Focus on the Family Citizen Link updates. Warning: Blood boilers enclosed. [Archive]

Emproph

06-03-2006, 10:37 AM

Article (http://www.family.org/cforum/extras/a0040733.cfm)

Dissection of Highlights:

U.S. Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo (http://allard.senate.gov/public/)., the sponsor of the amendment then and now, said he's pleased the president has endorsed the MPA.

"I don't think this is a partisan issue," he said. "I don't think any party can be out-and-out against marriage, but there are a few activists who are pushing this issue — and primarily pushing it through the courts. And the only way to stop them is with a constitutional amendment, and that's why this vote is so very vital."

"I don't think this is a partisan issue," he said. "I don't think any party can be out-and-out against marriage
-So there’s not a democratic or republican movement "out-and-out against marriage?" Boy that’s a relief.

but there are a few activists who are pushing this issue
-Oh my, so there ARE “activists” “out-and-out against marriage?”

— and primarily pushing it through the courts.
-Why, these “activists” must be in cahoots with the “activist judges” I so often hear of. I didn’t see the connection before, but thanks to your characterization of gay Americans seeking equality as being “activists,” I now do.

And the only way to stop them
-Yes, how do we “stop them” Americans who seek equality?

is with a constitutional amendment,
-Why, if we need a constitutional amendment, this must be the MOST pressing issue our country faces. Otherwise, why would we need to CHANGE THE VERY MEANING OF OUR COUNTRY?

and that's why this vote is so very vital."
-I have to admit, the above option seemed a bit extreme, but your clarification that it’s not just “vital,” but “very vital,” absolutely, completely, entirely, fully, and not unnecessarily redundantly, sets me straight.

Pro-family Americans aren't the only ones speaking out on the issue, however. Homosexual-activist groups have also targeted senators with ads and phone calls. One ad, sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign, goes so far as to say the amendment "would forever write discrimination into the United States Constitution."

Pro-family Americans aren't the only ones speaking out on the issue however.
-Good thing they’re Americans as opposed to those sexual activists who aren’t.

Homosexual-activist groups have also targeted senators with ads and phone calls.
-If it weren’t for that hyphen, I would have forgotten that all homoSEXUALS are activists. But more ominously, groups?

One ad, sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign, goes so far as to say the amendment "would forever write discrimination into the United States Constitution."
-Gosh golly gee, why would they “go so far” as to say that?

Amanda Banks, federal-issues analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said the argument that marriage is somehow discriminatory reflects the confused logic of liberal activists.
-I had no idea that all 'homosexual activists' and therefore gay Americans, are also liberals who support the terrorists who want to kill us all.

"The marriage amendment simply states that 'Marriage shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman,' " Banks said. "This would ensure that the definition of marriage remains the same as it has always been. So, it appears that HRC believes marriage has always been discriminatory, in every country of the world, for millennia. Clearly that is not the case."

"The marriage amendment simply states that 'Marriage shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman,' " Banks said. "This would ensure that the definition of marriage remains the same as it has always been.
-So these “confused” “liberal” “activists” want change? History would be rolling in its grave...

So, it appears that HRC believes marriage has always been discriminatory, in every country of the world, for millennia. Clearly that is not the case."
-Clearly the Human Rights Campaign has no regard for the existence of the past.

Zerbie

06-03-2006, 08:30 PM

Omigosh Emproph, do you *really* read these things *every* day?!?! :eek: :( :mad:

I screamed my head off a coupla times reading various things I found along those links.

Tsk tsk tsk. I can't believe all the energy they've poured into it. . .

Emproph

06-04-2006, 07:13 AM

Omigosh Emproph, do you *really* read these things *every* day?!?! :eek: :( :mad:
I screamed my head off a coupla times reading various things I found along those links. Somebody has to. I’m a masochist for change, what can I say?Tsk tsk tsk. I can't believe all the energy they've poured into it. . . Exactly, this is the very fuel being used to feed the flames of bigotry and hatred. Now, if we could just find a way to make our cars run on it....

All this rage is giving me an idea though. There’s plenty of lies being thrown about and plenty of refutations of those lies, (like the Paul Cameron “studies”). What I don’t see enough of, is what they say when confronted. Without that, I wonder if they have been confronted.

I finally contacted one person regarding a claim that was made and she got right back to me. Though after three emails in total, I think I may be getting the run around, but even public knowledge of that would be telling. I’m still pursuing it though, I’ll keep you posted.

That’s what I’m thinking I’d like to do. Catalog the responses from the people making these claims. Then use those responses in addition to the original evidence refuting their claims to send out to other parties. So that the contact has teeth beyond just some "homosexual activist" ranting.

The whole basis of their bigotry is their belief in the Bible, Christianity. If a pattern of deception can be established on an individual level, I think it would lend credence to the pattern of deception already established on the organizational level.

I’ll try and make it a point to include these people’s individual emails if they make an easily refutable claim.

Their personal claims of Christianity is their achilles heel. If they’re not interested in the truth that can be verified, then they’re certainly not in a position to claim they are interested in truth that cannot be verified. The Bible being the cornerstone of their bigotry, will be defended at ALL cost, lending to yet more evidence of their insanity and nullifying their dishonesty.

At least that’s the theory.

Zerbie

06-04-2006, 12:30 PM

Somebody has to. I’m a masochist for change, what can I say?Exactly, this is the very fuel being used to feed the flames of bigotry and hatred. Now, if we could just find a way to make our cars run on it....

.

:lol:
Oh my god, I love you! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Rick336

06-04-2006, 03:21 PM

The whole basis of their bigotry is their belief in the Bible, Christianity.

I think there's more to their bigotry than their belief in the Bible. They're afraid of us. They fear us because they don't see us as we see ourselves. They see AIDS, pedophile priests, sexual fetishes displayed in public, drugs, STDs, and sex changes. They don't want their kids involved in this bizarre, "sinful", self-destructive behavior.

Their fear of these things overwhelms them and they don't see the well-adjusted, stable gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender people and their famlies who simply want to have the freedom to live their lives without fear of violence or discrimination.

Our opponents see that some gay men have promiscuous, unsafe sex and believe that homosexuality is a dangerous and unhealthy lifestyle. They call homosexuality a "deathstyle". But it's not our sexual orientation that's unhealthy and dangerous; it's the behavior of unsafe sex with multiple partners.

If our opponents were to say, "We believe that unsafe sex with multiple partners is unhealthy and dangerous," then they'd be right. Gay Health organizations have been saying this for years.

There are lots of things in our society that are unsafe. Among them are cigarette smoking, drugs, unhealthy diets, drinking and driving, guns around children, family violence, unsafe working conditions, toxic chemicals, and so on.

But our opponents don't seem to notice those. Instead, they attack us as a people. They say that gay, lesbian, bisexual, and trangender people live an unhealthy lifestyle and therefore are not worthy of equality.

They also believe that since some pedophile priests molested boys that this proves that homosexuals are not to be trusted around children. But again it's not homosexuality that's the problem. Nor is it priests. It's pedophilia. It's adult men who take sexual advantage of children. Of course there's a reason to be concerned. Parents rightfully want to protect their children. But, if they were to say, "We believe pedophile sexual predators are dangerous and our children need protection," they'd be right and they'd have the LGBT commnuity behind them. Afterall, many gay families have these same concerns.

But that's not what many of our opponents are saying. They're saying that homosexuality and pedophilia are the same thing which is false. They believe that all gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people are potential pedophiles and see this as another reason to deny us equality.

Their beliefs are not based on reality because they can't see reality. They are afraid of us because they don't see us as we really are. That's because most of us are still in the closet. We hide from them. They don't see that we're responsible, well-adjusted, productive members of society with many of the same morals and values that many Americans have.

What they do see is a small percentage of the population ( they say 1% ) who are homosexuals and that among this 1% is what they believe is a large group of very strange and dangerous people. They fear us so they pick and choose Bible scripture to justify their homophobia.

It's all about fear. This is why coming out of the closet is so important to our equality and our survival as a community. They need to see us. All of us. They need to see us as we see ourselves.

If twenty million LGBT people came out to one straight person a year for ten years imagine the impact that would have.

As Harvey Milk once put it, ".....every myth, every lie, every innuendo would be destroyed once and for all. And once you come out you will feel so much better."

Rick

Emproph

06-10-2006, 01:29 AM

Rick, I know what you mean about the fear part. My point is that, much of the fear aspect would be eliminated if the lies and deception were absent. At that point we'd be able to agree to disagree significantly more than is possible now. The vitriolic hatred part wouldn't be complicating it.

It's easy enough to look at homosexuals and think that it's unnatural and then to have that confirmed by what you believe is God's inerrant Word. Without opposing information, eventually no distinction is made between personal disgust and "God's" disgust. Throw in the propensity for child molestation and every other social depravity and it all fits together. We truly are evil and something to be feared.

Absent what is NOT true, all that's left are personal feelings and words in a book, but not "threat."

Obviously I'm generalizing, but I think the lies are causing the fear which is what is preventing both sides from having any substantial rational dialogue. Which I think is key to any hope of resolution.

Emproph

06-10-2006, 03:02 AM

Like this one Rick :). In response to the announcement of Truth Wins Out. Part of The subject matter was specifically about false “research,” so that took at least some wind out of their sails, but in a fundamental way. They put much more emphasis on the Bible/belief aspect than usual, they had to.

Ex-Gay Conference Targeted with Counter Messaging (http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0040781.cfm) June 6, 2006 (same as below)

Love Won Out will bring the message that change is possible to the Washington, D.C,. this weekend -- but a homosexual-activist group is planning its own conference.

People will gather at Immanuel's Church in Silver Spring, Md., on Saturday to hear the message that there is hope for those struggling with unwanted same-sex attraction. But gay-activist Wayne Besen has announced a counterconference to be called "Truth Wins Out."

Mike Haley, director of the gender-issues department at Focus on the Family and the Love Won Out conference host, said Besen intends to directly challenge the message that people can change their sexual orientation.

"It's a direct response to what we're doing with Love Won Out," he said. "Even their name -- Truth Wins Out -- they have to piggyback off of the success of Love Won Out. I think they thought for years it was going to go away, but they are seeing that it is more successful now than it's ever been."

"Even their name -- Truth Wins Out -- they have to piggyback off of the success of Love Won Out.
-By the end of the sentence the name of the organization is synonymous with the "success" of the organization itself.

An article by Besen shows how he intends to frame his message:

"While Focus on the Family has the right to prey on people who want to 'change,' they also have the responsibility to tell the truth, which they do not," he said. "Instead of honesty, conference participants will get heavy doses of scientifically bankrupt theories and misleading information that conceals the true failure rate of so-called reparative therapy."
-That ain't no frame, that's a charge worthy of indictment. And their response:

Haley said those words are typical of the vitriol from the homosexual community.
-"vitriol," akin to name calling in response to a legitimate concern.

"I don't know what they are proclaiming the truth to be -- they like to claim that all the medical organizations are against reparative therapy and that it's harmful, but the reality is that that isn't what the organizations have said," he said.
Bold Faced LIE. (http://www.exgaywatch.com/blog/archives/2006/06/post_4.html#more) But not specific, he didn't dare cite a stat or study.

"Instead, they have said that homosexuality is multi-causal and there's proof positive over the years that men and women have changed."
-Ambiguous, you'd think he'd want to be specific, the charge against them was specific.

