National Organization for Marriage - gays were never hunted down and murdered like 'Jews, Christians, and blacks'

What's up with the National Organization for Marriage (NOM)?

Not too many people are noticing this, but that organization, started to supposedly "protect marriage" from us so-called evil lgbts, seems to be going off the deep end in terms of rhetoric.

When it began, NOM cleverly played up the "we are unfairly being called bigots because we simply want to protect marriage" meme. And that was because of the savvy of its founder, Maggie Gallagher.

But now with Gallagher handing the reins of the group to Brian Brown, the organization has abandoned all pretenses of martyrdom and is headed straight for crazy-talk territory.

This was evident when it joined forces in its "Summer for Marriage" tour with one Louis J. Marinelli III, a man who not only cites the discredited work of Paul Cameron, but is also very vocal in the belief that gays want to cause all sorts of mischief from molesting children to creating polygamous relationships.

And if that's not bad enough, from the administrator of NOM's facebook page comes this little "gem:"

(Gays and lesbians) are not being repressed, discriminated against. There is no and never has ever been a homosexual man hunt for them. Jews, Christians, and Blacks were hunted down and murdered. Homosexuals have nothing in common with the three.

Now I could go into a history of the persecution of the lgbt community in places like Nazi Germany or talk about Sakia Gunn, Michael Sandy, or even Matthew Shepard (whose murder was not soley about a robbery no matter what the right says), or the countless number of lgbts who have lost their lives due to hate but what's the point?

Sometimes people say things so wildly inaccurate that any comment you want to make is unnecessary. 

The statement by NOM is beyond the pale and it further proves what many lgbts know about that group. NOM is not interested in defending marriage. It's only interested in bashing lgbts, but not by physical attacks.

NOM seeks to psychologically bash us.

First the organization tells us that we are not worthy of marriage; that we have no ability to love and raise children; that we are undeserving of anything except for what folks like them feel that they want to give us.

And now with that statement, NOM seeks to rewrite history in a way that eliminates our past struggles for equality in the same manner that the group is also trying to eliminate our potential future happiness.

I think a question by web site Box Turtle Bulletin about the statement on NOM's facebook page says it all:

Are they completely delusional? 

Sadly, I think the answer is yes.

Hat tip to Box Turtle Bulletin.

Truth Wins Out to protest Donnie McClurkin and other Wednesday midday news briefs

Truth Wins Out Joins Protest In Boston Against Ex-Gay Gospel Singer - In the past, Donnie McClurkin could cover up his homophobia by either claiming that he was misquoted or appealing to the "you can't call me homophobic because I'm just like you" lie. However, Truth Wins Out has him dead to rights when it comes to ugly things he has said about lgbts. And if you need a visual, check out this past post of mine complete with video of him saying those ugly things.

Pentagon: Gay Soldier Survey Won't Lead to Segregation - Well thank God for small favors.

NOM goes completely wackadoodle - Goes wackadoodle? The National Organization for Marriage has been wackadoodle from day one.

Obama shifts AIDS strategy to high-risk groups - The shift is needed.

Family Research Council angry at Amtrak for targeting potential lgbt customers

I got the following email from the Family Research Council:

Dear Alvin,

If there was ever proof that the Obama Administration has gone off the rails, it's Amtrak. For the first time in the train service's history, Amtrak has decided to spend a quarter-million dollars recruiting homosexual passengers. As you may know, Amtrak isn't a private business. This is a government-run business, meaning that this $250,000 is taken directly from taxpayers' pockets. In a very real sense, this ad campaign is a federal endorsement of homosexual behavior -- one of the most serious public health threats in America. Using taxpayer funds to promote this ad campaign is insulting to the millions of Americans who have deeply-held moral convictions against homosexuality. Yet Washington is targeting the demographically small homosexual population-probably because marketing surveys suggest it is also one of the richest. So let's be honest. This Administration is more interested in riding the gravy train than getting the culture back on track.

Please contact senior officials at Amtrak and ask them to stop this campaign using your tax dollars!

Now this is being totally ridiculous, even for the Family Research Council. The ad campaign in question is rather innocent and is nothing that Amtrak hasn't done before with other groups:

For the first time, Amtrak is courting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered travelers with a targeted $250,000 multimedia advertising blitz this summer.


The government-owned rail company is looking to the LGBT community for business with the hopes that its propensity for travel will translate well into rail transportation.

While Amtrak spokeswoman, Karina Romero did not go into specifics, she told The Daily Caller, “We are always looking for new ways to reach potential passengers and this community travels a lot.”

Darlene Abubakar, the director of national advertising for Amtrak, told TheDC, “Most all of the major airlines, hotels and others in the travel and tourism industry target the LGBT market segment … Amtrak ’s goal is to raise the level of awareness of the benefits of train travel and increase consideration and ridership amongst this segment.”

 . . . Amtrak has targeted other demographic groups in the past, including students, seniors, veterans, families with children, Hispanics, African Americans and international customers. However this is the first time it has aimed its efforts toward the LGBT community. Romero told TheDC that Amtrak advertisements would be featured in television and publications specifically geared toward the LGBT population.

