Columbus gay marriage protest for 'civil rights' was antithetical

Friday, July 23, 2010

Today we held our rally in Columbus, Ohio at the Statehouse shortly after noon under the hot sun. It wasn't too bad though, thanks to the occasional breeze and a cooler with ice-cold drinks for our staff and supporters. 

From the start of our rally, the protesters that had assembled on site at approximately 11:30 am whistled and shouted from the sidewalk in attempt to deny those who came to our rally the right to assembly - and our speakers, the right to free speech. It shocks me how hypocritcal some of the gay marriage activists are. 

One one hand, they hold a sign advocating 'civil rights' for all but use their other hand to deny the civil rights of those who don't support their agenda. 

The freedom of assembly is not merely the freedom to physically assemble at a particular location. The freedom of speech is not merely the freedom to physically utter words. 

These rights, enumerated to us in the First Amendment, are about the freedom of assembly without harrassment and about the freedom of speech without impediment. 

Yet "harrass and impede" seems to have been the strategy of our opponents today. As I said, as soon as our first speaker rose to the podium, the gay marriage activists in unison created as much noise and hullabaloo as possible. 

No, they didn't bring water bottles filled with rocks this time. No, they didn't have bullhorns, either. That was Providence. They've learned from that mistake. Providence to this day remains an embarressment to the overall homosexual agenda. 

This time the activists resorted to whistling and hollering and even taunting some of those in attendance.

One elderly couple, including a U.S. Army veteran, had trouble making it through the group of activists who were blocking the main entrance to the plaza prior to the beginning of the rally.

He expressed to them his disapproval of their tactics upon finally making it through. He was alright though. More relieved than anything. This, of course, is a much more of a civil way of expressing one's feelings than our opponents had. 

Now was this necessary? We all know what those middle fingers represent. Vulgarity. Why must the gay marriage activists be so vulgar? It's not anything new, though. They were vulgar in Albany. They were vulgar in Providence. They were vulgar throughout the Proposition 8 campaign. 

Now, the vast majority of the protesters respected our permit rights to the south lawn of the Statehouse and did not encroach on that. Most likely because of the strong police presence. However, that didn't stop some particularly bold activists from infringing on that permit. 

Now I do not have a problem if our opponents want to attend our rally. In fact, I encourage it. If only they would actually listen to our speakers they might actually learn what we stand for and why. Talk about ignorance. These people don't even listen to what our speakers say then have the audacity to critisize what was said? Seriously? 

I don't expect any of them to change their minds by listening to the speakers. I do believe, however, that at the very least there would be a clearer understanding of who we are and what we stand for. It's not about hatred of homosexuals. How many times have you heard that people who don't support gay marriage don't support it because they hate gay people? Some of the activists today were pushing that very point. 

It couldn't be further from the truth. Our message and our mission is not about hate. I would suggest to our opponents to stop yelling and screaming during one of our rallies and just listen for the sake of hearing what has to be said. Then, criticize what was actually said if you feel the need to. The problem is most of what I personally heard from the activists today were topics we haven't even talked about on the marriage tour. 

Moving on. There was one couple (one of those bolder couples who came into the rally itself) who were particularly disappointing. The two men decided not to just attend the rally but they brought a baby with them. Notice I said 'a baby" because it isn't "their baby". It was clearly adopted. They were white the baby was not. 

This baby has been adopted and is being raised in a house of homosexuality and can't even speak yet. Who will speak for this and all the other children who are adopted and are being subjected to a house of homosexuality?

Let's say this couple was 'married' on paper by one of the states that have legalized same-sex 'marriage'. That doesn't change the fact that, according to recent research from San Francisco State University, a great number of same-sex couples, whether they are 'married' to each other or not are in open relationships! 

Is this the kind of household we want to be putting adopted children into? Who will speak for these children? Nonetheless, they came. So be it. However, and I'll take my words from the Ohio State Troopers on this one, the couple came to the rally to stand as a "symbol".


What kind of parents use their children as symbols? Coming to the rally and standing there quietly as they did wasn't enough. They had to make a statement - a statement that involved exploiting their own child for their own gain. This is why I will emphasize the fact that adoption exists to give children the parents they need - not to give parents the children they want. These two men are not the kind of parents this child needs. 


Now this woman for some reason thought that our rally had something to do with losing her job based on, as she claimed, suspicion of homosexuality. I really don't understand just how our marriage rally and the fact that she lost her job and is still sour about it have anything to do with each other but OK, whatever. 

This photo was cropped because I believe the girl standing next to her was a minor, probably no older than fifteen or sixteen so out of respect for her, I've taken her out. 

But yes, this woman, getting back to their strategy of impediment, tried to occupy the Concerned Women for America of Ohio table with her sob story and struggled for several minutes to force the nice woman working the booth to answer why she lost her job sometime in the past. 

It even got to the point that the police came over to "respectfully ask" the woman to move on. I quoted above because that is literally what the trooper said to her. She resisted, claiming she was just getting literature, which had already been in her hand for a while by that time, but eventually moved on at the officer's request. 

Again, nothing wrong with being there. Nothing wrong with asking questions. But this woman went above and beyond that, bordering harassment. 

Tomorrow we are headed out to Lima, Ohio where we will be holding our next rally. We will be on private property so I am not really expecting too much of an appearance by our friends at Equality Ohio. They've got some picnic planned at a park quite a distance away from our rally location. 


57 comments:

Louis do you ever get tired of lying through your teeth? IMPEDING your right to assemble would be storming the podium and stopping you from speaking at all. Standing harmlessly off to the side with signs and singing is NOT impeding, it is simply practising the very same right you're enacting. Which you of course cannot admit because then you have to finally grow the balls to answer the question of why you fight to prevent us from having all the same rights you do. And no, do not lie through your teeth yet again with that tired line about how we already do because we DON'T. We don't have legal job protection in the US, we don't have the legal right nationwide to marry the person we LOVE. And up here in Canada where gays ARE truly equal, we PROVE that NOM's fearmongering is full of shit. Why?

