Senator obviously "pinch hitting" for anti-gay industry
The Washington Blade is reporting that Senator Tom Coburn is investigating how some agencies fighting the AIDS crisis is spending money going to conferences.
His legislative assistant "conveniently" sent out an email about how "Paul Kawata, executive director of the National Minority AIDS Council, a Washington, D.C., group that organized the Florida AIDS conference, stayed in a penthouse suite at Hollywood’s Westin Diplomat Hotel that included a large screen TV, a luxury spa and a grand piano."
Now Mr. Kawata has gone on record saying that the room was free of charge "along with 25 free meeting rooms, as a “perk” for booking 950 guest rooms at the hotel, 11 months ago, for a conference that drew 3,000 attendees."
The entire article is here - http://www.washblade.com/print.cfm?content_id=9300
But I have harped on the hotel room with the grand piano because I know that is the item that members of the anti-gay industry will probably harp on if and when they use what Senator Coburn is doing for their own benefit.
Senator Coburn seems to be hinting that HIV/AIDS prevention organizations are wasting taxpayer money.
But more than that, he is giving Dobson, Sheldon, and company more fodder to feed upon.
Senator Coburn has never been a friend to the gay community but he is in the hip pocket of Dobson and company. I am willing to bet that by next week, an headline in Agape Press (and press releases by various so-called "pro family" groups) will feature a spot on the hotel room with the luxury piano. What's more, the article will probably not be objective but quote some phony "pro family" activist who will whine about the money spent on HIV/AIDS prevention and education in leiu of diseases that allegedly more of a body count.
You see, this is all a game. And Senator Coburn just threw the anti-gay industry a forward pass.
Friday, October 20, 2006
A challenge to Peter LaBarbera and anyone else
Something terrible happened recently in Great Britain.
An 11-year-old child was murdered by a 14-year-old. And the story is that the murder happened because the 11-year-old refused the 14 year old’s sexual advances.
First off, it was a terrible thing to have happened and we need to pray for all parties involved.
Unfortunately our friend Peter LaBarbera is yet again salivating over the prospect of "catching a homosexual in an act of violence."
On his webpage, Peter makes sure to mention the awful tale but with the headline - Eleven-year-old stabbed 16 times after rejecting homosexual advance.
It seems to Peter that the possibility that a gay person was involved trumps the crime itself.
Which leads me to the challenge that I know he won’t take.
It’s really meant to be rhetorical and it’s a challenge to him and anyone else interested.
A couple of years ago, I ran across a flyer that said:
Don't have sex with blacks!
Avoid AIDS!
The flyer was put out by a white racist group and showed the picture of a black man who had been passing the disease AIDS to his heterosexual sexual partners.
The flyer also contained the names of two other black men who had been convicted of this crime.
The flyer went on to say "These black sexual predators lied about being HIV positive and had sex with dozens of white women . . . Don't be the next victim."
Here is the question for you, Peter.
Do you think that there is a difference between what that racist group claimed about black men and what you claim about gay men?
Something terrible happened recently in Great Britain.
An 11-year-old child was murdered by a 14-year-old. And the story is that the murder happened because the 11-year-old refused the 14 year old’s sexual advances.
First off, it was a terrible thing to have happened and we need to pray for all parties involved.
Unfortunately our friend Peter LaBarbera is yet again salivating over the prospect of "catching a homosexual in an act of violence."
On his webpage, Peter makes sure to mention the awful tale but with the headline - Eleven-year-old stabbed 16 times after rejecting homosexual advance.
It seems to Peter that the possibility that a gay person was involved trumps the crime itself.
Which leads me to the challenge that I know he won’t take.
It’s really meant to be rhetorical and it’s a challenge to him and anyone else interested.
A couple of years ago, I ran across a flyer that said:
Don't have sex with blacks!
Avoid AIDS!
The flyer was put out by a white racist group and showed the picture of a black man who had been passing the disease AIDS to his heterosexual sexual partners.
The flyer also contained the names of two other black men who had been convicted of this crime.
The flyer went on to say "These black sexual predators lied about being HIV positive and had sex with dozens of white women . . . Don't be the next victim."
Here is the question for you, Peter.
Do you think that there is a difference between what that racist group claimed about black men and what you claim about gay men?