You see this is what we talk about when we accuse FRC and organizations like them of being homophobic. It's one thing to have a religious belief against homosexuality, but that claim about "homosexual behavior being a public health threat" is like a racist saying that Amtrak shouldn't target the African-American community because it may cause black men to  have sex with white women.

There is nothing Christian about exploiting ignorance and fear.

Get ABC's The View to correct the record on gay black men

One of the biggest problems we have with achieving lgbt equality is all of the misinformation put out there about our community.

The religious right peddles misinformation on a daily basis so it's bad enough dealing with them. But when misinformation is pushed due to simple ignorance, it's still a problem.

And the lgbt community has a problem with the ABC show The View:

On June 21st, Slate published a story titled "Inferior Blood" that asked, "If it's OK to reject blood from gay men, what about blacks?" Federal guidelines ban gay males from donating blood if they have had sex with men in the past 30 years, because they are classified as a group with an increased risk for HIV. But the article notes that since HIV prevalence is 18 times higher for Black woman than their white counterparts, why not ban Black folks from donating blood too?

The next day on ABC's The View, D.L. Hughley, a Black actor and comedian, presented his wildly misinformed opinion as a fact: "When you look at the prevalence of HIV in the African-American community, it's primarily young women getting it from men on the 'down low.' " That's simply not true.

Despite years of speculation about so-called "down low" men--or, Black men who sleep with men while identifying as straight and having sex with women, too--the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found no evidence that they are responsible for high HIV rates among Black women. In fact, CDC studies have found men fitting the "down low" description are actually no more likely to have unprotected sex than their peers. Nonetheless, thanks to folks like Hughley, the "down low" meme lives on. Meanwhile, the far less sexy factors that appear to play large roles in HIV rates among Black women--such as poor access to routine STD screening and treatment or histories of sexual abuse--get ignored.

Yesterday, in a full-page ad running in Variety Magazine, the Gay  and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), the Black AIDS Institute and the National Black Justice Coalition (NBJC) called on ABC and The View to correct misinformation put forth on the the show.

 The "down low" meme is motivated by ignorance and a cynical exploitation on the fears of black women.  It motivated many others to throw out all of sorts of nonsense on the subject including Shahrazad Ali.

Ali, who once said that black women need a good smack in the mouth, wrote another book called How To Tell if Your Man is Gay or Bisexual. In this book, she gave a few "tips" on spotting "downlow men," including:

How does he sleep at night, what position does he sleep in? Does he sleep like a woman, or like a man? What does he talk about in his sleep?

You can touch his rectum to see if he has those tell-tale humpson his anus from having it stretched open with a penis. Then later on ask him if he's ever had hemorrhoids really bad.

If he asks you to "toss his salad" and you agree, and his legs go up too quickly, he's probably used to doing it.

It would be hilarious except for the fact that some folks actually took her seriously
What you can do: contact ABC and get the network to correct the misinformation put out by Hughley and Shepard:

ABC Contacts:

Brad Jamison, Vice President Corporate Initiatives
ABC Television Network
818-460-6120
Brad.Jamison@abc.com

Julie Hoover, Corporate Communications Vice President
ABC Television Network
(212) 456-6641
julie.t.hoover@abc.com

Bill Geddie, Executive Producer
ABC "The View"
(212) 456-0910
bill.geddie@abc.com

Related post:

CDC: ‘Down Low’ Men Not Responsible for High HIV Rates Among Black Women

Phony pro-family expert Peter Sprigg hits a wall of knowledge and other Tuesday midday news briefs

The following is what happens when a phony religious right expert goes up against a real expert. Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council (the guy who wants "homosexual behavior" to be declared illegal and gays to be deported when he is not pushing phony studies) debates Logan Levkoff, author and sexuality education expert on sex education for children. Levkoff holds her own and then some. It's unfortunate that Sprigg can still be considered an expert after his lies, but still it's nice to see him get struck with facts. And it's on Fox of all places. Take a lesson, lgbt community. THIS is how it's done.

Hat tip - Goodasyou.org and Joe.My.God

In other news briefs

Audio: Oh look, Matt's being tough again. Adorable. Really. - Matt Barber of the Liberty Counsel may not know it but he is the lgbt community's best friend. Every time Maggie Gallagher and NOM try to pull that "we shouldn't be called bigots because we believe in 'traditional marriage'" lie, we can always count on Barber to say something which puts a hole in that lie, such as here when he calls gays "disordered. And lest we forget, Barber is the same guy who wants to focus more attention on "gay sex." Why is for you to ponder. I'm no psychologist.

David Boies on How the Prop. 8 Witnesses Fell Apart - Because they were liars, pure and simple. But David puts its much better.

Texas GOP vice-chair defends party’s extremist anti-gay platform - She infers that lgbts should be treated with dignity, as long as we know our place.

'Poo poo' pastor Martin Ssempa causes church to lose partnership

From the area of "you got what you deserved" comes this item:

A Nevada public health organization has cut ties with the Las Vegas church that counts controversial Ugandan anti-gay pastor Martin Ssempa as a mission partner.