Haley, who left homosexuality, said he and thousands of others are living proof that truth does win out.
-"Thousands," and no sources mentioned. Typical.

That message of change is something the homosexual community refuses to tolerate, even though tolerance is what they claim to seek.
-Yes Mike, we refuse to tolerate lies. But no Mike, we don't seek the tolerance of lies.

"In asking for tolerance, they are asking people to tolerate everything and to stand for nothing,"
Tolerate absolutely everything? Stand for absolutely nothing? Really? Would you care to Elaborate on that scandalously over generalized accusation Mike?

--And what's left over when you can't use "scientifically bankrupt theories and misleading information that conceals the true failure rate?" The Bible. Who can argue with an unverifiable third party god who can't be wrong?

Haley said. "We as Christians have Biblical standards that we are called to stand for. We have to stand for marriage. We have to stand for righteousness. And we have to stand for the truth that people can walk away from homosexuality. Homosexuality is not what God intended for mankind."

Haley said he isn't the least bit discouraged to learn about Besen's event. In fact, the timing couldn't be better. The U.S. Senate is set to vote on the Marriage Protection Amendment on Wednesday.

"As Christians we know that God preordains things. We plan these events a year-and-a-half to two years in advance," he said. "It just so happens that we are in the Washington, D.C., area during a number of things such a gay-pride event and the current focus on the Marriage Protection Amendment. Obviously, God knew we needed a balanced, loving response. So that's what we're going to offer."
-So God is responsible for the "timing." Well that much of the article is true. The question is, did it sound balanced and loving?

This is a man who gives advice in his book "101 Questions About Homosexuality," that if your child tells you that they are gay and that they've accepted it, that you should pray that they become "as miserable as possible as soon as possible, with God's protection." Essentially hell without death. Thus the "infinite" power and love of his god.

Emproph

06-10-2006, 05:44 AM

{Welcome to the Emproph no spin zone :lol:}

This one was a bit odd, and only three paragraphs. (http://www.family.org/cforum/briefs/a0040810.cfm)

Ultra-liberal Barbra Streisand is apparently joining former Vice President Al Gore in the fight against global warming. In announcing her first U.S. tour in over a decade today, she said she would raise money for, among other things, fighting against warmer temperatures, Reuters reported.

“Ultra-liberal?” “Warmer temperatures?”

I’m sure her true agenda is to end Spring and Summer as we know it. Next thing she'll want to stop poorly buffered precipitation. (that's acid rain for you and me "ultra-liberals")

Emproph

06-10-2006, 06:14 AM

Not much to make fun of here :eek:, but I found this article (http://www.family.org/cforum/extras/a0040814.cfm) rather amusing, and right up my “alligator alley.” -(FL)(Pics too!)
{-Just some background, they need 612,000 signatures by July 12th to get on the '08 ballot, as of March they still needed 155,000. How ironic if they came 500 sigs short.}

"On Saturday, June 3rd, as they were distributing petitions related to this marriage amendment, City of Sunrise police officers approached the volunteers and demanded that they remove the petitions from public view,"

The officer, he said, started haranguing him, not about any law or ordinance, but about theology and his personal views on gay marriage.

"He said that Jesus never mentioned homosexuality in the New Testament --which is not exactly accurate," Stemberger said. "He went on and on talking about theology."

"not exactly accurate"
-Exsqueeze me, I baking powder? We are talking about the Jesus in the Bible aren't we?

"So I went back to the table and put all the petitions back on the table with the clipboards.

"He said, 'You remove them immediately, or I will arrest you.' And I said, 'Sir, you're going to have to arrest me because you're acting without authority.' "

Stemberger said the 45-minute incident finally ended without arrests or further complications after an administrator from the civic center showed up and confronted the officer, telling him to stand down.

Now, I have to side with “them” on this one. But they included the chief of police’s email in the article so I made sure to send them a big kudos for my ego’s sake, (even though they were wrong). BEWARE: Citizen Link email address included as one of the recipients!

Dash

06-10-2006, 09:08 AM

Zerbie

06-10-2006, 12:24 PM

That incident with the officer is really disturbing. Way to intensify the problem!

I too wrote a note to the police chief. I applaud the officer's commitment to equality, but that's NOT a way to go about it. Said so.

After some debate, I decided to remove CitizenLink from the cc line, where it automatically popped up. Considered letting them see someone from "the other side" speaking out, but ultimately, I don't want them to have my email address. :disagree:

Emproph

06-11-2006, 03:36 AM

Omigosh! She's the White Witch come to Narnia to make it always Winter, but NEVER Christmas!!!:lol: That’s a good line, I haven’t seen it yet. I too wrote a note to the police chief. I applaud the officer's commitment to equality, but that's NOT a way to go about it. Said so.I agree, they certainly don’t need legitimate cannon fodder, -more importantly they don't deserve it. I thought that was bizarre coming from cops though.After some debate, I decided to remove CitizenLink from the cc line, where it automatically popped up. I missed that! Oh well, now they hate me personally. Wait a minute.. what’s the difference?

Zerbie

06-11-2006, 10:47 AM

I missed that! Oh well, now they hate me personally. Wait a minute.. what’s the difference?

Oh no! Emproph!!! :lol: Oops. The difference is, now they have your email AND they know which "side" you're on. :p

Emproph

06-17-2006, 09:47 AM

{Partial dissection of Larry King interview the other night, change of pace. -Don't know if I'll finish, the whole thing was a highlight. I think it's ripe for autopsy though. :tup:}

LARRY KING: Canon Anderson, since we're told that God loves everyone, that would have to include gay people. What do you have against Bishop Robinson being a bishop in your church?

CANON ANDERSON: Well, God certainly loves Gene Robinson. Gene Robinson is a child of God just as I am and others are. But the fact is that certain aspects of his life, in particular, his being an open homosexual, disqualify him for leadership in the Christian church, not just the Anglican Church, but in the Christian church, and it's that part that disqualifies him from leadership. God would love to see him transformed. God doesn't create a person homosexual. How they become homosexual or feel that inclination is unclear, but certainly people can be transformed back to a heterosexual life.

*How they become homosexual or feel that inclination is unclear*

What IS CLEAR to Canon Anderson:
-they become homosexual
-God would love to see him transformed.
-God doesn't create a person homosexual.
-certainly people can be transformed back to a heterosexual life.

Apparently you can be fundamentally uncertain about something yet certain of God’s viewpoint on it. God's viewpoint being of course the epitome of certainty.
_______________

LARRY KING: If it's a choice, Canon Anderson, did you choose to be heterosexual and if so, how do you choose it?

CANON ANDERSON: I think the heterosexual is the standard default setting, if you will, and whether you start with scripture and God's account of how things were created or, in fact, if you start with Charles Darwin and evolution, you come to the same point, that men were meant for women and women were meant for men.

So, when it comes to condemning the “sin” of homosexuality, it’s acceptable to God to use the “atheist” Charles Darwin, and the “myth” of evolution (or in creationist circles: Satan and his lies, in order to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Nice sidestep :tup:.
_______________________________

LARRY KING: Reverend Mohler, how could something be a sin if you didn't choose it?

REVEREND MOHLER: Well, actually, that's just something I can't accept in the sense of choosing. Larry I have to say, first of all, we're choosing all the time. Even in the moments we spend together here, we're making moral choices. I do understand that there are some choices that we make that seem to be prior to anything we can even understand and I understand there are many homosexuals who say I don't even have any impression of having chosen this erotic interest, this sexual orientation. I accept that at face value, but that does not mean that it normalizes and makes acceptable homosexual acts. I want to help them through that struggle regardless of how it came into their lives.

*REV MOHLER: Well, actually, that's just something I can't accept in the sense of choosing.*
-All homosexuals who say they didn’t choose to be gay are therefore liars.

*Larry I have to say, first of all, we're choosing all the time.*
-Now that's some fine backpeddling :tup:. Plus he informally throws himself into the mix by using the word "we're."

*I do understand that there are some choices that we make that seem to be prior to anything we can even understand*

-(gratuitous) Do you even remember the moment when you decided that you were innerrant enough to determine inerrancy?

*and I understand there are many homosexuals who say I don't even have any impression of having chosen this erotic interest, this sexual orientation.*
-The Re-Definition of LIFE to mean nothing more than an “erotic interest.”

*I accept that at face value, but that does not mean that it normalizes and makes acceptable homosexual acts. I want to help them through that struggle regardless of how it came into their lives.*

-Does he honestly think that the best way to "help" is to show that he "accepts” that I do-NOT-know-the-difference between loving someone, THE VERY MEANING OF LIFE, and sexual “acts?”
_____________

LARRY KING: Bishop Robinson, at the conclave that you're at, are they going to vote on this?

BISHOP ROBINSON: ...the real question before us right now...is can we all stay at the table and talk about this while we disagree? Talk of unity is not necessarily talk of unanimity...the great thing...is this great umbrella under which we disagree about lots of things and yet we find our unity when we go to the alter rail and receive the body and blood of Christ as humbly as we possibly can, find our unity there in Jesus Christ and then we go back to the pews and fight about all sorts of things, but we remain a community. We remain a communion and that's what God wants for us.

No wonder he was made a Bishop. That was an EXCELLENT way of describing and explaining the ideal for the church. God bless that man.

LARRY KING: Canon Anderson, what's the harm? Why is it harmful to the church to have Bishop Robinson have a flock?

CANON ANDERSON: Well, he could have a flock, but it would need to be outside of the Anglican tradition and I think really outside of the historic Christian tradition. If he wants to make his own rules as it were, or come up with an alternate interpretation of scripture, that's his decision. But scripture has been very clear. The witness of the church for 2,000 years has been very clear and it's only recently that the Episcopal Church, if you will, has been, I might use the word, hijacked by those who have a different perspective, a different theology, and they are taking it in a different direction.
Translation: Bishop Robinson is not a Christian because:
-he wants to make his own rules
-come up with an alternate interpretation of scripture
-has hijacked the Episcopal Church.
-has a differnet perspective,
-a different theology
-and is taking it in a different direction

Boy that sounds scary. What am I scared about again?

Bishop Robinson’s alleged "gay," and therefore non-Christian theology equals:
-stay at the table and talk about this while we disagree
-Talk of unity is not necessarily talk of unanimity
-we disagree about lots of things and yet we find our unity
-find our unity there in Jesus Christ
-fight about all sorts of things, but we remain a community
-We remain a communion

Which “theology” would you ascribe to if you were God?
____________

SULLIVAN: Larry, may I say the scripture is clear and scripture says that I should be put to death. The very verse that says that shalt not lie with another man as one does with a woman, says that I should face the death penalty. That's clear. Is that the policy of Reverend Mohler and the other gentlemen? Why is that not taken seriously?

KING: Canon Anderson, is he right?

ANDERSON: Scripture has that as a penalty. The fact is --

SULLIVAN: Why do you not support it?

ANDERSON: Because grace, grace can stand in the way, but it doesn't
mean you have to be put to death.

SULLIVAN: So you pick and choose? You pick and choose the parts of the Bible you agree with? Clearly.

KING: Let him finish.

ANDERSON: If you want to keep interrupting me, go ahead.

KING: Go ahead. He has a point, though, Canon Anderson. If it says you should be put to death and it's scriptures and you follow scripture, why don't you follow it?