Gay Marriage has only HELPED society in Canada, and boosted our economy. And NO Preachers or Pastors have been arrested post legalization for saying it's wrong. Nor will any in the USA. Only openly advocating violence gets you asrrested. Anyone can say "Gay marriage is bevil and wrong" all they like. You get arrested only, ONLY, if it escalates to "Go out andd beat up a faggot for getting gay marriage legalized!". See the difference Lou?

We've had gays serving openly in the military since 1992. And NONE of the problems anti-gay folks swear up and down will befall the US military ever happened here. NONE. NOT ONE.

If I wasn't convinced you'd find some sick way to twist things Louis, I'd post pics of my kids so you can see how happy and well-adjusted they are. Citing distorted 30-year old San Fransisco studies does NOT a convincing argument make. And yes Lou, I know that study you just cited is from the late 70's. Why? Because it's an old dated inaccurate study commonly used by folks like you to justify your lies and bigotry. Even the authors of the study said it's not an accurate assessment of all gays, but only a very small percentage. The ratio of gays to straights with open relationships is EQUAL Louis, but you never EVER complain about how STRAIGHT folks doing it shouldn't be parents. Which directly proves your anti-gay bigotry.

BUSTED Lou.

That makes sense, since the title of the article I sourced is "Many Successful Gay Marriages Share an Open Secret".

So there were gay marriages in the 1970s?

Also, if you actually took the time to read what I wrote and not skim, you'd have clicked on the article and read that the study came out this year.

Please be a little more intelligent. I know you have it in you.

Nice try Lou, you're still a liar distorting facts. And I'm still clearly more intelligent than you because I actually just tell the truth. And I don't need to lie or distort things to defend my argument. AND unlike you, I don't end up shooting myself in the ass just to prove you wrong.

You see, your clarification just destroyed your argument. I just Googled "Many Successful Gay Marriages Share an Open Secret" to see this new study you're using to lie with. (And to be fair since 99% of what you cite IS outdated or discredited, it was an honest assumption you were doing so yet again). And everything I read makes it clear that the study's authors are emphatically pointing out that A) Their study CANNOT be used as a blanket assessment of ALL gay marriages and B) That just as high a percentage of Hetero couples do that same thing, and that to no one's surprise, Anti-Gay groups like yours are already selectively quoting the study, AS YOU JUST DID, to unfairly justify your blanket bigotry.

Seriously Louis, why is it THIS easy to get you to destroy yourself? Do you EVER stop and think before you speak? EVERY time I use facts and logic to honestly rebuke your distortions, you respond trying to prove me a hateful vindictive liar and ALWAYS you succeed in instead proving me correct and publicly revealing your dishonesty.

You REALLY need to just give this bs up, you suck at it, and you're helping US more than you're helping NOM. Your every posting further proves that you and NOM are bigots driven to fight against equalkity for purely bigoted reasons who distort and lie like you breathe to fabricate false justifications then whine when you are accurately called bigots.

You're only helping me Louis.

PS - You said my marriage certificate was just a meaningless piece of paper and in your mind I'm not really married. So answer this Louis; If that "piece of paper" doesn't mean anything, why are you so hell bent on making sure no gay folks are allowed to get one? And if mine is meaningless, so is yours.

Example given - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html

The very page you linked to. Funny thing is the following which I copy/paste DIRECTLY from that story.

-------

Open relationships are not exclusively a gay domain, of course. Deb and Marius are heterosexual, live in the East Bay and have an open marriage. She belongs to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and maintained her virginity until her wedding day at 34. But a few years later, when the relationship sputtered, both she and her husband, who does not belong to the church, began liaisons with others.

“Our relationship got better,” she said. “I slept better at night. My blood pressure went down.”

Deb and Marius also have rules, including restrictions on extramarital intercourse. “To us,” Marius said, “cheating would be breaking the agreement we have with each other. We define our relationship, not a religious group.”

So while the legal fight over same-sex marriage plays out, couples say the real battle is making relationships last — and their answers defy the prevailing definition of marriage.

--------

Funny how you forgot to mention that part. But not in the least bit surprising.

Go ahead Lou, challenge my intelligence again. DARE me to rebuke anymore of your bullshit. Every single time you challenged me thus far I have not only completely wiped the floor with you but I have gotten YOU YOURSELF to slip up and publicly reveal your hate, lies and bigotry. That is, when you show the spine to answer me at all, since you usually just ignore me completely and hope I'll go away when you have no rebuttal that won't screw you.

Do you REALLY want to keep dancing with me when you have two right feet Louis?

Rex said...

Louis: the baby was clearly their baby. they may not have provided any of their DNA to that child, but they are legally, morally and emotionally connected to that baby because they are the two people identified as that baby's PARENTS. and allowing them to marry would be in the best interest of that baby.

please don't go on about the mommy and daddy would be in the best interest....those studies have been done and continue to be done. children TEND to do better in two-parent families as compared to single parent families. however, no reputable study has demonstrated that a mommy and a daddy is inherently better than two mommies or two daddies.

there was a reason why that child was given up for adoption. obviously the mother realized that she could not care for the child, and she made a difficult decision to trust another couple to raise the child. our society should thank the couple - who were merely two people who wanted to parent. instead your organization punishes them and, worst of all, places judgment on the child. or eventually you will. assuming that the child is less then optimum not on her own merits but because of the genders of her fathers is a form of judgment.

when my husband and I got married in front of our families we declared that from that day forward we were each other's closest family. that is what marriage does. then we adopted our son - who was 15 at the time and very, very damaged from his 'natural' and heterosexual parents - no on else wanted him. even the good, kind and loving Born-Again Christian families who we went through Adoption training with and who were giving enough to open their homes to children not their own did not want to take in a troubled 15 year old. where was he to go? who would parent him?

my son then, through the decree of a Judge, made our son part of our family and our next closest family member. your twisted logic related to same-sex marriage, taken to the next step, would seem to indicate that allowing gay couples to adopt would hurt and de-legitimize more traditional families. your statement that the baby was not 'theirs' is what invalidates families. not just this one, but mine, and the one I was raised in.

my parents could not have children due to medical issues. so they adopted my sister and me. by your judgment of the family in your post, you also invalidate my parents. parents are not necessarily the people who merge DNA to create a baby - they are the people who provide PARENTING. these men clearly parent that child and denying them the civil right to marriage hurts their efforts.

