Category Archives: Homosexuality
Gays are 2.6% of the population, including Lesbians.
Not much to hang a sports league on.
But the motivation is essentially religious. Owners care more about being seen as one of the chosen, the Saved, the special, the “good White” who gloriously saves the downtrodden non-White, or Gay, or Muslim, or what have you, and thus performs the sado-masochistic (credit the tweeter Roissy/Heartiste retweeted) rituals of recycling, yoga, tofu, vegetarianism, jogging, etc. along with “racial cuckoldry” that makes up the religion of Racial Penance and Redemption.
From AD: http://americandigest.org/
The Harsh Dogma of Liberalism: Gays and Abortion.
If you want to prove you don’t hate gays, all you have to do is worship at their feet.
By Matt Walsh
I have never in my life encountered a religion as oppressive, cold, and stiff as Progressivism. I’ve never known a faith more eager to burn heretics at the stake. Even a fundamentalist Iranian Muslim would flinch if he came face to face with a western liberal’s rigid dogmatism. I imagine that even a Saudi Arabian Islamic cleric would take one look at how American left wingers react when anyone deviates ever so slightly from their established orthodoxy, and say to himself, “man, these people REALLY need to chill.”
The Cult of Leftism has many tenets, and it demands full compliance with all of them, but nothing in its creed compares to the sanctity of their two great sacraments: child murder and sodomy. You must not question these, but tolerance alone will not be good enough. You must celebrate them, too. You must worship at their altar. You must sing hallelujah at the mention of their names. You must fight for a society where infanticide and gay sex are awarded a protected and privileged position. When a man decides to kill babies for a living, you must call him a ‘health care provider’ and a ‘healer.’ When a man decides to announce to the world that he enjoys sex with other men, you must call him a ‘hero’ and a ‘pioneer.’ You must quite literally give him awards for his courage.
Nothing less will be allowed…
So I suppose my point here is simple: if you aren’t willing to become a liberal, you might as well finally stand up and condemn it. There is no middle ground anymore. There never was to begin with, but even the illusion is fading. Either fight for life, family, and Truth, or else join the ranks of the nihilists and hedonists. The distinction between the two sides is not a murky no-man’s land colored in hues of gray; it is a stark and sudden line in the concrete. You are either for truth or you are not.
Either/or, black or white, right or wrong. Sorry, there are only two options, and you have to choose one. Progressivism says that you are either with it or against it, and on that point I agree.
Way back in the olden thymes, I hired a homosexual. Of course, this was the olden thymes so there was no mention of it. If anyone discovered a homosexual, they were required to report them to the authorities. The homosexual was then shipped off to one of the rehabilitation centers run by Pat Robertson. If that did not “take” then they were shipped to the lavender plantations in the South operated by Oral Roberts, ironically enough. As a result no one ever spoke of homosexuals in public or private. The subject was banned.
Ok, that’s nonsense, but not too far from the official narrative being developed by the usual suspects. The airbrushing of history with regards to this topic is not going to end until the past fits the fantasy. Anyway, in my case the guy was flaming, so it was obvious he preferred the company of men. That and he mentioned it in his interview. He wanted to make sure it was not going to be an issue. I told him he’d have to figure that out for himself, but as long as he did his job he’d have no issue with me.
That was the last time I had any reason to discuss the matter with him. Some of the guys gave him grief, but he was used to it and handled it without help from me. As is always the case, he fell into a role that suited him and everyone else. The point being that in the olden thymes, homosexuals had to put up with some mild inconveniences, but nothing significant. More important, normal people did not go crazy around them. Other than some mild discomfort, normal people got along just fine with homosexuals in their ranks. We were indifferent towards them.
Today, people all over the world are going insane over homosexuals. Throughout the Middle East and Africa, otherwise normal people are going berserk and attacking homosexuals. Uganda, for example, just passed harsh laws against homosexuality. They did it despite stern warnings from Obama, so you know they must have gone mad. Of course, we all know how countries in the Middle East have gone bonkers over this. Iran was driven to such madness as to bring back stoning.
OK, I’m kidding around again.
I wanted to check in on the sports world and I see this on ESPN. David Tyree is against gay marriage, like most everyone. Big deal. Why is this sports story? Every damned week the sporting press is running with a homosexual story. You just know they will make a fetish of Michael Sam this fall. They made fools of themselves hounding the gay basketball player last summer so you know they will go crazy over the football player. ESPN is the worst offender, but even sports radio can’t stop obsessing over the gays. There’s nowhere to hide from the constant chatter about homosexuals.
I’m all fagged out.
I want the love that dared not speak its name to go back to not speaking its name. Now it is the love that won’t shut the fuck up. You can’t escape it. If you watch TV, every show now must feature a homosexual, despite the fact only 3.4% of the population claim to be homosexual. There are more “little people” in this world than “trans” people, yet every newspaper in the country is running at least one tranny tale a week. If I were a midget, I’d feel like I was getting the short end…well…nevermind.
It is getting to the point where it is impossible to engage with popular culture. The preaching is unbearable. Preaching about homosexuals is even worse, given that no one, including most homosexuals, cares about homosexuals. Circling back (or reaching around if you prefer) to my story at the top, I remember a time when no one cared about the topic and they were generally decent enough to keep their feelings about it to themselves. Let’s go back to that.
But, that’s not how cultural genocide works. The lunatics give you two choices. One is you embrace their insane, ever shifting set of codes, or, else. ISIS is telling Iraqi Christians they must convert or die. The Greater American Lunatic is telling normals they must embrace and exult homosexuality or else. Well, nuts to that, as it were. I’ve had enough of the gays. I’m all fagged out and I don’t want to hear any more about the gays.
