Focus on the Family seeks to deprive children of parents.

Citizenlink blog, Mar 17, 2010 by Jenny

Stark bill promotes agenda over children’s needs

A federal bill reintroduced this week would place children and their need for a mother and a father at the mercy of an agenda to promote gay and lesbian couples.

Implying that the only reason gay couples adopt children is so that the kids can be used as props to “normalize” their own relationship in the eyes of the public.

If passed, the bill would make it illegal for states that give priority to married mother and father couples for foster care and adoption placement, to receive federal funds for the purpose. Read about it here.

Yep. From the link:

The bill would make it illegal for any entity involved with adoption or foster care placement that receives federal funding to discriminate in its placement decisions based on sexual orientation, gender identity or marital status. States whose statutes or policies conflict with the laws would need to change those policies or risk losing federal adoption funds.

And voilà, “big government” finds a family, and “small government” becomes an orphan.

There's some interesting stuff in section 2 of the bill that you may want to check out:

(4) As of 2007, gay, lesbian, and bisexual parents were raising 4 percent of all adopted children and fostering for 3 percent of all foster children. A report from the Evan B. Donaldson Institute found that an additional 2,000,000 gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals are interested in adoption.

(5) According to the Urban Institute, same-sex couples raising adopted children tend to be older, more educated, and have more economic resources than other adoptive parents. Studies confirm that children with same-sex parents have the same advantages and same expectations for health, social and psychological adjustment, and development as children whose parents are heterosexual.

Unlike FOTF's disingenuous show of concern for the wefare of foster kids, This bill really is about improving their lives.
---
Extrapolating from the ‘bigotry should be government sanctioned' stance, Ms. Jenny decries this potential LGBT measure of equality as a travesty, managing to take swipes at gay marriage along the way:

1) …State policies favoring the most stable family structure for orphaned children would necessarily be thrown out in order to comply with the federal law.
2) …faith-based foster care and adoption organizations … [will] lose business with the state.
3) People of sincere religious faith will marginalized…
4) …Catholic Charities in D.C. had to drop its foster care services when the city council redefined marriage.
5) …Catholic Charities of Boston was run out of that state, too—just after same-sex marriage became law.

And apparently it’s all our fault.

~The Sociopath Next Door, p59:

Using fear-based propaganda to amplify a destructive ideology, such a leader can bring the members of a frightened society to see the its as the sole impediment to the good life, for themselves and maybe even for humanity as a whole, and the conflict as and epic battle between good and evil. Once these beliefs have been disseminated, crushing the its without pity or conscience can, with chilling ease, become and incontrovertible mandate.

And if there’s one thing the anti-gay industry knows how to do best, it’s how to portray a gay as an it. Gays are promiscuous, disease ridden, drug addicted, child molesters, to name just a few of the dehumanizing terms they use to turn us into its.

Also, did you know that CHILDREN NEED A MOTHER AND A FATHER!!!!

Six out of nine paragraphs include some combination of the words “mother” and “father,” the rest implied it:

1) need for a mother and a father
2) married mother and father
3) both a mother and a father
4) mother-father homes
5) a mother and a father.
6) need a mother and a father, and the best way to make that happen is still marriage.

~~~~
To use Jenny’s words; “It’s hard to know where to begin with all that is wrong with this.”

1) Let's start with the Gay Bashing used to decry LGBT adoptions:

a) …children…at the mercy of an agenda to promote gay and lesbian couples.

b) We all know that difficult situations arise and family policy should address those situations, but it shouldn’t create them.

c) The “family”… …[is] more specific than two adults—or the current fad in social engineering.

2) Faith based adoption agencies will be forced to shut down.

a) According to the article you linked to, That's only if they can't pay their own discriminatory way.

b) If an organization wants to discriminate against a certain group, then I think it's only ethical to not receive their tax dollars in doing so.

Why should discriminatory agencies be allowed to receive federal funding that includes a portion of the tax dollars of LGBT citizens and their supporters? Otherwise it's thievery.

c) Being organizations of faith, shouldn’t this be where your “faith” kicks in?

d) And finally, If a child-placement service---especially a faith based one---is willing to sacrifice the welfare of the many in order to starve the few, I think it’s fair to question the integrity of that organization.
---
This was an interesting article in regard to how Catholic Charities of Boston was “run out of that state”:

Catholic Charities stuns state, ends adoptions

Hehir said he hoped the decision will end the tumult surrounding the gay adoption issue. The controversy began in October when the Globe reported that Catholic Charities had been quietly processing a small number of gay adoptions, despite Vatican statements condemning the practice. Over the last decades, the Globe reported, approximately 13 children had been placed by Catholic Charities in gay households, a fraction [1/55th] of the 720 children placed by the agency during that period.

Agency officials said they had been permitting gay adoptions to comply with the state's antidiscrimination laws. But after the story was published, the state's four bishops announced they would appoint a panel to examine whether the practice should continue. In December, the Catholic Charities board, which is dominated by lay people, voted unanimously to continue gay adoptions.

3) “Children need a Mother and a Father”

OMG, by far the most irritating of all.

a) A motherload of a lie. If that was their concern they’d be fundraising to make divorce illegal.

One of the quotes they love to bash us with:

Mark 10:5-9

5"It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. 6"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'[a] 7'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,[b] 8and the two will become one flesh.'[c] So they are no longer two, but one. 9Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

Yet man separates “one flesh” all the time. But who cares what the Bible says, right, FOTF?

b) Are you seriously suggesting that it would be better for a child to live in an abusive home with “a mother and a father,” than to live in a same-gender parented household that was safe?

c) The studies that FOTF points to that prove the power of the mom and dad, are too often (if not always), irrelevant and/or misleading in some way, but that’s whole ‘nother can of worms.

d) Placing so much emphasis on the importance of gender cheapens this theoretical “mother and father” down to an “Any married p and v will do” position.

~The Sociopath Next Door, p109:

When deciding whom to trust, bear in mind that the combination of consistently bad or egregiously inadequate behavior with frequent plays for your pity is as close to a warning mark on a conscienceless person’s forehead as you will ever be given.

Pity the “victims” of gay adoption, and then pity us, and our loss of yet another government subsidized expression of faith based hate religious freedom.

Boo. Hoo.
---
The results of the studies on the welfare of kids in foster care are appalling. That’s a long article, you can get a sense of it here:

Now, consider a study released on April 7, 2005 by a large, Washington State-based foster-care provider, Casey Family Programs, and Harvard Medical School. The study used case records and interviews to assess the status of young adult “alumni” of foster care.

When compared to adults of the same age and ethnic background who did not endure foster care:

· Only 20 percent of the alumni could be said to be “doing well.” Thus, foster care failed for 80 percent.
· They have double the rate of mental illness.
· Their rate of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder was double the rate for Iraq War veterans.
· The former foster children were three times more likely to be living in poverty – and fifteen times less likely to have finished college.
· And nearly one-third of the alumni reported that they had been abused by a foster parent or another adult in a foster home.
---
Why, then, do we continue to pour billions of dollars into a system which fails 80 percent of the time and actually abuses at least one-third of those forced into it?

We do it because, over 150 years, we’ve built up a huge, powerful network of foster-care “providers” – “a foster care-industrial complex” with an enormous vested interest in perpetuating the status quo.

The author of that article links to another article entitled Twelve Ways To Do Child Welfare Right.

If you click on one link in this article, that’s the one. It offers a variety of solutions to fix the broken foster-care system, focusing mainly on prevention. This is where Focus on the Family’s priorities should lie--ON THE FAMILY.

Focus on the Family has an annual budget of over 100 million dollars and boasts of a 38 state network of “Fully Associated Family Policy Councils.” So far, twenty-nine states have been successful in their bid to bash gay relationships by legal decree.

They’ve raised millions upon millions upon millions through campaigns of lies and deception. The sociopaths at the top make them up, and their nonthinking followers repeat them.

Bush’s trillion dollar deficit, a-okay. An unnecessary war that cost the lives of tens of thousands (at least), to the tune of another trillion, a-okay. Children languishing in foster care, children in foster care unnecessarily, families that can’t make ends meet--also, a-okay.

But two gay people in love who want to wed? That, classily enough, opens up the floodgates. Wallets open, volunteers appear, press releases claiming victimhood are “rushed” out, and church networking explodes in the effort to prevent any chance of it.

However, when it comes to raising funds for actual families in need, Focus and their 38 state network of "family" groups are MIA.

For Shame.

_________________________________________________
Additional resources.

Rosie O’Donnell’s movie, America
-Resources and disturbing facts section.

The sociopath next door-Amazon.
-This book changed my life. It really helped me to better understand the atrocious behavior of the anti-gay industry’s talking heads and their non-thinking flocks.

Sociopaths: the predators among us.
-one of my essays (long).
_____________________________________________

Focus on the Family upset about too much respect

Citizenlink
3-11-10
Gay Agenda in New York Classrooms

New York City schools are hosting a Respect for All week.
---
Citizenlink was apparently unable to provide a link to these gay-agenda shenanigans, so I took the liberty of Googling the event to find out for myself.

[NYC] Council, DOE Launch First Annual “Respect for All Week”

Anti-Bullying and Harassment Week Will Kick Off on March 8 and Run through March 12, 2010

...The Department’s “Respect for All” initiative is New York City’s effort to combat bullying and harassment based on ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and other characteristics...

Re video below: The two city advocates featured here, more than ‘made the case’ for the Respect For All program and seemed genuinely and passionately interested in its success (I especially enjoyed the reasons, facts and examples portion of the adult conversation ;).

Christine Quinn: But it was just very exciting today at the kickoff precedent, just to have such a hugely diverse group of New Yorkers standing behind us. Rabbis, Imams, Reverends, ..coalition, everybody there with a united message that everyone has to be respected in our public school system if children are going to have the ability to get a quality education.