I can only hope that when you go to the heaven you picture for yourself that God sits you down and She educates your poor hurtful soul. yes - She. Life being created by a male? that just isn't natural! we know that babies come from the bodies of the female so the creator of Life has to be a woman!

ChrisM said...

You post is missing any report of your rally, your speakers, the impact you had on anyone in attendance. You focus all your energy on the counter rally. Maybe that's because in all the pictures I've seen there were so few in attendance it was an embarrassment? Hmmm...

Bob Barnes said...

Great work, Penny!

Bob

Sam said...

Louis, I can't believe how low you can be.

You are judging this gay couple and automatically assuming that THIS couple is not monogamous. Do you have any proof that THIS couple is not monogamous and when I say proof, I mean did you actually talk to them and find out the status of their relationship. Based on your post, I would say no. Is it really any of your business, no. Maybe you should do some accurate fact-checking before demonizing another gay couple and their relationship to their children.

Owen said...

Wow. Louis, you are even more of a pathetic scumbag than you were before. It is their baby, because you know, they care for her, and give her a loving home. How the hell do you know better for the baby than the adoptive services? If I had the choice, I would much rather be raised by two loving parents of the same gender over Louis's household of hate. We should be applauding this couple for giving hope to a child in need, rather than demonizing them based on an outdated study. Your rallies have had pathetic attendance, and have blown up in your face. Nobody at the counter rally was stopping you from talking or assembling, so get over it. Face it, when you spread lies, and deny civil rights, people will be angry. I hope you know that in most states, someone can be fired for sexual orientation. While your group claims to only be against SSM, you also oppose ENDA, civil unions, and the repeal of DADT. No matter how many times you claim that you don't hate gay people, your actions contradict that. Maybe you'll draw 25 people at your next rally.

PS-It looks bad on your part when you insult ShamanOfHedon's intelligence, then when she proves you wrong, never respond.

Rob Zechman said...

Louis, how can you condemn these men for their willingness to care for this child? Aren't they doing more than its heterosexual, biological parents who apparently had better things to do than raising a kid?

Further, can you honestly say that ALL of your church-going, heterosexual, white couples would adopt an African-American kid?

ChrisM said...

Another perspective on the rally:

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/07/23/24604?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BoxTurtleBulletin+%28Box+Turtle+Bulletin%29&utm_content=FaceBook

Louis, an adopted child IS their child.

Since you persist in painting all LGBTQ folk with the same brush, then all Xtians must be the same. Will you be bringing your children to express love like these Xtian children?

http://slog.thestranger.com/files/2007/10/Westerboro_Baptist_Church.jpg

http://washedit.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/westboro_baptist_church-drones.jpg

http://www.bodhipaksa.com/images/westboro.jpg

Mike said...

>>>Is this the kind of household we want to be putting adopted children into?

Marinelli, you debase yourself.

Of course you don't want unwanted kids raised in loving homes, you want to keep them in dysfunctional homes with drug-addicted or battered mothers or rolling stone deadbeat daddies.

There could be a number of reasons this child was put up for adoption - she came from a dysfunctional disaster or deceased parents. What business is it of yours? She was lucky to be adopted by this couple and how dare you presume, without evidence, that they don't measure up to your standards of parenting?

Jim said...

The bottom line here is that "The Summer for marriage Tour" has been a dismal FAILURE! They got chased OUT of Providence where their ONLY friend is the lame duck bigot Governor. The next governor has promised to SIGN same sex marriage in to law and the openly gay president of the general assembly vows to get the votes. Rhode Island has been a waste of your time Louis. The pro equality protest outnumbered the bigots 2 to 1 and Louis is still pissed off about it. It looks like Ohio had a handful. LMAO time to sell the bus!

TRiG said...

Here's a comment I made on your Facebook page. It didn't last long. (That page is moderated very fast and carefully, and posts are very quickly removed. And yet it remains full of lies and hate. So you can't say that hate speech isn't a major part of what your side does.)

Anyway, here's the comment:

"In fact, homosexuals typically die at a much younger age"

This claim is often thrown around. It's based on some extremely dodgy "research" by the disgraced and discredited Paul Cameron. It's a lie.

However, assuming, for the sake of argument, that it's true, I wonder why you'd want to oppress a group further when they already have these problems.

"suffer illnesses constantly"

Do you have any statistics to back this up?

"psychological problems"

I'm not aware of this. To the extent that LGBT people have psychological problems, it's due to the stress of dealing with people like you. Did you know that LGBT people are highly overrepresented among homeless youth? That's because people like you poison their families against them.

"sexually transmitted diseases"

There is some truth in this, historically. It's less true today. Where STDs are on the rise, it's among men who have homosexual sex but, for various cultural reasons (perhaps internalised homophobia), don't identify as gay.

Of course, lesbians have far fewer STDs than either gay men or straight people.

"multiple partners--no monogamy"

This is based partly on some dodgy research, and partly on misinterpreting some good research. For example, some on the anti-equality side have been known to quote a Dutch study which they claim shows all gay men are non-monogamous. In fact, that study was specifically researching non-monogamous people. There may have been thousands of monogamous gay couples around: the study wasn't looking at them.

The anti-equality side is very happy to twist scientific research when it suits them.

I'd guess that non-monogamy is higher among LGBT people than among straight, but this is historically true of most oppressed groups. Also, of course, we don't have the cultural expectations that straight couples have. Marriage equality would almost certainly help there. "When are you going to marry that nice man of yours, darling?"

(And, if someone does decide to be non-monogamous, that's not your problem. It's not anyone's problem, as long as (s)he's honest about it.)

"and many show a desire toward pedophilia among other nasty sick and twisted perversions"

And this is the lie that made me flag you for hate speech.

The fact that two people "liked" your bigoted drivel upsets me.

TRiG.

Rikki said...

Wait...so if a couple adopts a baby, it's not their baby? My sister was adopted by my parents...my MOM AND DAD. So...she's not theirs? Because they didn't give DNA to her? Even though they raised her and gave her everything they gave me? That doesn't make any sense.

