Category Archives: Homosexuality
Found at Mad Medic:
Found at Mad Medic: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/
At last some honesty from a moonbat. We all know that the Left is not on the level with its sudden urgent concern that homosexuals have their sexual liaisons sanctified by the government as legitimate marriages. Lesbian journalist Masha Gessen, as quoted by Micah Clark, spells out what they are actually up to:
“It’s a no-brainer that [homosexuals] should have the right to marry [each other], but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. … (F)ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.
“The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist. And I don’t like taking part in creating fictions about my life. That’s sort of not what I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago.
“I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally… I met my new partner, and she had just had a baby, and that baby’s biological father is my brother, and my daughter’s biological father is a man who lives in Russia, and my adopted son also considers him his father. So the five parents break down into two groups of three… And really, I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality, and I don’t think that’s compatible with the institution of marriage.”
To “fundamentally transform,” as Obama put it regarding his plans for America, is to destroy.
On a tip from Wilberforce.
By George Neumayr on 4.3.13 @ 6:09AM
Churches will be pressured into blessing gay marriages.
The end point of liberalism is a coercive secular state in which the religious have no meaningful rights. American church leaders are kidding themselves if they think the gay-marriage juggernaut is going to stop at civil marriage. It won’t. It will quickly travel past court houses to churches, demanding that all religions bless gay marriages.
Denmark casts a shadow of this future, where the gay-marriage juggernaut has smashed through church doors. Last year the country’s parliament passed a law requiring all Lutheran churches to conduct gay marriage ceremonies. “I think it’s very important to give all members of the church the possibility to get married,” said Manu Sareen, Denmark’s minister for gender equality. Reluctant bishops have to supply ministers to satisfy the right whether they like it or not.
Iceland and Sweden have similar arrangements. Since many of the bishops are in the tank for gay marriage anyways and since these churches are “state” churches, this pressure generates little news. But it is instructive nonetheless. Where gay marriage exists, religious freedom gradually disappears, to the point where ministers have to choose between serving as secularism’s stooges or facing societal oblivion.
In America, this pressure will take the form of “discriminatory” churches losing government grants, permits, and participation in programs. It will be the death of religious freedom by a thousand little cuts here and there: canceled speeches of religious figures at state universities, lost HHS grants, the refusal of city governments to recognize churches that don’t permit gay marriages, “hate crime” legislation that extends to opposition to gay marriage, and so on. All of this will have the effect of pressuring churches into blessing gay marriages. A law forcing priests and ministers to preside at gay marriages won’t need to be passed; the invisible law of indirect governmental pressure will do the trick.
During last year’s campaign, Obama said that religions will remain free to determine their own “sacraments.” Shouldn’t that go without saying? The very fact that Obama made such a declaration should scare people. Whenever a pol says “I won’t do [fill in the blank],” it usually means that very activity is on his mind. While he can’t determine the sacraments for religions, Obama will try and marginalize those religions that don’t determine the sacraments in a manner he considers “nondiscriminatory.”
Obama’s “respect” for these religions is on par with his respect for the policies of the Boy Scouts. “I think that my attitude is that gays and lesbians should have access and opportunity the same way everybody else does in every institution and walk of life,” said Obama when calling on the Boy Scouts to accept gay scoutmasters. Notice Obama’s phrase: every institution and walk of life. Surely in time that will include churches.
But for now, Obama thinks the religious should feel grateful to him that he is not busting down church doors and forcibly injecting them with contraceptives or requiring them to preside at gay weddings. That in his mind is the sum total of religious freedom. And yet even that little space can be crowded in on through laws that allow government to reward secularized religions and shun traditional ones.
The goal of the gay-marriage juggernaut is to make Christians pariahs, as irrelevant to public life as racists. It doesn’t have to pass a Denmark-style law to force churches to conduct gay marriages; it can achieve the same end through punitive political correctness.
On ABC’s This Week, George Stephanopoulos thought it appropriate to ask Cardinal Timothy Dolan, albeit in a roundabout and implicit fashion, if Catholicism could accept gay marriage for people who feel “unwelcome” in the Church: “What do you say to a gay couple that loves God and the Church, but also love each other and want to raise a family in faith?” It would have been nice to see Dolan challenge the insidious premise of the question by saying something like: So, George, you are saying that unless the Church loves the sin it can’t love the sinner?
Instead, Dolan seemed to concede the media narrative about the Church as hateful — “We have to do better to see that our defense of marriage is not reduced to an attack on gay people. I admit, we haven’t been too good at that” — while gingerly trying to uphold the Church’s teaching on marriage. His attempt at appeasement didn’t work. Gay activists pounced on him anyways, generating headlines such as “Cardinal Dolan Demeans Gay Relationships As He Says Church Should Be More Welcoming to Gays.”
The gay-marriage juggernaut only speeds up at the sight of such gestures, seeing civil marriage as just one stop on a longer road to a secularist state in which religion in general and the Catholic Church in particular fall silent and compliant out of fear if not law.
Photo: UPI (Supporters of Illinois’ “Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act,” Jan. 2, 2013)
From The American Spectator: http://spectator.org/archives/2013/04/03/religious-freedoms-drip-by-dri
Homosexuality: A Biblical Overview
On such a controversial and emotional issue, we need to know whose word we are going to trust. We can find scholars who support any of the variety of positions which are advocated on the subject. It is not my intention to treat fully the multitude of interpretive comments which deal with the biblical texts on the subject. My goal is simply to review what the Bible says about homosexuality, as clearly, succinctly, and practically as possible.