The art of undermining
Today's blog entry is a departure from the norm because of recent events I want to call everyone's attention to:
"If politics were fair, Democrats would be in as much trouble as Republicans. And they'd be just as vulnerable. They've been obstructionist, anti-tax-cut, soft on terrorism, and generally obnoxious. On top of that, Pelosi is the most unpopular national politician in America. But in the sixth year of the Bush presidency, with a GOP-run Congress, Democrats aren't the issue. Republicans are." - "journalist" Fred Barnes, Oct. 23rd edition of the Weekly Standard
"I think it's interesting, Matt, that both sides agree on the stakes. It is Iraq. It is whether we support the president's policy in Iraq or not. It is whether we want Nancy Pelosi to be the first woman speaker of the House or not. My own view is that iconic fact of that woman sitting behind the president during a State of the Union address is an enormous change in our culture. A lot of professional women and men women will say, 'Great.' A lot of the more conservative people will say, 'Wait a minute, this woman's from San Francisco, she's a liberal.'" - "journalist" Chris Matthews, The Today Show, Sept. 5th
"Let's talk about this possibility -- it seems likely now, in almost all cards that the Democrats will get control of the House, which will bring us two years of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is not a popular figure or respected figure nationally. Her behavior will be more visible than ever, more conspicuous than ever. What effect does that have on the possibility of Hillary Clinton being nominated or even elected in 2008? I think it is a very good question. I suspect the effect would not be terrifically positive." - "journalist" Brit Hume, Fox News, Oct. 15th
Today's blog entry is a departure from the norm because of recent events I want to call everyone's attention to:
"If politics were fair, Democrats would be in as much trouble as Republicans. And they'd be just as vulnerable. They've been obstructionist, anti-tax-cut, soft on terrorism, and generally obnoxious. On top of that, Pelosi is the most unpopular national politician in America. But in the sixth year of the Bush presidency, with a GOP-run Congress, Democrats aren't the issue. Republicans are." - "journalist" Fred Barnes, Oct. 23rd edition of the Weekly Standard
"I think it's interesting, Matt, that both sides agree on the stakes. It is Iraq. It is whether we support the president's policy in Iraq or not. It is whether we want Nancy Pelosi to be the first woman speaker of the House or not. My own view is that iconic fact of that woman sitting behind the president during a State of the Union address is an enormous change in our culture. A lot of professional women and men women will say, 'Great.' A lot of the more conservative people will say, 'Wait a minute, this woman's from San Francisco, she's a liberal.'" - "journalist" Chris Matthews, The Today Show, Sept. 5th
"Let's talk about this possibility -- it seems likely now, in almost all cards that the Democrats will get control of the House, which will bring us two years of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is not a popular figure or respected figure nationally. Her behavior will be more visible than ever, more conspicuous than ever. What effect does that have on the possibility of Hillary Clinton being nominated or even elected in 2008? I think it is a very good question. I suspect the effect would not be terrifically positive." - "journalist" Brit Hume, Fox News, Oct. 15th
"Ordinarily, a party's leadership structure is set by the caucus in advance, and all members are expected go along with the decision. In the eight years Rep. J. Dennis Hastert, Illinois Republican, has been speaker, he's never had a protest vote cast against him. Mrs. Pelosi, whose voting record is considerably more liberal than many of her fellow Democrats, has never enjoyed that luxury. In last year's election for speaker, one Democrat opposed her for the top post. Four Democrats opposed her in 2003, with three of them simply voting "present" as a protest. Such protest votes are a sign of dissension within a party. But in the upcoming Congress -- where Democrats could hold the majority by just one or two seats -- any members who vote for someone other than Mrs. Pelosi or simply decide not to vote could trigger parliamentary mayhem. " - Pelosi no shoo-in for job as speaker, The Washington Times, Oct. 20, 2006
Does anyone see a pattern here? An echo chamber is forming.
Obviously, in getting ready for a possible change in leadership on Nov. 7, some "journalists" are undermining Rep. Nancy Pelosi's credibility to serve as U.S. of Representatives Speaker of the House before she even has the opportunity to take over the duties.
This is how Al Gore lost in 2000.
Journalists, instead of doing research, took Republican talking points against Gore (i.e Al Gore has a problem with lying because he claims to have invented the internet) and repeated them on talk shows and news commentaries, creating an echo chamber that ultimately helped Bush.
Gore's loss demonstrated just how dangerous lazy journalists are.
Now I am afraid that the same thing is happening with Pelosi.
