Calpernia Addams: "Stunning"

Careful, it's catchy.

"I’d rip his arm off and beat him with the wet end"

...said the Christian of the "sinner"

To be fair though, this was said in the context of the guy having used said arm, to open said door, for said arm-ripper-offer guy. Clearly, one of them was asking for it.

But I've been thinking, why the wet end?

From a purely-pragmatic-antigay-pro-violence-Ken-Hutcherson-stance- -alone, why wouldn’t you want to beat the person with the dry end?

The "dry" end is the part with the hand on it. Aka potential fist, aka hand = hitting device.

So if you were going to beat a gay guy with his own arm because he used it to be polite, wouldn’t you want to then taunt him further with it by saying:

"Stop hittin’ yourself!"
"Stop hittin’ yourself!"
"Stop hittin’ yourself!"
It's literal insult to injury, just by using the opposite end of the weapon.

~Just trying to follow the logic here folks...
(Yep, that's the line)

A "renew" American tradition: telling three year olds about putting your penis in somebody’s asshole.

[Renew America] has no philosophy, image, or agenda beyond this one unifying premise: America must return to its founding principles if it is to survive.

Alan Keyes' Renew America further states from their publishing standards page that:

We seek debate that centers in ideas, arguments, and facts--not personal attacks or other inflammatory communication.

And:

our goal remains the good-faith publication of diverse views, including views that challenge our readers.

Challenging this reader is Renew America's own Stacy Harp's contention that three year olds should be told the ins and outs of a "penis in an asshole."

Paraphrased:

Joe: Three year olds don’t even know what sex is.

Stacy: Do they know you put your penis in somebody’s asshole? Do they know that? Do they know you put your penis in somebody’s asshole? Do they know that?

Joe: No, they actually didn’t know that.

Stacy: Oh, ok, well why don’t you tell them that, because that’s what homosexuality is about.

To be clear, I don't mean to imply that these words were the product of Renew America. My only intent here is to gratuitously associate them with Renew America.

Quick, look over here, it's all about gay marriage!

Full text of Florida's upcoming Amendment 2:

Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.

"or the substantial equivalent thereof"

Amendment 2 erodes rights, protects no one
April 23, 2008
By GEORGE GRIFFIN

This pre-emptive attack against establishing civil unions in Florida is not well understood and needs to be made clear to voters. [...] And in states where the similar loose language of "or the substantial equivalent thereof" has passed, civil unions and existing domestic partnership health insurance and other protections have been permanently blocked.

[...]

Further, unmarried couples could lose the right to visit each other in the hospital or make crucial emergency medical decisions on each other's behalf. These are the serious consequences of enshrining the loose language of "substantial equivalent" in our constitution.

As I said in the comments:

I appreciate the elucidation of questioning the meaning of "or the substantial equivalent thereof."

I know Stemberger and ilk are attempting to refute this, but really, the important thing is to continue asking what is meant by that, especially as far as civil union and domestic partnership benefits are concerned. Because even the designers of Amendment 2 can't predict the future.

And as long as that question remains, the threat remains.

Florida4Marriage's own website seems to concur with this assessment while attempting to state the opposite.

You can view the video "Marriage Amendment Will Not Affect Domestic Partnerships" here: Embedding disabled by request

Transcript as follows:

Anchor: Ok, I’ll offer that to Mr. Stemberger.

John Stemberger: First let me-I wan to respond to Derrick’s comments, um, Michigan, these other states he’s pointed to have different language. Ok, you can’t just look at states, you have to look at the specific language. And here in Florida, the specific language has been approved by the Florida Supreme Court. It mirrors the language of the current marriage laws on the books. And the substantial equivalent language just says hey, you know, even the professor agrees with me, and she’s a neutral person saying that these are not going to invalidate domestic partnerships. We catalogued every domestic partnership, there’s 21 of them, they grant-small bundle of benefits, like burial rights, the rights to visitation in hospital, the rights to visitation in prison, those kind of things, it’s about 6-9 rights, it doesn’t approximate the one thousand…

Anchor: Health benefits though, heath benefits is one of the sticking points of domestic partnerships though, isn’t it?

John Stemberger: Some County’s grant health benefits.

Anchor: Ok, so Cynthia, these other states, Ohio, Kentucky and Michigan, where the ban has been passed, and it has been challenged -- gay and straight domestic partnership benefits -- that is a different scenario than what we’re looking at in Florida potentially?

