Concerned Women for America's slanted poll makes me crazy
According to People for the American Way's Right Wing Watch, Concerned Women for American sent a survey to its members asking their opinions on the so-called "impact of the radical homosexual agenda in public schools."
You have to see these questions. They are unbelievable. Allow me to add some degree of editorialization (is that even a word) after each question:
1. Do you support teaching children in grades as early as kindergarten that cross-dressing is acceptable?
No. Children should learn to cross-dress before entering kindergarten.
2. What kind of impact do you believe this kind of teaching would have on young children? .
It would teach them how to properly accessorize.
3. Do you believe school children as young as 13 should be exposed to explicit, detailed discussions and instructions on homosexual practices (including sodomy) as are being conducted by homosexual teachers and activists right now?
That's not even necessary. Just make watching High School Musical mandatory. You'll get the same results.
4. What kind of impact do you believe this kind of instruction would have on young children?
They are sure to pay attention in class. Get them to take notes.
5. Do you believe the increase of homosexual experimentation among teens is related to presentation of pro-"gay" instruction in the classroom?
By homosexual experimentation, I'm guessing CWA means lip synching a Christina Aguilera song.
6. Is it possible for the radical homosexual agenda to succeed in achieving its overriding goal of changing the moral character of our young people and the moral landscape of our nation through our schools?
I'm guessing they mean as opposed to the "normal homosexual agenda." And I don't know what that is because national headquarters has yet to send me the manual. I think it's a racial thing.
7. What impact would this have on our nation and the next generation leading it?
No one will be wearing white after Labor Day.
8. Do you agree that instruction in some classrooms is a blatant push to unashamedly promote and encourage the homosexual lifestyle and ultimately force "gay marriage" on the American public?
That's right - we want everyone in a gay marriage. I am personally overseeing the committee to put Jack Black, Abraham Benrubi, Seth Rogen, Jonah Hill, and Mike White in a polygamous marriage with myself. Call me boys - you either come to my house peacefully or else.
9. Do you feel instilling positive views of homosexuality in schools will result in America accepting same-sex "marriages"?
I sincerely hope so. Mother is hoping that I snag either a doctor or a lawyer.
10. Do you agree that homosexual "marriage" is as valid as traditional marriage, as is being taught in some school districts?
Who cares. As long as no one laughs at me for wearing white at MY wedding.
11. What impact on traditional marriage do you believe this kind of classroom instruction will have in the future?
Who cares. As long as no one laughs at me for wearing white at MY wedding. (Yes I repeated it!)
12. Do you support laws requiring schools to obtain parents' permission before their child is exposed to information of a homosexual nature?
Where the hell were you people when I had to read the Razor's Edge by gay author Somerset Maugham? Or when I was forced to watch that Strawberry Shortcake cartoon in grade school? That Peculiar Purple Pie Man of Porcupine Peak was a little TOO peculiar.
13. What impact on traditional marriage do you believe homosexual teaching would have in the future?
Not knowing who has to pay for the wedding.
14. Are you will to take a moral stand against pro-homosexual classroom curriculum by taking grassroots action against the organizations who promote it?
I would rather take an immoral stand. It's much more fun but you gotta make sure you destroy all of the pictures.
15. Will you help Concerned Women for America as we stand strong for Biblical principles and against the radical homosexual agenda in our schools?
Sure. Bend over. I hope you like fillet of sole.
I'm sorry if I am taking this too lightly. It's not even frustrating anymore when I read stuff like this. Not only is the poll slanted, but it's chock full of biases, code words (i.e. "pro-gay instruction"), and presents the lgbt community in the worst possible light.
To the CWA, we aren't people with feelings and emotions who care about family and country. To them, we are an entity out of some bad science fiction movie constantly plotting to seduce childen and take over America while having lots of wild sex in our leisure time (and trust me when I say that last point is a blatant lie).
I won't even tell you how the CWA members who responded to the poll answered the questions. I will let you guess.
However, according to Right Wing Watch, CWA said that a small percentage of its members responded at all.
I guess that means even right-wing conservative Christians get embarrassed now and then.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
The Traditional Values Coalition - THAT is a hate group
I love it when those who oppose us help our cause with their insane rhetoric.
And when it comes to insane rhetoric, very few can beat the California group the Traditional Values Coalition and its founder Lou Sheldon.
