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)

“God doens't just love everyone” (sic)

I ran across this post earlier from the "Chronicles of Chew," subtitled, "Cogitations to masticate upon."

Commentary follows....

First of all Chew, you'll have to forgive me for not trusting expecting you to print my rambling diatribe. I also had to edit out most of the Biblical portions for brevity's sake.

Not that I'm trying to prevent anyone from seeing them, as I freely link to your post, but my rebuttle is long enough and off the wall enough as it is ;)

That said, the following quoted material in green is from the Chronicles of Chew, and my commentary is inbetween...

Begin transmission:

A Question of Love - Keith Olbermann

Keith Olbermann, on MSNBC news had this to say to the people voting for propisition 8 in California.

Plainly put Mr. Olbermann, you certainly do not understand what the faith of Christianity is, or what the bible says about love and homosexuality. First off lets clear the air about this "Universal Love".

Yes, lettuce. Since only a person who knows the mind of God could know that the Bible was made of the mind of God.

People for some reason believe that the God of the bible is a lovey dovey kind of, "aww it's ok I love you" kind of God.

Oh my, that's terrible.

God does love you, but you have to understand in what way does God say He loves you. A parent doesn't just raise their children and tell them "aww it's ok, I love you" when their child does something wrong. The parent will tell the child what they have done is wrong and will punish them for it. The same is true of God and the sins of man.

God is a god of limited love. Check. And here to think that I’ve been foolishly wasting my time worshipping a god without limitations...

God has told us in the bible that sins are wrong and points out what sins are in the Ten Commandments:

So that’s your opening salvo? That there should be laws preventing Americans from working on Sunday, among other things? And what if your parents tell you to work on the Sabbath?

In particular to homosexuality, the God of the bible says this:

If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie witha woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be putto death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them. -Leviticus 20:13

Wow! And you think that it’s a good thing that you had to be told that mass murder is a good thing?

Do go on...

Homosexuality is a sin, just as lying, murdering, and adultery is a sin.

Reeelly? And here’s where I think you missed Keith’s point, do you really think that two people loving each other is exactly the same thing as lying, murdering and adultery?

Exactly the same? A life sustaining, socially redeeming intimate relationship with a person of the same gender is just as harmful and injurious as lying to someone, murdering someone, or screwing around on your partner behind their back?

Who, pray tell, is victim of same-sex love, Chew?

The God of the Bible is a Loving God, but He is also a God of Justice…This is the love the Bible speaks of, not a "universal love" or a worldy love.

So you’re saying that God’s love is "conditional," as opposed to the "universal" AKA unconditional love that dominates this world?

Again, do go on…

God doens't just love everyone,

Unlike we Earthly-bound sinners who do love everyone?

He loves everyone in such a way that He sent His Son to die for them as a sacrifice to atone for their sins. If you don't believe in Jesus, then you will still stand condemned.

According to whom? The god of the Bible whom you consider yourself to be on par with?

The "do unto others as you would have others do unto you" statement Kieth Olbermann is talking about is half right, it is from the book of Mark in the Bible:

Actually it’s from the book of math, everybody love everybody = maximum freedom for all.

And to preempt, there are actions and there are consequences. No God of justice punishes infinitely for finite sins. To believe such is to believe insanity.

So yes, we should love each other as we love ourselves, but we should also love God with our entire being. How do we show God our love? The same way a child shows a parent their love, by listening to them and obeying them.

Blindly? Isn't one of the responsibilities of a parent to teach their child to think for themselves, AKA - how to be responsible?

Commiting to what God has said to us in the bible we show Him our love.

Let me know when your “Biblical commitments” include the illegalization of divorce and remarriage, and we’ll talk. Until then, BULLSHIT!

By believing that Jesus paid the price for our sins, and that He was truly the Son of God, God in the flesh, and that through Him, turning away from our sins, we are saved from being condemned to an eternity in Hell.

^nuff said^

This doesn't mean we shouldn't share the same rights as human beings in this country,

I take it that the "same rights" part was a typo?

but please don't sit there and argue that Christians should "do unto others as you would have other do unto yourself".

Who, moi? I've been arguing for years that the best way for you Christians to bring we godless heathens to Christ is to fuck us all over - legally and with impunity.

Using this argument and saying that God is a God of Love, why can't you love us the way your God does is a misunderstanding of this.

Those damn godless heathens and their godless god. Breathtaking audacity I tell ya, just breathtaking.