Read the entire article here: http://www.religiontoday.com/columnists/denison-forum/homosexuality-a-biblical-overview.html
About the Author:
Jim Denison, Ph.D., is a subject matter expert on cultural and contemporary issues. He founded the Denison Forum on Truth and Culture, a nonsectarian “think tank” designed to engage contemporary issues with biblical truth in 2009 and is the author of seven books, including Radical Islam: What You Need to Know. For more information on the Denison Forum, visit www.denisonforum.org. To connect with Dr. Denison in social media, visit www.twitter.com/jimdenison or www.facebook.com/denisonforum.
Gay marriage is not about men marrying men or women marrying women, it is about the
deconstruction of marriage between men and women. That is a thing that many men and women of one generation understand but have trouble conveying to another generation for whom marriage has already largely been deconstructed.
The statistics about the falling marriage rate tell the tale well enough. Marriage is a fading institution. Family is a flickering light in the evening of the West.
The deconstruction is destruction. Entire countries are fading away, their populations being replaced by emigrants from more traditional lands whose understanding of the male-female relationship is positively reactionary. These emigrants may lack technology or the virtues of civilization, and their idea of marriage resembles slavery more than any modern ideal, but it fulfills the minimum purpose of any group, tribe or country– it produces its next generation.
The deconstruction of marriage is not a mere matter of front page photos of men kissing. It began with the deconstruction of the family. Gay marriage is only one small stop on a tour that includes rising divorce rates, falling childbirth rates and the abandonment of responsibility by twenty and even thirty-somethings.
Each step on the tour takes apart the definition and structure of marriage until there is nothing left. Gay marriage is not inclusive, it is yet another attempt at eliminating marriage as a social institution by deconstructing it until it no longer exists.
There are two ways to destroy a thing. You can either run it at while swinging a hammer with both hands or you can attack its structure until it no longer means anything.
The left hasn’t gone all out by outlawing marriage, instead it has deconstructed it, taking apart each of its assumptions, from the economic to the cooperative to the emotional to the social, until it no longer means anything at all. Until there is no way to distinguish marriage from a temporary liaison between members of uncertain sexes for reasons that due to their vagueness cannot be held to have any solemn and meaningful purpose.
You can abolish democracy by banning the vote or you can do it by letting people vote as many times as they want, by letting small children and foreigners vote, until no one sees the point in counting the votes or taking the process seriously. The same goes for marriage or any other institution. You can destroy it by outlawing it or by eliminating its meaningfulness until it becomes so open that it is absurd.
Every aspect of marriage is deconstructed and then eliminated until it no longer means anything. And once marriage is no longer a lifetime commitment between a man and a woman, but a ceremony with no deeper meaning than most modern ceremonies, then the deconstruction and destruction will be complete.
The deconstruction of marriage eroded it as an enduring institution and then as an exclusive institution and finally as a meaningful institution. The trendy folk who claim to be holding off on getting married until gay marriage is enacted are not eager for marriage equality, they are using it as an excuse for an ongoing rejection of marriage.
Gay marriage was never the issue. It was always marriage.
In the world that the deconstructionists are striving to build, there will be marriage, but it will mean nothing. Like a greeting card holiday, it will be an event, but not an institution. An old ritual with no further meaning. An egotistical exercise in attention-seeking and self-celebration with no deeper purpose. It will be a display every bit as hollow as the churches and synagogues it takes place in.
The deconstruction of marriage is only a subset of the deconstruction of gender from a state of being to a state of mind. The decline of marriage was preceded by the deconstruction of gender roles and gay marriage is being succeeded by the destruction of gender as anything other than a voluntary identity, a costume that one puts on and takes off.
Destroying gender roles was a prerequisite to destroying gender. Each deconstruction leads naturally to the next deconstruction with no final destination except total deconstruction.
Gay marriage is not a stopping point, just as men in women’s clothing using the ladies room is not a stopping point. There is no stopping point at all.
The left’s deconstruction of social institutions is not a quest for equality, but for destruction. As long as the institutions that preceded it exist, it will go on deconstructing them until there is nothing left but a blank canvas, an unthinking anarchy, on which it can impose its perfect and ideal conception of how everyone should live.
Equality is merely a pretext for deconstruction. Change the parameters of a thing and it ceases to function. Redefine it and expand it and it no longer means anything at all. A rose by any other name might smell as sweet, but if you change ‘rose’ to mean anything that sticks out of the ground, then the entire notion of what is being discussed has gone and cannot be reclaimed without also reclaiming language.
The left’s social deconstruction program is a war of ideas and concepts. Claims of equality are used to expand institutions and ways of living until they are so broad as to encompass everything and nothing. And once a thing encompasses everything, once a rose represents everything rising out of the ground, then it also represents nothing at all.
Deconstruction is a war against definitions, borders and parameters. It is a war against defining things by criminalizing the limitation of definitions. With inclusivity as the mandate, exclusivity, in marriage, or any other realm, quickly meets with social disapproval and then becomes a hate crime. If the social good is achieved only through maximum inclusivity and infinite tolerance, then any form of exclusivity, from property to person to ideas, is a selfish act that refuses the collective impulse to make all things into a common property with no lasting meaning or value.
As Orwell understood in 1984, tyranny is essentially about definitions. It is hard to fight for freedom if you lack the word. It is hard to maintain a marriage if the idea no longer exists. Orwell’s Oceania made basic human ideas into contradictory things. The left’s deconstruction of social values does the same thing to such essential institutions as marriage; which becomes an important impermanent thing of no fixed nature or value.
The left’s greatest trick is making things mean the opposite of what they do. Stealing is sharing. Crime is justice. Property is theft. Each deconstruction is accompanied by an inversion so that a thing, once examined, comes to seem the opposite of what it is, and once that is done, it no longer has the old innate value, but a new enlightened one.
To deconstruct man, you deconstruct his beliefs and then his way of living. You deconstruct freedom until it means slavery. You deconstruct peace until it means war. You deconstruct property until it means theft. And you deconstruct marriage until it means a physical relationship between any group of people for any duration. And that is the opposite of what marriage is.