From Z Blog: http://thezman.com/wordpress/
Posted on | July 23, 2014
“Can it be valid to conceptualize ‘girls’ as having certain personal attributes universally in common, except perhaps their youth relative to women? In grappling with this question, we need not to lose sight of the fact that, however different, girls’ actions are oriented toward the same or similarly structured objects that construct their bodies’ social meanings, values, and challenges as gendered. . . . Social rules and practices surrounding menarche construct gender as a principle both for division of labor and for compulsory heterosexuality, thus constituting girls in a relation of growing vulnerability to boys’ and men’s appropriation.” – Susan Laird, “Befriending Girls as an Educational Life-Practice,” Philosophy of Education, 2002
“It has been the political policy of lesbian feminists to present ourselves publicly as persons who have chosen lesbian patterns of desire and sensuality. Whether as individuals we feel ourselves to have been born lesbians or to be lesbians by decision, we claim as morally and politically conscious agents a positive choice to go with it: to claim our lesbianism, to take full advantage of its advantages. This is central to our feminism: that women can know their own bodies and desires, interpret their own erotic currents, create and choose environments which encourage chosen changes in all these; and that a female eroticism that is independent of males and of masculinity is possible and can be chosen. We claim these things and fight in the world for all women’s liberty to live them without punishment and terror, believing also that if the world permits self-determined female eroticism, it will be a wholly different world.” – Marilyn Frye, Politics of Reality: Essays in Feminist Theory (1983)
Last week, I mentioned that the American Association of University Women (AAUW) is pushing to introduce “gender studies” to the high school curriculum, “creating innovative spaces for young people to engage in feminism and activism, equity, and social justice in today’s classrooms.” The symposium on this AAUW program featured Ileana Jiminez, a lesbian English teacher from New York. What this indicates is that the radical theories of feminist academics are ultimately destined for the K-12 classroom — and any parent who objects can expect to be condemned as a sexist homophobe.
Consider the phrase “compulsory heterosexuality.” This phrase entered the feminist lexicon via an influential 1980 essay by Adrienne Rich, “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence,” which I discussed at length in April. Rich’s essay, asserting that heterosexuality is not natural for women, but rather is imposed as a condition of male supremacy, has been widely anthologized and incorporated in Women’s Studies curricula.
The phrase turned up in a Google search I did, appearing as the title of a book chapter, “Compulsory Heterosexuality as Mis-education.” The author speaks of “the psychological damage inflicted [on gay adolescents] by years of bearing witness to, or experiencing, anti–lesbian and gay prejudice in countless forms”:
They are the product of a lifetime of learning in the hegemonic ideology of heterosexism. In practice, heterosexist ideology is instilled through numerous mechanisms. Family members initiate children into heterosexist ideology almost from birth, teaching acceptable gendered conduct as well as uneasiness with cross-gendered behaviors. This education is reinforced and expanded by religious institutions, peer groups, and the media . . . By the time children have reached first grade, they have already compiled a significant amount of data about what it means to be gay in a heterosexist society, even though much of what they have learned may well be incorrect, born of fear and prejudice rather than factual information. Schools are in a unique position to correct much of this misinformation at an early age before it ripens into anti–lesbian and gay prejudice and violence.
So, the public schools are to be enlisted to counteract this “fear and prejudice” of “heterosexist ideology”? What kind of lunatic gibberish is this, and who wrote it? This is from Rethinking Sexual Identity in Education, a 2004 book by Susan Birden, and it was originally her Ph.D. dissertation at the University of Oklahoma’s College of Education. Birden expressed her gratitude to her mentor:
While all my committee members have been engaged and helpful, I owe a life-long debt to my committee chair, Susan Laird, for she has been not only an advisor, but also a mentor of the highest caliber. A brilliant scholar, her expertise in guiding me through this entire doctoral process has been a testament to her great skill as an educator. From her comments on my first seminar entry, written some seven years ago, to her comments on the final draft of my dissertation, she has guided me through a maze of philosophic thought, nurturing my interests, pressing me to think more broadly, challenging me to think more specifically. Through it all she has demonstrated profound patience with my leaming, a committed focus and respect for my interests, accomplishing it all with the good humor of a “liver” of life. Susan Laird is both a fierce warrior and a kind soul.
Go read Birden’s dissertation, and you will find it is crammed full of quotes and citations from an all-star lineup of lesbian feminists — Mary Daly, Marilyn Frye, Janice Raymond, Charlotte Bunch, and on and on. Which brings us back to the question of exactly what the hell is going on in the University of Oklahoma’s College of Education, where Professor Susan Laird supervised this dissertation.
In addition to her position in the College of Education, Professor Laird has been a member of the faculty of the department of Women’s and Gender Studies since 1995. And her 2002 journal article, “Befriending Girls as an Educational Life-Practice,” is worth careful study. This eight-page article has 33 footnotes and cites numerous lesbian feminists, including Audre Lorde, Janice Raymond, Judith Butler and Marilyn Frye, the latter an author whose works I’ve quoted as examples of the anti-male/anti-heterosexual themes that have become commonplace in academic feminism.