God is a God of Love and Justice.

Good God, and here all this time I thought Love was about injustice. *Phew*

As humans we all have rights, however as sinners we all don't deserve any of them. It is only by God's grace alone we have anything at all.

(Pause for emphasis...)

Chew, if your “holier than thou” beliefs require such a litany of inconsistency, the suggestion that sin requires no victim, and the idea that the death threat of Leviticus 20:13 is legitimate, and something that needed to be brought to your attention, then your problem isn’t with the definition of marriage, it’s with the definition of God's grace itself.

What you’re suggesting is that this:

Grace: address, adroitness, agility, allure, attractiveness, balance, beauty, breeding, comeliness, consideration, cultivation, decency, decorum, dexterity, dignity, ease, elegance, etiquette, finesse, finish, form, gracefulness, lissomeness, lithesomeness, mannerliness, manners, nimbleness, pleasantness, pliancy, poise, polish, propriety, refinement, shapeliness, smoothness, style, suppleness, symmetry, tact, tastefulness

Is indistinguishable from this:

Leviticus 20:13 "If a man lies with a man...They must be put to death.

Sexual cleansing in Iraq
You can do better.

Joe Dallas does VP of Exodus, Randy Thomas.

Joe Dallas, speaker at love won out conferences, who's books and cd's are staples of the Exodus "bookstore," and who himself is heavily referenced throughout the site, is the quintessential example of what is wrong with the anti-gay, slash, political ex-gay movement when they claim that their beliefs about sexuality are Biblically based.

And it's not just the fact that their "Biblical beliefs" are so consistently inconsistent, it's really about the fact that they take such pains to hide it.

Joe Dallas is divorced and remarried. An unrepentant adulter according to the bible, yet he has the audacity to author and promote a book called "The Gay Gospel? How Pro-Gay Advocates Misread The Bible."

You can read more about his current marital indiscretion here.

This is what he had to say on Randy's blog:

Randy, your answer to Hugo is one of the best responses to that sort of hyperbole that I've ever read. Bravo! Actually, yours is the first blog I've ever taken time to keep revisiting, and I'm enjoying it hugely. And yes, I'd say you just encouraged the birth of a new blog that I suspect won't be titled, "Everyday Loving Thoughts About Randy Collected."

How appropos, Joe.

Hugo's comment to Randy was thus, which I personally found to be quite accurate:

Maybe you could label yourself as what you are: a closeted gay man, incapable of loving the way he loves and living in fear. God set you free form nothjing, your chose barrten, loveless life and didicated your l9fe to oppressing and defaming people like you.

And did your fake dream also include the ending the messages of hatred and constant vomiting of lies coming from Christian right and your employers? Most likely not?

People who have been oppressed, been targeted with such hate as we are do get angry. BVut not even that is allowed because you fascists want us to go underground in hiding. That old lady chose to come gloating to people who were hurting, she chose to rub in the insult... but then that is what you christianists do, Nothing is enough fpr you when it comes to hurting people.

No more mr. Nice gay, I will fight you to the day I die and I will never give up.

Well said Hugo (if not well spelled ;).

Randy's long-winded yet typically trite response to Hugo -- the one that Joe Dallas responded to -- is here.
--
The name of that thread?

“Stop It” Therapy for The Masses - A Day Dream. A dream in which evil prop 8 protesters stop "knocking crosses out of old ladies hands," and gay couples allow pastors like Rick Warren to legally crap all over them with impunity.

Yes, that'll always be the dream, Randy...
--
And on a completely unrelated note:

Mad TV Bob Newhart Skit - Mo Collins - Stop it


Breaking news: Exodus / Love Won Out, releases new campaign slogan:
Gay? - Stop It!

The “L” Word… Use it or lose it.

Courtesy NG,

(paraphrased):
On Thursday, 11/6, This is video of a press conference that occurred Thursday in Los Angeles with Lorri Jean of the Los Angeles Gay And Lesbian Center announcing a new website, www.invalidateprop8.com and a call to action.



Full transcript:

Lorri Jean of the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center:

Good afternoon.

This Tuesday, by a very slim margin, the voters of California passed Proposition 8, in an effort to strip an entire group of people of their fundamental right to marry. That slim margin passed this proposition for one reason and one reason only. They fell victim to campaign of lies and deceit that was perpetrated by the Yes on 8 forces.

campaign of lies and deception was immoral and reprehensible. With malice of forethought, the Yes on 8 campaign lied to California voters, and they started right from the very beginning.