And those middle fingers don't represent everyone. I was standing quietly near the back of the crowd. I didn't put my middle finger up or use any profanity...or hateful words. But you didn't take a picture of me, did you?

Because thinking your way makes you feel better about yourself.

Bob Barnes said...

That's correct Rikki, the "fringe of the fringe" reserve the right to put judgment on anybody, just like Christ told them to do.... wait.

The jury is back Louis, and it's in my favour. You see, you have repeatedly proven me right. You KNOW you have. Especially by refusing to answer me when you get caught lying, or being a blatant hypocrite. Why? Because you really aren't thinking before you speak. Twice now, on your own blog, you distorted a fact to suit your purposes, first with the dog photo, then with the study. Both times I dissected your intentional distortions BASED ON WHAT YOU TYPED OR SHOWED ON THIS BLOG. Both times you stupidly attempted to use the situation to claim I was a liar trying to falsely accuse you, and gloatingly "corrected" me. And both times your attempts to discredit me and make me look dishonest not only failed miserably, but BECAUSE you don't think before you act, YOU ended up proving me right by carelessly saying things or showing things that actually proved your bigotry and dishonesty with your own words, and everyone sees it. Or have you not noticed how quickly the ratio of those supporting you in the comments to those lambasting you has dropped? Well, to be fair, I suppose that could partially be because Louis (allegedly) banned anonymous comments, but even THAT bit him in the ass, since 90% of his supporters were anonymous cowards too afraid to attatch a name to their bigotry, so taking away the ability to post anonymously has only made Louis and his arguments look worse still, because not only does it prove a lot of his supporters are cowards who KNOW they're being hateful bigots, but that most who agree with Louis' bile don't have enough faith in Louis himself to leave a name.

Oh by the way, do you folks know I got cheered on Pam's House Blend when Louis declared me most hateful homo? Hell my MOM is proud of me for pissing off a bigot so badly with facts and truth that he has public hissyfits about me.

Mike said...

You're the one not listening, Louis.

How about you stop your bus, open the door, and listen to us for a change--starting with that adoptive couple on whom you so quickly passed judgement and condemnation. I guarantee you that if you sit down and listen instead of standing at a pulpit and preaching, both sides will be the quieter and better.

ChrisM said...

Oh, more on the protection of children in "Mommy and Daddy" households...

http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2010/07/the_week_in_gay_heterosexual_b.php

Aubree said...

I've noticed that in a conflict, the two conflicting parties only notice the group of people on the opposing side that are disrespectful. I've heard of many groups of homosexuals doing wrong to Christians, but I've also heard of many groups of Christians doing wrong to homosexuals. I respect that each side has their opinions, but no one's going to get anywhere by insulting each other. As I see it, you are only noticing the people that were disrespectful toward the Christians. Many homosexuals do the same where they only notice the rude Christians that don't act like a Christian at all. The mentality of only seeing a small part of the big picture will never get anyone anywhere. All it will create is more people hating each other, and if that's what you wanted, then I congratulate you on successfully doing so. I grew up in a Christian household, and all I see is a bunch of opinionated people hating on others who don't agree with them, that's not Christian. Besides the fact that no adopted child gets to choose their adopted parents, and children are adopted by straight couples all the time, and end up mentally and physically abused. So I don't see how being adopted by straight or gay parents makes any difference. I don't agree with some of the things certain people of the gay community do, but likewise, I don't agree with some things certain people of the Christian community do. Now a days, marriage is just a piece of legalized paper. If you love someone and want to spend the rest of your life with them, do so. The papers are unnecessary. But also, I think it's silly to be fight over who is able to get a piece of paper that says your married. This whole disagreement is ridiculous and not loving towards anyone. The Bible says "love your neighbor as yourself." and I don't see anyone showing love to anyone, gay or straight.

~Aubree

Bob Barnes said...

Aubree,

Tell this to the couple above with the adopted child. The couple that Louis cruelly and unfairly passed judgement on. Or the protesters that had shaker bottles of beans that Leslie Wolfgang made out to be rocks. Or, perhaps you missed every lie told by Brian Brown about protesters or even attendance numbers?

Tell me how any of these actions cannot be taken as an assault on the LGBT community? Perhaps you see what you want to see.

Bob

amiworking said...

Louis,

You're going off the deep end. Has the heat gotten to you?

"Providence to this day remains an embarresment to the overall homosexual agenda. "

It was never an embarrassment (you spelled it incorrect) and still isn't.

"One one hand, they hold a sign advocating 'civil rights' for all but use their other hand to deny the civil rights of those who don't support their agenda. "

No one was denying your freedom of assembly or speech. You are not permitted freedom in such a way as to exempt you from a possible counter rally. Looking at the pictures, no one was denied entrance to the plaza - like the police had denied a lesbian couple (who were not participating in ANY counter rally) the ability to enter your rally and observe - or like Brian Brown had attempted to remove the Courage Campaign press member from recording your rallies.

"Notice I said 'a baby" because it isn't "their baby". It was clearly adopted. They were white the baby was not."

You did not just insult every single parent in this nation AND world who adopt children? I'm adopted, Luis. Both of my sisters are adopted. Are our parents who raised us since infancy not our parents in your eyes? Are you really that arrogant? Are you really that stupid? I don't think you are, but that remains to be seen.

"That doesn't change the fact that, according to recent research from San Francisco State University, a great number of same-sex couples, whether they are 'married' to each other or not are in open relationships!"

Really, Louis. You're neither a sociologist or a scientist last I checked. Are you incapable of understanding that this study was done of men exclusively living in San Francisco and cannot be applied to the whole population of LGBT men and women? Your interpretation of this study amounts to your using profiling to support discrimination and - now - obvious animus and intolerance.

"probably no older than fifteen or sixteen so out of respect for her, I've taken her out. "

So you cropped out a picture of a minor child, but showed the picture of the same-gender couple and their infant child!?!?!

Your blog posts are riddled with spins and twists, Louis. Any claims you make are not supported with documented evidence (picture of old man having to march through a crowd of violent, angry, vulgar counter protesters).

