Sources: US to sign UN gay rights declaration
This is such a simple issue and has nothing to do with notions of an alleged gay conspiracy. We gay citizens of the world have the right to be who we are without the fear of imprisonment and death.
WASHINGTON – The Obama administration will endorse a U.N. declaration calling for the worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality that then-President George W. Bush had refused to sign, The Associated Press has learned.
U.S. officials said Tuesday they had notified the declaration's French sponsors that the administration wants to be added as a supporter. The Bush administration was criticized in December when it was the only western government that refused to sign on.
The move was made after an interagency review of the Bush administration's position on the nonbinding document, which was signed by all 27 European Union members as well as Japan, Australia, Mexico and three dozen other countries, the officials said.
The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because Congress was still being notified of the decision. They said the administration had decided to sign the declaration to demonstrate that the United States supports human rights for all.
"The United States is an outspoken defender of human rights and critic of human rights abuses around the world," said one official.
More here
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Dissecting a One News Now article
First, I neglected to put the time in which I appear on the Gay Agenda tonight.
It will be 8 p.m. EST.
Now on to the post
Liberty Counsel's Matt Barber is angry that Florida State Senator Nan Rich has filed a bill repealing the 1977 law banning gay adoption in the state. Rich filed a a second bill to give judges the authority to determine adoptions based exclusively on the best interest of the child.
One News Now gives Barber room to vent without the courtesy of presenting the other side. So I thought I would add the other side from another article which took a more objective view of children raised by gay parents:
Matt Barber:
"The actions here by Senator Nan Rich are clearly without merit, and she has the audacity to say that she is considering what is in the best interest of children. Well that defies logic, reason, and science."
Post-Gazette article:
A number of professional medical organizations -- including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychiatric Association -- have issued statements claiming that a parent's sexual orientation is irrelevant to his or her ability to raise a child.
For the most part, the organizations are relying on a relatively small but conclusive body of research -- approximately 67 studies -- looking at children of gay parents and compiled by the American Psychological Association. In study after study, children in same-sex parent families turned out the same, for better or for worse, as children in heterosexual families.
Moreover, a 2001 meta-analysis of those studies found that the sexual orientation of a parent is irrelevant to the development of a child's mental health and social development and to the quality of a parent-child relationship.
Matt Barber:
"Frankly the studies have shown clearly that it is in the best interest of children to have a mother and a father."
Post-Gazette article:
The problem with the research cited . . . is that it compares children of heterosexual couples only with those of single parents and not with children of same-sex parent families, said Gary Gates, a senior research fellow at the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law and an expert on census data involving gay and lesbian households.
"There are virtually no studies that make a direct comparison with same-sex parents," he said, noting census data show one in four same-sex couples are raising a child under the age of 18.
Editor's note - Gates was speaking about research cited by James Dobson. However, Dobson was making the same claims as Barber - "the majority of more than 30 years of social-science evidence indicates that children do best on every measure of well-being when raised by their married mother and father."
The lesson here is clear - Barber doesn't know what the hell he is talking about. But that's business as usual with him.
First, I neglected to put the time in which I appear on the Gay Agenda tonight.
It will be 8 p.m. EST.
Now on to the post
Liberty Counsel's Matt Barber is angry that Florida State Senator Nan Rich has filed a bill repealing the 1977 law banning gay adoption in the state. Rich filed a a second bill to give judges the authority to determine adoptions based exclusively on the best interest of the child.
One News Now gives Barber room to vent without the courtesy of presenting the other side. So I thought I would add the other side from another article which took a more objective view of children raised by gay parents:
Matt Barber:
"The actions here by Senator Nan Rich are clearly without merit, and she has the audacity to say that she is considering what is in the best interest of children. Well that defies logic, reason, and science."
Post-Gazette article:
A number of professional medical organizations -- including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychiatric Association -- have issued statements claiming that a parent's sexual orientation is irrelevant to his or her ability to raise a child.
For the most part, the organizations are relying on a relatively small but conclusive body of research -- approximately 67 studies -- looking at children of gay parents and compiled by the American Psychological Association. In study after study, children in same-sex parent families turned out the same, for better or for worse, as children in heterosexual families.
Moreover, a 2001 meta-analysis of those studies found that the sexual orientation of a parent is irrelevant to the development of a child's mental health and social development and to the quality of a parent-child relationship.
Matt Barber:
"Frankly the studies have shown clearly that it is in the best interest of children to have a mother and a father."
Post-Gazette article:
The problem with the research cited . . . is that it compares children of heterosexual couples only with those of single parents and not with children of same-sex parent families, said Gary Gates, a senior research fellow at the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law and an expert on census data involving gay and lesbian households.
"There are virtually no studies that make a direct comparison with same-sex parents," he said, noting census data show one in four same-sex couples are raising a child under the age of 18.
Editor's note - Gates was speaking about research cited by James Dobson. However, Dobson was making the same claims as Barber - "the majority of more than 30 years of social-science evidence indicates that children do best on every measure of well-being when raised by their married mother and father."
The lesson here is clear - Barber doesn't know what the hell he is talking about. But that's business as usual with him.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
I will be appearing on the 'Gay Agenda' and other news briefs
Tomorrow evening, I will be interviewed on the Gay Agenda, a progressive internet radio show. I will be talking about my blogs, book, and life in general as a gay man of color.
Wish me luck and hope I don't pull a Bobby Jindal.
Tuesday news briefs
Nazi-enabling Pope tells Africans not to use condoms - God I miss Pope John Paul already
Children of same-sex couples tell their story - This needs to happen as often as possible
Indiana School District Allows Girl to Wear Tuxedo to Prom - Sometimes, the small victories are the sweetest.
AFA AIDS Solution: Gov't Action Against Homosexuals - The lies start regarding the HIV situation in Washington, D.C.
Tomorrow evening, I will be interviewed on the Gay Agenda, a progressive internet radio show. I will be talking about my blogs, book, and life in general as a gay man of color.
Wish me luck and hope I don't pull a Bobby Jindal.
Tuesday news briefs
Nazi-enabling Pope tells Africans not to use condoms - God I miss Pope John Paul already
Children of same-sex couples tell their story - This needs to happen as often as possible
Indiana School District Allows Girl to Wear Tuxedo to Prom - Sometimes, the small victories are the sweetest.
AFA AIDS Solution: Gov't Action Against Homosexuals - The lies start regarding the HIV situation in Washington, D.C.
LaBarbera helps us even if he doesn't mean to
I talk a lot about Peter LaBarbera and his group, Americans for Truth for good reason. He can be, at times, our biggest help in this so-called culture war.
His idiocies make us look good.
A perfect example is his defense of Holocaust revisionist Scott Lively's attendance at an anti-gay conference in Uganda as well as Uganda's anti-gay laws (which sentences gays to life imprisonment):
At AFTAH, we preach Christian mercy and have denounced Talibanesque capital punishment for homosexuals in countries like Iran. But we also believe that if states and localities here in America (and governments abroad) wish to ban sodomy, they have every right to do so . . .
I wonder if that cover Jamaica, where groups have been known to hunt gays down in the streets.
No one is so naive to not realize that LaBarbera means gays when he says "sodomy." And this isn't the first time he has stood in the corner of someone who doesn't deserve any defense:
We find it sad that more scientists have not joined Paul Cameron in assessing the extreme health risks of homosexual behavior, just like the scientific establishment researches obesity, smoking and other serious health issues.
Illinois Family Institute would support a nonpartisan federal research campaign into the health risks of homosexual behavior to further investigate Cameron's work.
Both Lively's and Cameron's organizations have been deemed as official hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center not because of their stance against homosexuality, but because of how they lie to stigmatize the lgbt community.
Which brings me back to Peter. We are always talking about famous people and movements in history but sometimes we forget the "foils," or the folks whose stance against these people and movements actually benefitted them.
The African-American civil rights movement had Bull Connor, Bill Clinton had Newt Gingrich, and now we have Peter LaBarbera.
With James Dobson gone, the best thing for our community would be for LaBarbera to get a more active role in the religious right. Dobson evoked an image of the morally straight grandfather. LaBarbera evokes the image of the strange uncle who can't keep his mouth shut.
I did not agree with Dobson but at least he had a certain style in his attitude- a certain methodology that demonstrated an intelligent mind.
LaBarbera doesn't seem to care who he supports or what it makes him look like.
And that can only be a plus for us.
Because right now, LaBarbera is the living embodiment of the anti-gay movement and the religious right in general - spiritually empty, psychologically bloated, and willing to subvert reality and truth to make his own position more palpable to the American public.
But sooner or later reality has a habit of coming through. The flowery language of traditional values and the sweet rhetoric of faith and family is permeated by an odor of corruption, arrogance, and hatred.
And no matter how you try, you can't cover stink.
More on Scott Lively and the Uganda conference is at Box Turtle Bulletin.
I talk a lot about Peter LaBarbera and his group, Americans for Truth for good reason. He can be, at times, our biggest help in this so-called culture war.
His idiocies make us look good.
A perfect example is his defense of Holocaust revisionist Scott Lively's attendance at an anti-gay conference in Uganda as well as Uganda's anti-gay laws (which sentences gays to life imprisonment):
At AFTAH, we preach Christian mercy and have denounced Talibanesque capital punishment for homosexuals in countries like Iran. But we also believe that if states and localities here in America (and governments abroad) wish to ban sodomy, they have every right to do so . . .
I wonder if that cover Jamaica, where groups have been known to hunt gays down in the streets.
No one is so naive to not realize that LaBarbera means gays when he says "sodomy." And this isn't the first time he has stood in the corner of someone who doesn't deserve any defense:
We find it sad that more scientists have not joined Paul Cameron in assessing the extreme health risks of homosexual behavior, just like the scientific establishment researches obesity, smoking and other serious health issues.
Illinois Family Institute would support a nonpartisan federal research campaign into the health risks of homosexual behavior to further investigate Cameron's work.
Both Lively's and Cameron's organizations have been deemed as official hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center not because of their stance against homosexuality, but because of how they lie to stigmatize the lgbt community.
Which brings me back to Peter. We are always talking about famous people and movements in history but sometimes we forget the "foils," or the folks whose stance against these people and movements actually benefitted them.
The African-American civil rights movement had Bull Connor, Bill Clinton had Newt Gingrich, and now we have Peter LaBarbera.
With James Dobson gone, the best thing for our community would be for LaBarbera to get a more active role in the religious right. Dobson evoked an image of the morally straight grandfather. LaBarbera evokes the image of the strange uncle who can't keep his mouth shut.
