NOM rallies supporters in Albany despite rude interlopers

Saturday, July 17, 2010

After a day off and a night spent in downtown Albany, we were back at it this afternoon with a rally set up in front of the Capital Building in Albany, NY.

Local supporters were happy with the turnout, explaining that downtown Albany is a "ghost town" on weekends.

Brian Brown kicked-off the rally shortly after two under the hot sun, thanking all in attendance for everything they did back in December, 2009 when the same-sex marriage bill was coming up for a vote and the majority party was claiming they had the votes to pass the bill. It was because of the phone calls marriage supporters like those in attendance made the night prior to the vote that the bill was ultimately defeated.

After that, Mr. Brown introduced Dr. Jennifer Morse of the Ruth Institute. She went on to make the points that kids need a mom and a dad and that moms and dads are not interchangeable. She said if you look at the studies that the gay lobby put out, they want you to believe that the only good man is a gay man.

It was also during Dr. Morse's speech that that very same gay lobby decided to interupt our rally.

Marching in organized single-file lines bearing umbrellas, the activists marched from behind and took over the stage where Dr. Morse and the other speakers were to be speaking. They didn't make much noise but did monopolize the stage area. Apparently, they were there without a permit which caused a few State Troopers to arrive and inform that they could not rally at that time and location without a permit. The police left the scene shortly afterwards, leaving the homosexual activists surrounding the podium.

Dr. Morse welcomed them and the marriage supporters and continued with her message. The protesters got close but for the most part remained silent. For the most part. I'll get into that later on.

By the way, the boy in the bright blue shirt standing up close to get a good picute is Danny Segura from an organization promoting the homosexual agenda who are paying for Mr. Danny to travel around the country with the Summer for Marriage Tour.

He lurks around throughout the rallies and then interviews those who attended afterwards looking for them to say something that they can skew and use against the National Organization for Marriage and the cause to protect marriage.

So far no problem. But I would like to highlight two aspects of their counter-protest which raised alarm. The first, as you can see in the picture to the left, they brought some dogs with them.

Now if this isn't a bullying tactic, I don't know what is. I mean, look at this dog they've got standing with them. Luckily, he was on a leash.

So much for the "equality for all" slogans they toss around. Must be equality for all who support the homosexual agenda because, as you will see, the activists who surrounded our rally with their rainbow umbrellas were rude and disrespectful to one of our supporters.

Sitting on the grass with her three young kids, Maria, pictured to the right, was prohibited from viewing the rally from this line of homosexual activists who refused to move over a few feet to allow for a line of vision for the nursing mother. She asked them and we also asked them to stand slightly to the left or right out of respect for Maria but they wouldn't budge. One of them even threatened us when we asked them to move over. One of those 'you better not touch us' lines. Really classy.

But that's not it. After we were unsuccessful at getting them to move over for Maria, it gets worse. If you noticed, I mentioned that Maria is a nursing mother. I did that for a reason. During the rally, Maria asked the protesters to at least turn around and face the rally so that she could nurse her baby. They refused and said that if she wanted to nurse her baby that she should get up, pack up and move elsewhere. Maria told me she was frightened by the activists.

Aside from that the activists themselves started marching around the outside of the rally area after Brian issued a call to those in attendance to take action by signing up with the NOM team.

They marched around in a single-file line shouting "Martin Luther King supported equality for all" at the top of their lungs over and over again. Kind of ironic because Martin Luther King's niece, Alveda King, is a strong supporter of traditional marriage. We turned up the music and signed up more supporters.

145 comments:

Anonymous said...

Equal as long as you include them.... The harassment I'm afraid will get worse before it gets better. Thank You all for standing up for the people who can't stand people who wish we would not be here.

Anonymous said...

Frankly ,I don't believe anything that you type in this hate blog anymore .

Merk said...

If they are bringing dogs they were expecting to start a fight, expecting to need protection from their deliberate attempt to anger people.

Anonymous said...

Remain strong Louis. We continue to see who the real "haters" are. These people are freaking pathetic!

Anonymous said...

Haha... "hate blog." That cracks me up. Next time someone disagrees with me I'm going to call them hateful too.. because that's such an accurate representation of disagreement.

Good job, NOM supporters!!! Keep up the good work and don't be intimidated!

Anonymous said...

Thank you for standing up what is right. They need to get their facts straight on Martin Luther King. I notice that they picked on a woman with kids with her as to a man that could have put them in their place.

Felix said...

I was there today and I can honestly say that most of what is described here didn't happen how this guy is describing it

Jason said...

All these anonymous comments in support of NOM are probably James Preece and Louis HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA#

Anonymous said...

First, I support marriage between one man and one woman only.

The problem I have with the blog is it made it sound like pit bulls or other attack breed dogs were brought to the rally. The dogs in the picture are black labs. Black labs are not used as attack dogs. To top it off, one of the dogs is old (lots of gray on the muzzle) and underweight (probably due to age related illness).

Anonymous said...

The one dog to the far right is a black lab the one to the left is not a black lab..more like a mixed breed. And I have had black labs come at me when I'm walking down my road..that's the first time in my life I have ever been scared of dogs!!! Dogs can be mean..labs or not!!! People need to stand up for what they believe in, but do it the right way!!! Go NOM!!!

Fabula Mirabilis said...

Sorry, Louis. You're wrong again.

Did you not know that Coretta Scott King, MLK's widow, was a strong supporter of same-sex marriage? She even compared the anti-gay movement to anti-Semitic and racist campaigns in the past, saying that her husband would have supported LGBT equality as well.

Yes, I think Rev. King would have seen right through this delusional "protect traditional marriage" foolishness.

Anonymous said...

You know what's most offensive to me about the NOM tour? All those images of "traditional families" on the side of the RV.

It's not that they aren't beautiful pictures - they certainly are. But the message behind them is clearly that these families are somehow "under attack," that GLBTQ citizens want to "break up" heterosexual marriages.

Nothing could be further from the truth, and it's extremely insulting to anyone who knows better. It just goes to say that NOM is incapable of making any arguments without its trademark scare tactics.

Anonymous said...

What disgusting hypocrisy. NOM itself is largely constituted of a bunch of rude, uninformed interlopers.

Get a life, Marinelli, and stop trying to ruin other peoples'!

Anonymous said...

What disgusting hypocrisy. NOM itself is largely constituted of a bunch of rude, uninformed interlopers.

Get a life, Marinelli, and stop trying to ruin other peoples'!

Shirley said...

May those who stand for NOM stand strong and not cave into scare tactics.
The dogs may be black labs but not everyone understands the nature of a black lab so at best it is a fear factor.
My heart breaks for those who have bought into the lie of the gay and lesbian lifestyle.

Harry said...

What?! Those dogs look perfectly innocent. Since when are black labs not allowed at a public gathering? Not to mention that one of the people holding them seems to be no older than 13...
REALLY, Louis? I agree with Anonymous (a few posts above). When all NOM has is scare tactics, how can you possibly cry "foul" when two harmless dogs show up at a rally?

Honestly. Some people only see what they WANT to see.

Anonymous said...

homosexuals are not a race, not supporting their lifestyle is not racism. Homosexuality is a choice and a wrong one. They can practice whatever they want behind closed doors but i don't want to hear about or ever have my children learn about it in school.

Anonymous said...

My heart breaks for all those who have bought the lie of anti-gay bigotry, who live in fear because the actually believe the lies and scare tactics of groups like NOM

Anonymous said...

praying.

Anonymous said...

Even if the incident with the woman and her baby did happen , from what I've read on various websites about NOM they have shown far more hate and done far worse things than blocking a woman's view . There is no proof that she was nursing her baby anyway but Maria if you're reading and it did happen , then I apologize on behalf of everyone (I wasn't there so I don't know what happened truthfully)

As for the dogs , I suspect you are just using the dogs presence there to convince people of the "scariness" of homosexuals , the trouble with NOM isthey use all sorts of dirty tricks to suck people in like posting biased or incorrect statistics and links to questionable websites so you never know if they are telling you the absolute truth .

By the way , you need to sack your administrators who control your Facebook page because there are a lot of things which should be deleted there .

Taylor said...

Seriously two dogs on a leash, in a park, on a summer's day is cause for alarm? Really? All I can say is you better not walk into any park in NYC when the weather is nice, or you'll die of fright. Dogs everywhere.

Looking at the picture of the "nursing" mother. It appears to me had she gotten up and walked about 20 feet to her right she would have had a perfectly fine view of the what ever it was she wanted to see.

For those who are interested, and LOUIS you should be. Here's a link to a site that has a full range of quotes from not only Coretta Scott King, but others who were very active in the civil rights movement.

http://www.soulforce.org/article/766

Here are a few quotes from Mrs. King:

"I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice... But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King, Jr., said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere' ... I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King, Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brotherhood and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people."

and this;

"Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protection, whether by marriage or civil union. A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing, and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriages."

and this;

"Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood. This sets the stage for further repression and violence that spread all too easily to victimize the next minority group."

So Louis, before you get too overjoyed with the "irony" of Dr. King's niece being a supporter of "traditional" marriage. Take a look at the above site, and look at what people who actually were in the forefront of the civil rights movement have to say.

Leo Ribeiro said...

I love it how NOM supporters seem to believe that homosexuality is a Choice. It is not. Its not our lifestyle either. Its our LIFE.

Imagine... Just IMAGINE if it were the opposite. If your bible or whatever sacred book you believe in determined that in order for you to take part in society, you would have to have a homosexual relationship. WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO??? Could you, for the sake of religion, go against your NATURE?

I cant either.

Just think about it.

If you are able to do such thing.

Anonymous said...

Leo , very well put :)

Jude Stevens said...

Hey Louis. It's me, Jude. I have never heard such bellyaching over nothing. Two dogs on a leash are a threat? You are out in public. Do all of you traditional marriage supporters cringe in fear of dogs when you go out in public? "If that's not a bullying tactic, I don't know what is?" You have got to be kidding me. Louis, even you are not that stupid. No one is. Bullying tactics? Ever hear of what happened to Matthew Shepard? Beaten and tied to a fence and left to die?
People who would not turn away when a woman is nursing? Most women who nurse cover themselves with a blanket. The idea that she was afraid of people who never touched her is just insanity.

You need to get some therapy for your fear. Or perhaps you could simply stop lying, exxagerating and twisting information.