Naturally, Focus on the Family---via Citizenlink---is having none of it. One of the characteristics listed on the scale of bullying is sexual orientation, which they invariably interpret to mean homosexuality:

Joseph Mattera, presiding bishop of the Christ Covenant Coalition, said that gives GLSEN a permanent foothold in New York City classrooms.

"The whole idea is just to soften up the students so that there will be a receptivity in the future to same-sex marriage or other gay-friendly curriculum," Mattera said.

“The whole idea ... gay-friendly curriculum”

Yes. And an ethnic-friendly curriculum, and a nationality-friendly curriculum, and a religion-friendly curriculum, and a disability-friendly curriculum, and a gender-friendly curriculum, etc --- As the sign says: Respect for All.

They end with this link:

There are ways to deal with promotion of homosexuality in schools.

Which goes to a place called truetolerance.org; “a project of focus on the family”:

Concerned about the pro-gay agenda in your child’s public school? It’s sad, but many public schools have, in the name of “tolerance,” stifled free speech and true diversity by silencing students of faith, and those with conservative perspectives.

This isn’t true tolerance. True Tolerance means a free and respectful exchange of ideas.

One of those free and respectful exchanges of ideas might include the “truly tolerant” way of smearing any program that supports LGBT persons.

Such as thse participants of the Day of Silence:

The Day of Silence is a student-led national event that brings attention to anti-LGBT name-calling, bullying and harassment in schools. ...The event is designed to illustrate the silencing effect of this bullying and harassment on LGBT students and those perceived to be LGBT.

And this is how truetolerance.org characterizes the participants of the pro-gay Day of Silence. definition (PDF) of the Day of Silence:

GLSEN claims its “Day of Silence” event, held annually in mid April, is about tolerance and safety. But if you pay close attention to the materials being distributed for this event, it’s clear there is a one-sided political agenda beneath the rhetoric.

They define concern for LGBT bullying as “rhetoric,” and then charge that “there is a one-sided political agenda beneath” it.

IMNSHO, truetolerance.org is essentially another site designed to bash any program that brings attention to gay-bashing.

When Goodness is a Sin

Citizenlink 11-30-09: Humanist Group Wages War on Christmas

The American Humanist Association has launched a nationwide promotion to undermine Christmas. The "National Godless Holiday" campaign includes a series of bus and rail ads that take a swipe at the Christmas celebration, exhorting people to "Be Good for Goodness' Sake."

Oh the humanity. What a bad thing it is to "Be Good for Goodness' Sake." Unlike those who need to be told by the Bible to be good. How ever will supremacist Christians regain their monopoly on goodness?

According the The American Humanist Association, they are "driven by a desire to meet the needs of people in the here and now, and "The positions we hold and the actions we take are not simply for our own benefit, but for the betterment of all of society."

Pretty ominous, eh?

Back to the Citizenlink article:

Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel and dean of Liberty University School of Law, said the ads are insensitive and mean.

"It is wrong to belittle Jews for celebrating Hanukkah during the holiday season, and it is wrong to offend all religions during Christmas."

Of course, Jews and the members of all other religions are going to burn in a lake of fire for all eternity---by a loving god no less. But that doesn't discourage Staver and Focus on the Family from exploiting them--No doubt for goodness' sake.

And as far as “insensitive and mean” goes, that’s quite rich coming from Matt Staver. This is a man who argued in front of the California Supreme Court to deny marriage equality.

One of his arguments was thus:

Same sex relations will not accidentally, unintentionally, in an unplanned fashion, produce children.

This is also a man who penned a book called “Same-Sex Marriage: Putting Every Household at Risk." A book that contains some of the most hateful and vile rhetoric and slander that I have ever read in an anti-gay book.

In Chapter 3: Our Children At Risk, he had this to say on p46:

Another study found a significant increase in the risk of incest among children raised by homosexual parents. “A disproportionate percentage---29 percent of the adult children of homosexual parents had been specifically subjected to sexual molestation by that homosexual parent, compared to only 0.6 percent of the adult children of heterosexual parents having reported sexual relations with their parent…Having a homosexual parent(s) appears to increase the risk of incest with a parent by a factor about 50.” (92)

And what does footnote 92 list as its source, you ask. *drum roll please*…The long-time discredited lord of virulently anti-gay fake studies, Paul Cameron.
--
Psychopath: A person with an antisocial personality disorder, manifested in aggressive, perverted, criminal, or amoral behavior without empathy or remorse.

Troglodytes disprove evolution

CitizenLink 11-20-09
Friday Five: Dr. Stephen Meyer, Discovery Institute
by Kim Trobee, editor

With the 150th anniversary of Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species fast approaching, Dr. Meyer explains the holes in the theory of evolution and the magnificent ode to intelligent design.

Dr. Stephen Meyer is director and senior fellow of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute.

Gosh golly gee, Ms. Trobee, what is this Discovery Institute that you speak of?

Wikipedia:

The Discovery Institute is ... best known for its advocacy of intelligent design.

Its Teach the Controversy campaign aims to teach creationist anti-evolution beliefs in United States public high school science courses.

The Institute has manufactured the controversy they want to teach by promoting a false perception that evolution is "a theory in crisis", through incorrectly claiming that it is the subject of wide controversy and debate within the scientific community.

In 2005, a federal court ruled that the Discovery Institute pursues "demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions", and the institute's manifesto, the Wedge strategy, describes a religious goal: to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions".

"What will it take for the scientific community to open up to the possibility of intelligent design?"

Dearest, the burden of proof is on you to prove that Intelligent Design is something that can be proven scientifically.

Intelligent Design is a religion. Defining religion as science is a lie.

And for those of you who are interested in fully appreciating the richness of the deceit and dishonesty of the Intelligent Design movement, watch PBS’s Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial. They have plenty of resources, including a transcript of the show.


Oh, and by the way, since when is “materialistic” science required to prove the already-known "fact" of Adam and Eve?

Focus on the Family smarter than the AMA

11-11-09

Once again, from Focus on the Family's Citizenlink magazine:

AMA Opposes 'Don't Ask Don't Tell,' Says Gay Marriage Bans are Unhealthy

The country's largest professional organization for doctors takes a position on homosexual issues.

Gary Rose, a consultant with the conservative Medical Institute for Sexual Health, said the AMA should stick to medicine.

The AMA “should stick to medicine” eh? Here’s a Citizenlink quote from last July:

A third major finding of the study is that there is significantly greater medical, psychological and relational pathology in the homosexual population than the general population.

So there you have it. FOTF’s anti-gay Citizenlink knows more about medicine than the American Medical Association.

And in regard to the “study” they speak of:

In short, the study design was so flawed that no mainstream, peer-reviewed, mental-health journal would publish it. And the study’s supposed success stories were gay celibate individuals who adopted false labels to direct attention away from frequently undiminished same-sex attraction.

No cigar, Dobson.

Love Won Out protest in Alabama

Ala black Christian news.com:

"They're telling you to hate your child unless he lives the way you tell him to live," said Johnathan Quinn, president of Central Alabama Pride, one of the protesting organizations. "Their literature tells the parents to abandon their children unless they go this route: forcing them to be straight."

