Ice Cream 2

Melissa Etheridge shares her Grammy Award-Winning opinion with us, via The Huffington Post:

The Choice Is Ours Now

Mellissa Etheridge : I hadn't heard of Pastor Rick Warren before all of this. When I heard the news, in its neat little sound bite form that we are so accustomed to, it painted the picture for me. This Pastor Rick must surely be one hate spouting, money grabbing, bad hair televangelist like all the others. He probably has his own gay little secret bathroom stall somewhere, you know. One more hater working up his congregation to hate the gays, comparing us to pedophiles and those who commit incest, blah blah blah. Same 'ole thing. Would I be boycotting the inauguration? Would we be marching again?

That’s so funny, because HE DID compare us to pedophiles and "those who commit incest."

Mellissa Etheridge: He believed every loving relationship should have equal protection. He struggled with proposition 8 because he didn't want to see marriage redefined as anything other than between a man and a woman. He said he regretted his choice of words in his video message to his congregation about proposition 8 when he mentioned pedophiles and those who commit incest. He said that in no way, is that how he thought about gays.

Oh poor baby. Waahhh, waahhh! that poor little thing for having to bear the burden of his anti-gay message being taken -- of all things -- as anti-gay!

Tell us Etheridge, has he made a video message to his congregation about those “regretted choice of words,” in the effort to correct the situation?

Did he say whether he regretted his choice of words in this interview as well?:

Rick Warren: The issue to me, I’m not opposed to that as much as I’m opposed to redefinition of a 5,000 year definition of marriage. I’m opposed to having a brother and sister being together and calling that marriage. I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that marriage. I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.

Steven Waldman: Do you think those are equivalent to gays getting married?

Rick Warren: Oh , I do.

Incest? Did you happen to ask him whether his 5,000 year old “definition of marriage” includes the incest that occurred in Adam and Eve’s family?

Or whether or not arranged marriages and women being treated as, and considered property, was just some sort of anomaly during that 5,000 year period?

How about his implied notion that being same-sex attracted is somehow the equivalent of being fundamentally attracted to ones family members?

Or his unspoken assertion that child rape is the same as a consensual adult same-gender relationship?

Or about the disconnect between what he told you about what he told his congregation, and what he told Ann Curry and Steven Waldman?

Mellissa Etheridge: He explained in very thoughtful words that as a Christian he believed in equal rights for everyone. He believed every loving relationship should have equal protection.

How touching, makes me fell all warm and asbestosy...

From Talk To Action:

Dr [Rick] Warren said that homosexuality is not a natural way of life and thus not a human right. "We shall not tolerate this aspect at all," Dr Warren said.

Did he also happen to express regret over that choice of words?

Or the context it was said in?:

Warren was speaking in support of Ugandan Anglicans who intend to boycott the forthcoming Lambeth Conference, and this harsh rejection of tolerance for gays and lesbians may have serious consequences in a country where homosexuals face harrassment and and the threat of imprisonment.

Or this:

Steven Waldman: One controversial moment for you in the last election was your support for proposition 8 in California. … Just to clarify, do you support civil unions or domestic partnerships?

Rick Warren: I don’t know if I’d use the term there but I support full equal rights for everybody in America. I don’t believe we should have unequal rights depending on particular lifestyles so I fully support equal rights.

[Clarification from Pastor Warren 12/15: I now see you asked about civil UNIONS -and I responded by talking about civil RIGHTS. Sorry. They are two different issues. No American should ever be discriminated against because of their beliefs. Period. But a civil union is not a civil right. Nowhere in the constitution can you find the “right” to claim that any loving relationship identical to marriage. It’s just not there. ]

Did you hear that, Etheridge? What he meant by “equal rights,” and “equal protection,” was that everyone has the equal right to not be protected!

And this:

Ann Curry: You're saying if it's part of your biology, it's your job to struggle against it if, in fact, it's the wrong--

Rick Warren: Well, here what I'm saying. I've had many gay friends tell me, "Well, Rick, why shouldn't I have multiple sexual partners? It's the natural thing to do." Well, just because it seems natural doesn't mean it's best for you or society. I'm naturally inclined to have sex with every beautiful woman I see. But that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. And why should I reign in my natural impulses and you say, "Well, because I have natural impulses towards the same sex, I shouldn't have to reign them in." Well, I disagree. I think that's part of maturity. I think it's part of delayed gratification. I think it's part of character.

Got that Missy? The natural inclination you have for a partner, is exactly the same as Rick Warren’s natural inclination TO FUCK AROUND ON his partner!

Listen, if you want to try and reach him, be my guest, but don’t you dare minimize the consequential effluent that streams from that man’s mouth.

And Huffington Post, STOP GIVING HER A PLATFORM!
___
Update: OMG, check this out:
Liar, Liar, Pants On Fire, Rick Warren Edition
___
h/t NG

Curtis, A Commenter at Box Turtle Bulletin.

The simple BTB article is here.

And this is the comment in question (bold mine):

Curtis
December 22nd, 2008 LINK
Hello,

Would you consider as an enemy or anti-gay activist anyone who in their honest conscious seeing something wrong of gay parents adopting children?
Humans are entitled to recognize bad vices in our society without the fear of unfair attacks and criticism. Do you feel so?
Why do we get the feeling that homosexuals count as friends those who wholly support their agenda without troubling questions? Yet they are ready defend themselves against likely innocent people who wish to voice their concerns.
I am certain you may not approve what was written on my blog recently about the gay lifestyle. But like others I reserve the right to alert others if there is a dangerous scent of poison gas before they are harmed by it.
I can understand how much gay advocates wish to harm themselves for their sexual gratification. But should others suffer such as young children to impress approval for your life choice? We see problems many gay individuals wish to ignore. And they consent others to join in with them toward their undoing. How could this ever be fair?

An Observant Human

Fellow commenters David C. and Rick, carefully and effectively addressed what was raised in Curtis' comment.

I would like to address what was said in his blog post, re:

I am certain you may not approve what was written on my blog recently about the gay lifestyle.

Curtis, you write very thoughtfully.

What a waste.

That said, there are some seriously classic lines in that article:

Therefore it is not my intention to remind people of what unclean or abnormal practices constituting homosexuality.

Daily these young persons could get unpleasant reminders of their ‘parents’ non-normal relationship.

But wait, we also get:

Website, Children Of Homosexual Parents Report Childhood Difficulties: http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_homokids.html

Website, Homosexual Parenting Studies Are Flawed, Report Says: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,29901,00.html

That first link goes to a Paul Cameron article (read about Paul Cameron here), and the second one is from 2001, and is used by Curtis to assert that gay parenting is inherently worse than straight parenting.

Judith Stacey is quoted, and she and her colleague Timothy Biblarz' research is cited extensively.

Judith Stacey is also a staunch advocate of gay parenting, and has spoken out about the MISUSE of her research:

http://www.respectmyresearch.org/Judith_Stacy.html

Transcript of [Soulforce] Press Teleconference on LGBT Parenting Research
--
And then Curtis awards us with this irresistible little trophy:

Homosexual couples were given legal rights to adopt or have children via science. The children of those couples may often not be given choice of this arrangement. If a child is given permission to freely express his disapproval. Would the lead parent honor his feelings? And not force the child to accept an arrangement that could be adversely affecting his or her conscience? Yes I am wondering if the gay mother or father love their children enough to then forsake their homosexual lifestyle. What a lifetime story that would be for television movie. Rather than for me to go any further into that matter let’s consider the gay peoples’ decision not to work on December 10Th.

Good luck on your next lifetime, Curtis, bouncing from orphanage to orphanage to orphanage to orphanage...

Soulforce's Jeff Lutes gives further insight into the mind of Rick Warren.

