AFA says gay activists are "hypocrites"

[Rick336]

Here's an article on the American Family Association website that claims that LGBT people who are fighting to gain marriage equality are "hypocrites."

They can't be serious!!! Is this a joke?

"Christians" who use the Bible against gay marriage are the most blatant example of hypocrisy that there is. They openly ignore the "God inspired" words of the Bible if it inconveniences them but bash LGBT people with scripture that works to support their hate.

And hate is really what it's all about here. If they really believed that the Bible was "God's inspired word" they would follow holy scripture word for word. But it's obvious to anybody with an IQ above 30 that they don't do this. They pick and choose from the Holy Menu of ancient laws all the words that they can find to bash LGBT citizens. And now they're trying to turn it around and say we're the hypocrites?

There's something very wrong in the minds of these people. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see this.

Here's their story -->http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=325322


Rick

[CaptainSnoopy]

I am trying to see the hypocrisy in the story. If he had a story where a gay activist group was beating up minorities in the name of tolerance...then yeah..the particular activist group I could see being hypocritical...but He has an a point that leads to a b and I just cannot draw the line with his logic.

Remember, though, not all Christians are dumb....just saying..some of us are actually okay. :)

[Daniel]

I agree Rick. There is a lot that is ignored, such as Jesus' words on divorce.

Being gay? Not a word by the Carpenter.

If conservative Christians really followed the good book to the letter, they would be raising money to outlaw divorce, not gay marriage. Not only that, they would be stoning their children for talking back.

Oh ye of little faith! ;)

[Alecto]

THe few incidents wherein people are throwing slurs at Black supporters? Totally hypocritical. I'm guessing that's not what was in the article though.

[CaptainSnoopy]

THe few incidents wherein people are throwing slurs at Black supporters? Totally hypocritical. I'm guessing that's not what was in the article though.

No, it was not. I am not sure where the author of the article was going. I think he needs a dictionary.

[Rick336]

Remember, though, not all Christians are dumb....just saying..some of us are actually okay. :)

I agree that all Christians aren't dumb. Most of the Christians I know are intelligent, compassionate people. In fact, I was a Christian for most of my life, so if I thought Christians were dumbasses, I would have to include myself into that category.

But there are literally millions of "Christians" who claim that every word of scripture is the absolute true word of God (Rick Warren, James Dobson, Pat Robertson, the leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention, to name a few) and then pick out scripture to support their bigotry while completely ignoring other scripture. They are hypocrites of the worst kind.

If they really do believe scripture is "God's perfect word", then they must believe this should be the punishment for working on Sunday:

Exodus 31:15 - For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death.

If they really believed this was "God's spoken words", millions of Walmart employees would be executed. This proves that they really don't believe this nonsense anymore than I do. They simply don't believe what they say they believe.

In other words, they're full of bullcrap!! They know they're full of bullcrap and we know they're full of bullcrap. So why do we let them keep playing this childish game of nonsense?

They need to either practice what they preach or shut the hell up.

Rick

[Matt Algren]

You know what's the weirdest part of this? To me, at least, it's that we have the Mormons, Catholics, and Evangelicals teaming up for something. Do people outside Christian circles not realize how much these groups can't stand each other?

Not too many months ago, there was a big to-do because a Mormon was running for President and no way would the Dobson crowd ever get on board with that. It's not that unusual to find Mormonism And how many of us know Evangelicals who assert very strongly that Catholics aren't Christians? Mormons call the Catholic Church "the great and abominable church" for crying out loud!

I can't help but wonder which one will break first.

[CaptainSnoopy]

It is not like you have Catholic Priests, Mormon Bishops, and Evangelical pastors in a conference room together. They are still different. Side note from an evangelical minister....my best friend is a Priest. So we are little weirdos. :)

[tdogg]

A lot of locals, in reacting to various newspaper articles, our protests, especially those made in the church, and in response to our being upset that Prop 8 passed, have resorted to telling GLBT that we are intolerant, hypocritical, hateful, etc., because we refuse to accept the vote of the people, hang our heads and crawl back into the closet. What they have done (and this is especially evident with people connected to organized religion, is to throw our arguments back into our face, call us names and be outraged that we refuse to accept Prop 8.

