Anti-gay group gets pummeled for deceptive ad
Now that's what I call fast. Today the National Organization for Marriage (an anti-gay marriage group which thinks nothing of using deceptions to get its point across) came out with an ad.
The ad, rich in silly hyperbolic images, claimed that gay marriage will cause other freedoms to be taken away.
Since I'm not familiar with how to link from youtube, you can see the ad here at Goodasyou.org along with the excellent rebuttal made by Jeremy, the blogmaster of Goodasyou.org
And Jeremy is not the only one who jumped on this deceptive ad.
The Human Rights Campaign breaks down the ad's lies and gives the truth behind each one:
Background Ad Rebuttal
“The Real Truth Behind the Fake Ad”
The general argument of the ad is that the push for marriage equality isn’t just about rights for same-sex couples, it’s about imposing contrary values on people of faith. The examples they cite in the ad are:
(1) A California doctor who must choose between her faith and her job
(2) A member of New Jersey church group which is punished by the state because they can’t support same-sex marriage
(3) A Massachusetts parent who stands by helpless while the state teaches her son that gay marriage is okay
The facts indicate that (1) refers to the Benitez decision in California, determining that a doctor cannot violate California anti-discrimination law by refusing to treat a lesbian based on religious belief, (2) refers to the Ocean Grove, New Jersey Methodist pavilion that was open to the general public for events but refused access for civil union ceremonies (and was fined by the state for doing so) and (3) refers to the Parker decision in Massachusetts, where parents unsuccessfully sought to end public school discussions of family diversity, including of same-sex couples.
All three examples involve religious people who enter the public sphere, but don’t want to abide by the general non-discriminatory rules everyone else does. Both (1) and (2) are really about state laws against sexual orientation discrimination, rather than specifically about marriage. And (3) is about two pairs of religious parents trying to impose their beliefs on all children in public schools.
The real facts of each case are:
The California doctor entered a profession that promises to “first, do no harm” and the law requires her to treat a patient in need – gay or straight, Christian or Muslim – regardless of her religious beliefs. The law does not, and cannot, dictate her faith – it can only insist that she follow her oath as a medical professional.
The New Jersey church group runs, and profits from, a beachside pavilion that it rents out to the general public for all manner of occasions –concerts, debates and even Civil War reenactments— but balks at permitting couples to hold civil union ceremonies there. The law does not challenge the church organization’s beliefs about homosexuality – it merely requires that a pavilion that had been open to all for years comply with laws protecting everyone from discrimination, including gays and lesbians.
The Massachusetts parent disagrees with an aspect of her son’s public education, a discussion of the many different kinds of families he will likely encounter in life, including gay and lesbian couples. The law does not stop her from disagreeing, from teaching him consistently with her differing beliefs at home, or even educating her child in a setting that is more in line with her faith traditions. But it does not allow any one parent to dictate the curriculum for all students based on her family’s religious traditions.
Not only that but HRC also reveals that the National Organization for Marriage hired actors to peddle its lies. The bad audition tapes are here and here.
Two points here - lgbts are progressing big time in fighting religious right lies. Years ago, we would have never moved this fast against anti-gay lies.
And the other thing - the opposition is getting desperate and with desperation comes sloppiness. Let's continue exploit that sloppiness.
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
Wednesday mid day news briefs - One News Now edition (cause you can't have too much of One News Now)
LGBTs are loved again!!! The phony news service One News Now have devoted seven front page stories to the so -called dreaded gay agenda. Let's look at just a few:
Rick Warren disavows support for Prop. 8 - Rick Warren is in trouble. At least he can take comfort in the fact that he brought lgbts and the religious right on the same page - looking to rip his ass apart.
Congress to vote on 'Day of Silence' - I hope Congress does the right thing.
NY high court to hear homosexual 'rights' cases - As you can see by some of the comments, the "special rights" argument is getting old.
Homosexual lobby lands activist on White House faith group - Matt Barber feels that since there is a high risk of gay men catching HIV, then Harry Knox of HRC shouldn't be on the faith group committee. If we followed that stuff to the logical conclusion, then Obama shouldn't be president since HIV affects the African-American community at a high rate. Then again, scratch that. No need to give the "birthers" new ammunition.
Perspective: Who are the homophobes? - This is what I meant about getting sloppy. The guest columnist here actually cites a Paul Cameron study. I've already written my comment about it and I hope many others point it out also. By using the discredited work of Paul Cameron he answers his own question.
Like I said, the best part of a One News Now article is not the bias the phony news service entails or even the bad studies it sometimes cites as accurate. The best part is always the comments from so-called Christians.
Enjoy!
LGBTs are loved again!!! The phony news service One News Now have devoted seven front page stories to the so -called dreaded gay agenda. Let's look at just a few:
Rick Warren disavows support for Prop. 8 - Rick Warren is in trouble. At least he can take comfort in the fact that he brought lgbts and the religious right on the same page - looking to rip his ass apart.
Congress to vote on 'Day of Silence' - I hope Congress does the right thing.
NY high court to hear homosexual 'rights' cases - As you can see by some of the comments, the "special rights" argument is getting old.
Homosexual lobby lands activist on White House faith group - Matt Barber feels that since there is a high risk of gay men catching HIV, then Harry Knox of HRC shouldn't be on the faith group committee. If we followed that stuff to the logical conclusion, then Obama shouldn't be president since HIV affects the African-American community at a high rate. Then again, scratch that. No need to give the "birthers" new ammunition.
Perspective: Who are the homophobes? - This is what I meant about getting sloppy. The guest columnist here actually cites a Paul Cameron study. I've already written my comment about it and I hope many others point it out also. By using the discredited work of Paul Cameron he answers his own question.
Like I said, the best part of a One News Now article is not the bias the phony news service entails or even the bad studies it sometimes cites as accurate. The best part is always the comments from so-called Christians.
Enjoy!
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
Robert Knight uses biased work in attack on Vermont
Phony culture expert (and present writer for Coral Ridge Ministries) Robert Knight is definitely back.
Knight (who has on occasion used the discredited work of Paul Cameron as well as verbally attacked physicians who complain about how religious right groups distort their work) was in rare form when he criticized the Vermont legislature for overturning the state governor’s veto of its gay marriage bill:
In its unanimous opinion in Varnum v. Brien, the Iowa Supreme Court says that real marriage is merely a form of “prejudice” (using that word 21 times) and hints that homosexuals might be better parents than the mother-father variety. The seven justices cite junk science from gay-dominated guilds (the American Psychological Assn., etc.) to float the idea that kids are no better off in a normal home:
“Almost every professional group that has studied the issue indicates children are not harmed when raised by same-sex couples, but to the contrary, benefit from them. …we acknowledge the existence of reasoned opinions that dual-gender parenting is the optimal environment for children. These opinions, while thoughtful and sincere, were largely unsupported by reliable scientific studies.”
Say what? They have it exactly backwards. It’s the “gay parenting” studies that are deeply flawed, as Drs. Robert Lerner and Althea Nagai demonstrate thoroughly in their devastating book No Basis: What the studies Don’t tell us about same-sex parenting.
So by his name calling of the American Psychological Association and other groups (without proof by the way), Knight is inferring that they have a bias and ergo their work is not credible.
How ironic that he should cite Robert Lerner and Althea Nagai’s book.
Lerner was appointed by the former President Bush as Commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics. However before that time, he and Nagai, his wife, ran a consulting firm where they conducted research.
Their clients included:
the Center for Equal Opportunity, a Sterling Va.-based think tank headed by Linda Chavez, briefly President Bush's choice for secretary of labor and a leading opponent of affirmative action.
And
the Princeton, N.J.- based National Association of Scholars, a faculty organization that believes race-based admissions policies are divisive.
It gets better:
In the area of K-12 education, Mr. Lerner in 1995 co-wrote a review of history textbooks for Lynne V. Cheney, then chairwoman of the Committee to Review National Standards, a private group of scholars. Ms. Cheney, the wife of Vice President Dick Cheney, used the study, which was later published as a book, in her efforts to scuttle the voluntary national history standards underwritten by the federal government.
In that book, Mr. Lerner found that race, ethnicity, and gender got three times as much emphasis as political freedom in contemporary textbooks and that the latest wave of history texts used what he termed "filler feminism" to inappropriately insert female historical figures into texts in lieu of purportedly more significant males.
According to the Partners Task Force for Gay and Lesbian Couples, one study conducted by Lerner and Nagai on African-Americans and rape caused their credibility to come under question:
Lerner and Nagai are not credible; they are researchers-for-hire who make their living writing studies for conservative organizations and finding results that support conservative social policies. One such organization funded a Lerner study that found African Americans were over three times more likely to be acquitted of rape charges than whites. To reach this conclusion Lerner looked at a mere five jury trials involving black defendants. (Roger Parloff, “Speaking of Junk Science,” The American Lawyer, January 1997.)
The book in question that Knight referred to, No Basis, was commissioned by the Marriage Law Project, a Washington-based group against gay marriage.
The point here is clear. Knight recklessly accuses legitimate medical organizations of having a bias but then thinks nothing of citing two researchers who are paid to conduct research for conservative groups - something that shows an actual bias.
That’s bold faced duplicity.
But for those who know of his tactics, that’s Robert Knight to a tee.
Phony culture expert (and present writer for Coral Ridge Ministries) Robert Knight is definitely back.
Knight (who has on occasion used the discredited work of Paul Cameron as well as verbally attacked physicians who complain about how religious right groups distort their work) was in rare form when he criticized the Vermont legislature for overturning the state governor’s veto of its gay marriage bill:
In its unanimous opinion in Varnum v. Brien, the Iowa Supreme Court says that real marriage is merely a form of “prejudice” (using that word 21 times) and hints that homosexuals might be better parents than the mother-father variety. The seven justices cite junk science from gay-dominated guilds (the American Psychological Assn., etc.) to float the idea that kids are no better off in a normal home:
“Almost every professional group that has studied the issue indicates children are not harmed when raised by same-sex couples, but to the contrary, benefit from them. …we acknowledge the existence of reasoned opinions that dual-gender parenting is the optimal environment for children. These opinions, while thoughtful and sincere, were largely unsupported by reliable scientific studies.”
Say what? They have it exactly backwards. It’s the “gay parenting” studies that are deeply flawed, as Drs. Robert Lerner and Althea Nagai demonstrate thoroughly in their devastating book No Basis: What the studies Don’t tell us about same-sex parenting.