Via the Bilerico Project

That Weird Hug from Rick Warren
December 19, 2008 10:00 AM

Editors' Note: Guest blogger Jeff Lutes is the Executive Director of Soulforce, a national civil rights and social justice organization dedicated to freedom for LGBT people through nonviolent direct action.

The beginning of that Jeff Lutes article:

In December of the previous year, I wrote a letter to Warren outlining my plan to bring a group of gay and lesbian couples, and their children, to visit his Saddleback Church over Father's Day weekend. I expressed our intent to attend worship on Sunday, and my hope that he and some families in his congregation would share a meal with us in an effort to reach beyond our differences and focus instead on the commonalities we share as parents and people of faith. In due course, I began a series of phone conversations with Warren's chief of staff. Over the next several weeks, we agreed that eight of our families would eat lunch on June 16 with Warren, his wife Kay, and six of their staff members. After the family meal, eight people from our group would then convene for a 90 minute conversation with Warren, his wife, and the six other church leaders. Here's where it gets interesting.

And it does get interesting from there...

Ray Boltz: Singer, songwriter...Christian

Don't Tell Me Who To Love


___
http://rayboltzblog.wordpress.com/

2 things, not connected

State's hypocrisy on gay adoptions could tear apart this family

This is not about what's best for kids. It's a political agenda by people who consider homosexuals sinful deviants. And the image of gays living in stable relationships, driving minivans, and caring for damaged children undercuts their cause and their moral superiority.
~~~Vatican & Pope Benedict XVI Side With Hate & Bigotry

Actions tell us a lot more about what a person really believes than their words do. A person who really doesn't want gays to be executed or thrown in jail will join the call to decriminalize homosexuality, including putting pressure on governments to eliminate their laws against homosexuality which cause gays to be executed or put in prison. A person who opposes efforts to decriminalize homosexuality and then gives lame, unbelievable reasons for this, is not someone who genuinely doesn't want gays to be executed or thrown in jail. The words and actions don't match, and since actions are more reflective of what the person really believes, then the words must be treated as false.

The only truth in Federico Lombardi's words above is his statement that the Holy See is not alone — more specifically, not alone in supporting hate, violence, and bigotry against gays over basic human rights for gays. That, however, is hardly a defense or justification. If the best a person has to offer is to point out that they aren't the only ones who believe and act in this manner, then it's a tacit admission that they have no genuine logical, empirical, or moral arguments to offer in their defense. If they had good arguments, then the number of people who agreed with them would be irrelevant. Truth does not depend on being in the majority position.

Ice Cream

By John Corvino, columnist, 365gay.com
12.12.2008

Friends with the enemy

(Nice thought, eh?)

Glenn Stanton is a friend of mine. He’s also badly wrong about same-sex marriage, and I tell him so—frequently, publicly, and sharply.

Glenn has written about our relationship in the January issue of Christianity Today, where he describes us as “highly unlikely but dear friends.” It’s a good description.

Some background:

Glenn Stanton works for Focus on the Family, and has published a book called “Marriage on Trial.”

In that book, Glenn Stanton cites the Dutch Study to portray gay men as non-monogamous, despite the fact that this study required its participants to be non-monogamous.

From page 65,

Monogamy in male homosexual relationships is difficult to sustain, even in long-term relationships [10] And if we can’t expect monogamy of homosexual males in marriage, the social-norms bar gets lowered for everyone, making it even more difficult to expect in of heterosexual males.

And what does that footnote [10] include? The Dutch Study, a study that REQUIRED its participants to be non-monogamous.

Glenn Stanton thinks it’s ok to lie, and John Corvino thinks that Glenn Stanton’s lying is acceptable, and 365gay.com thinks Corvino’s approval of Stanton’s dishonesty is acceptable.

In addition, from page 24 of Marriage on Trial:

Question 3. Shouldn’t two people who love one another be allowed to commit themselves to one another?

Answer. Yes. But we don’t’ always call it marriage. Parents commit themselves to their children, but they aren’t married. Friends love and commit themselves to each other, but they aren’t married. Coworkers, athletes and soldiers can even love each other and enjoy great commitment, but we don’t call it marriage.

In other words, if you're gay, you're too stupid to know that your love is any different than that between a parent or child, or athletes, or coworkers, or soldiers, or moms and dads, or brothers and sisters, or pupils and coworkers, etc., etc., etc.

But hopefully, if people like Glenn Stanton surreptitiously dance around the subject like that, no one will notice that what they're really saying is that gay people are just too stupid to know the difference between their romantic relationships, and their relationships with their parents, or anyone else for that matter. But don't tell gay people that, they'll get offended, and start persecuting us for our "deeply held moral beliefs."

So thank you John Corvino, for giving credence to the notion that we should overlook the actions of “friends” -- who promote for a living -- the idea that we are blithering idiots when it comes to recognizing romance.

And now we move on to the Glenn Stanton portion of the articles (apparently this is a tandem effort). Oh, and By the way, Glenn Stanton, this isn’t about how I don’t like you being friends with a gay guy, it’s about how you’re a lying sack of shit, and about how your token "gay" friend isn’t calling you out on that fact.

Moving right along…

Glenn Stanton’s three page article (the one Corvino acknowledges above) has this statement on each page:

“Publicly arguing for traditional marriage is worth it even if I don't change many minds.”

Long story short, Glenn Stanton’s mind can never be changed, because Glenn Stanton could never be wrong. The only goal, according to Glenn Stanton, is to change other people’s minds.

In other words, FUCK YOU John Corvino, and all of the stupid little gay people like you who you represent, who are "less than" him.

But, as it would seem to me, by “publicly arguing” with you, it helps him to understand how to not be so “fuck you-ish” with his words.

John discovers things about me that surprise him, such as that I can believe the world is older than 6,000 years and remain an evangelical in good standing.

Where exactly does Adam and Eve fit into that "good standing" Mr. Stanton? You’re not confirming anything here, all you’re doing is demonstrating error in the perception of you.

You did the same thing with me.

All I ask is that you show your work. How old is the Earth? What parameters and/or what criteria do you use to determine this? Etc.

If you’re going to make the claim that your beliefs are based on the Bible, and then claim that you believe in an “old Earth” theology, then be willing to defend it and explain it.

I’ll accept it. I’ll say so right now, I’ll accept it, but spit it the fuck out and don’t be coy about it. Don’t just drop it like a bomb and expect it to be something that should be accepted at face value. Your friends at Focus on the Family don’t sing that same tune, and we know it, so why take us for that ride?

If after all this time, that’s the best you can do, then to me it shows you have something to hide. Again, if you don’t want that to be the perception, then open up and explain yourself.

It's an interesting point that prompted me to ask our audience why many Christians, as well as Scripture-twisting revisionists, never address either the Creation narrative or Jesus' clear affirmation of that narrative in the Gospels. These pericopes show the centrality of male and female to the family anthropologically, sociologically, and theologically, teaching us that male and female bear the image of God in unique, essential ways. Humanity and the family need male and female to need each other.

OMG. Spare me out of my fricking mind. If at this point, you are STILL maintaining the notion that somehow the anomaly of “gayness” or “homosexuality” or of “same-gender attraction” is trying to DO AWAY WITH MALE AND FEMALE ITSELF, then you, Glenn Stanton, are a hateful bigot for the sheer sake of enjoying it.

Good god man, "male and female?" Do you really think God "anointed" you with the notion to hate what you're already hard-wired to hate? Do you think the rewards of Heaven are that easy?

I'm not saying that that the answer is difficult, but seriously, take a closer look.
---
This part, however, takes the cake:

I clarified my opposition to all sexual relationships that are not between a husband and wife. But I also said that whenever one human denies herself for the good of another and dedicates herself to the other's value, that was a praiseworthy thing. True selflessness is an intrinsic good, whether the person is a lesbian, a gossip, or a tax-cheat.

Gossip or tax-cheat?

Comparable to a lesbian?

Glenn T. Stanton, you are an asshole.

Nothing really counts after that.
____
Belated h/t to NG

On the defense, digging that hole, where they belong.

Some excerpts from a recent Christian Post article (article quotes in green, and emphases mine):

Media Misconceptions on Bible, Homosexuality

In the aftermath of the passage of California's Proposition 8, Newsweek and Hollywood are the latest players to launch their attacks on traditional marriage supporters and the biblical case against homosexuality.

And Christians are taking issue with the misconceptions, factual errors and holes in the arguments being presented in popular public spheres.

"Religious objections to gay marriage are rooted not in the Bible at all, then, but in custom and tradition," [Lisa Miller writes in Newsweek‘s current cover story "The Religious Case for Gay Marriage"] "The Bible was written for a world so unlike our own, it’s impossible to apply its rules, at face value, to ours."

Rejecting Miller's arguments, [Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission] said the Bible clearly prescribes marriage as heterosexual, citing passages in Genesis, where God pairs Adam and Eve…