You then have the audacity to show a picture of a loving couple and their infant child - who would most likely never have been adopted by a heterosexual couple and live her entire life alone in an orphanage while SIMULTANEOUSLY cropping a child out of another picture for privacy reasons?!

Really, Louis? Really? Who's the embarrassment here?

Sandy said...

Dude, who writes this stuff? I mean what in the hell does open relationships have to do with gay marriage? I have met several, I mean several hetero's in open relationships...that is very much an illogical statement. By the way I am the red head above protesting against you people. The ones' that write on and on and on about freedom and rights, but you are all biggots and need a hobby. I took my son to the rally and he was raised by two gay women, myself and my partner and all 3 of our children laugh at people like you (NOM bigots) and thank goodness they were not born to people that believe in truly squandering the rights of EVERYONE!!!!!

Liz said...

*yawn* same ol same ol blog: "Look what the evil homosexuals did to us! Hey world, look how EVIL they are" rather than "look at what we've accomplished". Wait, you've accomplished NOTHING. I'd be willing to bet you'd say it
s because "they" didn't let you because it's become that predictable. You're not even capable of taking things out of context or exaggerating correctly!

I just had to say, also, you cropped a photo of a woman to leave out a minor yet you post pictures of babies?!?! LOL

amiworking said...

Louis,

In case you glanced over my longer comment, please answer me this:

What would cause you to crop a child out of a picture for privacy reasons while SIMULTANEOUSLY posting a picture of an infant child of two same-gender parents?

Were you not concerned with their privacy as well? Or is your message greater than equal respect for the privacy of the child?

You're willing to make private children of straight couples, but not children of gay couples?

Please answer me this.

-RJ

Timothy Kincaid said...

Louis, I know that you read Box Turtle Bulletin. You dedicated your last posting entirely to a commentary that I wrote.

But perhaps you are unaware that our primary purpose is to debunk bad science. And one of the particularly poor cases of bad science involves the media reporting of Collen Hoff's study.

It did not say anything at all about gay marriages. It couldn't, it didn't select a sample that had the ability to do so. You see, I actually read the study and analyzed the methodology. The New York Times got it wrong.

My entire analysis can be found at

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/02/10/20202

But I'll repeat my conclusion here:

In short, those reporting on this study got it wrong. If there is any story here, it would be that a study of San Francisco bay area gay male couples, a sample which was highly skewed to include many participants who are less likely to value monogamy and which defined “couples” to include those who have been dating as little as three months, still found that half of them set monogamy as the agreement for their relationship.

Michelle said...

I have to throw in a comment concerning the gay couple and their child. Louis, you talk about how dare this couple bring their infant to such a rally just so they can use that child as some sort of symbol of the gay right.

Did it ever occur to you that the reason this couple had THEIR baby with them was because, as an infant, the child should be cared for by the parents and not left home with some babysitter? These are two loving parents who were doing exactly the right thing for their child, keeping her close to not only show her the love you would deny her, but also to make sure she is safe from harm.

Aubree said...

Bob B-
I'm am by no means a christian. In fact, I don't declare to be straight by any means, and I support gay marriage wholeheartedly. The fact is, both sides have done wrong, and last I checked, if someone does wrong to you, you shouldn't stoop down to their level, but instead show that you're better than them. No matter what type of conflict it is. There are plenty of people who are not doing the horrible on both sides. I am saying that each side is only paying attention to the few people that aren't being the bigger person. Everyone is focusing on the bad. The majority of the people I care about in my life are gays, but that doesn't matter to me. I don't think that sexual preference, race, age, etc should matter; if you love that person, then you should show them that you do. I'm saying that it's stupid for the Christians to get so angry about a piece of paper that declares marriage, and that it's stupider still for homosexuals to stoop to their level. Obviously you didn't understand a word I was saying, because I said it in a way that was respectful to both sides. Most of the people that have replied to this blog have stooped just as low as the blogger, calling him a "pathetic scumbag" and such. If people want to get their point across, name calling will not accomplish this feat. You notice that the majority of the things I said were simply about how neither side is treating each other like human beings. And that I ended what I said that no one was "loving their neighbors as themselves", which basically was telling this blogger that he's doing a horrible job at being a Christian, because that's what all of the teachings of Christianity are based upon. Thank you for replying so that I could clarify my post, because obviously people don't understand "respect" and discussion, but instead rudeness and arguing.
~Aubree

amiworking said...

Louis,

You never answered my question. Why would you crop a picture to remove one child for the sake of the child's privacy while posting a picture of another child (an infant) simply because the child's parent (yes, the child's PARENTS) are two men?

Do you only believing in protecting the privacy of children of heterosexual parents while using the children of same-gender parents to further your message?

Legitimate question. We would like an answer.

-RJ

amiworking said...

Furthermore, Luis, the children involved in the counter rally in the first picture you posted look to me like they are minors. Are you alright in posting their pictures as well?

Why are you showing unequal treatment in an expressed desire to protect the privacy of children?

"This photo was cropped because I believe the girl standing next to her was a minor, probably no older than fifteen or sixteen so out of respect for her, I've taken her out."

I previously assumed you had permission to use the picture of the mother in Albany and her children... but why are you suddenly cropping some kids out for their privacy and not others? Please, Louis. I asked this earlier today.

We really, really want an explanation.

-RJ

Bob you KNOW that Louis will never answer your question because he CANNOT do so without admitting his bigotry and hypocrisy, and he is still operating under the delusion that no one can prove he is either when he himself has already done so repeatedly. But he still believes he hasn't and wants everyone to think, as he does, that he is an honest upstanding man just fighting the good fight instead of the hateful misogynest bullying lying bigot he repeatedly proves he is. The difference being when he admits it, he does so completely by accident because he's not near as smart as he thinks he is. He will NEVER have the spine to answer honest criticisms because to answer them honestly would mean INTENTIONALLY admitting his bigotry, and poor louis, despite the abundance of opinion to the contrary, still sadly believes he has us all fooled. So he will no more ever answer your question about his selective choice of which children to crop than he will mine about how many homeless children could have been clothed and fed with the money he and NOM have spent fighting equality; Because an honest answer to either means admitting to HIMSELF what a loathsome hateful bitter bully he really is.