“Fucking is a large part of how females are kept subordinated to males. It is a ritual enactment of that subordination which constantly reaffirms the fact of subordination and habituates both men and women to it, both in body and in imagination.” –- Marilyn Frye, Politics of Reality: Essays in Feminist Theory (1983)
“Men have been creating ideologies and political practices which naturalize female heterosexuality continuously in every culture since the dawns of the patriarchies. . . . Female heterosexuality is not a biological drive or an individual woman’s erotic attraction . . . Female heterosexuality is a set of social institutions and practices.” – Marilyn Frye, Willful Virgin: Essays in Feminism, 1976-1992 (1992)
Professor Laird cited Frye (although not these passages) in her 2002 Philosophy of Education article about “befriending girls,” an article which begins by relating the plot of a novel in which the young female protagonist “responds . . . with shock upon discovering this teacher who so generously befriended her is lesbian, but feels a new compassion that challenges [her] to unlearn her own heterosexism.” Did I mention that Professor Laird teaches in the College of Education, and that the title of that article is “Befriending Girls as an Educational Life-Practice”?
Yeah, Oklahoma, OK.
From The Other McCain: http://theothermccain.com/
The truth is that Michael Sam seems more interested in being professionally gay
than being a pro-football player; so Tony Dungy’s right to say he’ll be a circus.
In fact, the reaction to Dungy’s innocuous comments prove it. People said the same sort of thing about Tim Tebow a zillion times and guess what? Tebow is out of the league even though Tebow’s popularity, position, and talent level made him much more of an asset to a team than Sam. Yet, you have liberals going nuts because Tony Dungy said what 31 teams in the league probably think of Michael Sam.
Found at AD: http://americandigest.org/
HIV Explodes Among Homosexuals as Ideologically Deranged Authorities Continue to Make Situation Worse
The relentless promotion of homosexuality by the liberal establishment is having its predictable effect:
“We are seeing exploding epidemics,” warned Gottfried Hirnschall, who heads [the World Health Organization's] HIV department.
Infection rates are rising again among men who have sex with men — the group at the epicentre of AIDS pandemic when it first emerged 33 years ago, he told reporters in Geneva. …
In its new recommendations for combatting the HIV/AIDS pandemic, published Friday, the UN health agency therefore for the first time “strongly recommends men who have sex with men consider taking antiretroviral medicines as an additional method of preventing HIV infection”.
US authorities made the same recommendation in May.
This is equivalent to advising people to take Advil before smashing their fingers with a hammer. More constructive advice would be along the lines of: If you do not want to contract the horrific, lethal diseases associated with homosexual depravity, then don’t engage in it. But that message would run contrary to The Agenda.
Taking pre-exposure prophylaxis medication, for instance as a single daily pill combining two antiretrovirals, in addition to using condoms, has been estimated to cut HIV incidence among such men by 20-25 percent, WHO said…
Morality would cut it by about 100%.
The progressive establishment aggressively aggravates the problem by working to normalize behaviors that spread HIV, on the grounds that this allows greater access to healthcare, thereby facilitating the treatment of diseases that degenerates voluntarily bring upon themselves through homosexuality, intravenous drug use, prostitution, et cetera.
Globally, transgender women [i.e., men pretending to be women] and injecting drug users, for instance, are around 50 times more likely than the general population to contract HIV, while sex workers have a 14-fold higher chance of getting infected, WHO said.
So you can see why we should normalize their lifestyles by decriminalizing and destigmatizing their vices, as WHO demands.
HIV and the AIDS it causes aren’t the only problems closely associated with homosexuality:
Researcher Dale O’Leary, reporting in the prestigious Linacre Quarterly, says the problem of sexually transmitted diseases in the gay community is such that scientists are calling it not an epidemic or a pandemic but a “syndemic,” a linked set of health issues involving two or more afflictions acting in concert within a specific population. According to the medical literature, among men who have sex with men this includes syphilis, gonorrhea, and HIV but also such pathologies as partner violence, drug abuse, and psychological disorders.
You could almost get the impression that the Bible has it right about homosexuality being inherently wrong.
It’s a good thing that despite all the promotion and special treatment associated with politically celebrated homosexual status, admitted homosexual/bisexuals still make up less than 3% of the US population, according to the very government that places top priority on imposing reverence for their potentially lethal brand of perversion.
On tips from Artfldgr, Jester, Bodhisattva, Ben S, and Henry.
From MB: http://moonbattery.com/
How Gay is America? Not So Much
How in the world can 2% of the American population end up dominating,
in many ways, an entire political party and entertainment pop culture? Because there is an answer to this. ….I mean, if you have knowledge that 2% of the country is gay, why would anybody do prime-time television programming oriented? That’s certainly not mass appeal, so why would you do it? A-ha. You’re not doing it for mass appeal. There’s a political agenda behind it. This is my point. There’s a political agenda to everything that the left does. And part of the political agenda is creating mirages, creating falsehoods, making what isn’t true look real.
From AD: http://americandigest.org/
The only time liberals will show a sincere interest in Christianity is when they see an opportunity to subvert it in order to destroy it. They have been making headway:
The most visible Episcopal church in the U.S. is hosting its first openly transgender priest this month.
The Rev. Cameron Partridge is set to give the June 22 sermon at the Washington National Cathedral in Northwest.
Dean of the cathedral, the Rev. Gary Hall, said in a statement that he hopes Mr. Partridge’s presence sends a message of support for the transgender community.
“We at Washington National Cathedral are striving to send a message of love and affirmation, especially to LGBT youth who suffer daily because of their gender identity or sexual orientation,” he said. “We want to proclaim to them as proudly and unequivocally as we can: Your gender identity is good and your sexual orientation is good because that’s the way that God made you.”
Sin is good because God made you prone to indulge in it. I must have missed that lesson in Sunday school.
The fallacy is so crude and obvious, it seems absurd to go to the trouble to point it out. But as George Orwell said,
“We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.”
Here goes with the obvious:
The liberal argument is essentially that we are defined by our behavior, and all people are equal, therefore all behavior is equal.