The deconstruction of marriage is part of the deconstruction of gender and family and those are part
of the long program of deconstructing man. Once each basic value has been rendered null and void, inverted and revealed to be random and meaningless, then man is likewise revealed to be a random and meaningless creature whose existence requires shaping by those who know better.
The final deconstruction eliminates nation, religion, family and even gender to reduce the soul of man to a blank slate waiting to be written on.
That is what is at stake here. This is not a struggle about the right of equality, but the right of definition. It is not about whether men can get married, but whether marriage will mean anything at all. It is about preserving the shapes and structures of basic social concepts that define our identities in order to preserve those very concepts, rather than accepting their deconstruction into nullification.
The question on the table is whether the institutions that give us meaning will be allowed to retain that meaning. And that question is a matter of survival. Societies cannot survive without definitions. Peoples do not go on existing through the act of occupying space. The deconstruction of identity is also the destruction of identity.
And that is what we are truly fighting against.
Don’t like having to explain to your six-year-old why two men are kissing across the front page of the newspaper? That’s just too bad, according to the Denver Post, which recently ran a picture of Colorado House Speaker Mark Ferrandino smooching sex partner Greg Wertsch to celebrate the passage of yet another bill promoting homosexuality:
The Post ran that photo as its main front-page picture, taking up 20-25 percent of the front page.
It isn’t that media apparatchiks like Director of Newsroom Operations Linda Shapley don’t care what readers think. They just don’t care what readers who aren’t on board with the liberal agenda think.
The headline on her column first read: “Mark Ferrandino kiss photo shows truth, no matter how objectionable.” But that offended the pro-gay lobby, so the explanation of the offense … offended. The new headline became “Picture of Mark Ferrandino kissing partner shows the truth, even if it offends some.”
Sexual deviancy is the “truth,” according to the depraved ideology of our ruling class.
Unsurprisingly, the accompanying story aggressively promoted the homosexual agenda:
The story included seven different responses to the bill passing. Pro-civil union backers outnumbered opponents 6-1. The story went on to mention “milestones in the gay movement” including “the Stonewall riots, Harvey Milk’s assassination.” Most of the article read like an LGBT press release.
Only a year ago, not even Barack Hussein or Shrillary Rotten supported the disgusting and blasphemous travesty of homosexual “marriage.” Now it seems likely to soon become the law of the land. Propaganda blitzes work.
Liberals can be counted on to continue using their control of the media to push the envelope as far as they can, even after America has been fundamentally transformed into a degenerate culture that would make any decent person sick.
On a tip from Bob Roberts.
Four Tiers of Failure: How the LGBT Lobby Dominates
I never knew the extent of a lobby’s power until fate called me to speak on behalf of children’s rights. Now, six months after having come forward with a logical, secular argument against same-sex parenting based on experience, broad research, and international law, I have been met with vicious attacks and something far worse than viciousness: a massive nationwide cold shoulder. Both left and right are allied in a complete blackout of dissent from LGBT orthodoxy.
Doug Mainwaring is a gay father in Maryland; he and I jointly signed an amicus brief in support of Proposition 8. Over the last six weeks, fifteen news organizations have rejected our editorials and refused to interview us; many, like Salon and the New Republic, gave major coverage to the pro-gay marriage side at the same time that they rejected our correspondence. Some of these publications are conservative, though I will strive not to burn bridges by naming them here.
I am, moreover, the only person reared by a same-sex couple who signed an amicus brief in support of Proposition 8. Nonetheless, the Washington Post feels that it is newsworthy to report on two gay men holding a bake sale to raise money to pay a surrogate mother, while deeming the riposte from Mainwaring and me utterly insignificant.
Mainwaring and I support civil unions. We do not oppose homosexuality or object to gays living together. We support traditional marriage for the simple reason that a child’s right to a father and mother is a fundamental consideration recognized by international law. Why has every paper from the New York Times to the Chicago Tribune pretended that our position simply doesn’t exist?
There are four levels that have failed in the United States, and we must take these four tiers very seriously. It is time for a quick postmortem of what went wrong with the traditional marriage movement, so we can do better for the next round of battles, and perhaps win the war in a few decades.
Since it appears quite unlikely that traditional marriage will survive the next year, activists like Mainwaring and me, who worry about children’s rights, will have to shift gears and strategize ways of saving more children from being deprived of fathers or mothers in the future.
Tier 1: The Academy Failed to Inform Us on Same-Sex Parenting
Everything starts with the universities. K-12 teachers are educated at universities, and it is among university faculty that ideological homogeneity has reached crisis levels.
Traditionalists have to start investing in journals, endowed chairs, and even their own colleges. There are large pools of unemployed Ph.D.s who want jobs. Look for the unemployed ones who support a traditionalist worldview, and employ them.
For twenty years — in fact, up until the articles published by Loren Marks and Mark Regnerus in 2012 — research into same-sex families was conducted under duress. A central principle of research is that studies cannot be trusted if it is clear that certain findings would result in reprisals against the researchers. After Social Science Research posted the Marks and Regnerus articles, a witch-hunt ensued by crackpot bloggers who managed to open an investigation at the University of Texas at Austin and force the publication of hundreds of pages of my e-mails (I defended Regnerus in Public Discourse).
What Marks and Regnerus found was not necessarily as significant as what the fallout revealed. We know now that all the studies conducted prior to 2012 were carried out by researchers who knew that if they found non-LGBT-affirming data, they would face professional ostracism and possibly lose their livelihood. The whole bank of scholarship we have is hence tainted and worthless.
So it is time to start from scratch — and here advocates for children’s rights must get into the game. Get behind researchers, bankroll legitimate scholarship, defend existing professors against witch-hunts, and recruit new faculty with new ideas.