And your Dr. Ah yes. Maybe she should read studies that prove that two women are actually better parents than straight couples and that gay men spend more quality time with their children.

Louis. You have nothing. Absolutely nothing. You are trying to deny people rights who have done nothing to you. And you expect them to just go along with it. You know full well that you are making up stuff. I just cannot figure out why you spend so much time and energy wanting to hurt others. What caused all this Louis? I'm serious.

Bob Barnes said...

And the only game NOM and Louis know how to play is feigning victim. You mean someone brought their dogs? Really, wow, that's unheard of. Have you seen the guns at a Tea Party rally?

You guys are now beyond pathetic... and every time you say something stupid, like "homosexual agenda" we win just a little bit more.

You guys are missing the point. THEY HAD DOGS!!!!

BIG SCARY GAY ACTIVIST LABRADOR RETRIEVERS!!!

YOU CAN SEE THE CONTEMPT FOR THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE IN THEIR DOG EYES. I"M FRIGHTENED!

What next? It's only a matter of time until someone brings a ball, or some kind of sharp frisbee to one of these outdoor activities - and those things can REALLY HURT!!!!

BE AFRAID.

Anonymous said...

You are ALL pathetic! Homosexuality IS a CHOICE! Marriage between a man and a woman is God's way of procreation. Tell me, can two women have a baby between the two of them? How about two men? Hardly! Rediculous! Get a life in Jesus and you will be set free of the lies of the deceiver SATAN!

Anonymous said...

All you gay supporters will burn if you don't repent. Same goes for all the sexual deviants.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 10:50pm


Have you not heard of turkey basters ?

Please learn how to spell ridiculous or Satan will get you

Anonymous said...

I heard RI was cancelled due to the large number of protesters coming! Apparently NOM is going to blame the heat for cancelling. YOU heard it here first!

Anonymous said...

Same goes for bad spellers and holy rollers who act like they are holy but molest children and cheat on their wives. I hope Luis gets punched in the face on this tour!!!

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm

HeyYa said...

"...and they kissed one another and wept with one another, until David exceeded."

Scott said...

Ah yes, I see the above poster is the true face of NOM.

Anonymous said...

I have alot of Gay friends and like God I love them. And they respect me and my belifes, I dislike who mean these people have been at your rally. Yes they have a right to say what they like but to disrespect another human being, and her rights to nurse is wrong. And from what I see of the photo she was being respectful herself by doing such where others would not be offended (because some people can be by that) So to disrespect some one being respectful is more then wrong, I feel bad for her kids as well to see such a bad show of character. They are Gods children too and i am sorry to see so many hurtful people when I know so many kind ones, gay straight or bi.

God loves all of us, but he dislikes when we go against his laws, every one no matter how hard they try do mess up. I hate to see even my friend go against that :( but I will be there and love them hoping they will see Gods love <3

homer said...

Ohmigod, what if those homosexuals had brought POODLES to the rally! Poodles with cute ribbons in their hair!!!! I don't know what horrible things would have happened!!!!!

GimmeABreak said...

You call that proof?? Those dogs could have been from a passerby, I saw no signs below the waist!!
All your shots are narrow, showing how small your supporters were, and how far away the alternate point of view people were.

Your hate knows no bounds, and you will twist anything to suit your own agenda. YOU people make me sick.

Louis is a cowardly hypocrite. He proved as much to me over a Twitter exchange. I asked him to give me a mature honest answer not based in religion, why my lesbian marriage will harm society or him. He weaselled out of giving any answer by saying since I'm not really married, he doesn't need to discuss my marriage because it would be antithetical. I showed him my Canadian wedding liscence. He dismissed it as a worthless meaningless piece of paper, and again dodged the question, being typically rude and hateful. So I blogged about it. He didn't like how the blog entry clearly revealed his hateful bullying hypocrisy and his fear of honesty, so he mumbled off a victimhood tweet and dared me to post our ENTIRE Twitter exchange so people could see who the "real hateful bully" was. Not expecting me to call his bluff, I scared him off completely when I said if he just gives me an honest answer to my original question, I'd do a blog entry of EVERY tweet he and I traded, in order. Oh and his first defense was claiming he's not a religious or Christian organization so pointing out Bible proof he's wrong meant nothing to him.

Now, as for the photographic proof of his claims. Louis is a decent photographer I'll give him that. His pics are all very cleverly lined up to create whatever illusion he wants. But he's not great at it, because he makes mistakjes that belie his lies.

Remember please that I am a top grade photographer from 3 years of video and still photography classes at BCIT as I analyze this.

Photo 1; Notice he makes it seem like more than 30 people showed up by carefully photographing the first row from an upward angle, just in front of the knees of the guy at the end of the line, aimed mostly towards the head of the guy at the other end in the second row. This is an old and common camera deception, designed specifically to give the visual cues to whoever sees the picture to make it look less sparse and thus trick your mind into imaging a much bigger crowd. So the NOM rally looks like it attracted hundreds, when maybe 30 people showed up at all.

Anonymous said...

OMG!!! They brought the family pet! How insidious of them!!!!

Good thing they didn't bring along their gerbils and fish too!

Photo 2 - Failure. You just make her look completely alone and abandoned up there, she hardly looks like her message is supported.

Photo 3 - HUGE failure. Louis tried to make the protesters look rude and ominous by taking a low angle shot so they'd seem bigger than the speaker and appear threatening and imposing, but he failed to notice their backs are all turned. There is nothing LESS threatening than a guy with his back to you, wide open for you to stab him in it. Which of course you do figuratively every day right Louis boy?

Photo of big scary dogs - AGAIN, failure. While he tries to focus on the dogs, he makes a mistake his prior pictures should have alerted him to easily had he the actual talent to pull these frauds off. He let the dog-ownwers hands, shorts and legs be seen in his shot. This is photographic proof taken by his OWN camera that he made this up. Those dogs belong to park goers. He asked for a picture because they were wearing shorts like the protesters, but the protesters all stuck together for unity, they NEVER strayed off into smaller groups, safety in numbers. They stay close knit in case a nom supporter gets militant and starts a fight. And yes Lou, it WILL be a NOMmer who eventually throws the first punch. So knowing this, why are the dog owners not with the other protesters clearly visible behind them? Why do their shorts not exactly match those worn by any of the protesters? Because they were NOT protesters. They were two folks walking their dogs and not even close enough to the couple dozen NOM supporters to scare anyone.

And finally, the poor picked-on breastfeeding mother... who is.... neither breastfeeding in that pic... nor very upset. God Louis you're not even trying anymore. That woman, first of all, was clearly just a mother taking her family to the park. Second, she has a smile on her face so she's clearly not upset by the protesters. Third, the protesters you AGAIN shoot from a low angle to create the big threaten imposing figure illusion, are spaced vidibly far enough apart that the woman could see past them with no problem. Yes Lou, the smiling woman chatting with the polite respectful protesters seems so put off and upset by her inability to see a rally she wasn't attending to begin with.

So, once again, someone with a brain who actually *GASP* uses it has easily dissected Louis' dishonesty and scare tactics, revealing his hatemongering dishonesty and bigotry exposed for all to see.

Oh and by the way? Jesus preached AGAINST marriage, calling it an institution of Man's Law that corrupted love by overriding it with jealousy and fights over land and finances. So, santity of marriage as ordained by God? Try again whackadoodles, it's yet ANOTHER hateful lie that doesn't hold of to an educated brain.

Anonymous said...

I am 100 percent for marriage between a man & a woman only.
Does this mean that I hate gay people?
Absolutely not. I've even had gay friends.
I do not support their lifestyle, but I do not condemn them either, because that is something Jesus wouldn't do; And I am a srong believer and follower of Him. You may strongly dislike this Louis guy, but please do not generalize all Christian's just because you do not like him specifically. because I assure you, we are NOT all the same.

Anonymous said...

I meant to put *Strong

mantronikk said...

Shaman of Hedon, I have a question for you concerning homosexual "marriage." How would you feel if you bought an expensive ticket to an IMAX movie and, after you were seated, you saw a person get up and let their friend into the theater via the exit door, and the two sat down next to you and began talking loudly on their cell phones after the movie began?

JT said...

Gee, isn't it funny, the local tv channels newscasts didn't mention anything about the police being called in because of permits, and the size of the crowd for NOM didn't look like more than 35 people, tops.

It's just too bad that so many of the NOM supposed supporters leave messages anonymously here. I'm not ashamed of who I am. Too bad so many of you are.

As for the Bible, most of the quotes that are used against gay marriage come from the Old Testament, which for Christians was replaced by the New Testament. The only quotes from the New Testament that get used are definitely not part of the Gospels, which are supposed to be the lessons Christ himself taught. I find it ironic that the only thing Christ mentioned over and over was LOVE, something most of you are sorely lacking.

Bluto said...

The fags are coming! The fags are coming! LMAO @ the NOMbies. Indeed, the storm appoaches you & your 10's of followers, you deceitful, lying, hate mongering, bigoted assholes.

Anonymous said...

Shaman of Hedon,

You asked in reference to the 4th picture, "So knowing this, why are the dog owners not with the other protesters clearly visible behind them? Why do their shorts not exactly match those worn by any of the protesters?"

Look more carefully at the details of the pictures.

1st and 4th pictures - The 1st through 5th rally attendee in the front row of the first picture are the same as the 2nd through 6th people behind the person with the dogs in the 4th picture. They are NOT protesters.

3rd, 4th and 5th pictures - In the 3rd and 5th pictures the protesters are wearing varying colors of shorts or pants, but they are all wearing white t-shirts. The person with the dogs in the 4th picture is wearing a white t-shirt.

4th and 5th pictures - The 5th protester in the 5th picture has shorts with a similar pattern as the person with the dogs in the 4th picture.

4th picture - the un-tucked white t-shirt on the person with the dogs is positioned to reveal a rainbow belt.

Anonymous said...

The homosexuals dont care about marriage.It's just the devil in them wanting to destroy one more of Gods laws. They ask for respect and equality,but what they really want is to destroy Christians and moral thinking people.They can say that they want marriage, but all they want is for their deviant lifestyle to be considered normal.But God and those who truly serve him will never accept them, unless they turn away from their wicked lives and seek him.