Their very first ad said “Churches would lose their tax exemption,” if Proposition 8 did not pass. A lie.

Their second claim, was that ministers would be prosecuted if Proposition 8 did not pass, and they did not agree with the right to marry. Again, an absolute lie.

Third, they claimed that schools would be required to teach children about gay marriage if Proposition 8 did not pass. Another complete falsehood.

And you don’t have to take my word for it. You can look at many of the newspapers throughout the state, who exposed this campaign of lies and distortions for what it was, like the LA Times. But you didn’t have to be in an urban area like LA, the Fresno Bee, not a paragon of liberal thought, called their campaign “a flat lie.”

Also, a prominent Mormon legal scholar issued a memorandum analyzing all of their claims, and found them to be false and misleading, attorney Morris Thurston. And in fact, many fair minded Mormons, many fair minded members of the LDS Church are very upset that Proposition has passed, and are equally upset by the deceptive and false campaign that was run by the Yes on 8 forces.

They even stooped so low as to send a campaign mailer, targeted to African Americans, with Barack Obama’s picture on it, implying that Barack Obama supported Proposition 8, when they knew full well that Barack Obama has come out against Proposition 8. That is the kind of lying and deception that helped them cleave to a very small margin on Tuesday.

And they took this dirty campaigning to a new low in our state. And how were they able to do this? They were able to do this, because the majority of the donations that came to the Yes on 8 campaign, came from members of the Mormon Church. And not on their own initiative, but at the direction, the express direction of the president of the Mormon Church. He sent a letter, and instructed it that it be read in every Mormon congregation, directing members of his church to get involved this campaign. And so, from all over the country, they flooded the Yes on 8 coffers with money, to run this lying and deceitful campaign.

We are here today to decry those lies. To expose them for what they are. And the LDS Church members were not the only ones. Other, conservative, religious, anti-gay organizations from outside of our state, did similar things. Like Focus on the Family, or the national office in Connecticut of the Knights of Columbus.

These organizations are entitled to their views, but they are not entitled to run campaigns of lies and deceit, and try to impose their views upon the civil law in the state of California.

We have a separation of church and state in our nation for a reason, and it is to stop those kinds of things. Our nation was founded on the principle that no minority should ever be subject to the tyranny of the majority when it comes to fundamental rights. What has happened with Proposition 8, sets a very dangerous precedent. For the first time in our nation, one group has voted to take away the fundamental rights of a smaller group, and that is wrong and disturbing, and it makes me wonder, who is next? Who’s fundamental rights will a conservative church, from out of state, focus on next?

We should all be protected by our constitution. And we are here today to announce a new campaign. We are not going quietly.

Yesterday, some of the finest attorneys in the state of California joined by the city of Los Angeles, filed suit in the California Supreme Court, to invalidate Proposition 8, as an improper way to amend our constitution, and subjugate a small group of people to the discriminatory will of the majority.

I believe that a majority of Californians would not have voted for this measure if they had known the truth. If they had not been lied to and deceived by the Yes on 8 campaign, funded mostly by donations from member of the Mormon Church.

So, today, we have decided to included the president of the Mormon Church in a campaign that is more productive for our community. We are going to raise money to fight the--to support the effort to repeal Proposition 8. And we are urging people to make donations on our new website, www.invalidateprop8.org. And for every donor who makes a donation, even a small donation of $5, a postcard in the name of that donor, will be sent to President Thomas Monson of the LDS Church, and I want to read to you what that postcard says:

“Dear President Monson:

A donation has been made in your name by (and we will insert the person’s name), to “invalidateprop8.org” to overturn California's Proposition 8 and restore fundamental civil rights to all citizens of California. The money will be donated to legal organizations fighting the case and to support grass-roots efforts in support of full marriage equality. Although we decry the reprehensible role that the Church Latter Day Saints leadership played in denying all Californians equal rights under the law, we are pleased a donation has been made on your behalf to the effort to overturn the discrimination your church members helped enshrine in the California Constitution. Given that throughout its history the Mormon Church has been subjected to bigotry, we hope you appreciate the donation in your name to fight religious bigotry here in California.

Re: Arizona, Arkansas, California and Florida...

Suck on that, Perkins.


More of us now know your endgame.

AKA "deeply held moral beliefs."



