Outtakes - The images I couldn't put in 'How They See Us'

My booklet, How They See Us: Unmasking the Religious Right War on Gay America, is very popular on Scribd. It has already gotten close to 59,000 reads and embedded views as well as 558 downloads.

Not bad for a little over a week.

So in celebration, I thought I would share some outtakes. The following images are the clips I didn't use from the book Deathstyle (if you read my booklet, you would know what Deathstyle is) because I felt they were so comical that they would distract from the seriousness of How They See Us.

Remember that horror movie which proclaimed "tell yourself it's only a dream."  Well in the spirit of that, when looking at these images, tell yourself "someone thought that these were true facts about gays. Some still do:"

'Bishop admits religious exemptions argument is a crock' and other Wednesday midday news briefs

Illinois' Bishop Paprocki: No religious exemption will ever satisfy us (*but we'll demand you give them to us anyway) - I always knew the "you're not giving us enough religious exemptions from gay marriage" whine was a crock.

Dobson: 'Everything I Have Fought For is On the Line and is in Danger Now' - Awwww poor baby! 

Pentagon Allows Military Spouses Group To Continue Discriminating Against Same-Sex Spouses - Okay this right here is some bull@!%#

Focus On The Family President Concedes Homosexuality Is ‘Not A Super Sin’ - I don't care what Focus on the Family says. I'm not giving up my red cape and monogrammed "S" for nobody.

Jesus Days: Photos of the World Through the Lens of a Closeted Young Gay Man - Fascinating photo journal.

Peter Sprigg exposes his anti-gay group's hypocrisy again

Peter Sprigg

Perhaps the Family Research Council's Peter Sprigg should quit while he is ahead. As he continues  to milk the recent controversy involving Pastor Louie Giglio - whose  inauguration invitation to give the benediction was rescinded due to past anti-gay sermons he preached - he opens himself and FRC up for scrutiny.

Which, of course, is perfectly fine with me.

Sprigg wrote a piece complaining about how Giglio was supposedly treated wrong for "merely" giving the supposed Christian view of homosexuality:

What many people do not understand is that when a conservative says “homosexuality is a sin,” it is a reference to their chosen sexual behavior, not to their inherent human dignity. Christian theology teaches that all people, including those with same-sex attractions, are created in the image of God, but it also teaches that all people—liberal or conservative, homosexual or heterosexual—are sinners who can be saved only by the grace of God.

If only it were that simple, I wouldn't have a successful blog. Sprigg conveniently forgets the time when he said gays should be exported out of the United States:



or the time he said "gay sex" should be outlawed:



And I would be remiss not to mention the statements of FRC's president, Tony Perkins, which speak for themselves:




 

So you see, when it comes to Giglio, Sprigg, Perkins, FRC, and so many other anti-gay entities, it goes beyond calling homosexuality a sin. They smear gay people as the "dreaded other" out to cause mayhem and destruction.

I naturally disagree with all of their statements, but especially Perkins' last one. I'm a happy gay guy. And at times, I get downright delirious with joy.

That generally takes place every time I am able to demonstrate how hypocritical folks like him are. 

Religious right group wants YOUR money to fight Lady Gaga

Lady Gaga

People for the American Way's Religious Right Watch just posted this:

Yesterday, the Florida Family Association hired a plane to fly above a Lady Gaga concert in Tacoma, WA with a banner reading “NOT BORN THIS WAY.” “How would you feel if your child or grandchild went to a concert where unbeknownst to you they were convinced to embrace a homosexual or transgender lifestyle for a lifetime?” the FFA told members when asking for contributions to run additional advertisements. “The fact that someone these kids do not know spent significant resources to fly a plan to tell them they are NOT born that way will prayerfully speak to their souls,” read the appeal for donations.

And here is the piece de resistance from the FFA's site itself:

Florida Family Association would like to fly more banners to counter Gaga’s hedonistic, Godless message at more concerts.  You can click here to see the schedule Ladygaga.com. It will cost $1,900 to fly this banner for four hours before sunset.  The goal is not to fly banners at every concert but at enough concerts to make a difference. Please consider making a designated donation for this project by clicking here or mailing your donation to Florida Family Association, PO Box 46547, Tampa, FL 33646.  All donations received through this solicitation will be used exclusively for the NOT Born this way banner at Lady Gaga Concerts.