Sheldon loves denigrating lgbts and we love him for it because he blows the "we only oppose the homosexual agenda because we love them" bullshit right out of the window. Witness his behavior at a conference in 2006:
Still, none of the panelists delivered as bombastic a screed as the Rev. Lou Sheldon, head of the hard-line anti-gay group Traditional Values Coalition. Sheldon demanded laws that treat homosexuality as "a social disorder." Decrying the term "homosexual" as the brainchild of a 20th-century German psychologist obviously sympathetic to gays, Sheldon implored the conferees to return to the 18th century's superior diction. "The word used in America [then] was 'perverted'," he noted. When Sheldon was asked by an audience member what to call homosexuals, he shot out of his chair and shouted, "Call them what they are -- sodomites!"
Well today, Sheldon and company are all upset over the possibility that the policy on gays in the military (Don't Ask, Don't Tell) may be overturned via a bill by Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher.
According to TVC:
The legislation will add “sexual orientation” to the law. It is defined in H.R. 1283 as “heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality, whether the orientation is real or perceived, and includes statements and consensual sexual conduct manifesting heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.” This will open up the possibility that every sexual orientation could be legalized in the military! This will include cross-dressing and transsexualism.
Personally if this is true (and it isn't), it's not a bad thing. Have any of you ever seen a drag queen pageant? Talk about your vicious fighters.
TVC also says:
The legalization of sodomy in the military will also reduce the numbers of men and women who will enlist in the service. A Military Times poll of active-duty personnel revealed that 58% of them oppose repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” A 2008 poll found that if the law is repealed, 10% of the respondents would not reenlist and 14% said they would consider ending their careers.
Of course the organization conveniently forgets to mention that the objectivity of that poll was challenged.
According to a legitimate poll conducted last year:
Seventy-five percent of Americans in a new Washington Post-ABC News poll said gay people who are open about their sexual orientation should be allowed to serve in the U.S. military, up from 62 percent in early 2001 and 44 percent in 1993.
Then comes the most hilarious line of the piece:
How will the military handle sodomy in battlefield situations?
Oh yeah. Bombs and guns firing all around. Bodies getting blown to pieces. The stench of death in the air and if gays were involved, all we would be worried about is having sex.
What did TVC do? Rent a copy of that movie Saving Private Ryan's Ass?
The claim is stupid. But it's not the dumbest claim in the piece. That award belongs to this:
The passage of H.R. 1283 is a recipe for disaster in the military – and our national security will be jeopardized by permitting homosexuals, drag queens and others with bizarre sex habits to serve openly in the Armed Forces.
First of all, gays have already been in not only the American military but militaries throughout history. And we kicked some serious ass. From Alexander the Great to Augustus Caesar to Richard I of the England to Fredrick Von Steuben, we gays have done pretty well for ourselves in military situations.
And that line about drag queens is so ridiculous that it doesn't even deserve attacking. But personally, I still say an army of drag queens can't hurt.
All Bush would have had to do was to tell them that a crown was in one of those caves in Baghdad.
And they would have found Osama Bin Laden, Amelia Earhart, Judge Crater, Jimmy Hoffa, etc., etc.
Okay that was a bad joke, but I think you get the point.
Sometimes we get angry when people like Sheldon and TVC denigrate us. But this is one of those times when you have to ask yourself why get angry at your enemy when he freely cuts his own throat.
I love it when those who oppose us help our cause with their insane rhetoric.
And when it comes to insane rhetoric, very few can beat the California group the Traditional Values Coalition and its founder Lou Sheldon.
Sheldon loves denigrating lgbts and we love him for it because he blows the "we only oppose the homosexual agenda because we love them" bullshit right out of the window. Witness his behavior at a conference in 2006:
Still, none of the panelists delivered as bombastic a screed as the Rev. Lou Sheldon, head of the hard-line anti-gay group Traditional Values Coalition. Sheldon demanded laws that treat homosexuality as "a social disorder." Decrying the term "homosexual" as the brainchild of a 20th-century German psychologist obviously sympathetic to gays, Sheldon implored the conferees to return to the 18th century's superior diction. "The word used in America [then] was 'perverted'," he noted. When Sheldon was asked by an audience member what to call homosexuals, he shot out of his chair and shouted, "Call them what they are -- sodomites!"
Well today, Sheldon and company are all upset over the possibility that the policy on gays in the military (Don't Ask, Don't Tell) may be overturned via a bill by Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher.
According to TVC:
The legislation will add “sexual orientation” to the law. It is defined in H.R. 1283 as “heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality, whether the orientation is real or perceived, and includes statements and consensual sexual conduct manifesting heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.” This will open up the possibility that every sexual orientation could be legalized in the military! This will include cross-dressing and transsexualism.