Oh, one last note. Look CAREFULLY at the "nursing mother" picture. See WAAAAAY in the back there? Upper left corner? To the right and rear of the mother from her position? Yeah that's the NOM bus and the building holding the NOM Rally. The only view those guys might be blocking is of more grass. Also, unless women are suddenly growing nipples on top of their shoulders, that woman is NOT nursing.

Catching Louis and NOM lying FTW!!!

cosmic chaac said...

Black labs are threatening? Are you serious. They might lick you until you laugh, but that is about the only damage the would cause. If they were attack dogs, do you think that there is some magical potion that "The Gays" sprinkle on their fur to keep them from attacking the other counter-protesters, who were standing a lot closer to them then the people in the lawn chairs or standing behind a podium. As for the nursing woman, she could move. She could move closer to the crowd of 20 or so folks who were there to listen to the NOM people preach on making a class of tax-paying, law abiding, courageous and proud Americans second class citizens.

So a niece of MLK doesn't like gay people. I have a niece who drinks too much and is a horrible single Mom, one who is a Christian and bitter about her life, and another who seems pretty content. What does that have to do with anything. MLK worked with Bayard Rustin to organize the Montgomery Bus Boycott and the 1963 March on Washington - Bayard Rustin, an openly gay man. Coretta Scott King, MLK's wife who had a value system much closer to her husband's, was a strong supporter of gay rights. She also stated that MLK would have been a champion of gay rights if he was still alive.

NOM meanwhile is running around in a gas hog van, with photographs of models being used illegally (they are not one man/one woman supporters, but stock photos that NOM is using violating the law), stuffing their pockets full of cash from vulnerable seniors and the under-educated who are fearful because they have been taught that "homosexuals don't care about marriage - it is just the devil in them...wanting to destroy Christians and moral thinking people". America is for ALL people, not just a subset of Christians (and not all or even most Christians are afraid or hate gays). It is insane to think gays and lesbians are trying to destroy anyone. We are not of one mind to begin with, but we are asking for equality, not taking away anything from anybody, and anyone who tells you differently is lying and distorting the truth to frighten you. Then they will ask you to give them money.

cosmic chaac said...

"They marched around in a single-file line shouting "Martin Luther King supported equality for all" at the top of their lungs over and over again. Kind of ironic because Martin Luther King's niece, Alveda King, is a strong supporter of traditional marriage. We turned up the music and signed up more supporters."

Turn up the music all you want, you can't drown out the truth. Not wanting to hear the truth is not the same thing as it not being the truth.

"Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood", she stated. "This sets the stage for further repression and violence that spread all too easily to victimize the next minority group."
~ Coretta Scott King

"Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protection, whether by marriage or civil union. A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriage."
~ Coretta Scott King

Bob King said...

Fortunately for me, you don't have to be this fixated on the bedroom habits of other people to be happily married. Hm. Or is the "happy" part optional? Seems to me all this bitterness and hatred must ooze out all over everything. And that really *could* affect your relationships. So I suppose in that bizarre way, the homosexual lifestyle does threaten your marriage.

Not in any sense that makes sense to rational people, but it's clear you *think* you are making sense.

Jonathan said...

I have nothing against Christians who know the real truth of Jesus was to love one another.

I know many wonderful Christians who do not condemn, they have gay friends, brothers, sisters, etc. My in laws lesbian sister is a minister in her church. Do you think she is less in tune with God because of whom she loves?

Most gay people are very loving people, just as most Christians can also be very kind.

Gays have been driven from churches due to indifference and condemnation. If the Eveangelical Lutheran Church can change, I'm sure others religious people can open their hearts and change also.

Anonymous said...

A storm is gathering, and I am afraid.

Vicious, evil, daunting labrador retrievers are descending upon us, creating a perfect storm of...barking...and...requiring pooper-scoopers.

Anonymous said...

Peter, Paul, and Mary are staunch supporters of GLBT Rights. Can't NOM get anything right?

admin said...

You are creating bad karma for yourselves by practising hate speech. Stop and think about this : all people want to be able to like their one life on this earth with dignity and respect, and everybody dreams about being able to experience love, acceptance, and progress in their lives. This is what is meant by life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You can't deny people these unalienable rights, which were endowed in each of us by our Higher Power. Are you yourself trying to play God ?

Social issues will be king this election cycle. Abortion is going down. Every candidate that gets into office in the mid term elections will be supporting traditional marriage through a constitutional amendement to define marriage as between one woman and one man. One that is done, we focus on recriminalization of sodomy. That way public advocacy of homosexuality ends. If you show up to a pride parade, you get locked up!
---------------------------------

So if anti-sodomy laws were put in place that would take away our freedom of assembly? Isn't that a tad unAmerican?

TRiG said...

"He dismissed [my marriage certifcate] as a worthless meaningless piece of paper."

Yup. That would explain why they spent a fortune (which could have been spent doing some good in the world) on stopping other people getting that "worthless meaningless piece of paper". It's so so important that people don't get bits of paper! Sheesh.



You know, I've been to a few gay pride parades, and many of the attendees have had dogs with them. Limerick Pride last year even included a dog show. And a bouncy castle for the kids. It was fun.

TRiG.

Anonymous said...

The NOM audience is either genuinely stupid, or the NOM thinks their audience is genuinely stupid. I believe it's a combination of both!

"The first, as you can see in the picture to the left, they brought some dogs with them.Now if this isn't a bullying tactic, I don't know what is."

The NOM needs to stay focused. They're here to "channel" male-female marriage, and they're giving to much credit to the doggies.

fiona64 said...

Anonymous said...

You know what's most offensive to me about the NOM tour? All those images of "traditional families" on the side of the RV.

It's not that they aren't beautiful pictures - they certainly are.

My response: Yep, they're beautiful, all right. And they were purchased from a stock photo site (iStockphoto, to be exact). I guess no one from NOM's organization was willing to put their face on the bus, so they had to purchase "ideal family" pictures. Notice that it's all Caucasian on one side of the bus, and multi-ethnic on the other?

Anonymous said...

Like it or not, NOM has just as much right to rally and speak their minds as do the Homosexual groups. So deal with it. Why name call and insult people for doing or saying things they have a legal right to do or say? If you want tolerance, you must be tolerant! Don't expect to win any converts on either side by 'verbally beating up someone' or using 'intimidation tactics' or any other means.
Grow up already and deal with the fact that people are going to disagree and intolerance and hate wins noone over.

Anonymous said...

Sheesh, ranting and raving on a blog like a bunch of stupid idiots. You all must be Mel Gibson's offspring.

fiona64 said...

Louis wrote: We turned up the music

Why yes, you did. We could hear it beautifully in the videos. Peter, Paul & Mary's management has been notified -- they are (Mary was, though she is sadly no longer with us) supporters of LGBT equality. I would bet the proverbial nickel that you do not have permission to broadcast their song as part of your "rallies," and that you will hear from said management company.

Just so you know.

fiona64 said...

Anonymous said...

Like it or not, NOM has just as much right to rally and speak their minds as do the Homosexual groups. So deal with it.

Why yes, they do. However, they are not guaranteed an approving audience, freedom from criticism, or agreement.

So deal with it.

Chris M said...

Louis' summary of events is as real as the faces on the bus...

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs163.snc4/37485_141484912544241_122256581133741_345362_3730015_n.jpg

TRiG said...

Won't someone please, please, think of the children?

This is a fiasco.

TRiG.

Anonymous said...

Shaman of Hedon,

The picture of the "nursing" woman has been removed, so I can not study the details as they relate to the background.

However I have some questions and issues about the following comment you posted:

"See WAAAAAY in the back there? Upper left corner? To the right and rear of the mother from her position? Yeah that's the NOM bus and the building holding the NOM Rally. The only view those guys might be blocking is of more grass. Also, unless women are suddenly growing nipples on top of their shoulders, that woman is NOT nursing."

If the rally is in the far background of the photo, why are the protesters so far away from the rally?

The baby is in a position that is used for burping a baby that has just finished nursing. Why would a nursing mother that asked the protesters to turn around so that she could nurse in privacy let a picture of her nursing be taken? She could have asked the photographer to wait until she was finished nursing, resulting in the photographer getting a picture of her burping the baby.

Anonymous said...

Chris M

The illustration you link to could have very well be have easily been manipulated to make it look like the families are from iStockphoto. Can you give the actual links to the photos on the iStockphoto site?

fiona64 said...

Anonymous said...

Chris M

The illustration you link to could have very well be have easily been manipulated to make it look like the families are from iStockphoto. Can you give the actual links to the photos on the iStockphoto site?

I'm not Chris M., but I can do that. I hasten to point out that NOM is in violation of IStockphoto's TOS, as they have used these photos for social commentary without indicating that the people are models whose personal views may not represent those of NOM.

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-12513531-happy-family-in-studio.php

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-12010548-portrait-of-a-smiling-couple-over-white-background.php

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-4991528-family-of-three-on-white.php

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-3247723-cute-family.php

Anonymous said...

Shaman of Hedon,

The dogs definitely belonged to a protester.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/50933783@N07/4803133351/

Anonymous said...

Shaman of Hedon,

The photo of the nursing mother is back. I checked the background details. The bus is in the background, but I see no signs (people, posters, podium, etc) of the build being where the rally is at. Again I ask, why if the rally is in the background are the protesters so far away from it?

Anonymous said...

fiona said...

"Notice that it's all Caucasian on one side of the bus, and multi-ethnic on the other?"

Here is the other side of the bus.

http://nomblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Tour-Bus1.jpg

As you can see, it is also mutli-ethnic.

johnozed said...

Wow. Those dogs sure look frightening. They might even start wagging their tails!

Anonymous said...

God intended it to always be a man and a woman. Not a man and a man or a woman and a woman. You have many issues if you think that is right or that there is no problem with it. God thinks there is and it's and abomination to him. That's all there is to it. End of story.

Martin Luther King's WIFE knows him best said...

Speech by Coretta Scott King (MARTIN LUTHER KING'S WIFE)
1996 Atlanta Pride Festival:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHm8djZqTzk&feature=player_embedded#!