Tier 2: The Fourth Estate Failed to Report on Same-Sex Parenting
Few readers of American Thinker would dispute that the press has failed to report honestly on same-sex parenting. While Mark Regnerus found copious evidence that children raised by gay parents contend with unique difficulties, for years, publications like the Los Angeles Times churned out puff pieces about lesbian moms and gay dads. What authors of such articles never asked is more crucial than what they did ask. They asked, “Don’t these kids look happy?” rather than, “Where is the father? Where is the mother? Did you divorce someone to get this kid? Does your kid like knowing that his dad is a sperm donor? Does you kid like knowing that her mom rented her womb in a foreign country so you could have her?”
Some of the press’s failure to report on same-sex parenting can be blamed on the academy, which was pumping out bogus research and therefore gave them no legitimate scholarship on the topic. But a mix of intellectual laziness and inflated ideological self-importance has led to attitudes like this one, expressed by a Washington Postwriter: “Of course I have a bias. I have a bias toward fairness.”
Reporters on both left and right are comfortable farming out their jobs to a vague court of consensus. If their colleagues all seem to be quoting people who say the same thing, then that must be the only thing worth reporting. People who say anything else are crazy and not newsworthy. The emperor has no clothes.
We must be indefatigable using social media. We have to cherish the few news outlets we have outside the mainstream, defend them, write our best for them, go to bat for them when they come under fire. And we cannot wait several years for the problem to get worse. We have to be proactive and build momentum for an alternative press now.
Tier 3: The Two-Party System Has Built a Bridge on the Backs of Children
Over eighty Republicans signed an amicus brief supporting gay marriage. Children are lost in the two-party system, because they cannot vote and have no money of their own. They are natural prisoners of their parents’ agendas. The gay people who have enough money to buy children are the gay people both parties want. The Democrats want them to agree to pay higher taxes on their income to support social spending. The Republicans want them to sway their corporate connections and friends in high places to the capitalist policies they think represent the party’s only chance against Democratic hegemony.
In a time of (supposed) partisan rancor between left and right, gay parenting is the perfect grounds for a two-party truce. Democrats keep the wealthiest of their donors happy, and Republicans get to shed one of their most troublesome stigmas (homophobes!). The people who lose out on this truce are children, who will be silenced by their same-sex parents and made to feel guilty if they resent their loss of a mother or father. By the time they are adults, anyway, their only choice will be between the two parties who united to deprive them. It’s a match made in heaven.
Same-sex couples of high economic class are a tiny fraction of the country, but on the gay parenting issue they have come to wield incredible power over the two-party political class. The only way to counteract this is, I believe, to withdraw from the two-party divide when it comes to children’s rights. When I was in Minnesota speaking out on children’s rights, I met with Democrats and sought to persuade them based on their commitment to social justice. I met with Republicans and sought to persuade them based on their traditional values.
The only way out of the two-party stalemate is to get out of the two-party system altogether. When it comes to children, we must be non-partisan or bipartisan — anything but lockstep “Republicans.” The Republicans are ready to sell kids downriver. Let’s face it.
Tier #4: The Courts Have Nowhere to Go
The judicial system will be given the Herculean task of cleaning up the mess created by same-sex marriage. Family court, divorce court, surrogate court — you name it. Whether it is the Florida court who issued a birth certificate with three parents listed, or the Kansas Supreme Court ruling that a biological mother had to cede partial custody to her lesbian ex-partner who wasn’t even related to the child, we are seeing the courts dragged into more and more imbroglios because of the unsoundness of same-sex parenting schemes. Whereas you can conceive a child with a spouse of the opposite sex and then raise the child without much judicial interference, if you want exclusive custody of a child with a same-sex spouse, you will have to rely upon lawyers, judges, social workers, and deputies to enforce contractual rights.
The courts cannot be entirely blamed. Academia offers a dearth of qualified expert witnesses. The press has filled LGBT minds with unrealistic hopes for parenthood. Democrats and Republicans have joined forces to pass destructive laws in the hope of “keeping government out of the bedrooms” of LGBT couples. The end result is, tragically, that the courts will be in their kitchens, living rooms, and kids’ heads, forced to juggle competing claims from exiled biological parents, sperm donors, surrogate mothers, and of course, the children, the children, the children — the ones lost in the whole unseemly fiasco.
My sense is that future efforts cannot focus on courts or lawyers. By the time we’re arguing in front of judges, it is too late. Our due diligence must happen at Tiers 1-3, and we have to start a countermovement now, to stop the hemorrhaging and help as many kids as we can live life with a mom and a dad.
From Big Hairy News: http://peacemoonbeam.typepad.com/bighairynews/
The direct result of Britain’s suicidal “multiculturalism” policies.
LONDON — Fringe Muslim television channels in the UK have been reprimanded for allowing extremists to say their views unchallenged, such as gay people should be tortured.
Regulatory watchdog OFCOM has found the stations broke the broadcasting code by allowing the extreme opinions to be aired.
In one case, a female presenter said homosexuals should be beaten and tortured for the ‘evil, shameful act’.
The Radio Asian Fever host, named ‘Sister Ruby Ramadan’ said: ‘Torture them; punish them; beat them and give them mental torture.’
Radio Asian Fever, based in Leeds, England, was fined £4000 ($6300, €4600) for allowing it to air.
Another broadcast by Noor TV was criticised by Ofcom for ‘serious breaches’, and highlighted how inflammatory talk can incite violence.
The show said: ‘There is absolutely no doubt about it that the punishment for the person who shows disrespect for the Prophet is death. No one disagrees about this.’
From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
Of Course a Bunch of Liberal, Commie, Homo, Metrosexual Men are Not Going to Find Beautiful Women Appealing…
Libs have officially become parodies of themselves.