Cythia Hawkins-Leon (Stetson College of Law): Well, I’m here to look more at how the amendment would - whether the amendment has been appropriately brought to the public. And my thought is that, as far as how the other states have treated it, their language is different, it’s not exactly the same, and also, to even bring this to the ballot, it has to involve only one issue, which it does, and that the ballot description has to be straightforward and not misleading…

Anchor: So let’s say it has been appropriately brought to the ballot, do you believe that it opens the door or not, to legal challenges to gay and straight domestic partnerships, as they sit right now?

Cythia Hawkins-Leon: In my, as reading this, the ballot summary, and the full text, which is a sentence, no, I do not. Because, as a family law professor, and that’s my specialty, a civil union, is expressly different, which we’re not talking about, is expressly different from marriage, it gives less benefits, and the domestic partnership gives even less benefits to the parties, than a civil union.

Anchor: So it’s not, so they’re saying it’s not the substantial equivalent of a marriage.

Derek Newton (Florida Red and Blue): Well the bottom line of that is, that’s going to be determined in court. I mean that’s - and that’s part of the problem with this amendment is, if it gets put in the constitution, you can time it with a stopwatch. A lot of people, and again, the legislature says the cost of litigation will definitely increase, to the state having to defend this if it gets in the constitution, because it will be challenged. And even though the language isn’t identical, you don’t have to look much farther than, like I said Michigan, or Ohio for example, where a similar amendment, again, not exactly the same, but a similar amendment has been used as a defense against domestic violence. Where somebody who had abused his live in girlfriend said you can’t recognize our relationship.

Cythia Hawkins-Leon: That’s outrageous.

Derek Newton: Well let me just…

So John Stemberger's definition of "substantial equivalent" is essentially:

the substantial equivalent language just says hey, you know, even the professor agrees with me [...] it’s about 6-9 rights, it doesn’t approximate the one thousand…

To which the "neutral professor" concurs with him by saying:

Cythia Hawkins-Leon: a civil union [...] gives less benefits, and the domestic partnership gives even less benefits to the parties, than a civil union.

I think Derek Newton of Florida Red and Blue sums it up best when he says that the bottom line is that it's going to be determined in court.

Stemberger and this supposedly neutral family law professor frame the definition of "substantial" as being about a number, or an amount of specific benefits, as though the meaning of substantial is not about substance.

So the wording of "substantial equivalent" would seem to be anti-gay code speak for the real, life changing, and potentially life saving benefits that civil unions and domestic partnerships provide - such as health care and hospital visitation rights.

The "substantial" types of benefits typically conferred onto those who's marriages are legally recognized.

It seems to me that a union that is "substantial" enough to be considered worthy of even ONE of these benefits, could EASILY be challenged if this measure passes, including private legal contracts, gay or not.

Or did I miss something?

Watch the Day of Truth video

And then throw up.

Full text of their 38 second ad (and yes, I counted the ticks):

tick... tick... tick... tick... tick... tick... tick... tick... tick... tick... tick... tick... tick... tick...

It’s time, for an honest conversation about homosexuality. Visit day of truth dot org, and sign up to break the silence.

On Monday April 28th, share the truth about homosexual behavior.

tick... tick... tick... tick... tick... tick... tick... tick... tick... tick... tick... tick...

"Day of Truth" is in response to the Day of Silence. You can watch their much more edifying video and message here.
--
And now back to "Day of Truth" Sabotage:

"Behavior" is anti-gay code for sexual perversion / promiscuity. Thus, their response to the attention brought to bullying and violence against GLBT students, is to "share the truth" that gay students are sexual perverts - thereby increasing the likelihood of bullying and violence against GLBT youth.

It should be noted that the Alliance Defense Fund is responsible for this effort. A legal organization designed by Dobson and ilk to sue anyone who does not unequivocally bow to their brand of religious supremacism.

From their "hostile questions about the Day of Truth":

4. Why are you focusing on this sin and ignoring all the others?

There is no irrelevant sin in the Bible. All sins are wicked in the eyes of God. The Bible is clear in its condemnation of adultery, false witness, theft, and murder, to name just a few. We are all sinners who deserve condemnation, and it is only because of the love and saving grace of Jesus Christ that we can be reconciled to our Father and have eternal life.

