don't think that the MSM got Obama elected, but I certainly think that it is pushing gay marriage. I'm tired of Keith Obermann taking every chance he can get to ridicule Miss California for her personal opinion on "opposite marriage" (lol) vs "gay marriage". And for all this current argument in this thread about a "word", if its just "marriage" why add the "gay" in front of it? Is "gay" marriage somehow better than or going to be different than "marriage"? LOL.

 

And I noticed that no one ever said anything else about the so called issues it is supposed to fix, about how things would be better for the families, and so on. Nothing said to that. No, no, no. We just want to shout Silk down about a word. Because we can argue about that.

 

Figures.

[Island Girl]

And I noticed that no one ever said anything else about the so called issues it is supposed to fix' date=' about how things would be better for the families, and so on.[/quote']

 

This has actually been talked about ad nauseum.

 

What remains to be seen is an answer to the thread question:

 

How exactly does gay marriage negatively affect traditional marriage?

 

Those opposed to gay marriage just keep posting "it's our word and we don't want the meaning of the word to change" hence the definitions above.

 

Perhaps that will clarify once and for all that the words marriage is used to describe a lot of unions including those of non sexual corporations, lyrics and music, ingredients, etc.

 

So now perhaps someone can address how traditional marriage would really be affected since that is the thread topic?

[NoIDidn't]

This has actually been talked about ad nauseum.

 

What remains to be seen is an answer to the thread question:

 

How exactly does gay marriage negatively affect traditional marriage?

 

Those opposed to gay marriage just keep posting "it's our word and we don't want the meaning of the word to change" hence the definitions above.

 

Perhaps that will clarify once and for all that the words marriage is used to describe a lot of unions including those of non sexual corporations, lyrics and music, ingredients, etc.

 

So now perhaps someone can address how traditional marriage would really be affected since that is the thread topic?

 

Have you considered that no answer is going to be definitive and true for every poster? Just because you don't feel that the question has been adequately answered, doesn't mean that a person didn't give an answer to the question.

 

There are tons of ways that traditional EVERYTHING is going to be affected by gay marriage. But you don't really want to hear about it for any other reason than to knock it down.

 

And SOME, some opposed have claimed the word. But some have be supportive of it but still want the word reserved for what it "normally" represents. Throwing everyone that feels the word is sacred into the "opposed" column is wrong.

[NoIDidn't]

Oh wait. I see the problem with this thread. Its all in the question. So anyone that actually answers the question can expect to be knocked down.

 

If the question was the almost neutral "how does gay marriage affect traditional marriage", it might not lead to such heated disagreement. But the question is "how does gay marriage NEGATIVELY affect traditional marriage".

 

Its asking for negative answers, so those in support of gay marriage shouldn't be so surprised when they get what they've asked for.

[Island Girl]

There are tons of ways that traditional EVERYTHING is going to be affected by gay marriage. But you don't really want to hear about it for any other reason than to knock it down.

 

Then start putting them here.

 

We have yet to see one way traditional marriage would be negatively affected.

 

I wouldn't be asking if I didn't want to see it.

 

The original thread starter obviously was wanting to see some of them also. As are others I am sure.

 

Of course there is going to be discussion. This is a discussion forum.

[NoIDidn't]

Then start putting them here.

 

We have yet to see one way traditional marriage would be negatively affected.

 

I wouldn't be asking if I didn't want to see it.

 

The original thread starter obviously was wanting to see some of them also. As are others I am sure.

 

Of course there is going to be discussion. This is a discussion forum.

 

 

What would be the point? Seriously?

 

Discussion is "why do you feel that way" not "you're a bigot". Discussion looks more like "I don't think that would happen" not "You're an idiot for feeling as you do".

 

So, its more like "of course there is going to be condescension and derision", which don't exactly foster "discussion".

 

How about you tell us all of the wonderful things that gay marriage will solve since you don't feel it will harm anything ?(and please note, that I haven't said it will harm anything here) What benefits does gay marriage offer the heterosexual community?

 

I am interested in discussion, too.

[Island Girl]

How about you tell us all of the wonderful things that gay marriage will solve since you don't feel it will harm anything ?(and please note' date=' that I haven't said it will harm anything here) What benefits does gay marriage offer the heterosexual community?[/quote']

 

The benefits to society and gay society have already been discussed at length.

 

Feel free to read previous posts.

 

Now can we get to the THREAD TOPIC and will someone post about the negative affects that gay marriage would have on traditional marriage?

 

NoIDidn't - you said there were "tons".

 

We are still waiting for any of them.

[NoIDidn't]

The benefits to society and gay society have already been discussed at length.

 

Feel free to read previous posts.

 

Now can we get to the THREAD TOPIC and will someone post about the negative affects that gay marriage would have on traditional marriage?

 

NoIDidn't - you said there were "tons".

 

We are still waiting for any of them.

 

You'll be waiting for a long time if you are expecting me to read through this thread before responding. LOL.

 

Island Girl. I can call you that, right? "Tons" is a figure of speech, but I suspect you already knew that and that's why you put it in quotes.

 

I do have a problem with the question, though. Why is it that the "benefits" of gay marriage were applied to "society" and not to traditional marriage? Is it possible that there are no benefits of gay marriage on traditional marriage as you are attempting to assert that there are no negatives on traditional marriage either? This whole thing is about society at large - not just traditional marriage, no?