Just who are these people who claim that Pelosi is unpopular? Do any polls verify this?
No and as proof of this, check out this link- http://mediamatters.org/items/200610150005
One thing this does prove - misrepresentation is not a hallmark that belongs solely to the anti-gay industry.
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Liberty Sunday: Garbage in, Garbage out
"They want to silence, and they will silence, Christians. If we don’t win this battle, the day will come when they’ll walk into your church if you say one thing wrong [or] bad about homosexuality; they’ll walk in your church and they’ll shut you up and you’ll be arrested for a hate crime. That sounds far, far removed but it’s the truth."
To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, "there they go again."
By now, the anti-gay industry's whinefest, or as they call it, "Liberty Sunday" is over and done. And it was the same mess they always perpetrate.
Blah, blah, blah, homosexuals are out to get us. Blah, blah, blah, it's an agenda to hurt Christians.
I don't know what's worse: the fact that they always conveniently forgetting how many of us gay folks have a deep faith in God or the fact that they are trivializing Christianity by reducing it to a Tammany Hall voting machine.
But lying on the gay community is a usual occurrence for Wildmon.
According to the website, Media Matters for America, Wildmon repeated a lie about gay income during a March 2006 radio broadcast (http://mediamatters.org/items/200603160008):
"You know, I saw yesterday how much - - how much money the homosexual community has. I mean, good gracious, the average homosexual makes four times more than I do"
Not only did Media Matters call this claim a lie, but also it had the facts to back up its claim:
"Though Wildmon did not state specifically ‘how much money the homosexual community has,’ according to the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, the AFA has, for many years, based its statements on average gay incomes on a discredited 1988 survey by the Simmons Market Research Bureau, which listed the average gay income as $55,430 . . ."
Media Matters for America went on to say that the survey was discredited because it did not reflect a representative sample of the gay population. Apparently, the survey only questioned readers of popular gay-oriented magazines and those who filled out sign-up sheets for the 1993 Gay March on Washington:
"As the National Organization of Gay and Lesbian Scientists and Technical Professionals, Inc. (NOGLSTP) noted, ‘ People who buy and read newspapers and magazines tend to have more education and higher incomes. Gay events attract people who can afford to travel or pay an entry fee.’"
As a further example of this, Media Matters for America said, the NOGLSTP also demonstrated that a 1989 survey by the Simmons Bureau showed that readers of African-American-oriented magazines earned 41 to 82 percent more than average African-Americans.
Media Matters for America added this coda that shed even more light on Wildmon’s exaggeration about gay and lesbian income:
" . . . even if the Simmons survey was accurate, Wildmon’s assertion that ‘the average homosexual earns four times more than I do,’ would not be. According to the AFA’s 2004 990 filing - -the Internal Revenue Service’s return for organizations exempt from income tax – Wildmon paid himself $58,010 plus $31, 787 in benefits and a housing allowance of $39,200. He paid his son, Tim, who is president of AFA, $79,000"
We are not the problem. Obviously, Wildmon has gay on the brain.
"They want to silence, and they will silence, Christians. If we don’t win this battle, the day will come when they’ll walk into your church if you say one thing wrong [or] bad about homosexuality; they’ll walk in your church and they’ll shut you up and you’ll be arrested for a hate crime. That sounds far, far removed but it’s the truth."
To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, "there they go again."
By now, the anti-gay industry's whinefest, or as they call it, "Liberty Sunday" is over and done. And it was the same mess they always perpetrate.
Blah, blah, blah, homosexuals are out to get us. Blah, blah, blah, it's an agenda to hurt Christians.
I don't know what's worse: the fact that they always conveniently forgetting how many of us gay folks have a deep faith in God or the fact that they are trivializing Christianity by reducing it to a Tammany Hall voting machine.
But lying on the gay community is a usual occurrence for Wildmon.
According to the website, Media Matters for America, Wildmon repeated a lie about gay income during a March 2006 radio broadcast (http://mediamatters.org/items/200603160008):
"You know, I saw yesterday how much - - how much money the homosexual community has. I mean, good gracious, the average homosexual makes four times more than I do"
Not only did Media Matters call this claim a lie, but also it had the facts to back up its claim:
"Though Wildmon did not state specifically ‘how much money the homosexual community has,’ according to the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, the AFA has, for many years, based its statements on average gay incomes on a discredited 1988 survey by the Simmons Market Research Bureau, which listed the average gay income as $55,430 . . ."