So by his name calling of the American Psychological Association and other groups (without proof by the way), Knight is inferring that they have a bias and ergo their work is not credible.
How ironic that he should cite Robert Lerner and Althea Nagai’s book.
Lerner was appointed by the former President Bush as Commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics. However before that time, he and Nagai, his wife, ran a consulting firm where they conducted research.
Their clients included:
the Center for Equal Opportunity, a Sterling Va.-based think tank headed by Linda Chavez, briefly President Bush's choice for secretary of labor and a leading opponent of affirmative action.
And
the Princeton, N.J.- based National Association of Scholars, a faculty organization that believes race-based admissions policies are divisive.
It gets better:
In the area of K-12 education, Mr. Lerner in 1995 co-wrote a review of history textbooks for Lynne V. Cheney, then chairwoman of the Committee to Review National Standards, a private group of scholars. Ms. Cheney, the wife of Vice President Dick Cheney, used the study, which was later published as a book, in her efforts to scuttle the voluntary national history standards underwritten by the federal government.
In that book, Mr. Lerner found that race, ethnicity, and gender got three times as much emphasis as political freedom in contemporary textbooks and that the latest wave of history texts used what he termed "filler feminism" to inappropriately insert female historical figures into texts in lieu of purportedly more significant males.
According to the Partners Task Force for Gay and Lesbian Couples, one study conducted by Lerner and Nagai on African-Americans and rape caused their credibility to come under question:
Lerner and Nagai are not credible; they are researchers-for-hire who make their living writing studies for conservative organizations and finding results that support conservative social policies. One such organization funded a Lerner study that found African Americans were over three times more likely to be acquitted of rape charges than whites. To reach this conclusion Lerner looked at a mere five jury trials involving black defendants. (Roger Parloff, “Speaking of Junk Science,” The American Lawyer, January 1997.)
The book in question that Knight referred to, No Basis, was commissioned by the Marriage Law Project, a Washington-based group against gay marriage.
The point here is clear. Knight recklessly accuses legitimate medical organizations of having a bias but then thinks nothing of citing two researchers who are paid to conduct research for conservative groups - something that shows an actual bias.
That’s bold faced duplicity.
But for those who know of his tactics, that’s Robert Knight to a tee.
One News Now commentators get in on the religious right freak out over Vermont
As to be expected, the religious right is freaking out over the news that Vermont has become the fourth state to offer gay marriage via the legislature overturning the Governor's veto.
And I want to bring it all to you but one of the biggest disadvantages of blogging part time is that sometimes the good stuff is covered before I get home from work.
But luckily for me, One News Now and its commentators are there to make sure I get a good foot into this fight:
Vermont legalizes same-sex 'marriage' with veto override
With a headline like that, you just know One News Now won't be wishing us any congratulations on our victory.
But check out the comments.
Now to be fair, some of them are supportive:
Well, for years we have been saying that this issue should be decided by legislatures. Now it has. Not all even Christians buy the notion that, in the civil union sphere, our respective beliefs must be reflected in civil law. Churches can still decide for themselves whether to participate in any marriage. What's all the shouting about? Everyone's rights are protected.
Wow Fanatastic. Just to allay your fears, God does not punish states that provide equal rights to homosexuals. I think he's more concerned about real sin not ones made up by fear mongering preachers How do I know? Here in Canada we've had gay marriage for almost a decade. What happened? Nothing! No Tornadoes, Earthquakes, Floods, and our economy is doing better than the US. God punishes those that discriminate. Your bad to gays, God punishes you. Expect bad times in California. They'll be punishment for Prop 8.
I understand this is a "Christian" website, but I am Christian and I am offended by your tactics to villify others, such as Muslims and queer folk. Why can't you just report on "Same-Sex Marriage" instead of reporting on "Homosexual 'Marriage'" (always putting it in quotes) that "Mock God"? Just report and let us decide. I wish there was a Christian website that wasn't so hateful. My relationship with Christ is about hope and love -- not about judging other people. I think God calls us to love not only those who look/act like us (which is relatively easy), but also those who do NOT look/act like that. And by "love" I do not mean "try to make them look/act like us".
Just love it!!! California, what's wrong with? Thess so called "San-Francisco values" are being adopted everywhere but in California??? Wake up!
Those darn activist legislatures. Decisions this important should never be left to the elected representatives of the people. Where are the courts to step in on this!?!?!
And then there are comments such as these:
I do not believe God will punish the USA directly for its moral decline so much as we will punish ourselves with the natural consequences of our own actions. This cancerous plague of Homosexuality has already metastasized, and it is only a matter of time before the affects take over. We are in the throes of economic crisis precisely because the level of greed has surpassed sustainable levels. What will happen when a majority of people's feelings about others turn completely inward, as the Homosexual movement is aimed exactly at doing (and seems to be succeeding for the most part)? What will the world look like at that point? I know. It'll look exactly like Hell.
It's a shame that these people who are supposed to work for the people ignore the will of the people for their own monitary and political gains. Just keep ignoring the majority for a very small minority of pervered people.
Traditional marriage is vital for long-term reasons of pro-creation, child rearing and social & economic stability – it is not just a “gay” issue. Places like Sweden (where traditional marriage is no longer sacred) (Editor's note - This has been proven to be false) already experience high out-of-wedlock childbirths. Other nations that have weakened their marriage laws have also seen others' rights taken away in terms of parental rights and freedom of conscience. I believe that we should show compassion and respect to those dealing with same-sex attraction, but we should not endorse harmful, immoral sexual conduct with law (even though people are still free to choose such conduct privately). Of course, unmarried heterosexuals are not always immune from sexual sin either.
Ok followers of Christ. It is time to get from behind the computer and go outside to let america know how angry we are. We have strength in numbers, time to put our numbers to use. if we don't, america will be completely lost to abomination and the smell of our country will stink in God's nostril.
A continuation of immorality in motion - what a STATE. In their case, however, the people voted for it via their legislature.
God will not be mocked but that is not the only law of God that we of these Uited States are breaking. We will pay the price someday and we have started with our current President. God caused him to become President because we - God's own are not standing firm and following Him as we should.
Firstly they should have used the proper term "sodomite" instead of homosexual. And yes, that term should make you feel uneasy. It's certainly not "gay" to be against God in your conduct. I'll even approach this from an evolutionary standpoint - "gay" behavior is maladaptive, because it does not perpetuate dna into successive generations. That behavior should have been vetted out millions of years ago. So this goes not only against the supernatural, it goes against the natural. The Bible does say that prior to Christ's return it will be as in the days of Lot. I guess we're getting close folks.
Two thumbs down for Vermont. Shame on you.
Unfortuneately this is paving the way for all states to adopt same sex marriage. I dread the day that I have to watch men, or women, hold hands and kiss openly in the street. We are considered "haters" for opposing this. Maybe it is time we hold to our beliefs but be Christlike examples in the way we live so that our lifestyle is attractive to these lost individuals. They cannot comprehend why we want this banned. They cannot fathom hell and eternal damnation. They don't get it ! Us Christians are way to late to do the picket and protest thing. It would have worked better 10 years ago, but now we are seen as haters. I think it is hurting the cause rather then helping.
Though we joke about religious right reactions, let's not get too lighthearted. We all know that religious right organizations are planning a comeback to all of this good lgbt news.
And we had better be ready to defend every success we get.
As to be expected, the religious right is freaking out over the news that Vermont has become the fourth state to offer gay marriage via the legislature overturning the Governor's veto.
And I want to bring it all to you but one of the biggest disadvantages of blogging part time is that sometimes the good stuff is covered before I get home from work.
But luckily for me, One News Now and its commentators are there to make sure I get a good foot into this fight:
Vermont legalizes same-sex 'marriage' with veto override
With a headline like that, you just know One News Now won't be wishing us any congratulations on our victory.
But check out the comments.
Now to be fair, some of them are supportive:
Well, for years we have been saying that this issue should be decided by legislatures. Now it has. Not all even Christians buy the notion that, in the civil union sphere, our respective beliefs must be reflected in civil law. Churches can still decide for themselves whether to participate in any marriage. What's all the shouting about? Everyone's rights are protected.
Wow Fanatastic. Just to allay your fears, God does not punish states that provide equal rights to homosexuals. I think he's more concerned about real sin not ones made up by fear mongering preachers How do I know? Here in Canada we've had gay marriage for almost a decade. What happened? Nothing! No Tornadoes, Earthquakes, Floods, and our economy is doing better than the US. God punishes those that discriminate. Your bad to gays, God punishes you. Expect bad times in California. They'll be punishment for Prop 8.
I understand this is a "Christian" website, but I am Christian and I am offended by your tactics to villify others, such as Muslims and queer folk. Why can't you just report on "Same-Sex Marriage" instead of reporting on "Homosexual 'Marriage'" (always putting it in quotes) that "Mock God"? Just report and let us decide. I wish there was a Christian website that wasn't so hateful. My relationship with Christ is about hope and love -- not about judging other people. I think God calls us to love not only those who look/act like us (which is relatively easy), but also those who do NOT look/act like that. And by "love" I do not mean "try to make them look/act like us".
Just love it!!! California, what's wrong with? Thess so called "San-Francisco values" are being adopted everywhere but in California??? Wake up!
Those darn activist legislatures. Decisions this important should never be left to the elected representatives of the people. Where are the courts to step in on this!?!?!
And then there are comments such as these:
I do not believe God will punish the USA directly for its moral decline so much as we will punish ourselves with the natural consequences of our own actions. This cancerous plague of Homosexuality has already metastasized, and it is only a matter of time before the affects take over. We are in the throes of economic crisis precisely because the level of greed has surpassed sustainable levels. What will happen when a majority of people's feelings about others turn completely inward, as the Homosexual movement is aimed exactly at doing (and seems to be succeeding for the most part)? What will the world look like at that point? I know. It'll look exactly like Hell.
It's a shame that these people who are supposed to work for the people ignore the will of the people for their own monitary and political gains. Just keep ignoring the majority for a very small minority of pervered people.
Traditional marriage is vital for long-term reasons of pro-creation, child rearing and social & economic stability – it is not just a “gay” issue. Places like Sweden (where traditional marriage is no longer sacred) (Editor's note - This has been proven to be false) already experience high out-of-wedlock childbirths. Other nations that have weakened their marriage laws have also seen others' rights taken away in terms of parental rights and freedom of conscience. I believe that we should show compassion and respect to those dealing with same-sex attraction, but we should not endorse harmful, immoral sexual conduct with law (even though people are still free to choose such conduct privately). Of course, unmarried heterosexuals are not always immune from sexual sin either.