However, there is no organized activist movement that exists worldwide today to legalize and encourage theft, adultery, or lying. But there is a mobilized movement that challenges God’s truth on a daily basis with regard to homosexual behavior. That is why we are responding to yesterday’s “Day of Silence” to counter attempts to legitimize and promote homosexual behavior.

It would seem that their goal is to equate same-sex attraction with the express desire to do harm.

It should also be noted that "God’s truth" defines the already legally-celebrated "sin" of remarriage--as being adulterous. It appears, however, that this sin is of no consequence to them, and to that extent, it would seem that neither is "God's truth."

Jame’s Dobson’s-Focus on the Family’s-Exodus International’s - Mike Ensley pens several articles on the Day of Truth website, one of which includes this gem:

From their "What if I’m Still Struggling" article:

As a single guy who continues to experience h same-sex attractions, these questions matter a heck of a lot to me. The world around me would say, "You're still gay and nothing can change it! Accepting it is the only thing that will make you happy." But, my faith in God's Word-as well as my conviction and my personal experience-tell me otherwise.

In response to DOS, and the "Allies" campaign-held in the fall, Exodus has produced a DVD called "Truth and Tolerance," in which Mike Ensley of Exodus repeats the above admission:

Do I still feel, homosexual attractions? Um, yeah. What do I think that means though? A lot of people would say, that means you’re still gay, that means you haven’t changed. Um, I don’t think that’s true, I think that is simply the result of, you know, I had a lot of pain in my life, and a lot of unmet needs that became sexualized, during really crucial formative years in my life, and, that isn’t just undone, in a therapy session, or in a week long retreat, and there’s no magic words for that. It’s just, I’m going to feel that to some degree, for a long time.

It would very much appear that this is the entirety of what Dobson/ADF/Exodus' Day of Truth is promoting as the be-all end-all solution to same-gender attraction: Hate the fact that you're gay, and shut the hell up about it.

In Jesus' name.

Florida's Hillsborough County Commissioner Brian Blair on Day of Silence:

no group of citizens should be given government sanction and support to promote their social and sexual agenda upon the rest of us

Also see:
B. Brian Blair distracts me

Opponent of gay Florida political candidate sends out anti-gay e-mail

Florida: Commissioner Brian 'Killer Bee' Blair has conniption over Day of Silence