ANDERSON: Well, the old testament law had consequences for the sin and we believe that in Jesus Christ, his death on the cross paid the penalty for sin. So you get a fresh start, but if you keep sinning over and over again, at some point the Lord is going to call into question your sincerity about the grace he's giving you.

*Paid the penalty for sin is a fresh start?*

*but if you keep sinning over and over again...*
-did you even listen to one word Bishop Robinson just said? {Unity, unity, unity, community, communion.}

*the Lord is going to call into question your sincerity about the grace he's giving you.*
-A god who is capable of calling its own “grace” into question IS NOT GOD!

KING: We'll take a break and we'll be back with more. We'll be including your phone calls later. Don't go away.

It's ok, you can go away if you want to. I doubt if I’ll be back for this one. We had fun though didn't we? :D :cool: :eek: :confused:

P.S. Do they not make jobs for people who can dissect living people, or their transcripts? What would you call that, a de-scriber?

Emproph

06-18-2006, 07:25 AM

Citizen Link June 16th 2006 (http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0040924.cfm)

Lesbian Teens at Higher Risk for Suicide
-from staff reports

A new study by the McCreary Centre Society reports lesbian teens are almost five times more likely to attempt suicide than are heterosexual girls.
The survey revealed that nearly four out of 10 lesbian girls say they have attempted suicide in the last year, compared to 8.2 percent of heterosexual girls.
-That’s 40% vs not quite 10% to you and me gays and lesbians..

Melissa Fryrear said there's a reason why the numbers are so high.
(She’s one of FOF’s ex-gay bullhorns for “they CHOOSE to be gay.”)

"Regrettably, they think they have to embrace homosexuality because pro-gay advocates told them that they were born gay," she said. "And that is absolutely not true."

That's why Fryrear offers solid information to those she counsels. "Sharing with them accurate information about homosexuality, for example, that it's not genetic, that it can be overcome, is important," she said.
-Because as any dead lesbian will tell you, genetics played a part in their decision to kill themselves.

That woman belongs in prison. Those who pay her deserve to be ‘born again’ as lesbians who commit suicide, and then ‘born again’ as the parents of children who commit suicide!

...more at Ex-Gay Watch. (http://www.exgaywatch.com/blog/)

Zerbie

06-18-2006, 12:55 PM

:( :mad:

What I see here is, now FOF is blaming those who are trying to protect LGBT kids from their emotionally-destructive rhetoric for the suicides that FOF itself is directly contributing to!!

:mad:

I just can't believe it. :confused: This is evil. It's like they are TRYING to kill kids.

nowvoyager

06-18-2006, 07:46 PM

Emproph, firstly, I loved your dissection of the Larry King debate - you sure repeated my words as I sat on my couch, ranting at the TV when I was watching it, and scaring the cat.

As for that awful "Citizen Link" stuff - oh a prayer and a blessing for those young girls and boys reading it.... I agree Zerbie, I think they're trying to kill kids - indeed they would prefer us dead. oi - so we gotta be alive, and joyous, in response...

Emproph

08-08-2006, 10:13 AM

From Focus on the Family's CitizenLink.org August 7, 2006

(Commentary in Bold, most other effects also mine)
-Remember, these are ONLY highlights of the article.

**********
What GLSEN Doesn't What You to Know (http://www.family.org/cforum/commentary/a0041546.cfm) (sic)
-(Read that title again if you didn't catch it the second time)

by C. Sulley Cushman

Learn how a leading gay-activist group works to get in public schools.

Few parents send their kids to school to be force-fed pro-homosexual messages day in and day out. Yet, that's exactly what's happening in an increasing number of schools across the nation. How are gay activists getting around parents and into America's classrooms?

To find out, I attended a conference sponsored by one of the nation's largest gay-advocacy groups -- the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) -- which boasts of having more than 3,000 pro-homosexual clubs in middle and high schools. The April 29 event was presented by GLSEN's Boston chapter.

-so you went to a “conference” to find out precisely “What GLSEN Doesn't What You to Know?” (still sic)
-please, do go on...

Particularly interesting was a workshop led by GLSEN's national communication director, Joshua Lamont, who gave talking points on how to overcome "resistance from various stakeholders."

It quickly became clear who these troublesome "stakeholders" were -- parents and school board members who dared to oppose the gay agenda.
^Plot point..

**********
Tactic 1: Broaden the debate

Lamont gave them an "umbrella" talking point he said was developed with the help of the National Education Association: "Addressing anti-LGBT harassment in schools creates safer and better schools for all students."

But one gay activist in the audience objected: Why do we have to give in to the "other side's" argument by putting the emphasis on "all" students? Why can't we just be up front about wanting to focus on gays and lesbian kids?

Lamont's response was revealing: Most students in GLSEN's 3,000 clubs are actually heterosexual, he said. And the majority of complaints regarding homosexual-related harassment come from "straight" kids.

It's a smart strategy: Not only does it mask the fact that there aren't enough gay students to warrant the immersion of entire student bodies in pro-gay propaganda, but it also gives GLSEN convenient heterosexual student "allies" who put themselves in the role of defending "perceived gay "victims.""

-Got that?

Lamont: “Most students in GLSEN’s are heterosexual.”
Reporter Cushman’s assessment of that: “there aren't enough gay students to warrant [GSA’s, but phrased as:] the immersion of entire student bodies in pro-gay propaganda.

Thus:
1. Less than most, is EQUAL to insignificant/negligible.
2. The active protection of ‘less than most’ (GSA’s), is EQUAL to ALL students being bathed in “pro-gay propaganda.”

**********
Lamont: “And the majority of complaints regarding homosexual-related harassment come from "straight" kids.
Reporter Cushman’s assessment of that: “it also gives GLSEN convenient heterosexual student "allies" who put themselves in the role of defending perceived gay "victims."

So the argument against PROTECTING VICTIMS of “homosexual-related harassment,” is BASED on the idea that most of them are not gay.

**********
How to respond:

As good as this tactic is, it's still possible for parents to counteract it by exposing it as a Trojan horse, said Caleb Price, a research analyst for Focus on the Family.

"Make it a fairness issue," he advised. "While it's true that every child needs a safe school, there's no need to create a special class of citizens who get more protection than others. Parents can point out that approximately 80 percent of school kids experience some form of bullying at school -- so why not give attention to all children who need protection -- including those who are overweight, wear glasses, etc."

For more on this approach, see the legislative testimony (http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=TS03C1)
presented by the Family Research Council's Peter Sprigg.

That link does NOT go to the source of the "testimony" but to a copy of it on the FRC website.

The Family Research Council is an organization that routinely attempts to portray sexually transmitted diseases as a unique phenomenon of homosexuality itself.)

From the "legislative testimony" link:
“Reports of gay teen suicides also appear to have been exaggerated.”

Implying that all legitimate gay teen suicides are PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE.

Let’s review a recent incident shall we...: One fact, two lies (http://www.exgaywatch.com/blog/mt-search.cgi?IncludeBlogs=1&search=Dr.+Elizabeth+Saewyc). One lie to refute the fact, a second lie to justify the first lie. (lies courtesy of Focus on the Family)

**********
Parents can also expose GLSEN's true agenda -- one of its
for example, mentions getting homosexual themes "fully integrated into curricula across a variety of subject areas and grade levels." (http://www.glsen.org/binary-data/GLSEN_ATTACHMENTS/file/182-2.pdf)

I could not locate that quote. Granted I sped read through the file, but if-that’s-the-WORST reporter Cushman found, then that’s three more lies.

-One for not providing it’s location in the file.
-Two for not providing it’s context in THIS article.
-And Three for implying that FOTF reporter Cushman should be trusted without question!

**********
Tactic 2: Make it personal

Lamont related what happened when researchers showed the group a video featuring Judy Shepard, whose son, Matthew, was murdered in 1998 in Wyoming.

The very first comment from a focus group kid was, "How much did that [profanity referring to Judy Shepard] get paid?" Lamont remembered. "Because to them it looked like a paid celebrity preaching to them."

But when researchers replaced the video with the "personalization" method, he said, "one of the kids even came out in the focus group."

Which is why GLSEN is working tirelessly to get gay speakers into public schools.

**********
How to respond:

If your school invites a homosexual speaker, challenge the school to open the forum to other perspectives, including ex-gays.

-So the existence and fate of gays is SO insignificant, that NOT even gay-related harassment of straights should be acknowledged, yet the testimony of "ex-gays" is PERFECTLY LEGITIMATE.

**********
Tactic 3: Threaten lawsuits

"This is almost our trump card," Lamont told his audience. "Make it a money issue."

When all else fails, he said, threaten a lawsuit. Warn schools they're "legally liable for not protecting young people."

"In all the cases brought, to date, the student either prevailed after trial or achieved a settlement," read a handout distributed at the workshop.

**********
How to respond:

But what GLSEN doesn't tell schools is that, rather than deflecting lawsuits, they may actually become more vulnerable to them by adopting policies and curricula that single out gay and lesbian individuals, said Mike Johnson, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, a legal group based in Arizona.

"Schools are better off using blanket-protection policies," he said, "that shield all students from bullying or harassment."

The dark side of sexual-orientation policies advocated by GLSEN, Johnson said, is that they often trample on the free-speech rights of students with opposing viewpoints.

-Translation: Protecting gay and lesbian students against harassment and bullying infringes on the freely CHOSEN BEHAVIOR of others to harass and bully them in Jesus' name.

In other words "sexual-orientation [protection] policies" discriminate against blanket harassment.

Or as they like to put it: “The power of Christ compels them.”

pnggrad79

08-08-2006, 11:31 AM

I used to attend distance learning classes from Liberty University, so I get their newsletter every month. This month's issue featured an article on Melissa Fryear (sp?) and it just angered me how much they slant the truth about ex-gay ministries-sporting a picture of Stephen Bennett and his wife and two kids. OMG! he even looks gay! Please! This guy is deluding himself and so is Falwell and all his cronies. (pardon the stereotype, but come on Stephen Bennett! Married? I feel sorry for his wife!)
Anyway, Melissa Fryear quotes a higher number of suicides among GLBT kids? I wonder why? Could it be that you fundamentalist pharisees preach hellfire and brimstone at these young ones scaring them into heterosexuality where they will be positively miserable trying to be something they are not, and were never meant to be. And these morons wonder why suicide is high among kids with raging hormones and hostile families and friends who would crucify them if they knew they were gay. Can we say-what did you make on your SAT's to come up with that brilliant statement? Get a life, people?

The basic human need is love and acceptance and they think oh these poor little lesbian and gay kids-they are committing suicide because they're gay...NO- they are committing suicide because they are facing blinding rejection and condemnation and when they feel like God even hates them, what on earth would YOU DO? If you didn't heap the guilt and hate on them, and if you made them feel like you loved them like Jesus COMMANDED YOU TO DO, they might be able to go on living a full, productive life with a partner.

But forcing kids to be something they are not, is in my opinion, child abuse! For heaven's sake-let them be who they are and love them whether you agree with it or not!

Zerbie

08-08-2006, 12:58 PM

It's amazing how easy it is to see through this distorted and frankly, evil, missive from Citizen Link. This email worries me. How many people receive these Citizen Link emails??? How many people read that and swallowed it?! :eek:

The environment where I taught high school was incredibly dangerous for gay kids. I was the ONLY teacher who asked kids not to talk about killing, burning, or stomping "fags" and the other teachers repeatedly told me not to bother.