Remind me again Mr. Land… In order to propagate the race, did Eve have sex with their son(s), or did Adam have sex with their daughter(s), or did their children just have sex with each other, or was it a sexual free for all in the beginning?

Also, at which point did God change His mind and decide that incest was officially a sin?

The confusion is also played out in the Funny Or Die video, "Prop 8 – The Musical," […] "It seems to me you pick and choose. Well please choose love instead of hate," Black sings.

Exodus speaker and head of the Ministry to Homosexuals Task Force in the Southern Baptist Convention, Bob Stith:

[D]enounced Hollywood's attempt to make biblical arguments. "Anyone who cares to spend thirty minutes of serious study would see the many flaws in Black’s argument," he said.

You've got two minutes, Bob, depending on the reader, and that includes my responses. Give it your best shot.

...aaand, go:

Clearing up some of the confusion, Stith called it a "factual error" to claim that Scripture says homosexuals are an abomination. "It is an error to say the Bible says that. It doesn't. It calls homosexual acts an abomination, not homosexuals," he commented.

Oh, so it’s just the sexuality part of our human existence that’s an abomination, and not the mere fact that we exist.

My, yes, that does clear things up.

"In the same passage in Leviticus that speaks about homosexuality the Bible also warns against incest, bestiality, and adultery," he said. Also, "while the New Testament doesn’t mention shellfish (and some would argue that Acts 10 clears that argument up) it clearly continues the biblical prohibition on homosexual acts."

According the Bible, remarriage is adultery, and Adam and Eve and/or their children committed incest, but you don’t seem to have a problem with either of those details.

So that's not only not a "flaw" in Black's [as Jesus] argument that you "pick and choose," but a confirmation of it.

And the "pick and choose" part was the core of the argument.

"any faith, on any side of any cause, for any reason."

From the GLAAD blog:

On the Dec. 9 edition of KPFA’s “The Morning Show,” host Aimee Allison spoke with Seamus Hasson, founder and chairman of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, and the Rev. Susan Russell, priest at All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena.

The segment centered around a full-page advertisement run by the Becket Fund in the Dec. 5, 2008 edition of The New York Times. The ad sparked controversy for its unsubstantiated and inaccurate claims about supposed “violence and intimidation” against religious groups since the passage of Proposition 8.

Aimee Allison (KPFA Morning Show Co-Host): So, Rev. Russell was commenting, there may be a few individuals, but not a movement. Seamus Hasson, your response to that: if there are individuals, why are anti-Prop 8 movement folks being painted with that broad brush?

Seamus Hasson: Well, whether it’s an organized movement like Al Qaeda or whether it’s the Al Qaeda-like, um, inspired acts of terrorism elsewhere, people are right to be concerned about, um, radical Islamist violence-

And yet it was the Becket Fund -- of which Seamus Hasson is founder and chairman -- who just the other day had this to say in the slanderous NoMobVeto NYT ad:

"Furthermore, beginning today, we commit ourselves to opposing and publicly shaming anyone who resorts to the rhetoric of anti-religious bigotry - against any faith, on any side of any cause, for any reason."

Even Al-Qaeda is an islamist movement, so shouldn't he be publically shaming himself right about now - just to round out the cycle of two-faced double speak?

Christian Persecution Complex

I went looking for some insight after the recent spate of tantrums* thrown by these sore winners in response to Prop 8 backlash and found a piece from Salon from a couple of months ago, more relevant even today.

The right's two-pronged religion of rage and self-pity
Glenn Greenwald
Thursday Oct. 2, 2008 12:33 EDT

The Right in this country -- meaning the faction that followed George Bush for the last eight years -- long ago ceased being a movement of political ideas and is driven by two, and only two, extreme emotions: (1) intense, aggressive rage towards their revolving door of enemies, and (2) bottomless self-pity over how unfairly they're being treated. As their imminent defeat looks increasingly likely (potentially on a humiliating scale), these two impulses are in maximum overdrive, feeding off one another in endless self-perpetuation (the more they lose, the more victimized they feel, the more they rage against their enemies who oppress them, etc.).

The Right's rejection by the public can't possibly be due to anything they have done. It can only be due to some extremely vicious enemy that oppresses them uniquely and so very unfairly.

He also links to another complimentary article:

The strategic rationale for fashioning one’s group as victims is clear: the public sympathy gained from victimhood can mean the difference between political support and indifference or opposition. Victimology allows activists to rally the troops, to build solidarity by conceiving an existential threat from outside.

218 comments worth of analysis as well.

As one commenter put it:

And getting a massive defeat on November 4th will only confirm their persecuted status. And they will love their feeling of being persecuted for every minute of the next four years. For them, feeling persecuted is more important that victory.

So if they’re coming apart at the seams after having achieved victory over the ‘gay menace,’ one wonders what the rhetoric (or worse) would be like had they lost those ballot measures.

It is clear now that their ego-addictions will never be sated. The depth of dishonesty, hypocrisy, and just plain idiocy -- openly expressed -- is truly stunning. Legal recognition of their supremacy is clearly not enough for them, they won’t stop until they've established a constant stream of secular recognition for it too.

It’s starts to make sense then why they literally define themselves by their hatred of gays. They not only need a group to oppress, they need one that is guaranteed to fight back. Thereby justifying, or redefining their oppression as defensive, thus creating a constant loop of ego-gratification. Oppress, wait for backlash, claim victimhood, justify oppression. Rinse, and repeat.

And with “God” as their egos, their will then becomes “God’s will,” and opposition to them is opposition to “God.”

I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.

-Susan B. Anthony

In essence, their will is their religion. Deny them one, you deny them the other, and persecution complex ensues - circumventing any need for introspection or self-reflection, and ensuring that their own self-created delusions of grandeur remain safely hidden from conscious view.

And apparently (save for some of the leaders) they truly are that stupid. I just went through it with my mother the other day. I brought up how Palin didn't know what a VP does, I brought up Iraq and WMD’s. She wasn’t defending any principle or fact of any kind, the only thing she was defending was the ‘fact’ that she was right. Fortunately I was in rare form that day and was able to get through to her that it wasn’t what she believed that was at issue, it was why she believed it. (Though I’m sure we’ll be having that conversation again (and again and again and again…))

----
* Jack Black and Hollywood Stars Defame Christ and the Bible; Apology Demanded.
* NoMobVeto NYT ad
* The WND Pat Boone piece comparing Prop 8 protesters to the Mumbai terrorists, which has to be read to be believed.
* Responses to Lisa Miller's Newsweek essay
(and everything in between)

Randy Thomas: Happy Thanksgiving 2008

I'm going to refrain from making fun of this because it's too adorable.

Donny Osmond: “some of my best friends are gay.”

Emproph: You don’t say? Why, some of my best friends are anti-gay bigots. (Not!)
--

There's a good analysis of his statement on the marriage matter here:

Donny Osmond: It's alright, if you don't touch

I just want to add one thing.

Donny Osmond: "There are many gay individuals that are members of our church. I know many of them. In fact, some of my best friends are gay. You ask how I react regarding their marriages. Well, I do support our Church leaders who say that we can accept those with gay tendencies in our church as long as they do not act upon their temptations. Everyone has tenancies to succumb to temptation, but we all have the same standard given to us by our Father in Heaven. Whether we may be tempted to be immoral with members of our own sex or of the opposite sex, we are expected to live chaste lives. This is very well explained not only in the Book of Mormon, but in the Bible as well."

Except, Donny dearest, to depict the human need to love and be loved, as a need for you and a ‘temptation to sin’ for gay people, is to unfairly hold gay people to a different standard of humanity itself. Therein lies the hatred.

Or were you suggesting that God set it up that way and that we should respect your worship of an unjust God?

Exodus “saddened” by news of potential gay happiness.

Exodus International Disappointed, Saddened by eHarmony Decision to Launch gay Matchmaking Site

November 26, 2008

Orlando, FL- The largest Christian ministry to those dealing with unwanted same-sex attraction responded to the news that eHarmony, a matchmaking company founded by evangelical psychologist Neil Clark Warren, has decided to launch a matchmaking website for homosexual singles instead of fighting a nearly four-year-old complaint in court.

In 2005, a homosexual man filed a complaint alleging that the eHarmony's policy of matching only opposite-sex couples violated New Jersey's anti-discrimination law, which covers "sexual orientation." As part of the settlement reached with the New Jersey attorney general, eHarmony plans to launch CompatiblePartners.net - a matchmaking web site aimed solely at the homosexual community. Founded in 2000, eHarmony was initially marketed to Christian singles.

"Raising a white flag of surrender over foundational Christian principles cannot be an option when we truly believe that such truths are the gateway to freedom and new life," said Alan Chambers, former homosexual and President of Exodus International. "The Bible is clear that homosexual relationships were never part of God's creative design for humanity, nor is it His best plan for individuals. Those of us who have experienced the emptiness of gay life know that promoting it will inevitably lead to more heartache for many. "

Or more accurately...

Helping gay people find happiness will 'inevitably lead to more heartache' for those of us who want to keep the lives of gays, empty.

Spongebob Squarepants The Obama Song