It's kind of the MO organized religion has always used. If they can take proof of their intolerance, hypocrisy and hate and somehow throw it back on us, they feel better about themselves. I believe it gives them a sense of justification for their opinions, actions and words against GLBT.

[FoxInSox]

I'm not understanding how the no-on-8 folks were hypocritical? Did I miss something?:confused:

[tdogg]

They weren't. It's the Prop 8 proponents who are crying that, without of course any actual evidence. Basically, their rationale appears to be that because we are not accepting the vote (Yes on 8), that is demonstrating that we are not tolerant of religious freedom and therefore hypocrites, as we are 'demanding tolerance'. Or something confusing and illogical along those lines...

[FoxInSox]

umm...thanks for clearing that up? :lol:

[Rick336]

They weren't. It's the Prop 8 proponents who are crying that, without of course any actual evidence. Basically, their rationale appears to be that because we are not accepting the vote (Yes on 8), that is demonstrating that we are not tolerant of religious freedom and therefore hypocrites, as we are 'demanding tolerance'. Or something confusing and illogical along those lines...

Yes. They're the poor victims. :'( They take away LGBT Californians rights, yet they want sympathy. :'( It's always about how mistreated they are. :'( It's always about how they're being attacked, or how they're being denied their rights.:'(

Give me a break. :rolleyes:


Rick

[nmwolfboy]

A lot of locals, in reacting to various newspaper articles, our protests, especially those made in the church, and in response to our being upset that Prop 8 passed, have resorted to telling GLBT that we are intolerant, hypocritical, hateful, etc., because we refuse to accept the vote of the people, hang our heads and crawl back into the closet. What they have done (and this is especially evident with people connected to organized religion, is to throw our arguments back into our face, call us names and be outraged that we refuse to accept Prop 8. Yeah, as if we were supposed to just stand there and accept the stripping away of a legally recognized civil right. :smashy:

Pax,
scott

[Matt Algren]

Not mine, but one I agree with 100%.

Message to the religious right - this isn't just about marriage, it's about history (http://holybulliesandheadlessmonsters.blogspot.com/2008/11/this-isnt-just-about-marriage-its-about.html)

I keep hearing all of this nonsense about us lgbts attacking people, about us using intimidation and violence to oppress people, about us somehow being ugly aggressors.

Newt Gingrich (who wrote the book on deceptive messaging during his tenure in the U.S. House of Representatives) actually accused us of being "secular fascists."

Gingrich's attack on us seem to be the prevailing theme with those on the other side of the Proposition 8 argument.

And I think there needs to be some historical perspective on this matter.

True, Proposition 8 has galvanized our community. We have become a bit more politically engaged in our anger. That is a good thing.

However, any display of violence on either side of the argument should never be tolerated.

Nor should letting the religious right frame the moment.

I have a few questions to people like Newt Gingrich, Bill O’Reilly, Chuck Norris, Gary Bauer, Peter LaBarbera and the rest who are trying to push this "gay intimidation" image.

Where were you in the late 1970s when Anita Bryant accused us of trying to “recruit” children?

Where were you in 1983 when Paul Cameron accused gay men of stuffing gerbils up our rectums and castrating children? Or afterwards when he went from state to state pushing his phony research papers all designed to make us the boogiemen of American society?

Where were you when Jerry Falwell exploited the AIDS crisis to generate more money for the Moral Majority? Or when those dying of AIDS were cast out of their communities and excommunicated from their churches?

Where were you when Colorado passed that law in 1992 that basically said cities in the state had absolutely no right to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination?