Ok followers of Christ. It is time to get from behind the computer and go outside to let america know how angry we are. We have strength in numbers, time to put our numbers to use. if we don't, america will be completely lost to abomination and the smell of our country will stink in God's nostril.
A continuation of immorality in motion - what a STATE. In their case, however, the people voted for it via their legislature.
God will not be mocked but that is not the only law of God that we of these Uited States are breaking. We will pay the price someday and we have started with our current President. God caused him to become President because we - God's own are not standing firm and following Him as we should.
Firstly they should have used the proper term "sodomite" instead of homosexual. And yes, that term should make you feel uneasy. It's certainly not "gay" to be against God in your conduct. I'll even approach this from an evolutionary standpoint - "gay" behavior is maladaptive, because it does not perpetuate dna into successive generations. That behavior should have been vetted out millions of years ago. So this goes not only against the supernatural, it goes against the natural. The Bible does say that prior to Christ's return it will be as in the days of Lot. I guess we're getting close folks.
Two thumbs down for Vermont. Shame on you.
Unfortuneately this is paving the way for all states to adopt same sex marriage. I dread the day that I have to watch men, or women, hold hands and kiss openly in the street. We are considered "haters" for opposing this. Maybe it is time we hold to our beliefs but be Christlike examples in the way we live so that our lifestyle is attractive to these lost individuals. They cannot comprehend why we want this banned. They cannot fathom hell and eternal damnation. They don't get it ! Us Christians are way to late to do the picket and protest thing. It would have worked better 10 years ago, but now we are seen as haters. I think it is hurting the cause rather then helping.
Though we joke about religious right reactions, let's not get too lighthearted. We all know that religious right organizations are planning a comeback to all of this good lgbt news.
And we had better be ready to defend every success we get.
Tuesday mid day news briefs
In contrast to yesterday, there is sooooo much stuff going on today
Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto override - We win again!!!!
Rick Warren lies about his homobigotry on Larry King Live - Unbelievable. You gotta see this. On Larry King Live, Warren says he never endorsed Proposition 8. However, he is on tape doing such. I guess he will fit in well with the rest of the religious right. He certainly has lying through his teeth down pat.
We're giving you a mission - From goodasyou.org comes a productive mission. I've already done my part and I can't wait to see the response.
Obama appoints open homosexual to faith-based office - Yep. Right on time. One News Now weighs in on President Obama appointing HRC's Harry Knox to his faith based council. The phony news service even gets a quote from Peter LaBarbera. And as always, One News Now's comments section is a hoot. Eat your heart out, Free Republic!!
In contrast to yesterday, there is sooooo much stuff going on today
Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto override - We win again!!!!
Rick Warren lies about his homobigotry on Larry King Live - Unbelievable. You gotta see this. On Larry King Live, Warren says he never endorsed Proposition 8. However, he is on tape doing such. I guess he will fit in well with the rest of the religious right. He certainly has lying through his teeth down pat.
We're giving you a mission - From goodasyou.org comes a productive mission. I've already done my part and I can't wait to see the response.
Obama appoints open homosexual to faith-based office - Yep. Right on time. One News Now weighs in on President Obama appointing HRC's Harry Knox to his faith based council. The phony news service even gets a quote from Peter LaBarbera. And as always, One News Now's comments section is a hoot. Eat your heart out, Free Republic!!
I get letters!
I got an interesting letter this morning on my post about the upcoming Day of Silence and the walk out plans that religious right organizations are trying to push:
I have to wonder how you would feel about a day of silence for pro-heterosexual family or pro-Christian family or pro-straight orientation, etc. It's sad that we want to bring such politics into the public school classroom for introctination. I have gay friends (have for decades) and love them no differently than I do my straight friends, but as a Christian I am not supposed to pick and choose which of God's tough teachings I support. I love sinners (for I am one like everyone else), but I do not support sin. God's teachings may not always be easy or popular, but they are what they are. It is amazing that "hate" is so quickly used to attack an opponent when s/he says something with which we fallible humans do not agree. God bless you, but I have to wonder if you do not see your own blanket prejudices against those who don't support your opinion.
This was my answer. It wasn't long (I have to get ready for work) but I think I got my point across:
It's sadder that lgbt children feel so threatened that they can't function to their full potential in America's schools. I noticed that in your ramblings, you didn't have anything to say about that. While I respect your opinion, you take too much upon yourself. Your definition of sin and God is just that - YOUR definition.Lastly, when you use words like indoctrination (as to infer that gays indoctrinate children) then yes, you deserve to be called haters. It's one thing to disagree with homosexuality but when you add an inaccurate inference that gays are somehow engaging in secret conspiracies to politicize children, you are not different than a racist in my book.
To those who have something to add to this exchange, all I ask is that you be nice.
I got an interesting letter this morning on my post about the upcoming Day of Silence and the walk out plans that religious right organizations are trying to push:
I have to wonder how you would feel about a day of silence for pro-heterosexual family or pro-Christian family or pro-straight orientation, etc. It's sad that we want to bring such politics into the public school classroom for introctination. I have gay friends (have for decades) and love them no differently than I do my straight friends, but as a Christian I am not supposed to pick and choose which of God's tough teachings I support. I love sinners (for I am one like everyone else), but I do not support sin. God's teachings may not always be easy or popular, but they are what they are. It is amazing that "hate" is so quickly used to attack an opponent when s/he says something with which we fallible humans do not agree. God bless you, but I have to wonder if you do not see your own blanket prejudices against those who don't support your opinion.
This was my answer. It wasn't long (I have to get ready for work) but I think I got my point across:
It's sadder that lgbt children feel so threatened that they can't function to their full potential in America's schools. I noticed that in your ramblings, you didn't have anything to say about that. While I respect your opinion, you take too much upon yourself. Your definition of sin and God is just that - YOUR definition.Lastly, when you use words like indoctrination (as to infer that gays indoctrinate children) then yes, you deserve to be called haters. It's one thing to disagree with homosexuality but when you add an inaccurate inference that gays are somehow engaging in secret conspiracies to politicize children, you are not different than a racist in my book.
To those who have something to add to this exchange, all I ask is that you be nice.
Monday, April 06, 2009
This just in - Dungy is out and other thoughts about the religious right
The news has come down that former Indianapolis Colts coach Tony Dungy will not be a member of President Obama's Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships Initiative.
Well that's an averted controversy of the Rick Warren variety. Dungy has in the past aligned himself with anti-gay marriage initiatives. In 2007, he spoke out for an Indiana ballot initiative during a banquet for the Focus on the Family aligned Indiana Family Institute:
"We're not trying to downgrade anyone else," Dungy added. "But we're trying to promote the family—family values the Lord's way."
Same tired b.s. lines. Oh well, good riddance to possible bad rubbish.
In a move that may piss off the religious right (and I really hope so), Harry Knox of the Human Rights Campaign will be a part of the advisory group.
And speaking of interesting items guaranteed to piss off the religious right comes this bit from U.S. News and World Report:
Legalizing gay marriage in a culturally conservative heartland state, as the Iowa Supreme Court did today, would ordinarily provoke an immediate backlash, launching a movement to amend the state constitution to override the court's decision. It might even renew the national effort to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gay marriage. But in the case of today's Iowa decision, no constitutions will be amended anytime soon.
That's because the earliest a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage could appear on the Iowa ballot is 2011. The state legislature must pass an amendment in two conservative sessions for it to land on the ballot. And with the Democrats who control both houses of the Iowa Legislature applauding today's ruling, even that timetable would seem overly expeditious.
With Democrats also in firm control of Congress, the Bush-era campaign religious conservatives waged to amend the U.S. Constitution has little chance of being revived. (Not to mention that the Republican Party has little stomach for beating the drum on social issues these days.).
In our anger about how the religious right organized and moved against gay marriage, are we missing the big picture - the idea that opposing gay marriage was a possible Pyrrhic victory for them.
The gay marriage argument was one they were definitely ready for and it gave them a lot of success - so much success that I sense a degree of burnt out and a general sense of "what do we do now" emanating from various religious right groups.
What can the religious right do next to galvanize the troops? They were successful in opposing gay adoption in Arkansas but nationwide, I don't see the issue giving them the same amount of success.
It's easy to galvanize people with the phrase that "marriage should be between one man and one woman" because that is how society has been trained to view marriage without deviations.
However, the phrase "the best place for a child is a home with a mother and a father" isn't so easy because we all know that the care of children is an intricate situation. The best place for a child may not necessarily be in a home with the mother and a father if say the father is abusive and the mother overmedicates herself.
In the care of children, people tend to give more leeway because not every successful family is the same. Not every successful family encompasses that of the Ward and June Cleaver variety.
So I don't think that the religious right will be very successful with that issue.
Now there are various issues coming up (i.e. hate crimes legislation, ENDA) that do run the risk of galvanizing the religious right.
But these things can also backfire.
The lgbt community have become aware of the piss poor talking points against hate crimes legislation and ENDA. This means the talking points lose their power because we have developed refutations.
But just in case you are not familiar with how to refute religious right talking points regarding hate crimes legislation and ENDA:
Hate crimes legislation for sexual orientation will not lead to pastors being arrested anymore than hate crimes legislation for religion (already present) has.
Tran-inclusive ENDA legislation will not lead to women being attacked in public restrooms and changing rooms by predators. Cities have already passed tran-inclusive nondiscrimination ordinances and have yet to have that problem.
The fact that the religious right will still continue to push those arguments demonstrates just how much this so-called culture war is wearing them out.
And tired people tend to make lots of mistakes.
I just hope that we can capitalize on them.
The news has come down that former Indianapolis Colts coach Tony Dungy will not be a member of President Obama's Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships Initiative.
Well that's an averted controversy of the Rick Warren variety. Dungy has in the past aligned himself with anti-gay marriage initiatives. In 2007, he spoke out for an Indiana ballot initiative during a banquet for the Focus on the Family aligned Indiana Family Institute:
"We're not trying to downgrade anyone else," Dungy added. "But we're trying to promote the family—family values the Lord's way."
Same tired b.s. lines. Oh well, good riddance to possible bad rubbish.