I did not agree with Dobson but at least he had a certain style in his attitude- a certain methodology that demonstrated an intelligent mind.
LaBarbera doesn't seem to care who he supports or what it makes him look like.
And that can only be a plus for us.
Because right now, LaBarbera is the living embodiment of the anti-gay movement and the religious right in general - spiritually empty, psychologically bloated, and willing to subvert reality and truth to make his own position more palpable to the American public.
But sooner or later reality has a habit of coming through. The flowery language of traditional values and the sweet rhetoric of faith and family is permeated by an odor of corruption, arrogance, and hatred.
And no matter how you try, you can't cover stink.
More on Scott Lively and the Uganda conference is at Box Turtle Bulletin.
Julian Bond tells it like it "T.I." is!
from HRC Back Story
National NAACP Chairman Julian Bond gave such a powerful speech in support of LGBT rights at HRC’s Los Angeles Gala Dinner on Saturday, March 14 that we knew it important to give proper to highlight his speech .
Here are a few choice statements from his speech:
When someone asks me, “are gay rights civil rights?” my answer is always, “Of course, they are.” Civil rights are positive legal prerogatives: the right to equal treatment before the law. These are the rights shared by everyone. There is no one in the United States who does not, or should not, enjoy or share in enjoying these rights. Gay and lesbian rights are not special rights in any way. It isn’t “special” to be free from discrimination. It is an ordinary, universal entitlement of citizenship.
People of color ought to be flattered that our movement has provided so much inspiration for others. That, it has been, that our movement has been so widely imitated. That our tactics, our methods, our heroes, our heroines, and even our songs, have been appropriated or served as models for others.
Now, no parallel between movements is exact. African-Americans are the only Americans who were enslaved for more than two centuries and people of color carried the badge of who we are on our faces. But we are far from the only people suffering discrimination; sadly, so do many others. And those others deserve the law’s protection and civil rights too….
Like race, our sexuality isn’t a preference. It is immutable; it is unchangeable. And the constitution protects us against prejudices and discrimination based on immutable differences.
In particular, Bond’s response to many of the biblical passages used by Christian conservatives to condemn homosexuality (including those favorite scriptures in Leviticus) is must-see TV. His humorous refutation of “cafeteria Christians” begins about 15:25 in the video above. (You can see the video from the webpage)
from HRC Back Story
National NAACP Chairman Julian Bond gave such a powerful speech in support of LGBT rights at HRC’s Los Angeles Gala Dinner on Saturday, March 14 that we knew it important to give proper to highlight his speech .
Here are a few choice statements from his speech:
When someone asks me, “are gay rights civil rights?” my answer is always, “Of course, they are.” Civil rights are positive legal prerogatives: the right to equal treatment before the law. These are the rights shared by everyone. There is no one in the United States who does not, or should not, enjoy or share in enjoying these rights. Gay and lesbian rights are not special rights in any way. It isn’t “special” to be free from discrimination. It is an ordinary, universal entitlement of citizenship.
People of color ought to be flattered that our movement has provided so much inspiration for others. That, it has been, that our movement has been so widely imitated. That our tactics, our methods, our heroes, our heroines, and even our songs, have been appropriated or served as models for others.
Now, no parallel between movements is exact. African-Americans are the only Americans who were enslaved for more than two centuries and people of color carried the badge of who we are on our faces. But we are far from the only people suffering discrimination; sadly, so do many others. And those others deserve the law’s protection and civil rights too….
Like race, our sexuality isn’t a preference. It is immutable; it is unchangeable. And the constitution protects us against prejudices and discrimination based on immutable differences.
In particular, Bond’s response to many of the biblical passages used by Christian conservatives to condemn homosexuality (including those favorite scriptures in Leviticus) is must-see TV. His humorous refutation of “cafeteria Christians” begins about 15:25 in the video above. (You can see the video from the webpage)
Monday, March 16, 2009
President Obama meets with THEM - why we shouldn't lose our heads
From Religious Right Watch comes this news:
The Brody File has learned that conservative Evangelical groups will meet with the head of the White House Faith-Based Office on Tuesday.
Concerned Women for America and the Family Research Council will meet with Joshua DuBois, the man who leads the administration’s office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. Wendy Wright, the president of CWA reached out to the Obama administration and they responded by inviting CWA and some of these other conservative Evangelical groups to The White House. The meeting plans to focus on the need to reduce abortions in the country and on responsible fatherhood programs. Also present at the meeting will be Tom McClusky, Senior Vice-President of the Family Research Council as well as representatives from the Christian Medical Association and Care Net, a pro-life Evangelical pregnancy crisis group.
Trust me when I say that I am a bit alarmed by this meeting. FRC and CWA have been at the forefront of stigmatizing the lgbt community via lies, inaccurate anecdotes, and bad studies.
Just last year, I had an interesting encounter with FRC regarding its claim of no longer using "outdated sources."
But I am hoping that my lgbt brothers and sisters will a more cautious attitude instead of going off breathing fire.
We have every right to be concerned over President Obama's people agreeing to meet with these folks but we also have to understand that it is his modus operandi. Obama has a history of trying to gain a consensus with folks who do not share his opinion on political matters.
For that, I can respect him.
The bulk of our anger and concern should not be with President Obama, but with FRC and CWA. I've already seen some webpages where the two groups are being called "anti-gay hate groups."
That's all well and good but there is a problem with simply calling these groups names. You leave an avenue open for them to show phony piety and go into their "why are we called haters when we simply want to uphold traditional values" routine again.
And yet again, they will come across looking innocent while we look like barking dogs despite the the fact that their behavior over the years gives us full reason to question their motivations.
So I say cut out the name-calling and the simplistic reasons why the FRC and CWA aren't what they say they are.
Show proof. Give examples of why these groups have nothing to do with values or morality. And trust me when I say it's out there.
Two places to start is here via Box Turtle Bulletin and here in my other blog (pan down to the timeline).
It's not enough to call them anti-gay. It's time we start proving our assertions. Let the White House know the depth of the dishonesty these groups stoop to.
You can contact the White House here.
From Religious Right Watch comes this news:
The Brody File has learned that conservative Evangelical groups will meet with the head of the White House Faith-Based Office on Tuesday.
Concerned Women for America and the Family Research Council will meet with Joshua DuBois, the man who leads the administration’s office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. Wendy Wright, the president of CWA reached out to the Obama administration and they responded by inviting CWA and some of these other conservative Evangelical groups to The White House. The meeting plans to focus on the need to reduce abortions in the country and on responsible fatherhood programs. Also present at the meeting will be Tom McClusky, Senior Vice-President of the Family Research Council as well as representatives from the Christian Medical Association and Care Net, a pro-life Evangelical pregnancy crisis group.
Trust me when I say that I am a bit alarmed by this meeting. FRC and CWA have been at the forefront of stigmatizing the lgbt community via lies, inaccurate anecdotes, and bad studies.
Just last year, I had an interesting encounter with FRC regarding its claim of no longer using "outdated sources."
But I am hoping that my lgbt brothers and sisters will a more cautious attitude instead of going off breathing fire.
We have every right to be concerned over President Obama's people agreeing to meet with these folks but we also have to understand that it is his modus operandi. Obama has a history of trying to gain a consensus with folks who do not share his opinion on political matters.
For that, I can respect him.
The bulk of our anger and concern should not be with President Obama, but with FRC and CWA. I've already seen some webpages where the two groups are being called "anti-gay hate groups."
That's all well and good but there is a problem with simply calling these groups names. You leave an avenue open for them to show phony piety and go into their "why are we called haters when we simply want to uphold traditional values" routine again.
And yet again, they will come across looking innocent while we look like barking dogs despite the the fact that their behavior over the years gives us full reason to question their motivations.
So I say cut out the name-calling and the simplistic reasons why the FRC and CWA aren't what they say they are.
Show proof. Give examples of why these groups have nothing to do with values or morality. And trust me when I say it's out there.
Two places to start is here via Box Turtle Bulletin and here in my other blog (pan down to the timeline).
It's not enough to call them anti-gay. It's time we start proving our assertions. Let the White House know the depth of the dishonesty these groups stoop to.
You can contact the White House here.
Washington, D.C. faces problem with HIV - the truth before the lies begin
From Washington, D.C. comes a huge problem regarding HIV:
A new report by D.C. health officials says that at least 3 percent of residents in the nation's capital are living with HIV or AIDS and every mode of transmission is on the rise.
The findings in the 2008 epidemiology report by the D.C. HIV/AIDS Administration point to a severe epidemic that's impacting every race and sex across the population and neighborhoods.
Scheduled to be released Monday, the report says that the number of HIV and AIDS cases jumped 22 percent from the nearly 12,500 reported in 2006. Almost 1 in 10 residents between ages 40 and 49 are living with HIV, and black men had the highest infection rate at almost 7 percent.
The report says that the virus is most often transmitted by men having sex with men, followed by heterosexual transmission and injection drug use.
That's the problem. The question is how long will it be before folks on the other side of America's so-called cultural war use this calamity to stigmatize gays? At least this once, I hope they think before going off half-cocked. AIDS affects everyone and we need solutions, not cynical talking points. Nor do we need to stigmatize populations affected by the disease.
Monday news briefs
The Culture Warriors Get Laid Off - would be nice if it comes out to be true. The problem is these folks are like 1980s horror movie monsters. Just when you think they are dead, there they are again.
Madaleno: Fighting for Transgender Rights Statewide - It's nice to see a state legislator fighting for all people.
From Washington, D.C. comes a huge problem regarding HIV:
A new report by D.C. health officials says that at least 3 percent of residents in the nation's capital are living with HIV or AIDS and every mode of transmission is on the rise.
The findings in the 2008 epidemiology report by the D.C. HIV/AIDS Administration point to a severe epidemic that's impacting every race and sex across the population and neighborhoods.
Scheduled to be released Monday, the report says that the number of HIV and AIDS cases jumped 22 percent from the nearly 12,500 reported in 2006. Almost 1 in 10 residents between ages 40 and 49 are living with HIV, and black men had the highest infection rate at almost 7 percent.
The report says that the virus is most often transmitted by men having sex with men, followed by heterosexual transmission and injection drug use.
That's the problem. The question is how long will it be before folks on the other side of America's so-called cultural war use this calamity to stigmatize gays? At least this once, I hope they think before going off half-cocked. AIDS affects everyone and we need solutions, not cynical talking points. Nor do we need to stigmatize populations affected by the disease.
Monday news briefs
The Culture Warriors Get Laid Off - would be nice if it comes out to be true. The problem is these folks are like 1980s horror movie monsters. Just when you think they are dead, there they are again.