Media Matters for America went on to say that the survey was discredited because it did not reflect a representative sample of the gay population. Apparently, the survey only questioned readers of popular gay-oriented magazines and those who filled out sign-up sheets for the 1993 Gay March on Washington:
"As the National Organization of Gay and Lesbian Scientists and Technical Professionals, Inc. (NOGLSTP) noted, ‘ People who buy and read newspapers and magazines tend to have more education and higher incomes. Gay events attract people who can afford to travel or pay an entry fee.’"
As a further example of this, Media Matters for America said, the NOGLSTP also demonstrated that a 1989 survey by the Simmons Bureau showed that readers of African-American-oriented magazines earned 41 to 82 percent more than average African-Americans.
Media Matters for America added this coda that shed even more light on Wildmon’s exaggeration about gay and lesbian income:
" . . . even if the Simmons survey was accurate, Wildmon’s assertion that ‘the average homosexual earns four times more than I do,’ would not be. According to the AFA’s 2004 990 filing - -the Internal Revenue Service’s return for organizations exempt from income tax – Wildmon paid himself $58,010 plus $31, 787 in benefits and a housing allowance of $39,200. He paid his son, Tim, who is president of AFA, $79,000"
We are not the problem. Obviously, Wildmon has gay on the brain.
Monday, October 16, 2006
Scalia's ignorance
In less than a month, my blog has over 1,000 hits. Now I am not completely computer literate but I think that is damned good.
It shows that you all are interested in what I have to say and for that I thank you. Now I hope you buy my book. :D
But onto today's news
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia continues to bitch about the Lawrence vs. Texas decision. In a debate with ACLU head Nadine Strossen, he said that homosexual sodomy is not in the Constitution(http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Video_Scalia_says_abortion_homosexual_sodomy_1016.html)
No kidding.
Scalia, who dissented with the majority of the court in that decision, still continues to harp about it in terms of gay sex. Don't get me wrong, I think Scalia is a brilliant man. He has to be if he is on the Supreme Court. So why does he continue to break the Lawrence vs. Texas case down to incorrect simplicity?
Lawrence vs. Texas (and by the way, the case is covered in my upcoming book as to how the anti-gay industry creates moral panics) was not about sodomy. The case asked the question can the United States government create laws that discriminate against a group of people simply based on the "morality of the majority."
Remember, Texas's sodomy law prosecuted gays, not heterosexuals.
The court obviously said no, which it should have. People should not be discriminated against simply because of the "morality of the majority."
Of course "the right to homosexual sodomy" is not written in the Constitution. But the right to be judged equally is.
The real question is that how can someone as intelligent as Scalia be so unintelligent about something so simple?
It just goes to show that even intelligence can fall victim to bias.
"Liberty Sunday"
Well "Liberty Sunday" took place and it was as nauseating as I thought it would be. In the coming days, I intend to break down several lies and distortions that Perkins, Dobson, Wildmon and company committed yesterday.
But bear with me if I don't do it tonight. Even I need a break from the trash pits.
In less than a month, my blog has over 1,000 hits. Now I am not completely computer literate but I think that is damned good.
It shows that you all are interested in what I have to say and for that I thank you. Now I hope you buy my book. :D
But onto today's news
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia continues to bitch about the Lawrence vs. Texas decision. In a debate with ACLU head Nadine Strossen, he said that homosexual sodomy is not in the Constitution(http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Video_Scalia_says_abortion_homosexual_sodomy_1016.html)
No kidding.
Scalia, who dissented with the majority of the court in that decision, still continues to harp about it in terms of gay sex. Don't get me wrong, I think Scalia is a brilliant man. He has to be if he is on the Supreme Court. So why does he continue to break the Lawrence vs. Texas case down to incorrect simplicity?
Lawrence vs. Texas (and by the way, the case is covered in my upcoming book as to how the anti-gay industry creates moral panics) was not about sodomy. The case asked the question can the United States government create laws that discriminate against a group of people simply based on the "morality of the majority."
Remember, Texas's sodomy law prosecuted gays, not heterosexuals.
The court obviously said no, which it should have. People should not be discriminated against simply because of the "morality of the majority."
Of course "the right to homosexual sodomy" is not written in the Constitution. But the right to be judged equally is.