Via Yahoo! News:
It’s been a big week for Sports Illustrated. First, a blogger leaked the swimsuit issue’s much-anticipated cover, upstaging David Letterman’s big reveal on Monday. Now website Jezebel is calling out the men’s magazine for using minorities as “props” in photos featuring models in bikinis posing in seven different continents.
Jezebel argues that the magazine is perpetuating racial stereotypes by drawing power and class lines between the Westernized models and the “primitive locals” and points to a long history of media using people of various ethnicities as “extras”, citing Nylon magazine, the Free People catalog, British Vogue, and J-Crew.
Someone needs to tell Yahoo! News the men who comment on liberal feminist blogs are not even remotely representative of the American male population:
Depending on where you look, the reaction has been mixed, even among the men who are supposed to be titillated. On Jezebel’s website, one male commenter wrote, “Pics of woman with local natives is NOT hot, it’s exploitative, so the mission is fail right there. Oh and exploitative. I do not know what they were thinking….fail all around.” While another guy wrote, “Some of the examples are ›‹reaching a bit…the one with the boat….why pick that for China? Especially when everything I read about China is how they’re an industrial powerhouse.” And one helpful reader on Sports Illustrated’s Facebook page pointed out, “Technically speaking they were not shot in all seven continents. While Easter Island may belong to Chile, it’s a Polynesian island, and not part of the South American continent.” Oy.
“As Jezebel writes, where are the images and pictures of bustling cities, skyscrapers — the pictures reify dominant narrative about the uncivilized and primitive third world. They define people of different races as ‘other’ and the sexual white female body as desirable, as they’re to be watched, consumed, and enjoyed by men in lounge chairs,” he adds.
From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
I is for indoctrination.
OAKLAND (EAGnews) – Is your three-year-old preschooler chanting ‘union power’ these days? She might, if author Innosanto Nagara has his way.
gara wrote “A is for Activist,” a book supposedly geared for the children of the “99 percent.” In other words, a new vehicle has been developed for leftists to begin indoctrinating children.
“It’s pretty awesome to hear a three-year-old saying ‘union power,’” Nagara said in a YES! magazine interview.
But union power and student activism aren’t the only goals. Consider these other letters and how they are applied in the book:
B is for banner, as in a protest banner hanging off a construction crane
L is for LGBTQ, as in Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, Transgendered and Queer
T is for Trans, as in transgendered
Z is for Zapatistas, as in Mexican revolutionary leftists
Heady stuff for preschoolers, but the indoctrinators believe the tykes are old enough to learn the basics of revolutionary thought.
Nagara’s “A is for Activist” has been heralded by the likes of Code Pink’s Medea Benjamin, who said, “May a thousand young activists bloom!”
“This is an amazing book for toddlers,” wrote Oakland teachers union activist Mary Prophet.
I must have missed it, when did we start passing liberal blasphemy laws?
This quote from the owner is pretty awesome, “I’d rather have my kids see their dad stand up for what he believes in then to see him bow down because one person complained.” We need a lot more of that attitude in this country.
GRESHAM, Ore (KGW) — The Oregon Department of Justice is looking into a complaint that a Gresham bakery refused to make a wedding cake for a same sex marriage.
It started on Jan. 17 when a mother and daughter showed up at Sweet Cakes by Melissa looking for the perfect wedding cake.
“My first question is what’s the wedding date,” said owner Aaron Klein. “My next question is bride and groom’s name … the girl giggled a little bit and said it’s two brides.”
Klein apologized to the women and told them he and his wife do not make cakes for same-sex marriages. Klein said the women were disgusted and walked out.
“I believe that marriage is a religious institution ordained by God,” said Klein. “A man should leave his mother and father and cling to his wife … that to me is the beginning of marriage.”
At the advice of their attorney, the women are not speaking to the media, but they have plenty of support. Numerous people have blasted the Klein’s on the internet.
What Klein wants to make clear is that he and his wife do not hate homosexuals.
“They can buy my stuff,” said Klein. “I’ll sell them stuff … I’ll talk to them, it’s fine.”
What is not fine, according to Klein, is a marriage between people of the same sex. He will always stand by that conviction.
“I’d rather have my kids see their dad stand up for what he believes in then to see him bow down because one person complained.”
HT: Right Newz
From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
Without insurance birth control pills cost only $9 per month, Leukemia treatments are in the hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, and the last time I checked there were no religious objects to Leukemia coverage.
So she wants the federal government to trample on religious freedoms so she doesn’t have to pay $9 a month.
From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
From American Digest: http://americandigest.org/
One of the items on Obama’s second term agenda is to root out traditionally Christian chaplains from the military. He sees them as bigots unworthy of conscience protections. Like Chick-fil-A, they don’t uphold Obama’s “values.”
Obama’s mouthpieces in the military have already blurted this out. In 2010, Admiral Michael Mullen told a Christian chaplain who opposed the repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy that “If you cannot get in line, resign your commission.” That same year Lieutenant General Thomas P. Bostick, the Army’s deputy chief of staff in charge of personnel, said military members who dissent from Obama’s gay rights agenda should “get out.”
“Unfortunately, we have a minority of service members who are still racists and bigoted and you will never be able to get rid of all of them,” he said, as reported by the Washington Times. “But these people opposing this new policy will need to get with the program, and if they can’t, they need to get out.”
Pentagon officials go through the motions of saying that military chaplains still enjoy religious freedom. But this claim grows ever more lawyerly and narrow. When Defense Department Counsel Jeh C. Johnson testified before Congress about the implications of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy’s collapse for religious freedom, he said that it would not affect what a chaplain said in “the religious context.” In other words, chaplains would be punished for objecting to Obama’s gay rights agenda anywhere outside of a pulpit.
Read it all at the American Spectator: http://spectator.org/archives/2013/01/09/muzzling-military-chaplains
About the Author
George Neumayr, a contributing editor to The American Spectator, is co-author, with Phyllis Schlafly, of the new book, No Higher Power: Obama’s War on Religious Freedom.
