Documentary 'exposes' long-term plot to 'homosexualize' America

I've talked about the After the Ball distortion of the religious right more times than I care to count.  In a nutshell, it's like this - the religious right claims that there has been a long-term plot to take over America following the blueprint of a book called After The Ball, which was written by two gay men.

The only problem is that very few gays have ever heard of this book and after they spin the original lie, the religious right don't have anything else to go on to push this belief. They can't tell you the specific names of who is involved in this "plot," any planning sessions, or anything else.

Because it is all a sad conspiracy theory.

Of course when have facts ever stopped the religious right before? And now there is a televised expose on this pathetic nonsense.

Lawd, these people . . .

'Former Congressman tries to exploit Lady Gaga for attention' and other Wednesday midday news briefs

Allen West: Lady Gaga Singing 'Home Of The Gay' In National Anthem 'Reprehensible' - And the winner for the most pitiful cry for attention by a former Congressman . . .

 E.W. Jackson: My Anti-Gay Comments Were Taken Out of Context, I'm Just Against the 'Rabid Radical Homosexual Activist Movement' - You gotta admit. He has a lot of chutzpah in trying to push THAT explanation.

 Gay Ambassador Nominee Sparks Controversy In The Dominican Republic - Apparently Dominican Republic Catholic Cardinal Nicolás de Jesús López Rodríguez called our ambassador nominee a "maricon." And that means fa@@ot in Spanish. For shame that a church official would use such language. But then again . . .  

Crouse: Gay Marriage Will Lead to the 'Imprisonment' of Christians - ONLY if they forget to celebrate Judy Garland's and Joan Crawford's birthdays

Family Research Council's poor defense of 'traditional marriage'

Peter Sprigg

I dug this up from the Family Research Council webpage. Via their spokesperson Peter Sprigg, it's supposedly Answers to Common Questions/Arguments Regarding the Redefinition of Marriage. It was published before the Supreme Court decision and, to put it nicely, it stinks. It's so generic and rudimentary that a high school student could refute it even after sniffing two whiffs of glue.

I'm actually disappointed in Sprigg. Where are the distorted studies? Where is the cherry-picking that I've known and loved exposing ? Come back, Little Spriggy!

• Q—Shouldn’t everyone have the “right to marry?”

A—Every individual already has the right to marry; but not every couple or group meets the definition of what a “marriage” is.

• Q—How can you deny homosexuals “marriage equality?”

A—The law does not require us to treat things that are fundamentally different “equally.” It only requires us to treat things that are fundamentally the same (“similarly situated”) equally. Opposite-sex unions are similar to same-sex unions in some ways, but are very different because they cannot fulfill the main public purpose of marriage—promoting responsible procreation and the best setting for childrearing.

• Q—Why are you trying to impose a religious definition of marriage upon the civil law?

A—Marriage is not just a religious institution or just a civil institution. At its heart, marriage is a natural institution, rooted in the order of nature itself.

• Q—If the law makes clear that clergy and churches do not have to perform same-sex marriages, doesn’t that protect religious liberty enough?

A—The “free exercise of religion” is not confined to ordained clergy, or within the four walls of a church. If marriage is redefined, religious schools, charities, counselors, businesses, and individual people of faith will all face the risk of being forced to violate their conscience.

• Q—Isn’t the homosexual redefinition of “marriage” inevitable?

A—What is inevitable is that male-female unions will continue to be uniquely important to the future of society. The only question is whether the government will acknowledge that fact, or attempt to deny it. If the redefinition of marriage were inevitable, its advocates could trust the democratic process to bring that about. Instead, they have asked the Supreme Court to impose such a redefinition before the pendulum begins to swing back against them.

• Q—Aren’t supporters of one-man-one-woman marriage on “the wrong side of history?”

A—It is more important to be on the right side of truth. The truth is that it takes a man and a woman to make a child; that men and women are not interchangeable in marriage, but complementary; and that children do best when raised by their own mother and father.