~~~

The Obama Song By The Electric Illuminati


Happy Thanksgiving

Stuart Shepard demonstrates that the true meaning of Christmas can be found in the shallowest thing.

This message brought to you by:

Thank you Stuart for that disturbing illustration of priorities that those of you at Focus on the Family don't hold so dear.

Now this one is actual satire:

Report: Nation's Wealthy Cruelly Deprived Of True Meaning Of Christmas

Get a dog little longgie, get a dog…

Debra Moore has a blog called “Exposing Liberal Lies”

LA Mayor Implies God Would Approve of Gay Marriage
Friday, November 21, 2008

Interesting how liberals attempt to twist the words of Jesus in order to justify their sin. By all means, Jesus loves the sinner. However, that does not mean that He condones the sin.
Read what the Almighty God has to say about homosexuality:

We then get three attempts to hide behind the Bible, one quote from World Net Daily, and one quote from One News Now.

You do the math.

Commenter WT had this thoughtful response to offer:

I am Catholic. Of less importance, I am also gay. Although I am gay I am one of the most devout Catholics you will ever meet. I attended the University of Notre Dame and even minored in theology. My faith is VERY VERY important to me.

From a marriage perspective, it is very unfortunate that I was born gay. Believe me, I NEVER would have chosen to be gay. NEVER.
I didn't wake up one day and decide, "OKAY! Tired of being straight! I think I want to be judged, criticized, and looked down upon for the rest of my life. I think I'll be gay!" Nobody CHOOSES that lifestyle. I would have loved so much to have found the woman of my dreams and to have settled down and had kids with her. I've finally come to terms with the fact that that will never happen, though.

Growing up, I spent many nights crying myself to sleep because I thought I was going to have to spend the rest of my life alone. The Bible says that homosexuality is wrong. Certain interpretations of the Bible condemn homosexuals to hell. In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (TNIV), Paul says:
“Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

I ask then, why are we all so quick to condemn homosexuality, but we can continue to live in a society that permits drunkenness [as condemned by Paul in his letter to the Corinthians]? If drunkards are equally condemned to hell, where is the push for a proposition that forbids men and women to get drunk.

I beg our society first, to work to separate the church from the state. As a Catholic, I want our government to be influenced by Christian belief and doctrine, but we cannot cast our views on the entire nation. To do so is to laugh in the face of the greatest commandment: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' Defined: RESPECT. Respect does not mean taking traditional Christian values and applying them to non-Christian members of this society. Second, I implore us all to not be hypocritical in our application of scripture. If society is going to prohibit gay people from getting married, it must also forbid drunkenness and greed. [And, as a side note, isn't is a bit odd that only male prostitutes are condemned to hell in the passage from Corinthians? Doesn't that say something about the belief system in place at the time the Bible was written? I absolutely believe it is the inspired Word of God, but I also realize that the inspired Word of God was written with the hands of men.]

To get back on point, when I finally came to terms with the fact that I was gay, it saddened me quite a bit to think that I would never have a family of my own. Family is so incredibly important to me and I want to spend my life raising children to be good, God fearing young men and women.

So when the recent debate regarding gay marriage surfaced, I began to gain a sense of hope that maybe I could spend the rest of my life with the person I loved and that together we could raise a healthy, beautiful, faith-filled family.

But some of the information that came from the Yes on 8 campaign was very hurtful - on a very personal level.

I just don't understand how my marriage will have a negative affect on the traditional marriage. I respect the traditional marriage so much and I have so much love and respect for mothers and fathers who devote themselves to their families. But wouldn't gay marriage be a good thing. Allowing gay marriage would reduce promiscuity in the gay community, decrease the transfer of the HIV virus, and make a group of marginalized people feel less marginalized. That would all happen if gay men and women could made lifelong commitments to one another that the rest of the nation can already make.

At one time I thought that civil unions could be enough. But I realized that it's not quite the case. It's like the black/white drinking fountains of the past. Separate but equal. You can both have drinking fountains, but you can't drink out of the same one. You can both be together as a couple, but you can't join together in marriage.
I struggled with this issue for a long time, but what made me change my mind was the fact that this in no way affects the Church. Gay unions would be legally recognized by the state. They would not have to be recognized, however, by any religious institutions such as the Catholic Church. I think that is a very legitimate compromise. First, why should our government be able to decide who can and cannot get married when it involves two consenting adults? It shouldn't. Gay marriage is not going to destroy the family unit. I can't think of single instance where two men or two women getting married would destroy the traditional family unit. Straight people aren't going to throw their hands up in the air and say, "Well, now that gay people are getting married, I'm getting a divorce; I'm no longer going to have children; I'm not longer etc. etc. etc." I just don't see how this will impact the family at all. Second, why the heck does this need to be a part of the constitution? That seems like killing a deer with a bazooka when a bow and arrow will do.