Madaleno: Fighting for Transgender Rights Statewide - It's nice to see a state legislator fighting for all people.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Peter LaBarbera's idea of an intellectual discussion
Today, I am doing a first - a repost of a blog entry from August 16th of last year. My reason for this repost stems from an item I read today via the Americans for Truth webpage. In answering a letter concerning his anti-gay stance, Peter LaBarbera said he has "intellectual conversations" with gays all of the time.
The August 16th post is one of these supposed intellectual conversations he had with me:
Nice try Peter LaBarbera, but you are no hero
On his webpage, our friend Peter publishes his "response" to an email allegedly sent to him from a person from Michigan regarding his recent publishing of x-rated pictures from a San Francisco street fair.
Peter does not publish the person's letter but says the following:
"The following is adapted from my response to a letter from a Michigan pro-homosexual activist who wrote AFTAH, making the usual obnoxious charges: that I am a “pornographer” (for exposing San Francisco’s government-tolerated public street depravities) — and, of course, that I am a secret homosexual (”You are gay and part of you knows it and HATES it”). It’s all par for the course when you cover the loving and tolerant GLBT community. "
By not showing the alleged "obnoxious" letter but publishing his response, Peter tries to make himself look intelligent and noble.
Don't be fooled.
You see, Peter and I had an email exchange last week and based on that exchange, Peter does not come across as an intelligent or noble person. Nor does he come across as a particularly moral person.
Judge for yourself as I reveal a snippet of our email conversation. In it, I was able to question Peter point blank about his tactics as well as the tactics of other members of the anti-gay industry:
From: Peter L.
To: CharleKenghis@aol.com
Sent: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 10:42 am
Spare me. Talk about consumed? You are beholden to your "gay" ideology, so much so that you are actually comparing ex-gays to that? Skin color is immutable. MANY people have left homosexuality behind. Just because YOU don't believe that -- or you explain it away thru your various arguments doesn't make it not so.
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 11:29 AM
To: PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net
well you can always ask wade richards or michael johnston. to me though sexual orienation is fluid. science may never find the reasons behind sexual orientation. but it leans to it not being able to be chosen.
but you miss the point, peter.
Your beliefs about homosexuality is on what you call a solid foundation (i.e. the Bible). Every time you and those on your side distort legitimate studies, every time you all use bad studies (i.e. Paul Cameron, John R. Diggs), every time you go to one of those subcultural events and attack lgbts there without saying a word about the heterosexuals who attend the events, you weaken that foundation.
The house you seem to think you are building on a rock will start to have a foundation of sand. And that house will crumble.
Look around you. It's crumbling now.
In a message dated 8/12/2008 6:22:14 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net writes:
Don't worry about me, Alvin. You talk about crumbling: try your side's pathetic attempt to deny the obvious, that people change.
You MUST focus on the "failures," although of course you have no idea about Mike Johnston's life. It's a sin, Alvin. I could go into it ... And you can come out of it.
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 6:34 PM
To: PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net
Peter,
Don't you see? It's not about celebrating Johnston's "failure." It's about moral authority. You deliberately downplayed the fact that AFA was selling the tape featuring Johnston's "ex-gay" testimony even though he had not changed his orientation. You helped to sell a lie.
Robert Knight stood in front of Congress and cited studies that he had to know were wrong.
You and Matt Barber tried to infer that the MRSA infection was some type of new "gay plague" and then tried to played the game of "exact wording" when you were caught.
And the list of deceptions goes on and on.
Now some may say that we are all sinners, but others can say that your sin and the sins of your friends are greater than mine.
I believe that homosexuality is not a sin so I have acted accordingly. But in trying to prove that homosexuality is wrong as well as a sin, you and others have engaged in tactics that you had to know were wrong.
Leading me to ask what moral authority do you have? What credibility do you have?
In trying to fight what you see as sin, you have become as bad of a sinner as you see me as being.
From: Peter L.
To: CharleKenghis@aol.com
Sent: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 10:25 am
This deserves a serious answer later. FYI, MJ is not practicing homo'l behavior. My moral authority comes ultimately from agreeing with God's moral truth. You are the one who is making up moral authority out of....what?
Your feelings? Guess what? Sin feels good often. So it is you, Alvin, who must -- if you are really a serious person on these issues -- ask the question: by what moral authority do you fight against God, Nature, etc. on this issue?
To: PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net
But see, Peter you tried to bypass my question. And my question is the gist of the entire thing.
Who are you to tell me what God is or the what the nature of God is when you can't answer my question as to your behavior regarding holding true to HIS statues and laws.
How can one be a Christian and act as unethically as you and yours have and then turn around and try to talk about God's law. If you cannot answer my question regarding your behavior then you are just as much of a sinner as you think that I am.
And your words mean nothing. They are just like filthy rags.
In a message dated 8/13/2008 2:28:06 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net writes:
You won't accept my words because ultimately you won't accept God (the one true God) and His revelation on the issue dearest to your heart (rationale for homosexual practice). You have NO authority, Alvin, can't you see it.
I can (note - that is a typo on Peter's part. He meant to say can't) physically PROVE to you God's existence, or the truth of Christ and the Bible, but I know it to be true (by faith) and I'm trusting in it.
What are you trusting in?
I understand why you reject God's authority in your life. You must -- to practice and defend sin. And I don't buy your cockeyed notions of acting unethically. That's YOUR description bec. YOU have vested interest in demonizing faithful Christians who HAVE NOT rejected God like you
have.
It's all about rationalizing your behavior, which is NOT innate.
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 4:33 PM
To: PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net
Peter,
what makes you think that I don't believe in God. God is real and is the reason why I accept my gay orientation.
And why are you trying to move the conversation as to whether or not I believe God is real. My point is how you can speak about God when your tactics aren't Godly?
Would a faithful Christian demonize an entire community? Would a faithful Christian stand in front of Congress and lie about studies? Would a faithful Christian participate in a lie regarding someone's sexual orientation? Would a faithful Christian aid and abet a man who lied about his son being beat up by the children of gay activists? (i.e. David Parker)? Would a faithful Christian get on a radio program and say all sorts of ugly things about a person like you did on July 24th to Brenda Watson?
You and folks on your side have done some highly underhanded things. No matter how you try, you will never get away from your conduct.
This is not about the existence of God. It is about the conduct of those who call themselves his people.
In a message dated 8/13/2008 6:03:31 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net writes:
We're not perfect, but you are in denial. YOU reject God when you spend your life defending that which He opposes. I'll go back and listen to my Brenda Watson remark: bottom line is: men don't make good "women"
You may believe in God, Alvin, but you are warring against Him. Do you think my side has even come close to documenting the evil of organized homo'y? Not a chance: how is it, exactly, that all those teenage boys are contracting HIV? Aren't you one of the guys trying to make the (absurd) case that men practicing homo'y are subject to disproportionate health risks?
Not to worry, I answered his silly question. And I kept asking about his tactics. But the response of "we're not perfect" is the closest he came to addressing the issue. Finally, he told me that he can no longer talk to me because I will not face reality, which based on his non- answers to my question, is the height of irony.
Like I said earlier, judge for yourself regarding Peter's nobility. But based on our email conversation, Peter LaBarbera comes across as a man who talks about values and morality while espousing an ends justifies the means attitude. He comes across as a man who claims to talk about the truth, but does what he can to ignore it when it does not suit him.
Just something to remember the next time LaBarbera tries to paint himself as a noble Christian warrior. I have never known a noble Christian warrior who ducks and dodges and produces talking points when confronted with his lying behavior.
Maybe LaBarbera has a different version of the Bible.
The August 16th post is one of these supposed intellectual conversations he had with me:
Nice try Peter LaBarbera, but you are no hero
On his webpage, our friend Peter publishes his "response" to an email allegedly sent to him from a person from Michigan regarding his recent publishing of x-rated pictures from a San Francisco street fair.
Peter does not publish the person's letter but says the following:
"The following is adapted from my response to a letter from a Michigan pro-homosexual activist who wrote AFTAH, making the usual obnoxious charges: that I am a “pornographer” (for exposing San Francisco’s government-tolerated public street depravities) — and, of course, that I am a secret homosexual (”You are gay and part of you knows it and HATES it”). It’s all par for the course when you cover the loving and tolerant GLBT community. "
By not showing the alleged "obnoxious" letter but publishing his response, Peter tries to make himself look intelligent and noble.
Don't be fooled.
You see, Peter and I had an email exchange last week and based on that exchange, Peter does not come across as an intelligent or noble person. Nor does he come across as a particularly moral person.
Judge for yourself as I reveal a snippet of our email conversation. In it, I was able to question Peter point blank about his tactics as well as the tactics of other members of the anti-gay industry:
From: Peter L.
To: CharleKenghis@aol.com
Sent: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 10:42 am
Spare me. Talk about consumed? You are beholden to your "gay" ideology, so much so that you are actually comparing ex-gays to that? Skin color is immutable. MANY people have left homosexuality behind. Just because YOU don't believe that -- or you explain it away thru your various arguments doesn't make it not so.
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 11:29 AM
To: PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net
well you can always ask wade richards or michael johnston. to me though sexual orienation is fluid. science may never find the reasons behind sexual orientation. but it leans to it not being able to be chosen.
but you miss the point, peter.
Your beliefs about homosexuality is on what you call a solid foundation (i.e. the Bible). Every time you and those on your side distort legitimate studies, every time you all use bad studies (i.e. Paul Cameron, John R. Diggs), every time you go to one of those subcultural events and attack lgbts there without saying a word about the heterosexuals who attend the events, you weaken that foundation.
The house you seem to think you are building on a rock will start to have a foundation of sand. And that house will crumble.
Look around you. It's crumbling now.
In a message dated 8/12/2008 6:22:14 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net writes:
Don't worry about me, Alvin. You talk about crumbling: try your side's pathetic attempt to deny the obvious, that people change.
You MUST focus on the "failures," although of course you have no idea about Mike Johnston's life. It's a sin, Alvin. I could go into it ... And you can come out of it.
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 6:34 PM
To: PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net
Peter,
Don't you see? It's not about celebrating Johnston's "failure." It's about moral authority. You deliberately downplayed the fact that AFA was selling the tape featuring Johnston's "ex-gay" testimony even though he had not changed his orientation. You helped to sell a lie.
Robert Knight stood in front of Congress and cited studies that he had to know were wrong.
You and Matt Barber tried to infer that the MRSA infection was some type of new "gay plague" and then tried to played the game of "exact wording" when you were caught.
And the list of deceptions goes on and on.