In a move that may piss off the religious right (and I really hope so), Harry Knox of the Human Rights Campaign will be a part of the advisory group.
And speaking of interesting items guaranteed to piss off the religious right comes this bit from U.S. News and World Report:
Legalizing gay marriage in a culturally conservative heartland state, as the Iowa Supreme Court did today, would ordinarily provoke an immediate backlash, launching a movement to amend the state constitution to override the court's decision. It might even renew the national effort to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gay marriage. But in the case of today's Iowa decision, no constitutions will be amended anytime soon.
That's because the earliest a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage could appear on the Iowa ballot is 2011. The state legislature must pass an amendment in two conservative sessions for it to land on the ballot. And with the Democrats who control both houses of the Iowa Legislature applauding today's ruling, even that timetable would seem overly expeditious.
With Democrats also in firm control of Congress, the Bush-era campaign religious conservatives waged to amend the U.S. Constitution has little chance of being revived. (Not to mention that the Republican Party has little stomach for beating the drum on social issues these days.).
In our anger about how the religious right organized and moved against gay marriage, are we missing the big picture - the idea that opposing gay marriage was a possible Pyrrhic victory for them.
The gay marriage argument was one they were definitely ready for and it gave them a lot of success - so much success that I sense a degree of burnt out and a general sense of "what do we do now" emanating from various religious right groups.
What can the religious right do next to galvanize the troops? They were successful in opposing gay adoption in Arkansas but nationwide, I don't see the issue giving them the same amount of success.
It's easy to galvanize people with the phrase that "marriage should be between one man and one woman" because that is how society has been trained to view marriage without deviations.
However, the phrase "the best place for a child is a home with a mother and a father" isn't so easy because we all know that the care of children is an intricate situation. The best place for a child may not necessarily be in a home with the mother and a father if say the father is abusive and the mother overmedicates herself.
In the care of children, people tend to give more leeway because not every successful family is the same. Not every successful family encompasses that of the Ward and June Cleaver variety.
So I don't think that the religious right will be very successful with that issue.
Now there are various issues coming up (i.e. hate crimes legislation, ENDA) that do run the risk of galvanizing the religious right.
But these things can also backfire.
The lgbt community have become aware of the piss poor talking points against hate crimes legislation and ENDA. This means the talking points lose their power because we have developed refutations.
But just in case you are not familiar with how to refute religious right talking points regarding hate crimes legislation and ENDA:
Hate crimes legislation for sexual orientation will not lead to pastors being arrested anymore than hate crimes legislation for religion (already present) has.
Tran-inclusive ENDA legislation will not lead to women being attacked in public restrooms and changing rooms by predators. Cities have already passed tran-inclusive nondiscrimination ordinances and have yet to have that problem.
The fact that the religious right will still continue to push those arguments demonstrates just how much this so-called culture war is wearing them out.
And tired people tend to make lots of mistakes.
I just hope that we can capitalize on them.
Monday mid-day news briefs
It's a real slow lgbt news day today. Apparently gay marriage coming to the supposed heartland of America really screwed up the religious right. It's all they are talking about.
Uganda Press Crank Up “Predator” Rhetoric - If the situation wasn't so dangerous for lgbts in Uganda, this item would be comical.
VT legislature may hold veto override vote on Tuesday - Will the Vermont legislature have enough votes to override the Governor's threatened veto on a gay marriage bill? They just might.
Milk stamp backers eye SF artist’s painting - I'm all for it.
Conservative Iowans fight to preserve traditional marriage - As you can tell by the headline, this item is from One News Now. The comments section is a hoot.
It's a real slow lgbt news day today. Apparently gay marriage coming to the supposed heartland of America really screwed up the religious right. It's all they are talking about.
Uganda Press Crank Up “Predator” Rhetoric - If the situation wasn't so dangerous for lgbts in Uganda, this item would be comical.
VT legislature may hold veto override vote on Tuesday - Will the Vermont legislature have enough votes to override the Governor's threatened veto on a gay marriage bill? They just might.
Milk stamp backers eye SF artist’s painting - I'm all for it.
Conservative Iowans fight to preserve traditional marriage - As you can tell by the headline, this item is from One News Now. The comments section is a hoot.
Christianity in America suffers a huge blow
I predicted it last year and it's coming to pass, according to Newsweek and Kathleen Parker that is:
Newsweek - While we remain a nation decisively shaped by religious faith, our politics and our culture are, in the main, less influenced by movements and arguments of an explicitly Christian character than they were even five years ago. I think this is a good thing—good for our political culture, which, as the American Founders saw, is complex and charged enough without attempting to compel or coerce religious belief or observance.
It is good for Christianity, too, in that many Christians are rediscovering the virtues of a separation of church and state that protects what Roger Williams, who founded Rhode Island as a haven for religious dissenters, called "the garden of the church" from "the wilderness of the world." As crucial as religion has been and is to the life of the nation, America's unifying force has never been a specific faith, but a commitment to freedom—not least freedom of conscience.
At our best, we single religion out for neither particular help nor particular harm; we have historically treated faith-based arguments as one element among many in the republican sphere of debate and decision. The decline and fall of the modern religious right's notion of a Christian America creates a calmer political environment and, for many believers, may help open the way for a more theologically serious religious life.
Parker - Is the Christian right finished as a political entity? Or, more to the point, are principled Christians finished with politics?
These questions have been getting fresh air lately as frustrated conservative Christians question the pragmatism -- defined as the compromising of principles -- of the old guard.
One might gently call the current debate a generational rift.
The older generation represented by such icons as James Dobson, who recently retired as head of Focus on the Family, has compromised too much, according to a growing phalanx of disillusioned Christians.
Pragmatically speaking, the Christian coalition of cultural crusaders didn't work.
For proof, one need look no further than Dobson himself, who was captured on tape recently saying that the big cultural battles have all been lost.
In the past two decades or so, Christianity in America seems have been taken over by a group of folks who talk about power and used phrases like "taking America back for God."
That last phrase always makes me laugh. If God truly wanted America per se, He would take it. He doesn't need any help to further His will.
But basically Christianity in America has lost its grace. There is no more humbleness, or the idea that you are serving a Higher Power and your trust is in His will and not your own.
Too many people have replaced the image of God with one of their own and have made Christianity into a religion of exclusion rather than inclusion. Jesus did not say "pick up your Cross and follow me and you will get a nice car, a nice house, 2.5 children and a Republican in the White House every four years."
When have organizations such as the American Family Association, Concerned Women for America or the Family Research Council actually dealt with relevant problems such as homelessness, lack of educational opportunities, or other issues that aren't geared to the so-called cultural war?
Hopefully those who want to truly follow God will take the hint and divest themselves from these phony Christian groups.
I predicted it last year and it's coming to pass, according to Newsweek and Kathleen Parker that is:
Newsweek - While we remain a nation decisively shaped by religious faith, our politics and our culture are, in the main, less influenced by movements and arguments of an explicitly Christian character than they were even five years ago. I think this is a good thing—good for our political culture, which, as the American Founders saw, is complex and charged enough without attempting to compel or coerce religious belief or observance.
It is good for Christianity, too, in that many Christians are rediscovering the virtues of a separation of church and state that protects what Roger Williams, who founded Rhode Island as a haven for religious dissenters, called "the garden of the church" from "the wilderness of the world." As crucial as religion has been and is to the life of the nation, America's unifying force has never been a specific faith, but a commitment to freedom—not least freedom of conscience.
At our best, we single religion out for neither particular help nor particular harm; we have historically treated faith-based arguments as one element among many in the republican sphere of debate and decision. The decline and fall of the modern religious right's notion of a Christian America creates a calmer political environment and, for many believers, may help open the way for a more theologically serious religious life.
Parker - Is the Christian right finished as a political entity? Or, more to the point, are principled Christians finished with politics?
These questions have been getting fresh air lately as frustrated conservative Christians question the pragmatism -- defined as the compromising of principles -- of the old guard.
One might gently call the current debate a generational rift.
The older generation represented by such icons as James Dobson, who recently retired as head of Focus on the Family, has compromised too much, according to a growing phalanx of disillusioned Christians.
Pragmatically speaking, the Christian coalition of cultural crusaders didn't work.
For proof, one need look no further than Dobson himself, who was captured on tape recently saying that the big cultural battles have all been lost.
In the past two decades or so, Christianity in America seems have been taken over by a group of folks who talk about power and used phrases like "taking America back for God."
That last phrase always makes me laugh. If God truly wanted America per se, He would take it. He doesn't need any help to further His will.
But basically Christianity in America has lost its grace. There is no more humbleness, or the idea that you are serving a Higher Power and your trust is in His will and not your own.
Too many people have replaced the image of God with one of their own and have made Christianity into a religion of exclusion rather than inclusion. Jesus did not say "pick up your Cross and follow me and you will get a nice car, a nice house, 2.5 children and a Republican in the White House every four years."
When have organizations such as the American Family Association, Concerned Women for America or the Family Research Council actually dealt with relevant problems such as homelessness, lack of educational opportunities, or other issues that aren't geared to the so-called cultural war?
Hopefully those who want to truly follow God will take the hint and divest themselves from these phony Christian groups.
Friday, April 03, 2009
Freepers upset over Iowa Court decision
I shouldn't do this but I figure what the hell.
Please don't think I'm gloating (I'm not) but when a pro-gay decision comes down, I like to go to anti-gay sites to check out their reaction.
And sites like Free Republic never disappoint me:
Two points:
1. This is scary. Unlike Massachusetts, Iowa is an agricultural breadbasket. Watch crop yields plumett now. God takes His revenge in many ways. Just ask those people burned out of their homes (or had their crops dry up from drought) in California. Russia’s crop yields plummeted too, once she became an atheistic nation in 1922.
2. The Iowa governor and legislature should tell the Iowa Supreme Court, in effect, “go to hell, we’re not doing a damn thing to make same-sex marriage legal”, just like old Andy Jackson did with the SCOTUS regarding the Cherokee. The Iowa Supreme Court has no “divisions”, so it cannot enforce its decrees if no one goes along.
New Use for those extra cobs from the Corn State.
What contributed to the ruling were all of the activist, leftist judges. They weren't looking for rational arguments.
This also increases the likelihood that the US will be a target of Muslim terrorism. The Muslims (correctly) see homosexuality as an abomination. They won’t take kindly to rulings like this.
Gay marriage is coming. Well, if it helps us dissolve the present corrupt union and form a smaller republic then it was a good thing.