Personally if this is true (and it isn't), it's not a bad thing. Have any of you ever seen a drag queen pageant? Talk about your vicious fighters.
TVC also says:
The legalization of sodomy in the military will also reduce the numbers of men and women who will enlist in the service. A Military Times poll of active-duty personnel revealed that 58% of them oppose repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” A 2008 poll found that if the law is repealed, 10% of the respondents would not reenlist and 14% said they would consider ending their careers.
Of course the organization conveniently forgets to mention that the objectivity of that poll was challenged.
According to a legitimate poll conducted last year:
Seventy-five percent of Americans in a new Washington Post-ABC News poll said gay people who are open about their sexual orientation should be allowed to serve in the U.S. military, up from 62 percent in early 2001 and 44 percent in 1993.
Then comes the most hilarious line of the piece:
How will the military handle sodomy in battlefield situations?
Oh yeah. Bombs and guns firing all around. Bodies getting blown to pieces. The stench of death in the air and if gays were involved, all we would be worried about is having sex.
What did TVC do? Rent a copy of that movie Saving Private Ryan's Ass?
The claim is stupid. But it's not the dumbest claim in the piece. That award belongs to this:
The passage of H.R. 1283 is a recipe for disaster in the military – and our national security will be jeopardized by permitting homosexuals, drag queens and others with bizarre sex habits to serve openly in the Armed Forces.
First of all, gays have already been in not only the American military but militaries throughout history. And we kicked some serious ass. From Alexander the Great to Augustus Caesar to Richard I of the England to Fredrick Von Steuben, we gays have done pretty well for ourselves in military situations.
And that line about drag queens is so ridiculous that it doesn't even deserve attacking. But personally, I still say an army of drag queens can't hurt.
All Bush would have had to do was to tell them that a crown was in one of those caves in Baghdad.
And they would have found Osama Bin Laden, Amelia Earhart, Judge Crater, Jimmy Hoffa, etc., etc.
Okay that was a bad joke, but I think you get the point.
Sometimes we get angry when people like Sheldon and TVC denigrate us. But this is one of those times when you have to ask yourself why get angry at your enemy when he freely cuts his own throat.
Should Americans for Truth be considered as a hate group?
First an observation - it's been days since One News Now has featured a slanted article on the lgbt community.
The magic is gone from our relationship!
Seriously though, yesterday on Pam's House Blend (where I also post blog entries), someone made an interesting comment about my Illinois Family Institute/Southern Poverty Law Center post:
When I lived in Illinois, it was Peter LaBarbera who headed IFI. I don't know what happened, but somehow, he was either told to leave or did it on his own. They then put David Smith in charge of the organization.
Laurie Higgins now writes the anti-Gay articles for the group. She and Smith have done a fine job of making the organization a hate group and they have truly and diligently earned that label.
Yet they now decry it. Well, if the shoe fits, wear it!
What miffs me most, however, is that LaBarbera, and his organization "Americans For Truth About Homosexuality" (AFTAH) has not been labeled a hate group.
It certainly has gone above and beyond what IFI has written in misleading statements of "facts." Yet SPLC has yet to label AFTAH as a hate group.
What gives?
Then another comment said the following:
LaBarbera left the IFI right after his abysmal failure at getting an anti-gay marriage referendum on the ballot in November 2006. It was advisory only-- Illinois does not have ballot initiatives like California.
I was one of many volunteers for Fair Illinois, the organization that verified the signatures on the petitions. Lots of forged signatures and non-existent people. I know this because we were connected to the actual voter registration database when we audited their work. It was a complete sham.
You are correct. Laurie Higgins is now part of their echo chamber. It's rather incestuous-- the IFI and AFTAH are each other's Boards. All they've got is each other.
Laurie Higgins is about as qualified to talk about gay men and women as Elaine Donnelly is about the military. A bunch of junk science by a pair of quacks.
I, too, wondered why AFTAH was not labelled a hate group too.
I have to ask a basic question here: Does the SPLC even know that AFTAH exists? And how do we nominate The Peter for this? (seriously)
Does anyone know?
So the basic question is should Americans for Truth be considered as a hate group?
According to SPLC:
Anti-gay groups are organizations that go beyond mere disagreement with homosexuality by subjecting gays and lesbians to campaigns of personal vilification.
