Saturday, April 17, 2010

Manhattan Declaration's statement on marriage.

"We, no less than they, are sinners"

No, that's not the statement, but it tells you where this is going.
I ran across this a few times lately and finally decided to Check it out.

Drafted October 20, 2009 & Released November 20, 2009

Founded by anti-gay hate monger, Chuck Colson, and drafted by himself, Robert George and Timothy George.

The Manhattan Declaration has a preamble, a declaration, and follows with articles on "life" "marriage" and "religious liberty," and boasts of nearly half a million signatories.

Naturally I was drawn to the section on marriage, to see what was being said about me homsexuality.

They begin with a couple of Bible verses, here's one of them:
The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, for she was taken out of man." For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. Genesis 2:23-24
They then soften us up with some “acknowledgement” of mistakes (without the anti-gay parts):

We confess with sadness that Christians and our institutions have too often scandalously failed to uphold the institution of marriage ... we have too easily embraced the culture of divorce ... we repent, and call upon all Christians to do the same.

And then proceed to bash gay-marriage.
The impulse to redefine marriage in order to recognize same-sex [marriage] ... would lock into place the false and destructive belief that marriage is all about romance and other adult satisfactions, and not, in any intrinsic way, about procreation..."

Yes, I'm sure "romance" and "adult satisfactions" are the reasons why so many gay couples want to adopt.

We'll get back to that "procreation" song and dancee thing later.
We acknowledge that there are those who are disposed towards homosexual and polyamorous conduct and relationships, just as there are those who are disposed towards other forms of immoral conduct. We have compassion for those so disposed; we respect them as human beings possessing profound, inherent, and equal dignity
Yes, I felt more "dignified" by the syllable.

There's really nothing quite like having someone express their love and support for you than by characterizing the most precious moments of your life, shared with someone you love more than life itself, as a matter of good and evil.
Marriage is what one man and one woman establish when, forsaking all others and pledging lifelong commitment, they found a sharing of life at every level of being—the biological, the emotional, the dispositional, the rational, the spiritual— on a commitment that is sealed, completed and actualized by loving sexual intercourse in which the spouses become one flesh, not in some merely metaphorical sense, but by fulfilling together the behavioral conditions of procreation.

That is why in the Christian tradition, and historically in Western law, consummated marriages are not dissoluble or annullable on the ground of infertility, even though the nature of the marital relationship is shaped and structured by its intrinsic orientation to the great good of procreation.
So, in order to blunt the accusation of hypocrisy in regard to having no problem with non-procreative heterosexual-marriages, they now maintain that gays shouldn't be able to marry because LGBT-sex DOESN'T LOOK LIKE hetero-sex?

…the assumption that the legal status of one set of marriage relationships affects no other would not only argue for same sex partnerships;

it could be asserted with equal validity for polyamorous partnerships, polygamous households, even adult brothers, sisters, or brothers and sisters living in incestuous relationships. Should these, as a matter of equality or civil rights, be recognized as lawful marriages, and would they have no effects on other relationships? No.
No. No it could not be asserted with equal validity.

And here's why:
1) Slippery slope argument

This argument states that should one event occur, so will other harmful events. There is no proof made that the harmful events are caused by the first event.

Slippery Slope Fallacy

The fallacy here is the assumption that something is wrong because it is right next to something that is wrong. Or, it is wrong because it could slide towards something that is wrong.
So there's that, plus all this stuff:

-Given that incest is Biblically-approved (see Genesis), why would you even have a problem with incestuous marriage?

-Unlike same-gender attraction, being attracted to one's siblings is NOT a sexual orientation.

-There are direct social consequences to the legalization of incestuous marriage.

If the family unit, as you say, is indeed the cornerstone of society, then the home should the safest place. Legalizing incestuous marriages could fundamentally undermine the perceived sincerity of familial affection.

On to polygamy and Polyamory:

-slippery slope fallacy
-Polygamy, also God approved
-The desire to marry ONE partner is not the same as the desire to marry additional partners
-Also, there are direct social consequences of legalizing polygamous marriages.

The wealthiest would marry up hundreds if not thousands of potential mates for other men. Marriage would become a highly coveted privilege. Now add an ocean of testosterone with no place to go. The incidences of rape and molestation would skyrocket.
And while we’re at it, whenever they compare the “sin” of homosexuality with the “sin” of adultery, they’re comparing having a partner with cheating on one’s partner.
I am left to conclude one of three things about the drafters and many, if not most of the signatories of this "Declaration."