And why are they doing this? Because according to them, with citations from the Family Research Council and discredited research Paul (gays stuff gerbils in their rectums) Cameron, children could get "tricked" into thinking that they are gay when in fact homosexuality is supposedly caused by "being introduced to the homosexual lifestyle by aggressive homosexual adults."

One wonders if anyone is even going to pay attention to those FFA's banners.

'NOM posts then pulls extremely bigoted videos' and other Tuesday midday news briefs

NOM RI posts shocking, must-be-seen videos; clips claim gays are ‘lethal’, not going to heaven, more - Videos pushing discredited claims about gays and cigarette smoking, "indoctrination of children," and how gays aren't going to Heaven? Way to go, NOM. And please note that your scrubbing of said videos didn't do any good. Copies have been attained.

DOMA: House Republicans Poised To Spend $3 Million On Legal Defense - Republicans - "we simply HAVE to cut spending. How else are we going to get the money to keep those nasty gays from getting married."  

E.U. Court of Human Rights: Religious beliefs may not be used to refuse service to same-sex couples - I believe the word you are looking for here is BOOM!  

Utah School Realizes Book About Lesbian Family Helps Prevent Bullying - More good news!  

G. Craige Lewis: The Most Dangerous Preacher in the Black Church - A truly vile individual. He goes after everyone, including those you would think are his allies.

Editor's note - Last night, the document on the right of my blog - How They See Us: Unmasking the Religious Right War on America reached 50,000 reads and embedded views. While not as vital to some members of the lgbt community as Jodie Foster's coming out, it does prove that there is a need for this information. On the risk of acting like President Obama continuously asking for money for his re-election campaign, I encourage folks to read this document if they haven't already, to embed it in their blogs if they feel so inclined, download it, print it out, send it to their friends, and especially our lgbt youth. I have been getting several positive messages from young lgbts who have said that this information encourages them to feel good about themselves. Let's go for 100,000 reads and embedded views!

'Religious protection' argument is a dangerous con

The battle over marriage equality in Rhode Island is heating up. The governor, Lincoln Chaffee, said he will not put up marriage equality for a public vote, therefore it will be decided by the legislature.

And already religious right groups are using the "religious protection" argument as a way to derail the potential bill.  Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Kellie Fiedorek told One News Now the following:

"Religious freedom belongs to everyone, not just a handful of people. The government cannot limit constitutionally protected religious liberties in a way that's foreign to our Constitution. This bill fails to ensure that those liberties of every Rhode Island citizen will be respected. The First Amendment's guarantee of religious freedom for all Americans is not limited to the four walls of a church."

That sounds nice, but what the article says next should be looked at with much negative scrutiny:

The legislation contains protections for clergy who refuse to do homosexual "wedding" ceremonies, but not people of faith who serve as justices, judges, or court commissioners.Another provision in H. 5015 prohibits penalties against churches and religious denominations that oppose same-gender marriage, but it fails to protect businesses operated by people of faith and Christian counselors who do pre- or post-marriage counseling.

So it seems that some people's ideas of "religious protection" is to discriminate against gays, even though they may be elected or appointed officials or own a secular business such as a restaurant and an apartment complex.

Elected or appointed officials should not get to pick and choose who they serve and secular businesses should not have the option to discriminate, not matter the faith of the owner.

Where exactly is the line drawn when it comes to "religious protection."  If you allow discrimination against gays under the guise of "religious protection," then just which group of Americans would be next?






 

Does NOM want to dictate 'religious liberty' to other faiths?

 The clip above is the first time I have ever seen an interview with the National Organization for Marriage chairman John Eastman.

He was on Fox News today criticizing the National Cathedral because of its decision to offer services to  gay couples. To me, the points he makes are irrelevant because they emphasize his hypocrisy as well as that of NOM.

We have heard ad naseum from NOM about how marriage equality would interfere with the "religious liberty" of churches and people with faiths which tell them that homosexuality is a sin.

In an interview last year, Eastman identified himself as a Catholic. The National Cathedral is from a different faith, i.e. the Episcopal Church.

So why is Eastman and NOM meddling into the affairs of those who practice a different religion which chooses to welcome gay couples with open arms?

That's a question which should have been asked during the interview and needs to be asked of Eastman in the future.

Does NOM really believe in the concept of "religious liberty," or does the group want to dictate its beliefs to those of other faiths in regards to marriage equality?