So, it is my hope that you will all rethink this issue. I respect the Church's stance on this issue very much, but I believe a legal marriage vs. a church-based marriage are two very different things. Legal marriage will extend to gay couples the same rights as straight couples. At the same time, using the word marriage will force gay couples to see it as a true, lifelong bond, again cutting down on promiscuity and the transfer of disease. In the end, it will lead to COMMITMENT. A great thing in my mind. IT IN NO WAY AFFECTS THE CHURCH OR CHURCH-BASED WEDDINGS.
Finally, it's so sad that the $40 million spent on the yes on prop 8 campaign could have gone to children's hospitals or education or anything else that truly had a profound impact on the life of a child. It is so unfortunate that the money was spent to prohibit two consenting adults from marrying one another.

Please, PLEASE, take a second look at the words of Christ in the Bible. "Love your neighbor as yourself." Christ never once condemned homosexuality. Not once. And it is my hope and belief that He will one day judge me not by who I loved but by the person I was and the faith I placed in Him. Please give me the opportunity to raise a proper family and permit me to live with some sense of normalcy.

And please don't let the violent actions of a few determine your view of the whole. I despise the actions of several people in the gay community for the way they have handled their defeat. I beg you, however, to not take away my right to marry because of a few militant gays. Thank you so much and God bless.

She gave him a pat on the head by chiming back with:

"I must admit that your testimony was quite moving. Nevertheless…"

It devolved from there.

So, as a matter of catharsis, here's my sardonic take...

You tell him, Debra Moore. Stupid homo (WT) for not understanding that he’s subservient to you! Pffft.

WT: “Please give me the opportunity to raise a proper family and permit me to live with some sense of normalcy.

Debra Moore: “Please, for your own sake, confess this lifestyle choice”

Brilliant, Debra Moore. Utter brilliance. Especially after he had already said, and I quote: “Nobody CHOOSES that lifestyle.” The fact that Jesus already hates family life and normalcy was just icing on the cake.

The only thing I would have added was the fact that this example of the human species was also attacking you personally for your Christian belief that he must be put to death.

So many Christians these days just aren’t willing to openly endorse and promote genocide, so it was refreshing to see your unabashed use of Leviticus 20:13:

“Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." (NIV)”

I’m sure that homosexual commenter now knows its place in your world.

I know I do.

Concrete Blonde - Heal It Up

Randy Thomas: “And I challenge the gay community, I understand why you’re angry…”

"And I challenge the gay community, I understand why you’re angry, but at the same time, the Church is not the caricatures that are being portrayed most of the time on the main stream media, or being taught through the gay community."

~VP of Exodus International, Randy Thomas on the radio show entitled “Drivetime with Bill Bunkley Concerning Gay Marriage Protests,” November 17, 2008 @ the 12:29 mark of the second portion of the interview (first part here).

Thomas’ musings on the whole affair are here.

There is a sewage plant’s worth of material here, but two things in particular stood out for me.

This, from the first part of da interview:

Randy Thomas: "Bill, at the end of the day, I’m going to vote, I’m going to exercise my religious liberties, I’m going to do whatever I can to preserve the image of God in public policy in a way that ensures freedom for Christians and for everyone. But I would rather lose my rights than one person be driven away from the Kingdom because of my hateful actions."

And this from the second part, in regard to why he was "angry" as a gay man:

Randy Thomas: "I watched a popular evangelical leader at the time say that I was a pedophile in the making, and so, there was a lot of Christian leaders being portrayed, not all of them, the only one’s who seemed to make it on the news, were lying about me."

First of all, being “driven away from the Kingdom” is code speak for an eternity of infinite suffering in a place called hell.

Secondly, in regard to being an angry gay man, Randy Thomas, Vice President of Exodus International, expresses his disdain for having been lied about by Christian leaders when it came to them painting all gay people as pedophiles (especially gay men).

Yet apparently it's ok when he does it.

From the FAQ section of the Exodus International website, the very first FAQ:
~~~
Is there a connection between homosexuality and predatory behavior, like pedophilia?

We cannot presume that all homosexuals are at a higher risk level to molest children or develop into pedophiles than are heterosexuals. Nor would it be appropriate to allow the label homosexual and pedophile to become interchangeable. At the same time, homosexual men who are unable to sustain healthy peer relationships might well find the potential for age-inappropriate attractions more real than they thought possible.

In the last two decades, the issue of child molestation has become front page news as adults have come forward with accounts of being abused as children. The most sensational of these accounts have involved Catholic priests who were known by their superiors to have molested. These men were often transferred to new parishes by these same superiors and the abuse continued. In most of these publicized accounts, the victims, though not always, were male children. To most observers, the speculated connection between homosexuality and pedophilia once whispered about went from speculation to declared fact despite any proof to justify that sweeping connection.

As a community, however, gays and lesbians attempt to distance themselves from pedophiles despite statistics that show a higher ratio of young victims for homosexual males compared to heterosexual males as well as a higher per capita ratio of offenses. By definition, however, pedophilia is neither a homosexual nor a heterosexual condition.

As with homosexuality, there is no conclusive genetic link for pedophilia, suggesting the potential that both share stages of development that have strong environmental components. At the risk of generalizing, homosexuals and lesbians lack healthy same-gender identification; pedophiles lack a healthy ability to feel connected in their position as adults among other adults. Perceived as rejected by the adult world, fixated pedophiles find children to be trusting recipients of their attention and eventually of their sexual advances.

The male pedophile lacking healthy same-gender identification as well as a tangible connection to the adult world is most apt to have male victims. The male pedophile secure in his gender identification but feeling out of control in the world of adults—especially in terms of developing intimate relationships—will be more likely to have female victims. In both, however, the element of control is a primary focus whether that control is through emotional manipulation or physical violence.

Both homosexuality and pedophilia share an arrested sexual and emotional development. While similarities exist that might promote arguments for the link implied in the question, one condition does not necessarily lead to the other.

Bob Van Domelen has been affiliated with Exodus International since 1992, is executive director of Broken Yoke Ministries, and currently serves as a Regional Representative for Exodus International. Editor of Into the Light and Wellspring (bimonthly newsletters) and author of several booklets, he has spoken at conferences, directed workshops, and interviewed on both radio and TV. Booklets written on the issue of child molestation and sex offenders include: Darkness Now Light, Help for Adults Attracted to Children, and The Church, the Sex Offender, and Reconciliation – all available through Regeneration Books.
~~~
How's that for a Fa-Q? (oh and BTW, Jesus loves you).

Yet Thomas would have us believe that not only was he angry about Christians who LIED about their portrayal of him as a pedophile, but also that he would rather "lose [his] rights than one person be driven away from the Kingdom"

It has been suggested before, that if they are "ex-gay," then according to their own logic, they must also be ex-pedophiles.

But I disagree. I think that it is wholly unfair to associate ex-gays with ex-pedophiles. In fact, I am loathe to even use the term ex-gay and pedophile in the same sentence. I certainly wouldn't want anyone to think that all ex-gays are ex-child molesters, because clearly, it would be wrong to say that all ex-gays were once child molesters, no matter how much evidence that there may or may not be that says definitively and conclusively, or not, that all ex-gays used to go on child raping murderous rampages for sport. It just wouldn't be ethically responsible to make that kind of a direct and sweeping baseless connection between the strugglers who currently run Exodus International, and child predators who fuck kids and then stab them to death.
~~~
For those of you who feel that you still have too much peace of mind on your hands, I managed to transcribe the first 13 spiritually-vacuous patronizing tripe minutes of the second part of da interview, read on.

~~~
Bill Bunkley: Welcome back, 5:20 on this Monday afternoon. It is November the 17th here on WTBN AM 579. I want to remind you that Drive Time is sponsored in part by the Tampa Bay Christian Counseling Center, and we’re so happy to have them on board.

My guest this afternoon is Randy Thomas. He’s the executive Vice President of Exodus International, and they’ve serving since 1976, proclaiming freedom from homosexuality in the name of Christ.