[[Melissa] Fryrear, director of gender issues for Focus on the Family and one of the speakers.] Fryrear said Focus on the Family does not want parents to shun homosexual children.

"One of our messages is helping parents stay in a relationship with their gay-identified child," Fryrear said. "Moms and dads shouldn't have to relinquish their religious convictions."

As described above, she confuses the issue by describing same-sex attraction as both an uncontrollable condition, and one that is a chosen identification.

This is the kind of doublespeak that leads me to conclude that Focus on the Family is a corrupt organization.

As I mocked on my facebook page; "Yay! I want parents who love their “religious convictions” more than they love me!"

GLSEN’s “Ally Week” makes lobbyists of gay allies

Via Citizenlink:

10-20-09
'Ally Week' Pushes Gay Agenda

GLSEN's week long effort uses the anti-bullying message as a springboard to indoctrinate students with the homosexual agenda.
--
Cushman said events like Ally Week play directly into the activist's plans.

"GLSEN is using this so-called anti-bullying event to transform students into lobbyists for its adult agenda," she said, "for things like pro-gay legislation currently proposed in the U.S. House."

Is everyone terrified yet?

Here’s how GLSEN’s “Ally week” bills itself:

I believe all students, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity/expression,deserve to feel safe and supported. That means I pledge to:

-Not use anti-LGBT language and slurs;
-Intervene, if I safely can, in situations where other students are being harassed;
-Support efforts to end bullying and harassment.

The nerve of those insidious gays and their agenda “to transform students into lobbyists” for the protection of their fellow students!
---
The news here is that they’re not promoting Exodus International’s “Allies Too” week:

Wait a minute, aren't you the ones who hate gays?

If that's what you think, it's about time you stop believing the lie that people with different beliefs about sexuality hate those who embrace homosexuality.

In other words, “We don't hate gay liars.”

I especially enjoy #4 and #6 from their “Core Principles” page:

4. We believe that a homosexual, bisexual or transgender identity and/or behavior are outside of the intentional design of human relationships and sexuality, and therefore aren’t what’s best for us, regardless of whether we are drawn to them.

6. We reject the notion that these beliefs somehow amount to hatred, bigotry, or a “phobia.”

You are free to “reject.” You are also free to be labeled hateful, bigoted, and homophobic.

[Candi] Cushman said events like Ally Week play directly into the activist's plans.

Again, Candi, why not counter these "gay activist" indoctrination techniques with Exodus International’s already tried and true “Allies, Too” week?
---
P.S. Focus on the Family also reminds us to hate Kevin Jennings.

FOTF, miniscule cost of DP benefits evil. GW's $4 trillion debt AOK.

Via Citizenlink:

Senate Hearing Focuses on Domestic-Partner Benefits

Lawmakers discuss expanding benefits for federal workers, but largely ignore the cost to taxpayers.
--
The Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act (S. 1102) includes health and disability insurance, an expansion of family-leave programs, life and long-term care insurance and other compensation.
--
The Congressional Budget Office has calculated the cost of implementing the bill at more than $1 billion over 10 years. Democrat committee members are expected to largely ignore the price tag.

Via CBS news:

Bush Administration Adds $4 Trillion To National Debt

On the day President Bush took office, the national debt stood at $5.727 trillion. The latest number from the Treasury Department shows the national debt now stands at more than $9.849 trillion. That’s a 71.9 percent increase on Mr. Bush’s watch.

Each time you go up a notch, eg; thousand, million, billion, trillion, it is 1,000 times the previous number.

1000 thousand = 1 million
1000 million = 1 billion
1000 billion = 1 trillion
1000 trillion = 1 quadrillion

IOW, 1 billion = 1 thousanth of a trillion.

Focus on the Family, and their conservative ego-addicted cohorts (my parents included), are worried about 1 four thousanth of the debt left behind by their hero, George W. Bush.

4 trillion debt, AOK
1 four thousanth of that (over 10 years) for domestic partnerships, evil.
--
Two failed “wars,” tax cuts for the richest of the rich, billions funded in non-competition Iraq contracts, waste fraud and abuse in EVERY direction imaginable, and they claim that it’s the cost to taxpayers that they’re concerned with.

Clearly, Focus on the Family approves of this message:

Matthew Shepard: December 1, 1976 -- October 12, 1998

Buffy from “The Gaytheist Agenda” reminds us that today is the 11th anniversary of Matthew Shepard’s death:

In Memorariam: Matthew Shepard (December 1, 1976 – October 12, 1998)

Linked to is an AP article on the event, and this YouTube video below:



The poster of that video, Michelle5451, writes:

This is for all you hate filled people who feel the need to spew your venom at people who live their lives different than your own. There is no bigger indication of self-hatred and deeply rooted fear than when a person throws hate and anger upon the world.

As if the story of Matthew Shepard isn't terrible enough - picture this, sit with it for awhile and bring it to mind the next time you want to attack a "fag," "dyke" or "homo" - when Matt was found 18 hours after his beating, his head and face were caked with dried blood, and in the blood on his face was a trail leading down his cheeks from his eyes. This tells us Matt had been awake at some point after his beating and before he fell into a coma, he knew what had been done to him, he was in pain, he was scared and perhaps, he knew he was going to die - and so, he cried. Tied to a fence, unable to move, brain damaged and dying - this man cried. Does that break your heart? It should...if you have one. If the story of Matt Shepard doesn't shock and disgust you far greater than the idea of two people of the same gender loving each other, you're the one not right with God.

Song written and performed by Melissa Etheridge. She wrote the song in memory of Matt Shepard.

And who can forget congresswoman, Virginia Foxx's, unconscionably callous remarks (note, Judy Shepard was on the House floor at the time):



Here’s what Exodus International has to say on the matter of hate crimes:

Thought Crimes Laws*

Exodus International believes that every human being is of equal value and worthy of the same treatment under the law. While Exodus International strongly opposes violent crimes and acts of aggression against any individual or group of individuals, thought crimes laws offer more legal protection to certain citizens based on their sexual preference alone. In addition, these laws pave the way to prosecute biblical beliefs about homosexuality, instead of prosecuting illegal actions that harm others.

* often called "hate crimes" laws by proponents

They want their religious hatred---and the consequences of it---protected at the expense of the safety of their LGBT brothers and sisters.

Excuse me while I vomit.

For more information see The Matthew Shepard Foundation.

Exodus/Focus favor the bullying and harassment of gay youth

From Citizenlink:

Activists Push for Expanded Anti-Bullying Bill in New York

The New York City Department of Education is expanding its "Respect for All" anti-bullying program.

The Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network and the New York Civil Liberties Union are lobbying school officials to include a homosexual agenda in the program, according to family experts.

Randy Thomas, vice president of Exodus International, said that parents need to be aware that similar organizations may be trying to promote homosexuality in their schools.

"What gay activists are trying to do is take a legitimate problem, which bullying is, and turn it into an opportunity to spread gay ideology," Thomas said.

From the NYC Dept. of Education:

Second Phase of ‘Respect for All’ Initiative Expands Trainings for School Staff, Creates New Accountability Standards

Last year, the Department of Education added mandated reporting and investigation guidelines to its anti-bias “Respect for All” initiative, making New York City a national leader in efforts to combat bullying and harassment based on ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and other factors.

Hypocrisy aside, to use Mr. Thomas’ words:

"What anti-gay hate activists are trying to do is take a legitimate problem, which bullying is, and turn it into an opportunity to spread anti-gay hate ideology."