What date should we put on the death certificate? What date did the U.S. die on?
Well, if the Iowa queers move to Michigan they will be divorced as soon as they cross the state line. We banned queer marriage and queer partnerships, or anything else of a similar nature.
Watch for people marrying their dogs, horses, etc. After all, animals deserve love, too.
The Good Lord will bring down His wrath on Iowa. Expect crop failures, floods, or locusts. God is not mocked.
Who needs the commentators at One News Now? The Freepers are more fun to observe.
I shouldn't do this but I figure what the hell.
Please don't think I'm gloating (I'm not) but when a pro-gay decision comes down, I like to go to anti-gay sites to check out their reaction.
And sites like Free Republic never disappoint me:
Two points:
1. This is scary. Unlike Massachusetts, Iowa is an agricultural breadbasket. Watch crop yields plumett now. God takes His revenge in many ways. Just ask those people burned out of their homes (or had their crops dry up from drought) in California. Russia’s crop yields plummeted too, once she became an atheistic nation in 1922.
2. The Iowa governor and legislature should tell the Iowa Supreme Court, in effect, “go to hell, we’re not doing a damn thing to make same-sex marriage legal”, just like old Andy Jackson did with the SCOTUS regarding the Cherokee. The Iowa Supreme Court has no “divisions”, so it cannot enforce its decrees if no one goes along.
New Use for those extra cobs from the Corn State.
What contributed to the ruling were all of the activist, leftist judges. They weren't looking for rational arguments.
This also increases the likelihood that the US will be a target of Muslim terrorism. The Muslims (correctly) see homosexuality as an abomination. They won’t take kindly to rulings like this.
Gay marriage is coming. Well, if it helps us dissolve the present corrupt union and form a smaller republic then it was a good thing.
What date should we put on the death certificate? What date did the U.S. die on?
Well, if the Iowa queers move to Michigan they will be divorced as soon as they cross the state line. We banned queer marriage and queer partnerships, or anything else of a similar nature.
Watch for people marrying their dogs, horses, etc. After all, animals deserve love, too.
The Good Lord will bring down His wrath on Iowa. Expect crop failures, floods, or locusts. God is not mocked.
Who needs the commentators at One News Now? The Freepers are more fun to observe.
We win in Iowa!!!!!
Guess what happened today?
Unanimous ruling: Iowa marriage no longer limited to one man, one woman
The Iowa Supreme Court this morning unanimously upheld gays’ right to marry.
“The Iowa statute limiting civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution,” the justices said in a summary of their decision.
The court rules that gay marriage would be legal in three weeks, starting April 24.
The court affirmed a Polk County District Court decision that would allow six gay couples to marry.
The ruling is viewed as a victory for the gay rights movement in Iowa and elsewhere, and a setback for social conservatives who wanted to protect traditional families.
More here
That's one point for the good side of the universe.
But let me take this time to tell you what the opposition will say. This is so that you will feel the need to ruin your good mood by logging onto sites like One News Now and Americans for Truth:
BLAH BLAH BLAH . . . Activist Judges . . . BLAH BLAH BLAH . . . Radical Homosexual Agenda . . . BLAH BLAH BLAH . . . Chocolate chip cookies . . . BLAH BLAH BLAH . . . Indoctrinating Children . . . BLAH BLAH BLAH . . . 5,000 years of marriage.
There. I have just saved you time searching through needless bullshit.
Guess what happened today?
Unanimous ruling: Iowa marriage no longer limited to one man, one woman
The Iowa Supreme Court this morning unanimously upheld gays’ right to marry.
“The Iowa statute limiting civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution,” the justices said in a summary of their decision.
The court rules that gay marriage would be legal in three weeks, starting April 24.
The court affirmed a Polk County District Court decision that would allow six gay couples to marry.
The ruling is viewed as a victory for the gay rights movement in Iowa and elsewhere, and a setback for social conservatives who wanted to protect traditional families.
More here
That's one point for the good side of the universe.
But let me take this time to tell you what the opposition will say. This is so that you will feel the need to ruin your good mood by logging onto sites like One News Now and Americans for Truth:
BLAH BLAH BLAH . . . Activist Judges . . . BLAH BLAH BLAH . . . Radical Homosexual Agenda . . . BLAH BLAH BLAH . . . Chocolate chip cookies . . . BLAH BLAH BLAH . . . Indoctrinating Children . . . BLAH BLAH BLAH . . . 5,000 years of marriage.
There. I have just saved you time searching through needless bullshit.
One News Now back on anti-gay track with weak article
While the editorial page in my state continues to bombard Sanford for his stance on stimulus money, One News Now is back on track with its verbal gay bashing:
A family advocate is encouraging parents to keep their children home during the "Day of Silence."
The Day of Silence will take place in junior and senior high schools across America on April 17. David Smith, the executive director of the Illinois Family Institute, explains what the Day of Silence is all about.
"Well, often students take a vow of silence on this day to protest perceived or real injustices against students who are homosexual, self-identify as being homosexual, bi-sexual, transgender or -- I'm sure there is another acronym out there, too -- but anyway, those students who are perceived or self-identify as that, they take a vow of silence," he says.
Smith notes schools handle the event in different ways. Some choose not to participate, some allow students to participate outside of class, while others will have teachers who participate in the classroom.
What a weak ass article. Where is the hyperbole? Where are the code words? There is only this:
"Now we object to the ones who are doing it in class, disrupting school time, because it is a tacit endorsement, an approval, of this political protest," he contends.
The family advocate encourages parents to find out if their child's school is participating in the event, and if so, to keep their children home on that day. "We're asking you to first complain about it, and then consider pulling your child out for the day," he adds. "We're calling it the 'Day of Silence Walk Out.' In fact, there is a website [called] DayOfSilenceWalkOut.org."
By pulling a child out of school for the day, Smith says the school will be hurt monetarily as well because school funds are based on a daily average attendance.
For the record, Day of Silence events generally do not disrupt school time. In past years, they have been successful with lots of students participating.
Disruptions have only come when phony "pro-family" groups have gotten in the mix and decided to raise a fuss, like Ken Hutcherson unsuccessfully tried to do last year.
My guess is that Smith and company will still try to spin success by counting all absences that day as protests against the Day of Silence.
But the odds are that despite that, the Day of Silence will be a success again this year.
While the editorial page in my state continues to bombard Sanford for his stance on stimulus money, One News Now is back on track with its verbal gay bashing:
A family advocate is encouraging parents to keep their children home during the "Day of Silence."
The Day of Silence will take place in junior and senior high schools across America on April 17. David Smith, the executive director of the Illinois Family Institute, explains what the Day of Silence is all about.
"Well, often students take a vow of silence on this day to protest perceived or real injustices against students who are homosexual, self-identify as being homosexual, bi-sexual, transgender or -- I'm sure there is another acronym out there, too -- but anyway, those students who are perceived or self-identify as that, they take a vow of silence," he says.
Smith notes schools handle the event in different ways. Some choose not to participate, some allow students to participate outside of class, while others will have teachers who participate in the classroom.
What a weak ass article. Where is the hyperbole? Where are the code words? There is only this:
"Now we object to the ones who are doing it in class, disrupting school time, because it is a tacit endorsement, an approval, of this political protest," he contends.
The family advocate encourages parents to find out if their child's school is participating in the event, and if so, to keep their children home on that day. "We're asking you to first complain about it, and then consider pulling your child out for the day," he adds. "We're calling it the 'Day of Silence Walk Out.' In fact, there is a website [called] DayOfSilenceWalkOut.org."
By pulling a child out of school for the day, Smith says the school will be hurt monetarily as well because school funds are based on a daily average attendance.
For the record, Day of Silence events generally do not disrupt school time. In past years, they have been successful with lots of students participating.
Disruptions have only come when phony "pro-family" groups have gotten in the mix and decided to raise a fuss, like Ken Hutcherson unsuccessfully tried to do last year.
My guess is that Smith and company will still try to spin success by counting all absences that day as protests against the Day of Silence.
But the odds are that despite that, the Day of Silence will be a success again this year.
Thursday, April 02, 2009
Thursday afternoon news briefs
IOWA TOMORROW - Everyone is talking about it so I figure what the hell.
Exodus Maintains Month-Long Silence Amid Ugandan Gov’t Calls For LGBT Arrests - It's not as if Exodus will take a courageous stance on this mess. If they did, I know I'm in Bizarro World.
Hate Crimes and Scare Tactics - The Washington Post calls out the Family Research Council on their lies about hate crimes legislation. And suddenly the day just got better.
Birthers form "citizen grand jury," "indict" Obama - MAKE IT STOP, PLEASE!!
IOWA TOMORROW - Everyone is talking about it so I figure what the hell.
Exodus Maintains Month-Long Silence Amid Ugandan Gov’t Calls For LGBT Arrests - It's not as if Exodus will take a courageous stance on this mess. If they did, I know I'm in Bizarro World.
Hate Crimes and Scare Tactics - The Washington Post calls out the Family Research Council on their lies about hate crimes legislation. And suddenly the day just got better.
Birthers form "citizen grand jury," "indict" Obama - MAKE IT STOP, PLEASE!!
South Carolina's main newspaper serves up 'Sanford fried chicken'
While this is not a gay issue per se, I have to point something out about the situation involving SC Governor Mark Sanford's fight against President Obama's stimulus package.
One reason is that I am resident of South Carolina and it affects me as well as every other resident of the state be they lgbt or heterosexual.
The second reason is because of what I saw on the editorial page of The State, South Carolina's main newspaper.
To put it nicely, Governor Sanford is being destroyed, annihiliated, and figuratively tarred and feathered for his stance against taking stimulus money to help education.
I don't think that I have ever seen an editorial page take such as vocal position. Other than one letter to the editor and a some comments, Sanford has absolutely NO support.
And as well he shouldn't. He was elected to be the guardian of the citizens of South Carolina. And how can you be a guardian if you choose your political future over the needs of those you are elected to serve.
The entire editorial page is here.
But I am also including a link to each editorial, column, and letter to the editor:
The state of South Carolina vs. Gov. Mark Sanford
Online Extra: Sanford driving down GOP?
Leatherman: Budgetary Armageddon
Bolton: Maybe bailouts aren’t so bad after all, governor
Clyburn: A modern-day Alice in Wonderland
Thursday’s Letters to the Editor
It's just unbelievable.