Our school had a "sensitivity training" day where a video was shown to discourage kids from racist, ablist, and other prejudicial judgments and behaviors. When it got to the part about homophobia, the principal hit fast-forward. When I protested, I was told "homosexuals are different, society is never going to accept them so it doesn't matter." This was only a few weeks after (or was it before?) a 15 year old lesbian was assaulted in the hallway by a group of teenage neo-Nazis on a purge. A teacher narrowly missed getting kicked in the head with a steel boot intervening to save her. She was gone the next day, missing, and finally the school got word, she had taken refuge at the city's gay community center. The other teachers all shook their heads in sorrow and said she was "in the clutches of the homosexuals now."

It seems obvious to me that GLSEN is trying to communicate the same message I tried to communicate when I taught: 'please kids, don't beat or kill somebody because they're gay. We all deserve to be safe.' Calling an attempt to protect innocent kids "propaganda" is monstrous beyond belief. But that is what I was accused of when I confronted my students about their gay-bashing. Propaganda.

Emproph

08-08-2006, 02:24 PM

pnggrad,

They’ve heard it all BEFORE. They’ve heard it ALL before. Again and again and again and again and again. And they still don’t get it.

It’s worse than child abuse it’s HORRIBLE HORRIBLE MURDER.

All in the name of Jesus.

Honestly I cannot put a prettier face on it than that. I’ve spoken with these people. People of this mindset. No amount of damage is too much to sacrifice being “right.”

It’s so much worse than we can imagine. But for those of us who understand that, therein lies the hope. We-do-get-it, we’ve woken up from that nightmare, and we infect the planet with that liberation. It’s already happening, we’re just lost in the middle of it.

(This one was particularly sickening though.)

pnggrad79

08-08-2006, 11:51 PM

I know! You're certainly right, Emproph. The sad thing is-my nephew is probably gay. He's 18, but lives with my sister who has done everything in her power to squelch any kind of independent thinking in her children. They are afraid to see a movie lest she find out and deem it unfit for her children. She forbade them to see National Treasure, the DaVinci Code, Sister Act, etc. Her oldest, being brought up in such an oppressive atmosphere has chosen to openly rebel against his mother and has gotten into all sorts of trouble.

When people start applying the pharisaical ideals that the Church has fostered and upheld for 2000 years, it is hard to hear the spirit of grace and mercy that Jesus exemplified. So what we have are a bunch of fundamentalist white washed tombs and vipers, ready to throw anyone who doesn't fit the mold into everlasting darkness and punishment-that is all God is to them-judgment, fear and prejudice are the antithesis of grace, mercy and love. And the fall out is a bunch of bright, promising young people who have grown up with judgment, fear and prejudice and they are beaten down and told to fit into a mold and put God and his grace in a little box. :mad:

Emproph

08-09-2006, 04:46 AM

You should get a lifetime achievement award for your “militant homosexual activist propaganda” work. :D
It's amazing how easy it is to see through this distorted and frankly, evil, missive from Citizen Link. This email worries me. How many people receive these Citizen Link emails??? How many people read that and swallowed it?! :eek:

The environment where I taught high school was incredibly dangerous for gay kids. I was the ONLY teacher who asked kids not to talk about killing, burning, or stomping "fags" and the other teachers repeatedly told me not to bother.

Our school had a "sensitivity training" day where a video was shown to discourage kids from racist, ablist, and other prejudicial judgments and behaviors. When it got to the part about homophobia, the principal hit fast-forward. When I protested, I was told "homosexuals are different, society is never going to accept them so it doesn't matter." This was only a few weeks after (or was it before?) a 15 year old lesbian was assaulted in the hallway by a group of teenage neo-Nazis on a purge. A teacher narrowly missed getting kicked in the head with a steel boot intervening to save her. She was gone the next day, missing, and finally the school got word, she had taken refuge at the city's gay community center. The other teachers all shook their heads in sorrow and said she was "in the clutches of the homosexuals now."

It seems obvious to me that GLSEN is trying to communicate the same message I tried to communicate when I taught: 'please kids, don't beat or kill somebody because they're gay. We all deserve to be safe.' Calling an attempt to protect innocent kids "propaganda" is monstrous beyond belief. But that is what I was accused of when I confronted my students about their gay-bashing. Propaganda.Wow, what a story, again. Those teacher responses are incredulous. Blame the victim mentality, not gee, maybe we should at least speak out against violence directed toward anyone.

But even though Focus on the Family now 'advocates' such a 'protect all' attitude, they've found a way around it. I don't think I included this part:
Even Brenda High, whose son committed suicide after being bullied, has opposed safe-school policies that create special categories for homosexuals.

"The efforts to include definitions of classes of victims, also excludes other victims, making it more difficult to protect ALL kids," she said.
-Next we'll be hearing from kids who get bullied who are willing to speak out against their own safety.Calling an attempt to protect innocent kids "propaganda" is monstrous beyond belief. ...I think we have a sound bite.

Zerbie

08-09-2006, 12:58 PM

There is no "because" (iow, there is no such thing as a reason to assault an innocent person.) How many times did those kids look me in the eyes incredulously when I spoke out against bashing gays on the streets and say. . .

"But - Mz Zerbie - it was JUST a fag."

*****
What are they (I'm back on Citizen Link now) arguing against? For some bizarre reason, asking that gay (or perceived gay) children and youngsters be included in the "all kids" category - of those who deserve to be protected - supposedly constitutes a special scenario in which ONLY gay kids are to be protected at the expense of everybody ELSE?????? :confused:

Their argument is bogus. WE are the ones saying that all kids deserve a safe environment. It is not a choice between homosexuals OR everybody else. But the opposition loves to paint it that way. It's not unlike their marriage argument, which essentially boils down to painting it as a choice between the elective happiness of homosexuals, or the safety of children. THERE IS NO EITHER/OR CHOICE! The opposition tries to make people think there is, so that gays can be continually put down as sub-human. It's pretty damn twisted.

tdogg

08-10-2006, 07:53 PM

pnggrad,

Your nephew is oh so blessed to have you for his aunt, he's going to really need you in the coming years (months, days), especially with parents like that. SISTER ACT?????? I don't get that one at all.

(Shaking my head in confusion and amazement, as I must leave the computer and my time on the forums and go engage in my vulgar lifestyle of Thursday nite league bowling...) See y'all later!

T-dogg

Emproph

10-19-2006, 09:19 AM

Titled: CitizenLink - Focus on the Family Propaganda: Pants on Fire, Telephone Wire

-The language in some of the posts there recently has been almost verbatim to the garbage FOF/CL spouts, so I thought it was time to take the bull by the horns so to speak.. -because they just ignore us when we confront them personally. (kudos Nate and Awediot)

My point is that I'm convinced that some of them actually get CitizenLink and believe it. I make sure to tell them "not to Google anything."

Anyway, enjoy.

(And BTW -This 'Allies, Too!' campaign is supposedly going on THIS week October 15-21)
__________
CARM post:

Episode 1

CitizenLink October 16, 2006
Exodus Launches New Youth Campaign (http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0042316.cfm)

"Allies, Too" meant to balance pro-gay message being heard in schools.

Exodus International has launched its first national campaign to promote truth, authentic tolerance and safety in schools across America. The "Allies, Too" campaign offers an approach to these issues that nonreligious students and students of faith can embrace.
____

"Allies, Too" meant to balance pro-gay message being heard in schools.
-Let’s explore the meaning of “Pro-gay” first shall we?

First, “Allies, Too” was designed to counter GLSEN’s “Ally week (http://www.glsen.org/cgi-bin/iowa/all/news/record/1987.html).”
(GLSEN= Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network)

Ally week is in essence:

By signing this pledge, I am taking a stand for a safe and harassment-free school for all students, regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity/expression. As an Ally, I pledge to:

1. Not use anti-LGBT language and slurs
2. Intervene, when I feel I can, in situations where others are using anti-LGBT language or harassing students
3. Actively support safer schools effort
____

The so called ‘balance’ to Ally week, “Allies Too (http://groundswell2006.org/truth/AllyWeek.pdf),” is in essence:

Thousands of students across the United States will be pledging their support to making schools safe for everyone. Christian students can speak out in solidarity with this goal, while still taking a stand for God's design for sexuality.

-Sounds a lot like the garbage can adage: God is unconditional Love BUT...

The definition of "God" of course being whatever your believing little heart picks and chooses for it to be. Based of course upon which ever Bible your believing little heart chooses is the "inerrant" one. And like the shampoo commercial from the seventies – and so on and so on and so on...
~~
-So what does “while still taking a stand for God’s design of sexuality.,” REALLY mean?

Well since sin has no basis in reality other than whatever one picks and chooses it to be, based upon whichever Bible one chooses to pick and choose it from...

"This can leave many Christian students feeling as though they must choose between holding to their beliefs and looking like a bully."

Isn’t that a shame? What American would take away the religious right to of certain students to express their religious right to condemn others to the flames of eternal hell “just because the Bible says so,” in public schools?

What could possibly help “schools to be a safe and harassment-free place for all students,” than to stand up and say YOU’RE AN ABOMINATION TO GOD BECAUSE OF WHAT I ASSUME? ...but I love you anyway.
___

How can you help ‘Christian’ students in American public schools “love” other students by showing them what an abomination to God they are? Easy.

First Pray!

Pray “that deceitful influences in their lives will be broken.”

-As in their existence. Make sure to pray for GLBT students to understand that their very being and existence is a deceitful influence, and that their Reality itself is a deceitful influence. Anyone who tells them that REALITY is actually real, MUST BE of the devil.

Second, Get Permission!

“If you encounter biased resistance, there are groups such as the Alliance Defense Fund which specialize in defending your rights.”

-If they don’t give it to you SUE! If your parents have the money, go for it! Pay no attention to the quippy little quote you learned as a child: "Never Sue" because SUE makes an 'S' out of 'U' and 'E.'

Third, Get Informed and Equipped
-Exodus youth exists and is here for you to bone up on the latest propaganda techniques.

What Kind of Events? -Pledge cards!
And what naive-gullible-inexperienced-life-student doesn't love to sign one? American Public School Christian students can sign them to show their support for safety, kindness and truth. Don’t forget to point out that “compassionate” fine print: for more info about freedom from homosexuality, visit www.exodusyouth.net (http://www.exodusyouth.net)

-Make sure not to tell them that ex-gay ministries don’t even keep their own success statistics, and DEFINITELY don’t tell them that the word “freedom” as in “freedom from homosexuality,” usually just means “celibate Christian homosexual who just THINKS homosexuality is a sin.”

Definitely don’t say that, I can’t stress that enough! And DON’T GOOGLE ANYTHING! Make sure they don’t Google! Google is a sin... say it’s in the Bible or something... somwhere..

Topic Forum
Schedule an open forum... to bring questions about God, the Bible and sexuality...You may want to invite an experienced speaker...

-We have plenty of propagan... er, I mean speakers to choose from...

(from the article)
"We want students to know that you do not have to drop your personal faith at the school door in order to promote compassion and dignity among your peers," said Scott Davis, director of Exodus Youth. "Authentic tolerance includes diverse beliefs and opinions and a healthy environment in which to discuss them.

