Gay activists deal blow to homosexual agenda at Providence rally

Monday, July 19, 2010

So strangely enough, the blogs last night were not full of updates and commentary about yesterdays's National Organization for Marriage rally in Providence, Rhode Island. The reason is simple. The gay rights activists who marched onto the rally were such an embarressment to their overall nationwide agenda that no one wants to praise what they did. I thought I'd sit on this story over night and see what was said. Not much.

Forming a line of about a hundred-fifty dressed in red shirts, bearing rainbow flags and multiple signs, the activists marched from the side of the Statehouse in Providence down and away from the location our rally was set up. This is what they told the police they planned to do.

No more. Well, that was quite the understatement.

Once again, during Dr. Morse's speech, the red shirts made their way towards our rally. They stopped just before where the police had parked their vehicles.

Their goal was to shout as loud as they could, some using bull horns, so that those attending our rally could not hear our speakers. We turned up the volume and Dr. Morse led us in loud cheers of our own.

Upon noticing that the police were not going to do anything to stop them, the activists got bold and sent out a subgroup of them to take over the territory behind our podium.

Bearing signs, cameras and rainbow flags, a couple of them made their way around the rally and set up camp behind where Dr. Morse was speaking.

They immediatey began shouting as loud as they could to draw attention to themselves over the Doctor's speech and were quickly joined by more, fare bolder activists who came shaking water bottles filled with little stones to rattle around. There goal was to make it as difficult as they could to hear our speakers, our message. It worked against them.

Brian Brown took to the podium again. The protesters were getting out of control and they were about to do exactly what would be their undoing. This photo has already gone viral over the internet as it shows the hate and militant tactics the homosexual activists use in their 'civil rights' movement.

The reality is, as Brian Brown has said many times, the real civil rights movement is for us to stand up for not only what we believe in, but to stand up for our ability to express our beliefs - exactly what these people were attempting to prevent us from doing.

These people hold parades about things like tolerance and respect and equality for all. These are just words to them. Just slogans. They have no grasp as to what they actually mean. They are just the kids of civil rights activists looking to join a movement.

They sincerely believe in what they do and I'm sure it is with the best of intentions. I believe people are generally good people at heart but there are always some who, for one reason or another, fall off the deep end. In Providence, those same people gathered in masse.

Are these the faces of tolerance? Of equality? Of love and respect? Are these the faces of a movement which prides itself in acceptace of all and of comstitutional freedoms? Ironic how, the very same man in the blue shirt stayed on site after our rally trying to quiz us on whether or not we knew what the amendments to the Constitution were. He wanted us to tell him what certain amendments were, specifically the 3rd, 4th or 14th Amendments.  I would like to suggest to him that he go home and read the first amendment as it pertains to the right to assembly - he might learn a thing or two about how this country is supposed to work.

At that point, although the Providence Police did little to enforce our right to assembly, they did finally remove the protesters from in front of the podium but not completely. Our speakers were at least able to approach the podium without being shouted down by gay activists with rainbow flags on their backs.


That, however, did not apply to these lesbian activists, one of which wearing a shirt that wrote "I love female orgasms" who sat in front of the podium kissing and touching each other right in front of our marriage supporters - many of which brought their children. They did not care whatsoever.

We've got pictures of them and their indeceny - including pictures of them making-out and making sexually suggestive gestures.


Now we get into the part where the remaining horde of the activists formed two flanks and approached our stage area from the left and right to take over the steps behind us. They assembled on the steps yelling and screaming and rattling their water bottles.

By this time, their leader had approached the two kissing and fondling lesbians pictured above and had them move from the stage area. Seems like maybe one of them was seeing the error in their ways.

The climax of the rally was amazing. The protesters were rattling their stones and chanting their chants and trying their best to drown out our speakers. Brian Brown stopped his speech and led our supporters in a chant of our own. While our opponets were chanting "Get your hate out of our state," Brian led our supporters in an amazingly loud and effective "One Man, One Woman!" chant.

The protesters and the might of their stone-filled water bottles were no match. Their signs, one of which you can see to the right, give an insight as to what their line of thinking is. Is this really what they think? This sign goes right along with one of their chants when they said "Heterosexuality is a sin."

The rally ended wiithout any arrests or any physical altercations but I would like to highlight the extent to which the activists went to spew their hate and the remarkably dispicable tactics they used.

Towards the end of the rally a group of them converged onto a mother and her four or five young kids.

The activists went right after the kids asking them questions like "Hey, is your mommy and daddy raising you to grow up to be bigots just like them?" The kids, the youngest of which an infact and the eldest about nine were escorted away from the activists by their mother and another woman. I approached them shortly afterwards and they were visually shaken up. Again, a movement of tolerance, love and respect for all.

So much happened yesterday that I may have left out some important details but if something comes to mind I'll definately add it to this post so everyone can really understand which side is spewing the hate. Which side is attacking who? As you can see in this video, the hate and bullying tactics weren't confined to the activists out of Providence and unfortunately, I suspect we are in for more as this tour continues.

199 comments:

fiona64 said...

Dear Louis:

None of my gay friends seem to know what the "homosexual agenda" is. In fact, their "agendas" and "lifestyles" look striking similar to that of this straight, middle-aged, married church-going woman.

We go to work, we go to the grocery store, we go to church, we go to school to pick up our kids, we eat meals, we cook, we have hobbies, we like music, we go to the movies ... doesn't matter whether we're gay or straight.

Since you seem to be an authority on the matter, could you please let my friends know where to pick up their copy of the agenda -- just in case they're missing something they should be doing?

Thanks in advance,
Fiona

Bob Barnes said...

Dear Louis,

A friend of mine happens to be one of the coordinators for the Rhode Island group and she tells me that the State Police called her regarding the protest, turns out NOM is trying to go after them because Brian was yelled at.


BTW, who's really believing what you or Brian have to say other then his gullible followers? The integrity of both of you went out the door long ago.

Mike said...

What goes around comes around.

The same type of interference happens at every single gay pride event in the country. Last month a Christian zealot threatened to sue and was allowed to proselytize and pass out recruiting materials despite the gay event's organizers having obtained the necessary permit and paid tens of thousands of dollars for the use of the outdoor space.

Clark said...

Louis,
A couple of things. First, you're wrong. I read all about the Rhode Island incidents on gay blogs (pamshouseblend, goodasyou, queerty). They were all over it. You're flat out wrong.

Secondly, I think this was a success for the marriage equality side. Yes, tensions were high, but your group is a hate organization actively working to deny gays and lesbians basic civil rights. It's understandable that these protesters will not respect you or your message.

G-A-Y said...

"As you can see in this video, the hate and bullying tactics weren't confined to the activists out of Providence and unfortunately, I suspect we are in for more as this tour continues."

As long as you continue touring the nation saying that gay people are lesser-than citizens, then yes -- there will be more bullying. From NOM!

Louis, Brian is the one with the microphone. Brian and NOM are the ones who are provoking, by the very nature of this booking. The unfortunate reality is that yes, this kind of thing can and will manifest in confrontation. Sometimes the protest is silent. Sometimes the human emotions burst out. But the bottom line is that NOM STARTED ALL THIS!

You can deny that reality, as I know you will. But the American public is seeing right through it. This tour is turning into a PR disaster for your side.

FB said...

Fiona,

Please address the lesbian publicity stunt, in front of the podium, and in front of children. This seems to be very common with the "in your face" homosexual/tolerance crowd.

As far as your claims of going to Church, God's Word clearly says homosexuality is a sin. However, I strongly feel you might be going to a watered down, progressive Church that tells you that your lifestyle is fine and these are the folks who misinterpret God's Word to justify their sickening actions.

It would be like pro-life activists, from a Church, showing pictures of dead fetuses to children in an attempt to shock them.

I am very surprised that these lesbians were not detained for obscenity charges but any kind of publicity to them is a good publicity, regardless if someone gets into someone's face, gets arrested or whatever because the tolerance crowd will spin it to make them look like the victims.

Me personally - I don't care if you are gay, straight, black, purple, green, whatever. What you do in the privacy of your home is up to you but don't force it in random people's faces, disrupt events and expose our children to your indecency.

-C

fiona64 said...

Dear FB:

I have a question for you. Why do you assume that anyone in favor of marriage equality is gay? I'm straight.

Next question: How am I indecent? To what am I exposing your children (other than ideas that all people are equal ... I know, scary)?

How am I "forcing it in random people's faces"? What am I forcing? Are you referring to gay people being in the public square? Perhaps you mean gay people holding hands with their partners? How is it okay to hold your straight partner's hand? Isn't that "forcing it in random people's faces"?

I have no idea to what "lesbian publicity stunt" you are referring, so I cannot help you there.

I do have to wonder, though, since you are so concerned with the things God has deemed a sin, how you are doing with your obedience to the other Levitical laws ... check the tags on your clothes to make sure they aren't made from blended fibers, FB, and be sure to avoid rabbits.

fiona64 said...

PS to FB, who wrote this: However, I strongly feel you might be going to a watered down, progressive Church that tells you that your lifestyle is fine and these are the folks who misinterpret God's Word to justify their sickening actions.

As I already mentioned, I'm straight. I don't know what "lifestyle" you are referring to.

However, the church I attend teaches us to follow the commandments of Rabbi Yeshua ben Yussef: feed the hungry, comfort the afflicted, and love your neighbor as yourself.

Who is YOUR neighbor, FB?

FB said...

"You can deny that reality, as I know you will. But the American public is seeing right through it. This tour is turning into a PR disaster for your side. "

Any reasonable person, regardless of political affiliation or ideas, would think having two lesbians make out in front of children as a PR disaster on YOUR side.

mikebmcgee said...

G-A-Y,

No one said that gays are lower class citizens. One of the reasons there is so much hostility between anti and pro gay activists is because they make bogus accusations against each other.

As far as the rest of this goes, I would have to say well done to One Man, One Woman's supporters for overcoming the protesters without doing anything vulgar or hateful (assuming that the above article is true). Just because I think homosexuality is not only unsafe and unhealthy but morally wrong as well, does not in the least mean that I hate everyonewho chooses to do that. I believe that swearing is wrong, but I have several friends who swear and although I let them know my opinion on that matter, we are still good friends.

FB said...

My neighbor is a convicted pedophile. I get his mail for him from the mailbox if I see him outside. Personally, I don't care too much for him and he has to face the judgment of God once he leaves this earth.

You don't know about the lesbian publicity stunt? Did you read the blog here? Did you even see the pictures? Or are you some kind of Astroturf group that trolls blogs and harasses people?

I'm referring to in-your-face-tolerance as when a group says they are there for a counter demonstration, realize that Joe Q. Public doesn't care because there are more things in life that need attention, and then decide to go ruin an event for publicity purposes where children are at by shaking water bottles and screaming on a loud speaker to drown out a message by a speaker.

You are very foolish for citing Old Testament scripture such as Leviticus, and confusing them. OT scripture, such as animal sacrifices and not eating pork, is adhered to by Jews however many Christian denominations believe that Jesus was the last sacrifice needed and in the New Testament, you do not read about animal sacrifices. Pick up your Bible and read it, the answer is in there for you.

My children can make up their own minds when they are adults. That's a beautiful thing. You can either go with your parent's strong moral fibers or rebel against your parents is the thing to do because all the progressive folks are doing it. I know. I've been there. I've grown up and like other mature adults, I've grown more conservative. I'm sorry if maturity wins out in a majority of Americans while a bunch of disillusioned attention seekers are trying to drum up support for something that is a non issue. I believe more Americans are concerned about personal finances, their jobs and their children rather than supporting your purpose.

Why would you say something about me worrying about what God deems as a sin and in the next post, talk about your Rabbi and the temple you attend? Are you a practicing Jew or one of those Judeo-Christian folks?

You're silly and you know it. ;-)

-C

enjoey said...

ACT-UP! In their face and in the street confrontation worked in the 80"s and we sure as hell need more of it. It is the ONLY way to be heard by many. If they don't like dealing with the street activist then they will be more apt to listen to our guys in suits.

FB said...

The great thing about God is that you can go away from him, commit sin, become a drug addict or homosexual, then realize that sin is consuming your life and ask God for forgiveness. God is like a Father, for folk who do not understand. You may do things your Father may not agree with but your Father is going to love you unconditionally.

That is the biggest misconception in the LGBT crowd. Christians do not hate homosexuals, by no means, but they hate the sin. Self-professing Christians who openly say they hate homosexuals are not Christians and will be judged appropriately by God in Heaven.

FB said...

enjoey, in your face activism has never worked and will only make a few bad apples make the whole bunch appear rotten. You are childish for thinking that it worked, because even folks who do not have a position on either side will see the over aggressiveness of the tolerance crowd and come to the conclusion that the crowd is angry, with no intellectual capacity except causing problems for the majority.

Clark said...

That's right, enjoey. We will continue to act up, because you don't sit around waiting for your civil rights. You go after them and those who would oppress you.

Jude said...

Here is what real hate looks like Louis. Don't worry, I'll be back with links to all the bloggers who were finally excited that protestors stood up to you.

By Celeste Lavin, 365gay.com
07.19.2010 4:30pm EDT
Luis and Richard Vieira were attacked at a Staten Island White Castle at 2:30 am on July 7. When they sat down in the restaurant, a teenager used a homophobic slur and other aggressive language against the couple.