Coretta Scott King gives her support to gay marriage:
(USA Today, 2004)
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-03-24-king-marriage_x.htm


Those Who Lived the Struggle to End [Racial] Segregation Now Speak Out for Same-Gender Marriage Equality:
http://www.soulforce.org/article/766

and

Did you know that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s colleague and the organizer of the 1963 March on Washington, Bayard Rustin, was an openly gay man?
http://gaylife.about.com/od/gayrights/a/bayard_rustin.htm

Jude Stevens said...

" You may strongly dislike this Louis guy, but please do not generalize all Christian's just because you do not like him specifically. because I assure you, we are NOT all the same."

We don't. Thank you for the comment. Sincerely.
Louis has gone much farther than this on his blogs. It's not just same sex marriage he is opposed to. He believes that gay people are pedophiles, into bestiality. He is against any rights for gay people.

If anything he's become an asset to the equality movement by being so extreme and ridiculous.

P.S. I have two dogs. I have licenses to have them. If you come near them, be prepared to spend a lot of time petting them as they love everyone.

Anonymous said...

Louis, you're really grasping at straws here. Your little shuttle bus as pathetic as you are.

Anonymous said...

Leashed dogs with an owner in the park? If that is a threat than millions of dog owners are guilty of assault for simply taking their dogs with them to the park, or out for a walk, or, well just about anywhere.

The dogs are on a leash, not snarling, not barking, not trying to lunge at people. It is delusional paranoia to call that a threat.

Anonymous said...

Keep trying to play the victim guys it isn't working at all. And really bringing a dog is now a bullying tactic? It's not like they were attacking anybody and they look like labs which are really sweet dogs.

Anonymous said...

"The first, as you can see in the picture to the left, they brought some dogs with them. Now if this isn't a bullying tactic, I don't know what is."

Ha Ha! Some quiet and friendly dogs on leash.

It's true: you don't know what a bullying tactic is. Probably your only honest (if unintentional) remark in your entire blog.

fiona64) said...

Anonymous said...

God intended it to always be a man and a woman. Not a man and a man or a woman and a woman. You have many issues if you think that is right or that there is no problem with it. God thinks there is and it's and abomination to him. That's all there is to it. End of story.
----

Oh, here we go again. I guess this straight, married woman is going to have to school you on your own scriptures.

Let me briefly point out that there is no word in biblical Hebrew, Aramaic, or koine Greek for homosexual or homosexuality (the OT was written in Hebrew and Aramaic, the NT in koine Greek).  The ancient Jews and Greeks had conceptions of gender and sexual acts, but not what modern psychology calls sexual orientation.  The word homosexual in English was not coined until the end of the 19th century and the notion of sexual orientation is largely a 20th century psychoanalytic construct.  The word "homosexual" was first used in an English translation of the Bible, the Revised Standard Version, in 1948 (the passage was 1st Corinthians 6:9).  If Greek and Hebrew had no words for homosexual, and the English word was not introduced into the text of the Bible until 1948, I think that some revision of thought is in order.

Let's review the texts about which you ask. Here is a transliterated text of the Hebrew into English characters:

The Hebrew texts read:  Leviticus 18:22 v't-zkr l' tskb mskby 'sh tvjbh hv'.
Leviticus 20:13 v'ys 'sr yskb 't-zkr mskby 'sh tvjbh jsv snyhm mvt yvmtv dmyhm bm. 

In the 3rd century BC, the Greek Ptolemy's in Alexandria Egypt commissioned a Greek translation of OT from Hebrew into Greek. Some 72 Greek speaking Jewish scholars are said to have collaborated on it; it is consequently called the Septuagint ("Seventy"). It was widely used throughout the Mediterranean since Greek was the international language of the time. The Greek texts from the Septuagint read:  Leviticus18:22 και μετα αρσενος ου κοιμηθηση κοιτην γυναικος βδελυγμα γαρ εστιν
Leviticus 20:13 και ος αν κοιμηθη μετα αρσενος κοιτην γυναικος βδελυγμα εποιησαν αμφοτεροι θανατουσθωσαν ενοχοι εισιν

The King James Bible was a translation of the entire Bible into English in 1611. The translators made use of many earlier translations of the Bible including the Latin Vulgate Bible used by the Catholic Church. The texts in the KJV read:  LEV 18:22  Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. 
LEV 20:13  If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

These two passages are badly misunderstood, particularly because of the inaccurate and inexact use of "abomination" in English to translate a much more particular word in the original Hebrew.  Both say essentially the same thing in Hebrew and Greek (the Septuagint).  The verb and the direct object are cognates (a so-called cognate accusative).  The root for both the verb and the object can mean several different things.  The verb has possible meanings of "going to sleep, going to bed, having sex." The object of the verb means "sleep, bed, sex"  To translate literally one has several alternatives:  "Do not sleep the sleep;  do not lay the laying; do not engage in sex with the sexuality," etc.  The object is then modified by a word meaning "of a woman, female, feminine." One ends up with the difficult phrase "Do not sleep the sleep of a woman with a man, do not lay the laying of a woman with a man, etc." Jewish moralists for over a millennium have debated exactly constitutes "the sleep of a woman" and who is technically a "man" in the situation.  

(To be continued due to post length limitations)

fiona64 said...

Part II:

No one in the time of Moses or Christ ever used the word "abomination." It is a modern English word and English as we know it did not exist in Biblical times. "Abomination" is correct only in the Elizabethan sense of the word which is borrowed from Latin "abominatio." The root is omin- which means "omen." The prefix "ab" means away. Thus the word means to turn away from something because it is ill omened or portentous. But what about the original text in Hebrew?

Various things in Leviticus are called an "abomination." Some are what we would consider moral issues (incest), but others are manifestly about health and hygiene (avoiding pork, shell fish, brackish water). Some are matters of cleanliness (touching dead snakes, sleeping with a woman during menstruation). Others still are issues of ethnicity and religious identity (cutting of hair and beard, etc.). The word "abomination" translates the Hebrew word "toevah" which really means something like "impure or unclean for the purposes of ritual" (i.e. something that could unfavorably affect sacrifices, auspices, etc.). It is not a blanket denunciation of all homosexuals any more than it is a denunciation of all women by saying that they are also considered "toevah" during menstruation. This is further underscored by one of the oldest most authoritative translations of the Old Testament--the Septuagint. Beginning in the 3rd century BCE Greek speaking Jewish scholars translated the Old Testament into Greek. The Greek language distinguishes between violations of morality and justice (anomia) and infringements of ritual purity (bdelugma). In Leviticus 18:22, the activity is called a bdelugma making it an issue of ritual purity rather than one of general morality. The word "toevah" is used throughout the Old Testament to designate those Jewish sins which involve ethnic contamination or idolatry and very frequently occur as part of the stock phrase "toevah ha-goyim,""the uncleanness of the Gentiles" (2 Kings 16:3). It is often used in condemnations of temple prostitution (1 Kings 14:24--"sodomite" in the KJV is a mistranslation for the Hebrew "kadash" or temple prostitute). Often it simply means idol. The severity of the punishment (death), then, would seem to arise from the association of the act with idolatry and paganism. The law is one that preserves the ethnic and religious identity of the Jews and is backed by the first few exhortations of the Ten Commandments.

Since there is no biblical word for homosexual, the passages in Leviticus are problematic but refer to ritual purity as opposed to universal morality, there is no intrinsic contradiction between being gay and a Christian. (Note: That's for those of you who have insisted on this page that "gays want to destroy Christians." Give me a break -- self-proclaimed Christians go around bashing GLBT people to death on a regular basis, but I have yet to hear of it going in the other direction.)

P.S. The books of the Bible were not collected into one literary compendium until the 4th century CE at the Council of Nicea. The word Bible comes from Greek biblia meaning books (in the plural). The books were codified by a vote of the committee, and what books were to be include were a matter of dispute by different denominations into the 18th century. The Roman emperor Constantine employed St. Jerome to translate the collected books into Latin. The original language texts are nonetheless still available. You can see them online at the following sites:

http://unbound.biola.edu/

Anonymous said...

hhahhahahahah the dogs were so sweet! they were loving

Anonymous said...

You just made that up, right? Kidding. The point of your dissertation is that what we know and understand is subject to interpretation of the culture in which we live. For that, NOM believes that it's interpretation of the laws of states and of the union are not in violation of civil rights, and should not be changed. It is unfortunate that NOM supporters use so many Bilblical references, which are used as points of arguement for and against so many issues. But what the supporters are trying to say is "Don't ignore our tradional heritage which we take pride in." and "Do not mock us for being normal."

fiona64 said...

Anonymous wrote this: For that, NOM believes that it's interpretation of the laws of states and of the union are not in violation of civil rights, and should not be changed

and this:

But what the supporters are trying to say is "Don't ignore our tradional heritage which we take pride in." and "Do not mock us for being normal."

----

I'm straight and married. I guess that, according to your own words, that makes me "normal."

However, I also know that this so-called "traditional heritage" to which you refer has changed repeatedly over the course of time. In 1967, the Supreme Court struck down laws that prevent people of different ethnicities from intermarrying (Loving v. Virginia) and called marriage one of the "basic civil rights." Oddly enough, a lot of the arguments against Loving v. Virginia look awfully similar to those put forth against marriage equality today. "Think of the children," "That's not normal," etc. To a one.

The history of marriage in Western Civilization alone has been extremely varied. I would highly recommend a look at this article to see what I mean: http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/history_of_marriage_in_western.html

Heck, at one point the Catholic church had a marriage rite (the Adelphopoiia) specifically for uniting two men in matrimony: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/2rites.html

It is not "normal" to hate people because of who they love, or to go around the country campaigning to take away their rights.

I have yet to see how someone else getting married, gay or straight, is a threat to my marriage. And honestly? If your marriage is impacted negatively by some couple you don't even know having a wedding? I suggest counseling.

Amanda said...

It is impossible for me to even contemplate why you would want to change how nature works. You can't. Marriage is DESIGNED to be between a man and a woman. Allowing a child to be raised in a home with same-sex parents just doesn't work and it will not work. So maybe please try to understand the sacred love we are trying to protect.

Max said...

To those that are obviously not looking close enough. The dog (Black Lab) facing the crowd is snarling. Tail down, nose up, teeth bared. Yea, this is a great thing to have around people.

Secondly, to those that honestly believe that MLK would support the homosexual agenda. Ask yourself this, a Baptist Minister supporting something that the Bible does not. Hmmm... Not sure I would by that regardless of what his widow would say.