The real question is that how can someone as intelligent as Scalia be so unintelligent about something so simple?
It just goes to show that even intelligence can fall victim to bias.
"Liberty Sunday"
Well "Liberty Sunday" took place and it was as nauseating as I thought it would be. In the coming days, I intend to break down several lies and distortions that Perkins, Dobson, Wildmon and company committed yesterday.
But bear with me if I don't do it tonight. Even I need a break from the trash pits.
Sunday, October 15, 2006
Liberty Sunday, the Conspiracy Theory, and the Echo Chamber
When I talked about tonight's anti-gay industry whinefest, Liberty Sunday, two posts ago, I made an error.
I said that Liberty Sunday was indicative of one anti-gay industry propaganda technique: dire consequences.
Actually, Liberty Sunday is a combination of the dire consequences technique and another technique which I outline in my upcoming book: the conspiracy theory.
From time to time, so-called "pro family" groups will claim that gays are undertaking a huge Machiavellian conspiracy to overturn American values or "force acceptance."
These groups hardly ever offer any proof of a conspiracy, but will take unrelated current events and string them together on the strings of paranoia.
The only reason why the conspiracy theory works so well for the anti-gay industry is because they have many people of faith bamboozled to believe every word that comes out of their mouths.
So-called “pro family” groups claim to speak for and to people of faith. Unfortunately many of these people of faith are not familiar with the gay community. Nor are they aware of the diverse segments that make up the gay community. In short, they view gays and lesbians as monolithic or all the same. Lastly, a great majority of them view homosexuality as a sin.
All the anti-gay industry has to do is pull up a “questionable” quote from at least one gay or lesbian leader to exploit this ignorance and they easily have these people of faith convinced that an “agenda” is afoot.
It amounts to ego stroking. The anti-gay industry are constantly complimenting people of faith in an offhand way. Statements like "our Christian values," "this country was found on Christian principles," or "we must take our country" back gives people of faith an impression that all of their opinions are righteous.
So what happens when an entity, like say the Supreme Court does not agree with this notion? Why the Supreme Court must be wrong because it disagrees with the opinion of "righteous people." Even more, the Supreme Court must be under the "thrall of activist judges."
When you have a group of people in your hip pocket, you can manipulate them in all sorts of ways, even creating an echo chamber.
Or check this out:
the Supreme Court rules for against a law they favor. Agape Press, owned by the American Family Association, prints an article biased, of course, against the ruling, and quoting so-called “pro family” leaders such as Gary Bauer who claim that the ruling is a travesty on the country. Other talking heads such as Robert Knight and Pete LaBarbera write columns falsely claiming that the Supreme Court ruled against them because of alleged biases of the justices. These columns are filtered to other right-wing publications and web pages.
James Dobson (Focus on the Family) criticizes the ruling on his radio program, as does Tony Perkins (Family Research Council). Other articles are written trying to prove how the ruling will hurt America. More articles are written digging up speeches that the judges made, hinting on flimsy correlations between their ruling and so-called personal biases. The think tanks emanating from these groups write books smearing the reputations of the judges. The phrase “activist judges” is used over and over again in columns, articles, and books.
The Traditional Values Coalition, the Family Research Council, and other so-called “pro family” groups solicit donations making the claim that either the ruling will doom Christians and will lead to homosexuality being taught “as normal” to children or it will lead to criticizing homosexuality as a hate crime. They get people of faith who are gullible enough to believe their lies to write letters in to Congress and their local newspapers (using a script of their talking points.) Andrea Lafferty (Traditional Values Coalition) and others lobby the Congressional halls citing data from the books and columns, even if the data may be distorted and misinterpreted (which it often is).
There are backdoor meetings with and threats from people such as Dobson and Lou Sheldon (Traditional Values Coalition) to President Bush and members of Congress. President Bush and members of Congress use the “activist judges” quote in speeches and on the floor of Congress. So-called news programs (Fox News) begin debating whether or not judges have a bias against people of faith.
Right-wing bloggers and columnists begin writing about “activist judges.” Meetings are coordinated across the nation complaining about “activist judges.” Bills are proposed to “limit judicial tyranny.” Events such as Justice Sunday or Liberty Sunday fill the airwaves, scaring people of faith about a supposed plot to take away their liberties and their ability to worship.
Through it all, no one has offered up any credible proof as to the suspected bias of the judges. The echo chamber that the anti-gay industry create replaces truth; utilizing the very same power they claim that the gay community have.