Josh Israel / ThinkProgress:
Jonathan Karl / ABCNEWS:
Sheryl Gay Stolberg / New York Times:
Louie Giglio, Inaugural Pastor, Criticized for Antigay Sermon
WASHINGTON — The pastor whom President Obama has chosen to deliver the benediction at his inauguration this month delivered a sermon in the 1990s in which he called on fellow Christians to fight the “aggressive agenda” of the gay rights movement and advocated “the healing power of Jesus” as “the only way out of a homosexual lifestyle.”
Think Progress, a liberal blog affiliated with the Center for American Progress Action Fund, reported Wednesday afternoon on the sermon delivered by the Rev. Louie Giglio, an Atlanta minister and founder of the Passion Conferences, a group dedicated to uniting college students in worship and prayer.
The speech, “In Search of a Standard — Christian Response to Homosexuality,” can be heard on Discipleship Library, a Christian training Web site.
In it, Mr. Giglio cites Scripture in saying that homosexuality “is sin in the eyes of God, and it is sin in the word of God.” He warned against gay rights. “That movement is not a benevolent movement,” he said. “It is a movement to seize by any means necessary the feeling and the mood of the day, to the point where the homosexual lifestyle becomes accepted as a norm in our society.”
Inaugural officials did not respond to a request for comment, and a spokeswoman for Mr. Giglio was not available.
Wayne Besen, founder of Truth Wins Out, which fights antigay sentiment, said: “It is imperative that Giglio clarify his remarks and explain whether he has evolved on gay rights, like so many other faith and political leaders. It would be a shame to select a preacher with backward views on L.G.B.T. people at a moment when the nation is rapidly moving forward on our issues.”
“Backward views.” Get that? If you’re not down with the extremist, morally bankrupt progressive homosexual agenda, you’re “backward.”
I dare say this country is going backward straight to hell. And not a single conservative is blogging this story at Memeorandum. You’d think that folks on the right had seen a ghost, and it’s the phantom of their own social-conservative past.
My god this country is doomed.
A Politically Incorrect Guide to ‘Sexual Orientation’
By Matt Barber
It’s a mixed up muddled up shook up world … ~ The Kinks
Through the secular-”progressive” looking-glass, the term “sexual orientation” has, in a few short years, evolved to accommodate an ever-expanding fruit basket of carnal appetites.
First it was “LGB” – liberal shorthand for “lesbian, gay and bisexual.” Then they added a “T” for “transgender.” That’s cross-dressing. You know, fellas like 45-year-old Clay Francis (aka, “Colleen”).
Mr. Francis enjoys macramé, long walks on the beach, wearing lady knickers and showering fully nude with 6-year-old girls.
Because it’s illegal to “discriminate based on the basis of gender identity,” and since it’s the only “tolerant” thing to do, this brave bellwether of the persecuted LGBT victim-class has secured the “civil right” for him and other men to fully expose themselves to your daughter in the locker room at Olympia, Washington’s Evergreen State College.
But slow down, Dad. According to the law, if you have a problem with Mr. Francis baring all to your baby girl, then you’re the problem. You’re a “transphobe” (“homophobia’s” evil twin sister, er, brother … whatever). Deck this sicko for terrifying your first-grader and you’re off to jail while “Colleen” is off to the “Human Rights Campaign” for a commendation as the latest victim of an “anti-LGBT hate crime.”
Rosa Parks in drag, I guess.
But to make sure they didn’t miss anyone, pooh-bahs over at Child Corruption Central added a “Q” to the “sexual orientation” mix. In case some fifth-grader in Ms. Adamsapple’s health class gets the urge to “taste the rainbow” (and I don’t mean Skittles), the catch-all term “questioning” was tacked on.
Gotta meet those recruiting quotas.
According to the “gay” activist group GLSEN, sexuality is “fluid” and “may change over time.” Unless, of course, you’re already “gay,” and then change is impossible, fixed and immutable. Like that hotel in California, “You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.”
Nobody said it’s supposed to make sense.
Still, because “progressives” aren’t progressive unless they’re progressing toward progress, this nonsensical alphabet soup of sexual deviancy has ballooned to a marvelous “LGBTQQIAAP.”
The latest word salad in the counter-”heterosexist” war against “heteronormativity” (yes, they consider these real things) is “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning, Queer, Intersex, Asexual, Allies, and Pansexual.”
In Canada, they’ve added “2S” which means: “Two-spirit. The visionaries and healers of aboriginal (sic) communities, the gay and lesbian shamans.”
I just can’t believe these closed-minded bigots left out members of the mistreated “BDSM” community (Bondage, Discipline, Sadism and Masochism). That’s OK, I guess. Being mistreated is their whole shtick, right? Or maybe they’re covered under “P” for “pansexual.” That means, more or less, that if the mood strikes, you’ll take a roll in the hay with anyone or anything in any way imaginable (or unimaginable).
Speaking of rolls in the hay, don’t put away your alphabet soup decoder ring just yet. It looks like we’ll soon be adding another “B” to the mix.
The late “gay” activist icon Frank Kameny – a pervert before his time – endorsed the practice of bestiality a few years ago. He called sex with animals “harmless,” saying that “as long as the animal doesn’t mind – and the animal rarely does – I don’t mind, and I don’t see why anyone else should.”
So we’ve further lowered the bar from “consenting adults” to “consenting adults and hoofed mammals.” How does that work? Bestiality is OK, but “neigh” means “neigh”?
In today’s frenzied struggle for unfettered sexual license cleverly couched as “civil rights,” we shouldn’t be surprised, then, that oppressed peoples representing all form of “sexual orientation” are lining up for their slice of “equality” pie.