Randy, I want to get back to--I remember one of the times that I had you guys on before was when--in one of the gay pride marches over here, we had a ministry that was out with some bullhorns, really giving it back to them, and I noticed this Saturday, some Christians felt compelled to go to some of these protests sites and, of course the media and cameras will always gravitate toward the yelling matches going back and forth.

You know, how do we process that? I know that often times in the way that I approach the problem, I always mention that adultery and fornication are on an equal playing field, because sometimes I think that some Christians, they pull the hypocrisy button, when they’re all railing against homosexuality when we know we’ve got other problems within the family. How should we be responding? Should we go out to sites, should we not, what is your best counsel?

Randy?

Randy Thomas: Yes.

Bill Bunkley: Go ahead Randy. I’m sorry, go ahead.

Randy Thomas: That’s ok, can you hear me now?

Bill Bunkley: Yes, yes. I had to flip a button there from the break, and so you’re flipped in.

Randy Thomas: Ok, great. Well, you know I think that, there’s been different people who’ve done different things. Like, I know one particular group out in California, they went out and they were simply offering to pray for people, and I think that’s a great idea. You know, going out and praying, and offering water at parades and that type of thing. They weren’t out there beating people over the head with the Bible, or, you know, screaming and yelling and talking about hell and all that other stuff. That doesn’t work, it never has, but, the Christians that were out there that were praying, now they still got yelled at this past weekend, I don’t know that this past weekend was a good idea for people to go out there, but, you know, when it comes to, you know the Christians that, show up with the Leviticus signs, and ‘you’re going to burn in hell message.

Bill Bunkley: Yes. Yes. They show up at the Southern Baptist Convention all the time, and I’ll walk by, and I’m like, is that so foolish or what, but go ahead.

Randy Thomas: Yeah, and ‘there’s the modern day Pharisees,’ You know, it’s just like, where’s the redemptive part of that, and there isn’t. So, I believe it’s unrighteous, and I confront them probably more than I do anyone else, but, the message of, I mean there should be social engagement. I love that we live in a country where people with same sex attraction can go out and say what need to say, and not have to worry about it.

At the same time, Christians, if you have a loving and servant’s heart, if you have a loving servant’s heart, sure, go ahead, go out and engage them, and engage them in dialogue, if they’ll have that.

At the same time, we could be doing plenty of other things. We could be writing op-eds for local newspapers, we could be doing whatever we can to get the message out there of why marriage is so important. So there’s plenty of ways to socially engage the gay community in such a great free country that we live in, and it not be this futile debate. I mean, the Lord says to not throw out stumbling blocks, and that’s what I think that those hateful preachers do is--it’s just a wasted effort.

Bill Bunkley: Randy Thomas, let’s try to understand, some of the individuals that are out there in these protests, and what I want to do is I want to talk about where this anger comes from, but by and large, we have many people that are in the homosexual lifestyle today, who they have had some very unfortunate things or circumstances happen in their past, many while they were children or certainly early in life, and so they have gravitated to these relationships.

Now, from my point of view, it’s a counterfeit relationship in the Lord, just like adultery is a counterfeit relationship, sex outside of marriage is a counterfeit, it’s taking what God meant in the sanctity of a marriage and fulfilling that outside.

Now, as far as the world’s concerned, if you want to have a worldly standard, well it’s not counterfeit, because the world is getting to the point where everything goes, but, in that, I see the hands of God on every homosexual, especially when they’re trying to find this relationship, they’re trying to find fulfillment, and they want that fulfillment validated, and when some entity, be the state of Florida, California, Arizona, or any of the thirty states that know that’s not valid, then this righteous anger, or for them they think it’s righteous, and it comes from behind them--from within them.

Could you walk us through, maybe from your own experience, or how you counsel others, about how we can understand a homosexual’s emotions, as they are just out there, some of them just so fiery and angry right now?

Randy Thomas: Yeah, um, sure, I’ll try to do that.

You know, I’m forty years old right now, and I became a Christian…

Bill Bunkley: Randy, you don’t look like you’re past 25, brother.

Randy Thomas: I appreciate that.

[chuckles and giggles all around]

Well, I am. And uh…

Bill Bunkley: That’s alright. I’m a little ahead of ya, so we’re all going to get there…

Randy Thomas: Well, thank you very much, but, you know I became a Christian 16 years ago at the age of 24, and I felt like I was gay at the age of 10. The culture war didn’t start in 2003 with gay marriage in Massachusetts, it started a long time ago. And at ten years old for me to think that I was gay, and I was not raised in the church, there was already messaging out there leading me that way. And so when I had my first experience at the age of 16, I just thought that that’s who I was, they didn’t have any moral compass to challenge that.

At 19, I was angry with Christians. And I could not stand Christians. As I mentioned…

Bill Bunkley: Why do you think you were angry? Can you process that, is that where--[that’s where I?] begin to have the understanding.

Randy Thomas: Well, that’s what I’m saying, back then, I know why I was angry. Because the only examples I was given of Christianity were calling me “deserving of hell,” they said that I was “an abomination,” they said that I “deserved jail time.” I watched a popular evangelical leader at the time say that I was a pedophile in the making, and so, there was a lot of Christian leaders being portrayed, not all of them -- the only one’s who seemed to make it on the news -- were lying about me.

And so I was very angry, by the time I was 19, I wanted nothing to do with Christians. And so, because they didn’t--It was obvious they didn’t understand me, and didn’t want me, and so that was the messaging, you know, 21 years ago, that has been repeated, from the boomer generation, to the generation X, to, now the millennials, is this ongoing messaging that Christians hate gay people. And so this is manifesting now in this cultural backlash over marriage, so its got a long history here.

The people, most of the people in the streets don’t understand a Christian worldview, they were brought up in the Church. So when we talk about…

Bill Bunkley: Randy, there’s a lot of Christians in the Church that don’t understand a Christian world view, my friend. Go ahead, I’m sorry, I had to get that in there.

Randy Thomas: That’s true, That’s completely true. We live in a very confused culture, and so when we talk about, there’s level ground at the Cross, that just flies over the head of most of the people out there. Right in the streets, they're like, what are you talking about?

And, the only love that I knew at that time in my life, the best scenario for me at that time for me in my life was identifying as gay, and my gay friendships and my gay relationships. Now, again, I did not know the greater love of Christ until I was 24, but at that time in my life, that was my whole world, that’s who my friends were, that what my identity was. And so when Christians came in and blithely said, you know, you need to turn away from you sin and become a Christian and put your faith in Christ--you’re asking me to die to everything I know, on a bumper sticker -- You know, don’t tell me that stuff until you’ve invested in me -- And then at 24, this girl that I used to hang out with all the time, we’d smoke cigarettes, and hang out at Denny’s ‘till two in the morning, talking about everything, she became a Christian. She drove me crazy, but we were friends. And after about six months of her wearing me out about Jesus, I decided to visit her church.

Bill Bunkley: Took a look? You went and took a look, go ahead…

Randy Thomas: Yep, and, they freaked me out. But you know, I encountered the spirit of God there, and it made me thirsty. And I went home, and I prayed, after the second time I visited the church, and I prayed that the Lord would enter my heart. And he did that day.

It was the love a friend who was willing to stick it out with me, who was willing to put up with my stuff, to let me argue with her, that lead me to the Lord.

It was her kindness, or His kindness expressed through her. Through friendship, through that unconditional friendship, that lead me to the Lord.

And that’s what we need to realize, is that these people who are in the streets…God loves them, He wants to invest in them. It’s not enough to have talking points. I mean, yes, we need to be concerned about public policy, we need to write those op-eds, we need to vote, we need to understand marriage, but we also need to be committed to unconditional friendship. Because that’s truth and grace, that’s truth and mercy. And the Gospel is not lacking in either one of those. We can’t be all about just truth, and we can’t be just about mercy. We have to present both, because that’s why we call Him savior. He saved us from our own ideas, and our own leadings down paths that He knows would ultimately would not be fulfilling for us.