This same argument could be applied to any other behavior proscribed by the civilized norms that have served us so well for the past 2,000 years. I steal things, therefore I’m a thief. Thieves are equal to honest people, so let’s celebrate theft. God loves thieves too, right?
The gay rights agenda is driven not just by sexually deviant activists but exceedingly aggressively by the entire liberal establishment because it is not actually about equality, or even about homosexuals. It is about destroying Christianity, a traditional bulwark against statist tyranny.
Christian bakers and photographers being forced to take part in morally repugnant parodies of Christian ceremonies is only the beginning. Once the Supremes declare homosexual “marriage” to be a constitutional right, anyone whose faith prevents them from revering it will be subject to legal persecution. That includes literally all Bible-believing Christians.
But it doesn’t include Episcopalians, whose church has been thoroughly subverted by the Left and now serves to advance an anti-Christian agenda. Getting back to the story:
Mr. Hall also announced that the Right Rev. Gene Robinson, the first openly gay Episcopal priest, would be presiding the same service with Mr. Partridge. He retired from his post as a bishop in New Hampshire and now works at the Center for American Progress.
Here we get to the root of the matter. CAP is a Soros-funded radical left-wing organization for which the only imaginable god is an all-powerful oligarchical collectivist government.
The service caps off two weeks of LGBT advocacy for the cathedral. It participated in this year’s Capital Pride events, and Mr. Hall said the service would include readings by local LGBT community members.
The technical term for a church involving itself in these activities is blasphemy.
On tips from Dean D and Bodhisattva.
From MB: http://moonbattery.com/
Armed & Dangerous: The Terrorism of the LGBT Radicals
Joanne Moudy | Jun 08, 2014
When the word ‘terrorism’ is used today, most people equate it with Muslim extremists, radical bombings and hijacked aircraft. But there’s another form of terrorism happening right here in America, and the perpetrators are out to destroy the very fiber of our Judeo-Christian heritage and U.S. Constitution. Welcome to the bloody LGBT battlefield where everyone is fair game in a relentless, multifaceted assault on our humanity.
Make no mistake about the LGBT intentions. No longer content to ‘fit in’ or simply be ‘accepted’ by others for living an odd lifestyle, today they are out to castrate the minds and hearts of others into supporting their deviant faith – or crush those who might oppose their ranting into oblivion. As per the LGBT website, their goal is “…to seek to change the hearts and minds of Americans to ‘equality’…” – unless you happen to be an American who doesn’t want to be brainwashed.
Read the entire article at Townhall.com: http://townhall.com/columnists/joannemoudy/2014/06/08/armed–dangerous-the-terrorism-of-the-lgbt-radicals-n1848920/page/full#!
Homofascism should be crushed.
Lawsuits against photographers who won’t shoot gay weddings.
Television show cancellations because the hosts oppose gay marriage. Attempts to silence anti-gay preaching or force churches to recognize gay marriages. Crushed, all of it. Crushed by the united voice of the people, crushed in courts of law, in legislatures, in businesses and in conversation. When someone is sued, attacked, shamed, boycotted or fired for opposing gay marriage or just opposing gayness in general, straight and gay people alike should protest. No one should lose his television show, no one should be dragged before a judge, no one should have his business threatened. Don’t tell me about a company’s right to fire its employees. It has the right, but it isn’t right. It’s unAmerican and it’s despicable.
Found at AD: http://americandigest.org/
Why are the liberals who command the government–media establishment constantly ramming homosexuality and even transsexuality down our throats lately? What do they get out of it? An easier question would be: What would they get out of suppressing Christianity, which distinguished itself as a bulwark against collectivist tyranny throughout Europe during the darkest days of the 20th century? Most objectionable from the statist point of view are that Christians regard each soul as an individual, not an interchangeable widget defined by some superficial attribute; and that Christians answer to a higher moral authority than bureaucrats and the New York Times editorial page.
Answer the second question and you have answered the first. Sexual perversion has been fundamentally transformed into a “civil rights” issue not merely to advance the cultural Marxist divide-and-conquer strategy, but to attack the Christian religion.
The campaign against Canada’s Trinity Western University is illustrative:
On April 24th, the law society of Canada’s largest province voted against admitting among their ranks graduates of Trinity Western University, for the sole reason that the school’s community covenant, which students (and teachers) voluntarily sign upon admission or hiring, reserves sexual intimacy for heterosexual marriage. Nova Scotia followed suit, wording their rejection as approval on the condition that TWU change its community covenant or allow students to opt out. In British Columbia, where the school is located, the law society voted on April 11th to admit TWU graduates to the bar, but momentum is building for the law society to reverse that decision in a special meeting on June 10th.
For TWU to renounce this covenant under pressure would be for it to renounce the faith upon which the school is based. It would be moral suicide. That’s why liberals are trying to force this to happen.
Very likely, TWU will be destroyed, either as a Christian institution, or as a university:
With same-sex marriage legalized, the public debate is now strongly weighed against Christians who believe in traditional marriage [i.e., literally all Christians, by definition], and they face rapidly mounting charges of unreasonable intolerance. During the April 11th debate by the B.C. law society (read the transcript online), some Benchers considered TWU’s covenant discriminatory because it requires gay students to abstain from intimacy “even within a legal marriage,” and because it prevents gay students “from being married by the State, a right that was hard fought and hard won.”
Nothing could be more quintessentially liberal than sanctimoniously screeching the words “discriminatory” and “intolerance” to justify intolerant discrimination against Christians.
As equality rights [i.e., homosexual privileges] have been gaining ground, religious freedom has been on the retreat. Many lawyers now argue that even a private religious school like TWU must not be allowed to “discriminate” in its hiring practices by choosing teachers who abide by its moral tenets or by expecting students to conform their behavior to the beliefs that the school espouses.