While this is not a gay issue per se, I have to point something out about the situation involving SC Governor Mark Sanford's fight against President Obama's stimulus package.
One reason is that I am resident of South Carolina and it affects me as well as every other resident of the state be they lgbt or heterosexual.
The second reason is because of what I saw on the editorial page of The State, South Carolina's main newspaper.
To put it nicely, Governor Sanford is being destroyed, annihiliated, and figuratively tarred and feathered for his stance against taking stimulus money to help education.
I don't think that I have ever seen an editorial page take such as vocal position. Other than one letter to the editor and a some comments, Sanford has absolutely NO support.
And as well he shouldn't. He was elected to be the guardian of the citizens of South Carolina. And how can you be a guardian if you choose your political future over the needs of those you are elected to serve.
The entire editorial page is here.
But I am also including a link to each editorial, column, and letter to the editor:
The state of South Carolina vs. Gov. Mark Sanford
Online Extra: Sanford driving down GOP?
Leatherman: Budgetary Armageddon
Bolton: Maybe bailouts aren’t so bad after all, governor
Clyburn: A modern-day Alice in Wonderland
Thursday’s Letters to the Editor
It's just unbelievable.
Does the religious right mean to lie on lgbts or are they just too strident?
On the Opposing Views webpage, a huge discussion is underway regarding whether or not the Illinois Family Institute (IFI) is a hate group (I posted about it earlier this week).
I am heavily into the discussion and provided several reasons as to why I feel IFI is a hate group
One commentator brought up an interesting point as an answer to my posting proof of IFI's bad research:
Your argument shows that the group has a habit of using bad data, not that they engage in hate activities. The evidence you site, if verified, only shows that they are not rigorous in their research. For the “knowingly lie” standard to apply you would have to show intent to deceive. Poor research practices do not show intent.
That is a good point. When IFI and other religious right groups cite Paul Cameron's discredited and misinterpret legitimate studies, are they doing it intentionally or are they just being so strident that they aren't aware of what they are doing?
This issue has never been addressed like it should but if you ask me, the poor research practices do say a lot about intent if a grop continues to use the inaccurate and distorted studies even after shown that said studies are wrong.
And in the piece in question that got IFI into trouble, there is somewhat an acknowledgement by Peter LaBarbera that there is a problem, although he tries to blame the alleged "radical homosexual boogeyman" for it:
Paul Cameron's work has been targeted for ridicule by homosexual activists, and he has been demonized by the Left, but this should not discount his findings.
Generally speaking, religious right groups are aware of Cameron's history. I have recounted the story of meeting former Concerned Women for America and Family Research Council veteran Robert Knight in 2004. I asked him point blank why did he cite Cameron's work even after knowing of his history for lying.
Knight's words to be were: “Yes we have used his research. So what?”
Knight, by the way, lashed out at Massachusetts pediatrician Robert Garofalo in 1998 when Garofalo complained that CWA and other religious right groups were distorting his work. Knight (who has never done any work in the field of pediatrics) called Garofalo a "thrall of political correctness." (Boston doctor says ads distorted his work on gays, The Boston Globe, August 4, 1998)
The problem is that no one has legitimately put them on the spot about it.
On the Opposing Views webpage, a huge discussion is underway regarding whether or not the Illinois Family Institute (IFI) is a hate group (I posted about it earlier this week).
I am heavily into the discussion and provided several reasons as to why I feel IFI is a hate group
One commentator brought up an interesting point as an answer to my posting proof of IFI's bad research:
Your argument shows that the group has a habit of using bad data, not that they engage in hate activities. The evidence you site, if verified, only shows that they are not rigorous in their research. For the “knowingly lie” standard to apply you would have to show intent to deceive. Poor research practices do not show intent.
That is a good point. When IFI and other religious right groups cite Paul Cameron's discredited and misinterpret legitimate studies, are they doing it intentionally or are they just being so strident that they aren't aware of what they are doing?
This issue has never been addressed like it should but if you ask me, the poor research practices do say a lot about intent if a grop continues to use the inaccurate and distorted studies even after shown that said studies are wrong.
And in the piece in question that got IFI into trouble, there is somewhat an acknowledgement by Peter LaBarbera that there is a problem, although he tries to blame the alleged "radical homosexual boogeyman" for it:
Paul Cameron's work has been targeted for ridicule by homosexual activists, and he has been demonized by the Left, but this should not discount his findings.
Generally speaking, religious right groups are aware of Cameron's history. I have recounted the story of meeting former Concerned Women for America and Family Research Council veteran Robert Knight in 2004. I asked him point blank why did he cite Cameron's work even after knowing of his history for lying.
Knight's words to be were: “Yes we have used his research. So what?”
Knight, by the way, lashed out at Massachusetts pediatrician Robert Garofalo in 1998 when Garofalo complained that CWA and other religious right groups were distorting his work. Knight (who has never done any work in the field of pediatrics) called Garofalo a "thrall of political correctness." (Boston doctor says ads distorted his work on gays, The Boston Globe, August 4, 1998)
Garofalo's work, by the way, is still being distorted by the Family Research Council.
And then there is this situation:
In 2002, Micah Clark, then the executive director of the American Family Association of Indiana, spoke in front of the Indianapolis City Council in order to get them to reject domestic partners health benefi ts for city employees. He quoted a Cameron statistic and was grilled on it by a council member.
This is what he said happened:
“The author of the (domestic partner benefit) bill . . . tried to come at me for using a Paul Cameron study. I diverted that one pretty well by pointing out that I have spoken with Dr. Paul Cameron and her information was wrong. In any event, I said it was published in a well respected peer review journal and the research has not been disproved. I have been waiting for that one for years.” (Indianapolis Rejects Domestic Partner Benefits, Concerned Women for America, August 8, 2002)
The problem is that no one has legitimately put them on the spot about it.
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
Wednesday night news briefs
I can't always be the loud, vivacious Truman Capote/Sherlock Holmes wannabe. So allow me to present various newsbriefs and articles about things that you may or may not be aware of:
Michigan ruling protects kids adopted by gays - I love these slow steps forward. They can never hurt. Big props to Detroit News' Deb Price for covering lgbt issues the way she does.
The Base That Cried Wolf - I was wondering where that crazy Matt Barber was. I haven't seen him since I smacked down his ridiculous points on lgbt parenting.
Colbert mocks Glenn Beck's crybaby patriotism, mercilessly - Okay this is not necessarily an lgbt issue but it's too good not to share. From my buddies and Americablog, a denunciation of Glenn (we surround them - what the hell does that mean anyway) Beck.
EHarmony launches gay matchmaking service - I love it when we win lawsuits. I wonder if EHarmony can find me a harem?
I can't always be the loud, vivacious Truman Capote/Sherlock Holmes wannabe. So allow me to present various newsbriefs and articles about things that you may or may not be aware of:
Michigan ruling protects kids adopted by gays - I love these slow steps forward. They can never hurt. Big props to Detroit News' Deb Price for covering lgbt issues the way she does.
The Base That Cried Wolf - I was wondering where that crazy Matt Barber was. I haven't seen him since I smacked down his ridiculous points on lgbt parenting.
Colbert mocks Glenn Beck's crybaby patriotism, mercilessly - Okay this is not necessarily an lgbt issue but it's too good not to share. From my buddies and Americablog, a denunciation of Glenn (we surround them - what the hell does that mean anyway) Beck.
EHarmony launches gay matchmaking service - I love it when we win lawsuits. I wonder if EHarmony can find me a harem?
American Family Association wants us all to 'teabag'
My fellow lgbt brothers and sisters, we seem to be getting replaced.
In the past few days, American Family Association's One News Now has written very little slanted articles against us.
What gives? I always looked forward to reading about the newest diabolical plot we have thought up to take over American society. If it weren't for these articles, I would never know what's going on. National headquarters still has not sent me the "Radical Homosexual Agenda" manual. They claim it was lost in the mail but I still think it's a racial issue.
It appears that a lot of One News Now's attention seems to be devoted to undermining President Obama. The American Family Association in general has focused on supporting teabagging parties.
For the benefit of those who don't know, some conservatives around the country have been holding teabagging parties where a lot of them gather together in a public place and hold up signs blaming President Obama for various things (the country's economic situation, Paula Abdul's behavior on American Idol, the destruction of Atlantis, etc.).
This is supposed to culminate with folks mailing tea bags to the White House, or something like that.
These protesters want to channel the spirit and spontaneity of the Boston Tea Party and the protests of the 1960s, but if you ask me, it's not working out all that well.
Not only is the entire thing too coordinated but I wonder about the intelligence a few of the participants. I mean if you are carrying a sign calling President Obama a "socialist," you should spell the word correctly.
Otherwise, you are only proving President Obama's point about more money being needed for education (i.e. his stimulus package.)
And the worst thing about the entire situation is the verbiage. I mean isn't teabagging a sexual term (look it up, you perverts)?
With that in mind, it brings a nice feeling to my mind whenever I say "the American Family Association supports teabagging."
Still it stands to reason that if some of these protestors actually teabagged in the appropriate sense, we wouldn't have to hear from them. And maybe some of them wouldn't be so uptight.
But I doubt it. These are some of the same people who think that President Obama was created in a Kenyan laboratory using the DNA of history's most evil dictators (or is that the plot of some G.I. Joe cartoon).
At any rate, we lgbts need to get on the ball if we are to make it back to the top of the American Family Association's list of phony moral panics created to scare the hell out of Christians.
I wonder if our operative, Sponge Bob Square Pants is busy?
My fellow lgbt brothers and sisters, we seem to be getting replaced.
In the past few days, American Family Association's One News Now has written very little slanted articles against us.
What gives? I always looked forward to reading about the newest diabolical plot we have thought up to take over American society. If it weren't for these articles, I would never know what's going on. National headquarters still has not sent me the "Radical Homosexual Agenda" manual. They claim it was lost in the mail but I still think it's a racial issue.
It appears that a lot of One News Now's attention seems to be devoted to undermining President Obama. The American Family Association in general has focused on supporting teabagging parties.
For the benefit of those who don't know, some conservatives around the country have been holding teabagging parties where a lot of them gather together in a public place and hold up signs blaming President Obama for various things (the country's economic situation, Paula Abdul's behavior on American Idol, the destruction of Atlantis, etc.).
This is supposed to culminate with folks mailing tea bags to the White House, or something like that.