Now some may say that we are all sinners, but others can say that your sin and the sins of your friends are greater than mine.
I believe that homosexuality is not a sin so I have acted accordingly. But in trying to prove that homosexuality is wrong as well as a sin, you and others have engaged in tactics that you had to know were wrong.
Leading me to ask what moral authority do you have? What credibility do you have?
In trying to fight what you see as sin, you have become as bad of a sinner as you see me as being.
From: Peter L.
To: CharleKenghis@aol.com
Sent: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 10:25 am
This deserves a serious answer later. FYI, MJ is not practicing homo'l behavior. My moral authority comes ultimately from agreeing with God's moral truth. You are the one who is making up moral authority out of....what?
Your feelings? Guess what? Sin feels good often. So it is you, Alvin, who must -- if you are really a serious person on these issues -- ask the question: by what moral authority do you fight against God, Nature, etc. on this issue?
EDITOR'S NOTE - Peter never did give me an answer to that question.
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 11:08 AMTo: PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net
But see, Peter you tried to bypass my question. And my question is the gist of the entire thing.
Who are you to tell me what God is or the what the nature of God is when you can't answer my question as to your behavior regarding holding true to HIS statues and laws.
How can one be a Christian and act as unethically as you and yours have and then turn around and try to talk about God's law. If you cannot answer my question regarding your behavior then you are just as much of a sinner as you think that I am.
And your words mean nothing. They are just like filthy rags.
In a message dated 8/13/2008 2:28:06 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net writes:
You won't accept my words because ultimately you won't accept God (the one true God) and His revelation on the issue dearest to your heart (rationale for homosexual practice). You have NO authority, Alvin, can't you see it.
I can (note - that is a typo on Peter's part. He meant to say can't) physically PROVE to you God's existence, or the truth of Christ and the Bible, but I know it to be true (by faith) and I'm trusting in it.
What are you trusting in?
I understand why you reject God's authority in your life. You must -- to practice and defend sin. And I don't buy your cockeyed notions of acting unethically. That's YOUR description bec. YOU have vested interest in demonizing faithful Christians who HAVE NOT rejected God like you
have.
It's all about rationalizing your behavior, which is NOT innate.
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 4:33 PM
To: PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net
Peter,
what makes you think that I don't believe in God. God is real and is the reason why I accept my gay orientation.
And why are you trying to move the conversation as to whether or not I believe God is real. My point is how you can speak about God when your tactics aren't Godly?
Would a faithful Christian demonize an entire community? Would a faithful Christian stand in front of Congress and lie about studies? Would a faithful Christian participate in a lie regarding someone's sexual orientation? Would a faithful Christian aid and abet a man who lied about his son being beat up by the children of gay activists? (i.e. David Parker)? Would a faithful Christian get on a radio program and say all sorts of ugly things about a person like you did on July 24th to Brenda Watson?
You and folks on your side have done some highly underhanded things. No matter how you try, you will never get away from your conduct.
This is not about the existence of God. It is about the conduct of those who call themselves his people.
In a message dated 8/13/2008 6:03:31 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net writes:
We're not perfect, but you are in denial. YOU reject God when you spend your life defending that which He opposes. I'll go back and listen to my Brenda Watson remark: bottom line is: men don't make good "women"
You may believe in God, Alvin, but you are warring against Him. Do you think my side has even come close to documenting the evil of organized homo'y? Not a chance: how is it, exactly, that all those teenage boys are contracting HIV? Aren't you one of the guys trying to make the (absurd) case that men practicing homo'y are subject to disproportionate health risks?
Not to worry, I answered his silly question. And I kept asking about his tactics. But the response of "we're not perfect" is the closest he came to addressing the issue. Finally, he told me that he can no longer talk to me because I will not face reality, which based on his non- answers to my question, is the height of irony.
Like I said earlier, judge for yourself regarding Peter's nobility. But based on our email conversation, Peter LaBarbera comes across as a man who talks about values and morality while espousing an ends justifies the means attitude. He comes across as a man who claims to talk about the truth, but does what he can to ignore it when it does not suit him.
Just something to remember the next time LaBarbera tries to paint himself as a noble Christian warrior. I have never known a noble Christian warrior who ducks and dodges and produces talking points when confronted with his lying behavior.
Maybe LaBarbera has a different version of the Bible.
Friday, March 13, 2009
West Virginia religious right group sinks low - I mean real low
I'm disappointed with the West Virginia Family Foundation.
Usually when a religious right group stands against pro-gay legislation, it has the decency to disguise its endeavors as something wholesome.
But not this group:
West Virginia Legislators have introduced multiple pro-homosexual bills to mandate West Virginians to accept the homosexual lifestyle as a "civil rights” protected class in WV Code.
SB-134 & SB-238 would grant “civil rights” status within the WV Human Rights Act, West Virginia Fair Housing Act, and West Virginia employment regulations, for bi-sexual, homosexual and gender identity (sex change) lifestyles. The House liberals have sponsored similar bills such as HB-2454, HB-2925 and HB-2954.
This legislation, if passed, would remove the rights of West Virginia employers not to hire, and West Virginia land owners not to rent to, transvestites, openly homosexual individuals, and others with a perverse sexual orientation.
So to this group, employers and land owners have a right to discriminate against gays and lesbians and the bill would remove that right.
We certainly wouldn't want that to happen (that was sarcasm.)
Interestingly enough, the bills have an exemption for churches and other religious organizations. In addition, they have been endorsed by Catholic and Episcopal clergy.
So how can the West Virginia Family Foundation demonstrate that these are "bad bills?"
On the top of its webpage, the group has two pictures of what it seems to think that the bills will allow - i. .e men in in drag and leather.
Only thing is that I don't think those pictures are of gays in West Virginia but of the Folsom Street Fair in California.
The fact that this group couldn't find any negatives pictures of gays in its own state is probably a good thing - which would give more creedence to the bills.
But the group's usage of California pictures in an attempt to stop pro-gay bills in West Virginia ranks right up there with using pictures of Playboy centerfolds to keep women away from military combat.
It's funny in that respect, but still dishonest.
UPDATE - One of the bills have passed through the State Senate!!
I'm disappointed with the West Virginia Family Foundation.
Usually when a religious right group stands against pro-gay legislation, it has the decency to disguise its endeavors as something wholesome.
But not this group:
West Virginia Legislators have introduced multiple pro-homosexual bills to mandate West Virginians to accept the homosexual lifestyle as a "civil rights” protected class in WV Code.
SB-134 & SB-238 would grant “civil rights” status within the WV Human Rights Act, West Virginia Fair Housing Act, and West Virginia employment regulations, for bi-sexual, homosexual and gender identity (sex change) lifestyles. The House liberals have sponsored similar bills such as HB-2454, HB-2925 and HB-2954.
This legislation, if passed, would remove the rights of West Virginia employers not to hire, and West Virginia land owners not to rent to, transvestites, openly homosexual individuals, and others with a perverse sexual orientation.
So to this group, employers and land owners have a right to discriminate against gays and lesbians and the bill would remove that right.
We certainly wouldn't want that to happen (that was sarcasm.)
Interestingly enough, the bills have an exemption for churches and other religious organizations. In addition, they have been endorsed by Catholic and Episcopal clergy.
So how can the West Virginia Family Foundation demonstrate that these are "bad bills?"
On the top of its webpage, the group has two pictures of what it seems to think that the bills will allow - i. .e men in in drag and leather.
Only thing is that I don't think those pictures are of gays in West Virginia but of the Folsom Street Fair in California.
The fact that this group couldn't find any negatives pictures of gays in its own state is probably a good thing - which would give more creedence to the bills.
But the group's usage of California pictures in an attempt to stop pro-gay bills in West Virginia ranks right up there with using pictures of Playboy centerfolds to keep women away from military combat.
It's funny in that respect, but still dishonest.
UPDATE - One of the bills have passed through the State Senate!!
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Robert Knight pops up again
Some religious right members never seem to go away.
Fresh being let go from the Media Research Institute, former Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America and frequent Paul Cameron studies user Robert Knight is now at Coral Ridge Ministries as a "senior writer."
That's the group started which once employed one of our favorite religious right spokespeople Janet (a vote for Obama is a vote against God) Porter.
Knight should feel right at home - from one asylum to another.
And he is not wasting time either as this quote from a Fox News article about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" would attest to:
"The ban is in place for a reason -- open homosexuality poses many problems to good order, discipline and unit cohesion," says Robert Knight, a senior writer for Coral Ridge Ministries and former head of the Culture and Family Institute in Washington.
"There is going to be some be some very heavy pushback from people in the military and civilians (on this) ... this is a train wreck waiting to happen."
That's quite a switch. In 2004, Knight was blaming the policy for terrorism and gay acceptance in general for Iraqi prison abuse, the beheading of prisoner Nick Berg and Muslim dislike of the U.S. in general:
“We were told homosexuality is harmless and normal, and the military should live with a ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy that allows homosexuals to stay in the barracks. We were told that men ‘marrying’ men and women ‘marrying’ women is inevitable not only for America, but for the world,” wrote Knight, whose Culture & Family Institute is part of Phyllis Schafly’s Concerned Women for America.
“Imagine how those images of men kissing men outside San Francisco City Hall after being ‘married’ play in the Muslim world. We couldn’t offer the mullahs a more perfect picture of American decadence. Businessman Nick Berg, who was beheaded by a group claiming revenge over the prison abuses, is the first victim, and we can only pray he will be the last.”
For the record, I'm glad Knight is back.
I was getting tired of lightweights like Peter LaBarbera and Matt Barber.
Some religious right members never seem to go away.
Fresh being let go from the Media Research Institute, former Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America and frequent Paul Cameron studies user Robert Knight is now at Coral Ridge Ministries as a "senior writer."
That's the group started which once employed one of our favorite religious right spokespeople Janet (a vote for Obama is a vote against God) Porter.
Knight should feel right at home - from one asylum to another.
And he is not wasting time either as this quote from a Fox News article about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" would attest to:
"The ban is in place for a reason -- open homosexuality poses many problems to good order, discipline and unit cohesion," says Robert Knight, a senior writer for Coral Ridge Ministries and former head of the Culture and Family Institute in Washington.
"There is going to be some be some very heavy pushback from people in the military and civilians (on this) ... this is a train wreck waiting to happen."
That's quite a switch. In 2004, Knight was blaming the policy for terrorism and gay acceptance in general for Iraqi prison abuse, the beheading of prisoner Nick Berg and Muslim dislike of the U.S. in general:
“We were told homosexuality is harmless and normal, and the military should live with a ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy that allows homosexuals to stay in the barracks. We were told that men ‘marrying’ men and women ‘marrying’ women is inevitable not only for America, but for the world,” wrote Knight, whose Culture & Family Institute is part of Phyllis Schafly’s Concerned Women for America.