Where were you when over the course of 20 years all of those phony “pro-family” groups told lies in front of federal and congressional state houses in attempts to beat back pro-gay laws or spread discredited research that gave “upstanding, moral” families the perfect excuse to put their gay sons and daughters out on the cold streets?

Where were you when organizations like Concerned Women for America, the Family Research Council, the Traditional Values Coalition, and Focus on the Family unconsciously gave reasoning for groups of roaming thugs to bash our heads in, chase us out in heavy traffic, beat us to bloody pulps with nail embedded boards, and hang us from fences on dark and lonely roads?

How is it that you can dare call us aggressive when for over 30 years, you have done everything in your power to make America hate and fear us?

How it is that you can dare infer that we don't have a right to get just a tad angry when for over 30 years, you have done everything in your power to make us hate and fear ourselves?

Every lie, every indignity, every attempt to dehumanize the lgbt community has brought us to this point. The Proposition 8 vote was the last straw in a chain of indignities that stretch as long as Jacob's ladder.

This ain’t just about marriage. Nor is this a single moment in time.

We are not the aggressors. We are learning to fight back.

When I was coming out, it wasn’t the fact that I was gay that bothered me more than the knowledge that so many had already written my life for me; told me who I was, what I liked, what I didn’t like, and even where I was going after I died.

Worst of all, they had the nerve to tell me that I had absolutely no rights to the words "values," "family," "tradition," or "honor."

And you know what the saddest thing about this is? I was not alone. Hundreds of thousands of lgbts went through the same experience. It was our "rite of passage."

So while I may not have a media spin machine behind me and therefore very few will give a damn about what I say, while I may not be a member of a religious think tank who is presently working to use this moment to again dehumanize lgbts, and while I may not be considered as a "leading gay talking head," I am an American, a human being, and a child of God.

Therefore, I will never forget what has brought me to this point of outrage.

And I will do my best to make sure that this country never forgets either.

Lastly, I will do my best to make sure that YOU never forget.

[MCstudent]

So, the AFA is pretty much in my backyard.... Tupelo, MS, about 2 and a half hours north of me- also the birthplace of Elvis, but thats besides the point...

They apparently donated $500,000 to yes on 8.. Theres talk of No on 8 supporters here caravaning to Tupelo in January to pay the headquarters a visit.... I don't know much about it yet at this point though.

That article provided no valid reason for claiming that Christians in support of No on 8 are hypocritical... I cant see how they could claim that, yet not look twice at themselves... Last time I checked, I was called to love others, to not judge or I'll be judged, to treat others how I want to be treated.... I plan on doing my best to uphold my understanding of Scripture whether or not they- or in my case, people at my school- think I'm being hypocritical.

[sjbouza]

them needing to take the plank out of their eye before they attempt to take the sliver out of someones elses.

Man does that sound familiar to anyone? Where have I heard that on before???

OH YEA...THE BIBLE!

Maybe I am wrong about my assumptions about that little sliver of the Bible, but I think it to mean that you need to be right with EVERYTHING in your life before you start pointing out faults in others. I am not saying that everyone, including our side, is not at fault in this area. So that would tell me that both sides just need to take a look at their own lives first and get themselves right. Just stop worrying about what "the other guy" is trying to do. Christians that are against same sex marriage stay on your side of the playground and we will stay on ours. We won't make you do anything that you don't want to do and you give us the same respect by not shoving your beliefs upon us. Does that sound fair?

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR! @#$%$ #%^^&r &^*^(*( (%$#() *^$*)(&(!!!!!!

Sorry, just needed a little frustration breaker there without actually writing the words. Like I have said in other posts everyone is getting hung up on this word "marriage". Marriage is a ceremony and nothing more. It was a shame that the government had to adopt it into its civil union. That is the whole problem. Get over the word everyone. If a church doesn't want to perform a same sex union then they don't have to. Some of you may say that we need the word to be equal. I agree and disagree on that point. What does it matter what a same sex union is called as long as IT IS RECOGNIZED BY STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT and it treated the same as a marriage. Please don't cry separate but equal on me here. Would you rather have something that gives us the same rights and privileges as a hetero couple have or nothing? If we get our foot in the door then we have a a better chance to change it later. That is the way civil rights accomplished their goals. They got the separate but equal stuff then they went to the courts and said that it just isn't the same.