Send / Share
Add Comment
“He looked at Luis and said, ‘What the f— are you looking at, faggot?’” recalled Richard Vieira, 39, to a New York Daily News reporter. A teen then punched Luis in the back of the head before the couple ran outside to the parking lot to confront the teen.

Photo credit: Oates for News

There they found themselves surrounded by over a dozen other teens who were seemingly awaiting their arrival.

Luis was able to escape into the White Castle where he alerted employees to call the police, but Richard was knocked to the ground and severely beaten.

The NYPD is investigating the incident as a hate crime. The attack is one of the latest in the drastically increasing number of reported hate crimes in the city. Reported bias attacks have increased from 111 in the first seven months of 2009 to 200 so far this year.

Jude said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZ0nkykrTBw

Love the speaking in tongues twist there Louis. New material. Good idea.

Ron said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
FB said...

What does an incident in New York have to do with a rally in Providence? You folks are seriously trying to blur the issues. Stay on topic and stop drifting away from the message about the rally in Providence.

FB said...

Ron, straight couples do not simulate sex acts in public in front of children.

FB said...

Jude, why are comments disabled on that YouTube video but comments are allowed here? It seems like Louis is tolerant while you tolerance folks are intolerant towards other opinions.

Ron said...

corrction :

sorry but you are all bigots and i quote "That, however, did not apply to these lesbian activists, one of which wearing a shirt that wrote "I love female orgasms" who sat in front of the podium kissing and touching each other right in front of our marriage supporters"str8 people are doing it all the time so do you have a problem with a gay or a lesbian couple kiss and show love to each other? u are afraid that your kids will see that gay love exist you are afraid that your kids will be more tolerant then you are .... do yourself a huge favor live and let live

Bob Barnes said...

Louis,

a friend of mine just pointed out something of importance. You have yet to mention any accomplishments. Is it because you have none? Or do you find that calling yourself a victim is your strongest asset?

From Prop 8 to Washington state, to a televised trial or your Hate tour and denial......

It's the same old crap, stop playing the victim and grow up.

Bob

Jude said...

FB, Jesus never said a word about homosexuals. Not that I believe anything in the Bible. You see, let me explain. It was written by humans, starting well after Jesus death. It was written by people almost 2000 years ago living in a primitive time. They thought the earth was flat and 6,000 years old. It's myth, with way too many authors, and very bad editing. Oh, and it's been translated.

FB said...

Fiona,

This is from your LiveJournal

"I have come, over the past few years, to understand the importance of *really* standing up for what I believe in on numerous issues, even in the face of censure (or attempted censorship)."

So what do you call shaking water bottles full of pocket change and shouting on a loud speaker while a person is trying to talk? Attempted censorship?

Ron said...

gay couples do not preform sexual acts in public there is nothing wrong with giving a kiss to your lover boyfriend or girlfriend in public!

fiona64 said...

Dear FBL

Really? Are you pretending that two lesbians kissing is the same as simulating a sex act in public? If so, I guess that you are against straight couples kissing, too?

I've read the Bible several times, from Genesis to Revelation, in more than one edition and more than one language? How's your koine Greek? If it isn't very good, you'll discover that you have some translation problems. To say nothing of the fact that you seem to be unaware of who Rabbi Yeshua ben Yussef is ... and yet you call yourself a Christian.

That would be the real name of the man you call Jesus.

He who said NOTHING about same-sex relationships whatsoever (although, per Matthew 8, he did heal the centurion's dearly beloved slave, and Biblical times it was well-known that men and their male slaves had intercourse -- nor was it frowned on). Sex was not to be between equals, but men and women and men and slaves was acceptable. Equals together (two free men) was "toevah" - ritually impure -- much as women on their periods are "toevah."

As for the "who is your neighbor" question -- wow. Could you be more of a literalist? I am not concerned with who lives in the house next door -- and neither was Rabbi Yeshua ben Yussef. I suggest you pop in for a re-read of Luke 10.

I'm glad I could help you with your Bible scholarship today.

FB said...

Jude, you are right. Jesus never addressed homosexuals. God did. You are right - the Bible was written by humans just like every other book in the world. Sure, they thought the earth was flat just like many European explorers too. Yes, it was translated into just about every language possible.

I have a question, Jude.

What exactly is your point in your post? Can you address my direct question to you about the disabling of comments in that YouTube video or are you going to write me another off-topic post for me to pick apart? Come up with something good, I'm going to be away for a few hours and I want to come back to something posted by you that is going to open my eyes to accepting "tolerance".

I double dog dare you.

FB said...

Ron, they kissed and SIMULATED sex acts in front of children! Open your eyes!

fiona64 said...

Dear FB: You wrote:

Fiona,

This is from your LiveJournal

"I have come, over the past few years, to understand the importance of *really* standing up for what I believe in on numerous issues, even in the face of censure (or attempted censorship)."

So what do you call shaking water bottles full of pocket change and shouting on a loud speaker while a person is trying to talk? Attempted censorship?

Do you have any proof that I did such a thing? Since I was not one of the people about whom this allegation was made, I cannot address their thought process. My process is to engage in fact-based dialogue and non-violent discussion.

So, why are you accusing me of something I did not do and do not advocate?

Is that very Christian of you?

Inspector13 said...

i just ate shrimp! want to stone me? do you make your wife sleep in a hut out back when she has her period? women are unclean and of lesser value than men! stone your daughter!

traditional marriage: permission to have sex granted by a religiou entity.

how come gays didn't make it to the top ten like lying? being gay is like eating bacon and shrimp not a big deal!

A LIE IN THE NAME OF GOD IS STILL A LIE!

Inspector13 said...

THE BIBLE SAYS MAGIC IS A REAL THING! MAGIC IS NOT REAL AND YOUR BIBLE IS NOT VALID!

FB said...

Fiona,

They kissed and just like Ron, you do not understand that simulating sex acts in front of children is wrong and in some jurisdictions, illegal.

About your Rabbi question, I'm not a Messianic Jew so his teachings or whatever you have to say to him does not apply to him because I am not a Jew.

Can you address what I pulled off of your LiveJournal account? It seems very interesting albeit contradictory that you are against censorship and attempted censorship but are justifying a bunch of folks shaking water bottles full of pocket change and shouting down a speaker at an event.

Inspector13 said...

how come more people are coming to protest your rallies than you have showing up or your rallies? BECAUSE YOUR CAUSE IS A HATE FILLED FAILURE!

fiona64 said...

Fb said: FB said...

What does an incident in New York have to do with a rally in Providence?

Easy. Every time there is some anti-equality rally (as there was in Albany, New York the day of the incident in question), homophobes decide that their hatred is righteous and crime against GLBT people rises.

Without fail.

Of course, you don't have to trust my word -- you can see what the FBI says about it. http://www.fbi.gov/page2/nov09/hatecrimes_112309.html

Glad to be of help. Again.

Ron said...

i don't believe that!if it's true prove it!maybe with a picture?but again you don't have any do you?giving a kiss to your lover is not sex sorry for you Louis...

FB said...

Inspector13, Jack Black isn't even remotely funny. That's the only reply you'll get from me and you're really showcasing the intellectual side of the tolerance crowd.

Inspector13 said...

THE WORD HOMOSEXUAL IS NOT IN THE BIBLE AND HAS NEVER BEEN IN THE BIBLE! THE WORD DID NOT EXIST UNTIL THE LATE 1800'S. STOP YOUR LIES! LYING IS A SIN!

fiona64 said...

About your Rabbi question, I'm not a Messianic Jew so his teachings or whatever you have to say to him does not apply to him because I am not a Jew.

Rabbi Yeshua ben Yussef is Jesus, son of Joseph.

Jesus Christ. You know, the guy whose teachings you profess to follow?

Good grief. You really don't know your scriptures at all, do you?

And I addressed your question already. Do you need "Hooked on Phonics," my friend?

I have yet to meet a true Christian who hates people who sin or do anything that they deem incorrect. Jesus taught that we should love the sinner (he is the only one who didn't sin), but not the sin. So, we should love everyone. That doesn't mean that I have to invite people who commit certain sins to my house or accept their invitations to their house.

I believe in freedom of speech. But, I also believe that Public Display of Affection should be limited to hand holding and short kisses when children are present. Children can't enter into a rated R movie for a reason. They aren't ready for it. They have a right to be at a park and not feel like they are watching a rated R movie. I do not care if it's homosexual or heterosexual PDA, if kids are present save it for another time or place. There are plenty of places where kids aren't welcome, so there should be places where kids can go that PDA isn't welcome.

One could say that parents shouldn't bring their kids to a park when a rally is taking place. That would undermine the parents' right to be politically involved, active, and informed. I think that both sides can make a point without offending children who are present. I suppose I'm an optimist, but I think it's possible.

I believe that we live in a promised land and that God is watching us. I believe that we should consider our actions and remember what happened to people in ancient times who chose to oppose His teachings. We should also remember that we are all sinners and not hastily pass judgment on others (remember the beam and mote passage?) in addition to remembering Isaiah 5:20-25. Let us not get confused about who is in charge and who is wise- it's none of us. Some of us might think we are, but it would be a false assumption.

FB said...

FBI's murder statistics for 2003 (I looked at them today, matter of fact) shows that murders are White, Black and "Unknown"

We have "unknown" folks in this country?

Source: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_03/xl/03tbl2-5.xls

fiona64 said...

The Springs Gardner Family wrote: Jesus taught that we should love the sinner (he is the only one who didn't sin), but not the sin.

Um, no. That's a quote from Mohandas K. Gandhi.

Just so you know.

FB said...

Fiona, care to address what I pulled from your LiveJournal account or are you going to eat that flame bait I posted for you all day?

Ron said...

Louis a true question : are your supporters showing affection to each other in any way in front of their kids? (like giving a hug or a kiss ?)

FB said...

I have come, over the past few years, to understand the importance of *really* standing up for what I believe in on numerous issues, even in the face of censure (or attempted censorship).

Pulled from fiona64.livejournal.com

She clearly is supporting censorship by supporting the action of gay rights supporters in Providence!

fiona64 said...

FB said...

Fiona, care to address what I pulled from your LiveJournal account or are you going to eat that flame bait I posted for you all day?
July 19, 2010 5:41 PM

I already answered it, at 5:31 PM Eastern time. Go back and read. I am confident that you can do so.

fiona64 said...

FB said...

I have come, over the past few years, to understand the importance of *really* standing up for what I believe in on numerous issues, even in the face of censure (or attempted censorship).

Pulled from fiona64.livejournal.com

She clearly is supporting censorship by supporting the action of gay rights supporters in Providence!

You lie. Period, end of report. This is my response, with the time stamp:

Do you have any proof that I did such a thing? Since I was not one of the people about whom this allegation was made, I cannot address their thought process. My process is to engage in fact-based dialogue and non-violent discussion.

So, why are you accusing me of something I did not do and do not advocate?

Is that very Christian of you?
July 19, 2010 5:31 PM

Clark said...

FB, I thought you were "stepping away for a while". We should be so lucky. And Fiona answered your weird question already.

fiona64 said...

Hey, FB -- why is your profile blank? So that you can fear-monger without anyone being able to find out anything about you?

You must be so proud of your position ...

Joe Hargrave said...

Hey Louis,

Keep your chin up in this good fight.

As for this nonsense:

"I am not concerned with who lives in the house next door -- and neither was Rabbi Yeshua ben Yussef."

First, there's Matthew 5:28, in which Christ insists that even looking at a woman with lust in your eye is to commit adultery with your heart. You'd have to be pretty dense or taking a pretty big gamble to assume that his failure to include men looking at men, or women looking at women - or for that matter, women looking at men - meant that they all got a free pass.

Christ condemned ALL fornication. No, he wouldn't have been "cool" with a Centurion-slave love affair. And then of course there is St. Paul - 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. Ever read that one?

What about marriage? Try Matthew 19:4-6. That says it all:

"Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female? And he said: For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder."

That's from my Douay-Rhemis Bible, the original English translation of the Latin Vulgate. Are you going to argue that "male and female" were translated inaccurately too? That ought to be rich.

Just give it up. Homosexuality is a perversion, a transgression of the natural order as well as the divine. You don't even have to be religious to understand that. But if you are religious, then you should surely understand that our genitals and orifices are more than pleasure machines.

I'd rather have the ancient status quo - homosexuality is known, it goes on, but the men still have families, and the natural family of a mother and father and children is given pride of place for the good society. This notion of "gay marriage" would have probably been as disgusting and anti-social to a pre-Christian Greek as it is to all moderns with the slightest bit of common sense and regard for civilization.

Frankly, I really don't care what you do. You want to be gay, be gay. But don't forget that you live in a democracy with a Christian heritage, that sovereignty lies with the people, and that as long as we have a free republic we will pursue all legitimate means of protecting our children and our future.

Sam said...

That's right Louis. Just spin it to make gay people look like we are evil when its you and your organization that advocate to take away gay couple's rights. You are so clueless.

bryan said...

Marinelli, the NOM Facebook page you administrate calls for gay people to be shot, pepper sprayed and beaten senseless. And why was Brown confronted by police ? Because he was aggressive. And do you really think when you are campaigning to annul peoples marriages, that the people affected by this will sit by quietly ? If you do you are a fool. And for a sometime straight man, you seem very over sensitive and preoccupied with gay people.

FB said...