Over the years, Americans for Truth and LaBarbera has done more than enough to fulfill this requirement. LaBarbera seems to have made it his life's work to attack and villify the lgbt community via campaigns of misinformation, lies, and out-and-out ugly commentary.
SPLC has talked about LaBarbera before:
Peter LaBarbera, head of the Illinois Family Institute and a discredited "researcher" whose work has been denounced by the American Psychological Association for producing bogus data (Editor's note - actually that is incorrect. It was Paul Cameron who was denounced by the American Psychological Association. However, LaBarbera freely cites Cameron's work) "proving" homosexual behavior is deleterious to health and welfare, called homosexuality "disgusting." LaBarbera, who "investigates" this lifestyle by hanging out in gay chat rooms, insisted that good Christians must "stand up to homosexual aggression" and stop using "that hoary euphemism" -- "sexual orientation." He called for the repeal of all "sexual orientation laws" -- laws that ban discrimination against gays -- because they violate religious freedom. He demanded the closing down of all "homosexual establishments." And he spoke of the "need to find ways to bring back shame to those practicing homosexual behavior."
SPLC would do well to, at the very least, investigate the anti-gay activities of Americans for Truth.
You can tell them your feelings about the situation by contacting them via here.
First an observation - it's been days since One News Now has featured a slanted article on the lgbt community.
The magic is gone from our relationship!
Seriously though, yesterday on Pam's House Blend (where I also post blog entries), someone made an interesting comment about my Illinois Family Institute/Southern Poverty Law Center post:
When I lived in Illinois, it was Peter LaBarbera who headed IFI. I don't know what happened, but somehow, he was either told to leave or did it on his own. They then put David Smith in charge of the organization.
Laurie Higgins now writes the anti-Gay articles for the group. She and Smith have done a fine job of making the organization a hate group and they have truly and diligently earned that label.
Yet they now decry it. Well, if the shoe fits, wear it!
What miffs me most, however, is that LaBarbera, and his organization "Americans For Truth About Homosexuality" (AFTAH) has not been labeled a hate group.
It certainly has gone above and beyond what IFI has written in misleading statements of "facts." Yet SPLC has yet to label AFTAH as a hate group.
What gives?
Then another comment said the following:
LaBarbera left the IFI right after his abysmal failure at getting an anti-gay marriage referendum on the ballot in November 2006. It was advisory only-- Illinois does not have ballot initiatives like California.
I was one of many volunteers for Fair Illinois, the organization that verified the signatures on the petitions. Lots of forged signatures and non-existent people. I know this because we were connected to the actual voter registration database when we audited their work. It was a complete sham.
You are correct. Laurie Higgins is now part of their echo chamber. It's rather incestuous-- the IFI and AFTAH are each other's Boards. All they've got is each other.
Laurie Higgins is about as qualified to talk about gay men and women as Elaine Donnelly is about the military. A bunch of junk science by a pair of quacks.
I, too, wondered why AFTAH was not labelled a hate group too.
I have to ask a basic question here: Does the SPLC even know that AFTAH exists? And how do we nominate The Peter for this? (seriously)
Does anyone know?
So the basic question is should Americans for Truth be considered as a hate group?
According to SPLC:
Anti-gay groups are organizations that go beyond mere disagreement with homosexuality by subjecting gays and lesbians to campaigns of personal vilification.
Over the years, Americans for Truth and LaBarbera has done more than enough to fulfill this requirement. LaBarbera seems to have made it his life's work to attack and villify the lgbt community via campaigns of misinformation, lies, and out-and-out ugly commentary.
SPLC has talked about LaBarbera before:
Peter LaBarbera, head of the Illinois Family Institute and a discredited "researcher" whose work has been denounced by the American Psychological Association for producing bogus data (Editor's note - actually that is incorrect. It was Paul Cameron who was denounced by the American Psychological Association. However, LaBarbera freely cites Cameron's work) "proving" homosexual behavior is deleterious to health and welfare, called homosexuality "disgusting." LaBarbera, who "investigates" this lifestyle by hanging out in gay chat rooms, insisted that good Christians must "stand up to homosexual aggression" and stop using "that hoary euphemism" -- "sexual orientation." He called for the repeal of all "sexual orientation laws" -- laws that ban discrimination against gays -- because they violate religious freedom. He demanded the closing down of all "homosexual establishments." And he spoke of the "need to find ways to bring back shame to those practicing homosexual behavior."
SPLC would do well to, at the very least, investigate the anti-gay activities of Americans for Truth.
You can tell them your feelings about the situation by contacting them via here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)