We need to stop trying to jump to the top of the mountain and get everything NOW! We will fair much better when we take smaller steps to reach that peak.

Just my two cents. I know some of you may be offended by what I have wrote and even angry at me. Some of you may think that I am settling for something that just isn't the same. In all honesty, I would rather have food in my hand instead of standing outside the restaurant looking in at all the people eating.

Peace & Love,
Scott

[Rick336]

Not mine, but one I agree with 100%.

Matt,

Thanks for posting that great essay. There were very moving words. :)

Rick

[Zerbie]

Some of you may say that we need the word to be equal. I agree and disagree on that point. What does it matter what a same sex union is called as long as IT IS RECOGNIZED BY STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT and it treated the same as a marriage. Please don't cry separate but equal on me here. Would you rather have something that gives us the same rights and privileges as a hetero couple have or nothing? If we get our foot in the door then we have a a better chance to change it later. That is the way civil rights accomplished their goals. They got the separate but equal stuff then they went to the courts and said that it just isn't the same.

Peace & Love,
Scott

Here's the problem: those determined to avoid recognizing gay unions use the absence of the word "marriage" as rationale for depriving them of rights, custody, benefits etc., stating that although the couple has a civil union, a civil union is not a marriage and therefore not to be recognized. Parents have lost custody of their children over this word.

Otherwise I am 100% in accord with you.

[sauu4equality]

We need to stop trying to jump to the top of the mountain and get everything NOW! We will fair much better when we take smaller steps to reach that peak.


Peace & Love,
Scott

I feel like this is exactly what Utah of all places is doing. Check out the link. Their new Common Ground Initiative is truly moving. They are asking that the Mormon Church make good on its word. The LDS has actually stated that they would support civil unions. There are 5 bills being introduced under the Common Ground Initiative. We need to follow this story with high interest. If they are successful, this becomes the model. How amazing would it be if a consequence of Prop 8 was a large-scale advancement of gay rights in Utah?!!?

http://www.equalityutah.org/

This link and story absolutely needs its own thread. I am so moved by these people's work and genius. Please, keep in mind, many of them are Mormons...

[sjbouza]

Here's the problem: those determined to avoid recognizing gay unions use the absence of the word "marriage" as rationale for depriving them of rights, custody, benefits etc., stating that although the couple has a civil union, a civil union is not a marriage and therefore not to be recognized. Parents have lost custody of their children over this word.

Otherwise I am 100% in accord with you.

I may have mis-stated what I was trying to say. I am not speaking of the "civil unions" that we have today. What I am talking about is getting federal civil unions that will be recognized as marriage currently is. Taking the word "marriage" out of government completely. This word was wrongly adopted by the government and now the church is claiming trademark on it. Well fine, then just keep the word "marriage" to refer to the ceremony only. Everyone will have a Federal Civil Union that is recognized just as "marriage is today". That will take the religious factor out of the battle. The church can't complain anymore because same sex couples, as well as heteros, will have Federal Civil Unions. If same sex couples or hetero couples want a "marriage ceremony" then they can go to a church and have one performed. However, prior to that ceremony they will have to go down to the courthouse to apply for the license, they then will set a date with a magistrate for their union. After they have this step completed they can then go to the church of their choice and have a "marriage ceremony" performed that is religiously recognized.

That is what I am trying to say. Just take the word "marriage" right out of the governments vocabulary. If a church does not want to perform a "marriage ceremony" for anyone for any reason, they don't have to just as they don't have to today.