Ominously, the case is heading toward Canada’s Supreme Court, where leftists hope to achieve a major victory over Christianity.
If the Supreme Court decides against TWU, then surely other professional bodies will not stay far behind Ontario and Nova Scotia in excluding the graduates of TWU. Teachers already tried to do this in 2001, and emboldened by a new ruling they would surely try again. Nurses, dentists, accountants and other professionals could well follow suit.
Other Christian schools need to get ready for the domino effect. There are various independent religious schools in Canada, and many of them have covenants.
That is to say, the triumph of the homosexual agenda will render a diploma from a Christian school worthless — a major step in the official marginalization of the faith.
Stalin and Hitler tried it their way; now soft tyrants are taking a turn. The ultimate objectives are identical, and have nothing to do with homosexuals, however much liberals may currently take perverse pride in revering them.
On a tip from Wilberforce.
From MB: http://moonbattery.com/
Let’s just cut to the chase. We’ve all read this script before.
If you do anything less than fall to your knees weeping tears of jubilation that a man who is sexually attracted to men was picked to play a game for a living — you’re a homophobe.
It doesn’t really matter why you aren’t joining in the celebration, or why you aren’t using words like ‘historic’ and ‘revolutionary’ to describe a scenario where a homosexual fellow plays a sport with some other fellows, and is paid handsomely and applauded loudly for doing so.
It doesn’t matter what reasoning you provide, or what sort of logic you employ, when attempting to explain why Michael Sam’s likeness shouldn’t necessarily be etched into Mount Rushmore just because he took it upon himself to alert the media of his sexual habits a few months before being selected in the 7th round of the NFL Draft.
It doesn’t matter what you say when trying to articulate why the President of the United States of America probably doesn’t need to release an official White House statement to congratulate someone for being gay and athletic.
It doesn’t matter. None of it matters. Nothing is acceptable but complete and total adherence to the prevailing cultural dogma. You are only allowed to think a certain way about these kinds of things. Any thought, or statement, or phrase, or utterance that deviates from the zeitgeist by even the slightest degree will earn you the label of homophobic bigot, and that’s just all there is to it.
So, while I’m not a bigot, and while I’m not ‘homophobic,’ and while I generally carry about my day very much unconcerned with the sexual proclivities of football players from Missouri, I nonetheless feel the need to be a voice of reason amidst this whole spectacularly ridiculous charade. Therefore, I will be called a bigot, because that’s how America has been trained to react to anyone who questions popular opinion.
A court in Egypt sentenced four men to up to eight years in prison on Monday for practicing homosexuality, a judicial official said.
Prosecutors had accused the men of holding “deviant parties” and dressing in women’s clothes. Three were sentenced to eight years and the fourth to three years in prison.
Prosecutors have used a law banning “debauchery” to try homosexuals in the past.
Those accused of homosexuality are often forced to undergo medical tests to establish they are “habitual” gays, a practice rights groups have decried as abusive.
Homosexuality is not tolerated across the Middle East and much of Africa.
From WZ: http://weaselzippers.us/
Some of my colleagues are celebrating. They call Eich a bigot who got what he deserved. I agree. But let’s not stop here. If we’re serious about enforcing the new standard, thousands of other employees who donated to the same anti-gay ballot measure must be punished.
More than 35,000 people gave money to the campaign for Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that declared, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” You can download the entire list, via the Los Angeles Times, as a compressed spreadsheet. (Click the link that says, “Download CSV.”) Each row lists the donor’s employer. …
Thirty-seven companies in the database are linked to more than 1,300 employees who gave nearly $1 million in combined contributions to the campaign for Prop 8. Twenty-five tech companies are linked to 435 employees who gave more than $300,000. Many of these employees gave $1,000 apiece, if not more. Some, like Eich, are probably senior executives.
Why do these bigots still have jobs? Let’s go get them. …
If we’re serious about taking down corporate officers who supported Proposition 8, and boycotting employers who promote them, we’d better get cracking on the rest of the list.
Remember that the people they are seeking out for destruction gave money years ago to a proposition that was passed by a majority of California voters, who were then overruled by the courts, starting with gay activist judge Vaughn Walker. Prop 8 is long dead; the liberals who control the judiciary have spoken. The explicit objective now is to hunt down people who have privately held views in the past that are currently considered inconsistent with leftwing ideology.
This isn’t about promoting homosexuality as an end in itself, or only the tiny percentage of Americans who are pushily homosexual would be driving it. This is a major battle in the Cultural Marxist war to replace America with a country where no thought crime (as defined by ultra-Left oligarchs) will be tolerated.
As you can see, anonymity is no longer an option. Neither is sitting on the sidelines. Either we fight these vermin, or they win. If they win there will be zero tolerance for anyone they deem to be ideologically incorrect, as they have clearly demonstrated.
On a tip from Shawn R.
I’m told the Slate piece is satire. I had considered the possibility, but judging by the way liberals went after Eich, could see no reason to believe that a piece in a leftwing publication calling for more of the same would not be on the level. Is it also satire when the author calls Eich a “bigot” for privately opposing the desecration of marriage? If not, where does the satire line start? Or is the satire claim just cover to hide behind when moonbats overstep?
From MB: http://moonbattery.com/
From MB: http://moonbattery.com/
Haven’t you learned anything from history?
‘Advancements’ earned through tyranny never endure. You can only win a debate by suffocating your opposition for so long.