1. They know these arguments are bogus and are fully aware that they are lying.
2. They just don't care about the truth.
3. They really are that stupid.

Inquiring eyes want to know.

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

“It’s Gay, Not SSA”

I've been mulling on this since I first read the article and I think I've finally come to a conclusion.
From Truth Wins Out: February 12th, 2010 by Wayne Besen
Why I Loathe The Term ‘Same-Sex Attraction’(SSA)

Personally, I don’t like the bogus term “SSA”, which stands for “same-sex attraction.” There is no such thing (or diagnosis) as SSA and it is a manipulative attempt to separate LGBT people from their natural, inborn sexuality.

The term SSA is skillfully employed to make it appear as if fundamentalist bigots are not attacking the person, just their sexual feelings.

He then quotes from this article to show the power of words. Note, this is a different quote from the article that TWO uses:
New Poll Shows Support for Repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’
February 11, 2010

As the Obama administration proposes repealing the policy known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” a new New York Times/CBS News poll finds that a majority of the public support allowing openly gay men and women to serve in the military.

There’s less support, however, for allowing homosexuals to serve openly.
As one commenter put it: "The reason the far right uses the term “homosexual” is that it implies that our community consists of nothing but unfettered sexual urges on a daily basis."

Agreed. By using the term homosexuality, they are essentially able to characterize our equality-agenda as being sexually motivated. The use of the term "same-sex marriage" is no different.

When we hear "same-sex marriage," we think of marriage equality.

When they hear the term, they hear "sex marriage," reducing our motive for marriage-equality as being nothing more than a selfish desire to earn governmental recognition of our relationships promiscuity with the same person. Ergo, "sex marriage."

Another commenter had this to say: "SAME-GENDER MARRIAGE (SGM): Now, there’s a term I can understand and believe in. It’s not ambiguous to me at all."

I try to be consistent when using opposing terms, like, gay/straight heterosexual/homosexual, etc. It depends on what I'm writing and how I'm using the words.

So that much I'll defend in regard to the use of SSA, SSM, homosexual, etc.--sometimes they just fit.

But I will say that I have been, and will continue to use the terms "same-gender attraction" and "same-gender marriage" to help ensure that they are being taken in the context they were meant to be. As opposed to the anti-gay industry's use of the terms to reduce us, and the intimacy we share with our partners, as being nothing more than recurring sex acts.

Saturday, April 10, 2010

Maddow at her maddest

Now, as I was assembling some facts today to put this decision into context---about the senator‘s voting record, his subsidized residence at C Street, his role as hush money negotiator between Sen. John Ensign and Sen. Ensign‘s mistress and all that---Sen. Coburn said this to the “Daily Caller” Web site. He said, quote, “Look at Rachel Maddow. She comes at me on the basis of emotion. She demonizes me. I don‘t want conservatives to win on the basis of emotion. If we lower ourselves to the level they operate on, we hurt ourselves and our arguments.”

I was trying to do my work. But then, that pops up in my Google alert and then I read it and I become ultimately so blindingly enraged and then hysterically upset and then inconsolably morose and then hyperactively giddy and then happy and then sad and then mad and then happy again.

But I couldn‘t make sense of any of the facts that I was gathering, all of which I was trying to read through the tears of joy and anger and anxiety, but I just can‘t control it. Can you tell? I‘m falling apart right now.
[I've got to memorize that for my next party]

So I promise - I‘m getting emotional by this promise. I promise that tomorrow I will gather myself and offer a full analysis of today‘s Tom Coburn news. I hope you will join us. If I can hold it together long enough, there is plenty of evidentiary facts to present and I will do it if I can, tomorrow night, right here.

Will you excuse me? I need a minute. So we‘re going to be right back. OK? OK. Sorry.
Next Day's evisceration of Tom Coburn:

Politicians should know by now not to F with Rachel Maddow.

Thursday, April 8, 2010

Father Corapi on homosexuality

While sifting through my parents’ library of propaganda I came across a 2002 DVD called " Contemporary Attacks on the Family: A powerful sermon by Fr. John Corapi"

I was familiar with him from (before the anti-gay movement kicked into overdrive) when I saw one of his inspiring sermons (on TV).

The second time I ran across him, he basically said that the root cause of same-gender attraction is the result of confusion. Which I take to mean that every gay person on the planet is just to stupid to see that they are attracted to the opposite sex.