"it essentially makes children adults at age 12...to make their own decision"

Anti-Parent Bill Fails in California; Two Bad Bills Pass

Via Citizenlink:

Allan Parker, president of the Justice Foundation, said the bill is an attack on the family.

"It takes away the parental control and authority from the parent or guardian," he said. "And it essentially makes children adults at age 12 with the capacity under the law to make their own decision regarding mental health services."

Because everybody knows that 12 year olds aren’t capable of assessing their own pain.

Especially in cases of parental molestation, the molester deserves the right to know when they’re being told on.

Two other bills hostile to families have successfully made it by lawmakers.

SB 54 recognizes out-of-state same-sex marriages, even though voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment in November defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

It’s just a matter of time now before California falls into the sea. After, of course, being burnt to the ground by the wrath of God's wildfires.

SB 572, the Harvey Milk bill, passed the State Assembly by a vote of 45-27. It honors one of the first openly gay elected officials.

Or, what they were reeally thinking:

SB 572, the Harvey Milk bill, passed the State Assembly by a vote of 45-27. It honors P in A behavior one of the first openly gay elected officials.

Randy Thomas: "tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands and millions"

Exodus International takes over 'Love Won Out' conferences

I know this has been covered, but there's something in this AFA OneNewsNow article that I wanted to highlight (And no, it's not the ancient Matt Damon-like photo of Thomas):

Focus on the Family is transferring the conferences to Exodus International, according to spokesman Randy Thomas.

"We're talking tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands and millions of people influenced by a redemptive view of homosexuality" Thomas says. "The Lord has raised up the ministry of Exodus International to bear witness to the world that he is alive and well and he has a loving response to homosexuality."

Millions "influenzed" is more like it.

Redemptive: liberating, redeeming, saving, rescuing, delivering, emancipating, releasing

Ah, redemption...

Zygotes not worthy of life

(For the record, I'm anti-unwanted pregnancy)

Zygote: A zygote is usually produced by...an ovum from a female and a sperm cell from a male...the zygote contains DNA originating from both mother and father and this provides all the genetic information necessary to form a new individual.

Good News: Arizona Governor Signs Pro-Life Legislation

CitizenLink: These new laws include a ban on partial-birth abortion, a ban that prevents medical professionals other than doctors from performing surgical abortions, and a bill that protects the conscience rights of healthcare workers to refuse participation in an abortion.

If life begins at conception...

Objective: To examine rates and risk factors for spontaneous abortion among pregnancies conceived using assisted reproductive technology (ART). Methods: Subjects were 62,228 clinical pregnancies resulting from ART procedures initiated in 1996-1998 in US clinics.

Spontaneous abortion was based on ART clinic report and was defined as loss of the entire pregnancy. Spontaneous abortion rates for ART pregnancies were compared with spontaneous abortion rates from the National Survey of Family Growth, a population-based survey of US women 15-44 years.

Results: The spontaneous abortion rate among ART pregnancies was 14.7%. This was similar to rates among pregnancies reported in the National Survey of Family Growth.

Among pregnancies conceived with the patient's oocytes and freshly fertilized embryos, the spontaneous abortion risk ranged from 10.1% among women 20-29 years to 39.3% among women older than 43.

Spontaneous abortion risk among pregnancies conceived with donor eggs was 13.1% with little variation by patient age.

When do you suppose they’ll concern themselves with the 14, 39, and 13% of eternal souls that just so don’t happen to make it due to “God’s divine plan”?

Where do they go?

Senate bill threatens to allow strangers to duct tape anyone they think is anti-gay

From CitizenLink 7-14-09:

Senate Close to Silencing Religious Speech:

Citizenlink: The "hate-crimes" bill, being considered… …pastors who preach against homosexuality could end up prosecuted if they are found to have "induced" a hate-crime against a self-identified homosexual by preaching from the Bible. ~~~They’ve been “inducing” people to kill gay men for years, and it’s been working for years, and it’s been Biblical for years:

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

CitizenLink: “there's no dramatic increase in…sexual-orientation hate crimes”

So because the “inducement” of killing gay men, via "preaching from the Bible," hasn’t resulted in a recorded “increase” of murders, they feel that it's more important to be concerned about their freedom to further incite the murder of gay men, via "religious speech," than to be concerned about their gay brothers who are actually being murdered.

FOF’s Stuart Shepard puts forth his best argument against Barack Obama.

Anti-Fame:

Transcript:

{~~special effects~~}:

Hi, I’m Stuart Shepard, and this is Stoplight.

Eventually it gets bad, you know it {~~Michael Jackson~~}. There comes a day when people start to say, oops, not again {~~Britney Spears~~}. It’s possible in the world of celebrity, to become so famous, to be on so many magazine covers, to collect so much TV airtime, that it becomes cool for people to say that a given celebrity is not so cool anymore {~~Barry Manilow~~}. There comes a point when a celebrity tips from fame to anti-fame {~~Brett Favre~~}.

But I had this thought, that if a politician runs as a celebrity, and the celebrity gossip magazines like Time and Newsweek, offer up positive cover after cover. And if the TV networks offer up more glowing coverage than the circumstances really demand, well…{~~Barack Obama~~}.

He ran a campaign that was all big crowds and photo ops, and he could deliver a scripted line better than any Oscar winner. And people imagined him to be whatever character they wanted, and they voted for what they imagined {~~Rock Star~~}.

Right about now, as reality starts to sink in, I can imagine a lot of those folks are privately thinking: “~~This doesn’t look anything like the change I thought he meant~~”. And by the end of summer they might just be ready to say it out loud: “THIS IS NOT AT ALL WHAT I WANTED.”

Now, it’s not a time to point fingers, and this is critical, it’s a time to say “Welcome home.” And then talk to them about the important issues at stake, the fate of pre-born babies, the definition of marriage, the role of the courts {~~Anti-fame~~fame~~fame~~}.

[announcer-like:] Coming to a polling place near you in 2010 and 2012.

Touché Mr. Shepard, touché. I accept your invitation, and now realize, to my eternal chagrin, that I should have voted for John McCain:

Hello, all 300 million of you American voters. In case of my absence, I've chosen Sarah Palin to be responsible for your safety:



"As for that VP talk all the time, I tell ya, I still can’t answer that question until somebody answers for me, what is it exactly that the VP does every day?"

Always pro-life?

From CitizenLink:

The pro-life community reacted with shock after George Tiller was shot to death Sunday morning...

"We…categorically condemn the act of vigilantism and violence that took his life," Dr. James Dobson said in a statement..."The person or persons responsible for his death should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."
---
Umm...wouldn’t that be the death penalty?

The ED show: Rev. Barry Lynn on Dobson’s ‘declaration of defeat.’

The ED show, April 13: With major decisions on same-sex marriage in several states this month, are social conservatives waving the white flag or retrenching until the next battle? Rev. Barry Lynn, Executive Director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State discusses:

This comes from the official Transcript, but for the record, I had to make some corrections for accuracy:

SCHULTZ: Welcome back to THE ED SHOW on MSNBC. Are the cultural wars ever? In his farewell address to Focus on the Family, James Dobson, who founded the Family Research Council back in 1981 to push socially conservative causes on Capitol Hill, declared defeat.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP) JAMES DOBSON, FOCUS ON THE FAMILY: The battles that we fought in the ‘80s now; we were victorious in many of those conflicts with the culture, trying to defend righteousness, trying to defend the unborn child, trying to preserve the dignity of the family, and the definition of marriage. And now we are absolutely awash in evil. Humanly speaking, we can say that we have lost all of those battles. (END AUDIO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: With major decisions on same-sex marriage in several states this month, are social conservatives waving the white flag or retrenching for the next big battle? Joining me now, Reverend Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Reverend, great to have you on tonight.

REV. BARRY LYNN, AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE: Glad to be here.

SCHULTZ: Is it over? Or is this just a ploy by the conservatives to say it‘s over, so nobody will pay attention to them?

LYNN: Yes, it‘s mainly a ploy, because we‘ve heard this death of the religious right at least four times in the last 25 years. But just like Freddie Krueger, they always come back to Elm Street, whether we like them or not. Certainly, James Dobson knows he lost some big battles in the last decade. And I‘m out there every day trying to make sure they lose more battles in the years to come.

But he also is a man with a mound of money, no new ideas, and he and others on the religious right are going to come back to the same well; prayer in the schools, how do we get more religion into the schools? How do we harass gay and lesbian Americans more? How do we fight evilution, as they might call it.

SCHULTZ: Do you think the passing of Jerry Falwell, the story that developed before the election, with Ted Haggard, really hurt the cause of the social conservatives in this country, kind of brought them back to ground? They are not holier than thou. They have issues too. Do you think it hurt them politically?

LYNN: I think it hurt them very briefly, and maybe hurt them a little bit in the 2006 election. But I think that we make a huge mistake if we believe that they are gone in any significant way. Dobson‘s organization in the last IRS reporting year took in 145 million dollars for Focus on the Family. His political action committee added another 10 million dollars to that.

These people are just absolutely awash with funds that come from people who believe that the culture wars are not over, even if they, in fact, listen to Dobson say that about what is possible on the human level. They say, well, God still has a plan, and it is the same plan that Jerry Falwell had back in the 1970’s--anti-gay, anti-abortion.

SCHULTZ: Reverend Lynn, is the challenge now for liberals in this country to prove that they are not godless? Is this a window of opportunity right now? What do you think?

LYNN: I don‘t think we‘ve got to prove anything. Most of us—many of us are spiritual people and we‘re proud to say that. I think this administration has to be very careful, though, that it doesn‘t play the religion card too often, because, frankly, President Obama has not, for example, changed the George Bush rules on allowing discriminatory hiring in faith-based organizations that get tax dollars. Two-thirds of the American people said it was wrong in the last administration. This administration has got to work on that.

They have lost the religious right. They lost them long before he even took office. They hate Barack Obama‘s policies on stem cell. They are never going to get them back. I think it‘s important that this administration do what President Obama has said several times. I believe he says in the separation of church and state. He has to do that. And he has to demonstrate, as he frequently does, separation of church and state is not anti-religion. It‘s just pro-religion working and operating on its own, without government‘s so-called help or assistance.

SCHULTZ: Reverend, good to have you with us tonight.

LYNN: Thank you.

SCHULTZ: Great to have you on the program. Thanks for your insight on this.

Breaking: Intelligent Designer Not Intelligent

(I covered this story awhile back, so consider this the unabridged version.)

Some ammunition for those of you who … … ID/creationist proponents.

Most of this is rehashed -- except for my argumentational illustration at the end.

If you’re not so familiar with the subject matter or need a refresher course, I’ve tried to arrange this piece in as simple, yet in as thorough a way possible. (It’s kinda long)

Anyway, if you don’t need the background, jump to the Intelligent Designer section at the end.

No Segue
On 2-12-09, Citizenlink had a teaser article up, linking to an opinion piece in U.S News and World Report by Candi Cushman, Focus on the Family’s education analyst:

Intelligent Design Belongs With Darwin in Classrooms; Political Correctness Does Not

She begins with the mention of Darwin’s approaching 200th birthday, and goes on to contend that if the movie Inherit the Wind “celebrated as an eloquent protest against attacks on freedom of thought” were made today, the roles would be reversed.

In true to FOF persecution complex form, she states: “This time the person sitting in the prosecution box would be an educator who dared to challenge any part of Darwin's theory.” And then goes on to claim that professors and scientists are essentially being persecuted for “daring” to suggest “design” in nature.

(Incidentally, this was the same approach Ben Stein’s movie “Expelled” took. Nothing to do with demonstrating that ID was scientific, only to highlight those who were supposedly being unfairly persecuted.)

Cushman then cites the example of a teacher “who was reassigned to earth science after daring to present both sides of the debate.” (bold mine)

As in, Teach the Controversy
Some Background (bold mine):

In 2004, the Dover, Pennsylvania school board established a policy that science teachers would have to read a statement to biology students suggesting that there is an alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution called intelligent design. Intelligent design, or ID, claims that certain features of life are too complex to have evolved naturally, and therefore must have been designed by an intelligent agent. The Dover high school science teachers refused to comply with the policy, refused to read the statement. And parents opposed to the school board's actions filed a lawsuit in federal court.

Fortunately the ID proponents’ arguments in court went handily down in flames. There were no survivors.

However, “teaching the controversy” can be perfectly legitimate, in science or in any other field. But in the case of ID, there is no legitimate controversy, because there is no scientific controversy. By characterizing ID as one “side of the debate,” Cushman and ilk attempt to raise, without merit, the theological tenets of ID to the level of scientific inquiry.

As the ruling Judge John E. Jones III said:

The goal of the ID movement is to foment a revolution

Intelligent design, as noted, is grounded in theology, not science. Accepting for the sake of argument its proponents' as well as Defendants' argument that to introduce intelligent design to students will encourage critical thinking, it still has utterly no place in a science curriculum. Moreover, intelligent design's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not intelligent design itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the intelligent-design movement is not to encourage critical thought but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with intelligent design.

Cushman continues: “More than 700 scientists have signed their names on a petition (launched by The Discovery Institute in 2001) stating their skepticism that natural selection can sufficiently account for the complexity of life.”

I thought U.S News and World Report (the host of her article) was popular because it had journalistic standards, but with her mention of the Discovery Institute, those 700 scientists may as well have been 700 Scientologists.

The Discovery Institute is the main instigator in the effort to rebrand creationism as scientific theory. They are also the authors of the Wedge Document:

From Wikipedia:

The Wedge strategy is a political and social action plan authored by the Discovery Institute, the hub of the intelligent design movement. The strategy was put forth in a Discovery Institute manifesto known as the Wedge Document, which describes a broad social, political, and academic agenda whose ultimate goal is to "defeat [scientific] materialism" represented by evolution, "reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions"[2] and to "affirm the reality of God."[3]

And then Cushman feigns the proverbial wail ‘Won’t somebody please think about the children!’:

“Shouldn't students have the opportunity to investigate what … may point to evidence of design?”

I think the last part of that statement encapsulates how baseless and surreptitious their complaint is.

Evolution is a design. There are processes on Earth, and universally, that are by definition, designs. That’s precisely what science is “designed” to do - figure out how those designs work, and how they came to be, and it just so happens that science is part of that design too. In fact, one might even consider science to be design itself, trying to understand itself.

But no, not you, Candi Cushman. Curses! It’s those dreaded defenders of the definition of science itself that are the enemy!

“extreme efforts to shut their voices down - people shouldn't have to fear losing their jobs simply because they want to question a theory - cuts at the heart of the freedoms this nation holds dear - free speech - the right to express controversial ideas without fear - oppressive climate - police-state climate.

But the good news is that wherever there's tyranny, there's always rebellion.”

So that’s the good news, she and her FOF BFF's, and their ardent followers are the victims in all this. And let’s not forget all those poor poor students who are being SO unfairly denied the Focus on the Family perspective when it comes to all of known history.

Demonizing Evolutionary Biology
In a two page article, Cushman mentions “Darwin” in some form, 9 times: Darwin's 200th birthday approaches, Darwin's theory, Darwinian evolution, Darwinian evolution, Darwinian evolution, Darwin's theory, Darwinian evolution, Darwin's theory of evolution, and the title: Intelligent Design belongs with Darwin in classrooms.

This is NOT without intent.

The following is not the article I had originally read to make my point here, but this paragraph sums up the gist of it (again, bold mine):

Let’s Get Rid of Darwinism
Olivia Judson

To return to my argument: I’d like to abolish the insidious terms Darwinism, Darwinist and Darwinian. They suggest a false narrowness to the field of modern evolutionary biology, as though it was the brainchild of a single person 150 years ago, rather than a vast, complex and evolving subject to which many other great figures have contributed. (The science would be in a sorry state if one man 150 years ago had, in fact, discovered everything there was to say.) Obsessively focusing on Darwin, perpetually asking whether he was right about this or that, implies that the discovery of something he didn’t think of or know about somehow undermines or threatens the whole enterprise of evolutionary biology today.

Which is precisely what the continual referral of evolution as “Darwinian” is intended to do - deny that Darwinian evolutionary theory has taken on a scientific life of it’s own.

As far as I recall, the story goes that Darwin was religious, then discovered/studied natural selection -- the inherent tenet of evolution -- and then became atheist/agnostic. (See Wikipedia’s section on Charles Darwin’s views on religion.)

So, by repeatedly referring to evolutionary biology as “Darwinian,” all science based on Darwin’s theories can be maligned (when need be) as the rantings of an atheist out to prove that there is no god.

Fortunately we have reality to refer to.

I’ve linked to that website several times now, so just to make it official, it’s a wellspring of information on the whole ID attempted power grab rebranding. I would even say that it’s basically all you need to refute any ID/creationism argument. You can watch the entire program online, and/or read the full transcript, and there are a host of additional articles that expound on some of the intricacies of the subject matter. I can’t recommend it highly enough.

Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/

A couple of my favorite ID arguments
--The missing link between apes and humans: Archeology has been around for some 150 years, they should have found it by now.

--Carbon dating: We don’t know how fast carbon decayed before the invention of carbon dating, therefore all carbon dating measurements are irrelevant.

On With The Show
As Answers in Genesis freely admits:

Dinosaurs certainly did roam the Earth in the ancient past! Fossils of dinosaurs have been found all over the world, and their bones are displayed in museums for all to see. Scientists have been able to reconstruct many of their skeletons, so we know much about how they may have looked.

And from that same page:

What Did Dinosaurs Eat?

The Bible teaches (in Genesis 1:29-30) that the original animals (and the first humans) were commanded to be vegetarian. There were no meat eaters in the original creation. Furthermore, there was no death. It was an unblemished world, with Adam and Eve and animals (including dinosaurs) living in perfect harmony, eating only plants.

Here’s a Google search of creationism dinosaurs vegetarian for further reference. Point being that the above example is only one of many.

Intelligent Designer
Now, if intelligence is the ability to understand the order of importance, then why would an intelligent designer create vegetarians with teeth and claws that were designed for flesh ripping?

Some say that it wasn’t until after man’s “fall from grace” that certain animals became predacious, but that still doesn’t answer the question as to why they were designed for predation in the first place.

Evolutionary biology is pretty much settled on the whole “natural selection,” “survival of the fittest” thing. Predator eats prey, prey adapts, predator adapts, and so on. Those who don’t adapt, perish.

Adaptation IS evolution.

The more adaptation, the more species.
The more species, the more complexity.
The more complexity, the more intelligence.

Throw in a few ages and eras, and the next thing you know you’re infested with 7 Billion human animals.

It is precisely the “design” of the predator/prey - adaptation/evolutionary process that has resulted in human intelligence.

So again, if intelligence is the ability to understand the order of importance, why would an intelligent designer, make humans, and then make the process necessary to make humans?

Focus on the Family: Inheriting the wind as we speak.

Focus on the Family’s Citizenlink had a teaser article entitled: “Intelligent Design Belongs with Darwin in Classrooms; Political Correctness Does Not”
2-12-09
by Candi Cushman, an education analyst for Focus on the Family.

They then link to the full online opinion piece in US News & World Report. I was under the impression that they were a legitimate news source, apparently not.

She begins by referring to the movie “Inherit the Wind,” describing it as “an eloquent protest against attacks on freedom of thought.”

I recently watched that movie, and the title comes from the Biblical passage Proverbs 11:29 - “He who brings trouble on his family will inherit only wind, and the fool will be servant to the wise.”

Meaning that those who unnecessarily stir up trouble with their families, communities, society, will eventually be abandoned and left alone. They will “inherit” only the air that surrounds them.

And true to Focus on the Family persecution-complex form, Ms. Cushman states the following:

But if the film were reproduced to reflect today's events, there'd have to be a role reversal. This time the person sitting in the prosecution box would be an educator who dared to challenge any part of Darwin's theory.

And again with the whole “tolerance” meme, AKA those who tout the merits of tolerance should also be tolerant of intolerance:

Those leading our public education systems constantly proclaim their love of diversity, tolerance and academic freedom. But actions speak louder than words.

She then dismisses any concern that “secularists” may have about the teaching of religion in schools, and that even people of faith wouldn’t want this.

And finally, the plot point: “The majority of parents do, however, want their kids to examine all the scientific evidence…both information for and against Darwinian evolution to be presented.”

And what would that information against “Darwinian evolution” be? Intelligent Design. She concludes that not teaching ID along side evolution is a “double standard.”

This is called teach the controversy -- if you can’t win your argument on merit, you might be able to convince people that the arguments are equal, and thus, fair and balanced to teach both. In some cases this is appropriate, but evolution is based on science, Intelligent Design is not. The real “controversy” attempting to be taught here is that science itself is equal to religious belief, despite Candi Cushman’s denials that this is the case.