Your strategy is doomed for failure, because it has always failed. In the name of ‘fighting for the freedom to love,’ you’ve utilized hate. For the sake of ‘tolerance,’ you’ve wielded bigotry. In order to push ‘diversity,’ you’ve been dogmatic. You are everything you accuse your opponents of being, and you stand for all the evil things that you claim they champion. You are exposed. We see you for what you are: a force of destruction and division. Hey gay rights fascists: in spite of your Mozilla victory, you will still lose | The Matt Walsh Blog
From AD: http://americandigest.org/
The removal of Eich is about fascism.
It’s about one group of people forcing everyone else to bow to their hat on a pole;
From AD: http://americandigest.org/
Minneapolis Lesbian Police Chief Dons Hijab for “Hijab Day”
There’s nothing like a lesbian feminist authority figure who boasts of being the first female police chief in Minneapolis
donning a symbol of male ownership in a patriarchal tribal society to express the deep schizophrenia of the left in its enthusiastic enabling of Islamists. In other news: Two women accused of having a lesbian relationship have been sentenced to death by a court in the self-declared autonomous region of Puntland in northern Somalia. In the first case of its kind in Somalia, a culturally conservative and Muslim nation. — FrontPage Magazine
From AD: http://americandigest.org/
Let me start with a basic truth any reasonable person can grasp. NO ONE is ever going to feel included all the time, nor should they. But, Liberals are not, shall we say, exactly reasonable. Especially when they feel like they are not included!
An upcoming conference organized by Stanford University’s Anscombe Society called “Communicating Values: Marriage, Family & the Media” has been dubbed “hate speech” by the college’s graduate-level student government, which refused to allow any of its student fee-funded budget to support the event.
The Anscombe Society is a conservative student group centered around traditional marriage and family values; it also encourages chastity, and tackles subjects such as sexual integrity and pornography.
According to the minutes of the student government meeting on March 5, a large group of angry students attended to protest the conference and its request for funding.
Again, a case of Liberals screaming for tolerance while giving none, that is old news. What is really revealing is what the offended whiners have to say
“An event such as this would be a negative event, in schools that have negative events there is a statistically significant increase in suicide.”
Every event is “negative” to someone. Again, the Liberal demands only those things they approve of take place. Narcissistic much?
“ … makes homosexuals on campus feel less than equal to others.”
“ … this event is to help people better convey hateful messages … the conference is to help better articulate their views, but it’s not better articulating, rather camouflaging discrimination and hateful messages …”
” … public schools cannot deny student group funding based on viewpoint, but enforcing viewpoint neutral policy that denies funding for hate speech is an entirely different ballgame. Even if Stanford was a public university, it would be perfectly legal to deny funding to events that make LGBT community feel unwelcome. It would be the same for Stanford to hold a conference on why heterosexuality is abhorrent, and to strip the right away from heterosexuals, and it’s equally unacceptable to host a conference to strip homosexuals of their rights.”
And, of course, Liberals will decide what is and isn’t hate speech
” … there is a lot of feeling espousing the view that marriage is between man and woman is, at the least discriminatory, at worst hate speech.”
No, it is the foundation of society for many folks. This is an opinion, if you have a different take, please feel free to engage in debate rather than thuggish tactics
“This event is small and exclusive, this doesn’t make us feel in community welcome, we don’t feel included.”
Ah yes, my personal favorite. But I don’t feel welcome! Yeah? So what? Welcome to the real world. Of course if this student wanted an event that would not make other people feel welcome, I doubt he or she would give a damn. I guess Liberal feelings are “more equal”.
From TDG: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/
No…this has nothing to do with “separate but equal.” Where in the world is this nonsense coming from?
This is a very tough issue though. This law in Arizona was meant to protect small business owners who do not want to offer their services for homosexual weddings because of their conflicting religious reasons. Lawyers for activist organizations and the ACLU have been filing suits against these small businesses (florists, bakeries, photographers, chapels, etc) in multiple states and activist judges have been ordering them to participate in these weddings against their will or pay fines. Now big business is trying to put the pressure on Arizona to veto the bill because they don’t want the bad PR tied to them. This is tyranny of religious freedom and is just another move of the minority to force artificial change on a free market system that would take care of the problem naturally.
Now, the takeaway is that the gay couples didn’t necessarily file these suits, the lawyers did…”on their behalf.” These small businesses aren’t necessarily turning away gay people just because they’re gay, just their services for homosexual weddings, which these business owners religiously disagree with. In a free market, if a business turns away clients, that’s their loss of revenue. The press (and gay activists) has made this out to be that Arizona businesses have been turning away homosexuals left and right just because they’re homosexuals, which isn’t true at all. And if the bill were to pass, no way would a large percentage of these large corporations pull out these states. I’d love to see the crony panderers at the NFL pull the Super Bowl or American Airlines try to pull out of the state…what a bunch of cowards.
This issue is also more widespread than just Arizona and could affect other states’ reactions. A judge should never have the power to make you offer your products or services to anyone…no matter what the reason is. Would it be fair to force a Catholic minister to perform a nudist wedding? Would it be fair to force a black photographer take photos at a skinhead wedding? Would it be right to force a recovering alcoholic to cater a reception at a bar? Unless you’re judgement is cloudy, the answer to all of these is, “no.” If the business truly is bigoted, then it should fail on its own by customers choosing not to patronize them. It is not discriminating to turn down your services if you do not feel comfortable or morally correct in doing so. That is your real civil right.
However, personally, I think Jan Brewer should veto this bill and come up with better legislation that protects these small businesses and their religious rights while keeping these blood-hungry lawyers away from pilfering them by using phony discrimination as a reason.
From RBA: http://redbloodedamerica.tumblr.com/
One of the things we must understand about the Left is the essentially totalitarian nature of their ambitions. There is no logical stopping point on the progressive road to the Utopia of Equality that they insist is always ahead of us, a destination never reached.