Yes, even, um, animal lovers. According to a recent report by Florida’s Gainesville Sun, for instance, “Lawyers representing a Marion County man accused of sexual activity with a miniature donkey have filed a motion asking a judge to declare the Florida statute banning sexual activities with animals unconstitutional.”
“Carlos R. Romero, 32 … is accused of sexual activities involving animals, a first-degree misdemeanor, after he allegedly was found in a compromising position in August with a female miniature donkey named Doodle.”
First of all, I was offended by the article’s insensitive use of the term “miniature donkey.” I believe, if I’m not mistaken, the preferred nomenclature is “little horse.”
Still, I was especially struck – though not surprised – by the legal arguments Romero’s lawyers ponied up. They claimed “that the statute infringes upon Romero’s due process rights and violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment in the U.S. Constitution.”
“By making sexual conduct with an animal a crime, the statute demeans individuals like Defendant (Romero) by making his private sexual conduct a crime,” they wrote.
Right. The statute demeans Romero.
“The personal morals of the majority, whether based on religion or traditions, cannot be used as a reason to deprive a person of their personal liberties,” the attorneys wrote.
This line of argument is directly from the homosexual activist playbook – the rationale adopted by the majority in the landmark Lawrence v. Texas case. In Lawrence, the U.S. Supreme Court manufactured, for the first time in history, a constitutional “right” for men to sodomize each other.
So why not Doodle?
In his characteristically brilliant dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia forecast exactly what’s happened in the decade since: “State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices,” he wrote. “Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision.”
Once our culture decides, as a matter of course, that all morality is relative, all bets are off. Once we determine, as a matter of law, that people are entitled to special privilege because they subjectively define their identity based upon deviant sexual proclivities and behaviors, moral, legal and cultural anarchy are inevitable.
The brave new world is upon us.
Image: A Miniature Donkey, San Francisco Zoo – Children’s Zoo; author:Steven Walling; Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license
It is the iron law of “progressive” movements that having achieved their goals, they refuse to fade away. Rather than disbanding upon completion of their mission, these movements, now fully institutionalized, keep chugging along, and the farther they go, the more they resemble their sworn enemies, the rationale for their existence….
The gay rights movement, too, has been transforming itself before our very eyes. Once a movement fighting against persecution and discrimination, which is the reason why its initial demands enjoyed wide public support, it has gone from one triumph to another and won the war. Today, the issue is moot. But the gay movement has not declared victory and gone home. Central to achieving their goal is bending society to their will and forcing it to acquiesce to their agenda.
That’s where same-sex marriage comes in. It’s no mystery why it commands considerable support. After all, what can be more “American” than the idea of granting equality to a formerly persecuted group that has done nothing untoward other than being different in its sexual proclivities? Sort of like being discriminated because of the color of one’s skin (even though many black leaders, jealously guarding their highly lucrative victimhood, take strong exception to equating gay liberation with the civil rights struggle). So recognition of gay unions as legitimate marriages seems to be an eminently innocuous idea. But appearances can be deceptive. Few things are more destructive than gay marriage, a poison pill devised to corrode the very core of a healthy society — the institution of marriage.
Not a single society in the long history of mankind has ever attempted to substitute homosexual relationships for traditional marriage. Even in places where homosexuality was viewed as normal, openly practiced, and even encouraged (as in Sparta, where carnal relationship was regarded as forging an extra bond between warriors), marriage was sacrosanct and never called into question. Marriage has always been universally understood as a biological, social, and economic arrangement to bring into the world and rear the young, thus perpetuating the species. Indeed, humans took their cue from wild nature, where heterosexual family is virtually the sole organizing principle of life.
The rare exceptions only prove the rule, as do stable childless marriages held together by considerations of economic necessity or social convenience. Indeed, so central is marriage to human existence that it forms the basic building block and prototype of any society. The many forms of social organization are but permutations of the basic familial pattern; the clan, the tribe and the state are merely an extended family writ large.
Don’t believe revolutionaries when they hold forth about their intention of building paradise on earth. Actually, they would be unable to build anything even if they wanted to. Their talk about the bright future is mere lip service, because in reality, any revolution is exclusively about destruction, with very little thought given to what will happen afterward (“we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it”). But how do you go about destroying society? Where do you direct the blow so it will do the most damage? In his Theses on Feuerbach, Karl Marx provided the answer: destroy the traditional family.
True to the teachings of their prophet, socialist revolutionaries have placed the destruction of matrimony high on their list of priorities. Social upheavals have always opened the floodgates of debauchery and pornography. The socialist revolution brings about a breakdown of social conventions, with “sexual liberation” regarded as part of the overall drive for freedom. But while the rabble yearns to throw off the yoke of moral strictures to give vent to its animal passions, the revolutionary leaders see moral decay as a means of undermining the bulwark of the social structure — the family.
Radical movements are merely battalions of the revolutionary army, each charged with a particular subversive task. Undoubtedly, the overwhelming majority of rank-and-file gays are well-meaning people who have sincerely bought into the myth peddled by their leaders that the marriage license is the ultimate token of recognition of their normalcy. They know not what they are doing. But the wizards behind the curtain know better, and there shouldn’t be any illusions about their intentions: they want nothing less than to bring down the capitalist system, and they view their movement as a battering ram to shatter its principal bastion, America. Bringing down the traditional family is a crucial step in that direction.
KUALA LUMPUR: Malaysia’s ruling party, at its national conference, continued to attack the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community, much to the anger of human rights activists in the country.
The Umno, in ending its final assembly gathering ahead of elections that must take place before April next year, said that anti-Islamic elements threaten the country, singling out homosexuality and those who promote liberalism in “mainly Muslim Malaysia.”
One delegate called for a rehabilitation center for the LGBT community to “re-educate” them and bring them back to society.