Tim said...

Louis, you said "It's not about hate"
But what you said about those to men was Nothing but hate!
I exposed you and your hurtful,hatefull words on my facebook page!
Those two men voluntarily picked up where "One man and One woman" failed! They are that childs only hope of a loving family and she is incredibly lucky to have two people love her when her own "One man and one woman" cast her aside because they are either
1)Addicted to one illegal substance or another and failed that child!
2)Are in a federal prison and failed that child! 3)Have four other children and can't possibly take care of another and failed that child!
You talk about these two loving parents as if they are nothing better than criminals!
I say SHAME on you! And, YOU will one day have to get down on your knees and beg for forgivness from the same God that will judge you just as you are judging others! I just hope a pray you dont have children yourself because raising a child to judge other people is failing that child! You have no idea what real love is, so dont you dare tell me how to love, what love is or who I can love! You get an "F" in the compassion class. Tim

Rob Zechman said...

When you see photos like this:

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/07/23/24604

certainly, Louis, you must realize you're on the wrong side of this issue, yeah?

Polygamy and levirate marriage were the norms of the Old Testament, not the exceptions. Christ and Paul's ideal model was celibacy. The notions of marriage are broadening to allow same-sex couples now, in line with couple's realization that gays are not a bunch of monsters.

BlackTsunami said...

Lou, my "friend" (please note the quotation marks), I almost feel sorry for you because you left yourself wide open with that awful comment about the gay parents and their daughter. And love the disclaimer.

fmirabilis said...

Holy Moses, Louie.

You preach about "not hating" in one sentence - and then you turn around and attack a gay couple in the next.

Hypocrisy. Sound familiar?

I would like to encourage the people who post comments on this blog to refrain from vulgar language or personal attacks.

I'd like to keep it open for your comments but if you can't moderate your comments, I'll remove the ability to post comments.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Cowardly as ever Louis. There's barely any swearing or vulgareity going on in these comments, just a bunch of people using your own lies against you. You're clearly looking for an excuse to stop allowing comments because we keep showing you for exactly what you are; A lying homophobic hatemongering bully. That is not a personal attack, THAT IS AN ESTABLISHED PROVEN FACT, a fact which YOU YOURSELF have confirmed in spades, repeatedly, by both telling such transparent and easily proven lies on this blog, but alao by repeatedly refusing to even acknowledge honest questions, let alone ANSWER them.

If you start censoring Comments Louis, it will ONLY further prove we're right. The fact that you thus far have not censored us has been your ONLY redeeming quality. Do you really wanting to throw away the ONLY thing that gives us any hope for you?

Oh and nice lie in the about me blurb you just added, but your direct ties with NOM have been proven, and the proof is indisputable. STOP LYING louis! It only hurts your side to lie so badly!

Seriouysly Louis, how about for a change you grow some balls and answer every question we ask you, no matter how afraid of the answers you are.I've answered every question you've put to me. I've even accepted when I made a mistake about something you posted, all two times.

So why Louis? Why can't YOU show me that same courtesy? Why are you so bloody afraid to answer criticisms and questions?

Liz said...

amiworking, thanks for pointing that out, they do look like minors in the first photo. It's a simple question, why would he dodge it with a "hey hey let's play nice" type reply like he's a saint, a king, and we're all unworthy.

Louis, If you stand for an organization and claim to "cover" it, but can't answer concerns regarding either your or the organization's actions/comments, you can't expect to be taken seriously.

Bob Barnes said...

Well, well. Yet another study released confirming what we already know.

U.Va. study: Adoptive children of lesbian and gay couples developing well

"We found that children adopted by lesbian and gay couples are thriving," said U.Va. psychology professor Charlotte J. Patterson, who led the study. "Our results provide no justification for denying lesbian or gay prospective adoptive parents the opportunity to adopt children. With thousands of children in need of permanent homes in the United States alone, our findings suggest that outreach to lesbian and gay prospective adoptive parents might benefit children who are in need."

http://www.newsleader.com/article/20100726/NEWS01/100726006

Bob Barnes,

The woman who led the research, professor Charlotte J. Patterson, is a lesbian herself.

I think that says enough for her objectivity on the matter.

Perhaps you'd like to cite that study from earlier this year which shows that children who are being raised by gay couples actually do better in some areas of life.

But then I'd have to remind of the fact that out of 11 sponsors of that research project, 9 were gay rights organizations including the Gill Foundation.

Not to mention, it was another study led by a lesbian.

Can you provide any research that supports that idea that is not funded by gay rights organizations and is not led by lesbians?

Bob Barnes said...

So what you claim is that only heterosexuals can deliver an honest study on gay and lesbian parenting because a gay or Lesbian will be dishonest?

What you need to consider is that you got your information on Patterson from the very anti-gay source, NARTH. Isn't it a bit hypocritical of you to do so.

BTW, show me where this study was funded by the Gill Foundation?

As you can see at the bottom of the article, The study was authored by Patterson, who also is a faculty member and research scientist at the Fenway Institute's Center for Population Research in LGBT Health in Boston; Rachel H. Farr, a U.Va. doctoral candidate; and Stephen L. Forssell, a faculty member in psychology at George Washington University. It was funded by the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law.

amiworking said...

Louis,

Even though she may or may not be a lesbian doesn't change the fact that you're statement is kind of... jumping the gun. The Fenway Center is not an LGBT rights organization. Please cite to me where you believe the funding for this study occurred? Also, last I checked, UVA is not an LGBT rights organization either...

You could, you know, read the study or recognize that "Applied Developmental Science" is a pretty good journal that publishes peer reviewed articles.

It's always better to be informed than to simply set aside or dismiss something simply because 'teh gayz' made it.

Still, that would also mean we must dismiss every single study done on heterosexual families because they may have been funded by or performed by heterosexuals.

Good day,

RJ

amiworking said...

Louis,

Just a reminder, the question is still out there. While I know you don't monitor this blog you obviously are reading the comments.

This question has been stated multiple times:

Why would you crop out a picture of a minor to protect said minor's privacy while simultaneously displaying pictures of other obvious minors, including an infant child of a gay couple AND the children of the woman in Albany?