Peace,
Scott

[CaptainSnoopy]

Frankly as a minister, I would prefer this. This "institution" people are defending is not thousands of years old. Nowhere in the Bible or in any other ancient text do you see the government issuing a license which then gets brought to a minister who performs a ceremony and then fills out the marriage certificate which then gets mailed back to the county and may or may not be recognized in other places.

You do see in older records and texts that during ancient censuses they would ask people weather they are married so they could tax you appropriately.

Hell, in Jesus time some youngin would build a pad and when he was finished, take the girl home and start having lots and lots of sex. That was marriage...today we would call that living together and pinheads like Dobson would not recognize the union that a guy like Jesus would turn water into wine over. :)

Marriage is not the governments place to decide. If the Catholics don't wanna marry people of same gender that is fine, but if the UCC does...cool. From that perspective, it would seem that the church is being overridden by the state and that is a violation of my first amendment right.

This upcoming June I am performing a ceremony for two women I know and I am honored to do so...but as their pastor I am restricted from calling them wife and wife? Hmmmm...ya got me thinking at an angle I have not considered with your post.

[tdogg]

I would be in favor of rewording all references to "marriage" no matter where performed, recognized or the gender of the respective spouses, and allowing the word "marriage" to be the description used for church ceremonies. however, there are some complications with this idea.

1. You are back to a word - who gets to use "marriage"? If it will be allowed to only be a description for a heterosexual marriage, then we are back to square one. I don't think you are going to get all GLBT people to quite using "marriage" and the requirement would be unenforceable anyway. If it is ok to be used by everyone, then you are back to square one because those who cry it's a 'term' issue will still not have exclusive rights to the term. But, I do see the benefit in deeming all 'civil' marriages as "civil something" as long as the rights are 100% equal and same word is used for everyone.

2. To change every legal document, statute, regulation, etc. at the federal level, state level, county level and city level is way too costly and time consuming. No one is going to want to do that. Just changing all the forms alone will be a costly and time consuming task. It's probably easier to change the laws. With the financial crisis going on everywhere, no government is going to want to deal with that. Back to square one.

3. I honestly do not think it's about a term or a word. I think that's just an excuse. I have only had a conversation with one single person who said the only problem he had with gay marriage is the word 'marriage'. He went on to talk about how he loves his gay son, but (the wonderful qualifier) his son has never asked to have a marriage with his partner. Otherwise, the conversation always ends up being about everything and not about the word marriage.

However, there could be something to think about. What if we actually appear to buy in to their 'marriage' term sanctity? What if we say ok, we believe you, it's only about marriage, let's use civil union for all government sanction unions and you can keep marriage in your church. Just make the rights, privileges and protections exactly the same for all couples. Either they will get behind that, or show their true colors and reveal that is has nothing to do with the term "marriage".

Patrick, our minister ended our ceremony with "by the powers vested in me by the church and the state, I now pronounce you legally married." It was cool.

[CaptainSnoopy]

Patrick, our minister ended our ceremony with "by the powers vested in me by the church and the state, I now pronounce you legally married." It was cool.
tdogg, you raise some excellent points for consideration. The reason I quoted the above is this. It never really occurred to me until just this afternoon the thing that is wrong with the sentence. I do not want or care about the state and the weddings I perform. The powers vested in me by the church and to hell with the state. First amendment says my church is protected from the state's interference. Now, I realize we cannot sacrifice virgins or serve poison cool aid...but right now I am being told who I cannot marry in the legal sense. Really, what is the government offering? A license, a change in tax status, insurance dependent and recipient status, the ability to adopt, and some other things. I am trying to see what the state offers that is a sacred institution. What is sacred is two people who love each other and want to declare that love for life in front of their friends and family and then live that love. That is the sacred part and it is there that beauty lay. The state is defending nothing with prop 8 because they offer nothing sacred. Stupid voters.

[Daniel]

I am trying to see what the state offers that is a sacred institution. What is sacred is two people who love each other and want to declare that love for life in front of their friends and family and then live that love. That is the sacred part and it is there that beauty lay. The state is defending nothing with prop 8 because they offer nothing sacred. Stupid voters.