Full transcript of Stacy Harp's phone call to Joe Brummer

I stand by every word I said to Joe in the call and am not ashamed of any of it

Buckle up and enjoy!
~~~~
Stacy Harp: This is me calling Joe Brummer. Let’s see if he answers his phone.
Joe Brummer: Hello?
Stacy: Hello, how are ya buddy?
Joe: Stacy, I’m good, how are you?
Stacy: This call is being recorded for my protection. So, I just thought I’d give you a ring, seeing as you’re too cowardly to give me a call.
Joe: Well, you’re off to a good start.
Stacy: Oh I am, ain’t I?
Joe: …actually the time that…,
Stacy: So I’ve called you up, alright. So let’s talk.
Joe: …So let’s talk…well, I’m definitely, I,
Stacy: Yeah, let’s talk, let’s talk, because you’re the one who seems to think, for some strange unknown reason, that I’m threatening, and so let’s, let’s talk.
Joe: Well, I’d love to chat, but I really can’t right now.
Stacy: Of course not, why would you, you know, of course, why can’t you talk now?
Joe: Because it’s the middle of the workday,
Stacy: Oh?
Joe: and I have a meeting in about a half hour, that I need to leave for work
Stacy: Oh how convenient.
Joe: Well, you know, life’s not always convenient, but I can’t talk to you and jump in the shower at the same time. So, but I’ll be happy to call back.
Stacy: Really?
Joe: Sure.
Stacy: Oh, so you’re actually going to call me back
Joe: Sure
Stacy: Wow.
Joe: You seem pretty determined to talk, and I don’t think that’s a bad thing.
Stacy: So you’re actually going to call me back?
Joe: Sure.
Stacy: I, ya know, this-this is remarkable, I actually have this on tape. So, I can’t believe that Joe Brummer, is actually going to call Stacy Harp, back. Wow. That’s just amazing to me. But, I-I just have a question,
Joe: Actually not that...
Stacy: Actually I have a question though, and here’s my question, my question is, um, how come you were too chicken to pick up the phone and give me a call?
Joe: I don’t think it’s a matter of being too chicken, I just didn’t think it was going to be productive.
Stacy: Actually see, I think it has a lot to do with being a chicken.
Joe: Well,
Stacy: See I’m not afraid to tell you what I think to your face, or to your ear if you will. Um, but, you know it’s real easy to attack somebody online and in person, but, ya know, to actually pick up the…
Joe: I don’t know, you seem to be doing a good job in person.
Stacy: ..actually pick up the phone, and-and um call somebody, and really try to get to know them, I think that says a lot. That you are too afraid to do that, that you could not make the first move. That is totally revealing to me. Totally, totally. And you know what, it really, it’s really sad, you know why, because, I think, it’s a lot easier to vilify me online, you know, when you don’t know me. And, see I’m the type of person - I’m not afraid to actually engage somebody and reach out, and touch them, if you will. So, um, you know, I, you know, I don’t have a problem telling you exactly what I think, I’m not afraid of you, but for some strange unknown reason, it just seems to me that, whenever somebody like you, likes to pick on people online, mischaracterize them, vilify them, etcetera, you know, when you’re called on the carpet, you’re too chicken to call. So, you put your phone number -- I had to go dig it up by the way -- and uh, you say ok, I haven’t called you, well the reason I’ve never called you is because I was never invited to call you. So,
Joe: That’s not true.
Stacy: Therefore you give me the invite to call you…
Joe: That’s not true.
Stacy: …you give me the invite to call you, and so,
Joe: That’s not true Stacy.
Stacy: …I call you within minutes.
Joe: You-I have an email, that I sent to you that invited you to call me, and gave you my number. What do you mean I never invited you to call me, that’s not true.
Stacy: Actually, you gave me your phone number right here…
Joe: I have an email.
Stacy: …This phone number, in the email that you sent me, it says: “Oops, I meant to include my cell phone in the last email, sorry, cold medicines are doing wonders for my thinking today,” March first.
Joe: You know, why would someone give a phone number if they weren’t inviting you to call it?
Stacy: Well you didn’t say specifically to call you.
Joe: But you just said to me-you just said to me, oh you’ve never invited me to call you, well then why in the world would I give you my number? That’s kind of silly.
Stacy: Well, it’s for you to be a victim, Joe. You’re the classic victim.
Joe: You know what, I’m not a victim in any way.
Stacy: Oh you’re totally a victim.
Joe: I don’t know why you love to say that, but,
Stacy: You’re a victim!
Joe: But that’s fine, I don’t really care that you want to say that.
Stacy: You’re totally a victim.
Joe: If that’s what you want to believe, that’s fine.
Stacy: I totally believe it.
Joe: What you believe about me, has nothing to do with what you are doing on your website.
Stacy: Really?
Joe: With this constant portrayal of negative images, about gays and lesbians.
Stacy: Well, for some reason you-you…
Joe: You can claim whatever you want about me, I don’t really care..
Stacy: Apparently you do care because you wouldn’t be writing about me so much if you didn’t care.
Joe: I don’t write about you…
Stacy: Baloney, you put…