So this time, I was naturally curious to see if he’d broach the subject. And broach he did.I’d add a caveat about the age of this DVD, and how his views may be different now, but the video is still for sale on his website.
Father John Corapi: So the P squad, that’s an attack--a contemporary attack on the family. The attack of the P squad: permissiveness, promiscuity, potions [drugs], pornography, prostitution and progressivism.

Homosexuality. So called alternative lifestyles. Whenever I have talked about this, someone always misunderstands me, even though I do take great pains to try clarify what I’m saying. But I always begin by saying “Look, we are called all people. You can’t hate any class of persons. Everyone is to be loved as God loves them. A person may have a particularly loathsome---to you---habit, persuasion, be in a certain class, maybe ethnics.

You know, when I was a kid, it wasn’t fashionable, yet, to be Italian. I remember being called those names, derogatory names, when I was a little kid. I kinda hurt me. And Irish people were discriminated against. In my home area in upstate New York, it was settled by the Dutch, and the English--Protestant. And in the 1850’s the Irish came, and they were persecuted by the Protestants--Christians. And then the Italians came and low and behold, the Irish persecuted the Italians. And then the Polish came, and low and behold the Pols were persecuted by the Italians and the Irish. And then the Hispanics came, and the Hispanics were looked down upon by the Pols, the Italians and the Irish, and everybody.

So I think we’re getting better. I think there’s less of that kind of thing. But we’ve got to be careful, we don’t want to look down. We don’t want to be derisive, we don’t want to be hateful, we don’t want to be bigoted--for whatever reason a person has that sexual orientation toward a person of the same sex, we don’t quite understand it yet.

It may be a variety of environmental, and societal things. It may even have a genetic component, I don’t know, but you want to know what I tell gay people? And I don’t hate them. Many of the very creative, sensitive--beautiful people. I’m not homophobic, at all, I’m not afraid of them. I say, you know what, you’re just like me---no, not that way---you’re just like me because like me, you’re called to celibacy.

That’s the answer. For whatever reason you are the way you are, and I sympathize, with being the way you are. It must be tough--It must be tough. But if you are in fact that way, then you are called to celibacy, just like me. I am human, there are days when I might be tempted to this that or the other thing. I’m called to celibacy, and I don’t question it, and I don’t doubt it, I know it. And may I die having been faithful to it, all the days of my priestly life--I don’t mess with that, that’s a fact. And I tell them, same for you until you can resolve that, or maybe you never will, you’re called to be celibate.

That’s an attack on the family. This nonsense of giving legal recognition to samesex partners. It’s a terrible contemporary attack on the family.

It will undermine society, and society will go from bad to worse. And it will unravel, it will crash, and it will burn.
First time I’ve ever heard this one:

“…you want to know what I tell gay people? …I say, you know what, you’re just like me, you’re just like me because like me, you’re called to celibacy.”
Alan Chambers of Exodus: This is why I believe that it is so important to clarify that just living a celibate gay life is just as sinful as living a sexually promiscuous one. The sin is in identifying with anything that is contrary to Christ, which homosexuality clearly is. (218)
So, every same-sex attracted human being on the earth is not just “called” to a life of celibacy, but "called" to hate themselves on top of it.

It also goes to show the disingenuousness of those who so rabidly condemn the symptom: "homosexual behavior,” rather than the so-called "cause" of the problem: “identifying with anything that is contrary to Christ”

“…you’re just like me because like me, you’re called to celibacy.”
Calling: impulse to follow particular job: a strong urge to follow a particular career or do a particular type of work
Impulse? Urge? That which one is drawn to most? Seems to me that homosexuality would fit more in line with the definition of "calling" than does celibacy, besides, human sexuality is not a "calling," it's an empirical fact.

“…you’re just like me because like me, you’re called to celibacy.”

First of all, who the hell are you to decide what another person's calling is, especially when it is based, arbitrarily, on an unverifiable third party source?

Secondly, I was supposedly “called” to celibacy AGAINST MY WILL---the very antithesis of what it means to be "called."

Third, what do you say to those who tell you that their “calling” is to fall in love? Oh that's right:

"This nonsense of giving legal recognition to samesex partners."

"Nonsense" being code for 'their love is fake, and their relationships irrelevant.'
We are NOT just like you, Fr. Corapi, there’s quite a difference between “a calling” and the perversion of its meaning.