Lastly, you tell us that you want to be treated equally. So, we give you civil partnership contracts, which, if done right, gives you everything that we get. But, you are not happy about that. You want US to allow YOU to change or destroy what GOD designed. So, who is the real bully here...

Auntie said...

Those are gay dogs for sure. I saw both of them making out - tongue and all - in a gay dog bar less than two weeks ago.

Taylor said...

Amanda said "Marriage is DESIGNED to be between a man and a woman."

For you Amanda...for you. But not for me. I don't have to settle for what you think is RIGHT for me or what you think was DESIGNED for me. How presumptuous of you to tell me that I must live my life by your rules.

How would you like it if I told you that your husband (if you have one) isn't right for you? And that you can only marry the person I think was DESIGNED for you? Would you put up with that? My guess is probably not...and if you would then your a bloody idiot.

People must stop telling other people how to live their lives. If you don't believe in a same sex marriage...then by all means DO NOT HAVE ONE! But you do not get to tell me that I can't. PERIOD. END OF DISCUSSION.

You must realize Amanda, that in the United States their are 5 states plus the District of Columbia that already allow Same Sex Marriage. And the world has not come to an end.

How...has Same Sex Marriage in these states affected you? Have you had the urge to have one yourself? Has your marriage become strained because of it? Is your husband flirting with other men? How EXACTLY has same sex marriage affected YOU? Or more importantly your marriage? Is your marriage in such bad shape that the very act of allowing two people of the same sex to marry would destroy it?

"Allowing a child to be raised in a home with same-sex parents just doesn't work and it will not work."

Do you have proof for that statement? Because I have studies that say exactly the opposite. And not studies done by pro-gay organizations.

Here:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sleeping-angels/201007/kids-lesbian-couples-turn-out-be-well-adjusted-psychologically

Here:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2010-01-21-parentgender21_ST_N.htm

There are many more studies out there that say basically the same thing. That being, the children raised in same sex households show no adverse affects.

Of course I have no doubt you won't believe it. But, at least I've presented evidence to back up my case...which is more than you can say.

mike said...

it always amazes me how people like you can spout hate and support violences against LGBT people then whine because there are a couple of elderly dogs ON LEASHES in a park setting..

The breast feeding brood mare could have just as easily moved and if she was so SHY about being seen common sense says she should NOT BREAST FEED IN PUBLIC!

she (and YOU) not only wants her rights she wants to control everyone elses rights.

Just like your standard bigot behavior.

Mike said...

Right NOM. Gay and non-Christian events are constantly besieged by bull-horning, Bible-beating fundamentalist Christians threatening gays and non-Christians with eternal damnation or worse. If the Christian's right to show up and annoy is protected, so is the right of gay and lesbian citizens and non-Christian to do exactly the same thing.

ewe said...

You are a fucked up person that uses religious delusion to justify your hateful discrimination. Please feel free to censor this comment. That is YOUR style after all. You will not prevail because you will not dictate or shape what my equality will resemble based on your biased belief system. You are a disgraceful bigot.

Will you hateful sheep swearing up and down that homosexuality goes against Nature PLEASE take your heads OUT of your asses and do some bloody research? Homosexuality occurs naturally all throughout Nature. It's a population control tool. Like mated for life Lesbian Albatross couples, where the only heterosexual activity is one of the ladies will mate with a male once, and then ditch him, and the two females will then raise and nurture the trick. Or if you have un-nuetred male cats in the house; If you deny having caught them fucking you're a bold faced liar, almost ALL male cats will do this without a female nearby.

Homosexuality exists all throughout Nature, often as a population control tool. The only thing about relationships unique to man is Marriage itself, and that is and always WAS a Civil institution. Jesus himself taught against it. The Sanctity of Marriage argument goes right out the window if you actually READ the Bible. Yes marriage was so holy that God ordered moses and his followers to destroy entire towns of non-believers, killing everyone save the women, who would be married by rape to breed new followers. Or Joseph of the Coat of Many Colours, who had FOUR wives with God's blessing, only one of whom Joseph had any love for. The church didn't create marriage, it COMMANDEERED IT!

So the ONLY reason to deny gay marriage is hatred of gays, you are protecting NOTHING but your very real bigotry.

@mantronikk - If you honestly think somebody sneaking his buddy into a fucking MOVIE without paying is ANYTHING ANYWHERE CLOSE to Gay people being fully and truly equal under the law you are a COMPLETE idiot. That you would even ATTEMPT such a mindbogglingly retarded analogy makes your movement look even stupider than it already does. Especially since if gay marriage was legal they'd be paying all the same fees and taxes as you would, so they're certainly not sneaking in the back for free. You sir or madam, are a complete moron.

As for those of you trying to look benevolent by swearing "Oh we just LOVES us some gay people, we just disapprove of their lifestyle!", I have two things to say to you liars.

1) The "Gay lifestyle" is pretty much the same as yours. We have jobs. We pay bills. We help our kids with their homework. We pay taxes. We go shopping with friends, a go for drinks with buddies. We watch TV and feed our pets. There is no "GAY lifestyle". There are some gays who have loud obnoxious party habits but so do lots of straight folk. The ONLY difference between Straight and Gay is who we love and what we do in the bedroom. The rest of the time we're just like you. Oh and as for those nasty sex acts you think make gays so disgusting? Like anal sex? Guess what? STRAIGHT PEOPLE DO ANAL SEX TOO!!!! It is NOT exclusively a "filthy gay act".

2)You CANNOT say you love someone while you are using distorted religious beliefs to actively fight to keep them second-class. Fighting to prevent us from having true equality is NOT love, it is hatred and bigotry. If you actively fight equal marriage, you do NOT love us and you ARE in fact, a BIGOT. If you TRULY loved us you would let us have our equality, because what WE do should never affect your God's love FOR you. So stop your condescending "WE really do love you gay folks we just hate whatcha do" bullshit. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Oh, for the record, here is my "Worthless piece of paper that means nothing". NOMbie Heads imploding in 5... 4... 3...

Mikey683 said...

Hey suck my cock you motherfucking asshole. Hmmm...how's thtat vile enough?

Rex said...

@ Shaman: great certificate! got mine in Ottawa and New York State honors it at total face value! can't wait until Cuomo gets elected and follows through with his promise to bring FULL EQUITY to New York State!

mynotebook said...

What a pathetic bunch of losers. Congratulations on the HUGE turnout. Maybe the next stop you will have more people than the "homosexual activists" but I doubt it. Maybe you should hold the rallies at night as most bigots do not like the sunlight.

fiona64 said...

Max said...

To those that are obviously not looking close enough. The dog (Black Lab) facing the crowd is snarling. Tail down, nose up, teeth bared. Yea, this is a great thing to have around people.

Secondly, to those that honestly believe that MLK would support the homosexual agenda. Ask yourself this, a Baptist Minister supporting something that the Bible does not. Hmmm... Not sure I would by that regardless of what his widow would say.

Two things, Max. You obviously don't know much about dogs (I've been training them for more than 30 years). Dogs in attack mode are on the alert, not relaxed with ears and tails down. Those dogs are not snarling, they are *panting.*

The second thing? You also don't know much about Martin Luther King, Jr. His primary advisor was an openly gay African-American man named Bayard Rustin. Read on: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USArustin.htm

You're welcome.

Much love from a straight ally for equality

Gods Creature said...

Why do Homosexuals insist on getting married when Marriage was created by the word of God and clearly God wants NOTHING to do with them? In fact when they die God promised to cast them to hell. They want so badly for their perversion to fit in and if we let them, we might as well give them our children. They are twisted and they know it. God says to stand for what is right!!! Follow HIS word and DO NOT BEND!

Gods Creature said...

The Declaration of Independence declares that all people are guaranteed God-endowed inalienable rights, among them being life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. For that purpose -- safeguarding rights -- governments are instituted. Those rights are natural, attached to people solely because people are created in God's image. There are other rights that are not endowed by God but by the civil authority. Those rights are relative and alienable -- that is, conditional -- and are based on one's citizenship.

When protecting one's inalienable and civil rights, the government must discern between liberty and license. This requires that rights attach to persons because of their humanity, not because of their behaviors, and certainly not those behaviors that Western legal and moral tradition has regarded as inimical to the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," as stated in the Declaration. Yet, today some advocate granting "rights" to behaviors hostile to the most fundamental forms of self-government -- family, church, and community. This is especially the case with homosexual activists, who ironically seek to hijack the moral capital of the civil rights movement. Essential to the homosexual agenda is the idea that homosexuals are fighting for basic civil rights denied them by an oppressive society. This argument strikes a sympathetic chord among many Americans, whose decency and sense of fair play demand that all people be treated fairly. However, a closer look at the truth about homosexuality and the political goals of the "gay rights" movement shows that homosexuals are not an oppressed minority, that opposition to special legal protection for homosexuality is not bigotry, and that extending such protection is dangerous to individuals and society. Contrary to their claims of "discrimination," there is no effort to deny homosexuals the same rights guaranteed to all Americans. The truth is that homosexuals have the same rights, with the same restrictions, as everyone else. Homosexuals have the right to free speech, freedom of religion, due process under the law, the right to engage in commerce, to enter into contracts, own property, vote, along with a host of other rights. In fact, an ACLU handbook lists dozens of rights homosexuals already enjoy. Most people agree that homosexual activists' claim of "discrimination" rings hollow. In a 1999 Wirthlin Worldwide poll of more than 1,000 Americans, 75 percent of the respondents said that "homosexuals have not suffered the same kind of legal injustice (such as not being able to vote, get an education, or earn a living) as black Americans have. In this country all citizens are guaranteed equal protection under the law. What homosexuals are actually calling for is not equal protection but special protection. Homosexuals are restricted from serving in the military as are a dozen other groups, such as older people, young people, single parents, and others who detract from the military's mission. However, military service is not a right but a privilege and a duty for some. That privilege is conditional upon one's behavior; homosexual behavior is discordant with the health, safety, cohesion, and morale of the military.

Not a True Minority
The notion that homosexuals are a true minority group is false. Homosexuals do not meet the three criteria that characterize minority groups that have been accorded special legal protections.

fiona64 said...

Gods Creature said...