Bill Bunkley: And you know, there’s a lot of counterfeit strategies, but I think what I’m hearing, and what I’m trying to have our listeners just really penetrate their hearts with this, is that we’re looking at a group of people who don’t understand, that everything they’re depending on is counterfeit, but yet when they, if they--if they’re reached out to, and make a decision as you did, to go and to listen, and to take a chance, and then to consider it, would you say now, looking back, you really can determine that the anger that you had developed, rightly so as some of the things that were being saying, that were just unhelpful, but the fact of the matter is that even though, and you and I have had conversations where we're here about a particular Christian, mouthing off, or doing one of these things we just said, and I know you get frustrated, but at the same time, that anger is gone now. I mean, that frustration is gone. ‘Doesn’t mean you have righteous anger again when you see things happen, but, it is conveying that this feeling that your having Mr. homosexual or Miss. Lesbian, if you will consider the claims of Christ and let us reach out to you, if you cross over that bridge and accept Him, some of that turmoil is going to go away, wouldn’t you agree?

Randy Thomas: I would agree. And I also tell my gay friends, um, which I do have them, that the Christian Church is not what’s being portrayed on TV. I’ve never belonged in a church that didn’t allow me to be transparent, where people didn’t love me, who didn’t care for me. And I challenge the gay community, I understand why you’re angry, but at the same time, the Church is not the caricatures that are being portrayed most of the time on the main stream media, or being taught through the gay community. The gay community taught me a lot of my anger, but when I went into the Christian community, I found out that the body of Christ is one of the most loving communities, if not the most loving community I’d ever been apart of. And so I challenge that anger with, ok, this is the real picture, let’s deal with the anger in healthy and productive dialogue, but let’s also get to the truth of the matter, and the truth of the matter is, is that Christians are not all that bad…
~~~
P.S. Randy Thomas, you may inspire the worship of a god, but so far, at least for me, it’s a porcelain one.


___
h/t NG

Why Sarah Palin Cost John McCain The Election

Video from Scott's Journal.

This is a pretty good montage of Palin quotes.

I found the boobs animation irresistibly complimentary to the video in that not only was Palin the T & A portion of the McCain ticket, but the jiggling is in almost perfect timing with the soundtrack on the video.

Enjoy:



___
Edited for context on 11-20-08

Michael Brown, hypermasculinity, and the "morality" of homosexuality.

Ok it's not perfect, but hopefully you’ll get the gist of it.

Also, this is a bit long, so you may want to get comfy...

IS THERE A “CIVIL RIGHT” TO GAY “MARRIAGE”?
By
Michael L. Brown, Ph.D.,

Director,Coalition of Conscience,
http://www.coalitionofconscience.org/
November 15, 2008

Michael Brown is a culture warrior who regularly employs all the tried and true anti-gay lies and deceptions as a means to achieving their theocratic end. (A rundown of his history can be found here.)

But there are a couple of differences between him and his anti-gay counter parts. 1) He engages.

I found this out when I responded to a post on Dr. Warren Throckmorton’s blog. I made a sarcastic quip and he immediately jumped in to defend himself, and continued to do so throughout the 450 post thread.

In that thread it was suggested that one of the reasons he engages is to hone his anti-gay debate skills for use in the public sphere. No doubt to increase his demonization-of-gays-skills whilst minimizing any appearance of hatred.

Which brings me to my second observation that separates him from the anti-gay pack, one of his techniques.

From his article above:

As gay protests to the passage of Proposition 8 take place in cities across the nation today, it is important that we know the facts. How do we respond truthfully to the statements that are being made?

“I have the right to marry the one I love!”

If that is the case, then shouldn’t Patrick and Susan S. be allowed to marry in Germany? He was adopted as a child and didn’t know he had a sister until she was 16 and he was 23. He has served a prison sentence because of his love for his sister. They have had four children together and do not want to be separated. Why should the government intervene? Patrick says, “We are like normal lovers. We want to have a family.” Susan states, “I just want to live with my family, and be left alone by the authorities and by the courts.” Their attorney argues that the law against a brother and sister marrying “is out of date and it breaches the couple’s civil rights.” Does this sound familiar? If gays should have the “civil right” to marry the ones they love, why not a blood brother and sister, separated as children and reunited later in life?

It is a modification of the “Have you stopped beating your wife” type of question, designed to ensure that any answer will be self incriminating, whilst leaving clean the hands of the questioner.

He used it many times during the Throcmorton/450 thread and I responded to them all, debunking their illogic, without realizing that it was just an exercise on his part.

His favorite response to the plea for the right to marry was: “But what do you say to the ephebophile who wants to marry the love of his life?”

Wikipedia describes ephebophila as “the sexual preference for adolescents around 15-19 years of age.”

In this way he is able to equate consensual adult gay relationships with statutory rape, while avoiding the need to establish any credible connection between the two.

The question itself is rhetorical but is couched in sincerity, so as to get the questionee to awkwardly scramble for a viable response. All of which is just icing on cake as the damage has already been done, the connection has been made. In essence, the question IS the answer.

The ephebophila quirk is simply to avoid any accusation of equating homosexuality with pedophilia, so as to feign an air of "fairness."

The real point of this “gotcha” questioning technique, however, is to implant in the minds of the public that our love is not only worthy of condemnation, but more importantly, that it is worthy of condemnation without consideration.

Which is where the third party appeal to the "authority" of the Bible comes in.

The anti-gay industry-heads like to say that God designed "marriage" to be between one man and one woman. What they really mean is that God designed for love to be between one male and one female.

Marriage is a social construct, love is an element. By framing the construct AS the element, they are able to avoid having to explain why our love does not deserve the same protection as theirs.

Simply speaking, they believe our love is fake, and that we’re just too stupid to realize it. So to deny something fake, is to deny nothing at all. We're just too stupid to see their superior wisdom.

Life begins at conception.

In the same way that they believe an eternal soul is created upon physical conception, they also believe that one’s spiritual/psychological gender is the result of one’s physical gender.

As Wikipedia notes:

Cisgender (IPA: /ˈsɪsdʒɛndə˞/) is an adjective used in the context of gender issues and counselling to refer to a type of gender identity formed by a match between an individual's biological (genotypical) sex and the behavior or role considered appropriate for one's phenotypical sex.[1] In some organizations, cisgender has come to mean, "A gender identity formed by a match between your biological sex and your subconscious sex." [2]
Cisgender exists in contrast to transgender on the gender spectrum. cisgender means normal, where transgender means subconcious is opposite gender to physical gender.

Though they may not use the term, they express the meaning that anything that deviates from the heterosexual-cisgender model is thought to be confusion. A fair enough assumption for the cisgendered-heterosexual to make, until 'the' homosexual or transgender person explains the absence of their confusion. After that, it is indeed bigotry.

What I see as the primary impetus fueling the anti-gay/dominionist movement (and they are related) is a maladaptive sense of hypermasculinity.

Hypermasculinity is a psychological term for the exaggeration of male stereotypical behavior, such as an emphasis on strength, aggression, body hair, odor and virility. This term can be pejorative and it is important not to place a moral interpretation on whether it is desirable, only by whether it is adaptive or maladaptive. It is important to note that this phenomena can result from personal, societal,and cultural influences. Although the behavior can stem from practice and belief systems, marginalized communities of men may also display attributes of hypermasculinity to rebuff stereotyped or generalized behavior. It is also possible for oppressed groups challenged by socially constructed views of their communities to assimilate hypermasculine images and attitudes. This is especially true when part of the oppressive conditions include societal attitudes, laws, and practices that prohibit or change the tradition and norms of the marginalized group. Hypermasculintys' opposite behaviour is termed hypomasculinity. Hypermasculine can also refer to a style of erotic art in which male character's muscles and penis/testicles are portrayed as being unrealistically huge and prominent.