Who wouldn’t agree that all students should be free to express their religious freedom to openly define their fellow students as abominations to God? Personally I think it's a sin that we don't already have an "Abomination to God" week in our schools.
___

So Exodus Youth believes that “you’re an abomination to God” is “authentic tolerance,” worthy of the definition of “diverse beliefs,” and contributes to a “healthy environment in which to discuss” whether or not I (if I were a student) happen to be an abomination in the eyes of God or not.

With healthy environments like that who needs vitamins?

Truth, tolerance, and safety "in love" my derriere!

P.S. I haven’t even gotten to the good stuff yet, which you can find here (http://groundswell2006.org/truth/StudentGuide.pdf). (pdf)

revtj

10-19-2006, 03:46 PM

If there are thousands of homosexuals who have gone str8, why did this phenomena only recently occur? Wouldn't there be a documented history of 100s of years of testimony of gays gone straight?

What about a film of "Gays Gone Str8" like "Girls Gone Wild?" Would it sell?

Did they only recently discover a "cure"?

Is it a "cure," or is it an extension of heterosexuality, like some drugs can extend a cancer patients' life but not "cure" them?

What is the difference between saying "I'm straight" if you are lying, and then not having gay sex (or you don't get caught), and actually being heterosexual? Which one offends God most?

If you are gay and you have heterosexual sex, is God proud of you, like, you know, 'yeah, get it on for the Lord, son!'

What is the difference between the Nazi soldiers who used to force gay men to copulate with females in front of them for their amusement and Dr. Nicolosi's & NARTH's efforts to get a gay guy to do a woman? According to documents, the gay men were usually able to perform the act...what exactly does that prove? That their oppressors are sick, cruel bast*rds?

If gays gone str8 still struggle with homosexual temptation (as is admittedly a part of reparative therapy) but rarely or never have erotic heterosexual temptation how is that definitive of being changed to a heterosexual?

If I call my cat a dog and tell everyone he is a dog, he just doesn't know it's what God intended him to be, and he isn't interested in barking, but he occasionally gives in to the temptation to meow, does that make him a dog?

If only Jesus & the Christian Bible can make you str8 so you can go to heaven, does that mean Jews are bumped out again? Can you go from gay to str8 without Jesus?

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

keltic63

10-19-2006, 04:14 PM

What is the difference between the Nazi soldiers who used to force gay men to copulate with females in front of them for their amusement and Dr. Nicolosi's & NARTH's efforts to get a gay guy to do a woman? According to documents, the gay men were usually able to perform the act...what exactly does that prove?

I was in a straight marriage for a long time, and I can tell you that I was able to perform at least 3 times! (I have 3 kids) and truth be told, I was able to do it many more times than that. However, being able to does not indicate gay or straight. this is where the "love the sinner/hate the sin" dichotomy just doesn't work. it's not the same sex act, it's the emotional attachment and intimate connection with the person. for crying out loud, it's the LOVE!
there are plenty of college guys being paid to get it on with each other, and they are rather convincing. it doesn't make them gay though, does it? having sex with my then-wife didn't change the fact that I would rather do it with men. it didn't make me straight, thought I tried for 17 years.

revtj

10-20-2006, 08:56 AM

Keltic,

I understand and it seems obvious to me. It would seem to me that anyone acquainted with their own sexuality would be able to figure this one out. It sounds like you had a long struggle both emotionally and spiritually.

I just don't get the ex-gay objective. What would it prove if I did do it with a female? Other than a rudimentary biological point, it would prove nothing about my affectational orientation, my spirituality or salvation, or anything else at all for that matter.

In getting to know Wayne Besen over the past few months I learned that he is Jewish. This has really set my mind to wondering what the ex-gay effort is really all about. I mean let's suppose he is "cured" and becomes str8 but remains Jewish...do they still condemn him? Then we are left with an utterly stupid, hate-filled question, which does God hate more, Jews or queers?

If their therapy is supposed to be scientifically sound, then it should work with or without Jesus. Atheists are cured of cancer and alcoholism all the time. So there should be plenty of religiously neutral and unbiased data if it is indeed a scientific cure, right?

The whole ex-gay thing is so buried in illogic, it's a maze of stupid assumptions built on top of more stupid assumptions. It is weird but it seems to me that THEY are trying to recruit heterosexuals! I mean, does any person ever born really need training in how to be sexual? It seems like instinctively EVERYBODY figures that out for themselves like eating or breathing. If anything, most of us only lacked accurate, scientific information.

In the end what we are talking about is emotional and spiritual violence against gay and questioning people, am I right?

revtj

keltic63

10-20-2006, 09:32 AM

marutidas

10-20-2006, 11:07 AM

http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/46/hooker.htm

I found this article about Dr. Evelyn Hooker, the woman who's reseach help remove Homosexuality from the list of Psycological Disorders in 1973.

So what are the bible thumpers curing?

Remember, they are not using scientifically approved methods of therapy, they do not the approval of any legitimate mental health institution,
they do not do this out of caring for the individual, they do it because they feel it justifies this horrible suffering inflicted upon gay people, that its their fault for being what they are.

They are Not cured, they are Brainwashed into thinking that is something wrong with them and the only way to be cured is by turning to God.
They are deinied the facts, that one homosexuality is NOT a mental disorder, and they are denied the fact that the Bible is neither for, nor against homosexuality.
I believe in God, but not as an actuall deity, but a force that makes up the best parts of us.
I would like to think that God made this way, wonderfully fantastically Gay, in this life, and there is nothing wrong with me.

and trying to understand what a fundi is thinking, is like trying to understand the mind of a psycopath.

Emproph

10-21-2006, 11:08 AM

trying to understand what a fundi is thinking, is like trying to mind of a psycopath.Yup, that about sums it up. I'm still trying though, even if it's just for my own sanity. ;)

I just don't get the ex-gay objective. What would it prove if I did do it with a female? Other than a rudimentary biological point, it would prove nothing about my affectational orientation, my spirituality or salvation, or anything else at all for that matter.
Part of the assumption is that spiritual life begins with biological life. I suspect they are closet atheists who are ‘Christians’ in the hopes that they are wrong, but since “being right” is one of their idols of worship, the fear is that spiritual life also ends with biological life. That would explain their attitudes on stems cells, abortion and euthanasia. The fear of death. And they can’t advocate for effective birth control either, that “promotes” sexual sin, and just in case there is a god they wouldn’t want to inadvertently send anyone to hell.

If their therapy is supposed to be scientifically sound, then it should work with or without Jesus. Atheists are cured of cancer and alcoholism all the time. So there should be plenty of religiously neutral and unbiased data if it is indeed a scientific cure, right?
Some of them link to non-religious ex-gay sites. I haven't checked them out yet, but sure you can be ex-gay and not Christian, you're just going to hell afterwards, that's all. (after living in hell) :rolleyes:

What we’re talking about here is the politicization of the ex-gay movement. Ex-gays are their latest and greatest weapon. I don't even know that it was a movement per se before. As long as they can trot out their trophy ex-gays, then they can claim that "becoming" gay might not be a choice but remaining gay is.

Slick eh, being gay isn't a choice but remaining gay is.

They’re usually careful not to actually say the words cure and heterosexuality as the result of “therapy.” As Mike Haley – one of the founders of Love Won Out – says in his book “The opposite of homosexuality isn’t heterosexuality, it’s holiness.”

The whole political movement is a mess of word play designed to deceive the non-religious or not-as-religious public without actually lying.

You might want to ask Wayne about this, but it seems that the ex-gay movement is their lynchpin. If that can be discredited for what it is, then the anti-gay movement falls along with it. Whenever they use the statistic that a majority of Americans are against same-sex marriage they neglect to say that that's among those who believe that being gay is a choice. Among those who believe it is not a choice however, a majority are in favor, they don't use those stats though.

So ultimately it's little more than a publicity campaign to define homosexuality as a choice and thus a sexual perversion unworthy of equal rights of ANY kind.

The whole ex-gay thing is so buried in illogic, it's a maze of stupid assumptions built on top of more stupid assumptions. It is weird but it seems to me that THEY are trying to recruit heterosexuals!
They’re doing exactly that. All their accusatory words like recruit and indoctrinate apply to themselves. In this instance I call it perversion conversion (therapy).

I mean, does any person ever born really need training in how to be sexual? It seems like instinctively EVERYBODY figures that out for themselves like eating or breathing. If anything, most of us only lacked accurate, scientific information.
Apparently that’s what some of them think, I get the impression that WE are proof of that. If spiritual life begins with biological life, then so must gender identity and thus gender attraction must be based on one’s genitals. And with a worldview that is based on appearances, the keltic’s of the world reinforce the so called “fluid” nature of sexuality. I have a sneaking suspicion that some of them are bisexual or have 'tendencies' and that their belief in sexual "fluidity" is sincere.

For most though, I think they just assume that if we aren’t smart enough to realize that our spirituality, thus our sexuality, is biologically based, then nothing we say need be taken seriously. And who can argue with someone whose parameters of universal truth are based on a closed cannon that couldn't possibly be incomplete?

Emproph

11-28-2006, 07:44 AM

CNN LARRY KING LIVE
Interview With Dr. James Dobson
Aired November 22, 2006
Transcript (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0611/22/lkl.01.html)

~Show highlights, (special effects mine)
LARRY KING, CNN HOST: Tonight, sexual immorality in the church. Dr. James Dobson's first face-to-face TV interview on the gay sex and drug allegations that brought down his close friend, Evangelical leader Ted Haggard.
~
KING: Do you change or are you -- would you call yourself very set in your ways?

DOBSON: I'm pretty set and the longer I live, the more set I am, I think.
~
KING: What's your reaction -- we'll have to discuss this a while -- on the fall of Ted Haggard? You've described him as a close friend, colleague of many years. We now know he's been openly been leading a double life.
DOBSON: He sure has. Larry, that's a very sad circumstance. I feel terrible for him. I feel bad, especially for his wife, Gail, she's a wonderful lady and their five children. We had no idea that this was the case. I've known him for many years and this was a very private kind of thing that -- that he -- you know, this double life that you call it. And it is now resulted in the loss of just about everything -- his dignity, his work, his influence. He was a powerful influence in the Christian community. So, we're all very, very sad about that.

KING: And like yourself in Colorado, right?

DOBSON: Yeah, he was in Colorado, the largest church in Colorado Springs, growing I think 14,000 members. It just is a tragedy of the first order.

KING: How's he doing?
DOBSON: I don't know. I haven't talked to him since it happened.
KING: Oh you haven't?
DOBSON: I talked to him the day that the news broke and I have not talked to him since then.
I think all that’s self explanatory, but just in case...

KING: When you say, Doctor, when you say "restoration" you mean restore him from being gay to not gay or what do you mean?
DOBSON: Yeah, probably that, too. But in Galatians 6.1, there is a scripture that says when -- "Brothers when one of you falls into sin, those who are spiritual should work to restore him gently." That is the scripture behind the restoration process...We don't want to just kick him out, I mean, he's lost his church, obviously, but there's still concern for him as an individual.

-And here I was getting the impression that the "tragedy of the first order" was only about the loss of his political influence through Ted Haggard. In the shame of my minitude I stand corrected. The individual – Ted Haggard and family – is "still" of concern.
~~

KING: Do you still believe that being gay is a choice rather than a given?
DOBSON: I never did believe that...Neither do I believe it's genetic...
KING: Then what is it?
DOBSON: I don't blame homosexuals for being angry when people say they've made a choice to be gay because they don't.