“Imagine how those images of men kissing men outside San Francisco City Hall after being ‘married’ play in the Muslim world. We couldn’t offer the mullahs a more perfect picture of American decadence. Businessman Nick Berg, who was beheaded by a group claiming revenge over the prison abuses, is the first victim, and we can only pray he will be the last.”
For the record, I'm glad Knight is back.
I was getting tired of lightweights like Peter LaBarbera and Matt Barber.
We win in Florida and other news briefs
Judge Gives Green Light to Florida High School Gay-Straight Alliance - One of the few places where we have been able to consistently smack down the religious right have been when lgbt students want to form clubs and support groups. Thank goodness for the Equal Access Act.
Choice quote of the week - RNC Chairman Michael Steele: " . . . you just can’t simply say, oh, like, “Tomorrow morning I’m gonna stop being gay.” It’s like saying, “Tomorrow morning I’m gonna stop being black.”
I wonder what Ken Hutcherson and Harry Jackson have to say about that one?
Gay Candidate Anthony Niedwiecki Elected to Oakland Park City Commission - and he is going to be Mayor in 2011! I wonder if he is dating. I always wanted to be a political husband.
Lawsuit ignores voters' verdict on parenting - A day without a bullshit article from One News Now is like a day without sunshine.
Judge Gives Green Light to Florida High School Gay-Straight Alliance - One of the few places where we have been able to consistently smack down the religious right have been when lgbt students want to form clubs and support groups. Thank goodness for the Equal Access Act.
Choice quote of the week - RNC Chairman Michael Steele: " . . . you just can’t simply say, oh, like, “Tomorrow morning I’m gonna stop being gay.” It’s like saying, “Tomorrow morning I’m gonna stop being black.”
I wonder what Ken Hutcherson and Harry Jackson have to say about that one?
Gay Candidate Anthony Niedwiecki Elected to Oakland Park City Commission - and he is going to be Mayor in 2011! I wonder if he is dating. I always wanted to be a political husband.
Lawsuit ignores voters' verdict on parenting - A day without a bullshit article from One News Now is like a day without sunshine.
A little comedy brought to you by World Net Daily
Ever since President Obama was elected, rightwing site World Net Daily has been working a stealth campaign of trying to undermine him.
From pushing stories about President Obama not being a United States citizen to publishing whatever other rumor comes down the pike about him, it's clear that World Net Daily doesn't exactly find President Obama to be their favorite person.
One of World Net Daily's efforts involves encouraging its readers to print the questions they would like to ask President Obama.
From the look of some of these questions, World Net Daily's readers seem to be a couple of fries short of a Happy Meal:
By what right, under what authority, do you deem yourself qualified to decide who is to live and who is to die? The pro abortion policies you are pushing and endorsing would be laughable if they weren't so horrifying. I thought the Nazis were defeated, but I guess they just morphed into the liberal leftist former Democratic party here. I hope you will stop trying to play God here, because frankly I can't think of anyone less qualified.
Mr. Obama,
For the first time in my life I can not call the person in this office by the title that has been given to you, primarily due to the fact that you have yet to satisfy the requirements of the office through the presenting of particular documents which would determine your eligibility to be in the office you currently occupy. You have made history by being the first person of your race to be elected to the office of the President of the United States, you also appear to be struggling to make additional history and taking your place among such noted figures in history as Marx and Lenin. My question for you this day is why are you so bent on turning this once republic (now democratic republic) into a communistic state? When the citizens must rely upon the state for health care, jobs, food and direction they are no longer free and the form of government is no longer a republic... this is a communistic socialist state, why do you wish to destroy freedom?
Are you deliberately trying to destroy America so you can install a Socialist Government?
Why don't you be a man and stand up for what you are? Go ahead and tell all that you are a Socialist and want to break the country down. That way everyone will be broke, homeless and hungry. Then you and your Socialist can act like your the "Godsend" and make all think your our "Buddy" (sic). Your a coward, a thief and a phony we will NEVER respect a Socialist. REAL AMERICANS want you EMPEACHED!
Do you beleive in an 'End Of Days'? Do you believe that Jesus, The Christ, will return to Earth and that God will decend upon this planet to cast his judgement? What do you believe will save you from His judgement?
I bet you admire Hitler don't you? God help us,I shudder to think what you are going to do to this country.
I can't help but notice when you are on stage addressing the masses, that you strike a pose, looking out and above at the horizon,(a favored look in a lenin-esque dictatorial kind of way). What are you looking at? Are you anticipating the arrival of the 'mother-ship'?
There are more here if you want a good laugh.
Ever since President Obama was elected, rightwing site World Net Daily has been working a stealth campaign of trying to undermine him.
From pushing stories about President Obama not being a United States citizen to publishing whatever other rumor comes down the pike about him, it's clear that World Net Daily doesn't exactly find President Obama to be their favorite person.
One of World Net Daily's efforts involves encouraging its readers to print the questions they would like to ask President Obama.
From the look of some of these questions, World Net Daily's readers seem to be a couple of fries short of a Happy Meal:
By what right, under what authority, do you deem yourself qualified to decide who is to live and who is to die? The pro abortion policies you are pushing and endorsing would be laughable if they weren't so horrifying. I thought the Nazis were defeated, but I guess they just morphed into the liberal leftist former Democratic party here. I hope you will stop trying to play God here, because frankly I can't think of anyone less qualified.
Mr. Obama,
For the first time in my life I can not call the person in this office by the title that has been given to you, primarily due to the fact that you have yet to satisfy the requirements of the office through the presenting of particular documents which would determine your eligibility to be in the office you currently occupy. You have made history by being the first person of your race to be elected to the office of the President of the United States, you also appear to be struggling to make additional history and taking your place among such noted figures in history as Marx and Lenin. My question for you this day is why are you so bent on turning this once republic (now democratic republic) into a communistic state? When the citizens must rely upon the state for health care, jobs, food and direction they are no longer free and the form of government is no longer a republic... this is a communistic socialist state, why do you wish to destroy freedom?
Are you deliberately trying to destroy America so you can install a Socialist Government?
Why don't you be a man and stand up for what you are? Go ahead and tell all that you are a Socialist and want to break the country down. That way everyone will be broke, homeless and hungry. Then you and your Socialist can act like your the "Godsend" and make all think your our "Buddy" (sic). Your a coward, a thief and a phony we will NEVER respect a Socialist. REAL AMERICANS want you EMPEACHED!
Do you beleive in an 'End Of Days'? Do you believe that Jesus, The Christ, will return to Earth and that God will decend upon this planet to cast his judgement? What do you believe will save you from His judgement?
I bet you admire Hitler don't you? God help us,I shudder to think what you are going to do to this country.
I can't help but notice when you are on stage addressing the masses, that you strike a pose, looking out and above at the horizon,(a favored look in a lenin-esque dictatorial kind of way). What are you looking at? Are you anticipating the arrival of the 'mother-ship'?
There are more here if you want a good laugh.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Kentucky anti-gay adoption/foster care bill is DEAD for now
Editor's note - despite what the opposition says, bills like this one are meant to target gays and lesbians. And that talking point about "children doing better in a home with Mom and Dad" is just insulting. None of these bill even guarantee that children in foster care will receive homes, whether two-parent or single.
Adoption, foster-care bill is dead for session
Some contend measure targeted gay couples
The sponsor of a controversial bill to ban unmarried couples from becoming foster or adoptive parents acknowledged yesterday that the bill is dead.
"It's too late," Sen. Gary Tapp, R-Shelbyville, said of Senate Bill 68, which was voted out of committee last week but still hasn't been called for a floor vote. "It didn't go anywhere this session."
Tapp said he didn't know why the Senate's Republican leadership didn't schedule a vote on SB 68.
"I quit asking," he said.
Neither Senate President David Williams nor Majority Leader Dan Kelly, the chamber's top leaders, could be reached for comment last night.
Even if the bill were to win Senate approval, it would still need to be passed by the House. And there is little chance of that happening with only three scheduled days for passing bills remaining in this year's session.
Opponents of the bill -- including those who said it was aimed primarily at gay couples -- were relieved to hear that SB 68 won't advance.
"We're encouraged," said Chris Hartman, executive director of Louisville's Fairness Alliance, which held a Feb. 25 rally at the Capitol to oppose the proposal.
Hartman said he hoped the numerous calls, letters and e-mails to lawmakers from opponents have "driven home the message that hate legislation should never be passed in the commonwealth."
The rest of the story is here.
Editor's note - despite what the opposition says, bills like this one are meant to target gays and lesbians. And that talking point about "children doing better in a home with Mom and Dad" is just insulting. None of these bill even guarantee that children in foster care will receive homes, whether two-parent or single.
Adoption, foster-care bill is dead for session
Some contend measure targeted gay couples
The sponsor of a controversial bill to ban unmarried couples from becoming foster or adoptive parents acknowledged yesterday that the bill is dead.
"It's too late," Sen. Gary Tapp, R-Shelbyville, said of Senate Bill 68, which was voted out of committee last week but still hasn't been called for a floor vote. "It didn't go anywhere this session."
Tapp said he didn't know why the Senate's Republican leadership didn't schedule a vote on SB 68.
"I quit asking," he said.
Neither Senate President David Williams nor Majority Leader Dan Kelly, the chamber's top leaders, could be reached for comment last night.
Even if the bill were to win Senate approval, it would still need to be passed by the House. And there is little chance of that happening with only three scheduled days for passing bills remaining in this year's session.
Opponents of the bill -- including those who said it was aimed primarily at gay couples -- were relieved to hear that SB 68 won't advance.
"We're encouraged," said Chris Hartman, executive director of Louisville's Fairness Alliance, which held a Feb. 25 rally at the Capitol to oppose the proposal.
Hartman said he hoped the numerous calls, letters and e-mails to lawmakers from opponents have "driven home the message that hate legislation should never be passed in the commonwealth."
The rest of the story is here.
Open Letter to the Exodus International Board of Directors
We, the undersigned organizations, have monitored the ex-gay industry for more than a decade. To our great horror, prominent members of the ex-gay organization Exodus International participated last week in a conference in Uganda that promoted shocking abuses of basic human rights. This included draconian measures against gay and lesbian people such as forced ex-gay therapy, life imprisonment for people convicted of homosexuality and the formation of an organization designed to “wipe out” gay practices in Uganda. The conference also featured Scott Lively, a holocaust revisionist who at the event also blamed the 1994 Rwandan genocide on gay people.