The Barbers, Browns and LaBarberas exhibit this trait in spades, and appear as little more than modern day cavemen ‘marking’ their social territory. Similar to the raging hormonal bonding of teenage boys, they gather around together to splash in pools of their own testosterone. Like a new drug, they're intoxicated with the potential for this new found power.

These adults, however, -- the anti-gay industry leaders -- don't seem to have grown out of it. It's as though their testicular quest for the "kingdom of male" is the result of an arrested development. They seem to literally "get off" on the notion of demonizing gay men.

You lesbians are of course perfectly safe, you're hot!

A veritable public anti-gay circle jerk between the three of them can be found here. (More relevant commentary on the Michael Brown portion of it here.)

Normally my use of sexual inuendo and analogy is gratuitous, but in this case I find it wholly apt. The pleasure with which these men take in spreading hatred for gay men is palpable to the point of coming across as orgasmic.

~~Segue~~
If humans are the reflection of God in matter, as per the Bible, then men are the reflection of God in humans. And since the writers of the Bible were men, it makes sense that God was determined by them to also be a man (with a penis, no doubt), and that the superior status of men on Earth was determined to be “God ordained.”

The difference between then and now is that we’re no longer in a fight for survival, and as such, a hypermasculinized society is no longer necessary.

And so they are right, it’s not about hate. It’s about the love of their own ‘God ordained’ place in the hierarchy of man, which includes the “love” of hating anything or anyone who threatens that. Gay men are the quintessential example of a man turned inside out. Granting equal rights to us, not only takes away their feeling of specialness in the world, but mocks it in the process.

And the threat is real. No more feelings of specialness means no more feelings of pride for the sake of itself - the human path of least resistance.

And gay rights groups are anti-God, when you define your ego as God, and your masculinity as God’s gift to the world.

There is one important understanding which I seemed to have extracted from the hypermasculinity theory (which itself had to be extracted, because you can never get a straight answer out of these people), and that is that the attempt to define the objectivity of same-sex attraction OR same-sex sex as a moral issue, is not arbitrary but has a basis.

Noticeably void of the charge of immorality is any explanation as to how or why something objective can be something moral. When confronted on this fact, they usually just ignore the question or return to the “because the Bible says so” mantra. Often they compare homosexuality to a “sin” that harms one’s self or others, and then condemn them both the same.

Rick Scarborough made an uncharacteristic leap awhile back, saying “Now, if a man will commit the act of sodomy, you can pretty well decide he will do about anything, include lying.”

100% baseless, but to hell with the truth when the desire is to see and characterize gays (especially gay men) as evil.

Paul did the same thing in Romans 1:26-32:

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

First of all, this is the ONLY Biblical passage that deals with homosexuality, as it cites both men and women as examples. The rest are sketchy at best as depictions of even male homosexuality, as any Biblical scholar worth their salt will tell you.

Secondly, as far as all those descriptors of bad behavior, that’s pretty much an accurate view of human history - nothing special or homosexual about it.

Third, he does the same thing that the anti-gay bigots of today do by mentioning same-sex attraction and then, without basis, equates it with truly immoral behavior.

It would appear that Paul was an anti-gay bigot and wanted to see and depict gay people as evil, and/or, like many anti-gay bigots of today, he made the erroneous assumption that permissive societies lead to homosexuality, as opposed to the actuality that permissive societies just expose and allow for the open expression of the homosexuality that was already present.

He could have picked ANY product of an open and permissive society to make the same case, but what example does he choose to pick? The gays.

Nothing’s changed.

The so called “Christians” of today make that same mistake, but in addition, look to Paul’s erroneous observation as confirmation of their own (erroneous observation).

They look at the supposedly most open and permissive society on Earth, America, see “rampant” homosexuality, and conclude that all of the worlds ills are because God is angry with allowing we gays out of our proverbial closets (oh, and abortion too, because God needs we humans to create souls). All the while maintaining a “my shit don’t stink” attitude while starting illegal wars for oil, cutting programs for the poor, worshipping the accumulation of wealth, etc., etc., etc.

They EXEMPLIFY virtually every one of those descriptors of immoral behavior in Romans 1:28-32, then, instead of taking responsibility for the consequences of their destructive actions, blame it on the gays. But I digress…

Now, in Romans 1:26-27, Paul describes homosexuality as having “exchanged natural relations,” and having “abandoned natural relations.”

Actually, the only thing wrong with that is the “exchanged” and “abandoned” part, as it implies choice.

The not “natural” part is acceptable, in that homosexuality is not "natural" to anyone who is heterosexual, which we’re assuming Paul was (and there’s even some debate on that, but you'll have to Google that on your own).

So, getting to my point about how homosexuality, in and of itself, can be seen as a moral issue - which requires and understanding of evil.

Evil is not the opposite of love, nor is it the absence of love, it is the love of the absence of love.

So if heterosexual attraction is the attraction to love, then homosexual attraction is the attraction to the absence of love, and therefore the attraction to evil.

Or, homosexual sexual attraction is the attraction to repulsion itself.

This is how I see that they see it. If we’re too stupid to recognize the difference between repulsion and attraction, then surely we are too stupid to recognize the difference between love and the absence of it. Therefore, it is perfectly acceptable to equate same-sex attraction with any other definitively harmful sin on the roster.

They’ve even found a way to maintain this position should it ever be proven that we are born gay, by explaining that any gay gene (a “sin-gene” if you will) that were to be found would simply be the result of mankind’s fall from grace.

That one in particular is a take on the Romans 1 condemnation of homosexuality. The thinking being that mankind’s fall from grace could possibly be expressing itself through our genetic code as homosexual “tendencies.”

Bottom line is that they have no qualms about denying us the expression of our love (even in private if they had their way), because they see our love as literally the definition of evil. In their eyes, our love is not real, so to deny us of it, is to not deny us of anything but our own delusion…If only we could see that they really have our best interests at heart…

Mel White, founder of Soulforce, used to ghostwrite for Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, among others, and he has said that they (et al) are sincere in their beliefs. A claim I have had trouble believing due to the evidence of their organized campaign of lies and deception. And anyone who’s dealt with these people, both leaders and followers, understands that they’re not too bright in the logic and reason department. That said, it might make sense that they would see “the ends justifies the means” as a legitimate strategy.

We “unrepentant” gays are the expression of Satan (evil) in human form, as opposed to straights who are the reflection of God (love). Thus it’s acceptable to scapegoat us for everything under the sun in order to raise money, in order to implement their dominionist designs, in order to save humanity from itself.

The justification being that you can’t sin against sin, any lives that are ruined in the process are just collateral damage.

Time is running out, so better that a few people unnecessarily spend an eternity in hell due to intentional dishonesty (Paul Cameron studies, the Dutch Study, the Gay Report, et al), rather than the masses who would if we evil gays ever achieve equality.

In short, I think that if there is any sincerity within the anti-gay industry’s leaders, they see the fight against gay equality as a fight against Satan/evil itself. Which is why they can’t be publicly honest about their beliefs, positions and strategy, because they’d be seen as the hypocritical lying nut-cases that they truly are.

And to be clear, I don’t think they’ve even put this much thought into it, certainly the followers haven’t, but they continue to collectively plod along. And that’s why they’ll fail -- because they despise the truth, inside and out -- but not before doing everything they can to bring this world to its knees, in a submissive bow to their supremacist identity.

All in the name of "God's" will.

Unaffected

__
(Photo of Matt Barber and Peter LaBarbera courtesy BoxTurtleBulletin.com)