Joe, great post and don't get Fiona riled up.

Fiona, I read it. I wasn't satisfied with your response. You seem to be justifying it but are anti-censorship according to your LiveJournal page.

Grown adults know they can't have it both ways.

FB said...

Bryan,

I see the same from both sides. The movement is not responsible for the actions of folks posting comments online on both sides. They get comfortable behind their screens and post things they should not say.

There is no defense for that kind of behavior and I do not support that behavior.

Ron said...

Louis please answer my questions thank u

fiona64 said...

Joe wrote, "Frankly, I really don't care what you do. You want to be gay, be gay. But don't forget that you live in a democracy with a Christian heritage, that sovereignty lies with the people, and that as long as we have a free republic we will pursue all legitimate means of protecting our children and our future. "

Here we go again, with the inane assumption that anyone who believes in equality must be gay. And doesn't remember civics class to boot.

How come you don't care about protecting the children of gay couples?

And FB, I don't care whether or not you are satisfied. It's my response and it's accurate. I do not believe in violent confrontation, as I said. I am not accountable for anyone's actions but my own -- no matter how much you want to make it so.

fiona64 said...

Joe wrote: This notion of "gay marriage" would have probably been as disgusting and anti-social to a pre-Christian Greek as it is to all moderns with the slightest bit of common sense and regard for civilization.

And missed a few days of history class too, I see.

http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/history_of_marriage_in_western.html

Enjoy.

Ron said...

Louis you are the ones who are comparing gays to pedophiles and other criminals in your FB page you are the ones who are calling for violence we have proof for all of that....so you can't hide

shinejoy said...

Read Romans 1 it talks about being gay a sin.
It is a sickness and its not what God made in the
being.
There is this perfect union.
Man and Woman. He talks of no other.
Of course people say they don't believe in the
Bible. That is a good excuse. They know it will
point out sin.

Ron said...

to shinejoy : the bible also says to have a slave do you have a slave? my guess is that you don't it talks about that divorce is sin and yet Maggie and James P are divorced and so are many of you .... and i can go on and on ...

Bob Barnes said...

Louis and Brian,

Why don' we just get to the bottom of this... your rallies are just meet-ups for religious folks who don't like Gays and Lesbians.

Why not just for for psychotherapy and be done with it?

Bob

amiworking said...

Dear Louis,

Some of my friends are pictured in the videos above. You failed to mention a few facts.. like your good friend Brian being threatened with arrest if he also didn't disperse. Perhaps the activists saying to the mother "Are you raising your children to be good little bigots?" And the mother flipping out and her and a few other men from your side almost starting a physical altercation.

And what are these sexually suggestive gestures you're referring to? I'd like to see the photos. Was it of a gay couple kissing? Perhaps walking hand in hand?

And lastly, the photograph you posted, you fail to mention, has hardly gone 'viral'. You have no idea what viral even means. Yes, it has traversed the bulk of LGBT blogs and facebook groups, but has only been retweeted about 10 times from the NOM account and made its way to three or four blogs I have seen on your end. A paltry... 2000 views is hardly 'viral'.

You ask, Louis "Are these the faces of tolerance? Of equality? Of love and respect?"

No. These are the faces of suffering. These are the face of defiance to your hateful and immoral actions. Your movement which pretends that it is not about religion, attracts crazies like you who yell at us and pray in tongues and condemn us to hell. The harm to us you cause results in VERY rational anger, frustration, and rage that you saw yesterday. You are still at fault here. Our tears fill your coffers. Our blood that is shed by hate is on your hands.

The fact remains, Louis. You are the face of hate. A woman whose view is blocked to a stage who can so obviously move is not being hated. The video shows these silent and peaceful protesters (and their black labs) wearing shirts. Do you know what those shirts say? I'm guessing you don't.

Well, they say: "Do you see my love?" You are so obviously blinded by the lies you spin and the grand stories you tell. Those lies and that animus has transformed into a giant plank in your eye so huge that it is very clear: You are a man who is so swayed by greed and ambition that you are unable to see love and decide to make a living causing harm to others. You sicken me.

Ok, so I goofed.... I admit it. Jesus didn't say love the sinner, but he did say, "A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another." Paul taught, "Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law."

So, even though I disagree with many philosophies that exist today, I will treat the people who follow them with respect. However, I do not have to like what they think or do about it.

I also will not condemn people for these differences.

Matt 7:

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.
6 ¶ Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

Ron said...

or organize a bbq party with haters like u Louis ?

Joe Hargrave said...

Oh yeah, Fiona, you really showed me:

" Indeed, the great lawgiver Solon once contemplated making marriage compulsory, and in Athens under Pericles bachelors were excluded from certain important public positions. Sparta, while encouraging sexual relationships between men, nevertheless insisted on their marrying and producing children. Single and childless men were treated with scorn."

That was my point. Looks like someone failed reading comprehension class.

"How come you don't care about protecting the children of gay couples?"

Don't make me laugh. There is no such thing as the "children of gay couples" - there are children unfortunate enough to be victimized by two selfish homosexuals who don't understand the objective harm they are doing.

I would protect all children by keeping them out of such a situation. Though the people who put this study together are likely as mush-headed about civilizational matters as yourself, and see the results as possibly good, I look at the first five items on this list and see a recipe for a completely dysfunctional childhood, leading to a completely dysfunctional adulthood due to deep psychological damage:

http://www.narth.com/docs/does.html

The conclusion, number six, doesn't follow from their own findings - but they define "mental health" in a completely materialist and hedonistic way.

"Teen-age and young adult girls raised by lesbian mothers appear to be more sexually adventurous and less chaste than girls raised by heterosexual mothers. Sons, on the other hand, were somewhat less sexually adventurous and more chaste than boys raised by heterosexuals."

Do you understand how dangerous this is? Do you understand how dangerous it is to have a generation of boys grow up with no self-confidence, with no confidence in themselves as men, having been completely domineered by two females throughout their upbringing?

No society has EVER allowed this, because no society has ever wanted to voluntarily commit suicide. We think we're rich enough to be this stupid, but we'll soon find out that all of our wealth and all of our progress won't mean a thing when our children's brains are scrambled by the sort of amoral existence you would have for them, a life lived in the moment, for pleasure and gratification.

Mel said...

Two girls were sat on the floor and they kissed .
Big flipping deal !
Is that the only thing you've got ?

Walk down the street in Soho London of an evening and you will see same sex couples kissing , holding hands , straight couples doing the same .
It's on TV all the time .
Get over it .

Talk said...

As you know the homosexuals say one thing then practice another, they are taught to obey their facist masters who said the world is against them, yet they are bing used as tool by the facist groups that control them such as GLAAD and others need proof to the facism?
Remember in Hitlers Germany they eventually turned on their own
yours already started its called "OUTTING" becareful homosexuals cause you may be next sought out by your masters
more proof?
How about the Bisexuals on the baseball team who weren't "gay enough" to play talk about true hypocrites ..
as I said watch ut homosexuals your masters will turn on you once they used you and controlled you then you will get tossed aside...
Homsexuality is a CHOICE ...

fiona64 said...

Joe wrote: Don't make me laugh. There is no such thing as the "children of gay couples" - there are children unfortunate enough to be victimized by two selfish homosexuals who don't understand the objective harm they are doing.

Wow ... I know a whole lot of folks who will be surprised to learn that there are no children of gay couples. Including the scientists who have studied the matter and determined that children of same-sex couples do just as well, if not better, than children of opposite sex couples.

I know, yucky old science: http://cdp.sagepub.com/content/15/5/241.abstract

If the children of same-sex couples have problems, it seems to be from the bigoted comments of people who object to their parents' very existence ...

amiworking said...

Talk said:

"They say one thing and do another" - No we don't. I will say this: We are angry and pissed off at the level of religious persecution and civil rights violations coming from the religious right.

"They are taught to obey their facist masters" - hyperbole much? Seriously? Facist masters? Name names, if you can. If you're going to point to Obama, I'd like to clarify that most of us are not happy with him. In fact, movements like those in Providence don't like the actions (or lack thereof) from Gay Inc. (HRC, GLAAD, etc.)

"Hitler's germany"? Way to go back in time to a completely irrelevant and inaccurate analogy.

"bisexuals on the baseball team" - a single incident... really... you are reaching so very far.

"Homosexuality is a choice." - No, it is not. One does not choose to have emotional/romantic and physical attractions to the same gender. Trust us. We're the primary source here. We know what our feelings are, we know when they began, and we know that they are innate. You are insulting and demeaning, spinning and weaving conspiracy theories beyond anything that I have ever heard... "obey their fascist masters"... give me a break. Oh... you spelled fascist wrong. Talk, I do hope your entire post was satire. If it wasn't, then your world view is extremely, extremely pathetic and sad.

fiona64 said...

Joe wrote: http://www.narth.com/docs/does.html

NARTH? Really? Discredited by every single reputable psychiatric and psychological organization, and this is your proof?

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/NARTH+%27study%27+a+new+low+in+junk+science-a0208143364

Please, Joe. I am sure that a man of your infinite erudition can do better than that.

amiworking said...

I like you, Fiona. Can you friend me on facebook or something? You can find it in the links section of my blog.

And you're right. Not only was Joe demeaning, but he was insulting of every single child given a better life by being fostered or adopted. LGBT couples generally adopt children with special needs at much higher rates than straight couples - most of whom wait years for a healthy, newborn Caucasian boy or girl.

By the way, Joe, LGBT people aren't incapable of procreation. There isn't a magical switch that's turned off where we're incapable of having sex with someone of the opposite gender. Still, it wouldn't be fair of me to have a child with a woman I could only ever love as a friend. Hence why I date the same gender - my innate capacity of love makes it so that I am most happy and can make most happy another man.

Outside of your psuedo-religious animus (seriously... touting "natural order" and "natural law" as science?), there is no harm done. I'm amazed that you actually believe yourself authorized to hold such a nasty and hostile opinion about LGBT men and women, couples, and families. Get off your high horse and tend to your own life. Leave mine the hell alone.

Bob Barnes said...

@ Joe, Really? NARTH? OMG, I'm having hysterics over that. Long, Looooonng discredited, just like all your anti-gay groups.

You know you http://kkk.bz/ has plenty of anti-gay literature you can quote as well!

LMAO!

Talk said...

Ani said....."Homosexuality is a choice." - No, it is not. One does not choose to have emotional/romantic and physical attractions to the same gender. Trust us. We're the primary source here. We know what our feelings are, we know when they began, and we know that they are innate
If its not how do you explain the former celebrated Lesbian Anne Heche, who sought Shame Sex Marriage with her partner and went to White House for it
or the Thousands on Myspace who list as Sexual Orientation as "Not Sure" or Undecided" of course you know that is synonymous with CHOICE if its not a CHOICE none of them would even be on the border..
you can Make that choice, just becaue you don't want to, doesn't change it being a CHOICE

Ron said...

Talk : did u CHOSE to be str8? let me answer that for u the answer is no!so gays people like me can't chose their sexual orientation either get some education please

amiworking said...

Talk said "blah blah Anne Heche blah blah 'undecided' blah blah 'not sure'

@Talk - There is a B in LGBT. That stands for bisexual. That means a man or a woman has an emotional and physical attraction to both genders.

As for the *zomg* THOUSANDS on Myspace, 'undecided' and 'not sure' indicates exactly that. Figuring out yourself is not an easy thing to do. Simply because MySpace contains selections does not make that scientific fact.

The border exists for multiple reasons - many who are legitimately unsure of who or what they're attracted to. Human sexuality isn't a simple thing to just say "I am this" at the age of 15. The border also exists for people who are afraid of social persecution and discrimination/harassment from the likes of your ilk.

It is not a choice. I am the primary source here along with millions of other LGBT Americans. Never before has ANYONE so easily dismissed such extensive and multiply attested primary source testimony.

You only spout the choice argument because you require it to be true, but I can no more help who I find emotionally and physically attractive as you can.

Still, that doesn't authorize you to dictate to me. Step off your high horse and please keep your nose out of my personal life. You're not my friend. You're not my family. You're simply an intolerant ass who deems yourself worthy to preach to me your fake ideals grounded in pseudo-religious animus.

Yours is not the ultimate morality. You have the benefit of the mob on your side. That doesn't mean you aren't an ignorant jack with nothing better to do with his time than tell gay men and women they are wrong.

News flash, Talk. You are in the wrong here. History will find that to be true when the likes of you fade to dust and we become a peaceful nation that truly embraces diversity, uniqueness, and equality and just treatment for all.

Good day.

fiona64 said...

amiworking said...

I like you, Fiona. Can you friend me on facebook or something? You can find it in the links section of my blog.

Look for a request from me in a while. :-)

FB said...

You folks aren't putting two and two together: the lesbians were kissing and SIMULATING SEX ACTS by rubbing up on each other IN FRONT OF CHILDREN.

Sec. 53a-186. Public indecency: Class B misdemeanor. (a) A person is guilty of public indecency when he performs any of the following acts in a public place: (1) An act of sexual intercourse as defined in subdivision (2) of section 53a-65; or (2) a lewd exposure of the body with intent to arouse or to satisfy the sexual desire of the person; or (3) a lewd fondling or caress of the body of another person. For the purposes of this section, "public place" means any place where the conduct may reasonably be expected to be viewed by others.

(b) Public indecency is a class B misdemeanor.