Remember that song? Leslie Gore sang it. Gay icon.

Relevant here in that the state doesn't 'own' marriage, at least not in matters of faith (great post Snoppy!)

Marriage is a legal matter even though the majority of the public mixes the substance of faith into it. Folds it in like sugar into dough when making a cake. It may make it sweet, but it's really about the 'dough', that is, the 1500 benefits/rights that come with it.

I talked with my uncle some time ago about this. He was a really smart guy, all for gay rights, but couldn't see his way past the M word, saying that it was the stumbling block for straight people. That's what we're taking on. The perception of millions of people who don't understand the very institution they hold dear. Several times in fact! ;)

[tdogg]

When government became involved in marriage, it became a civil matter. I liked what our minister said. Because for so long, we were not included in the 'civil' part. Sure, we could have our 'commitment ceremonies' in our churches, we could have the 'religious' or "sacred' rite, and eventually we were 'blessed' with having some rights via registered domestic partnerships. But we were excluded from the civil matter called "marriage". In May, we were granted inclusion into 'marriage'. On 9/20/08, my wife and I exercised our "legal" and "civil" right to become married.

That's why that statement meant so much to me. Yes, I considered our wedding and our marriage to be sacred and special and even holy, but also to be legal and civil and a right that we were able to exercise on that day. I can see your point of view, from a pastor, but from this person, the legal right was just as important as the religious rite. On a side note, our ceremony was not overtly religious, although we did include God and our rings were blessed by the minister. I didn't want it to become the church service that so many others choose to have. The was a major reason why I did not want my wedding to be performed in a church. We opted for the Capitol rose garden: roses, birds, passersby, and a lovely setting, including a couple of homeless persons observing. That's my 'church' preference.

[keltic63]

but, it's not just about the word "marriage" as proven by this story from PHB: http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=8355

They want not only to take away our rights, they want our benefits (http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/local/article911491.ece)too.

[tdogg]

Some say that could never happen in California, but I've thought it was suspect that the Yes on 8 campaign NEVER mentioned domestic partner benefits at all. It was nearly unnoticeably left out of any of their messages.

Which makes me somewhat suspicious that if Prop 8 is found to be constitutional by the state Supreme Court and written into our constitution, then domestic partner benefits will be the next thing attacked. I hope the attorneys fighting to repeal Prop 8 are savvy enough to know what it will take to convince the justices that it is unconstitutional.

[Petrese]

well the threat to the whole institution of marriage is at stake here! and the hypocrites abound....LOL watch to see:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7DjSmIXyZ4

[tdogg]

The SF Chronicle (sfgate.com) reported today that the proponents of Prop 8 are splintering. There is a more 'radical' group that are attempting to take away all rights from GLBT (including civil unions and domestic partnerships, discrimination protections, etc.). The protectmarriage.com people are now attempting to distance themselves from this other group, because they want to be seen as the 'nice people who are only trying to protect the term marriage.' As far as I'm concerned, anyone who supported Prop 8 supported discrimination, whether or not they are trying to take anything else away. It is a bit funny, though, when you think about it.

[CaptainSnoopy]

well the threat to the whole institution of marriage is at stake here! and the hypocrites abound....LOL watch to see:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7DjSmIXyZ4

Vid got pulled. :confused: What did I miss?

[Petrese]

Vid got pulled. :confused: What did I miss?

I just checked this link, it's still there. If the link here doesn't work go to Lisa Nova's YouTube channel and u can access it there, it is priceless, basically a guy telling his wife how he's gonna save their marriage yet everything that he's doing that actually threatens it he scoffs at, pretty funny & against measure 8. They should of ran it as an ad prior to the election and it may have helped defeat it.

Lisa also has a bunch of really good anti McCain/Palin vids too, a good comedian.

I think I am moving back to the east coast, maybe Conneticuit or Boston :)