Grant all their demands today, and they will return tomorrow with a new list of demands. What do they want? More, always more.
Yesterday, a federal judge struck down Virginia’s state constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage, because obviously (a) the Fourteenth Amendment was intended for such a purpose, and (b) never mind the will of voters expressed in a referendum.
The ruling cites memorable Supreme Court travesties – Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Lawrence v. Texas and Windsor v. U.S. — like so many mileposts on the Highway to Hell, and who can argue with such sophistry when it’s dressed up in costumes of legal precedent, bejeweled with a lot of emotional chatter about “loving, intimate and lasting relationships” and “sacred, personal choices”?
Translation: “Damn the Constitution, we’re not in Utopia yet.”
Meanwhile, in Kansas, the state House of Representatives approved a billintended to impede the March Toward Utopia in the name of “religious liberty,” inspiring an eruption of hyperbole about “vicious discrimination” and “anti-gay segregation.”
“Willkommen, Herr Chamberlain. Welcome to Munich. Today you will cede the Sudetenland. Tomorrow, we’ll demand the world.”
From The Other McCain: http://theothermccain.com/
Posted on | January 22, 2014
My brother Kirby called this afternoon and began the conversation by saying, “You know if that kid in Florida kills himself . . .”
Yeah, they’ll blame me.
Volunteer Official Scapegoat™ of the Hate Olympics.
Someone has to be the conservative who notices things you’re not supposed to notice and says things you’re not supposed to say.
The chief qualifications for this gig are (a) scorn for popularity and (b) disregard for the short-term goals of the Republican Party. If your goal is to become the Popular Person Embraced by the Official GOP, you can never speak the kind of truth that makes people uncomfortable, you can never risk anything in a fight, and you are ultimately doomed to a defensive strategy of retreat.
Glenn Beck said on his Monday show that anti-gay people “have no place in this country.” . . . “Anybody within the sound of my voice that hates a gay person because they’re gay, you have no place calling yourself a fan of mine,” Beck said. “You have no place in this country.” Beck has spoken out in support of gay marriage several times before. Earlier in January, he voiced his opposition against Russia’s anti-gay laws and announced that he would stand by the LGBT advocacy group GLAAD in their fight against “hetero-fascism.” “You are not a fan of mine — you have no friendship here — if you hate people because they’re gay,” Beck also added. “You have no place claiming that you’re a fan of this show. . . . If that’s who you are, I don’t want to have anything to do with you.”
Of course, the problem with Beck’s rhetoric here is that it conflates political opposition to a certain policy agenda (or religious objections to homosexual behavior) with “hate,” which is an assertion so absurd that I hesitate to dignify it with a response.
Look, my religious beliefs condemn premarital sex and re-marriage after divorce. Do I “hate” people who don’t live up to those biblical standards of behavior? No one has ever accused me of such a hate, because there is no recognized Promiscuity Lobby trying to mobilize an identity politics constituency to vote Democrat by labeling Republicans a hate group on such a basis. Once you get past the irrational bullying tactics of the Left and look at the actual data, you recognize that the gay agenda represents an effort to re-order social norms on behalf of an extremely small (but quite vocal and well-funded) minority:
The Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law, a gay and lesbian think tank, released a study in April 2011 estimating based on its research that just 1.7 percent of Americans between 18 and 44 identify as gay or lesbian, while another 1.8 percent — predominantly women — identify as bisexual. Far from underestimating the ranks of gay people because of homophobia, these figures included a substantial number of people who remained deeply closeted, such as a quarter of the bisexuals. A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention survey of women between 22 and 44 that questioned more than 13,500 respondents between 2006 and 2008 found very similar numbers: Only 1 percent of the women identified themselves as gay, while 4 percent identified as bisexual.
So the LGBT coalition encompasses 3.5 percent of the population, max, to whom the other 96.5 percent are expected to kowtow?
Never has such a large majority dog been so easily wagged by such a small minority tail, led by radicals who habitually impugn all opposition in the most vituperative language imaginable. Dana Pico at First Street Journal notes the implicit insistence “that homosexual relationships are just as good, just as wholesome, just as normal, as heterosexual ones,” i.e., compulsory approval. As I explained more than five years ago (“Gay Rights, Gay Rage,” The American Spectator, Nov. 17, 2008), those who speak of homosexuality in the language of “rights” are not about liberty, but rather about equality in the most radical sense and, as Richard Weaver famously warned, Ideas Have Consequences.
This is how we reach the point at which people believe they have the “right” to make you bake them a lesbian wedding cake. This is how we reach the point where no one is supposed to object to teenage boys getting paid for a six-way “bareback orgy” on video.
Do you think this kind of stuff is worth discussing? “You have no place in this country.” Ace says Glenn Beck is now “all about attempting to get TimeWarner and ComCast to pick up his cable channel.”
Yeah, because MSNBC needs more competition.
From The Other McCain: http://theothermccain.com/
My buddy, Doug wrote an excellent piece about the gay freaks @ GLAAD. If these ‘gays’ want to be together so bad, they need to call their union something else because marriage is from GOD. Who most of them hate with a passion. These ‘gay’ fascists DEMAND GOD. Who do they think they are??? They are so fascistic, they appoint Commies into the courts as judges, who over-rule the will of the people and they ‘marry’ each-other, regardless of the people. THAT is not ‘gay’, that is cruel, fascist, NAZI and TOTALLY TOTALITARIAN. Its sickening.
Virtually the entire “gay rights” agenda is predicated on lies, but worse, most of the mainstream political establishment swallows them without the least bit of shame. It’s disgusting. As I wrote years ago, homosexual marriage is not a civil right.