(1969, P.A. 828, S. 188; 1971, P.A. 871, S. 46; P.A. 76-336, S. 22; P.A. 92-260, S. 72.)

Clearly it violates (3)

FB said...

Some of Fiona's interests pulled from her LiveJournal account

Interests (84):
abortion rights, adrian paul, alan cumming, american quarter horses, anthropology, antiques, archaeology, australian kelpies, ballet, ballroom dancing, books, broadway, bryan ferry, byron nease, cats, civil rights, classical literature, corsets, cosmetics, dalmatians, david bowie, disneyland, dressage, earl carpenter, edinburgh, edith piaf, england, equal rights, etiquette, european culture, fashion, feminism, fine dining, forensics, franc d'ambrosio, france, freedom of speech, french cafes, french culture, gerard butler, gilles marini, glasgow, hats, highland games, highlander, historical reenactments, history, horses, invisible illness, kentucky horse park, laurence juber, literature, london, makeup, maksim chmerkovskiy, marwaris, mental illness awareness, millinery, model horses, movies, museums, music, opera, paris, phantom of the opera, provence, reading, richard iii, roxy music, santorini, scotland, seabiscuit, shakespeare, sherlock holmes, shoes, sparta, theatre, travel, viewmaster reels, viggo mortensen, walt disney world, warwick castle, wicca, writing

Mel said...

Okay...Kissing lesbians and whatnot aside..


I'd like to see a blog post about what NOM has actually achieved...


(tumbleweed)


Oh nothing

fiona64 said...

FB, is there a point to your harassment?

Big whoop, you cut and pasted something from my LJ profile.

Unlike you, I am not ashamed of the things in which I am interested. You, OTOH, have no profile -- and are obviously remaining anonymous so that you can continue your hate speech and harassment at will.

FB said...

What did the pro-tolerance folks achieve?

(tumbleweed)

Yeah, it goes both ways Mel.

FB said...

Fiona,

Now I'm harassing you? Seriously? Playing the victim card this early? Care to address the state law I posted that was clearly violated by the folks you support or going to play the easy victim card?

Either way I'm amused.

Mel said...

FB that was about as original as a cover version of a cover version .

Yeah why did you post up Fiona's interests , it was very interesting yes and she likes some of the things I like but really was a bit silly if you thought you'd get something from it .

Face it , the only people who take any notice of NOM's propaganda are their brainwashed followers , now not all of them are brainwashed but those tend to be deleted from the equation quite quickly

Mel said...

So you think that people standing up for themselves is hate ?

All the bad publicity has not done NOM much good , people are starting to realise what it's all about and they're not happy at all .

FB - please write me an e-mail and I will let you know exactly what they were doing.

Thanks for your support!

marinelli@marriagecoalition.org

Liz said...

Amen, Mel!

FB, the LGBT side HAS achieved marriage rights in some states, so that's a start at achieving something. You don't see the "pro-tolerance" side going on a TOUR to blog out of context how the other side is "hateful", "intolerant", "disgusting", blah, blah, do you?

Louis, get a life!

FB said...

How has the LGBT, GBLT, BGTL or TBGL achieved anything?

Gay marriage went down in flames in California, because you didn't anticipate the conservative African-American vote.

Keep that optimism up though! I admire it!

fiona64 said...

Mel, I guess FB has a list of things to fear:

-- Gay men kissing in public (how is this different from straight couples doing the same?)
-- Lesbians kissing in public (how is this different from straight couples doing the same?)
-- Straight, married female forensic anthropology majors who attend the theatre, show dogs, ride horses, go ballroom dancing, and support marriage equality.

::shrug::

What a sad little person.

FB said...

Mel,

The folks who believe that you tolerance folks are achieving something are delusional. I posted that Fiona likes "mental health awareness" - I guess she could help some of you folks out with your problems.

FB said...

Fiona,

-- Gay men kissing in public (how is this different from straight couples doing the same?)
-- Lesbians kissing in public (how is this different from straight couples doing the same?)

Just as long as sex acts aren't simulated using the hands and doing it in front of children, both of which is illegal by Rhode Island law, I'm fine with it! When you involve children in your sick publicity stunts is when I take issue with it. You can dress up in whatever shirts you want, chant the same ol chants, shake water bottles full of pocket change, etc. I don't care!

Don't involve the children! Don't ask children how they feel about their parents raising them to be bigots!

Can I make this any clearer for you to understand?

shinejoy said...

In Jesus Way there is always a Counterfeit.
These people are trying to be accepted in a very
desperate way.
They think if it is accepted then it is ok.
But Jesus told us in his Word it is not normal. It is ill willed it is a Counterfeit. It is not natural.

FB said...

Fiona, I just updated my Blogspot profile just for you...

Mel said...

FB - You're acting like a child .

It's mildly amusing

fiona64 said...

FB said...

Fiona, I just updated my Blogspot profile just for you...
July 19, 2010 9:03 PM

Jesus must be so proud of you right now, little man ...

It takes a whole lot more than visually challenged homophobes to make me cry.

Tootles!

fiona64 said...

Shinejoy wrote: But Jesus told us in his Word it is not normal.

Really? Do you have chapter and verse? Because I have never found a single word that Rabbi Yeshua ben Yussef preached against gay men or lesbians.

Mel said...

If someone impartial were to happen upon this blog right now I suspect they'd be wondering where NOM's positive achievements are.

There doesn't seem to be any in this blog , just a lot of complaining about the other side .

mantronikk said...

Why don't gays just say they want to change the definition of marriage instead of inappropriately using rallying words like "civil rights." 95% of people who stand for Godly marriage don't hate gays at all.

Mel said...

Also you keep reposting that mother "bullied" video on your Facebook page with sensationalist headlines .

You're so desperate it's laughable .

FB said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
FB said...

mantronikk,

Well said! The attempt to lump themselves in as "civil rights" is a desperate try to legitimatize themselves. However, the term "civil rights" has a dark past. Civil rights protesters were killed by Klansmen, had their homes shot at in the middle of the night, Churches burned, etc. and when they call themselves a civil rights movement, it'll alienate African-American support even more than Prop 8 because using that term brings up a lot of bad memories.

I don't see gays being assaulted and killed, shot at, have their Churches burned down (if any of them went to one), and had segregated areas for the different races.

On the contrary, groups such as Bash Back have disrupted Church services up north with the authorities afraid to press charges or even do anything out of fear of the backlash from the aggressive GLT crowd.

Sure, they do have one valid claim - the claim about being allowed to be seen in a hospital if their significant other is dying/has died/etc. Sure, legal issues are raised when they were living together and there is no legal claim for the living partner. However, the easier method would be to amend the common law marriage laws so the GLT people can have the same legal rights as heterosexual people do.

Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do. (Luke 23:34)

Bob Barnes said...

Here's a NOM-inspired Facebook page:

The Bible Commands You to Kill Homosexuals

http://i27.tinypic.com/1hti6a.jpg

Great work, NOM! Pushing the anti-gay rhetoric!

fiona64 said...

FB wrote: I don't see gays being assaulted and killed, shot at, have their Churches burned down (if any of them went to one)

Are you for real? Google Matthew Shepard, just for a start. Then Gwen Araujo. Then look up the assault on the gay couple in New York over which you were so dismissive. And the "corrective rape" of the San Francisco lesbian -- by four men shouting anti-gay epithets at her the day after Prop 8 passed. Then the arson of the Santa Cruz branch of the Metropolitan Community Church. Just for starters.

I could go on, but I think that I've made my point.

fmirabilis said...

I HARDLY think the pro-gay supporters were as embarrassing to their cause as THIS:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boUfcURApxY

When it comes to "guest speakers," NOM really knows how to pick 'em.
The irony? This nutcase has full marriage rights, while millions of perfectly normal and sane gays and lesbians don't.

Bob Barnes said...

@ FB,

Really? Looks like according to the FBI it's very dangerous to be LGBT in America.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2008/data/table_01.html

60% of all hate crimes victims in DC are LGBT
http://dcist.com/2008/09/12/two_md_gay_men_attacked_near_bebar.php

Hate crimes against LGBT community are on the rise
http://www.rochestercitynewspaper.com/news/blog/2010/07/Hate-crimes-against-LGBT-community-are-on-the-rise/

You could have stopped at, "I don't see." Your blatant bigotry blinds you. And BTW, the idea that you got one over on fiona64 is a delusion.

fmirabilis said...

"Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do. (Luke 23:34)"
_________________________________

@FB: Excellent job of twisting scripture to serve your talking points.

FB said...

Fiona,

I was inferring about gays being killed in the "civil rights" movement of today, like in the infamous Civil Rights Movement of African Americans - not a drug addict who was robbed and killed, then later found out to be a homosexual.

Talk about taking stuff out of context and playing the emotional/victim card!!! You totally took my bait. You're a horrible troll, you know that?

Bob Barnes said...

@ fiona64,

FB is our modern-day holocaust denier, a real charming prick. Thank god there are gays, cause Blacks and Jews were on the no-no list

amiworking said...

FB - LGBT men and women are attacked, beaten, and killed. They are denied housing. They are fired from their jobs for being gay. We are verbally assaulted all the time. We are occasionally denied service in restaurants and sometimes denied access to public spaces.

LGBT bars have been historically and are still raided by the police. Homes are vandalized and defaced. Our integrity is often slandered simply for being gay.

LGBT youth are harassed and sometimes driven to suicide by peers. They are also kicked out of their homes and forced to live homeless for who they are.

LGBT soldiers, even if chaste, are kicked out of the military and have their careers ruined for being gay.

LGBT elderly are torn from homes or separated when close to death in different nursing homes because their relationships are not recognized as valid by the state or often by hostile family members.

LGBT couples with children are often at risk. When one parent dies, the state often does take away the child from the other parent and is handed to estranged family or even total strangers.

LGBT international couples are separated by oceans and land, being unable to sponsor their foreign partner like heterosexual, married couples can.

LGBT couples are often unable to share health insurance, reducing health care access

LGBT couples are taxed more at both state and federal levels because they cannot file jointly, hence higher poverty rates.

And lastly, LGBT couples exist in a society where 50%(ish) of other citizens actively consider their capacity for love either insignificant, "immoral", "evil", choice, or "not real". This opinion is spread mostly by Christians who often promote their religion as though Christianity is the official state religion of the United States of America. It is not. Your religion does not hold a monopoly on morality. Your religion doesn't hold a monopoly on marriage - stop pretending it does. Hell, marriage isn't even a Christian concept. It is a Roman/pagan concept that was applied to Christianity in late ancient Rome.

Get off your high horse and please, please, please keep your religious beliefs out of my household.

But no... you go on.

How are you blind to this harm and damage being done? How do you explain that this is any different from a civil rights issue, when the signs, symptoms, and damage being done are almost identical? How do you have the audacity to quote that beautiful passage from Luke when you are guilty of the very same. You should seek forgiveness from your God for you have no idea what you are doing.

Also, please don't belittle my religious beliefs. Simply because I don't attend a Christian Church is no reason for you to dismiss my religion so callously.

The easiest solution is to implement marriage equality. Civil marriage is the only universal contract that crosses state lines. Your comments about common law marriage are a joke since many states don't have common law marriage.

FB said...

Gwen Araujo - engaged in sexual activity with 2 of "her" perpetrators that eventually killed him, because of false pretenses of their sexual activity.

I've seen people go crazy that their order from McDonalds was wrong. It's unfortunate, but the criminal nature of the beasts, which is no justification for the murder and you folks keep pushing this agenda to eventually blur gender completely? Do you expect folks to act reasonably when engaged in sexual activity with what they thought was a woman then found out to have male genitals?

Seriously? Is this a rallying cry for the GLT community? It's effective and I'll give you credit. The sensationalist parts of the story, like Matthew Shepard, the media loves! I never heard about Matthew Shepard's meth addiction until the trial and that never even hit the media!

Fiona, you're failing very miserably but continue to entertain me tonight. You're better than a movie because the plot twists with you better than anything Hollywood can write.

FB said...

amiworking,

GLT's aren't killed while holding up rainbow umbrellas like at that NY rally where they can't stand the truth to come out so they do everything in their power to censor what is being said. Censorship is something that Fiona totally disagrees with.

FB said...

Watch out! Bob Barnes is throwing the anti-Semite and racist card in the same blog posting! Look out! The mental capacity with the tolerance crowd is being showcased right before little ol' me!

Katie said...

fiona64, you keep saying that Jesus Christ never taught against homosexuality. I would like to point out that in John 16:13-14, Jesus told his apostles that He would send the Holy Spirit to "guide them into all truth" and that the words the Holy Spirit would speak to them would be the words of Jesus Himself.

So when the apostle Paul wrote in Romans 1:26-27 that there were "women who exchanged the natural use for what is against nature" as well as "men with men committing what is shameful", those aren't the words of a homophobe or a gay-basher. Those are the words of Jesus through the Holy Spirit. The act of homosexuality (along with a list of other activities and actions) is being taught as sinful.

The same apostle Paul, through the Holy Spirit (directed by Jesus) wrote in 1 Cor. 6:9-11 that people who practice homosexualality and sodomy, (as well as adultery and stealing and many other sins) would not inherit the kingdom of heaven. He goes on to say that "such were some of you". That sounds like Paul is writing to these Christians who used to be homosexuals but who had changed their minds and made the CHOICE not to practice it any longer.