These protesters want to channel the spirit and spontaneity of the Boston Tea Party and the protests of the 1960s, but if you ask me, it's not working out all that well.
Not only is the entire thing too coordinated but I wonder about the intelligence a few of the participants. I mean if you are carrying a sign calling President Obama a "socialist," you should spell the word correctly.
Otherwise, you are only proving President Obama's point about more money being needed for education (i.e. his stimulus package.)
And the worst thing about the entire situation is the verbiage. I mean isn't teabagging a sexual term (look it up, you perverts)?
With that in mind, it brings a nice feeling to my mind whenever I say "the American Family Association supports teabagging."
Still it stands to reason that if some of these protestors actually teabagged in the appropriate sense, we wouldn't have to hear from them. And maybe some of them wouldn't be so uptight.
But I doubt it. These are some of the same people who think that President Obama was created in a Kenyan laboratory using the DNA of history's most evil dictators (or is that the plot of some G.I. Joe cartoon).
At any rate, we lgbts need to get on the ball if we are to make it back to the top of the American Family Association's list of phony moral panics created to scare the hell out of Christians.
I wonder if our operative, Sponge Bob Square Pants is busy?
A lie about hate crimes legislation courtesy of the Family Research Council
I wish the following batch of lies were an April Fools Day joke:
Please help FRC Action persuade conservatives and centrist Democrats in the Congress to stop a proposed federal "hate crimes" law that could lead to the criminalization of the biblical view of homosexuality in sermons and elsewhere.
. . . Many members of Congress are simply unaware of how dangerous the proposed "hate crimes" law is. FRC Action will warn them that this could lead to simple expressions of religious faith-including sermons and radio broadcasts-being prosecuted as "hate."
. . . A "hate crimes" law is really a "thought crime" law that punishes a person's beliefs-part of the Left's intolerant agenda to silence the voice of Christians and Conservatives in America and eliminate moral restraint.
How would it happen?
A federal "hate crimes" law prohibiting "bodily injury" could be construed by many law enforcement officials and judges to include words that inflict emotional or psychological distress.
That means an "offended" homosexual could accuse a religious broadcaster . . . a pastor . . . Sunday School teacher . . . or other individual of causing emotional injury simply by expressing the biblical view that homosexual behavior is morally wrong and unhealthy.
This abbreviated message came to me courtesy of a Family Research Council (FRC) email. I guess them refusing to take me off of their list is revenge for my report last year on their inaccurate studies.
This lie about hate crimes legislation has been refuted many times but one more time won't hurt.
Hate crimes legislation covers action, not words. Unless those words are expressly telling someone to physically harm someone else. That means that a pastor or Sunday School teacher is in no danger of getting arrested for stating a belief that homosexuality is a sin.
The pastor or Sunday School teacher would be in dangers of getting arrested if he or she expressly tells someone to physically harm gays or lesbians.
Hate crimes laws already exists in cases of race and religion. All this new legislation would do is add sexual orientation to the list of categories. This means if (and let's hope this never happens), a heterosexual man is attacked by a group of gay men for his orientation, those gay men could be prosecuted under hate crimes legislation.
I was surprised that FRC did not include any of those inaccurate anecdotes (i.e. incidents that happened in foreign countries, etc.) that usually lends an aura of phony immediacy to its ramblings.
But this constant lying about hate crimes legislation is a classic example of a "headless monsters," or an idea that, despite being refuted consistently, continues to be repeated as fact. This happens generally because the people repeating the lie is either ignorant of the truth or will ignore the truth because it doesn't suit their purposes.
I'll let you guess which category the FRC falls under.
I wish the following batch of lies were an April Fools Day joke:
Please help FRC Action persuade conservatives and centrist Democrats in the Congress to stop a proposed federal "hate crimes" law that could lead to the criminalization of the biblical view of homosexuality in sermons and elsewhere.
. . . Many members of Congress are simply unaware of how dangerous the proposed "hate crimes" law is. FRC Action will warn them that this could lead to simple expressions of religious faith-including sermons and radio broadcasts-being prosecuted as "hate."
. . . A "hate crimes" law is really a "thought crime" law that punishes a person's beliefs-part of the Left's intolerant agenda to silence the voice of Christians and Conservatives in America and eliminate moral restraint.
How would it happen?
A federal "hate crimes" law prohibiting "bodily injury" could be construed by many law enforcement officials and judges to include words that inflict emotional or psychological distress.
That means an "offended" homosexual could accuse a religious broadcaster . . . a pastor . . . Sunday School teacher . . . or other individual of causing emotional injury simply by expressing the biblical view that homosexual behavior is morally wrong and unhealthy.
This abbreviated message came to me courtesy of a Family Research Council (FRC) email. I guess them refusing to take me off of their list is revenge for my report last year on their inaccurate studies.
This lie about hate crimes legislation has been refuted many times but one more time won't hurt.
Hate crimes legislation covers action, not words. Unless those words are expressly telling someone to physically harm someone else. That means that a pastor or Sunday School teacher is in no danger of getting arrested for stating a belief that homosexuality is a sin.
The pastor or Sunday School teacher would be in dangers of getting arrested if he or she expressly tells someone to physically harm gays or lesbians.
Hate crimes laws already exists in cases of race and religion. All this new legislation would do is add sexual orientation to the list of categories. This means if (and let's hope this never happens), a heterosexual man is attacked by a group of gay men for his orientation, those gay men could be prosecuted under hate crimes legislation.
I was surprised that FRC did not include any of those inaccurate anecdotes (i.e. incidents that happened in foreign countries, etc.) that usually lends an aura of phony immediacy to its ramblings.
But this constant lying about hate crimes legislation is a classic example of a "headless monsters," or an idea that, despite being refuted consistently, continues to be repeated as fact. This happens generally because the people repeating the lie is either ignorant of the truth or will ignore the truth because it doesn't suit their purposes.
I'll let you guess which category the FRC falls under.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Concerned Women for America's slanted poll makes me crazy
According to People for the American Way's Right Wing Watch, Concerned Women for American sent a survey to its members asking their opinions on the so-called "impact of the radical homosexual agenda in public schools."
You have to see these questions. They are unbelievable. Allow me to add some degree of editorialization (is that even a word) after each question:
1. Do you support teaching children in grades as early as kindergarten that cross-dressing is acceptable?
No. Children should learn to cross-dress before entering kindergarten.
2. What kind of impact do you believe this kind of teaching would have on young children? .
It would teach them how to properly accessorize.
3. Do you believe school children as young as 13 should be exposed to explicit, detailed discussions and instructions on homosexual practices (including sodomy) as are being conducted by homosexual teachers and activists right now?
That's not even necessary. Just make watching High School Musical mandatory. You'll get the same results.
4. What kind of impact do you believe this kind of instruction would have on young children?
They are sure to pay attention in class. Get them to take notes.
5. Do you believe the increase of homosexual experimentation among teens is related to presentation of pro-"gay" instruction in the classroom?
By homosexual experimentation, I'm guessing CWA means lip synching a Christina Aguilera song.
6. Is it possible for the radical homosexual agenda to succeed in achieving its overriding goal of changing the moral character of our young people and the moral landscape of our nation through our schools?
I'm guessing they mean as opposed to the "normal homosexual agenda." And I don't know what that is because national headquarters has yet to send me the manual. I think it's a racial thing.
7. What impact would this have on our nation and the next generation leading it?
No one will be wearing white after Labor Day.
8. Do you agree that instruction in some classrooms is a blatant push to unashamedly promote and encourage the homosexual lifestyle and ultimately force "gay marriage" on the American public?
That's right - we want everyone in a gay marriage. I am personally overseeing the committee to put Jack Black, Abraham Benrubi, Seth Rogen, Jonah Hill, and Mike White in a polygamous marriage with myself. Call me boys - you either come to my house peacefully or else.
9. Do you feel instilling positive views of homosexuality in schools will result in America accepting same-sex "marriages"?
I sincerely hope so. Mother is hoping that I snag either a doctor or a lawyer.
10. Do you agree that homosexual "marriage" is as valid as traditional marriage, as is being taught in some school districts?
Who cares. As long as no one laughs at me for wearing white at MY wedding.
11. What impact on traditional marriage do you believe this kind of classroom instruction will have in the future?
Who cares. As long as no one laughs at me for wearing white at MY wedding. (Yes I repeated it!)
12. Do you support laws requiring schools to obtain parents' permission before their child is exposed to information of a homosexual nature?
Where the hell were you people when I had to read the Razor's Edge by gay author Somerset Maugham? Or when I was forced to watch that Strawberry Shortcake cartoon in grade school? That Peculiar Purple Pie Man of Porcupine Peak was a little TOO peculiar.
13. What impact on traditional marriage do you believe homosexual teaching would have in the future?
Not knowing who has to pay for the wedding.
14. Are you will to take a moral stand against pro-homosexual classroom curriculum by taking grassroots action against the organizations who promote it?
I would rather take an immoral stand. It's much more fun but you gotta make sure you destroy all of the pictures.
15. Will you help Concerned Women for America as we stand strong for Biblical principles and against the radical homosexual agenda in our schools?
Sure. Bend over. I hope you like fillet of sole.
I'm sorry if I am taking this too lightly. It's not even frustrating anymore when I read stuff like this. Not only is the poll slanted, but it's chock full of biases, code words (i.e. "pro-gay instruction"), and presents the lgbt community in the worst possible light.
To the CWA, we aren't people with feelings and emotions who care about family and country. To them, we are an entity out of some bad science fiction movie constantly plotting to seduce childen and take over America while having lots of wild sex in our leisure time (and trust me when I say that last point is a blatant lie).
I won't even tell you how the CWA members who responded to the poll answered the questions. I will let you guess.
However, according to Right Wing Watch, CWA said that a small percentage of its members responded at all.
I guess that means even right-wing conservative Christians get embarrassed now and then.
According to People for the American Way's Right Wing Watch, Concerned Women for American sent a survey to its members asking their opinions on the so-called "impact of the radical homosexual agenda in public schools."
You have to see these questions. They are unbelievable. Allow me to add some degree of editorialization (is that even a word) after each question:
1. Do you support teaching children in grades as early as kindergarten that cross-dressing is acceptable?
No. Children should learn to cross-dress before entering kindergarten.
2. What kind of impact do you believe this kind of teaching would have on young children? .
It would teach them how to properly accessorize.