From MJ: http://themadjewess.com/
This excerpt from Lewis’s Carroll’s Through the Looking-Glass was highly instructive for moonbats:
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
As hard as it is to believe now, the word “liberal” once referred to freedom. It even comes from the same root as “liberty.” The Founding Fathers were once regarded as liberals, as were advocates of the free market like Adam Smith. These days “liberal” refers to belief in authoritarian statism. This is because the people who now call themselves liberals commandeered the word and twisted it to their purposes. They used to call themselves “progressives,” a word that once implied progress toward an improved future, but now means a coercive return to social and economic models reminiscent of failed 20th century communism. Presumably to prevent it from being used against them, they are now redefining the word “vile.”
When the bullying homosexual fascists of GLAAD denounced Phil Robertson as “vile” for adhering to traditional values and listing homosexuality among other sins to be avoided, this term was dutifully echoed by liberal apparatchiks like CNN’s loathsome Piers Morgan:
At 9:30 a.m. on December 19th, CNN’s Piers Morgan tweeted that the First Amendment “shouldn’t protect vile bigots” like Phil Robertson.
Morgan also denounced Robertson as “repulsively racist.” If “vile” can be turned into a pejorative version of “decent and moral,” “racist” can mean whatever libs want it to also.
Orienting your identity around a sexual obsession with the smelly filth-excreting anuses of members of the same sex is vile. Sanctifying unclean acts of perversion by demanding reverence and privileged status for those who indulge in them is vile. Acknowledging that sexual depravity is sinful is the opposite of vile. Unless the word’s meaning has now been officially reversed, in which case “vile” will eventually become a compliment, just as “liberal” has become an insult — arguably the worst insult imaginable.
Hat tip: Maggie’s Farm.
From MB: http://moonbattery.com/
As John Hawkins correctly notes,
It’s incredibly refreshing to have someone under attack by the Left’s political correctness police who’s willing to stand firm instead of whimpering and hiding in a corner because he wants to make it all go away.
Hawkins is referring to Phil Robertson, who instead of licking the hand of the degeneracy-promoting liberal fascists who control television, has stood firm by his conventional values. The same applies to Mark Steyn. After being publicly chastised by his editor for siding with Robertson against the pink Nazis at GLAAD who have been attempting to destroy him for his decency, Steyn doubled down:
Having leaned on A&E to suspend their biggest star, GLAAD has now moved on to Stage Two:
“We believe the next step is to use this as an opportunity for Phil to sit down with gay families in Louisiana and learn about their lives and the values they share,” the spokesman said.
Actually, “the next step” is for you thugs to push off and stop targeting, threatening and making demands of those who happen to disagree with you. Personally, I think this would be a wonderful opportunity for the GLAAD executive board to sit down with half-a-dozen firebreathing imams and learn about their values, but, unlike the Commissars of the Bureau of Conformity Enforcement, I accord even condescending little ticks like the one above the freedom to arrange his own social calendar.
As for the editor who publicly denounced him, namely Jason Lee Steorts, Steyn writes:
It is a matter of some regret to me that my own editor at this publication does not regard this sort of thing as creepy and repellent rather than part of the vibrant tapestry of what he calls an “awakening to a greater civility”. I’m not inclined to euphemize intimidation and bullying as a lively exchange of ideas – “the use of speech to criticize other speech”, as Mr Steorts absurdly dignifies it. So do excuse me if I skip to the men’s room during his patronizing disquisition on the distinction between “state coercion” and “cultural coercion”. I’m well aware of that, thank you. In the early days of my free-speech battles in Canada, my friend Ezra Levant used a particular word to me: “de-normalize”. Our enemies didn’t particularly care whether they won in court. Whatever the verdict, they’d succeed in “de-normalizing” us — that’s to say, putting us beyond the pale of polite society and mainstream culture. “De-normalizing” is the business GLAAD and the other enforcers are in. You’ll recall Paula Deen’s accuser eventually lost in court — but the verdict came too late for Ms Deen’s book deal, and TV show, and endorsement contracts.
National Review has played a role in denormalizing in the past. Ostensibly a conservative publication, it serves the liberal establishment of which it is part by providing a phony opposition (much like the GOP), while restricting what conservatives are allowed to say.
Readers will recall that when John Derbyshire made certain undeniably accurate racial observations in a separate publication, he was promptly fired by National Review’s Thought Cop in Chief Rich Lowry for stepping outside the bounds of political correctness.
I’ve been wondering how long a sincere and gutsy guy like Steyn would last at NR, considering that he stood firm and won against the PC totalitarians who tried to gag him in Canada. Looks like we are about to find out:
I am sorry my editor at NR does not grasp the stakes. Indeed, he seems inclined to “normalize” what GLAAD is doing. But, if he truly finds my “derogatory language” offensive, I’d rather he just indefinitely suspend me than twist himself into a soggy pretzel of ambivalent inertia trying to avoid the central point — that a society where lives are ruined over an aside because some identity-group don decides it must be so is ugly and profoundly illiberal. As to his kind but belated and conditional pledge to join me on the barricades, I had enough of that level of passionate support up in Canada to know that, when the call to arms comes, there will always be some “derogatory” or “puerile” expression that it will be more important to tut over. So thanks for the offer, but I don’t think you’d be much use, would you?
Wow. As Bill Clinton would say, Steors had better put some ice on that.
Given the right conditions, a few sparks of boldness have been known set off major conflagrations. If Robertson and Steyn can stand up to the corrupt establishment, so can the rest of us.
On tips from Varla and Rob Banks.
From MB: http://moonbattery.com/