It usually comes out of very, very early childhood, and this is very controversial, but this is what I believe and many other people believe, that is has to do with an identity crisis that occurs to early to remember it, where a boy is born with an attachment to his mother and she is everything to him for about 18 months, and between 18 months and five years, he needs to detach from her and to reattach to his father.

It's a very important developmental task and if his dad is gone or abusive or disinterested or maybe there's just not a good fit there. What's he going to do? He remains bonded to his mother and...

KING: Is that clinically true or is that theory?

DOBSON: No, it's clinically true, but it's controversial. What homosexual activists, especially, would like everybody to believe is that it is genetic, that they don't have any choice.
-To his credit he did say it was controversial, but remember from above:

"I don't blame homosexuals for being angry when people say they've made a choice to be gay because they don't." versus:

"What homosexual activists, especially, would like everybody to believe...is that they don't have any choice."Ergo we didn't choose to be gay, but we do choose to remain gay. Thus he gets our "anger" and "feels our pain" when people say that we chose to be gay, but can't understand why we get angry when people like him continue to say that we choose to be gay – without ever actually saying so.
~~

Daniel said it so well the other day:
On the 'born gay theory'...

...what we're talking about is people self-reporting that they have been attracted to members of their sex for as long as they can remember. Hence: they report that they are born gay.
I think this is an excellent example of how it would usually described by those of us who are convinced we were "born gay." We don’t need science or anything else to validate what we are already know about ourselves.

But by characterizing the belief that one is "born gay" as an attempt to promote the belief in a gay gene, the personal understanding of one’s own self is now equated with a dishonest politically motivated agenda. Ironically this tactic is usually used to further the dishonest politically motivated "Christian" agenda to accuse gay rights 'activists' of being political in a way that they are not.

By equating ‘born gay’ testimony with the gay gene theory, anyone who insists that homosexuality is inborn is now politically motivated – and thus an "activist."

More hate the sin, love the sinner nonsense:

"We don’t have a problem with homosexual persons, just those "activists" who say they were born that way."

In this case it's hate the "homosexual activist" and not the "homosexual citizen."
~

If it were genetic, Larry -- and before we went on this show, you and I were talking about twin studies -- if it were genetic, identical twins would all have it. Identical twins, if you have a homosexuality in one twin, it would be there in the other.
But of course they don’t believe in evolution, which is based on natural selection, which is based on genetics. (feel free to run 'wild' with that one)

DOBSON: So, it can't be simply genetic. I do believe that there are temperaments that individuals are born with that make them more vulnerable and maybe more likely to move in that direction, but it usually is related to a sexual identity crisis.
So you can be born with the "temperament" to be gay, but not actually be born gay.
~~

KING: Well, how could a gay person preach against gays? How could you do that?

DOBSON: Well, a lot of people wonder that. He, obviously, was, again, at war with himself. He was involved in activities that I think horrified him. He said that he fought against it, but he also knew what he believed.

It was not hypocrisy. It was a struggle between behavior and the belief system.

KING: How long does counseling last in this kind of case?

DOBSON: It could be a long time. I would think that the restoration process here, if Reverend Haggard chooses to go through with it, would be three to five years.

KING: And is success the fact that he is no longer gay? Would that be your definition of success?

DOBSON: That would be part of it. It's a spiritual restoration, too. It's a personal and marital restoration. It involves every aspect of life.
Earlier:
"KING: When you say, Doctor, when you say "restoration" you mean restore him from being gay to not gay or what do you mean?

DOBSON: Yeah, probably that, too. So three to five years to complete the "restoration" process which includes "probably" becoming no longer gay. It all sounds so simple. It makes me wonder why he didn't tout Love Won Out to help we gays who continue to be convinced we were born this way.

For the record, I emailed a question early that day when I found out about the show. I believe my exact words were: "What is the ex-gay success rate from homosexual to heterosexual."

Whether related or not, me thinks there’s some interviewer / interviewee pussyfooting going on. hmm...
~~

Tune in next segment where he addresses religious hypocrisy by blaming the left..

Emproph

11-29-2006, 10:41 AM

..as in the fundraising drinking game. Let's put the fun back in fundraising!
(everytime anyone spots a lie or hypocrisy that can't be refuted, everyone else has to cough up a dollar)

KING: How do you compare how evangelicals handle their difficulties with hypocrisy or whatever you call it and the Roman Church's handling of its extraordinarily difficult pedophilia problem?

DOBSON: Well, the Catholic Church has tried to deal with that, as well, but they were very late in doing it and a lot of damage was done in the meantime.

[snip]

DOBSON: It's deceit, it's betrayal, and it seems that those that are on the left approach this with glee. But I would say what else is new? I mean, if you just look at humankind, we're flawed.

[snip]

KING: If the left gets glee, Doctor, does the right get glee over sexual peccadilloes on the left?

DOBSON: That's very possible. We're all inclined to look at other people. But it's interesting to me that those, again, on the more liberal end of the spectrum are often those who have no value system or at least they say there is no moral and immoral, there is no right or wrong. It's moral relativism.

KING: To you...

DOBSON: Let me finish the point. That's moral relativism. So they say there is no right and wrong. But when a religious leader, especially an evangelical falls, guess who is the most judgmental of him and calling him a hypocrite and those things? Those that said there is no right and wrong in the first place.
Projection at it’s finest.

Two direct questions, basically about personal responsibility and self reflection:

KING: How do you compare how evangelicals handle their difficulties with hypocrisy...
KING: If the left gets glee, Doctor, does the right get glee...

Both of which were almost immediately deflected by criticism of those who would criticize hypocrisy.

Wikipedia:
Hypocrisy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy) is the act of pretending or claiming to have beliefs, feelings, morals or virtues that one does not truly possess or practice.

Moral Relativism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism) in philosophy, moral relativism takes the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect absolute and universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances.

Even the ideas of "right and wrong" are relative. The "left" who essentially believe in and practice the ten and two commandments (don’t kill, don’t steal, do unto others, etc.), but don’t attribute those moral values to "social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances," are construed as believing there is NO right and wrong. Ergo Dr. Dobson's Biblical absolutes of "right and wrong" are based almost EXCLUSIVELY on "social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances."

Consider the Iraq "War," the environment, fiscal responsibility - re tax cuts for the wealthy at the expense of the poor, sexual [responsibility] education... Interesting that those who don’t rely on "social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances" to determine what is right or wrong seem to have a better 'absolute' sense of what is best for everyone.

The number one moral value of the "left" is that we do not consider ourselves to be morally superior to others. Equality, the heart of the Golden Rule and the lynchpin of Christianity. It would seem that there are moral benefits to the practice of 'moral relativism.'

Which now puts all of this into context:
DOBSON: ...it's interesting to me that those, again, on the more liberal end of the spectrum are often those who have no value system or at least they say there is no moral and immoral, there is no right or wrong. It's moral relativism.

DOBSON: ...That's moral relativism. So they say there is no right and wrong. But when a religious leader, especially an evangelical falls, guess who is the most judgmental of him and calling him a hypocrite and those things? Those that said there is no right and wrong in the first place.
^It’s a self portrait.
...and it seems that those that are on the left approach this with glee. But I would say what else is new?
Touche’ Dr. Dobson. Why attack the left for finding glee in the exposure of hypocrisy on the right when it is known that the left has no moral concept of hypocrisy to begin with?

Or better yet, how do you blame unrepentant sinners for enjoying the exposure of the unrepentant sinfulness of those who consider themselves morally superior?

..what were talking about again?

Daniel

11-30-2006, 12:01 AM

.
Even the ideas of "right and wrong" are relative. The "left" who essentially believe in and practice the ten and two commandments (don’t kill, don’t steal, do unto others, etc.), but don’t attribute those moral values to "social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances," are construed as believing there is NO right and wrong. Ergo Dr. Dobson's Biblical absolutes of "right and wrong" are based almost EXCLUSIVELY on "social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances."

Consider the Iraq "War," the environment, fiscal responsibility - re tax cuts for the wealthy at the expense of the poor, sexual [responsibility] education... Interesting that those who don’t rely on "social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances" to determine what is right or wrong seem to have a better 'absolute' sense of what is best for everyone.

The number one moral value of the "left" is that we do not consider ourselves to be morally superior to others. Equality, the heart of the Golden Rule and the lynchpin of Christianity. It would seem that there are moral benefits to the practice of 'moral relativism.'

Emproph- what you've outlined above is brilliant, absolutely brilliant.

I happened upon the program when it ran again at midnight but couldn't bring myself to watch it. Sometimes I just don't want to get all jangled up before I go to sleep, know what I mean?

Dobson reminds me of something Gore Vidal wrote. Something to the effect that, if America was every taken over by facists, it would be at the hand of someone who sounded like Arthur Godfrey- who had an even-tempered, calm and reasonable tone of voice. Dobson tries his damnest to sound like that, doesn't he? Even so, I can hear an undertone of anger in his voice. Pride too. Where, I want to know, is the joy?

Today I went outside to run an errand and saw two young men around 18 or so, walking close together, one had his hand in the sweatshirt of the other. They were in love. Boy were they in love. Their faces where shining with Shekhina glory. And their love made me smile from ear to ear. And I thought to myself: "That's what it's all about. There really isn't anything but this." It's hard to describe what I saw- and the kind of experience that ensued- which can appear like a flash of lightening in a dark room.

I don't think people like Mr. Dobson realize that the love we experience as gay people is real. But it is. And it's the only thing that's Real in my book. Everything else points to it. It doesn't matter if we have a partner or not. I think we can all access it in our own way.

The Beloved brings Presence. The Beloved is Presence. We are that which we Seek.

pnggrad79

11-30-2006, 08:26 AM

It is just obvious to me that Mr. Dobson has no clue about the thousands of gay people in this country who grew up in fundamentalist homes and believed that they were going to hell because they had feelings and thoughts they could not get rid of. If I counted the number of times I begged God, pleading and crying for this horrible sin (I thought) to be taken from me, it would number in the thousands I am sure. Dobson is misinformed and blind. He bases his prejudice on both things. My father was not an absentee father. My mother was not domineering. I grew up going to church and made a profession of faith when I was 7. I am a lesbian and a Christian and I could no more help the fact that I am gay than I can control the fact that my hair is black and my eyes are dark brown. God made me this way, and knew before I was even thought of that I would be a lesbian and it would be a good thing. Dobson can shut his stupid mouth and go live in Alaska for all I care.:mad:

Zerbie

11-30-2006, 09:29 AM

Dobson can shut his stupid mouth and go live in Alaska for all I care.:mad:

Aw but PNG, why do that to Alaska?

Mars is farther away. ;)

tdogg

11-30-2006, 06:47 PM

Wait, Mars is my ruling planet (Aries) - we MUST move him on.

Perhaps outside our own solar system?

Huggins293

11-30-2006, 07:04 PM

I was in a straight marriage for a long time, and I can tell you that I was able to perform at least 3 times! (I have 3 kids) and truth be told, I was able to do it many more times than that. However, being able to does not indicate gay or straight. this is where the "love the sinner/hate the sin" dichotomy just doesn't work. it's not the same sex act, it's the emotional attachment and intimate connection with the person. for crying out loud, it's the LOVE!
there are plenty of college guys being paid to get it on with each other, and they are rather convincing. it doesn't make them gay though, does it? having sex with my then-wife didn't change the fact that I would rather do it with men. it didn't make me straight, thought I tried for 17 years.