 

FWIW, I don't care much about the benefits to gay society as I am not a part of it. Just being honest.

[NoIDidn't]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaGazelle

Silk, there is a book on the "gay movement" and its related strategies - "After The Ball", which might offer a useful perspective.

 

I started reading the book. Now it makes sense as to why Silk was jumped on and why anyone disagreeing is called a "bigot".

 

Thanks for the book recommendation.

[LaGazelle]

The reason that people are starting to feel that it is being "jammed" down their throats is because of the manner in which it is being done.

 

Again, this is my last time defending Silk's right to her opinion, jumping on her for having an opinion about the use of a word is "jamming". The response to her opinion has been overboard and has included things she never even said.

 

Anyone that gives a contrary opinion is told that they are "wrong", or they are "bigots", or something else inflammatory or insulting.

 

 

NoIDidn't,

 

this is simply a reflection of how successful the brainwashing proposed by gay propagandists in After the Ball, and other gay propoganda publications, has been.

 

There is not much point in discussing anything with those who have become unwitting pawns to a propaganda campaign, because when you provide an answer they will either read it and pretend it is incomprehensible, or read it and not comprehend it because they have been conditioned to reject anything which doesn't match their own views.

 

According to many who follow the gay propaganda school of thought, if one has a different opinion to theirs, then that opinion must be "wrong" , "bigoted", "stupid", "discriminatory", or "backward" - this is textbook "After the Ball" lingo, and they are just unwittingly doing as they are brainwashed to do. They will never be able to see others' viewpoint, nor others' rights to hold any view not 100% in line with their own. Indeed, the sort of propaganda we receive from the gay activitsts are backward in the true sense of the word - anything but forward thinking. They are things which have to an extent been tried and tested in some ancient civilisations (e.g Greek and Roman), but to detrimental effects on society.

 

In trying to contribute to this discussion, I started out trying to use objective terms and remain open but then you get abusive responses which mostly reflect a preposterous combination of arrogance and ignorance, with a tinge of total intolerance for good measure! Hence my use of the Ignore function! "Against stupidity even the gods themselves struggle in vain". Who am I a mere mortal to even bother!?

 

Indeed, I have said that gay couples should have the same legal rights as straight couples. My only reservation is the use of the word "marriage" as it has traditonally been defined in proper dictionaries, as this is likely (as it has already done in the UK) to lead to erosion of other more important civil liberties for the majority of us (c. 94% give or take statistical discrepancies) including Christian clergy who are likely to be eventually forced to perform such ceremonies or allow their places of worship to be used for such ceremonies.

 

Case in point, an Irish Christian family has recently been sued for refusing to welcome a gay "married" couple into their home (which is also used as a B&B) because it is against their Christian beliefs. So essentially, we live in a world where we no longer have the right to decide who to accept into our own homes!

 

Linked to this is the fact that parents are likely as some have already done, to lose their rights to have a say in how their children are brought up and educated. By way of example, a US school recently forced 14 year old students to sign a waiver stating that they would not inform their parents of the inclusion of homosexual promotional material in their "study material".

 

In another example, an English couple who had been successful foster parents to c. 30 children, recently had children taken from their care and returned to "care" homes because they refused to sign the new agreement to promote homsexuality, which were implemented following the "gay marriage" arrangements in the UK. So, their right to freely practice their religion and their role as parents were both eroded. Thankfully, this was eventually overturned and the children were returned to a wonderful home with great honourable parents.

 

By contrast, a gay couple were able to molest a few boys in their care as foster parents, because they were "married" but not subjected to the normal routine that other married couples or single applicants would undergo because that would be "bigoted" and "discriminatory"! Thankfully these two are facing lengthy prison sentences because someone had the guts to stand up against destructive moral relativism and lunatic political correctness.

 

Finally, here is an excerpt about legal changes linked to the establishment of gay "marriage", which effectively highlights what the propogandists in "After the Ball" set out to do when they outlined a strategy to "claim the institution of marriage and destroy it" while eroding others' civil liberties: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/apr/09041408.html

 

There have also been cases, where the right/freedom to practice ones' religion, and have freedom of thought and speech, have been overridden. That is, Chrisitians are not permitted to read Bible scriptures that state that homosexuality is not in line with God's will, as this is now considered "discriminatory hate speech"! So, now people lose not just the legal right to practice their religion but are dictated what they can and can't read! Not hugely dissimilar to being tortured for reading prohibited material (Bibles) as in Communist societies etc.

 

I could go on, but perhaps you can see for yourself the propagandist strategies to erode civil liberties, as it comes from the horses' mouths.

 

Here is an excerpt from "After the Ball" (complete with rampant misuse of the word "bigot" to define anyone who is not on board with gay propaganda!):

 

"Jamming

 

The trick is to get the bigot into the position of feeling a conflicting twinge of shame....

 

Note that the bigot need not actually be made to believe that he is such a heinous creature, that others will now despise him, and that he has been the immoral agent of suffering. It would be impossible to make him believe any such thing. Rather, our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof.... whether he is conscious of the attack or not. Indeed, the more he is distracted by any incidental, even specious, surface arguments, the less conscious he'll be of the true nature of the process--which is all to the good.

 

It isn't enough that antigay bigots should become confused about us, or even indifferent to us--we are safest, in the long run, if we can actually make them like us. Conversion aims at just this.

 

We mean conversion of the average American's emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media. ....it makes no difference that the ads are lies."