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."
___
For more information, and when you hear the words "zero-sum game," they are attempting to HIDE the fact that they are talking about Dominionism.

Need proof? Check out their shock and dissapointment upon learning that they could no longer criminalize our relationships.

Trillion $ sexy.

Alan Chambers on the "unpopularity" of Bush and the occupation war in Iraq:

"It was nice to have a Christian President over the last 8 years who shared my values, whom I believe wholeheartedly means it every-time he says, “God Bless You and God Bless America”. Despite his unpopularity on issues related to the war and the economy, I believe that President George W. Bush and his family restored honor to the highest office in our land and to the White House. He might not have been a perfect President, but he was trustworthy and moral and like Ronald Reagan, the President of my youth, he kept America safe.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

$1 Trillion dollars spent to give these men the opportunity to "keep America safe" from another 9/11, even though the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with preventing another 9/11.

These men died for oil, and more specifically and disgustingly, greed for the mere sake of it.

Alan Chambers: "but he was trustworthy and moral"

~~~Trustworthy:

McCain Falsely Linked Iraq To 9/11 Before Dick Cheney

Senate committee: Bush knew Iraq claims weren't true

Moral:

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

'Miracle' Marine dies; badly burned in 2005 Iraq blast
~~~

Alan Chambers (emphasis in original): "Related to the wins for marriage as we know it, though, must come the realization that 18,000 marriage licenses are this morning deemed invalid in the state of California. Translated: 36,000 hearts that have to be absolutely broken. And, while I am thrilled with the vote in support of keeping marriage the way God intends it, I am truly heavy in heart for the men and women who saw same-sex marriage as an answer to their struggle for acceptance. I do not take any joy in seeing people’s dreams or hearts crushed even if I disagree with them. I pray this morning that the proponents of Arizona’s Prop 102, California’s Prop 8 and Florida’s Amendment 2 celebrate with these broken hearts in mind and with a desire to comfort those who need comfort in the wake of what has to be bitter disappointment. Truly this is what Jesus would do!"

~~~
From the bottom of my heart, Alan, this one's for you:

Boo. Hoo.

"Home Invasion": Vote NO on Prop 8


Scott Trotter, a spokesman with the LDS Church, responded to the advertisement:

“The Church has joined a broad-based coalition in defense of traditional marriage. While we feel this is important to all of society, we have always emphasized that respect be given to those who feel differently on this issue. It is unfortunate that some who oppose this proposition have not given the Church this same courtesy.”

The California Catholic Conference on Monday condemned the ad as “bigoted and intolerant.”



Most Rev. Stephen Blaire, Bishop of Stockton and President of the California Catholic Conference, commented in a press release, calling the ad “a blatant display of religious bigotry and intolerance” and expressing dismay any public media outlet would air it.

“The YES on 8 campaign is not about discrimination and intolerance; it is about restoring the traditional definition of marriage for the good of society and children," said Bishop Blaire. "All individuals and groups, whether religious or not, have both a right and a responsibility to participate in a civil debate about this important issue. From the beginning of this campaign the Catholic Conference has stressed the importance of mutual respect and denounces this type of religious bigotry."
___
Link and story re Box Turtle Bulletin
More here.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner.

Brought to you by: Embedding disabled by request

YES on Proposition 8 (Prop 8) for our kids

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlItG4raicA
~~~A sampling of the comments:

~ this is gross....someone call childrens aid

~ I don't think anything has made me want to punch a baby more :

~ Oh...Oh god...How dare the use children like that!

~ Oh, hi child exploitation.

~ this is fucking terrible.

~ Those poor children.

~ talk about indoctrination.

~ excuse me while I vomit up my lunch in the corner.

~ frankly, at times I wish your God were real, because the thought of you roasting in hell for manipulating these innocent children is a pleasant one.

~ This is like bizarro sesame street. I wish I could vote 0 on a video.

~ There really is no low to which this side won't sink.

___
Update (re NG):

Support your local orphanage, prevent adoption while you still can.

The Daily Show, then and now.

September 30, 2004: Squabble in Coral Gables - Undecided Voters
Undecided voters can't even decide where to sit, let alone who they'll vote for.

October 28, 2008: John McCain's Air Quotes
"Thanks John McCain for exposing the seedy underbelly of the women's health scam."

October 16, 2008: Undecided Focus Group
Samantha Bee and Jason Jones sit down with eight undecided voters to figure out what they are waiting to hear.



http://www.thedailyshow.com/