We are called, by you (et al), to rebel against our own human-nature, yet no Golden Rule has been broken. Which puts your moral credibility into serious question.
Celibacy is not a “calling” for homosexuals any more than lefties are "called" not write with their left hand. In this case, it's a "calling" to a life sentence of solitary confinement. The kind of "calling" you suggest is IMMORAL.

And for the record, I don’t recall him having said anything about the effect of violence---and the promotion of it---as being an attack on the family (but he had plenty to say on the evils of birth control).
And then there's this:
Fr. Corapi: “we’ve got to be careful, we don’t want to look down. We don’t want to be derisive, we don’t want to be hateful, we don’t want to be bigoted.”
Father Corapi, I have no respect for those who preach that I'm too stupid to know what love is, or to recognize intentionally veiled condescension.

Until you can decipher the true meaning of right and wrong, you’re "calling" will remain as an atheist generator.

Sunday, April 4, 2010

Maafa 21: anti-abortion propaganda bait and switch

(Pronounced Ma-afa)

The following DVD, Maafa 21, was given to me by a card carrying member of the "Obama is Satan" club.


Definition: information that is designed to mislead or persuade

Synonyms: advertising, advertising, agitprop, announcement, brainwashing, disinformation, doctrine, evangelism, handout, hogwash, hype, implantation, inculcation, indoctrination, newspeak, promotion, promulgation, proselytism, publication, publicity

Antonyms: truth
The ending line (before the preacher’s rant) of the movie gave it away:

“As long as abortion remains legal, the Maafa cannot end.”

In word, in deed and in timing, pitch perfect propaganda.

Yet the time it took for those words to come out of that man’s mouth, is the time it took to throw the entire two hour history lesson I had just received, out the window.
You can argue the conspiratorial racist history and inception of Planned Parenthood all you like, but at this point, for some people, their services are vital. But exposing Planned Parenthood’s past was never the point of the movie, attempting to “secularize” the issue, was. A common political tack: Guilt by association (much of the anti-gay industry is built on this premise).

It was designed to appeal mostly to people of faith and those sympathetic to the cause, who may be on the fence about abortion. In this case, demonize Planned Parenthood’s sordid past in order to depict abortion and birth control as tools of genocide--and voilĂ , elective abortion = racial genocide.

The producers of this film, exploited the very history of the exploitation of blacks, in order to blur the line between genocidal intentions and abortion itself. It was never about eugenics, as the back cover of the DVD suggests:

Black Genocide in 21st Century America

They were stolen from their homes, locked in chains and taken across an ocean. And for more than 200 years, their blood and sweat would help to build the richest and most powerful nation the world has ever known.

But when slavery ended, their welcome was over. America's wealthy elite had decided it was time for them to disappear and they were not particular about how it might be done.

What you are about to see is that the plan these people set in motion 150 years ago is still being carried out today. So don't think that this is history. It is not. It is happening right here, and it's happening right now.
The back of the DVD cover also leads one to the Maafa website, where you can find that quote, as well as, after a little digging, this (PDF):

The claim is that the abortion issue is about privacy, and women’s rights, and reproductive freedom.

But that’s just marketing hype. In reality, it was EUGENICS that drove the legalization of abortion. And now, a stunning new movie lays it all out with incredible documentation.
The film is called Maafa 21 and it exposes a plan to create “racial purity” that began 150 years ago and is still being carried out right now. It’s about the ties between the Nazis, the American eugenics movement and today’s “family planning” cartel. It’s about elitism, secret agendas, treachery and corruption at the highest levels of political and corporate America.
The rest of the Maafa 21 website seems a bit coy in revealing its anti-abortion agenda, unlike its producers, Life Dynamics Incorporated--who’s website was curiously NOT listed on the back of the DVD jacket. Even the LifeDynamics hyperlink on their YT trailer page only leads to their YT video library.

Something to hide, perhaps?

“This is the mindset that is behind everything that Life Dynamics does. We are fighting to return full legal protection for every unborn child, from the moment of conception. Because of this our motto is, "Pro-Life: without compromise, without exception, without apology."
As I said, that last line gives it all away:

“As long as abortion remains legal, the Maafa cannot end.”

A more productive and success oriented approach might be to suggest the end of unwanted pregnancies. It’s not a secret that abortions occur regardless of legality--and often with fatal consequences. But who cares about those lives, right?

That last line, and the rhetoric of every anti-abortionist that I’ve ever heard, is not at all interested in preventing the reason for abortion, but in controlling, via religiously influenced BIG government, what women do with their bodies. Misogyny at its best.