And the people who assist most the creation and progression of this echo chamber are naive people faith, totally convinced that the anti-gay industry is trying to protect their interests and their very lives.
Lying is so simple yet so complicated.
When I talked about tonight's anti-gay industry whinefest, Liberty Sunday, two posts ago, I made an error.
I said that Liberty Sunday was indicative of one anti-gay industry propaganda technique: dire consequences.
Actually, Liberty Sunday is a combination of the dire consequences technique and another technique which I outline in my upcoming book: the conspiracy theory.
From time to time, so-called "pro family" groups will claim that gays are undertaking a huge Machiavellian conspiracy to overturn American values or "force acceptance."
These groups hardly ever offer any proof of a conspiracy, but will take unrelated current events and string them together on the strings of paranoia.
The only reason why the conspiracy theory works so well for the anti-gay industry is because they have many people of faith bamboozled to believe every word that comes out of their mouths.
So-called “pro family” groups claim to speak for and to people of faith. Unfortunately many of these people of faith are not familiar with the gay community. Nor are they aware of the diverse segments that make up the gay community. In short, they view gays and lesbians as monolithic or all the same. Lastly, a great majority of them view homosexuality as a sin.
All the anti-gay industry has to do is pull up a “questionable” quote from at least one gay or lesbian leader to exploit this ignorance and they easily have these people of faith convinced that an “agenda” is afoot.
It amounts to ego stroking. The anti-gay industry are constantly complimenting people of faith in an offhand way. Statements like "our Christian values," "this country was found on Christian principles," or "we must take our country" back gives people of faith an impression that all of their opinions are righteous.
So what happens when an entity, like say the Supreme Court does not agree with this notion? Why the Supreme Court must be wrong because it disagrees with the opinion of "righteous people." Even more, the Supreme Court must be under the "thrall of activist judges."
When you have a group of people in your hip pocket, you can manipulate them in all sorts of ways, even creating an echo chamber.
Or check this out:
the Supreme Court rules for against a law they favor. Agape Press, owned by the American Family Association, prints an article biased, of course, against the ruling, and quoting so-called “pro family” leaders such as Gary Bauer who claim that the ruling is a travesty on the country. Other talking heads such as Robert Knight and Pete LaBarbera write columns falsely claiming that the Supreme Court ruled against them because of alleged biases of the justices. These columns are filtered to other right-wing publications and web pages.
James Dobson (Focus on the Family) criticizes the ruling on his radio program, as does Tony Perkins (Family Research Council). Other articles are written trying to prove how the ruling will hurt America. More articles are written digging up speeches that the judges made, hinting on flimsy correlations between their ruling and so-called personal biases. The think tanks emanating from these groups write books smearing the reputations of the judges. The phrase “activist judges” is used over and over again in columns, articles, and books.
The Traditional Values Coalition, the Family Research Council, and other so-called “pro family” groups solicit donations making the claim that either the ruling will doom Christians and will lead to homosexuality being taught “as normal” to children or it will lead to criticizing homosexuality as a hate crime. They get people of faith who are gullible enough to believe their lies to write letters in to Congress and their local newspapers (using a script of their talking points.) Andrea Lafferty (Traditional Values Coalition) and others lobby the Congressional halls citing data from the books and columns, even if the data may be distorted and misinterpreted (which it often is).
There are backdoor meetings with and threats from people such as Dobson and Lou Sheldon (Traditional Values Coalition) to President Bush and members of Congress. President Bush and members of Congress use the “activist judges” quote in speeches and on the floor of Congress. So-called news programs (Fox News) begin debating whether or not judges have a bias against people of faith.
Right-wing bloggers and columnists begin writing about “activist judges.” Meetings are coordinated across the nation complaining about “activist judges.” Bills are proposed to “limit judicial tyranny.” Events such as Justice Sunday or Liberty Sunday fill the airwaves, scaring people of faith about a supposed plot to take away their liberties and their ability to worship.
Through it all, no one has offered up any credible proof as to the suspected bias of the judges. The echo chamber that the anti-gay industry create replaces truth; utilizing the very same power they claim that the gay community have.
And the people who assist most the creation and progression of this echo chamber are naive people faith, totally convinced that the anti-gay industry is trying to protect their interests and their very lives.
Lying is so simple yet so complicated.