The facts incontrovertibly show that Alan Chambers, President of Exodus International, was aware of the list of speakers and abhorrent content prior to the conference. Exodus board member Don Schmierer, who spoke in Uganda, made no objections to the radical and dangerous platform offered. Instead, these mortal threats to the lives of gay and lesbian people were met with a deafening silence. Exodus, in effect, gave this insidious conference its tacit approval.
Today, we take the unprecedented step of joining together to demand that Exodus International’s Board of Directors take immediate action to hold accountable those who used the Exodus brand to promote an atmosphere conducive to serious human rights abuses. The accountability must begin with reasonable and responsible action by Board Chair Bob Ragan, including:
Dismissing Exodus President Alan Chambers for his knowing role in using Exodus to promote human rights abuses
Removing Board member Don Schmierer for speaking at a hate conference that promotes physical harm and psychological torture against GLBT people
Boldly articulating Exodus’ policy against human rights abuses including forced therapy
Promising to end future participation in all conferences that call on the persecution and criminalization of gay and lesbian people
We do not take this call to action lightly. These steps are necessary and commensurate with the massive breach of ethics and trust by the Exodus leadership. Clearly, Exodus has lost credibility and its claim to “love” gay people in the aftermath of Uganda seems duplicitous and insincere. As long as Chambers and Schmierer remain at Exodus, the organization is hopelessly compromised and even complicit in grave human rights abuses. It is time for the Exodus Board, led by Bob Ragan, to assert its moral authority by appointing new leadership and taking the organization in a more humane and principled direction.
Sincerely,
Jim Burroway
Box Turtle Bulletin
David Roberts
Ex-Gay Watch
Wayne Besen
Truth Wins Out
Mike Airhart
Truth Wins Out
More at Truthwinsout.org
We, the undersigned organizations, have monitored the ex-gay industry for more than a decade. To our great horror, prominent members of the ex-gay organization Exodus International participated last week in a conference in Uganda that promoted shocking abuses of basic human rights. This included draconian measures against gay and lesbian people such as forced ex-gay therapy, life imprisonment for people convicted of homosexuality and the formation of an organization designed to “wipe out” gay practices in Uganda. The conference also featured Scott Lively, a holocaust revisionist who at the event also blamed the 1994 Rwandan genocide on gay people.
The facts incontrovertibly show that Alan Chambers, President of Exodus International, was aware of the list of speakers and abhorrent content prior to the conference. Exodus board member Don Schmierer, who spoke in Uganda, made no objections to the radical and dangerous platform offered. Instead, these mortal threats to the lives of gay and lesbian people were met with a deafening silence. Exodus, in effect, gave this insidious conference its tacit approval.
Today, we take the unprecedented step of joining together to demand that Exodus International’s Board of Directors take immediate action to hold accountable those who used the Exodus brand to promote an atmosphere conducive to serious human rights abuses. The accountability must begin with reasonable and responsible action by Board Chair Bob Ragan, including:
Dismissing Exodus President Alan Chambers for his knowing role in using Exodus to promote human rights abuses
Removing Board member Don Schmierer for speaking at a hate conference that promotes physical harm and psychological torture against GLBT people
Boldly articulating Exodus’ policy against human rights abuses including forced therapy
Promising to end future participation in all conferences that call on the persecution and criminalization of gay and lesbian people
We do not take this call to action lightly. These steps are necessary and commensurate with the massive breach of ethics and trust by the Exodus leadership. Clearly, Exodus has lost credibility and its claim to “love” gay people in the aftermath of Uganda seems duplicitous and insincere. As long as Chambers and Schmierer remain at Exodus, the organization is hopelessly compromised and even complicit in grave human rights abuses. It is time for the Exodus Board, led by Bob Ragan, to assert its moral authority by appointing new leadership and taking the organization in a more humane and principled direction.
Sincerely,
Jim Burroway
Box Turtle Bulletin
David Roberts
Ex-Gay Watch
Wayne Besen
Truth Wins Out
Mike Airhart
Truth Wins Out
More at Truthwinsout.org
Is Peter trying to get someone fired?
For all of their talk about the alleged intolerance of gays and how we are trying to silence folks and get them fired, some members of the religious right have no problem with engaging in those same tactics when it suits them.
Witness the recent situation involving our friend Peter LaBarbera and one Warren Throckmorton.
As I recall, I have never written about Throckmorton before. He is a professor at Grover City College and is also vocal about the subject of homosexuality. From what I see, there is plenty to disagree with him about but his demeanor is nothing like that of LaBarbera and company. He tends not to froth at the mouth while going on some tangent about "radical gay activists."
And sometimes he disagrees with LaBarbera and company. For example - this Day of Silence Walkout that I talked about on Monday.
Throckmorton posted a piece criticizing the walkout. He says that a walkout would be more disruptive than silence.
Yesterday, LaBarbera posted a reply from phony gay expert Laurie Higgins. What strikes me are the little notes LaBarbera included in the response making what I think are hints that Throckmorton needs to be let go from his job:
Grove City College professor Warren Throckmorton has directed his hostile “reporting” at NARTH, “reparative therapy,” former homosexual Richard Cohen, Sally Kern and now the pro-family coalition campaign to boycott the homosexual activist “Day of Silence” in schools (April 17). But Throckmorton doesn’t like it when pro-family critics focus attention on his unScriptural positions, which are presumably at odds with Grove City’s Christian mission.
We will have more in the coming weeks on controversial Grove City College associate professor Warren Throckmorton, who has strayed far from a Biblical worldview on homosexuality, and far from the mission of his employer. (Grove City College’s mission statement affirms that the college “remains true to the vision of its founders. Rejecting relativism and secularism, it fosters intellectual, moral, spiritual, and social development consistent with a commitment to Christian truth, morals, and freedom.”)
We will provide further excerpts of this interview, (editor's note - an interview Throckmorton did with Micheangelo Signorile) and possibly the entire transcript, which we will provide to Grove City College officials (who have already been contacted by pro-family leaders concerning Throckmorton’s controversial statements and tactics).
Bear in mind that LaBarbera is the same one who sounded the horn for Matt Barber and Crystal Dixon, claiming that they were fired for conduct done on their own time, even though the conduct was in direct opposite of their employers' mission (and in both cases, involved their employers).
I guess he won't extend that same courtesy to Throckmorton.
I doubt that his bleatings will have any bearing on Throckmorton's employment, but any day that I can shine a light of LaBarbera's hypocrisies is a good day.
For all of their talk about the alleged intolerance of gays and how we are trying to silence folks and get them fired, some members of the religious right have no problem with engaging in those same tactics when it suits them.
Witness the recent situation involving our friend Peter LaBarbera and one Warren Throckmorton.
As I recall, I have never written about Throckmorton before. He is a professor at Grover City College and is also vocal about the subject of homosexuality. From what I see, there is plenty to disagree with him about but his demeanor is nothing like that of LaBarbera and company. He tends not to froth at the mouth while going on some tangent about "radical gay activists."
And sometimes he disagrees with LaBarbera and company. For example - this Day of Silence Walkout that I talked about on Monday.
Throckmorton posted a piece criticizing the walkout. He says that a walkout would be more disruptive than silence.
Yesterday, LaBarbera posted a reply from phony gay expert Laurie Higgins. What strikes me are the little notes LaBarbera included in the response making what I think are hints that Throckmorton needs to be let go from his job:
Grove City College professor Warren Throckmorton has directed his hostile “reporting” at NARTH, “reparative therapy,” former homosexual Richard Cohen, Sally Kern and now the pro-family coalition campaign to boycott the homosexual activist “Day of Silence” in schools (April 17). But Throckmorton doesn’t like it when pro-family critics focus attention on his unScriptural positions, which are presumably at odds with Grove City’s Christian mission.
We will have more in the coming weeks on controversial Grove City College associate professor Warren Throckmorton, who has strayed far from a Biblical worldview on homosexuality, and far from the mission of his employer. (Grove City College’s mission statement affirms that the college “remains true to the vision of its founders. Rejecting relativism and secularism, it fosters intellectual, moral, spiritual, and social development consistent with a commitment to Christian truth, morals, and freedom.”)
We will provide further excerpts of this interview, (editor's note - an interview Throckmorton did with Micheangelo Signorile) and possibly the entire transcript, which we will provide to Grove City College officials (who have already been contacted by pro-family leaders concerning Throckmorton’s controversial statements and tactics).
Bear in mind that LaBarbera is the same one who sounded the horn for Matt Barber and Crystal Dixon, claiming that they were fired for conduct done on their own time, even though the conduct was in direct opposite of their employers' mission (and in both cases, involved their employers).
I guess he won't extend that same courtesy to Throckmorton.
I doubt that his bleatings will have any bearing on Throckmorton's employment, but any day that I can shine a light of LaBarbera's hypocrisies is a good day.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Tuesday news briefs
According to the blogs, some folks have lost their damned minds . . .
Scott Lively: The Gay Agenda Is “To Turn The Whole World Gay” - I talked about Scott Lively and his phony book The Pink Swastika on numerous occasions. Now it seems that he has gone off the deep end. I want to know - just who told him about "our plan."
Seriously though, if you think the headline is strange, wait till you read what he said about our "handbook."
Hat tip to Box Turtle Bulletin
Goodasyou.org gets misrepresented - One of my favorite blogs, Goodasyou.org, has reached a plateau that many have reached, even though none has aspired to - it gets misrepresented by a religious right group. Misrepresented? Hell, what was done was out-and-out lying. I wished it had happened to my blog. I would have gone for the jugular.
FRC, Focus on the Family Blame Their Victims for ‘Decline’ of Religion - From truthwinsout.org comes the news that Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council knows who is to blame for the decline of religion in America (as talked about in a recent USA Today article). And of course, the culprit isn't them, even though for 30 years they have spread lies (particularly about the gay community) designed to appeal to the egos and the fears of Christians. And of course the culprit isn't them even though they have reduced the credibility of Chrisitianity in selfish pursuits of political power.
Sexual-orientation rights bill advances - It's nice to close out the day with good news.
According to the blogs, some folks have lost their damned minds . . .
Scott Lively: The Gay Agenda Is “To Turn The Whole World Gay” - I talked about Scott Lively and his phony book The Pink Swastika on numerous occasions. Now it seems that he has gone off the deep end. I want to know - just who told him about "our plan."
Seriously though, if you think the headline is strange, wait till you read what he said about our "handbook."