She claims “Students should be allowed to hear all the evidence” and “They [evolutionists] claim there is no room for new evidence.” Problem is, there is no scientific evidence to back up ID.

Here’s an informative yet very easy to read Q & A from the ACLU on ID.

I should say here that I believe in an intelligent designer, a created evolution if you will, but I’m not about to call that scientific evidence, nor especially intelligent design, for fear of being associated with these buffoons.

And I love this next part:

More than 700 scientists have signed their names on a petition (launched by The Discovery Institute in 2001) stating their skepticism that natural selection can sufficiently account for the complexity of life.

If you’re not familiar with the Discovery Institute, they are one of, if not the main players in this “teach the controversy” Intelligent Design charade.

Secondly, I canvassed that site a couple years ago looking for anything even remotely scientific, and found nothing. No experiments, no scientific theories, nothing. However, I did find this little gem called “The Wedge Document.”:

The Wedge Document is an internal memorandum from the Discovery Institute (the leading proponent of Intelligent Designer "Theory") that was leaked to the Internet in 1999. The Discovery Institute later admitted to its authenticity. Since then, Discovery Institute hasn't talked very much about the document, or the strategy it outlines. The reason is crushingly obvious, since the Wedge Document makes it readily apparent that the Discovery Institute is flat-out lying to us when it claims that its Intelligent Designer campaign is concerned only with science and does not have any religious aims, purpose or effect.

The Wedge Document is reproduced here, in full.

She goes on:

Shouldn't students have the opportunity to investigate what…may point to evidence of design?

Again, I believe in an intelligent designer, but the word “design” used in this context, is a euphemism for consciousness. And if anyone is going to prove the consciousness responsible for designing matter itself, it’s going to be the quantum physicists.

We then get more persecution complex, oh woe is me, won’t somebody please think about the children, etc.

They are simply protecting educators' and students' First Amendment rights to have a free and open dialogue.
The very fact these protections are necessary, should send a wake-up call to those who truly do care about tolerance and academic freedom in this country.

“First Amendment,” “Tolerance,” and “Freedom.”

Here’s how the ACLU describes it:

Q: Why not "teach both sides"?
A: This would be like teaching astrology in an astronomy course or alchemy in a chemistry class. There are not "two sides" to the science.

Clearly this woman is not very learned, or she would know about the PBS program called “Intelligent Design on Trial,” which can be watched online for free, along with tons of resources. It also provides the transcript of the show, the most striking part of was this:

NARRATOR: Barbara Forrest's testimony would make a strong case that the Dover school board was thrusting religion into the classroom. And in comparing the Of Pandas and People drafts, Forrest discovered that the authors had apparently made their revisions in haste.

BARBARA FORREST: In cleansing this manuscript, they failed to replace every word properly. I found the word "creationists." And instead of replacing the entire word, they just kind of did this, and got "design proponents" with the "c" in front and the "ists" in the back from the original word.

NICK MATZKE: So the correct term for this transitional form is "Cdesign proponentsists." And everyone now refers to this as the "missing link" between creationism and intelligent design. You've got the direct physical evidence there of a transitional fossil.

The whole point of Intelligent Design is to undermine scientific inquiry, and thus the need to educate our youth on the importance of rational thought. Thus they confuse the issue by making it sound like evolution and ID are scientifically equal, hence “teach the controversy.”

It’s just another veiled theocratic ploy to wrest power from the government and anyone who disagrees with them.

But since when was Focus on the Family known for its integrity? It’s mostly their absence of embarrassment that baffles me. Unless they actually think they’re right, in light of the evidence, in which case I would ask how it’s possible to be that stupid?

She didn’t even make an argument, she didn’t even try. It was little more than a whiney diatribe on how science isn’t catering to their redefinition of it.

Canadian Polygamists Bring Gays Into Their Marriage Battle

From The Advocate:

The leaders of two Canadian polygamist groups are defending their "marriages" by referencing the nation's 2005 decision to legalize same-sex marriage, reports the Associated Press.

So we all know what's coming next. Shrieks and howls from the Christian hate groups about how the legalization of gay marriage leads to the legalization of polygamy - JUST LIKE THEY SAID IT WOULD.

A couple of things.

First of all, I'm not against polygamy. Pretty much simply because I'm not a judgemental asshole. However, unlike gay marriage, and for the sake of the arguments that will be presented by the anti-gay hate groups, there are some serious social consequences to the legalization of polygamy.

I've found this article to be an invaluable resource.

A few paragraphs:

One Man, Many Wives, Big Problems
The social consequences of polygamy are bigger than you think

Other things being equal [male to female ratio] (and, to a good first approximation, they are), when one man marries two women, some other man marries no woman. When one man marries three women, two other men don't marry. When one man marries four women, three other men don't marry. Monogamy gives everyone a shot at marriage. Polygyny, by contrast, is a zero-sum game that skews the marriage market so that some men marry at the expense of others.

[snip]

The social dynamics of zero-sum marriage are ugly. In a polygamous world, boys could no longer grow up taking marriage for granted. Many would instead see marriage as a trophy in a sometimes brutal competition for wives. Losers would understandably burn with resentment, and most young men, even those who eventually won, would fear losing. Although much has been said about polygamy's inegalitarian implications for women who share a husband, the greater victims of inequality would be men who never become husbands.

By this point it should be obvious that polygamy is, structurally and socially, the opposite of same-sex marriage, not its equivalent. Same-sex marriage stabilizes individuals, couples, communities, and society by extending marriage to many who now lack it. Polygamy destabilizes individuals, couples, communities, and society by withdrawing marriage from many who now have it.

Also, remember that the comparison itself is fallacious. Same-sex marriage is about marrying 1 partner, polygamy is about marrying additional partners.

And of course, the motherload: Polygamy is Biblically approved!

biblicalpolygamy.com:

The purpose and outline of this web-site are simple:
As based only on the Bible, to provide

-the Exegesis / Argumentation Proofs in the Bible,
-the list of all the Polygamists in the Bible,
-and the examples where The Lord Himself is self-described in polygamous terms in the Bible,

all in a simple and easy-to-use web-site.

This is one I like to remember:

God said He GAVE Wives

Sometimes, people are indeed honest enough to admit that the Bible really does not prohibit polygamy (polygyny). However, as a hedge against that admission, such ones may then resort to saying one of the following assertions:

-"Yes, but God never condoned polygamy."
-"Yes, God allowed it, but He was against polygamy."
-"Polygamy was only man's idea, not God's".
-"Yes, but God never approved of polygamy."

The passage involving 2 Samuel 12:8 rather clearly reveals otherwise.

"And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things."

Check out what Focus on the Family's Citzenlink recently had to say:

Dr. Ron Jones, senior pastor of Immanuel Bible Church in Springfield, Va., has written an open letter to the new president.

"We will pray that God will grant you Solomon-like wisdom in all of the decisions you make."

And what is this "Solomon-like wisdom" like, you ask? Well it goes a little something like this:

1 Kings 11:3 "He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray."
_______
Feel free to read the whole chapter. "God" never condemns his polygamous liaisons, just the idolatry it lead to.