Joe: I don’t write about you personally…
Stacy: Oh, I’m-I’m sorry, that-that…
Joe: I write about what you are doing.
Stacy: Joe that is such baloney, you totally write about me.
Joe: I write about what you are doing.
Stacy: You totally write about me personally. You put my name all over your website…
Joe: If that’s what you want to believe…
Stacy: You’re obsessed with me, I think you-you really like me. I think you want to have a relationship with me, frankly.
Joe: Wow, that’s out there, but okay.
Stacy: Oh wait, either that or…
Joe: You can believe whatever you would like to believe…
Stacy: Either that Joe, or you know what, you want to have a relationship with little three year old kids. I honestly cannot believe that you support teaching homosexuality and about homosexual sex to three year olds. Do you know how sick that is?
Joe: I don’t support teaching sex to three year olds!
Stacy: Oh, I’m sorry, but you actually wrote on my blog that you think it’s totally fine to teach homosexuality, to three year olds. So that’s…
Joe: I think it should be done in an age appropriate way.
Stacy: You said three year olds, you commented on the subject of three year olds.
Joe: You know what, I know a three year old, who knows all about his neighbors, that happen to be gay. He doesn’t know anything about sex, he just knows, that there’s two men who are a couple behind him.
Stacy: Homosexuality is all about sex.
Joe: …he doesn’t understand that there’s sex involved in it, he just knows that the two people behind him are a couple. He doesn’t know more than that.
Stacy: Homosexuality is all about sex Joe.
Joe: If that’s what you want to believe - we both know that’s not true.
Stacy: Oh it’s totally true. You would not be a homosexual if it wasn’t for the fact that you like men.
Joe: You wouldn’t be a heterosexual if it wasn’t for the fact that you like men. Ditto.
Stacy: I hate to tell you something Joe, but you’re normal. You’re a normal, man, with a sexual deviant behavior. That’s what you are. And you like…
Joe: Ok, well, if that’s what you’d like to believe,
Stacy: Hey, I totally…
Joe: I think there’s world of evidence that scientifically proves that that’s not true.
Stacy: There is no evidence out there
Joe: Well that’s fine.
Stacy: You’re in total denial. And for you to enjoy sex with a man, you know, whether it’s anal or oral, whatever the heck it is you do, that’s just wrong. It’s perverted - It’s disgusting - It’s unnatural - and you know it.
Joe: And what I do in my bedroom is none of your business.
Stacy: Well then why do you blog about it on your blog and make it the world’s business?
Joe: I don’t blog about sex, I blog about political issues involving gays and lesbians.
Stacy: You blog about homosexuality, which is all about sex. That’s what it’s all about, and so my blog is to…
Joe: If this conversations is a matter of you talking, and me-you expecting that I’m going to listen, and that’s not going to be the way that this conversation’s going to go, if it’s going to happen at all.
Stacy: Oh wow, this is going to be a great sound bite for me, and that’s exactly the point, you don’t listen. You go ahead, and you make it all about you, you know, I write exactly what I think, what I say, and the truth, and you take it and you twist my words, to make it appear…
Joe: I didn’t twist your words, I printed your words exactly. I didn’t twist them at all.
Stacy: But ya know…
Joe: I reprinted your exact statement.
Stacy: …it’s very very very very scary to me that you cannot see beyond your nose, to somebody else who has feelings, and that you can’t admit when you’re wrong. That is just scary, and the fact that you think teaching three year olds about sex is absolutely evil, I’m so…
Joe: I think that’s really a twist of the issue.
Stacy: No, that’s not a twist of the issue at all…
Joe: But that's fine if that how you want to twist it and spin it.
Stacy: …when you’re teaching homo-sex-u-al-ity, to children, children don’t learn about heterosexual sex at three years old, so how can they actually hear about homosexual sex at three years old?
Joe: And as I’ve said, I’m not suggesting that we teach them sex.
Stacy: That is absolutely disgusting Joe, that’s absolutely disgusting.
Joe: I, I don’t think so.
Stacy: That is so disgusting that you would want to teach three year olds about homosexuality, which is all about sex. All about it. It’s totally all about it.
Joe: Well, none of this is even true, so, you can twist it however you want.
Stacy: I’m not twisting it, those are your words.
Joe: Those statements are not true.
Stacy: Those are your words buddy. You actually..
Joe: I think it’s your spin on my words.
Stacy: Oh no no, it’s not my spin, you printed ‘em, you said you support teaching homoSEXuality to three year olds! That’s disgusting.
Joe: I absolutely do. I do, in an age appropriate way.
Stacy: Homosexuality is all about sex, and that’s disgusting. You don’t teach sex to three year olds. I’m sorry, but that just is not appropriate. You do not do that.
Joe: Well, I think in an age appropriate way, if we do…
Stacy: There is no age appropriate way to talk about anal sex and oral sex to three year olds, Joe. There is not appropriate way.
Joe: Stacy, you’re twisting this in a very manipulative way.