When you state that you were able to perform does that mean you were not attracted to your wife. You used some other mental stimulation to get you aroused? As a straight person I can not see myself performing anal sex on a man. Although, ignorant heterosexists continue to believe that I am lying about this.

Dash

11-30-2006, 11:01 PM

Dobson reminds me of something Gore Vidal wrote. Something to the effect that, if America was every taken over by facists, it would be at the hand of someone who sounded like Arthur Godfrey- who had an even-tempered, calm and reasonable tone of voice. Dobson tries his damnest to sound like that, doesn't he? Even so, I can hear an undertone of anger in his voice. Pride too. Where, I want to know, is the joy?

Today I went outside to run an errand and saw two young men around 18 or so, walking close together, one had his hand in the sweatshirt of the other. They were in love. Boy were they in love. Their faces where shining with Shekhina glory. And their love made me smile from ear to ear. And I thought to myself: "That's what it's all about. There really isn't anything but this." It's hard to describe what I saw- and the kind of experience that ensued- which can appear like a flash of lightening in a dark room.

I don't think people like Mr. Dobson realize that the love we experience as gay people is real. But it is. And it's the only thing that's Real in my book. Everything else points to it. It doesn't matter if we have a partner or not. I think we can all access it in our own way.

I saw a bit of the interview on the Internet, Daniel, and I thought about his voice too. Years ago, when I was a fundamentalist, I used to listen to Dobson, and his voice is lovely. He sounds so kind and gentle. Even now, it is just like sweet milk even as we hear him speaking such untruths and obscenities about his own brothers and sisters on this earth.

Last week, I was biking home after rehearsal. There on the sidewalk at the edge of the Northwestern campus were two young men walking side by side. One had his hand in the other's coat pocket...holding hands in the cold night air. :love: I 'bout fell off my bike grinning at them as I pedaled by (not that they could tell...my face was all wrapped up against the wind). It was the most beautiful, charming picture I've seen in a good long while.

Alan Chambers has recently maligned and demonized gay people again by saying we don't have any true love among us. (I am loathe to repeat his words here or link to the relevant articles...ugh! Google (News) it if you must...) As if we are so completely inhuman as to be incapable of what even the simplest among humans understand. It is so unfortunate that people like Mr Chambers and Mr. Dobson cannot see the love that we know.

Thank goodness we do see that Love as it moves among us to share it's blessings.

Emproph

12-02-2006, 05:40 AM

This is taxing. I want to finish this though because it was unscripted, the nuances seem to come out when you actually read it (as opposed to their propaganda articles).

(VIDEO CLIP VOICE-OVER): One of every four voters was a white evangelical, and exit polls showed two-thirds of them still believe in the Iraq war. But in too many other areas, religious leaders say Republicans let down their faithful followers.
(END VIDEO CLIP) We’ve destroyed their infrastructure, their utilities, caused a bloody civil war, we have directly or indirectly killed and maimed hundreds of thousands of civilians (that's you's and me's to you and me), all in order to prevent another 9/11. This, to a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, nor possessed WMD’s.

Just some of my "moral relativism – there is no right and wrong" reasoning for being against the "war."

Let’s see what Mr. "Absolute truth" has to say:KING: Does the Iraq war bother you?

DOBSON: It does not -- well, of course, it's a horrible experience. People are dying.

KING: I mean, is it a mistake?

DOBSON: I don't believe it was a mistake. You know, if you go back to World War II, people have been very critical of Roosevelt for not responding earlier to the holocaust that was going on. In fact, he was tone deaf to that misery.

Well, that was happening in Iraq. Saddam Hussein killed, as far as we know, at least a million people, murdered them in cold blood, and that required some kind of response.

WWJD? I know, Let’s stop bloodshed by shedding more blood, after lying about our motives being in self-defense (WMD's), taking no responsibility for the millionZ WE gave Saddam in the eighties or the million or so kids WE killed due to the blind eye WE turned due to the sanctions WE imposed, fire anyone with a solution, promote everyone who makes the situation worse, and then "stay the course."

What’s that definition of insanity, continuing to do the same things but expecting different results?Continued:
...I think what the president did was right and correct to do that, but now we're in a mess and I admit that and I'm very concerned about that.

KING: There looks like no way out of it.
DOBSON: What are the words now? You can go long and be there forever, you can go home, or, what's the third one? You can go big. One of the three. Democrats act like they've got an answer to this. There is no quick answer.So it’s the Democrats’ fault for not knowing how to clean up YOUR mess?

-Let’s just move on. (insert 'upturned lip' smiley with look of revulsion)

~~~
KING: I know you've been critical of David Kuo's book, author of "Tempting Faith," who wrote, of the Haggard scandal, "It's tragedy enough if a pastor falls, but this is not a pastor," it's about a politician falling and the politician is bringing Jesus down with him, and he said that the White House pretty much brushed aside you and your fellow faith-based conservatives and laughed at you.

Didn't that book wake you up?

DOBSON: It didn't wake me up at all, because I don't think David Kuo knows what he's talking about. I mean, he was out there in the office of faith-based initiative over in the -- it wasn't evening the West Wing of the White House.

How does he know what my relationship or the relationships of others to senior people in the White House was? I met that man one time for 15 minutes, or 10, I would say. And you know, now he's saying that we were taken for granted and so on. Now he's saying that we've only been given trinkets. What are those trinkets?

The president has vetoed stem cell research. He has passed or signed a ban on partial-birth abortion. He has been the most consistent pro-life president in our history. Twice he supported the Marriage Protection Amendment. He's given us two absolutely wonderful judges, or so it looks that way -- justices on the Supreme Court. He's done an awful lot that we care about, and Kuo calls that `trinkets.' The man doesn't know what he's talking about.

Then finally -- finally -- what's he do? He says that values voters should take two years off. To whom would you say that, other than evangelicals? Would you say that to homosexuals? Would you say that to feminists? Would you say that to Jews? Would you say that to African-Americans? Just don't care about your issues for the next two years. That is nonsense, and I can't figure out why the guy wrote the book except maybe to make some quick bucks.

KING: So you don't feel people have talked behind your back, when you leave the room?

DOBSON: I wouldn't doubt that that has occurred. It's occurred to everybody else; why wouldn't it occur to me? I'm not offended by that, if it occurred. But I don't think he knows. I don't think he knows.
"Mom, he hit me! For no-reason-at-all!"

He seems to know an awful lot about David Kuo, his motives, and his standing in the White house for only having met with him "one time for 15 minutes, or 10.."

The fact that his image is the priority to the exclusion of Kuo’s assertion that Haggard is "A politician bringing down Jesus with him" is in itself an example of "A politician bringing down Jesus with him."

40,000 children die every single day for "no-reason-at-all"

Emproph

12-02-2006, 10:16 AM

I happened upon the program when it ran again at midnight but couldn't bring myself to watch it. Sometimes I just don't want to get all jangled up before I go to sleep, know what I mean?I recorded it, but the fact that I recorded that as opposed to the Madonna concert almost causes me to question my sexuality... My sisters’ beau’s were raving about it! – I’m a disgrace to homosexuality itself. :laughing:

Dobson reminds me of something Gore Vidal wrote. Something to the effect that, if America was every taken over by fascists, it would be at the hand of someone who sounded like Arthur Godfrey- who had an even-tempered, calm and reasonable tone of voice. Dobson tries his damnest to sound like that, doesn't he? Even so, I can hear an undertone of anger in his voice. Pride too. Where, I want to know, is the joy?
That’s why these interviews are so important. His ‘little boy’ rage comes out in the replay. There were many times he cut Larry King off in his “controlled” furor.

As far as the joy goes, I was thinking that it must be tremendously stressful – as with any politician or celebrity – but especially when you’re dishonest, to suppress the mountains of personal denial on top of all that. So much more so when you’ve already set yourself up as ‘morally superior.’

Maybe that’s the lock on the box, and the key to it. Point out the plug to the ocean of shame they are unwilling to face.

Emproph

12-07-2006, 04:48 PM

Welcome back to the Emproph spin-zone (even though this one was delivered on a platter).

This is officially – as per me – a Focus on the Family "diatribe."

For those of you who've already had your daily dose of religious rant, I've taken the liberty of mining a few quotes – No commentary even needed. (Effects mine)

~~~

12-1-06
Tempting Bitterness (http://www.citizenlink.org/clcommentary/A000003272.cfm)
Gary Schneeberger, editor citizenlink

A former White House aide lets disappointment get the better of him in a new book criticizing Christian involvement in the public-policy process.
_________________________

It appears to be about 13 minutes and counting for David Kuo's 15 minutes of fame,

his book, the already-disappeared-from-the-best-seller-lists Tempting Faith.

If you've heard Kuo's name at all...

...when "journalists" the likes of MSNBC's Keith Olbermann were gleefully reporting...angering and possibly suppressing turnout among values voters.

But the "nuts" and "kooks" stuff is really just a small part of Kuo's book (and not even a terribly surprising part. I mean, look what the power-brokers of His time did to Jesus. Being called names behind your back is just a small sampling of the kind of persecution Christians should expect when they take a public stand for their faith.)...

Kuo, a Christian,...driven by his desire to help the homeless and the hungry -- and leaves it embittered... Kuo's frustration is understandable...

values voters...have felt that way for a couple of years now; the things they care about -- defending marriage, restricting or banning abortion, protecting unborn human life from the suspect science of embryonic stem-cell research...

But Kuo lets his bitterness take him down...

..leads him to attack fellow believers

The chip on his shoulder

anyone who works...to end the evil of abortion is somehow not interested in easing homelessness and hunger. That is ludicrous on its face, of course; if you care about protecting unborn babies, how can you not care about starving babies? Both are sanctity of human life issues -- the difference is some groups and individuals advocate for one more strongly than the other as a matter of calling or vocation. That is not a crime, or a sin -- or something that justifies a fellow believers' derision.

Yet Kuo has derision in abundance,

The second bad place Kuo allows his bitterness to take him is concluding that Christians should take a two-year "fast" from political intervention... focus more on intimacy with Jesus... Again, ludicrous on its face.

Focus on the Family's Dr. James Dobson -- who Kuo called a political "whore" in one of the TV interviews he's done about Tempting Faith -- had a great answer for the author on...Larry King Live.

"Would you say that to homosexuals? Would you say that to feminists? Would you say that to Jews? Would you say that to African-Americans?...That is nonsense."

Indeed it is. But at least there's only about 90 seconds of it left for us to endure.

I just wonder what his first draft was like.

novaseeker

12-07-2006, 11:05 PM

I don't think people like Mr. Dobson realize that the love we experience as gay people is real. But it is. And it's the only thing that's Real in my book. Everything else points to it.

I agree completely, Daniel, that is is all that there is ... it's what we can always hold on to, and refresh ourselves with, and cling to as the one piece of reality, that core of our being as persons, that is integral to ourselves and that we know, just know, is real in this area. Noone can take that away from us, or really question it in any legitimate way because they do not live inside our hearts and our heads.