As Salon reported on July 2, the Canyon Ridge Community Church has an ongoing relationship with Ssempa, who has become the public face of Uganda's "kill the gays bill." At the same time, the church has been working with the Southern Nevada Health District in Las Vegas to provide a location for HIV testing and AIDS awareness activities. But late Friday, in a letter to Canyon Ridge pastor Kevin Odor, the agency's chief health officer, Lawrence Sands, severed the relationship, citing the church's support for Ssempa.

Dr. Sands stated that "Pastor Ssempa's support of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, which would criminally penalize homosexuals, is in direct conflict with the overarching public health goals of the health district."

As written, the Anti-Homosexuality Bill would impose the death penalty on HIV-positive people caught in homosexual intimacy. Non-HIV positive gays could get life in prison. In Uganda, support for the bill is driven by a coalition of Muslim and evangelical clergy, with Martin Ssempa leading the charge via local demonstrations and the international media. Despite Ssempa's vocal promotion of the bill, Canyon Ridge Christian Church has stuck by him, declining to condemn his harsh anti-gay rhetoric or the Anti-Homosexuality Bill.

In the past, Southern Nevada partnered with Canyon Ridge church to offer HIV testing on site, most recently on June 27, the National HIV Testing Day. Calling it "unfortunate that we will be unable to continue to work together as community partners," Sands said the action was necessary to remain consistent with basic principles of public health practice.

You lie down with dogs, you end up with fleas. Of course knowing Ssempa's penchant for showing "scat porn" in church, I guess the better saying would be you hang around with folks who like to play in #^@, you end up getting some of it on you.

Sorry to those who thought that was sufficiently nasty.

Related posts: 

Martin Ssempa claims to be misunderstood

Martin Ssempa celebrates his homophobia via a blog

'Kill the gays' bill supporter reduced to showing gay porn in church

Martin Ssempa talks about 'poop' to demonize lgbts 

Martin Ssempa's obsession with gay sex . . . and poo?

Fired University of Illinois professor accused gays of 'dangerous sex acts'

The blogsphere is all a flutter today about a University of Illinois adjunct professor who got fired for comments he said about homosexuality. Now the spin seems to be - including unfortunately in the Huffington Post - that the professor in question, Kenneth Howell, got fired for merely stating the Catholic position against homosexuality:

An adjunct professor who taught courses on Catholicism at the University of Illinois has lost his teaching job there, and he claims it is a violation of his academic freedom.

Kenneth Howell was told after the spring semester ended that he would no longer be teaching in the UI's Department of Religion. The decision came after a student complained about a discussion of homosexuality in the class in which Howell taught that the Catholic Church believes homosexual acts are morally wrong.

Howell has been an adjunct lecturer in the department for nine years, during which he taught two courses, Introduction to Catholicism and Modern Catholic Thought. He was also director of the Institute of Catholic Thought, part of St. John's Catholic Newman Center on campus and the Catholic Diocese of Peoria. Funding for his salary came from the Institute of Catholic Thought.

One of his lectures in the introductory class on Catholicism focuses on the application of natural law theory to a social issue. In early May, Howell wrote a lengthy e-mail to his students, in preparation for an exam, in which he discusses how the theory of utilitarianism and natural law theory would judge the morality of homosexual acts.

"Natural Moral Law says that Morality must be a response to REALITY," he wrote in the e-mail, obtained by The News-Gazette. "In other words, sexual acts are only appropriate for people who are complementary, not the same."

He went on to write there has been a disassociation of sexual activity from morality and procreation, in contradiction of Natural Moral Theory.

The student complaint came in a May 13 e-mail to Robert McKim, head of the religion department. The author of the e-mail said he was writing on behalf of a friend – a student in Howell's class, who wanted to remain anonymous. The e-mail complained about Howell's statements about homosexuality, which the student called "hate speech.

Now the argument could made - and will be - that the university overreacted. Howell has retained the services of the Alliance Defense Fund, so I imagine we will hear ad naseum about the so-called gay agenda.

But there seems to be another side of this that no one is discussing.

Granted, I am not defending anyone but I would like to refer everyone to the email in question; the reason Howell was fired after a student complained. There seems to be more in it than simply stating a religious position against homosexuality. Particularly this passage:

One example applicable to homosexual acts illustrates the problem. To the best of my knowledge, in a sexual relationship between two men, one of them tends to act as the "woman" while the other acts as the "man." In this scenario, homosexual men have been known to engage in certain types of actions for which their bodies are not fitted. I don't want to be too graphic so I won't go into details but a physician has told me that these acts are deleterious to the health of one or possibly both of the men. Yet, if the morality of the act is judged only by mutual consent, then there are clearly homosexual acts which are injurious to their health but which are consented to. Why are they injurious? Because they violate the meaning, structure, and (sometimes) health of the human body.

Again, maybe the university overreacted.

But then again, what if Howell had made negative generalizations regarding the African-American community or the Latino community or the Jewish community?

Maybe he shouldn't have been fired. But it seems to me that this isn't a case about a man who was fired merely for stating his religious beliefs. Howell crossed the line when he began making comments - inaccurate generalizations - about gay sex.

But who cares about delving behind the story to get the facts when there is a "hot angle" to exploit.