-RJ

Yes we can Louis; THOSE VERY STUDIES. You neglerct of course to mention all of the NON-Lesbian or gay people involved in financing the studies. Not to mention that, unlike your favorite fallback position Paul "I'll pull facts out of my ass" Cameron, THESE studies followed all proper techniques and procedures for unbiased research. All studies that say the opposite however have ALL been discredited and proven biased by the CHRISTIAN funding and researchers who used bad science to get the result they went in wanting, rather than be concerned with getting an honest result.

Care to try lying again Louis? Are you REALLY this stupid? Why do you keep trying to pawn your lies off on people too smart to buy them? The only people who would believe your hateful distortions are the vile ignorant hatemongers you let post uncensored on Facebook while deleting ANY opposing viewpoint comment no matter how polite?

You

are

a

FUCKING HYPOCRITE

And everyone knows it.

Now I suggest you either stop lying and give up your embarrassing campaign of failure, or grow the balls to answer OUR questions instead of your usual chickenshit tactic of "Ignore them hoping they'll go away, and only occasionally speak but only to post a blatant lie or distortion and never EVER answer for my actions".

What are you Louis? Are you a bullying homophobic coward as we all know you are? Or are you a decent man swallowed by ignorance who CAN bgetter himself?

Answer our questions Louis. This is your last chance. I'll collect them for you for ease of use.

- How does my or any other gay person's marriage harm you, or society, or the economy?

- Why do you cite discredited research and intionally misrepresent other research?

- How many homeless hungry children could have been clothed and fed with the money you and NOM have spent fighting equality?

- If my marriage certificate is just a worthless piece of paper that means nothing, why do you care if gay folks get one since to you it won't really count?

- Why did you crop a supporter's child while going out of your way to show a protester's child?

- If you are not a bigot or a homophobe, and your campaign is not hate fuelled, why do you tell blatant and disproven lies about gays to justify your position?

I know you won't answer any of these. You're a coward and a liar. We've proven that in spades. Even better, YOU'VE proven it too. By refusing to acknowledge and answer these questions you prove also that you are a worthless human being, too afraid to be honest even with yourself about how you really feel about gays.


Google how many kids are fucked over by their hetero parents Louis. You'll find the ratio is staggering. FAR more hetero parents abuse and harm their kids than do single parents or gays. In fact, googling has netted me EXACTLY TWO reported cases of child abuse by a gay parent, and one of those was the birth father. Hetero couples however? The search returned literally THOUSANDS of results.

Don't forget to put some salt on your feet Louis, since they spend so much time in your mouth.

Goodbye Louis. Unless you surprise me and grow some balls, there's nothing left to say to you. I have NO faith in you, I know as we all know that you will never be honest, you will never answer these questions, and you will NEVER EVER admit you're wrong no matter how much evidence is offered otherwise.

mantronikk said...

When I quote studies on homosexuality, gay-activists reject the data if there is ANY connection to Christianity. So a study authored by a lesbian....

Bob Barnes said...

Which studies are you talking about, mantronikk? Please give us specifics.

I have yet to see a study connected to religion on human sexuality or sexual orientation.

amiworking said...

Mantronikk,

There's a key difference here. The vast majority of studies released by groups like AFA, Focus on the Family, Ruth Institute, NARTH, etc. etc. all have the underlying assumption:

Homosexuality is bad and we must find a way to interpret data to present a study to further our initiative.

Furthermore, the research study referenced - having a small sample base - was one that even Patterson herself stated was incomplete and she only formulated a light observation, not solid fact.

Given that this study should be taken with a grain of salt and suggests that children of LGBT parents turn out just fine, studies from comparable organizations that are often exclusively funded by these organizations are rarely, if ever, peer reviewed or published in an unbiased, third party journal.

Of course, Carl, I call into question your ability to shed light on accurate and unbiased scientific study given your "The Heteroseparatist’s Manifesto". Wow... that thing is a piece of work (yes, I read it) and only amounts to one fact:

You obviously don't really know any gay men or women. And I don't mean "know of". I mean truly and deeply know us.

From your personification to nature and your inability to recognize that there's more to being innately gay than simply genetics (that are beyond the control of a child and instilled very close to birth). You then cite a horribly inaccurate assumption of rejection and ridicule of "effeminate boys" by other boys being an influencing factor?

Truthfully, most gay men have relatively normal childhoods without much of any bullying.

If you've checked your facts as well, you'd realize that gender identity disorder has little to do with sexual orientation. In referring to the T in the LGBT, you would recognize that the L, G, and B do not have gender identity disorder and are quite set in their born genders.

Lastly, I would hardly call you the world's first "heteroseparatist". Nothing about your laughable manifesto is unique or hasn't already been academically or rationally reduced to anything other than simple animus.

I must ask: As an older straight man, what makes you so obsessed with gay men and women? Methinks that points to a problem you have - such as latent animus, coldness, and self-righteousness - not one that we have.

-RJ

mantronikk said...

Mr. Barnes, http://www.drtraycehansen.com/Pages/writings_prohomo.html

mantronikk said...

amiworking,

A man who isn't sexually attracted to women has something wrong with him, and I choose not to associate with him. This was not an overnight decision. I have had homosexual friends in my younger days and knew them fairly well. Two of them have returned to heterosexuality. My "obsession" is the defence of my civil right of free speech, which I use to defend my self against unjust defamation from homofascists. And most homofascists aren't actually homosexuals. I have the right to walk away from anyone, and I will fight back against those that seek to persecute me for doing so.

mantronikk said...

amiworking,

I'm not trying to offend you, I'm just telling you where I stand.

Timothy Kincaid said...

mantronikk,

"When I quote studies on homosexuality, gay-activists reject the data if there is ANY connection to Christianity."

Well, no, that's not exactly the case. Actually we consider whether bias has played a roll in selecting the sample or interpreting the data. It is perfectly reasonable to look to see if bias impacted the methodology of a lesbian researcher as well.