Hat tip to Box Turtle Bulletin
Goodasyou.org gets misrepresented - One of my favorite blogs, Goodasyou.org, has reached a plateau that many have reached, even though none has aspired to - it gets misrepresented by a religious right group. Misrepresented? Hell, what was done was out-and-out lying. I wished it had happened to my blog. I would have gone for the jugular.
FRC, Focus on the Family Blame Their Victims for ‘Decline’ of Religion - From truthwinsout.org comes the news that Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council knows who is to blame for the decline of religion in America (as talked about in a recent USA Today article). And of course, the culprit isn't them, even though for 30 years they have spread lies (particularly about the gay community) designed to appeal to the egos and the fears of Christians. And of course the culprit isn't them even though they have reduced the credibility of Chrisitianity in selfish pursuits of political power.
Sexual-orientation rights bill advances - It's nice to close out the day with good news.
Gay adoption ban in Florida heats up again
The state of Florida is filing an appeal against a ruling that struck down its ban on gay adoption. And helping it will be the religious right group, the Liberty Counsel.
Last year, Miami-Dade County Circuit Judge Cindy Lederman said that the state's ban on gay adoption was unconstitutional. She made that ruling in the case of Martin Gill and his partner of 10 years. Four years ago, they took in two brothers as foster children. One was four and other was four months old. The childen had come from an abused environment. Since coming to the Gill home, the two brothers have thrived tremendously. The Gills now want to adopt the boys.
Judge Lederman ruled that the state didn't make a compelling argument in keeping the Gills from adopting these boys.
Of course the state of Florida wasn't exactly helped by the "experts" it choose to defend its ban. George Rekers and Bob Schumm said that the state had a compelling reason to keep gays from adopting.
Rekers, in particular, said a few interesting comments. According the Miami Herald:
Gay men and lesbians have two to four times the likelihood of suffering from major depression, anxiety or substance abuse, based on several national studies, Rekers testified. Gay men, he said, are four times more likely than straight men to attempt suicide.
Depressed people, Rekers said, ''are less consistent in their parenting, less positive [and] have higher rates of neglecting child needs.'' Gay people, he added, ``would have less capability of providing the kind of nurturing and secure emotional environment for children.''
. . . Rekers said he would, in fact, favor banning anyone from adopting who had more than 18 ''sex partners'' during a lifetime. ''I think that would be a very good social policy,'' he said in a deposition.He said he would also consider banning Native Americans from adopting because research shows that they are also at much higher risk of mental illness and substance abuse. ''They would tend to hang around each other,'' Rekers testified. ``So the children would be around a lot of other Native Americans who are . . . doing the same sorts of things.''
Needless to say, Judge Lederman didn't exactly find his testimony to be accurate:
Court documents said:
Dr. Rekers’ testimony was far from a neutral and unbiased recitation of the relevant scientific evidence. Dr. Rekers’ beliefs are motivated by his strong ideological and theological convictions that are not consistent with the science. Based on his testimony and demeanor at trial, the court can not consider his testimony to be credible nor worthy of forming the basis of public policy.
Interestingly enough, these facts seem to have eluded Liberty Counsel head Matt Staver in his statement to One News Now:
Matt Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel and dean of the Liberty University Law School, notes the law has been challenged many times with the court siding with the law, but he tells OneNewsNow that an activist judge has revived it.
"Last year, Miami-Dade County Circuit Judge Cindy Lederman actually wrote that the law violates the constitution of the state of Florida," he points out.
So that's it! - Florida didn't lose the case because its witnesses were awful. It was because Lederman is an "activist judge."
Staver runs the gambit of religious right talking points here:
Staver contends the Florida law soundly demonstrates the need for children to be permanently adopted into homes with stable families, including a mother and father.
What a lie! The case demonstrates that the state of Florida needs to get rid of an antiquated ban created at a time in which folks thought that gays were trying to recruit children.
Granted, some idiots still believe the recruitment bull now but it's a notion that is dying a slow, painful, and much deserved death.
And the Florida ban on gay adoption needs to die also.
The state of Florida is filing an appeal against a ruling that struck down its ban on gay adoption. And helping it will be the religious right group, the Liberty Counsel.
Last year, Miami-Dade County Circuit Judge Cindy Lederman said that the state's ban on gay adoption was unconstitutional. She made that ruling in the case of Martin Gill and his partner of 10 years. Four years ago, they took in two brothers as foster children. One was four and other was four months old. The childen had come from an abused environment. Since coming to the Gill home, the two brothers have thrived tremendously. The Gills now want to adopt the boys.
Judge Lederman ruled that the state didn't make a compelling argument in keeping the Gills from adopting these boys.
Of course the state of Florida wasn't exactly helped by the "experts" it choose to defend its ban. George Rekers and Bob Schumm said that the state had a compelling reason to keep gays from adopting.
Rekers, in particular, said a few interesting comments. According the Miami Herald:
Gay men and lesbians have two to four times the likelihood of suffering from major depression, anxiety or substance abuse, based on several national studies, Rekers testified. Gay men, he said, are four times more likely than straight men to attempt suicide.
Depressed people, Rekers said, ''are less consistent in their parenting, less positive [and] have higher rates of neglecting child needs.'' Gay people, he added, ``would have less capability of providing the kind of nurturing and secure emotional environment for children.''
. . . Rekers said he would, in fact, favor banning anyone from adopting who had more than 18 ''sex partners'' during a lifetime. ''I think that would be a very good social policy,'' he said in a deposition.He said he would also consider banning Native Americans from adopting because research shows that they are also at much higher risk of mental illness and substance abuse. ''They would tend to hang around each other,'' Rekers testified. ``So the children would be around a lot of other Native Americans who are . . . doing the same sorts of things.''
Needless to say, Judge Lederman didn't exactly find his testimony to be accurate:
Court documents said:
Dr. Rekers’ testimony was far from a neutral and unbiased recitation of the relevant scientific evidence. Dr. Rekers’ beliefs are motivated by his strong ideological and theological convictions that are not consistent with the science. Based on his testimony and demeanor at trial, the court can not consider his testimony to be credible nor worthy of forming the basis of public policy.
Interestingly enough, these facts seem to have eluded Liberty Counsel head Matt Staver in his statement to One News Now:
Matt Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel and dean of the Liberty University Law School, notes the law has been challenged many times with the court siding with the law, but he tells OneNewsNow that an activist judge has revived it.
"Last year, Miami-Dade County Circuit Judge Cindy Lederman actually wrote that the law violates the constitution of the state of Florida," he points out.
So that's it! - Florida didn't lose the case because its witnesses were awful. It was because Lederman is an "activist judge."
Staver runs the gambit of religious right talking points here:
Staver contends the Florida law soundly demonstrates the need for children to be permanently adopted into homes with stable families, including a mother and father.
What a lie! The case demonstrates that the state of Florida needs to get rid of an antiquated ban created at a time in which folks thought that gays were trying to recruit children.
Granted, some idiots still believe the recruitment bull now but it's a notion that is dying a slow, painful, and much deserved death.
And the Florida ban on gay adoption needs to die also.
Monday, March 09, 2009
Whatever happened to the Day of Truth?
Apparently some members of the religious right are abandoning "Truth."
Of course according to some of us, they have abandoned the notion of truth a long time ago, but this "Truth" is the Day of Truth they created to combat the Day of Silence.
The Day of Silence is an annual student-led event created to bring attention the plight of lgbt youth in America's schools.
Participating students across the nation from middle school through college remain quiet to bring attention to harassment and violence directed toward gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered youth.
Religious right organizations don't exactly like this (do they like anything that we do) so they created an event called the "Day of Truth," in which students are "encouraged" to speak the so-called truth about homosexuality. By this, I mean that students are encouraged not only to call homosexuality a sin but to repeat all of those discredited and misrepresented studies that have made our lives a living hell.
Like many spin-offs, the Day of Truth hasn't been that successful. And that is why several religious right groups are actually encouraging a "student walkout" in protest to Day of Silence:
AFTAH Joins April 17 Walkout of Pro-Homosexuality Student Day of Silence
Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) is part of a national coalition of pro-family organizations urging parents to call their children out of school on April 17. This is the day designated for this year’s Day of Silence when students and/or teachers will purposely remain silent during instructional time to protest so-called discrimination and gain sympathy for students who identify as homosexual or transgender.
The Day of Silence is a yearly event sponsored by the partisan political action group, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). The implicit purpose is to undermine the belief that homosexuality is immoral. It is the belief of the sponsors of the Walkout that parents should no longer passively accept the political usurpation of taxpayer funded public school classrooms through student silence.
The DOS requires that teachers either create activities around or exempt silent students from any activity that involves speaking. DOS participants have a captive audience, many of whom disagree with and are made uncomfortable by the politicization of their classroom.
There are so many things wrong that what these groups are trying to do.
The purpose of Day of Silence is to bring attention to the fact that many lgbt youth cannot function in an educational environment because they get picked on due to their orientation. It is not design to criticize personal religious beliefs but negative actions that may stem from those beliefs.
That comment about parents being forced to "accept the political usurpation of taxpayer funded schools through student silence" is bad logic turned inside out. What those this mean? Let's force these students to talk because them being silent is a waste of tax dollars?
And the notion that the Day of Silence causes disruptions is a lie. Generally when students are left alone to participate, the event is a success.
If anyone causes disruptions, it is those who oppose the event, like the Rev. Ken Hutcheron tried unsuccessfully to do last year in Seattle.
This new tactic is just another attempt to disrupt the Day of Silence. And it doesn't make sense. You protest against the alleged politicizing of schools by encouraging more politicizing?
And this explanation by the so-called Illinois Family Institute is a hoot:
Parents must actively oppose this hijacking of the classroom for political purposes. Please join the national effort to restore to public education a proper understanding of the role of government-subsidized schools. Please help de-politicize the learning environment by calling your child out of school if your child's school allows students to remain silent during instructional time on the Day of Silence.
That's right! Demand that students talk during class! It's not only educational, but now it's Christian.
Seems to me that the goal of these groups is to undermine the Day of Silence to the point that schools would be encouraged not to hold it.
When and if that happens, these same groups will claim that schools outright refused to hold the Day of Silence because of their Christian values rather than the fact that they were hassled to the point of exhaustion by a bunch of brats masquerading as "pro-family" groups.
And that strikes me as very untruthful.
Apparently some members of the religious right are abandoning "Truth."
Of course according to some of us, they have abandoned the notion of truth a long time ago, but this "Truth" is the Day of Truth they created to combat the Day of Silence.
The Day of Silence is an annual student-led event created to bring attention the plight of lgbt youth in America's schools.