My point is this: just because the red words in your bible don't specifically say anything about homosexuality being a sin, Jesus condemns homosexuality in the New Testament.

Katie said...

Sorry, in my 3rd paragraph, I should have said that Paul was writing to Christians in Corinth, "SOME OF WHOM used to be homosexuals". I did not mean to imply that all of the Christians in the church at Corinth had practiced homosexuality in the past.

FB said...

Katie, great post but I think I wore Fiona out and probably all her buddies. I could have used you earlier! :-)

Scott said...

You mean Saul? The guy who had an acid trip on the road to Damascus and decided he was a prophet quite a few years after Jesus died?

That guy?

I think Charles Manson did the same thing once but he never changed his name.

Scott said...

BTW, FB.

You're completely nuts, not worth engaging but totally entertaining to read.

It's like Jimmy Swaggart with a keyboard and a whole heck of a lot less money.

FB said...

Scott, you spew the same ol anti-religion vomit folks have been used to for 20 years. I thought I would inform you of your fallacy before you start actually believing what you post.

Why do folks on the left always mention drugs in their post? Why are they so occupied with getting high and getting away from reality?

Also, "heck of a lot less money"? I'm confused.

mantronikk said...

FB, What is your source of info for Matthew Shepard's meth addiction? I cover this type of info at my blog. I'm not surprised that I've never heard about this though.

fiona64 said...

Katie, I suggest that you study up on Saul (Paul) of Tarsus. He and Jesus, though contemporaries, never met. In fact, many of his teachings/letters were completely antithetical to the teachings of Rabbi Yeshua ben Yussef. Here's something that will help you:

http://wsu.edu/~dee/CHRIST/PAUL.HTM

Quote: Paul also had to deal with cultural practices among the Greeks and Romans who were forming Christian communities. It is clear that he felt that many of these practices were not only antithetical to Jewish law, but to what he considered the spirit of Christianity as well. So while Paul was magnificently tolerant of Greek practices of eating or circumcision, he did not tolerate other aspects, such as homosexuality. In pursuit of this, he took a contradictory course to his universal stance and declared salvation off-limits to an entire set of people engaged in certain behaviors. In social and political terms, his list of excluded peoples would reverberate throughout Christian history in social tensions and, in some cases, violent oppression of excluded groups.

The bulk of the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth are eschatological; he is largely concerned with individuals preparing for the end of the world. While Paul, like Jesus of Nazareth, seemed to believe that the end of the world would happen within the generation of his listeners, he nevertheless downplayed the eschatological aspects of the religion, preferring instead to focus on the personal salvation aspects of the teachings. It is Paul who is largely responsible for the individualistic and personal focus of Christianity.

fiona64 said...

Mantronnik, FB won't give you a source for his allegations about Matthew Shepard -- because he's making things up out of whole cloth to "justify" his hate speech.

"And they will know we are Christians by our love, by our love ..."

FB said...

However, folks like Fiona like to use Matthew Shepard and Eddie Araujo as poster children for their "movement" of death, disease and destruction.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2009/04/30/abc-debunks-matthew-shepard-murder-no-hate-crime-msnbc-savages-republ

http://www.aim.org/media-monitor/exploiting-matthew-shepard/

Just put in Matthew Shepard meth into Google - 15,000 hits!

FB said...

Instead, as “20/20,” explains, he was involved in a lifestyle that took him to seedy bars and wild parties, running into people like Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson, who would eventually kill him. Their motive, however, was not hatred of homosexuals but money. They wanted Shepard’s money to buy more meth.

Mel said...

Say something nice FB , go on , I dare you

FB said...

Mel, I'm praying for you. There, I said it.

Mel said...

Haha thanks

*waits*

oh flip I still like girls....

Two things;

1) Gay Bloggers WERE in fact, all over this, because the TRUTH, (which you seem terminally allergic to), is on our side, proving that the protesters were peaceful until BRIAN went OUT OF HIS WAY to goad them. A call to the local police confirmed this.

2) Two people in love kissed in public to show their love! OH MY FUCKING GOD!!! THE HORROR!!! THE HORROR!!!

Keep up the bad wor Louis, you're doing more for Gay equality than anyone. The more sane rational people that see your obvious lies and hatemongering insanity, the more people side with equality. You're our biggest asset Louis!

FB said...

The Shaman Of Hedon , two girls kissed and TOUCHED EACH OTHER SUGGESTIVELY which is in VIOLATION OF STATE DECENCY LAWS.

Why do you tolerance folks dumb down the argument to the level of an elementary school student and don't realize the ramifications of your actions. I'm very sure none of you have young children and if you did then still think thats OK, you know not what you do

mantronikk said...

I sent a private email to "Shaman." (Which isn't private anymore) Challenging her to a debate on homosexual marriage on my blog. Let's see if she has the courage to clash one-on-one.

FB said...

Example:

My child breaks something. She says that the vase just fell over.

This is how most of you see the lesbian incident.

It was a bunch of girls kissing.

Later on I find out,

My daughter was throwing a pillow around in the house, which hit the vase, causing it to fall over and break.

Those lesbians were sitting, in front of children and their parents, making out and suggestively touching themselves, in a sexual manner, in front of those people. Consequently, that is against the law in the state of Rhode Island. Cops did not do anything out of fear of 150 activists outnumbering them and the backlash by activist mouth piece groups worldwide condemning Rhode Island for enforcing the law.

If I was a cop nearby, those girls would have had some shiney bracelets and a nice car ride around town.

If the makeout and groping session was appropriate, why did one of the women stop? Answer me this, answer it directly and do not ask a question. None of you have the mental capacity to do this so I'll just leave it up to replying to something off-topic from what I am posting right now.

You are showing your true colors online and offline, that is why nobody cares about your cause. Folks are more concerned about the Gulf Oil Spill, their finances, their jobs and the cost of living rising.

fiona64 said...

Dear Mel and Shaman:

I too am praying for FB. You see, I understand people like him. Prick a homophobe and a misogynist will bleed. It's all the same: fear of those who step outside of the misogynist's prescribed little boxes for correct gender roles. FB hates me because I'm not afraid of him; a "good woman" would have gone away in tears by now. He takes every opportunity to speak hatred about me because I'm straight and married, yet I defy his hegemonistic ideas about what straight married women are supposed to do and think.

I am sure that you can see how this applies to homophobia. FB would have been perfectly fine with a straight couple kissing in front of small children, but let it be two women and "ohnoestheworldisendingWTFBBQ."

So yes, I'm praying for FB, Louis, Brian and all the others like them. It must be hard to live with so much hatred, anger and fear.

Fear is not a family value.

FB What he meant by saying you were like Jimmy Swaggert but with alot less money is that you have to use this blog to get your jollies because you do not have the money to buy a hooker to get your jollies. You get your rocks off attacking other people and trolling around this blog. What a pathetic, lonely life you must lead.

Katie said...

fiona64, you seem to be a very well-read individual. But have you read the New Testament? I have studied the life of Saul (Paul) in detail. You said that Saul and Jesus never met. They never met while Jesus was in human form on the earth, but while Saul was traveling to Damascus, he did meet Jesus. Jesus spoke to him and asked him why he was persecuting Him (Acts 9:4).

And you're correct that many of Saul's teachings were against Jesus and against Christianity, but that was before he met Jesus and was converted. After that event, you would be hard pressed to find a more active, dedicated, zealous teacher of Jesus and His word than Paul.

Do you dispute that the New Testament is inspired? I think that is the crux of the matter. If you believe that the New Testament is the inspired word of God, then you must necessarily believe that homosexuality is a sin. That's what it teaches. Just like it teaches that adultery, murder, covetousness, and stealing (among other things) are all sins.

FB said...

mantronikk , I'd like for you to debate with Fiona. Her LiveJournal account is in her profile on here and you can easily contact her. I doubt she would show up and guarantee you could Google her responses to find they were cut and pasted from a blog or website.

FB said...

I hate Fiona? Wow! She's playing that old, worn out victim card again! That card is so bent and floppy, when you throw it - it falls flat to the ground.

Fiona, post where I "hate" you. I admit, I posted that you look like Elena Kagan on my Blogspot profile to rattle your cage, but that's about it and I still do stand by my observation that you do look like Elena Kagan.

Again, Fiona cannot comprehend that a crime was committed when two lesbians touched each other in a sexually suggestive manner in front of children. It would be no different if they broadcasted pornography to children. Do you folks realize there are laws, other than over-inflated and unnecessary hate crime laws, for other folks too?

Heather, most of the folks in support of what you stand for are trollish too so don't call me a troll when most of you are trolling in a coordinated group. I'm sure you guys are exchanging messages on a forum, in an instant messenger discussion or on a social networking site, so don't try to condemn me for the same behavior that you folks engage in.

For a lot of self-proclaimed smart people, you all have errors in your thinking.

Anyone care to address my post about how my daughter broke something and there is two sides to the store or are you still trying to call me, Louis and Brian bad names which really hurt our feelings?

:-(

I cried myself to sleep last night, in the fetal position, and my keyboard is being cleaned by my tears. Stop picking on me :-( :-( :-(

fmirabilis said...

@Katie:

Your point about Saul/Paul is a very intriguing one. The coherence and believability of the New Testament epistles has bothered me quite a lot recently.

Who's to say that Paul wasn't just some lunatic who had a lucid dream after hearing of Jesus from a disciple? There must be *thousands* of people who dream of religious figures, claiming to have "visions" of them, but that doesn't mean that they are automatically granted the license to define their teachings and preach in their stead.

I don't think "St." Paul has ANY inherent credibility whatsoever. Just think about it for a moment: if someone in OUR era had such visions and authorized himself to preach directly on Jesus' behalf (saying things that even Jesus NEVER said), we would probably brand him a nutcase and relegate his novel notions to the fringes of theological thought - as many did with Joseph Smith.

Indeed, Paul can be considered the first Sunday-morning televangelist; he spouted plenty of bullspit, and the gullible believers of his time were all too happy to go along with it.

FB said...

Katie, don't get drawn into a religious argument with these folks. They're more enlightened than us - I suspect hardcore Bill Maher "Religious" watchers. That movie was HORRIBLE, but in the movie watching Maher smoke marijuana proves to me how "enlightened" he really is.

They call it "dope" for a reason.

@mantronikk Aren't you the idiot who compared gay marriage to some guy sneaking his buddy into a movie? Sure I'll "debate" you. You've already proven what a mindnumbingly out-of-touch nutcase you are, so debate isn't the right word. Verbal slaughter might be more appropriate.

my e-mail is theaerie@shaw.ca

Contact me their if you're REALLY enough of a masochist to invite a debate with me, I never check my Google e-mail, it exists solely so I can blog.

As for FB, no, they were NOT groping themselves in front of children, or the police WOULD have arrested them. Contrary to commly spread anti-gay lies, we do not masturbate or go to second base in public to be shocking. The most we ever do is kiss, and the most aggressively we kiss is no worse than any highly affectionate hetero couple ever has. Local police confirmed that report was false. It's just another example of the Anti-Gay crowd grasping at straws to exxerate fact in their favor to scare gullible folks like you into being afraid of the big scary gay folk. Why else do you think hatemongers like Peter LaBarbera and Matt Barber actually teach their followers to focus on describing gay sex as grossly as possible to ensure that their sheep think of gross nasty sex first when they hear "Gay"? Because fearmongering is the only way left they can con the sheep into donating. So sorry FB, but your own cut and paste predictable response, full of lies and exxagerations, proves you're just another sheep following a bleating goat rather than having the courage to think for yourself.

@Katie - It's been repeatedly proven that neither the old nor the new testaments actually have anything negative to say about homosexual relationships. Translation mistakes and intentional misinterpeting are required to make it appear otherwise. Anti-Gay Christians who interfere in the deciding of man's law and actively fight equality are in fact DEFYING the teachings of Jesus Christ.

fmirabilis said...

@FM:

It really doesn't benefit either side to take "body-counts" and play the victim.

The point is that people like Brian and Louis deserve every last bit of our contempt. Why? Because they actively spread lies (yes, LIES) and confirmation bias-riddled studies (e.g. those of Paul Cameron) to win over those who are too lazy to do honest research themselves. NOM's campaign wouldn't bother me half as much if they actually presented credible evidence to support their positions.

I have corresponded with Mr. Marinelli at length, enough to realize that virtually ALL of NOM's arguments are based on empty scare tactics or biblical passages (though they fervently claim to be a non-religious "coalition"). I've *repeatedly* demanded tangible proof for their claims: that gay and lesbian couples are "inferior parents," that the institution of marriage will be "destroyed" if it is redefined, that society itself will crumble at its foundations and corrupt America as we know it.

Did I get any evidence, let alone references to legitimate sources? Nope. Not a bit.

fiona64 said...

Katie, I am happy to respond to your question. I have read the Bible, from Genesis to Revelations, in more than one edition and in more than one language. I would suggest that, if you would like to read the New Testament in its original koine Greek, you take the opportunity to do so: http://unbound.biola.edu/ .

Paul had his own agenda, and preached many things that were antithetical to the teachings of Rabbi Yeshua ben Yussef.

That said, the Bible was put together by the Council of Nicea, which decided which books to put in and which to leave out. Among the books left out are the Infant Gospels of Thomas, which talk about Rabbi Yeshua's youth, and the Gospel of Mary Magdalene (who was also a disciple). Among the many things that Paul preached with were antithetical to Rabbi Yeshua's words were his attitudes about women.