Stacy: I am not twisting this, I am not twisting it.
Joe: That’s really manipulative…
Stacy: The article that I posted, that you…
Joe: Stacy, stop. Stop. For five seconds, let me finish a statement without you cutting me off.
Stacy: Hey, this is my dime, so, you know..
Joe: It’s actually my dime too because these are my minutes, so..
Stacy: Aw, well poor baby.
Joe: So, it’s our dime.
Stacy: You don’t have like, unlimited minutes?
Joe: Not during peak hours I don’t.
Stacy: Oh, wow, ok so, so you actually think that it’s ok to uh, to teach homosexuality to three year olds. That is really, that’s twisted.
Joe: Let me finish that statement.
Stacy: That’s totally twisted.
Joe: I will even let you have it as a sound bite.
Stacy: It’s actually unbelievable. That you would think…
Joe: I believe that - are you going to let me finish a statement or are you going to cut off every time I open my mouth?
Stacy: Well, it’s-it’s amazing. I mean, go ahead.
Joe: If you’re not going to let me talk, then you have no sound bites. Since you’re just cutting me off for everything I say.
Stacy: Mhm.
Joe: And you’re not allowing me to actually complete a sentence with you.
Stacy: Right, well…
Joe: That’s not a conversation, that’s you just talking.
Stacy: So you-you actually, you actually posted on my website, that you think it’s appropriate to teach homosexuality to three year olds, and homosexuality is about sex. So that’s disgusting.
Joe: You’ve already said that already.
Stacy: Yes I did.
Joe: I’ve tried to respond to that, and you’ve cut me off.
Stacy: Oh go ahead, respond…So homosexuality isn’t about anal and oral sex and disgusting bathhouse sex, and stuff like that? That’s not what homosexuality’s about?
Joe: No, it’s not.
Stacy: So you don’t think that that actually exists within the homosexual community?
Joe: I think it exists within the heterosexual community.
Stacy: Oh, so it does exist within the homosexual community, and that’s what you’re advocating teaching to three year olds.
Joe: Well, absolutely not.
Stacy: Ok, alright.
Joe: But you’re-you’re twisting it…
Stacy: I’m not twisting it, that’s exactly what…
Joe: You have not let me finish the statement.
Stacy: Go ahead, go ahead.
Joe: Don’t put words in my mouth. I am-I absolutely think that we should teach kids young about the different types of people and relationships..
Stacy: Mhm.
Joe: Teaching them sex, is something completely different.
Stacy: Yeah, well, ya know..
Joe: Three year olds don’t even know what sex is.
Stacy: That’s what the article is about, though, it’s about teaching homoSEXuality to three year olds, which is absolutely, disgusting.
Joe: No, it’s about teaching to respect that there are other people that might be different from them.
Stacy: No, it’s about teaching them about homosexuality, which is about sex, and until you get that through your thick head, you’d know that.
Joe: All of my nieces and nephews were taught that they have gay uncles.
Stacy: Mhm.
Joe: Or guncles as we jokingly call them around here. They know, they have no idea at three years old, but, you know… they have two guncles.
Stacy: Do they know you put your penis in somebody’s asshole? Do they know that? Do they know you put your penis in somebody’s asshole? Do they know that?
Joe: No, they actually didn’t know that.
Stacy: Oh, ok, well why don’t you tell them that, because that’s what homosexuality is about.
Joe: Because that’s not age appropriate.
Stacy: Oh, it’s not?
Joe: That’s not what homosexuality’s about.
Stacy: Oh, I’m sorry, but isn’t…
Joe: You know what, what you’re trying to is just reduce gay males to sex…
Stacy: No no no no no! No no! Homosexuality is totally about sex Joe. Until you figure that out…
Joe: Again … If you’re not going to talk to me calm, you’re not going to have a conversation with me.
Stacy: No, I’m telling you…
Joe: It’s a matter of you cutting off everything…
Stacy: If you cannot look at homosexuality, about anal sex, that’s what it’s about. That’s totally what it’s about. And you know it.
Joe: And we both know that’s a lie.
Stacy: It’s not a lie, it’s totally the truth. That’s what makes you gay, is that you like to put your penis in somebody’s asshole. That’s what makes you gay.
Joe: What makes me gay is that I’m attracted to men, not just with sex, but with my emotional…
Stacy: That’s right, you’re attracted to putting your penis in somebody’s asshole, that’s what you’re attracted to, and that’s pretty disgusting.
Joe: Are you not attracted to men?
Stacy: I’m normal, I’m a woman, I am attracted to men.
Joe: I’m normal as well, you’ve already said earlier in this conversation that I’m normal.
Stacy: You’re a normal deviant, yes, that’s right. So..
Joe: If you’re just going to sit here and not have a conversation with me, you really…
Stacy: No, this is-this is…
Joe: You cut off, you cut me off again…
Stacy: …this is the conversation.
Joe: If you’re going to cut me off every time I try to talk, I’m not going to talk to you. I’m just going to hang up.
Stacy: Oh, well, you know what, you don’t have the guts or the fortitude to look at the truth Joe.
Joe: You haven’t had the guts to listen to a fucking thing I’ve said.
Stacy: Oh, really? Well, you know, I had the guts to call you up, that’s more that what you had to do to me.
Joe: Listen, you know, this isn’t a…