The difference is that those of us who review and analyze research do not support the conclusions of biased studies, whether they be by lesbians or by conservative Christians. Yet anti-gay activists truly do not seem to care in the slightest if their studies are supportable, so long as they allow them to spew hateful nonsense about gay people under the cover of "a study."

mantronikk said...

Mr. Kincaid,

I accept you point, but look at your use of language. You say, "ANTI-gay" activist. This is why, among other words, I coined the word "heteroactivist." Doesn't the phrase/word, "anti-gay" denote hostility?

Bob Barnes said...

mantronikk,

The link you provided is not a study. This is the already discredit work of Dr Hansen, where she based an "opinion" upon 9 studies done by others. Incidentally, a few other studies were available to her that she seem to skip over.

Hansen's work as seen by Dr. Thomas Marra:

Dr. Thomas Marra wrote a detailed rebuttal to Dr. Hansen’s press release, calling into question whether Hansen was writing from a scientific perspective and concluding that Hansen’s argument was not based in science, but in a "values" argument.

Wrote Dr. Marra, "Dr. Hansen’s article was fortunately labeled ’opinion,’ since none of her remarks are based upon psychological science. In fact, her entire article is based upon beliefs and values that have little been influenced by psychological research or theory."

Dr. Marra went on to refute Hansen on "[four] fundamental points," including an assertion that Hansen’s argument was essentially sexist; Hansen’s view of parental gender roles could lead children to "split" their responses between a parent perceived as nurturing and loving no matter what, with the other perceived as withholding unless certain criteria were met; an assumption on Hansen’s part that certain parental duties were gender specific, rather than what Marra called "skill specific" (either parent can calm a fussing child, for example); and Hansen’s underlying assumption that sexual orientation is a matter of choice.

Dr. Marra notes, "There is no scientific evidence that same-sex parenting is harmful.

"Dr. Hansen may disapprove of same-sex parenting as not in her value system, but she should clearly put forth that this is based on her personal preferences and bias (not on the science of psychology she presumably studied to obtain her Ph.D.)."

mantronikk said...

Mr. Barnes,
Can you provide a link to Dr. Marra's rebuttal?

RJ said...

Carl,

"My "obsession" is the defense of my civil right of free speech, which I use to defend my self against unjust defamation from homofascists. And most homofascists aren't actually homosexuals. I have the right to walk away from anyone, and I will fight back against those that seek to persecute me for doing so."

Please do walk away then. Everything you say is subject to a massive amount of scrutiny. The moment you said "A man who isn't sexually attracted to women has something wrong with them", you lost all and any credibility in this discussion by introducing a huge amount of obviously personal bias, manifested in your laughable manifesto.

No one is denying your civil rights. In particular, no one is denying anyone the right to free speech. To make such a claim requires EXTREME evidence that the government failed in protecting you from your ability to speak in a public forum. Having counter protesters yelling at you is a consequence of your message, not a denial of a civil freedom.

Furthermore, you seem unable to distinguish between either homosexuality and bisexuality, or a capacity for sex with the same gender when compared to the opposite gender. You seem, in this case, so incredibly focused on sex that you are absolutely incapable of seeing anything else. I would rationally label you as a pervert because of that.

Defend yourself all you want. Hold as many opinions as you'd like to. Coin or recoin as many phrases like "heteroactivist", "homofascist" as you care to.

Just get your opinion out of my household and away from public policy that is currently defined in such a way as to create a culture of apartheid/segregation that causes LGBT couples and their families very real harm EVERY day.

You asked whether "anti-gay" promotes hostility? Yet you simultaneously use words like "homofascist", "gay lifestyle", "emotional trauma", "ignore or rebel against the natural order", "homophile", "gay propaganda", allude to NAMBLA and AIDS. Pot, kettle, black much?

You think being gay is all about behavior and sex. You're perverted in that way. It's hard to imagine that you're from a New England State. You who have little credibility or capability of making the judgments you do in a rational and unbiased manner denying primary source testimony of MILLIONS simply because you believe we have been traumatized as children. Get over yourself.

@mantronikk

http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=92357

Since you were too lazy or afraid to Google it yourself.

Also, you STILL lost our debate. Anyone can see through the twisting headgames and weak excuses you made. I stand tall in my blunt honesty and the knowledge I didn't ever insult YOU until AFTER your juvenile taunts, up to that point I had only criticized your arguments and statements as being bigoted and hateful despite your best efforts to paint yourself as a non-hater just seeking separatism. Except your manifesto is eerily similar to the Separate-But-Equal ideology, and all of your alleged evidence that you cite to justify your anti-gay stance, and it IS an anti-gay stance, comes from anti-gay websites which have been proven to distort facts and studies to say things they don't and outright lies. You cite work by Paul Cameron, who has been discredited by damn near everyone, every time you link to a One News Now article or a piece on AFTAH's site, because THEY use Cameron's work relentlessly, and refuse to correct themselves.

The bottom line is that your arguments, which you have clearly based on PROVEN lies and distortions, is very much aggressively anti-gay, and intentionally spreading harmful lies about a group IS in fact hatemongering, no matter what you tell yourself to rationalize it. And as for our debate, you began the silly insults before we'd even gotten going, for which I fairly asked an apology. I then repeatedly made it very clear that I would be happy to continue the debate and answer any and every question you might ask once you had apologised and agreed to be civil. You in turn lied through your teeth and used desperate semantics to both hold the debate hostage until I gave in to unrealistic demands, and play the victim by falsely claiming I insulted you. A fair attack on bigoted statements based in fact and reason is not an insult against you, no matter what you choose to believe.

There is nothing you can say to justify preventing marriage equality that facts and rational logic cannot refute. The country I live in is undeniable proof of these. We have legal gay marriage AND openly serving gays in our military, and absolutely NONE of the bogeyman folks like you swear to if such things are legalized in the USA have happened here, and nor will they there.

You have lost your every attempt to debate Bob and I Carl. Just accept defeat graciously and move on.

Maria Bruno said...

"Notice I said 'a baby" because it isn't "their baby". It was clearly adopted. They were white the baby was not. "
Wow, thanks! That was a slap in the face for all adoptive parents (gay and straight) out there!

Post a Comment

 
 
 

November 2010

Support Marriage

Sign Our Petition