People write all manner of things to explain their beliefs and call them inspired. I would say that the Christian Bible is no more or less inspired than the Qu'ran, the Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita or any other holy writings. In other words, it is a collection of ideas about spirituality during a particular time and place in history.

I am a church-going woman looks at these things from a scholarly perspective. Oftentimes, I hear or read people saying "You have to take the Bible in context." Well, I do that -- by examining the culture and the times during which it was written.

Rabbi Yeshua's teachings have tremendous value, and they are very simple: feed the hungry, comfort the afflicted (the ill, in other words), and love your neighbor as yourself. In Luke 10, Rabbi Yeshua makes a big point of teaching that *everyone* is your neighbor, not just the people who look like you, believe like you or are part of the "in crowd." In Matthew 8, he heals the centurion's "dearly beloved slave," which is a relationship that would have been understood as sexual during the time of which we are speaking.

So, again, I ask you to show me where Rabbi Yeshua (not Paul, who hated Greeks and women) spoke against same-sex relationships.

FB said...

The Shaman Of Hedon, I am speaking to the incident at Providence and not in general. Why do you folks take things out of context and blur everything?

Fiona, are you going to even reply to me or have I hurt your feelings? I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings but we're all adults here in an intellectual debate. I thought feelings were left at the door, along with our dirty shoes and hats?

fmirabilis said...

Again, just check out the types they bring in to "speak" for NOM's cause:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZ0nkykrTBw

Katie said...

fmirabillis:

I appreciate your comment. However, I don't think you're fully thinking through the implications of your conclusions about Paul.

Saul (prior to his "episode" on the road to Damascus) was one of the biggest rivals of Christianity, and hence of Jesus. He was instrumental in having Christians dragged out of their homes and thrown into prison and even killed. And he said himself that he did those things "in all good conscience". He thought he was doing what God wanted him to do.

And then all of a sudden he makes a complete 180, because of some mere dream? He becomes the champion of the very cause he was working to stamp out just because he thinks he saw a vision? He edures persecution, beatings, imprisonments, and all sorts of life-threatening situations just because he thought himself a prophet? It doesn't make sense.

fmirabilis said...

@Katie:

<<"And then all of a sudden he makes a complete 180, because of some mere dream? He becomes the champion of the very cause he was working to stamp out just because he thinks he saw a vision? He edures persecution, beatings, imprisonments, and all sorts of life-threatening situations just because he thought himself a prophet? It doesn't make sense.">>

Why not? It has happened many times before. Why do you suppose we have so many born-again Christians in our age, people who claimed to "see the light" and be "divinely inspired" to convert? I've met plenty myself.

Personally, however, I think it's more likely the Paul heard a motivational speech from one of Jesus' disciples - perhaps about Christianity's messages of forgiveness and hope for eternal life - and was thus invigorated to turn his life around. Such an experience, coupled subsequently with a powerful dream, would probably be enough to convert anyone with beliefs in the intangible.

In any case, Paul still wouldn't be the first to claim to have "changed" his ways. Two millennia ago - heck, even today - faith was the definitive part of many a man's life. Hundreds of Christians became martyrs, and many had previously been inimical to the faith.

Nevertheless, I don't buy Paul's account any more than I would Joseph Smith's - and I don't honestly see why anyone would. Just my two cents.

TRiG said...

"You seem to be unaware of who Rabbi Yeshua ben Yussef is ... and yet you call yourself a Christian."

I must say I found this exchange quite hilarious!

TRiG.

Katie said...

fiona64:

To answer your challenge, "So, again, I ask you to show me where Rabbi Yeshua (not Paul, who hated Greeks and women) spoke against same-sex relationships.", I point you to Matthew 19:4-6, where Jesus said, "...He who made them at the beginning made them male and female..." and "a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh..." These statements by Jesus define the marriage relationship.

I challenge you to show me where Jesus condoned or permitted homosexuality. I don't think you can necessarily infer from Matthew 8 that this man and his slave were sexually involved, just because it may have been a custom of the time. (It is customary during our day and time that people drink alcohol, but just because most people do, that doesn't mean that you can assume that I do).

And even if there was a sexual relationship between the centurion and his servant whom Jesus healed, Jesus' healing of the man does NOT imply that He condoned that relationship. Jesus healed all manner of people - demon possessed, lepers, lame, etc. but not because of their own virtues or faith. He healed these people because He loved them and had compassion on them, and in order to prove that He was the Son of God. It is a real stretch to say that by healing a man who may or may not have been in a homosexual relationship means that Jesus condones that lifestyle.

And another point I would like to make is that loving your neighbor does not mean you have to agree with them on all points. Agape love is not a live-and-let-live attitude. It is seeking what is best for others. I daresay that Jesus was and is the ultimate authority on love, yet it was Jesus who told the woman caught in adultery to "go and sin no more" in John 8:11. Did He love her? Yes. Did He tell her she needed to change her lifestyle? Yes.

Katie said...

And I also think, fiona64, that it is quite an accusation to make of Paul that he "hated Greeks and women". Why, then, did he go around the Roman Empire preaching and teaching and converting Greeks. And why did he stand up to the Jewish Christians for trying to force Jewish customs on the new Greek Christians? And why did he take Timothy, whose father was a Greek, with him on his journeys with him (and called him a "beloved son". Just food for thought.

fiona64 said...

Katie wrote: Agape love is not a live-and-let-live attitude. It is seeking what is best for others. I daresay that Jesus was and is the ultimate authority on love, yet it was Jesus who told the woman caught in adultery to "go and sin no more" in John 8:11. Did He love her? Yes. Did He tell her she needed to change her lifestyle? Yes.

-----

And are you, Katie, authorized to decide what is best for others? I only ask because of your comment above.

Rabbi Yeshua is not exactly silent about the things he condemns, and yet there is not one word in his teachings that discusses same-sex relationships. Sexual orientation was not understood then as we understand it today, as I previously posted. Sex was simply something that did not happen between equals. Period.

The brilliant playwright Oscar Wilde once wrote that selfishness does not consist in living as you wish to live, but in demanding that others live as you wish to live.

Why is it okay for you to demand that others live a certain way, Katie? And, if you are married, how many people got to vote on whether or not your marriage was acceptable?

I have just a couple more questions for you, Katie.

Perhaps you can show me where in the US Constitution that Christianity is the state religion or, in fact, where religion is mentioned at all in other than exclusionary terms? You see, the reason I ask is that US law is not based on your bible, and we are talking about civil law when we talk about marriage in this country.

Which brings me to my final point. If you look at the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, it says that all citizens are entitled to equal protection under the law. There is no codicil that says "as long as they are the same ethnicity as me" or "the same religion as me" or "as long as they are straight." All citizens. So, without using your Bible, which is really irrelevant to discussions of civil law, please tell me why gay men and lesbians are not entitled to equal protection under the law.

Best,
Fiona

fiona64 said...

Katie wrote: And I also think, fiona64, that it is quite an accusation to make of Paul that he "hated Greeks and women".

All one needs to do is look at Paul's own writings to see evidence of his anti-Hellenic and misogynistic attitudes.

Have a look at his first letter to Timothy for a number of examples of misogynist thought (Chapter 2 is particularly explicit). Or his letter to the Corinthians, in which he talks about how a woman doesn't even own her own body. The letter to the Romans which you cite demonstrates his anti-Greek thinking.

None of this matters, though, because we are a secular nation of secular laws. And that is what we are talking about: secular law.

Best,
Fiona

fmirabilis said...

@Katie:

<<"I challenge you to show me where Jesus condoned or permitted homosexuality.">>

Sorry to jump in, but I think there's a point to be made here, as well.

(A) Jesus never condemned homosexuality, which is quite telling in itself. If he found it such an "abomination," I think he would have made some indication thereof.

(B) Considering the virulently anti-"sexual deviance" mentality of the Jews in his time, I doubt Jesus would have been able to safely "permit" same-sex love outright. The Pharisees were intently looking for an excuse to eliminate Jesus' influence almost from the beginning of his "career"; publicly sanctioning homosexuality would probably have meant an early crucifixion for Jesus, which wouldn't exactly have been helpful in his preaching (and which would probably have cost him many followers, as well).

(C) Jesus often spoke in favor of selfless love in all its forms. If a same-sex couple is truly in love (displaying agape, i.e.), I would have a hard time imagining him condemning gay couples.

This is another reason why I fail to understand Christians' arguments to the effect of "Jesus hates the 'sin' of homosexuality": there simply isn't any evidence that he did. None whatsoever.

@fmirabilis And you never will. Why? For the same reason Marinelli will never honestly answer similar questions I asked of him. For the same reason the defendants in the Prop 8 trial bombed miserably on the stand and were forced to admit that Gay marriage will in fact financially BENEFIT society and gay families that include children are no higher risk of abuse than any straight family.

Because to HONESTLY answer our questions fmirabilis, WITHOUT resorting to discredited research or misinterpreted Bible passages, would leave them with no fallback position and they, like the Prop 8 defendants, would have to publicly concede that the facts simply DO NOT justify their actions, which in turn means admitting their campaign is driven by personal bigotry. And Louis, Maggie and Brian have all REPEATEDLY proven they simply do NOT posses the integrity to do that.

So no fmirabilis, they will NEVER answer our questions, because the day they do is the day they must accept that theirs is a doomed battle.

@FB And so was I, and you have been proven to be exxagerating what happened, and I simply elaborated on the ACTUAL incident in question by pointing out that EXACTLY that kind of exxageration about gays kissing in public is made frequently as a scare tactic, and YOU FELL FOR IT. Those two women were NOT simulating sex, they were just kissing each other passionately as do many hetero couples in public. The police made no arrest NOT out of fear of being jumped by the protesters, that claim is simply ludicrous. The police have guns, tasers and clubs, and police have NEVER been afraid to arrest a glbt protester regardless of the numbers. They didn't make an arrest because they found the claim of simulating sex to be FALSE. END OF STORY.

If you cannot accept that the FACTS don't jibe with what you choose to believe, that's your right. But as many here have successfully countered your claim, please stop repeating a proven lie, it only hurts you.

TRiG said...

Thanks, fiona, for the reminder that the Bible is completely irrelevant in this conversation. Of course, most NOM supporters would like to live in a place where everyone was compelled to follow the religious laws of one group (though, since NOM is a collection of Roman Catholics, Evangelical Protestants, and Mormons, they can't even agree which group that should be), but nowhere in the Western world is a theocracy, and that for very good reason.

We need to keep reminding them of this. It's about equality and freedom. I am not compelled to live my life in such a way as to please someone else's invisible friend.

TRiG.

fmirabilis said...

@Shaman of Hedon:

<<"So no fmirabilis, they will NEVER answer our questions, because the day they do is the day they must accept that theirs is a doomed battle.">>

True that.

FB said...

The Shaman Of Hedon, cops routinely do not make arrests out of fear when outnumbered. See also: Oakland, Los Angeles and other "diverse" inner cities. Look at that incident where a girl jaywalking got clocked by a cop in the face after she tried to assault him. His quick decision neutralized the situation.

I believe it was Portland or Seattle.

Immediately, about 20 people started to surround the police and doing their duty. One cop was arresting the girl and the other was letting the other one go while keeping an eye on the crowd.

You wouldn't know about police situations here since you are Canadian, nor should you comment and put in your two cents regarding marriage laws in the United States. You don't see me talking about Canadian economics or politics.

How about I donate to you via Paypal on your blog in exchange for your silence ;-)

Katie said...

No, fiona64, I am not qualified to tell anyone how they should live, in and of myself. But Jesus told me in Matt. 28:18-20 and in Mark 16:15 to teach people His word. So if I am speaking His words (which I believe the whole New Testament to be - see my first post above), then I can boldly and without hesitation say that homosexuality is a sin. I am not demanding that others live the way I wish. It's not about what I wish. I am simply trying to point out the the way of life under discussion here is something that God's word expressly forbids.

Therefore, I will not support any governmental law or statute that makes legal something that is forbidden in the New Testament. I don't support gay marriage anymore than I support abortion or assisted suicide.

You can attempt to separate religion from this argument if you want to. But when you remove God's law from the equation, then people can make an argument to support anything. If you take God's word out of the equation, then stealing is okay, if you really need the money. And violence is okay, if the other guy did something really bad to me first. And when I say God's word, I don't mean Catholocism or Protestantism or any other religion's "rules". I am referring to God's establishment of marriage in the beginning when He created male and female.

Katie said...

fiona64:

It's true that Paul said a woman's body is not her own in 1 Cor. 7:4. But if you look at the rest of the verse, he goes on to say that a man's body is not his own either, but his wife's (1 Cor. 7:4).

fmirabilis said...

@Katie:

<<"But when you remove God's law from the equation, then people can make an argument to support anything.">>

The problem is that this statement is clear bigotry (yes, "bigotry), whether your religion sanctions it or not.

One might as well say that we lose our moral guidance when you remove Buddhism's Eightfold Path from the "equation" or posit that, without Sharia Law, we cannot expect to survive as a nation. Such is the danger of religion in politics. Which one do you go by? Faith is not based on tangible reality, but on just that: faith.

I think that the best, simplest rule in government is simply to prevent that which causes real, observable damage or harm. Gay marriage does NOT cause harm, and - accordingly - it should not be prohibited.