Why do Homosexuals insist on getting married when Marriage was created by the word of God and clearly God wants NOTHING to do with them? In fact when they die God promised to cast them to hell. They want so badly for their perversion to fit in and if we let them, we might as well give them our children. They are twisted and they know it. God says to stand for what is right!!! Follow HIS word and DO NOT BEND!
----

Since you are so sure of this, "Gods Creature," I am confident that you have reference material,

Don't tell me, let me guess. Leviticus?

How are you doing on obeying the remaining 400+ Levitical laws, my friend?

In the mean while, I refer you to Luke 10, in which Rabbi Yeshua ben Yussef teaches his followers to love their neighbors as themselves -- and reminds them that all people are their neighbors.

So much hate spoken in the name of the Prince of Peace, "Gods Creature." I hope that you get professional help to deal with your anger.

fiona64 said...

Gods Creature wrote: Not a True Minority
The notion that homosexuals are a true minority group is false. Homosexuals do not meet the three criteria that characterize minority groups that have been accorded special legal protections.

No, I'm sorry, sir. You are incorrect. About a whole lot of things (including the idea that single parents are restricted from serving in the military).

Here is the legal definition for being a minority: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Minority+group

Here is an academic paper on the matter: http://science.jrank.org/pages/10247/Minority-Widening-Definition.htmlz

These are just two of the sources that prove minority status is not based solely on ethnicity (which is a social construct).

I am a straight, married, middle-aged, church going woman who fully supports marriage equality for same-sex couples. Every argument that "Gods Creature" has put forth is identical to the arguments that favored anti-miscegenation laws. What a shame.

Gods Creature said...

Never said I didnt love all people. ITS THE SIN I HATE AND I HAVE EVERY RIGHT UNDER GODS LAWS. NEXT TIME READ THE WHOLE BIBLE! NOT JUST THE PARTS THAT FIT YOUR TWISTED LITTLE LIFE!

Gods Creature said...

No fiona64, you are wrong. And to go against Gods word for the sake of those that ignore it makes you just as hateful to God and his word as the people that go against his word. Don't put God in your life and expect him to accept you when you curse and distort his word.

Romans

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; [6] for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so [7] that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain [8] God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Gods Creature said...

Opposition to extending special protection to homosexuals is not based on ignorance or bigotry, as homosexuals often claim. It is based on informed judgment about homosexual behavior and the political agenda of homosexual activists. If pro-family concerns were not based on fact, logic and careful thought, they might indeed be guilty of prejudice. But homosexuality is not a civil right. It is behaviors that people can and have changed.

fiona64 said...

Gods Creature, it seems to me that you are obsessed by a particular sex act (many who are against equality are similarly obsessed). You do know that straight couples get up to *all* of the same things that gay couples do, right?

As for your quotation from Paul's letter to the Romans, I am equally confident that a man of your obvious erudition is aware that Paul had a particular prejudice of his own because of the Greeks, right? And that Rabbi Yeshua ben Yussef (who was Paul's contemporary, although the two never met) never said a thing against same-sex relationships?

Surely a scholar such as yourself is aware that people in Old Testament times did not understand sexual orientation as we now understand it. To put it simply, sex was the "do-er" and the "done to," and never between equals. Women were "beneath" men, so sex between men and women was fine -- as was sex between men and their male slaves. Sex between equals was "toevah," ritually impure, in much the same way that being near a woman on her period was toevah. Now, I would like to refer you to the story of the centurion and his "dearly beloved slave." People in Biblical times understood that to mean a sexual relationship -- and Rabbi Yeshua ben Yussef healed the centurion's slave. It's in Matthew, Chapter 8, in case you need the reference.

Finally, I do not believe that God requires you as a mouthpiece to determine whether or not my beliefs are acceptable. I follow the teachings of Rabbi Yeshua ben Yussef, who commands that I feed the poor, comfort the afflicted and love my neighbor as myself.

How are *you* doing with those commandments, Gods creature? Who is *your* neighbor?

fiona64 said...

Gods Creature said...

Never said I didnt love all people. ITS THE SIN I HATE AND I HAVE EVERY RIGHT UNDER GODS LAWS. NEXT TIME READ THE WHOLE BIBLE! NOT JUST THE PARTS THAT FIT YOUR TWISTED LITTLE LIFE!
----

I have read the Bible from Genesis to Revelations, in more than one translation and in more than one language.

How am I twisted, Gods Creature? Do tell me. I'm straight, married, employed, have friends, do charitable work.

Oh, wait. I'm twisted because I love my neighbor as myself.

Got it.

Mike said...

The wife of Dr King, Coretta Scott King, said: "Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protection, whether by marriage or civil union. A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriage."

patty2233 said...

Just a thought , homosexuality has been around since time began,then why hasn't the same sex marriage been around that long ? i can understand why people need the security of a marriage certificate ,but i am not here to judge as i will be judged according to my works
Just agree to disagree and show some love ,,you never know it might catch on ,,lol xx love you all xxxx

TRiG said...

Hey, NOM guys, get your lies straight. Do you support religious freedom or don't you? And if you do, why are you trying to encode the religious laws from one Bronze Age book into the civil laws of the land?

"Gods Creature" indeed. You disgust me.

TRiG.

Fiona 64 I love you! Your arguments dissect the bullying bullshit perfectly! If you were a single lesbian I'd court you.

Oh wait... *consults official Gay Agenda™ Handbook*

Well it says here that since I apparently chose to be a lesbian I can only make new lesbians by converting innocent straight folks since no one is ever BORN one.... so I guess I could corrupt you.... hmm.... that seem suspisciously like....

*checks Agenda™ glossary*

Just as I thought, written by Paul Cameron. I knew this thing was bullshit!

All kidding aside, you rock Fiona! Keep kicking ass my Ally!

ChrisM said...

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

Civil marriage is legalized by the state in the form of a marriage license. No marriage, no matter where performed (church, synagogue, mosque, city hall, etc) is legal without a marriage license. One can have a religious ceremony (a "wedding"), but this is NOT sufficient to be a legal marriage.

This country was NOT founded on Xtian laws. This country was NOT founded as a Xtian country. The civil rights of American citizens are protected from the tyranny of Xtian opinion.

fiona64 said...

patty2233 said...

Just a thought , homosexuality has been around since time began,then why hasn't the same sex marriage been around that long ? i can understand why people need the security of a marriage certificate ,but i am not here to judge as i will be judged according to my works
Just agree to disagree and show some love ,,you never know it might catch on ,,lol xx love you all xxxx
July 20, 2010 6:35 AM

Well, none of us have been around since time began, but some of us know how to study history. In the middle ages, the Catholic Church had something called the Adelphoiia Rite, which was a ritual specifically for joining two men in holy matrimony.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/2rites.html

Furthermore, in Biblical times, it was common and understood that men had sexual relationships with their male slaves. Sex was not something between equals: women and slaves were not equals to free men, so those relationships were known and acceptable. Relationships between two free men were "toevah," or ritually impure (much as women on their periods are ritually impure). Ritual purification was the only requirement to return to temple in good standing.

Just remember, fear is not a family value.

Yes ChrisM, you are exactly right. And that of course, is exactly why Christian Republicans in Texas voted to remove ANY AND ALL reference to Thomas Jefferson from state school history texts.

Get that folks? The religious Right in Texas is ACTIVELY TEACHING REVISIONIST HISTORY to their children because ACTUAL American history is contradictory to the lies they teach their children, and might give them such "wrong" ideas as the separation of Church and State and the established inarguable FACT that America was NOT in fact founded as a Christian Nation and thus they have ZERO right to be trying to force the Law to hld their religious beliefs in higher regard than true full equality for all.

And the hateful Right wonders why we call them lying hatemongering bigots?

When you edit your own country's history to weed out the parts that don't work in your favor, you are a goddamned HYPOCRITE and I have ZERO sympathy or respect for you or your hurt feelings when I TRUTHFULLY point out your hate and bigotry.

If you don't like being called a hateful lying bigot, then STOP BEING A HATEFUL LYING BIGOT. It's THAT simple!

Good work ChrisM, keep it up!

ChrisM said...

Thanks Shaman of Hedon, I will! Same to you!

Creature of God said:
"The truth is that homosexuals have the same rights, with the same restrictions, as everyone else."

There are many places in this country where I can be fired, denied housing, denied basic services just for being gay. There are places I can be denied visits with my hospitalized spouse just for being gay. Can you be denied these basic rights for being Xtian? No, because your religious CHOICES protect you from discrimination. I do not have the same rights and protections that you do, yet I pay taxes and am a proud American just like you and all like you who have CHOSEN your religion. Separate is not equal.

TRiG said...

Has anyone here notices that the religious right proudly promotes miseducation of all kinds? I think it's so they can get away with lying to their supporters.

They teach false science (the lies they tell about evolution are ridiculous: they make up a strawman version to knock down; they also lie about the science of sexual attraction (the competent research says it's fixed before birth, people)); they teach false history; they even teach oversimplified theology and lie about the findings of textual criticism (not to mention archaeology). And they teach their followers to be paranoid. Many people are actually quite scared of the "Gay Agenda", though few people have any articulate idea about what they think it is. And they think the media is out to get them. The poor persecuted Christian majority.

Some of us prefer to live in the real world.

(Sorry if this post plays up to the false gay vs Christian dichotomy. I know that many gay people are Christian, as are many supporters of legal equality, and that not everyone who opposes equality is Christian.)

TRiG.

yashti373 said...

were they fag dogs in the picture?...lol

Sora said...

I can't even believe this blog. I was there as a neutral observer, and that is certainly not how things went down. Yes, it's true that the umbrella people got awful close to the stage, but the rest of this is basically lie slinging. Those dogs were certainly calm and quite dogs, they weren't attack dogs or anything. In fact I went up and petted them, they were really nice.

Also, one of those you better not touch us lines? More like please respect our personal space. I found them to be incredibly non-threatening, and I was shocked to read this blog afterwords. I thought both groups had acted civilly, and I haven't found many stories that spun such a negative twist on it like this.

I'm pretty disappointed that I don't feel comfortable trusting what this blog says any more :(

Sora said...

I can't even believe this blog. I was there as a neutral observer, and that is certainly not how things went down. Yes, it's true that the umbrella people got awful close to the stage, but the rest of this is basically lie slinging. Those dogs were certainly calm and quite dogs, they weren't attack dogs or anything. In fact I went up and petted them, they were really nice.