As for Dobson ... I suspect that he would say that no true love can come from a disease, which is more or less what he sees gayness as. He thinks we are diseased hets, and that to the extent that we "feel" love, it is merely a symptom of our disease, which is misplaced affectional/sexual orientation due to having withdrawn fathers and domineering mothers. He sees us as sick, and therefore sees our quest for rights as being like the quest for mentally ill people to be granted the right to live their lives as mentally ill people, in full dysfunction (from his perspective) ... which he sees as bad.

Of course he is completely wrong, as those of us who have lived this experience all know. But I really do think that he sincerely believes what he does, which makes him and those who think like him (of which there are regrettably many) all the more dangerous. Being a true believer in nonsense can often be a very empowering gateway to profound evil, when you look at things from a historical perspective.

Dash

12-08-2006, 11:04 AM

I agree completely, Daniel, that is is all that there is ... it's what we can always hold on to, and refresh ourselves with, and cling to as the one piece of reality, that core of our being as persons, that is integral to ourselves and that we know, just know, is real in this area. Noone can take that away from us, or really question it in any legitimate way because they do not live inside our hearts and our heads.

Preach on, Brother! I wrote a random note of forgiveness and love to Peter LaBarbera a couple weeks ago (yeah...I don't know if there's any use to that, but...) and that turned up in my thoughts as well. Here's how it came to me (the gist anyway):

No one can witness to the love we experience, except each of us and our God; therefore, all witnesses denouncing our love must by their very nature be false witnesses. They have not seen and cannot testify to our love or lack thereof.

Sadly, our neighbors in the Evangelical anti-gay camp have no problem whatsoever bearing such false witness against those they crucify in angry diatribes.

Emproph

12-16-2006, 01:14 PM

But the concern here has nothing to do with politics (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1568485,00.html). It is about what kind of family environment is best for the health and development of children

Not only did you take my research out of context (http://truthwinsout.org/news/?p=37), you did so without my knowledge to support discriminatory goals that I do not agree with.

You cherry-picked (http://truthwinsout.org/news/?p=38) a phrase to shore up highly (in my view) discriminatory purposes.

~segue~

The response – not on the CitizenLink website:

Gay-activist groups have mobilized to oppose an editorial in Time magazine written by Dr. James Dobson. Write the publication’s editors and let them know that you appreciate them publishing "Two Mommies Is One Too Many," Dr. Dobson’s piece on why children "do best on every measure of well-being when raised by their married mother and father."

You can read Dr. Dobson’s Time editorial by clicking here. (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,1568485,00.html)

Homosexual-advocacy groups posted Internet and email alerts this week expressing "outrage" that Time published Dr. Dobson’s essay. Supporters of same-sex marriage, parenting and adoption are trying to challenge long-standing social science data that children do best with a married mother and father, claiming that newer research discredits these findings — a claim that many respected experts in this field reject. As part of this effort, gay activist organizations are asking their supporters to write Time and complain that Dr. Dobson’s essay is inaccurate.

In reality, Time editors fact-checked Dr. Dobson’s commentary before it was published and found it to be accurate.

So, what can you do to support Dr. Dobson and traditional families?
Write a brief, polite note (200 words or less) to the editors at Time and thank them for publishing the truth about parenting from Dr. Dobson. Thank them for allowing Dr. Dobson to share with the nation what gay activists don’t want anyone to know: Children do best when raised by their married mother and father.

Email your letter to the editor to letters@time.com (letters@time.com)

~segue~

9 Protections of his image:

written by Dr. James Dobson
Dr. Dobson’s piece
read Dr. Dobson's
Dr. Dobson’s essay
Dr. Dobson’s essay
Dr. Dobson’s commentary
Dr. Dobson and traditional families
parenting from Dr. Dobson.
Dr. Dobson to share

4 depictions of political motivation (activists) + 4 characterizations of unfounded or dishonest motives:

Gay-activist groups have mobilized to oppose
Homosexual-advocacy groups...expressing "outrage" that Time published
gay activist organizations are asking their supporters to write Time and complain
gay activists don’t want anyone to know

And 3 abuses of the concern for children:

why children "do best...when raised by their married mother and father."
that children do best with a married mother and father
know: Children do best when raised by their married mother and father.

But the concern here has nothing to do with politics. It is about what kind of family environment is best for the health and development of children
Still no word yet on when the campaign to end divorce begins...

ladyinred

12-17-2006, 02:32 AM

I hope no one takes offense at this , but I personally don't believe that the bible per se is unerring, that is my point of view and I hope that is not seen as offensive to Christians here, nor am I attacking Christianity .. but the debased beliefs that put others on the pedestal and make them demogogues and experts on such things as human nature and things such as homosexuality. I am currently reading the books," God without religion "that embraces a more ecunemical nature of God and a book By Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy called "The laughing Jesus , Religious lies and Gnostic wisdom",as well as reading at the Nag Hamadi library on the lost gospels that were expelled by the church at the time, http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/.... My aim is not to discredit Christianity or the sincere people I believe here are Christians but the view of Christianity that fundalmentalism has endorsed that has created all sorts of divisiveness and fear. If interested you might want to read the laughing Jesus , while I disagree with their historic perspective on Jesus actually existing ( I do believe he was a historical figure.) They have alot to say about fundalmentalistic beliefs and literalists interpretation of the bible that I feel help explain alot of prejudices we see in certain mainstream denominations. They also talk about the history of the bible and it's construction and revision by the early church under Iranaeus. Why then is homosexual even in newly published and revised bibles when the word didn't even exist , if I remember correctly until the 1900's. It says alot about the:) accuracies of translation to me. A word in Greek or Hebrew 2000 years ago may have had a totally different meaning than the way we would interpret it today. And we know that translations are not always precise or accurate. If you do decide to read the books I've mentioned, please read them with an open mind , remembering you may not agree with all the authors perspectives or ideas. My argument is this, the fundamentalists have cherry- picked verses from the bible and used it in their campaign to assault glbt people while ignoring the very verses that teach to judge not, to love others as yourself. to forgive, to be merciful among others.

ladyinred

12-17-2006, 03:07 AM

Why these fundementalists have such an obsession with the gay lifestyle... who are in a minority group.. Who they blame for all their maritial problems, divorces, societal problems among other things. To me Dobson and Cameron who are OBSESSED WITH even the word gay, strick me as quirky to say the least.. To me they suffer from deeper issues.. How can people go around 24/7 obsessing on one thing ,Gay? I perhaps think they may be repressed homosexuals themselves.... Don't you think it odd to have such a fanatical tendacy to obsess on one thing when there are larger issues to face like problems within their own family structures, or divorce, teenage pregnacy, dysfunctional familes, abuse and other things? To me gay is a way to deflect responsibility off them on to convenient scapegoats for their problems.. that way they don't have to accept responsibility for their personal actions or do anything about it... blame others..Wa la... A convenient cop-out.

ladyinred

12-17-2006, 03:16 AM

This man portrays himself such an expert on human affairs, here is his methodology... I suppose he wants to crush Homosexuals to who don't obey the word of God(His interpretation that is?)
December 21, 2004
The Monstrous James Dobson, Further Explained
In my essay, "When the Demons Come," I quoted a rather remarkable passage from James Dobson in response to a reader's question, and then offered a few comments about it:
"I have spanked my children for their disobedience, and it didn't seem to help. Does this approach fail with some children?

"Children are so tremendously variable that it is sometimes hard to believe that they are all members of the same human family. Some kids can be crushed with nothing more than a stern look; others seem to require strong and even painful disciplinary measures to make a vivid impression. This difference usually results from the degree to which a child needs adult approval and acceptance. The primary parental task is to see things as the child perceives them, thereby tailoring the discipline to his or her unique needs. Accordingly, a boy or girl should never be so likely to be punished as when he or she knows it is deserved.

"In a direct answer to your question, disciplinary measures usually fail because of fundamental errors in their application. It is possible for twice the amount of punishment to yield half the results. I have made a study of situations in which parents have told me that their children disregard the threat of punishment and continue to misbehave. There are four basic reasons for this lack of success. ...

"3. The spanking may be too gentle. If it doesn't hurt, it doesn't motivate a child to avoid the consequence next time. A slap with the hand on the bottom of a multidiapered 30-month-old is not a deterrent to anything. Be sure the child gets the message -- while being careful not to go too far."

This could not possibly be clearer: the explicit goal is to crush the child so that he will always be obedient to the parent. Whatever the parent says must be followed -- whether it is irrational, whether it is completely unjustified, whether it is directly opposed to the child's actual needs, whether it can be defended on any grounds or not. Whatever the parent says or demands, the child must obey. And to ensure this unthinking, unquestioning obedience, pain is required.

The great tragedy, of course, is that in one way or another, most parents believe this as much as Dobson does, and they raise their children accordingly. Usually, they are not so explicit about it, but the principle is identical. Also note, as I have also stressed repeatedly in my many entries concerning this subject, that undoubtedly the most common forms of child abuse do not involve physical mistreatment at all: most of it is psychological -- using, for example, the unstated threat of the withdrawal of the parent's love if the child does not do as he is told, that is if the child does not follow orders.
On the basis of the passage quoted above, one would be entirely justified in concluding that Dobson is nothing more than the worst kind of sadist.

But if you have even the slightest remaining doubt on that score, consider the following. Courtesy of Digby (who has the entirely correct reaction to this stunning confession, in my view), we have the following passage from Dobson's book, The Strong-Willed Child. Siggie, by the way, is a dachshund:
"Please don't misunderstand me. Siggie is a member of our family and we love him dearly. And despite his anarchistic nature, I have finally taught him to obey a few simple commands. However, we had some classic battles before he reluctantly yielded to my authority.

"The greatest confrontation occurred a few years ago when I had been in Miami for a three-day conference. I returned to observe that Siggie had become boss of the house while I was gone. But I didn't realize until later that evening just how strongly he felt about his new position as Captain.

"At eleven o'clock that night, I told Siggie to go get into his bed, which is a permanent enclosure in the family room. For six years I had given him that order at the end of each day, and for six years Siggie had obeyed.

"On this occasion, however, he refused to budge. You see, he was in the bathroom, seated comfortably on the furry lid of the toilet seat. That is his favorite spot in the house, because it allows him to bask in the warmth of a nearby electric heater...

"When I told Sigmund to leave his warm seat and go to bed, he flattened his ears and slowly turned his head toward me. He deliberately braced himself by placing one paw on the edge of the furry lid, then hunched his shoulders, raised his lips to reveal the molars on both sides, and uttered his most threatening growl. That was Siggie's way of saying. 'Get lost!'

"I had seen this defiant mood before, and knew there was only one way to deal with it. The ONLY way to make Siggie obey is to threaten him with destruction. Nothing else works. I turned and went to my closet and got a small belt to help me 'reason' with Mr. Freud.

"What developed next is impossible to describe. That tiny dog and I had the most vicious fight ever staged between man and beast. I fought him up one wall and down the other, with both of us scratching and clawing and growling and swinging the belt. I am embarrassed by the memory of the entire scene. Inch by inch I moved him toward the family room and his bed. As a final desperate maneuver, Siggie backed into the corner for one last snarling stand. I eventually got him to bed, only because I outweighed him 200 to 12!"
For Dobson, there is no difference at all between dachshunds and children. They are both to be beaten with belts as necessary, they are both to be crushed using whatever means are required no matter how brutal and monstrous, and they are both to be made to obey above all.

Anyone who reads Dobson's book (or any of his other writings,