Honestly. Trying to legislate against personal commitments of love and mutual security smacks of majoritarian tyranny.

fmirabilis said...

@Katie:

<<"It's true that Paul said a woman's body is not her own in 1 Cor. 7:4. But if you look at the rest of the verse, he goes on to say that a man's body is not his own either, but his wife's (1 Cor. 7:4).">>

What about Timothy, which demands that a wife "submit to her husband"?

Sorry, but you can't explain away Paul's misogyny any more than you can give him any credibility for the "Word of God."

Bob Barnes said...

Trenton:

Sad, sad numbers show up for NOM, at best 50. Let's see what lie Brian posts.

BTW, those in love with equality, 200.

What? No word from the epic fail you guys had in Trenton today where about 60 people showed up (and that is being generous from what i have heard)

Double that showed up to the counter rally...

Mel said...

Lindoro , it takes them a while to find something to try and make the counter protest look bad...because that's what it seems to be all about

fiona64 said...

Bob and Lindoro: Hand-counted numbers show 48 for NOM (of whom 28 were NOM staff; luckily, the nattily dressed Knights of Columbus showed up to swell the remaining ranks of the "rally") and 158 for Garden State Equality's town hall meeting.

fiona64 said...

Katie wrote: You can attempt to separate religion from this argument if you want to. But when you remove God's law from the equation, then people can make an argument to support anything. If you take God's word out of the equation, then stealing is okay, if you really need the money. And violence is okay, if the other guy did something really bad to me first.

Let me explain how civil law works, okay? "God's law" is irrelevant, because we are a secular nation. Those things you list as being part of "God's law"? They aren't considered crimes because of "God." They are crimes because they take away from the victim's right to life, liberty and property (as guaranteed in the Constitution).

Do you really believe that your god needs you to be a mouthpiece, Katie, such that you can say "It's not me saying gay people are icky, it's Jesus. Jesus hates them, not me. I'm just Katie, and these aren't my words." Because that's the translation of this comment: "I am not qualified to tell anyone how they should live, in and of myself. But Jesus told me in Matt. 28:18-20 and in Mark 16:15 to teach people His word. So if I am speaking His words (which I believe the whole New Testament to be - see my first post above), then I can boldly and without hesitation say that homosexuality is a sin. I am not demanding that others live the way I wish. It's not about what I wish. I am simply trying to point out the the way of life under discussion here is something that God's word expressly forbids."

I notice that you didn't respond to my point that your bible is irrelevant to civil law. Let me just remind you once again that this is the case, okay? So, again -- can you tell me, without resorting to your bible, why gay men and lesbians are not entitled to equal protection under the law of this secular nation?

TRiG said...

"I am not demanding that others live the way I wish."

Yes, you are. What part of freedom and equality do you not understand?

"It's not about what I wish. I am simply trying to point out the the way of life under discussion here is something that God's word expressly forbids."

I have no obligation to please your invisible friend. And the sooner you learn that, the happier we'll both be.

TRiG.

ChrisM said...

For Louis:

Are these the Xtian faces of tolerance? Of equality? Of love and respect? Are these the faces of a movement which prides itself in acceptace of all and of comstitutional freedoms?

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

@FB; Your arrogance is underwhelming, and hardly surprising. So I have no right or experience to comment actions because I'm Canadian?

*AHEM*

Please

kindly

go

fuck

yourself.

I suppose you think I live in an igloo too? Typical. I outargue an idiot with facts and logic so rather than concede you were mistaken you resort to childish bigoted attacks based on stereotypes.

I can comment on USA political and legal matters for three reasons;

1) I have friends in the USA this horeshit DIRECTLY HARMS.

2) Given how quickly my federal government LOVES to bend over for yours sometimes, ever stupid bonehead hate driven law passed in the USA could potentially affect the law up here. Prime Minister Stephen Harper would salivate over anything that gave him a decent excuse to revoke same-sex marriage up here.

3) Unlike you obviously, I'm constantly reading everything I can find and educating myself on issues that matter to me and to those I care about.

Your refusal to accept you have been repeatedly proven to be wrong about the conduct of the kissing lesbians, PLUS your mind-numbingly arrogant and ignorant crack about my having no basis as a Canadian to judge police behavior speaks volumes about your lack of character. Your cheap and frankly offensive attempt to bribe me into shutting up proves not only that you're a sexist pig and an idiot, but that deep down you know I'm right and you desperately need to silence me lest other people see such.

If ANYONE donates anything to MY PayPal, I'd prefer it be for honest reasons, such as to help me keep food in the house. I will NOT accept bribes, and if you attempt to send me ANY money for ANY reason other than that it will be immediately refunded.

And I will DAMNED sure never let an obnoxious arrogant self-aborbed ignorant putz like you silence me.

FB has officially surrendered any right to expect kindness or good humour from me, and will be lucky if I ever even acknowledge him again. The best way to deal with a douchebag is to ignore them.

Katie said...

"gay people are icky"??? hahahahaha

"Jesus hates gay people"???? You are twisting my words to make them say what you want them to.

The difference in me and you is that you think daily life in this great country we call home is separate and apart from God. I don't. You want to take the bible out of it, and to me, the bible is an integral part of it. So stop trying to convince me that "my bible" and "my invisible friend" have nothing to do with this. They have everything to do with it.

I'm sure we could go on debating this issue forever, but I don't really think we are getting anywhere. I don't hate homosexuals, as you are insinuating. But I won't support them in something that I feel is wrong. If you can't accept that, then you are the intolerent one.

TRiG said...

Ah, an open acknowledgement from Katie that she opposes religious freedom and supports a theocracy.

Thank you for showing so clearly your true colours as an opponent of everything admirable about your country.

TRiG.

fiona64 said...

Katie wrote: I don't hate homosexuals, as you are insinuating. But I won't support them in something that I feel is wrong. If you can't accept that, then you are the intolerent one.

ROFLMAO. It is not intolerant (note correct spelling) to point out that gay men and lesbians are being denied equal protection under the secular laws of this country (a point that you continue to ignore whilst bringing up your bible yet again).

Your right to swing your Bible, Katie dear, ends where the other fellow's nose begins. In other words, your belief system is yours, and you have every right to it -- but you do NOT have the right to try to force it on other people.

You are trying to pretend that you are not responsible for the words that come out of your mouth or fingers: "I'm not telling other people to live as I want them to. I'm just telling them what God says."

Please. I have observed for quite some time now that the people who most frequently bring up "what God wants" believe that God's desires coincide perfectly with their own.

As for your assertion about the difference between you and me? You're absolutely right that we are different, but wrong about the reason.

The difference between you and me is that I believe that everyone is equal in this great land of ours, regardless of what god they worship (or even if they worship no god), or whom they love, and that I lack the hubris to go around telling people that their life and love is lesser or wrong.

I'm good with that, frankly.

If it's not my marriage, it's none of my business. I have no desire to be some kind of proselytizing, religious buttinsky, going around telling people that their "lifestyle" (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean) is icky -- and then trying to fob off responsibility for my own words and actions on the words of some long-dead Hebrew.

fiona64 said...

TRiG said...

Ah, an open acknowledgement from Katie that she opposes religious freedom and supports a theocracy.

Thank you for showing so clearly your true colours as an opponent of everything admirable about your country.

TRiG.
----

It never takes long for a fundamentalist/Dominionist to be handed enough rope with which to hang themselves.

Katie said...

The last line of the Declaration of Independence reads: "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor." The opening line of the Declaration mentions God, as well, when it says "Nature's God entitled them" and "endowed by their Creator".

So to say that our founding fathers didn't base the fundamentals of this nation on a belief in God, is ridiculous. They had a firm reliance on "Divine Protection". Who do you think that's talking about, folks?

And that's not "bible swinging", fiona64.

Btw, fiona64, I find it ironic that you are so quick to point out the spelling errors of others, yet you are condemning me for pointing out error of a weightier kind...

fiona64 said...

Katie, thank you for allowing me to correct a gap in your understanding of history. The Founding Fathers were secular deists. They are referring to the creator of Nature, not the Christian god. If they had wanted a nation based on Christian law, they could have done so. Only one did, Patrick Henry, and he was roundly shouted down. The only times that religion is referred to in the Constitution are in exclusionary terms.

You can read more about it right here: http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html, but here's an especially good quote:

The Founding Fathers, also, rarely practiced Christian orthodoxy. Although they supported the free exercise of any religion, they understood the dangers of religion. Most of them believed in deism and attended Freemasonry lodges. According to John J. Robinson, "Freemasonry had been a powerful force for religious freedom." Freemasons took seriously the principle that men should worship according to their own conscience. Masonry welcomed anyone from any religion or non-religion, as long as they believed in a Supreme Being. Washington, Franklin, Hancock, Hamilton, Lafayette, and many others accepted Freemasonry.
Treaty of Tripoli

The Constitution reflects our founders views of a secular government, protecting the freedom of any belief or unbelief. The historian, Robert Middlekauff, observed, "the idea that the Constitution expressed a moral view seems absurd. There were no genuine evangelicals in the Convention, and there were no heated declarations of Christian piety."
----

I am sure that you are aware that treaties hold the force of law in this country, right? Well, kindly take a gander at Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html.

For those of you who are link-shy, it begins thus: Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.

BTW, the Declaration of Independence is not the basis for law in this country; it's a diplomatic "kiss off" to King George III.

I am grateful for this opportunity to share this information with you. It seems that you may have missed a few days of civics class, for which I am deeply sorry.

TRiG said...

"So to say that our founding fathers didn't base the fundamentals of this nation on a belief in God, is ridiculous."

Did anyone say that? I certainly didn't. Nor do I much care what the "founding fathers" of America believed. They were wrong about a lot of things, and right about many others. They were men of their times. Wise men, but nonetheless rooted in history. What matters is what's right and what's wrong, not what some men of historical importance thought was right or wrong. You are a freedom-hating wannabe theocrat, who thinks you should enforce your god's rules on everyone else. You are wrong, no matter whether the "founding fathers" agreed or disagreed with you.

That said, Tom Paine, at least, was no Christian. He was, though, a clear thinker and an excellent writer.

TRiG.

fmirabilis said...

I fully respect an individual's right to believe in the intangible. It's human, and it seems to be quite healthy in terms of satisfying spiritual needs. And it's only realistic that no amount of logical persuasion will ever completely dispel religion's waning hold over global audiences.


The problem arises when a particular faith begins to tangibly affect nonbelievers - let alone our entire species. Not everyone can blindly place trust in a higher power, and acting (by which I mean actual physical deeds) under the presumption that one exists is often (if not usually) irrational and impractical. Even individuals who do "acknowledge" the existence of a supreme deity do not agree on the nature of this being - creating "moral" discrepancies and delusions of "justice" that never cease to cause conflict, pain, and misery in the human race.


Naturally, the most important facets of this argument are governmental and social policy. We must act on what we KNOW will help us in the future, not on what we BELIEVE. Faith in an afterlife is, by all scientific premises, as nonsensical an assumption as the idea that the world will end in 2012 - we have nothing to prove, nothing to test, nothing to evaluate. This makes intangible belief a largely dysfunctional guideline for broad legislation and trend-setting.


In this universe, we must work to TANGIBLY better our own lives, the lives of our neighbors, and the lives of our descendants - NOT attempt to prepare for some vague, self-serving concept of "paradise." Only then will we all truly connect with reality and find common ground.

Bob Barnes said...

So Brian Brown, how are you going to turn THIS
into 200 to 250 people?

Bob

ChrisM said...

@ Kaite:

"Our civil rights have no dependence upon our religious opinions" --Thomas Jefferson

I do believe Thomas Jefferson was one of our founding fathers, the one credited with writing the Declaration of Independence you cited? I hope this clarifies his position on this matter for you.

Katie said...

I have made my point, and I don't know any other way to say it. I don't hate people. I don't hate freedom. You can call me all the names you want, belittle my intelligence, correct my spelling, and give me civics lessons. It doesn't change what the bible teaches on the subjct, and therefore what I will continue to stand up for. I will not support gay marriage because I think it's wrong. Period.

You all spout tolerance - but I'm not seeing very much of it from you. You're tolerant only of those whom you deem worthy of tolerance. I didn't make the list, and that's okay with me.

Signing off,
Katie

@katie; Religion, UNLIKE sexuality, is a CHOICE. And there is a great deal of both Testaments that has been inarguably proven inaccurate. And MANY people here have pointed out Bible FACTS that disprove the view you're clinging to, and THAT is what makes you a bigot, and yes, a hater. We do not have to tolerate bigotry because your religion supposedly commands you engage in it, especially when we've proven it does not.

When you ignore facts and insist on clinging to a proven distortion to justify your stance, you are in fact a bigot.

When you claim to love people but actively fight to prevent their equality, that is hateful behavior, NOT love.

If you cannot deal with these truths, fine. But stop forcing your beliefs on seculaqr law by copping out and claiming Jesus told you to fight to keep us second class when he did NO such thing. You have NO right to prevent our civil rights because of your religious choices.

FB said...