3. Do you believe school children as young as 13 should be exposed to explicit, detailed discussions and instructions on homosexual practices (including sodomy) as are being conducted by homosexual teachers and activists right now?
That's not even necessary. Just make watching High School Musical mandatory. You'll get the same results.
4. What kind of impact do you believe this kind of instruction would have on young children?
They are sure to pay attention in class. Get them to take notes.
5. Do you believe the increase of homosexual experimentation among teens is related to presentation of pro-"gay" instruction in the classroom?
By homosexual experimentation, I'm guessing CWA means lip synching a Christina Aguilera song.
6. Is it possible for the radical homosexual agenda to succeed in achieving its overriding goal of changing the moral character of our young people and the moral landscape of our nation through our schools?
I'm guessing they mean as opposed to the "normal homosexual agenda." And I don't know what that is because national headquarters has yet to send me the manual. I think it's a racial thing.
7. What impact would this have on our nation and the next generation leading it?
No one will be wearing white after Labor Day.
8. Do you agree that instruction in some classrooms is a blatant push to unashamedly promote and encourage the homosexual lifestyle and ultimately force "gay marriage" on the American public?
That's right - we want everyone in a gay marriage. I am personally overseeing the committee to put Jack Black, Abraham Benrubi, Seth Rogen, Jonah Hill, and Mike White in a polygamous marriage with myself. Call me boys - you either come to my house peacefully or else.
9. Do you feel instilling positive views of homosexuality in schools will result in America accepting same-sex "marriages"?
I sincerely hope so. Mother is hoping that I snag either a doctor or a lawyer.
10. Do you agree that homosexual "marriage" is as valid as traditional marriage, as is being taught in some school districts?
Who cares. As long as no one laughs at me for wearing white at MY wedding.
11. What impact on traditional marriage do you believe this kind of classroom instruction will have in the future?
Who cares. As long as no one laughs at me for wearing white at MY wedding. (Yes I repeated it!)
12. Do you support laws requiring schools to obtain parents' permission before their child is exposed to information of a homosexual nature?
Where the hell were you people when I had to read the Razor's Edge by gay author Somerset Maugham? Or when I was forced to watch that Strawberry Shortcake cartoon in grade school? That Peculiar Purple Pie Man of Porcupine Peak was a little TOO peculiar.
13. What impact on traditional marriage do you believe homosexual teaching would have in the future?
Not knowing who has to pay for the wedding.
14. Are you will to take a moral stand against pro-homosexual classroom curriculum by taking grassroots action against the organizations who promote it?
I would rather take an immoral stand. It's much more fun but you gotta make sure you destroy all of the pictures.
15. Will you help Concerned Women for America as we stand strong for Biblical principles and against the radical homosexual agenda in our schools?
Sure. Bend over. I hope you like fillet of sole.
I'm sorry if I am taking this too lightly. It's not even frustrating anymore when I read stuff like this. Not only is the poll slanted, but it's chock full of biases, code words (i.e. "pro-gay instruction"), and presents the lgbt community in the worst possible light.
To the CWA, we aren't people with feelings and emotions who care about family and country. To them, we are an entity out of some bad science fiction movie constantly plotting to seduce childen and take over America while having lots of wild sex in our leisure time (and trust me when I say that last point is a blatant lie).
I won't even tell you how the CWA members who responded to the poll answered the questions. I will let you guess.
However, according to Right Wing Watch, CWA said that a small percentage of its members responded at all.
I guess that means even right-wing conservative Christians get embarrassed now and then.
The Traditional Values Coalition - THAT is a hate group
I love it when those who oppose us help our cause with their insane rhetoric.
And when it comes to insane rhetoric, very few can beat the California group the Traditional Values Coalition and its founder Lou Sheldon.
Sheldon loves denigrating lgbts and we love him for it because he blows the "we only oppose the homosexual agenda because we love them" bullshit right out of the window. Witness his behavior at a conference in 2006:
Still, none of the panelists delivered as bombastic a screed as the Rev. Lou Sheldon, head of the hard-line anti-gay group Traditional Values Coalition. Sheldon demanded laws that treat homosexuality as "a social disorder." Decrying the term "homosexual" as the brainchild of a 20th-century German psychologist obviously sympathetic to gays, Sheldon implored the conferees to return to the 18th century's superior diction. "The word used in America [then] was 'perverted'," he noted. When Sheldon was asked by an audience member what to call homosexuals, he shot out of his chair and shouted, "Call them what they are -- sodomites!"
Well today, Sheldon and company are all upset over the possibility that the policy on gays in the military (Don't Ask, Don't Tell) may be overturned via a bill by Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher.
According to TVC:
The legislation will add “sexual orientation” to the law. It is defined in H.R. 1283 as “heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality, whether the orientation is real or perceived, and includes statements and consensual sexual conduct manifesting heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.” This will open up the possibility that every sexual orientation could be legalized in the military! This will include cross-dressing and transsexualism.
Personally if this is true (and it isn't), it's not a bad thing. Have any of you ever seen a drag queen pageant? Talk about your vicious fighters.
TVC also says:
The legalization of sodomy in the military will also reduce the numbers of men and women who will enlist in the service. A Military Times poll of active-duty personnel revealed that 58% of them oppose repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” A 2008 poll found that if the law is repealed, 10% of the respondents would not reenlist and 14% said they would consider ending their careers.
Of course the organization conveniently forgets to mention that the objectivity of that poll was challenged.
According to a legitimate poll conducted last year:
Seventy-five percent of Americans in a new Washington Post-ABC News poll said gay people who are open about their sexual orientation should be allowed to serve in the U.S. military, up from 62 percent in early 2001 and 44 percent in 1993.
Then comes the most hilarious line of the piece:
How will the military handle sodomy in battlefield situations?
Oh yeah. Bombs and guns firing all around. Bodies getting blown to pieces. The stench of death in the air and if gays were involved, all we would be worried about is having sex.
What did TVC do? Rent a copy of that movie Saving Private Ryan's Ass?
The claim is stupid. But it's not the dumbest claim in the piece. That award belongs to this:
The passage of H.R. 1283 is a recipe for disaster in the military – and our national security will be jeopardized by permitting homosexuals, drag queens and others with bizarre sex habits to serve openly in the Armed Forces.
First of all, gays have already been in not only the American military but militaries throughout history. And we kicked some serious ass. From Alexander the Great to Augustus Caesar to Richard I of the England to Fredrick Von Steuben, we gays have done pretty well for ourselves in military situations.
And that line about drag queens is so ridiculous that it doesn't even deserve attacking. But personally, I still say an army of drag queens can't hurt.
All Bush would have had to do was to tell them that a crown was in one of those caves in Baghdad.
And they would have found Osama Bin Laden, Amelia Earhart, Judge Crater, Jimmy Hoffa, etc., etc.
Okay that was a bad joke, but I think you get the point.
Sometimes we get angry when people like Sheldon and TVC denigrate us. But this is one of those times when you have to ask yourself why get angry at your enemy when he freely cuts his own throat.
I love it when those who oppose us help our cause with their insane rhetoric.
And when it comes to insane rhetoric, very few can beat the California group the Traditional Values Coalition and its founder Lou Sheldon.
Sheldon loves denigrating lgbts and we love him for it because he blows the "we only oppose the homosexual agenda because we love them" bullshit right out of the window. Witness his behavior at a conference in 2006:
Still, none of the panelists delivered as bombastic a screed as the Rev. Lou Sheldon, head of the hard-line anti-gay group Traditional Values Coalition. Sheldon demanded laws that treat homosexuality as "a social disorder." Decrying the term "homosexual" as the brainchild of a 20th-century German psychologist obviously sympathetic to gays, Sheldon implored the conferees to return to the 18th century's superior diction. "The word used in America [then] was 'perverted'," he noted. When Sheldon was asked by an audience member what to call homosexuals, he shot out of his chair and shouted, "Call them what they are -- sodomites!"
Well today, Sheldon and company are all upset over the possibility that the policy on gays in the military (Don't Ask, Don't Tell) may be overturned via a bill by Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher.
According to TVC:
The legislation will add “sexual orientation” to the law. It is defined in H.R. 1283 as “heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality, whether the orientation is real or perceived, and includes statements and consensual sexual conduct manifesting heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.” This will open up the possibility that every sexual orientation could be legalized in the military! This will include cross-dressing and transsexualism.
Personally if this is true (and it isn't), it's not a bad thing. Have any of you ever seen a drag queen pageant? Talk about your vicious fighters.
TVC also says:
The legalization of sodomy in the military will also reduce the numbers of men and women who will enlist in the service. A Military Times poll of active-duty personnel revealed that 58% of them oppose repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” A 2008 poll found that if the law is repealed, 10% of the respondents would not reenlist and 14% said they would consider ending their careers.
Of course the organization conveniently forgets to mention that the objectivity of that poll was challenged.
According to a legitimate poll conducted last year:
Seventy-five percent of Americans in a new Washington Post-ABC News poll said gay people who are open about their sexual orientation should be allowed to serve in the U.S. military, up from 62 percent in early 2001 and 44 percent in 1993.
Then comes the most hilarious line of the piece:
How will the military handle sodomy in battlefield situations?
Oh yeah. Bombs and guns firing all around. Bodies getting blown to pieces. The stench of death in the air and if gays were involved, all we would be worried about is having sex.
What did TVC do? Rent a copy of that movie Saving Private Ryan's Ass?
The claim is stupid. But it's not the dumbest claim in the piece. That award belongs to this:
The passage of H.R. 1283 is a recipe for disaster in the military – and our national security will be jeopardized by permitting homosexuals, drag queens and others with bizarre sex habits to serve openly in the Armed Forces.
First of all, gays have already been in not only the American military but militaries throughout history. And we kicked some serious ass. From Alexander the Great to Augustus Caesar to Richard I of the England to Fredrick Von Steuben, we gays have done pretty well for ourselves in military situations.
And that line about drag queens is so ridiculous that it doesn't even deserve attacking. But personally, I still say an army of drag queens can't hurt.
All Bush would have had to do was to tell them that a crown was in one of those caves in Baghdad.
And they would have found Osama Bin Laden, Amelia Earhart, Judge Crater, Jimmy Hoffa, etc., etc.
Okay that was a bad joke, but I think you get the point.
Sometimes we get angry when people like Sheldon and TVC denigrate us. But this is one of those times when you have to ask yourself why get angry at your enemy when he freely cuts his own throat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)