Participating students across the nation from middle school through college remain quiet to bring attention to harassment and violence directed toward gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered youth.
Religious right organizations don't exactly like this (do they like anything that we do) so they created an event called the "Day of Truth," in which students are "encouraged" to speak the so-called truth about homosexuality. By this, I mean that students are encouraged not only to call homosexuality a sin but to repeat all of those discredited and misrepresented studies that have made our lives a living hell.
Like many spin-offs, the Day of Truth hasn't been that successful. And that is why several religious right groups are actually encouraging a "student walkout" in protest to Day of Silence:
AFTAH Joins April 17 Walkout of Pro-Homosexuality Student Day of Silence
Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) is part of a national coalition of pro-family organizations urging parents to call their children out of school on April 17. This is the day designated for this year’s Day of Silence when students and/or teachers will purposely remain silent during instructional time to protest so-called discrimination and gain sympathy for students who identify as homosexual or transgender.
The Day of Silence is a yearly event sponsored by the partisan political action group, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). The implicit purpose is to undermine the belief that homosexuality is immoral. It is the belief of the sponsors of the Walkout that parents should no longer passively accept the political usurpation of taxpayer funded public school classrooms through student silence.
The DOS requires that teachers either create activities around or exempt silent students from any activity that involves speaking. DOS participants have a captive audience, many of whom disagree with and are made uncomfortable by the politicization of their classroom.
There are so many things wrong that what these groups are trying to do.
The purpose of Day of Silence is to bring attention to the fact that many lgbt youth cannot function in an educational environment because they get picked on due to their orientation. It is not design to criticize personal religious beliefs but negative actions that may stem from those beliefs.
That comment about parents being forced to "accept the political usurpation of taxpayer funded schools through student silence" is bad logic turned inside out. What those this mean? Let's force these students to talk because them being silent is a waste of tax dollars?
And the notion that the Day of Silence causes disruptions is a lie. Generally when students are left alone to participate, the event is a success.
If anyone causes disruptions, it is those who oppose the event, like the Rev. Ken Hutcheron tried unsuccessfully to do last year in Seattle.
This new tactic is just another attempt to disrupt the Day of Silence. And it doesn't make sense. You protest against the alleged politicizing of schools by encouraging more politicizing?
And this explanation by the so-called Illinois Family Institute is a hoot:
Parents must actively oppose this hijacking of the classroom for political purposes. Please join the national effort to restore to public education a proper understanding of the role of government-subsidized schools. Please help de-politicize the learning environment by calling your child out of school if your child's school allows students to remain silent during instructional time on the Day of Silence.
That's right! Demand that students talk during class! It's not only educational, but now it's Christian.
Seems to me that the goal of these groups is to undermine the Day of Silence to the point that schools would be encouraged not to hold it.
When and if that happens, these same groups will claim that schools outright refused to hold the Day of Silence because of their Christian values rather than the fact that they were hassled to the point of exhaustion by a bunch of brats masquerading as "pro-family" groups.
And that strikes me as very untruthful.
Here we go again - School tries to challenge gay/straight alliance
JACKSONVILLE, Fla. -- An attorney for two gay students at a north Florida high school told a federal judge Thursday they should be allowed to form a campus club promoting tolerance toward gays, despite a school prohibition.
But a lawyer for the Nassau County School Board said the group's name, Gay-Straight Alliance, is against school policy.
Yulee High School students Hannah Page and Jacob Brock, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, are suing the school board to overturn its decision banning them from forming the club at school. Yulee is about 25 miles north of Jacksonville, near the Georgia state line.
U.S. District Judge Henry Adams Jr. said he would issue a ruling on a motion for a preliminary injunction "as soon as I can," but gave Nassau County three days to submit additional written arguments. The students want an injunction to allow them to meet until the case goes to trial.
ACLU Attorney Robert F. Rosenwald Jr. argued that Page and Brock had been the target of anti-gay epithets and threats of violence at school and wanted to start the Gay-Straight Alliance to open a discourse among students.
Attorney Frank Sheppard, who represents the school board, said the district's main complaint is the name of the group, saying it does not approve of groups dealing with sexual orientation and noted the school has an abstinence-based sex education curriculum.
"If they change the name and comply with Nassau County School Board policies they can meet," he said.
The judge questioned Sheppard over the school's objection to the name.
"A Gay-Straight Alliance, that covers everybody doesn't it?" Adams asked.
More here . . .
The school district is wrong and will most likely lose, thanks to the Equal Access Act:
. . . (It) provides that if a school permits students to organize clubs, then school officials cannot prevent a club from organizing based upon the subject matter addressed by the club. Although the Equal Access Act does not specifically address gay clubs, the law applies to students who want to form a Gay-Straight Alliance or other gay-rights club. Students must, of course, comply with their school's rules relating to forming clubs, such as application requirements and procurement of faculty sponsors. In other words, students who want to form a gay-rights club must follow the same rules as students who form a chess club.
The irony is that the Equal Access Act was created on behalf of some students who weren't able to form a Bible Club in schools.
The irony gets better. According to Box Turtle Bulletin:
Schools with anti-gay authorities aren’t too pleased about this. And they have frequently tried to bar gay and gay-friendly students from meeting, going to court and indignantly defending their position.
They generally argue that gay clubs are sexual hook-up clubs whose purpose is to advocate for immoral sexual behaviors -and provide sex partners - and that because they are an “abstinence only” school then they have a right to deny this “sex club”. Or they may argue that there is already a generic anti-bigotry club (usually in actuality a black or Hispanic student club) so there’s no need for a club to support gay students. Some - with a perfectly straight face - will argue that if gay students identify as such they will be picked on so the school needs to protect gay students by not allowing them to meet.
These arguments tend to be recognized as the defense of homophobia that they are and judges don’t often find them very persuasive. In fact, I can’t think of a single instance in which the courts found that schools, principals, or school boards could deny equal access to gay students.
And of course, the Florida Baptist Witness gives its point of view on the case. As bizarre as it sounds, the article is somewhat (I said somewhat) fair and gives a lot of good detail.
The people at One News Now should take notes.
JACKSONVILLE, Fla. -- An attorney for two gay students at a north Florida high school told a federal judge Thursday they should be allowed to form a campus club promoting tolerance toward gays, despite a school prohibition.
But a lawyer for the Nassau County School Board said the group's name, Gay-Straight Alliance, is against school policy.
Yulee High School students Hannah Page and Jacob Brock, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, are suing the school board to overturn its decision banning them from forming the club at school. Yulee is about 25 miles north of Jacksonville, near the Georgia state line.
U.S. District Judge Henry Adams Jr. said he would issue a ruling on a motion for a preliminary injunction "as soon as I can," but gave Nassau County three days to submit additional written arguments. The students want an injunction to allow them to meet until the case goes to trial.
ACLU Attorney Robert F. Rosenwald Jr. argued that Page and Brock had been the target of anti-gay epithets and threats of violence at school and wanted to start the Gay-Straight Alliance to open a discourse among students.
Attorney Frank Sheppard, who represents the school board, said the district's main complaint is the name of the group, saying it does not approve of groups dealing with sexual orientation and noted the school has an abstinence-based sex education curriculum.
"If they change the name and comply with Nassau County School Board policies they can meet," he said.
The judge questioned Sheppard over the school's objection to the name.
"A Gay-Straight Alliance, that covers everybody doesn't it?" Adams asked.
More here . . .
The school district is wrong and will most likely lose, thanks to the Equal Access Act:
. . . (It) provides that if a school permits students to organize clubs, then school officials cannot prevent a club from organizing based upon the subject matter addressed by the club. Although the Equal Access Act does not specifically address gay clubs, the law applies to students who want to form a Gay-Straight Alliance or other gay-rights club. Students must, of course, comply with their school's rules relating to forming clubs, such as application requirements and procurement of faculty sponsors. In other words, students who want to form a gay-rights club must follow the same rules as students who form a chess club.
The irony is that the Equal Access Act was created on behalf of some students who weren't able to form a Bible Club in schools.
The irony gets better. According to Box Turtle Bulletin:
Schools with anti-gay authorities aren’t too pleased about this. And they have frequently tried to bar gay and gay-friendly students from meeting, going to court and indignantly defending their position.
They generally argue that gay clubs are sexual hook-up clubs whose purpose is to advocate for immoral sexual behaviors -and provide sex partners - and that because they are an “abstinence only” school then they have a right to deny this “sex club”. Or they may argue that there is already a generic anti-bigotry club (usually in actuality a black or Hispanic student club) so there’s no need for a club to support gay students. Some - with a perfectly straight face - will argue that if gay students identify as such they will be picked on so the school needs to protect gay students by not allowing them to meet.
These arguments tend to be recognized as the defense of homophobia that they are and judges don’t often find them very persuasive. In fact, I can’t think of a single instance in which the courts found that schools, principals, or school boards could deny equal access to gay students.
And of course, the Florida Baptist Witness gives its point of view on the case. As bizarre as it sounds, the article is somewhat (I said somewhat) fair and gives a lot of good detail.
The people at One News Now should take notes.
Uganda hates gays while Peter tells us what exactly is a 'power bottom'
Scary stuff coming out of Uganda courtesy of Box Turtle Bulletin -
Anti-Gay Conference Kicks Off In Kampala
Uganda Anti-Gay Conference: Day Two - The Uganda anti-gay conference continues for a second day, with no further explanation on conference leaders’ endorsement of a parliamentarian proposal to upgrade Uganda’s anti-homosexuality law to include forced “therapy” on those who are convicted. Ugandan law already provides for a life sentence on conviction . . .
Uganda Anti-Gay Conference: Day Three -- Gays Blamed For Rwandan Genocide; More Exodus Ties To Holocaust Revisionism
Meanwhile . . .
One of our favorite anti-gay spokesman is devoting serious time to identifying the definition of a "true power bottom."
I wonder which story will One News Now cover.
Scary stuff coming out of Uganda courtesy of Box Turtle Bulletin -
Anti-Gay Conference Kicks Off In Kampala
Uganda Anti-Gay Conference: Day Two - The Uganda anti-gay conference continues for a second day, with no further explanation on conference leaders’ endorsement of a parliamentarian proposal to upgrade Uganda’s anti-homosexuality law to include forced “therapy” on those who are convicted. Ugandan law already provides for a life sentence on conviction . . .
Uganda Anti-Gay Conference: Day Three -- Gays Blamed For Rwandan Genocide; More Exodus Ties To Holocaust Revisionism
Meanwhile . . .
One of our favorite anti-gay spokesman is devoting serious time to identifying the definition of a "true power bottom."
I wonder which story will One News Now cover.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)