Saturday, October 14, 2006
Hypocrisy, thy name is Agape Press
It's been wild in South Carolina. Apparently we face an anti-marriage equality amendment on our ballot. Subsequently, my community have been mobilizing like never before.
This is good for a number of reasons. The main reason being that many have written off this state. Everyone seems to be talking about how anti-marriage equality amendments may be defeated or blunted in Wisconsin or Colorado, but have taken for granted the gay community in South Carolina.
We are putting up a rip-snorting (yeah I said rip-snorting) fight. Trust me, if we go down in this state, it will be with both barrels loaded.
But I did have time to point out a very interesting contradiction of terms as to how the anti-gay industry looks at us:
In the article, Sexualized Culture Blamed for Teacher-Student Sex Epidemic (http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/3/302006d.asp), Agape Press thinks that it is terrible that there is a trend with female teachers having sex with their male students.
In this respect, I agree with the publication. But rather than attacking the teachers per se, the Agape Press article seems to be blaming the "culture" for the problem:
"Kupelian is convinced there are several primary factors fueling the epidemic of teacher-student sex. For one, he says, American culture is very sexualized.
'Our popular culture is swimming in it, TV and movies are filled with it, and with the Internet, more young people have seen hard-core sexual images than at any time in history," he exclaims. "That's one major factor. But there's another huge factor, which I think is even more devastating, and that is that many Americans just have no understanding of right and wrong anymore.'
Kupelian, author of the book The Marketing of Evil, says the epidemic can also be traced to a lack of parental involvement in children's education."
Interesting.
Now check out this article, Ex-Homosexual Ministry Leader: 'My Heart Breaks for Mark Foley' (http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/10/52006e.asp) :
"Stephen Bennett, a former homosexual and founder of Stephen Bennett Ministries (SBM), says his ministry often deals with homosexuals who were abused as youngsters. In fact, he says there is a definite correlation between molestation and homosexuality. "
Stephen Bennett, by the way, is not an expert. He is another phony spokesperson propped up by anti-gay industry money.
So when a female teacher molests a male child, it's the "culture" but when a male molests a boy or teenager, it's because he is a "dirty homosexual?"
Oh yeah, tell me again how objective and Christian you are, Agape Press.
It's been wild in South Carolina. Apparently we face an anti-marriage equality amendment on our ballot. Subsequently, my community have been mobilizing like never before.
This is good for a number of reasons. The main reason being that many have written off this state. Everyone seems to be talking about how anti-marriage equality amendments may be defeated or blunted in Wisconsin or Colorado, but have taken for granted the gay community in South Carolina.
We are putting up a rip-snorting (yeah I said rip-snorting) fight. Trust me, if we go down in this state, it will be with both barrels loaded.
But I did have time to point out a very interesting contradiction of terms as to how the anti-gay industry looks at us:
In the article, Sexualized Culture Blamed for Teacher-Student Sex Epidemic (http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/3/302006d.asp), Agape Press thinks that it is terrible that there is a trend with female teachers having sex with their male students.
In this respect, I agree with the publication. But rather than attacking the teachers per se, the Agape Press article seems to be blaming the "culture" for the problem:
"Kupelian is convinced there are several primary factors fueling the epidemic of teacher-student sex. For one, he says, American culture is very sexualized.
'Our popular culture is swimming in it, TV and movies are filled with it, and with the Internet, more young people have seen hard-core sexual images than at any time in history," he exclaims. "That's one major factor. But there's another huge factor, which I think is even more devastating, and that is that many Americans just have no understanding of right and wrong anymore.'
Kupelian, author of the book The Marketing of Evil, says the epidemic can also be traced to a lack of parental involvement in children's education."
Interesting.
Now check out this article, Ex-Homosexual Ministry Leader: 'My Heart Breaks for Mark Foley' (http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/10/52006e.asp) :
"Stephen Bennett, a former homosexual and founder of Stephen Bennett Ministries (SBM), says his ministry often deals with homosexuals who were abused as youngsters. In fact, he says there is a definite correlation between molestation and homosexuality. "
Stephen Bennett, by the way, is not an expert. He is another phony spokesperson propped up by anti-gay industry money.
So when a female teacher molests a male child, it's the "culture" but when a male molests a boy or teenager, it's because he is a "dirty homosexual?"
Oh yeah, tell me again how objective and Christian you are, Agape Press.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)