-The anti-abortion movement, as far as I have seen in my life, is intent on illegalizing not just abortion, but birth control of any kind, as well as comprehensive sex ed---all of which lead to more unwanted pregnancies, which then lead to more abortions.
Again, from Life Dynamics, the producers of the video:

This is the mindset that is behind everything that Life Dynamics does. We are fighting to return full legal protection for every unborn child, from the moment of conception. Because of this our motto is, "Pro-Life: without compromise, without exception, without apology."
I take it that that means “Life begins at conception,” which means that a new eternal soul is created upon conception?

Unfortunately, no anti-abortionist that I’ve seen interviewed has ever explained it like that. It would offer their “secular” audience the reason why anti-abortionists are so fervent about their opposition. Not that they would change that many minds, but it would plant some seeds of respect for their position/beliefs. Until, that is, that extra support finds out that they are also against all birth control and sexual education (sans ignorance only abstinence only education). Not to mention the resounding call for BIG government to implement this religious supremacist master plan.

“We are fighting to return full legal protection for every unborn child, from the moment of conception”

-Am I to understand that an eternal soul is created at the very moment that the lucky sperm fully penetrates the egg?

-Why would God need humans to create souls?

-How can a physical act create something non-physical?

-And if physical conception is required to create a new soul, how then did Adam and Eve come about?

And what about spontaneous abortions and miscarriages, which amount to about 20-50% of all pregnancies?

What happens if the zygote (fertilized egg) fails to adhere to the uterine wall as it often does? Where do all those eternal souls go?

Why isn’t the anti-abortion industry doing all it can to ensure that these eternal souls make it to term? Funding research to preventing spontaneous abortions and miscarriages is something practical that can be done right now, but why aren’t the leaders of the anti-abortion movement doing this? Are they that unaware of reproductive facts? Or are they intentionally keeping the focus on late term abortions that people can emotionally identify with for the sake of fundraising purposes?

They must despise their fundraising audience.

Further, The Catholic Church abolished limbo a few years back, but to my knowledge, hasn’t replaced it with another place for these aborted souls to go.
There is a reason some of us refer to the “pro-life” movement as “anti-abortion,” or “anti-choice.” In my opinion, they are actuality pro-death.

-Support of the unnecessary Iraq war, which has resulted in tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of deaths.

-Neglect of the 40, 000 already alive people that die of starvation and preventable diseases every day.

-Support for the Bush administration’s ravaging of funding for low income children. (It was a real “treat” to hear republicans on the House Floor decry funding to enforce “dead-beat dads” to pay their alimony to mom‘s with kids.)
Again, why aren’t they funding research to prevent spontaneous abortions/miscarriages with the millions upon millions they rake in each year? Think of all the liberal$ who would actually support that cause?

It seems clear to me that credibility and solutions are at the bottom of their priority list.

Ask your abortion leaders those questions, I would LOVE to hear their answers.

Once again, the point, even if this eugenics conspiracy is as true as they say, we have a Planned Parenthood right here in Caucasian conservative central, should they too be shut down on the basis of unrelated genocidal intentions?
I had an idea the other day that religion is mostly for the faithless. Only someone who doesn’t believe in God would need to be reminded of its existence, or need “His” book to remind them that there is life after death.

Anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia, anti-stem cell research, these are all symptoms of the same disease: Fear of Death--or more accurately, the suppression of the fear of death.

Terri Schiavo lived for 13 days after being cut off from all food and water. Essentially, she was tortured to death. Not because she was euthanized---as per her wishes---but because the anti-euthanasia rabble refuse to allow for any legal means of dying humanely.

Faith, eh?

It seems to me that they are against anyone being euthanized, et al, because they are afraid of being reminded of death.

In that context, those who proclaim the loudest of their belief in God, and life after death, are the most terrified of death...thus the need to scream about it.

I highly recommend this article:

Anti-Choice Doc[umentary] Aims to Link Reproductive Rights to ‘Black Genocide’
By Michelle Goldberg
March 9, 2010

It digs into the misuses of what was presented to be factual history and makes it clear that Maafa 21 was designed as a piece of propaganda. Worse, inherent in its design is the exploitation of the exploitation of racism.
Update: 4-6-10, 3ish AM

For the sake of disclosure, I’ve just been informed by a poster that Michelle Goldberg is biased.

One of the websites the poster lead me to included this video of Michelle talking about the importance of taking a more expansive and global look at reproductive health, and the unseen connections that exist.