“We want to transform them from zaman kejahilan (dark age of ignorance),” Tanjong representative Mohd Shaharudin Mohd Hasan Tajudin told the over 2,000 delegates at Umno’s cavernous Putra World Trade Center (PWTC).
Shaharudin also suggested that high school students be taught to reject the LGBT lifestyle — along with pluralism and liberalism — in their religious education.
Another delegate, Ariffin Mohd Arif from Kimanis, called for an official sanction against those who spread pluralism and liberalism, which he called a “teaching of the Devil.”
“Just like al-Arqam … we must take action against these people. Our actions must be strict, and we must not budge,” Ariffin said.
RS McCain looks at how the Left looks at “political” causes
After her daughter’s eighth grade math teacher wore an anti-gay marriage pin to school, Cynthia Deford, a gay parent in Port Angeles, Washington, started an online campaign to ban teachers from promoting political causes in the classroom.
The Steven’s Middle School teacher, who has remained unnamed, wore a button to class in the days before the Nov. 6 election that stated “No on 74: one man + one woman = marriage,” according to Deford. The political message refers to Washington’s Referendum 74, which legalized gay marriage in the state, passing with 52 percent of the vote.
Although Port Angeles School District Superintendent Jane Pryne told the Peninsula Daily News that the issue has been addressed, and the school district already has policy regarding politics in the classroom in place, Deford wants more to be done; she is calling for an official apology and sensitivity training for teachers.
“It just shocked me that it happened here,” Deford told the Peninsula Daily News.
In her online petition on SignOn.org, Deford wrote that her daughter came home upset after seeing a teacher — who she once thought highly of — wear such a discriminatory button in class.
She wants to “ban teachers from promoting political causes in the classroom,” but tolerance toward homosexuality . . . Well, that’s notpolitical. That’s just the way things are. Unless you question “the way things are,” and then you’re evil.
So the agenda now is compulsory approval. Everyone must pledge allegiance to the Rainbow Flag, and once you are forbidden to disapprove of homosexuality, logically, your refusal to participate in gay sex will be classified as an unacceptable form of “discrimination.”
This isn’t about “equality” or “liberation.” No, it’s about homo hegemony, as the fanatics seek to secure a privileged and superior status for themselves and their preferences. That’s not disco music you hear, it’s the sound of hobnailed boots marching over broken glass.
Tolerance gradually reveals itself as totalitarianism, and it’s amazing that people acquiesce to such bullying. According to a recent Gallup survey, 3.4 percent of Americans identify themselves as “LGBT,” to use the de rigeur acronym. Why should 96.6 percent be compelled to kowtow to the sensibilities of the 3.4 percent?
The most important part, to me anyway, is that last paragraph, especially these words Tolerance gradually reveals itself as totalitarianism. Truer words have never been uttered, tolerance, and its bastard cousins, inclusion and sensitivity are used by the Left not to create a more forgiving atmosphere, or to urge folks to be more polite. Instead these words have been rebranded by the Left, to have completely different meanings than they traditionally have. Tolerance is not tolerance anymore, or acceptance, it is now used as a weapon to silence ideological beliefs the Left finds distasteful. Sensitivity has become a tool to force Liberalism on those that dare holds views that are not Liberal. Inclusion? HA! That is a word used to “include” only certain viewpoints, all others are demonized, ostracized and most certainly excluded from debate.
For example, take what McCain writes above. there is nothing hateful, or bigoted in his words, but, since he makes solid points that might persuade people he is correct, the Left must either silence his message or assassinate his character. And since The Other McCain will never stop expressing his views, or defending his principles, he must be discredited so that no one listens to anything he says. Further, look at what I wrote here, nothing Homophobic there. In fact I do not have issue with Gay marriage, or with Gay adoption, or with civil unions. But, that will not matter, any Leftist reading my words will attempt to paint me as an evil homophobe, because only certain views are to be tolerated by the “tolerant Left”!
From The Daley Gator: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/
Bill Clinton: American Military Is Now “Less Racist, Less Sexist And Less Homophobic” Because Of Obama…
He left out one – less effective because of it.
“One of the things the decider-in-chief has to do is decide whether he’s going to bring this country together across all its diversity or let it drift apart. Look at how much stronger the American military is because it is less racist, less sexist and less homophobic and we’re just looking for people who can do the job.”
From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
LIBERAL AMERICA—THE SODOM THAT PRETENDS IT’S KANSAS
“In America,” Jim Kalb recently remarked, “everything is normal”—meaning that no matter how radical, extreme, and perverted things become in our society, they are and must be seen as ordinary, traditional, and unthreatening.
The result is the peculiar phenomenon that I have described as the “radical mainstream.” On one hand, liberals and their mainstream-conservative enablers boast of America’s transformational progress since the mid-twentieth century; on the other hand, they claim that we haven’t changed at all. The fact that all kinds of moral and constitutional norms have been shattered, and that nihilism, gross sexual libertinism, and statism are the new norm, is never allowed into public consciousness. The liberals suppress the ugly truth of what America has become, in order to maintain the legitimacy of liberal society; and the conservatives join in the suppression, because their goal is to keep their place at the liberal table; they know that anyone who speaks the truth about the radical transformation of America will no longer be welcome…. — AmNation
From American Digest: http://americandigest.org/
3.4%: The Mini-Me Minority
Massive study finds only 3.4% of American adults identify as LGBT A massive new survey published this morning reveals that only 3.4% of American adults
publicly identify themselves as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender, with the highest percentage coming among the younger, less-educated non-whites. The new Gallup Poll of more than 121,000 adults, the largest of its kind on record, wass conducted during the past four months. Itfinds the percentage of self-reported LGBT Americans to be much smaller than a general impression derived from their presence in popular culture and their perceived influence in liberal American politics.
From American Digest: http://americandigest.org/