Also, one of those you better not touch us lines? More like please respect our personal space. I found them to be incredibly non-threatening, and I was shocked to read this blog afterwords. I thought both groups had acted civilly, and I haven't found many stories that spun such a negative twist on it like this.

I'm pretty disappointed that I don't feel comfortable trusting what this blog says any more :(

Sora said...

Sorry about the double post guys! Having computer glitches...

Alan said...

Love you Fiona64, The Shaman of Hedon, ChrisM, Sora and any other fair-minded individuals posting comments on this blog. I hadn't realized that Texas had changed it's education standards to remove Thomas Jefferson who coined the phrase "separation of church and state" and removed descriptions of our country as being a "democracy." Creepy!

I just wanted to pound another nail into the coffin about Louis' MLK comment. He seems confused if he wants to pretend to be on the side of civil rights or continue to be a conservative right winger.
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/293986.html
To LouisJMarinelli: Thanks for trying so hard to find an obscure relative who agrees with your view when the truth is so much less juicy, entertaining and, yes, less ironic.

As the link above notes, it is not the first time nor do I think it will be last time that an attempt to misappropriate support will audaciously be attempted to hide such clear animus towards GLBT. Yet, as much as Louis and many other NOM'ers who haven't really answered the real hard questions to themselves enjoy picking and choosing their reality, I don't imagine they'll be lining up in droves to join the SCLC anytime soon either.

Although I do have to ask this facetious question to all the Christians our there after seeing a trend that comments have noted repeatedly about what's being published here, what does the Bible say about bearing false witness?

Here in the UK the pro-marrage groups are week, we are not as strong here as you are in the USA and if we did anything the police would arrest you for it.

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

I'm actually getting tired of saying the same thing over and over in all discussions I go but here it is :

LEARN TO RESPECT TO BE RESPECTED!

this is a discussion of a serious issue and most of you are behaving like infants, from both sides!

Insults, ironies and sarcasm are all stupid ways to discuss whatever and they take all of your credibility regardless of what you say.

Now about the subject:
1) that was an organized and legalized rally and the pro-gay manifestants were breaking the law by appearing like they did. it was not a walk in the park and that was against the law.
They were also rude and disrespectful towards the NOM which has every right of being there and I never saw NOM disrupt another rally or even toss an insult towards the people who disagree with them

2)the dogs:

I have no understanding about kinds or dog breeds but on thing is certain, the dogs made numbers larger and confronting the unknown people tend to be afraid. People could not have known if the dogs were friendly or had rage...

If that was the intention of the dogs owner or not, its beyond my reach, i wasn´t there. The fact is, they were big dogs, and although we only see 2, there could be more, again, i don't know.

Either on purpose or not, the dogs mattered as numbers and as by making the that side look stronger.

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

3) the nursing mother

they could easily turn around and for 10 minutes look the other way while she was nursing and still the pro-gay would have made their point.
They were rude and for the sake of discussion at matter I will stop the negative adjectives there.

I have to completely agreed with "The Shaman Of Hedon" when she says something like "there is no gay lifestyle" But only at that point.

I do have good friends that are indeed gay, and if they would not have told me i would never figured that out. But that does not make me a supported of gay marriage for one simple reason:

Marriage was institutionalized because on the past it was only only within the marriage there were kids, which was good for the country and so it was rewarded with some privileges.
Since now everything is upside-down and less less of these habits are seen, I don't even know why I am defending marriage But one thing is certain. People who cannot contribute the same way to society cannot have the same privileges it is not fair. If gay people want to be a couple so be it, just don't call it marriage.

a word of support for NOM:

NEVER GIVE UP! and please never think you are alone on this. Never give up. never surrender. Until a last breath is within us we shall continue to (without insults and low tricks) defend our way.

Napster; I'm sorry but that is utter bullshit. There are any number of hetero couples incapable of having children, by your logic they too should be denied marriage. There are also MILLIONS of children born out of wedlock. You're basically going the Bastard route by saying they don't count unless their parents were married. Marriage is NOT solely or dependantly about having children. It is and always should be about committing completely to the one you love and whom loves you. And lots of gay copuples, my wife and I included, have happy healthy children, so AGAIN your argument falls completely flat. Marriage was never originally a god ordained holy institution as your side often complains, but was in fact a business arrangement for property rights wherein the woman was never consulted on if she even liked the man she was being forced to marry. The church co-opted marriage as a form of repression, another way to use guilt to limit human sexuality and control their followers. So in that way at least, yes, we want to redefine marriage as a LOVING and MUTUAL and CONSENSUAL commitmentbetween two adults who love one another. So if you have a heart and a conscience, you cannot rationally justify denying us true full equality. The ONLY reason to ban equal marriage is so hetero folks can feel like they have an exclusive treefort clubhouse that the nerd kids aren't allowed into. It's exclusionary bigotry, end of story. Every, and I mean EVERY reason offered why gays shouldn't marry has been soundly and rationally trounced, and it is not even POSSIBLE now to be against it without having a bigoted reason. As is so often said, Your right to swing your fist stops at my face.

By the way, your message of support to NOM will fall on deaf ears, since insults and low tricks are the only tactics NOM seems to have. They know they can't just politely say why marriage equality is wrong because when they try, people see right through all the lies and bullshit. The only way they can get ANY support now is by making gullible people fear us like we're an evil angry bogeyman out to destroy their families, when the truth is that we just want equal protection and recognition of our own.

Gay people very much DO contribute the same to society as anyone else. Your argument is defeated sir or Madam.

Kathryn said...

Changing the definition of marriage to include gay people is like changing the definition of "fat" to include skinny people. It just doesn't work! It would also not be discrimination to exclude skinny people from the definition of "fat", or vice-versa.

"Some marriages do not produce children."

Yes, but they are the exception rather than the rule. The state recognizes marriage because marriage in general procreates and provides the most stable and nurturing environment for children. By the facts of nature, no homosexual act can do this—no exceptions.

Second, sterile heterosexual marriages still affirm the connection to childbearing because sterility is not generally known on the wedding day. And in those instances where sterility is known, as with older couples, the man-woman union still models what is generally a procreative relationship. There is a difference between having old plumbing and having the wrong plumbing.

Finally, it would not be possible or desirable for the state to attempt to determine which men and women are capable of procreation and which are not. However, since no homosexual relationship produces children, no homosexual relationship can fulfill this basic function of marriage.

"Opposition to same-sex marriage is like opposition to interracial marriage."

No, race is irrelevant to marriage—gender is essential to it. Nothing is wrong with interracial marriages because men and women are designed for one another, regardless of their racial backgrounds.

But same-sex marriage is harmful because the human body was simply not designed for same sex relations. As we’ve seen, homosexuals pay a high physical price for contradicting that design. So our marriage laws should be color blind but not gender blind.

Furthermore, interracial marriage was opposed without any valid grounds. Opponents hid their prejudice with false speculation about birth defects and the like. Since all racial groups interbreed, such problems do not exist. In other words, there really is no such thing as interracial marriage because there is only one race—the human race. Interethnic marriage poses no physical problems. However, same-sex couples don’t breed at all, and their unions are often unhealthy.

Ironically, it’s not conservatives, but same-sex marriage proponents who are reasoning like racists. Instead of asking the state to recognize the preexisting institution of marriage, homosexuals are asking the state to define marriage. Well, that is exactly the line of reasoning racists used in their effort to prevent interracial marriage. Racists wanted the state to define marriage as only between same-race couples, instead of having the state recognize what marriage already was—the procreative union of a man and a woman regardless of their racial/ethnic background.71

While racists and homosexuals may want to alter the legal definition of marriage, they cannot alter the laws of nature that helped produce the recognition of legal marriage in the first place.

Homosexuals, however, make a conscious CHOICE to have sex with a member of their own sex. They seek it out. They don't say, "Ooops! I'm sorry! My d**k accidentally fell into your @$$! I couldn't help it!" Of COURSE it's a choice!



Partial Source: www.allaboutlove.org

Kathryn said...

As for the picture of the dogs above, only the one on the right is a purebred Lab. The one on the left is a Lab/Pitbull Mix or a purebred Pitbull. You can tell by its body shape and skull shape. There was another picture above that showed another shot of the dogs, which proved that the dogs definitely belonged to one of the protesters. One of the T-shirt wearing protesters standing in the line was holding their leashes. It's quite obvious that it was intended to be a threat display. Those dogs did NOT belong to "passers-by".

Kathryn; No, the state recognises Marriage to confer legal rights of shared property and power of medical decision. Marriage as a matter of law is a legal contract that allows those married to make medical and financial decisions with and for each other. You are now stating a bare-faced outright lie. And guess what? Homosexuals can and do have children without adoption; that's what surrogates and best friends are for. And recheck your stats hon, a lot more hetero couples are childless than you want to accept, many BY CHOICE.

I repeat, there is ABSOLUTELY NO valid justifiable LEGAL reason to deny equal marriage. The bullshit distortions you're using, every one a disproven lie. You are spouting hateful garbage and your subsequent messages belie your earlier insistance that you don't hate gay folk because you're being directly hurtful and obnoxious ABOUT gay folks!

As for the dogs, this has been discussed to death. The dogs were ELDERLY and not in a threatening stance to ANYONE. They were also kept WELL away from the NOMbies. To continue to cite the dogs after even Louis himself (wisely) dropped the subject is a cheap lame duck red herring. You are blatantly trying to distract the issue.

You madam, are a liar, and a bigot, and your OWN words prove both in spades. You're as bad as Louis.

FYI, your sleazy little joke at the end there?

"Homosexuals, however, make a conscious CHOICE to have sex with a member of their own sex. They seek it out. They don't say, "Ooops! I'm sorry! My d**k accidentally fell into your @$$! I couldn't help it!" Of COURSE it's a choice!"

Um... sorry but the ridiculous levels of intellectual failure in that statement hurt my brain. No, homosexuality is not a choice. ACTING upon it is, but so is acting upon Hetero desires. And HETERO PEOPLE HAVE ANAL SEX TOO.

And your attempt to equate equality supporters with the racists who were against interracial marriage? Just how stupid ARE you?

Your idiocy is giving me nosebleeds. Just admit you hate gay people and stop your pathetic lying. Even Louis wouldn't go as far with the lying bullshit as you have, and he's broken out the pedophilia excuse.