The Shaman Of Hedon, can you even compose a sentence without using profanity? I tried looking at your blog, which is useless blog vomit that repeats page after page, between profanity and made up words. I don't really take you seriously anymore. I found your background information about how you tried to love a man interesting but you seem like a very angry lesbian. You don't seem "gay" and happy like how homosexuals try to portray themselves to the world. I'd honestly get the chip off my shoulder first, rather than trying to be as profane as possible, which turns off people to you. Can you compose a sentence without using the F word? I was thinking about checking to see how often you use certain words on your blog but then again, I got bored with you and decided to eat cereal.

You still up for me Paypaling you some money?

FB said...

The Shaman Of Hedon, sexuality is a choice. Look at the kid who married an anime doll in Korea. Look at the guy in Japan who married a Barbie doll. Do you think they were "wired" at birth to marry dolls?

Also, don't scream that I've equated same-sex marriage to marrying dolls. I know you're going to go that route. It's very typical of you folks.

I read your lengthy blog post towards me completely. Wow. You have been trolled, you have lost, have a nice day (YHBT - YHL - HAND). You totally got trolled and I'm enjoying every minute of it. Again - you're probably the most angry lesbian I know of. Why are you so angry and don't say its because of all the discrimination you endure.

I can run circles around you all day, like I did with Fiona46, and manipulate the way you think and feel plus the way I want you to think and feel because you're my little online puppet. Every little joke, you took seriously and you're calling me a putz or a sexist pig.. classic! Now do you realize what I'm doing to you?

FB said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_6gYbcpeYE
Video of Korean marrying an "otaku" doll

TRiG said...

"I will continue to stand up for. I will not support gay marriage because I think it's wrong."

So don't have a gay marriage. Why do you want to enforce your beliefs on everyone else? When you're talking about the law of the land, you need a better reason to curtail people's freedoms than "my imaginary friend doesn't like it".


"I don't hate freedom."

No? I repeat, why are you trying to enjoin your laws on everyone else? Why do you think your religion, and no other, should dictate secular law? You want a religiously lead government. That's a theocracy. And theocracy has never been a friend of freedom.

TRiG.

FB said...

TRiG, your attacks on religion, which you cleverly disguised as "my imaginary friend" are old and boring. Please come up with a better counter argument than using this same ol junk that is just circular reasoning over and over and.. well you get the point.

fmirabilis said...

@ChrisM:

<<""Our civil rights have no dependence upon our religious opinions" --Thomas Jefferson

I do believe Thomas Jefferson was one of our founding fathers, the one credited with writing the Declaration of Independence you cited? I hope this clarifies his position on this matter for you.">>

Why do you think Texas wants to erase Jefferson from History textbooks?

...Explains a lot, doesn't it?

fmirabilis said...

@FB:

<<"Also, don't scream that I've equated same-sex marriage to marrying dolls. I know you're going to go that route. It's very typical of you folks.">>

Okay then, sir/madam.

Why should gays be bothered by this comparison? I mean, hell, their partners are all inanimate objects, no more worthy of love and respect than discarded cigarette butts on a street corner. Their affection isn't natural or legitimate; they deserve every bit of ridicule. How can anyone try to compare their unions to heterosexual marriages when they're clearly one-sided, perverse, and obviously inferior? /sarc./

Just HOW did you figure that your comment about dolls is at all relevant to this discussion - let alone rational and humane? When you draw any sort of parallel between genuine, mutual same-sex love and and some kid's otaku fetish, how can you expect people not to call you down for "hate" and "bigotry"?
You've made your bed, so you ought to try sleeping in it.

For reference, all legitimate scientific evidence indicates that homosexual attraction is not a choice - no more than heterosexual attraction is. Studies in brain chemistry and structure, pheromonal responses, and prenatal hormone patterns all point to the relative "innateness" and immutability sexual orientation. Attempts to change such a natural facet of being are, more often than not, quite harmful in themselves.

It is indeed strange that millions of gays, lesbians, and bisexuals can attest to the fact that they had no say in the formation of their sexual orientations - and that thousands of SSM opponents can carelessly spit in the face of solid testimony and deliberate scientific research when confronted with these accounts.

But even if it were a choice, why oppose same-sex marriage? Even the Korean guy - if he's happy in his relationship, unofficial and unique though it may be, who are you to interfere?

FB said...

Well if a Korean guy can marry a doll, what stops folks from marrying an animal, like a horse?

Timothy Kincaid said...

In all the discussion about what Jesus did or did not say, we forget that while he perhaps did not directly address what we call homosexuality, he DID address the One Man, One Woman paradigm. He reminded his listeners that such a way of thinking is too narrow for God.

While they were obsessing about rules over marriage, Jesus said that some will not fit those rules because of how they were born, or how they became, or even how they believe. These "non one man, one woman heterosexuals" - what were called in his day eunuchs, which included not only those incapable of sex but those without heterosexual desire - were included in Jesus' paradigm.

But, in Jesus' wisdom, he said "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given."

It is difficult for many Christians to accept the teachings of Christ. So He was compassionate even to those who don't "have ears to hear" and cannot think outside of the rigidity of The Law and their own fears.

TRiG said...

FM, your attacks on equality and human rights, which you don't bother to disguise at all, are old and boring. Please get over the idea that your religious beliefs have any relevance at all in secular law.

TRiG.

fmirabilis said...

@FB:

<<"Well if a Korean guy can marry a doll, what stops folks from marrying an animal, like a horse?">>

You do realize how idiotic this "slippery slope" idea is, right? People were saying the exact same things when the oh-so-scary concept of interracial marriage became legal.

Consider:

(A) The Korean kid's marriage to the dakimakura doll was not a *civil* union, but rather performed in a local church - neither benefits nor legal legitimacy were conferred on the "marriage." Your example is completely irrelevant from a legislative standpoint.

(B) Popular opinion of bestiality, pedophilia, etc. is completely against these behaviors for a clear, sensible reason: simply put, they cause harm to one (or more) of the parties involved. One can neither obtain sexual consent from a dog nor from a child - let alone an informed, deliberate agreement to a long-term commitment. Homosexual relationships, which are mutual "contracts" between two loving adults, pose no threat to society or to either party's well-being. (Before you attempt to argue that homosexuality is "unhealthy," recall that most cases of STDs result from unsafe or careless sex practices or sheer promiscuity, not from same-sex intimacy itself. Same-sex marriage could ultimately only *reduce* the prevalence of the HIV virus and related illnesses.)

(C) Consensus among psychological and psychiatric professionals (excluding radical outsiders like Hansen, Cameron, and Nicolosi) maintains that homosexuality is not a harmful or destructive aberration from the heterosexual "norm," while bestiality and pedophilia are unanimously agreed to be deleterious paraphilias.

Lets take this ONE issue at a time. From reading your posts, I can deduce that you are probably an intelligent individual - so why do you fall so readily for NOM's blatantly fallacious scare tactics?

TRiG said...

"radical outsiders like Hansen, Cameron, and Nicolosi"

I've not heard of Hanseen. I know that Nicolosi has been less than professional. And Cameron has been completely discredited. A lot of his "research" was just blatant lies.

(In other questions, why doesn't Blogger support the blockquote tag?)

TRiG.

fmirabilis said...

@TRiG:

Trayce Hansen is a right-wing cultural commentator with a Ph.D. in psychology (in other terms, she's a self-proclaimed "expert scientist" with an obvious political agenda). She's on the board of the American College of Pediatrics, a roundly discredited special interest group notorious for its methodical attempts to reclassify homosexuality as a "disorder." Hansen has been known to cite fringe studies based on Freud's theory of psychosexual development (which the vast majority of contemporary psychologists know to be obsolete and unproven) and to misinterpret legitimate studies (such as that of Francis Collins of the NIH) as she sees fit.

Accordingly, she's a favorite among the anti-gay crowd.

Nicolosi, the director of NARTH, also depends largely on Freudian hunches and untested assumptions, and he has been known to cite Cameron (never a good sign) and occasionally refer his "patients" to Exodus International (probably worse). He remains convinced that homosexuality arises as a consequence of an absent father and a domineering mother, a theory that has not only been discarded but widely mocked, as well. Nicolosi's other glaring errors include confirmation bias, clinical malpractice, and a laughable failure to realize that correlation does not imply causation.

And Paul Cameron...yeah, we know enough about that quack. ;)

As a psychologist myself, I'm pretty ashamed to know some of these people personally.

Jude said...

Louis, it's Jude. Sorry I haven't been around. You haven't gotten any mainstream press and you've been pretty boring. But, keep up the good work. You are doing more to unite the gay community and we really need that. How sad for you that the only people listening are LGBT.

@FB - "The Shaman Of Hedon, sexuality is a choice. Look at the kid who married an anime doll in Korea. Look at the guy in Japan who married a Barbie doll. Do you think they were "wired" at birth to marry dolls?"

Um... Nice try but the fail in that statement is about on par with everything that comes out of your keyboard; Complete worthless troll crap by an idiot in his Mommy's basement trying to boost his own ego by posting stupid bullshit online.

"Also, don't scream that I've equated same-sex marriage to marrying dolls. I know you're going to go that route. It's very typical of you folks."

About as typical as you saying something mindnumbingly stupid and then not expecting your intellectual superiors to pwn you dissecting it while you convince yourself you're the one doing the pwn'ing.

"I read your lengthy blog post towards me completely. Wow. You have been trolled, you have lost, have a nice day (YHBT - YHL - HAND). You totally got trolled and I'm enjoying every minute of it. Again - you're probably the most angry lesbian I know of. Why are you so angry and don't say its because of all the discrimination you endure."

Um.... Dude? The fact I CALLED you a worthless troll kinda already reveals that I know you're a troll TRYING (not succeeding) in trolling me. So with that statement you just put yourself in the category of trolls that fail so bad at trolling that 4Chan mocks them.

"I can run circles around you all day, like I did with Fiona46, and manipulate the way you think and feel plus the way I want you to think and feel because you're my little online puppet. Every little joke, you took seriously and you're calling me a putz or a sexist pig.. classic! Now do you realize what I'm doing to you?"

I direct you thusly to This Cracked.com page which effectively sums up that statement. Specifically I direct you to #1 in the graph picture that begins the article, "Winning By Losing". This is you in a nutshell. And guess what? Everyone is laughing AT you now. You have been pwned and the more you protest that this was your trolling goal all along, the more lulz will be had at your expense by people far better and smarter than you, because you have failed epically and irredeemably.

You have a lovely day now. Remember to wash your hands before you watch TV though, you know how much your mom hates Cheeto stains on the remote.

Oh and by all means, waste money on my PayPal. It won't shut me up since I'm, y'know, right about everything I've said here, but it'll make you feel better about being so completely owned by your own stupidity.

Enjoy that dancing around me there boyo, just remember; I'm the DJ.

mantronikk said...

The She-man Of Hedon.

Says the idiot who compared gay marriage to sneaking into an IMAX theatre and who links to proven liars to back up the bullshit lies in his blog. I'll bet good money you're just another sad troll like FB trying to get some lulz. Kinda fail though when no one's laughing WITH you.

mantronikk said...

To "The She-man Of Hedon,"
Once again you intentionally mischaracterize someone who disagrees with you. I simply asked you what you would do if you bought a ticket to an IMAX feature and sat down and saw someone let their friend in through an exit door and the pair sat next to you and began yacking on their cell phones during the movie. You can't give me a straight answer because the obvious answer to my scenario will collapse the homofascist philosophy that guides your life. :)

Mischaracterize my ass.

AND I QUOTE.

"The Shaman Of Hedon"! Don't you mean, "The She-Male On Heroin"!! OMG!!! I'm laughing hysterically...typing through tears...

Yeah, I've mischaracterized you as a juvenile hateful idiot.... riiiiiiight.....

I can answer any question you ask and your ONLY rebuttals are juvenile insults. I DID answer that movioe question the only way it CAN be answered; By pointing out what a stupid question it was. It isn't in ANY way a fair comparison, it's a question DESIGNED to distort the debate. And I answered that, since gay couples will pay all the same fees and taxes as het couples, the question id irrelevant to the gay marriage debate because the comparison you make CANNOT be logically or rationally compared to allowing gay marriage. The question is asinine. Besides, if two idiots did that in a theatre I'd just get the manager. The idiots in the theatre are not fighting for equality, they're just breaking the law and being morons, kinda like you. It has NO connection or relation to allowing gay marriage which WILL NOT harm you, religion or society in any way. Canada PROVES this.

Now shut the hell up little boy, you just keep losing, badly. How much more do you want me to embarass you before you realize that your weak attempts to twist and distort things hoping it will look like you outwitted me are only making YOU look more and more like a desperate liar who can't come up with a rational logical argument to defend your bigoted stance and thus has to resort to baffling analogies, distortions, lies and grade school insults to try and discredit those who have simply out-debated you?

TRiG said...

"The She-man Of Hedon"

Is it just me, or is this the sort of asinine humour one might have expected most six-year-olds to have grown out of?

Shaman, you do well. Keep up the good fight.

TRiG.

Yes Trig, it's the rebuttal of an emotional 12 year old. We all know his kind. When they know deep down they're in the wrong and cannot win a debate with logic or facts because neither support their case, they either insult you childishly like FB and Manntronik, and act like worthless internet trolls, or, like Louis, they try their best to just outright ignore you and hope you'll go away.

But TRUTH will NEVER go away, and as long as hateful idiots lie to screw over my brothers and sisters in the USA, I will continue to confront them with the cold hard TRUTH until they wise up or I'm dead.

Post a Comment

 
 
 

November 2010

Support Marriage

Sign Our Petition