Stacy: You know, so, you know so, you go ahead and you put up things about me that aren’t true.
Joe: This is not accurate, I’ve never written a thing about you that isn’t true.
Stacy: You misrepresent things that I write. And it is absolutely, un…
Joe: I have said before, If you’re not going to listen to the things I say, I’m hanging up.
Stacy: Why should I listen to the things that you say, Joe, you lie through your teeth.
Joe: Did you call me to just talk at me, because you could have written a little letter to do that?
Stacy: No, you know it’s…so let me ask you something…
Joe: Regardless, I now have less than fifteen minutes to get myself out the door.
Stacy: So if you putting your penis…
Joe: I’m hanging up now.
Stacy: …in somebody’s asshole, and this isn’t about sex…
Joe: I am not going to have a sexual conversation with you.
Stacy: …then I don’t know what is.
Joe: This is inappropriate.
Stacy: It’s absolutely…
Joe: I’m not going to have a sexual conversation with you.
Stacy: Oh because…
Joe: It’s inappropriate.
Stacy: …because it’s totally true, what I say, that…
Joe: It’s not appropriate…
Stacy: Putting your penis in somebody’s asshole…
Joe: …to have a sexual conversation with you.
Stacy: …is all about anal sex, and that’s what you do…
Joe: Stacy, you have a nice day.
Stacy: …right? That’s exactly what you do.
Joe: Have a nice day, thank you for calling.
Stacy: That’s what you do.

Stacy Harp: Ladies and gentlemen, that was Joe Brummer, denying, that homosexuality, is all about putting his penis, in somebody’s asshole. You know, and uh, it’s really interesting, that you know, he doesn’t have the guts to admit that, but now he wants to make it all about, not that. So, you know, there ya go, I mean this is just evidence that somebody who supports the fact that homosexuality is about um-is about um, you know having kids, having sex with kids, ‘n stuff, unbelievable.

Day of Silence "vs" Day of Truth

The National Day of Silence brings attention to anti-LGBT name-calling, bullying and harassment in schools. This year’s event will be held in memory of Lawrence King, a California 8th-grader who was shot and killed Feb. 12 by a classmate because of his sexual orientation and gender expression. Hundreds of thousands of students will come together on April 25 [2008] to encourage schools and classmates to address the problem of anti-LGBT behavior.

VS

The "Day of Truth" is an official project of the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), a legal alliance dedicated to defending the right to hear and speak the Truth. More specifically, ADF launched this project in 2005 to ensure the free speech rights of Christian students to present an opposing viewpoint to those organizations that promote homosexual behavior in the schools. In 2007, Focus on the Family and Exodus International joined the project, providing information and support regarding the theological, social, research, and religious ministry issues central to this debate. Neither these organizations nor participants in the Day of Truth are trying to force their views on anyone, but are merely exercising their First Amendment rights to present another side to this issue.

Some of the views they are "not trying to force on anyone," include their own "view" of The Day of Silence:

The Day of Silence is a national program of the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network (GLSEN), which asks students to remain silent for an entire day to express their support for the promotion of the homosexual agenda in the public schools. Unlike the Day of Silence, the Day of Truth does not encourage students to engage in activities that are likely to disrupt the school’s academic mission.

How does the Alliance Defense Fund define the “homosexual agenda” you ask?

Well, they’ve written a book on it. One of, if not the most thoroughly vilifying pieces of anti-GLBT literature I’ve ever had the displeasure of reading. Fortunately, they themselves, provide a review of that book, and thus, a definition of the "homosexual agenda":

Alan Sears and Craig Osten, of the Scottsdale-based Alliance Defense Fund, expose the homosexual agenda and its fight for "gay" rights for what it is - an unrestrained, no-holds-barred attack on the family and religious freedom.

And of course:

This book is not, however, about "bashing" homosexuals.

All that being the case, the ADF and supporters of their so-called Day of Truth, must then believe that any objection to anti-gay harassment and violence is an attempt to destroy “the family,” and religious freedom.

And given that their objection is to the very objection to harassment and violence itself, the ADF and their supporters must also believe that anti-gay harassment and violence is a protected aspect of their religious freedom.

The American Family Association, however, is taking a different approach, by encouraging parents to keep their kids home from school that day. No doubt to protect them from the threat of any deafening silence that could possibly lead to independent thought.

But just in case you still think a stance against violence is a stance against "the family" and religious freedom, you may want to check out this years Day of Silence Video for yourself.

Simply bound to shock and awe.