FYI; www.allaboutlove.org is a known anti-gay propaganda site that regularly publishes outright lies, distorts real studies to suit it's argument, and frequently cites Paul Cameron's work which is universally rejected and discredited by all valid scientific bodies. Using them as a source of info for your homophobic bullshit is like citing Hitler as a valid authoroty on Jewish culture, or asking David Dukes to explain the work of Martin Luther King. You DO NOT go the a proven racist/bigot/homophobe for credible facts on homosexuality.

Anonymous said...

God instituted marriage before the church (as man and woman He created them, and sent them for to be fruitful and multiply), look at the creation account in Genesis. You simply do not have the equipment to procreate. You don;t see boy hippos and mating with boy hippos do you? Why do we need to defend ourselves against the Gay Agenda. We are not haters, but we are intolerant. That is because God sees homosexuality as an abomination in the OT and the NT. Even if you wanted to leave religious principles out of the equation, homosexuality is against nature. Just because a courthouse gave you a piece of paper that says you are married doesn't cut it with God. Besides, it sounds like you have other issues to deal with. Read Revelation 21:6-8 and get back to me. You can't philosophize with God or change HIS mind. HE is pretty cut and dry about how HE feels about this. Homophobic, do you really think we are afraid of you? No, we abhor perversion; but God will forgive you if you repent and follow HIM.

Anonymous said...

Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice and not what one is born with so, everybody has the right to criticise it. If a man goes looking for another man anus, what do expect me to do? Cheer them on? Heaven forbid!

LGBT have secretly planted their people in strategic positions of power and everyone can see how they are using it to persecute and discriminate against normal people. We are no longer allowed to say what our religion is let alone, our religious beliefs. Faith schools are being closed all over Europe because of the pressure being applied by those anti-christs.

Those people will use all the weasel words thinkable to deceive and draw attention and sympathy to their evil courses but I have no doubt that the true word of God will prevail.

As for those trying to the pull wool in our eyes by saying that this is a "hate" campaign, I have not seen anyone asking for the extermination of homosexuals.

In work places, especially, Local Authorities and Hospitals, lesbians and gays practice subtle discrimination whereby they promote and advance one another while sometimes openly discriminating against normal people.

The danger of their diabolical action is that they are pushing it to a point were a backlash is looming.

I hope African, Middle Eastern and Asian countries stand firm and not give in to this Western madness.

Anonymous said...

If God/nature had meant for homosexuality to exist as normal, He would have added natural ability to reproduce. So can they tell us why reproduction is lacking???

John Ashby said...

@Kathryn of www.allaboutlove.org

May God bless you. I was almost sucked in by Gay/Lesbian argument because we barely hear the other side. I will point as many people as possible to the website.

It is time to reverse the madness.

Anonymous said...

Wow, I almost wish I could have been there to at least call the police on these guys. Giving no respect to a nursing mother?? No rally permit? And what does Martin Luther King Jr. have to do with gay marriage? That's called a red herring fallacy, gay people.

It's stuff like gay marriage and political correctness that's going to destroy this country by destroying the basic unit of our government, that is, family. It's an abomination to God to try to make something holy out of something horrible and unnatural, aka trying to make gay marriage.

I originally got this article in an email, and I want everyone who finds this to read it. It's a very interesting concept to keep in mind.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=64769

Kels said...

I appreciate the National Organization for Marriage, be courageous and continue the good fight.

It has come to a point where traditional aspect of human culture is under attack and questioned. Thank the living GOD that there are well rounded and educated people who acknowledged the fact that marriage is not about good parents or bad ones, but the very essence of life. Without aid of technology and science can two same gender individuals produce a child? NO. Hats off to those who are revealing the propaganda about the GLBT agenda. KEEP UP THE IMPORTANT WORK.

I think the pro-gay protesters at the NOM rally in Albany, NY were pawns. Why else where they there? Taking a stance, being "quite" and not moving even when asked? It's so juvenile in my opinion.

From an educated mom of three: let the truth rain down. In fact a let it be a down pour.

Napster said...

I am sorry if I did not introduced myself. I am a man, but choose not to say my name due to the untrust I feel for the internet to have my information.
I am not a English native speaker so I apologize If I wrote anything grammatically wrong. If any of my Ideas are confusing due to a bad usage of the language point it out please and I will try to correct it.

sorry if I took a long time answering to Hendon, I was in vacation for a month. let´s go.

I do need to congratulate you Hendon for standing up for your beliefs like you do. That aside there ara various things that you wither misunderstood about my comment's or simply misread:

"I'm sorry but that is utter bullshit"
I really don´t thing you are sorry so try insert your comments in a more direct way. if you want to call it bullshit so be it just don´t lie to me and yourself by saying "I'm sorry". moving on

"Homosexuals can and do have children without adoption"
true but it's never from both sides of the couple. Nevertheless I totally disagree with artificial insemination (for reasons that are for another mater. Only one side of the couple is a doner for the artificial inseminated child when homosexuality is involved. either a woman gives her egg or a man his sperm. The child born like that will only be biologically linked to the doner.
Hence homosexuals can´t "produce" (not saying with a negative term, just could not find a better one)a child on their own, they have to really on a third person. I think you can agree with me on this, if not point me wrong.

"Marriage is NOT solely or dependantly about having children"
I can´t agree with you more. But it was not created by any government but by the church. Later adopted by the government as a mean to stability. Again this was in the past! So please don´t misinterpret this paragraph.
IN THE PAST, since people were such devoted to their Christian religion, the many agreed and accepted to have sexual relationships while married. Except for some exceptions this was the "rule". By seeing that marriage was a way to bring social stability and population growth to the country. Hence some privileges were given to encourage marriage.
your counter arguments:
"There are any number of hetero couples incapable of having children"
True, but I never said that marriage is strictly for having children. But that is the day of today, crazy and insane. A while back having children was almost an obligation and so rewarded even the intent to, in order to populate and maintain the social strength of a country. And so marriage outside the church was born and called "civil marriage" not only for the reasons mention above but also to stop the "fleet marriages" and "clandestine marriages" happening a lot in 1690's in England. So I agreed with you there, there are people who can´t have, but that doesn't mean they should be denied to organise a family by adopting and the marriage recognition since what they want is the stability marriage provides, or provided back then, now a days we both now its not like that

"You're basically going the Bastard route by saying they don't count unless their parents were married."
Never in my looong comment I have said such a thing, don´t banalize my arguments with the word "basically" I think we are both adults and I would appreciated if you treat me like one.
and what do you mean "don´t count" ? you are putting words on me that my comment never said.
I dont thing with "don´t count" you meant they don´t exist because that would be strange and irrational. Nevertheless I can´t get another meaning for that, if you would please explain it I would appreciated. If you make comments that are not understandable than don´t expect a correct answer to them

"And lots of gay couples, my wife and I included, have happy healthy children, so AGAIN your argument falls completely flat."

Napster said...

Again never in my comment I said that gay couples and/or their children are not happy, so I don´t understand where my "argument fall completly flat." I believe that while in coitus you are enjoy yourself and I believe you can be very happy, never I said the contrary, nor have I said that anything about child's of homosexual couples being unhappy. I never said anything about them in my first comment as a matter of a fact.
Again I ask you to stop putting arguments on my lips and attacking my logic with them.
the only time I spoke about infants was in the past about the married couples. Never have I said they where happier or otherwise in any kind of couple parenting. If you recheck my comments then you should agree with me and drop you arguments and that point.

"Marriage was never originally a god ordained holy institution as your side often complains"
Again agree. You are quite an intelligent person, but you sometimes make the wrong associations between some facts.

Only religion related marriage is related to God and that is not what I discussed at first. Never I have spoken of God, just the church association with marriage so it is irrelevant for our discussion.

"wherein the woman was never consulted on if she even liked the man she was being forced to marry"

Again completly true but again you are missing some facts. Sometimes Neither the man marring wanted the same marriage. But it was good for the family so both the man and the woman accepted what their parents arranged them. So don´t try to victimise the woman because again it is irrelevant to our discussion

"another way to use guilt to limit human sexuality and control their followers"
I will only make a brief comment due to the offending argument this is to me.
An institution that lasted for 2000 years can´t be based on lies, it had problems and will continue to have because its is constituted by flawless and never perfect humans. Nevertheless it still stands. You don´t see none being forced to join. The conspirational theories you believe about the holy church are not valid arguments to this discussion. another may rise about the subject and then you can say what ever you're beliefs are.

Napster said...

"So if you have a heart and a conscience, you cannot rationally justify denying us true full equality"
the obvious constatation that I have a heart is irrelevant and since the conscience is something that is quite relative from culture to culture it has no meaning in being referred in here.
Man and woman are different. By the simple fact there bodies are different so it's irrational to say they are equal. A woman will do things a man will never do and vice versa . But your argument is valid if you are talking rights. man and woman should have the same rights I agreed there. But when talking about marriage you are not talking about a man a woman or 2 of each. you are talking about an institution that sees a biological man and a biological woman as they are: biologically different, so the associated between different organisms can´t be the same as the between two similar ones. So my question is: why two things that are different should be called the same? I don´t care what you call it the union between two humans of the same sex, just don´t call it marriage. Not with the intention of elevation one over the other just to tell apart one thing from the other.

" it is not even POSSIBLE now to be against it without having a bigoted reason"
I'm sorry, what it is for you a "bigoted reason"? if its anything mention before why do you say it again? and if it something new would you care to explain it please?

My message to NOM was to NOM and not for you to comment. but it is your right to speak your mind so I can't forbid you. But again it does not bring valid arguments to this discussion since you give me no example about what you claim to be the " insults and low tricks (...) tactics NOM seems to have". Unless you give me examples not mentioned before I just can´t respond and should not be even in this discussion.

Kathryn:
I do like the way you reason but there are a few arguments that could be avoided such as" They don't say, "Ooops! I'm sorry! My d**k accidentally fell into your @$$! I couldn't help it!" Of COURSE it's a choice!"

Since it de-gradates you're response to this issue. And its is easily refuted by the fact that hetero couples also have anal sex.
But I do appreciate your strength in this fight . hope you never give up ^^

Post a Comment

 
 
 

November 2010

Support Marriage

Sign Our Petition