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

Emproph

06-03-2006, 11:37 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, 09:30 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, 08:13 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, 01:30 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, 04:21 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, 02:29 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, 04:02 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, 06:44 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, 07:14 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, 10:08 AM

Zerbie

06-10-2006, 01:24 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, 04:36 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, 11:47 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, 10:47 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, 08:25 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, 01:55 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, 08:46 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, 11:13 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, 12:31 PM

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, 01:58 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, 03:24 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

08-09-2006, 12:51 AM

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, 05:46 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, 01:58 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, 08:53 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, 10:19 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, 04:46 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, 05:14 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, 09:56 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, 10:32 AM

marutidas

10-20-2006, 12:07 PM

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, 12:08 PM

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, 08:44 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, 11:41 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, 01:01 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, 09:26 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, 10:29 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, 07:47 PM

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

Perhaps outside our own solar system?

Huggins293

11-30-2006, 08:04 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

12-01-2006, 12:01 AM

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, 06:40 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, 11:16 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, 05:48 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

12-08-2006, 12:05 AM

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, 12:04 PM

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, 02:14 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, 03:32 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, 04:07 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, 04:16 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, for that matter) and then proceeds to raise his or her children following his prescriptions belongs in the same category with Dobson himself: all such people are the most despicable kind of sadist, the sort of person who enjoys exercising power over living creatures who do not have a chance against them, and who are close to entirely helpless in resisting their brutality.

These are the people who can become torturers under certain circumstances, and who will also offer themselves up as obedient servants to a vicious political ideology -- even an ideology that demands the deaths of millions of innocent people.

To put it very simply, they are monsters. Always keep that in mind, and protect yourselves against all such people the best way you can.
posted by Arthur Silber at 5:06 PM

<< Home

ladyinred

12-17-2006, 04:57 AM

pnggrad 79 "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!"

Well we can see the consequences of a child who is not loved for who he is : I picked this up off a website that was discussing Dobson and Haggard:

As a gay man who spent two years of my youth inside Mel Sembler’s ‘Straght Inc.’, I can honestly say that I feel really sorry for Ted Haggard. They will cut him off from the outside world, and practice the most horrifc forms of thoght reform on this poor conflicted self-loathing gay man.

10 or more hours a day of confrontive ‘therapy’, food, sex and sleep deprivation, verbal and physical abuse, and this will be every day for as much as 3-5 years. Haggard may well end up like some of us who lived through this terrible process of thought-reform, he might carve iin his own arms, consider or try suicide, any number of self destructive actions.

In the end, he may or may not succeed in creating enough cognitive dissonance in his own mind to alllow him to believe that he is no longer gay, but he will still have the drive to be who and what he is, and will eventually either have to end his own life or lifestyle, one or the other.

He is to be pitied, as much for what he is about to experience as for what kind of self-loathing hell he has already endured.

There is no hatred more powerful or destructive than that which is directed inward. Simply because it will always find a pathway to become directed outward and then we all suffer for the defects of the individual.

Comment by Helpknot — November 23, 2006 @ 2:02 pm

ladyinred

12-17-2006, 05:41 PM

I think this is a powerful force and defense mechanism driving people into denial and desperate lives. I personally have had to struggle with that kind of hatred within myself... and trying to overcome it... It can be a powerful force of destruction . Perhaps driven by the need to fit in and conform was a driving force for me. I still wonder how to overcome that kind of cultural influence and power over my mind.... only one day at a time. I guess.

Emproph

01-16-2007, 09:57 AM

Agape and a dream to remember: "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere"
By Mel Seesholtz, Ph.D.
Online Journal Contributing Writer
~~
I'm posting this here as I didn't want to start a new thread and I thought it too blood-boiler to just add to an exististing thread. I realize it may not be viewed by as many as a result but I still thought it worthy to share. I thought it was a well written succinct snapshot of our struggle, in that it covers a lot of 'enemy' territory in a relatively short article, and is replete with hyperlinks.

After a very pointed diatribe implicating/documenting all our 'favorite' players it ends along these lines:

January 15, 2007: Martin Luther King, Jr. Day in the United States. Bayard Rustin was a key contributor to King’s dream:

When Rustin joined with King in 1956 to help with the Montgomery bus boycott, King had guns in his house. Rustin helped convince King and other leaders of the movement to adopt Gandhian tactics of nonviolent resistance.But in addition to being a tireless worker and activist, Rustin was also gay. He was also "relatively open" for the times, whatever that means. That led to tension with some of the other civil rights leaders, such as the Rev. Adam Clayton Powell, Sr.
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1637.shtml

Daniel

01-16-2007, 11:52 AM

Emproph- thanks for the link. Interesting reading. I had known about Baryard Rustin and was glad to be reminded of his involvement in the stuggle for civil rights.

This line made me laugh as well as shake my head.

While damning gay people who are struggling for the civil right to enter into a civil marriage, McCullough trumpeted, "So don’t believe the angry spokespeople. Radical homosexual activists hate marriage because fundamentally they hate God, and the guilt of both drives them to extremes."

So I hate God and marriage? Hmmmm. The gold band on my ring finger is still shining. And that Canadian marriage license is still valid. And I kissed my beloved this morning and thought: "God- I'm married to the man I love. I am the luckest guy in the world."

Zerbie

01-16-2007, 11:56 AM

So I hate God and marriage? Hmmmm. The gold band on my ring finger is still shining. And that Candadian marriage license is still valid. And I kissed my beloved this morning and thought: "God- I'm married to the man I love. I am the luckest guy in the world."

And according to the complete stranger who accosted me for carrying a No on Prop 107 sign last November (the "marriage amendment") people like me are ruining marriage for "the rest of us." She stormed off shouting that parting line over her shoulder as she got in her car. I turned to the guy next to me and said, "I'll be sure and tell my husband when I get home."

Emproph

01-16-2007, 01:16 PM

Emproph- thanks for the link. Interesting reading. I had known about Baryard Rustin and was glad to be reminded of his involvement in the stuggle for civil rights.

This line made me laugh as well as shake my head.Radical homosexual activists hate marriage because fundamentally they hate God, and the guilt of both drives them to extremes."

It’s so ‘funny’ you picked that one out Daniel as I had already included in my response to my family, re the "unethical conservatism" thread. I haven’t sent it yet as I’m not finished with it, but it’s from a World Net Daily article, the "news source" that sparked the whole ‘controversy,’ or more appropriately, my tirade.

(Don’t worry though I’m trying to do a better packaging job (or should I say delivery job) with this one..)

If you enjoyed that though, check the whole thing (http://holybulliesandheadlessmonsters.blogspot.com/2006/10/gays-hate-god-riiiiiiiiiiiiiight-world.html) out, (Warning upon warning, and in the words of Mermaid Man "eeeeeeeeevil...eeeeeeeeevil!") My reply (as Emproph) to this run down is at the end.

So I hate God and marriage? Hmmmm. The gold band on my ring finger is still shining. And that Candadian marriage license is still valid. And I kissed my beloved this morning and thought: "God- I'm married to the man I love. I am the luckest guy in the world."Yup, Nope, you hate God. You can just throw that ring right out. Eeeeeeeeeeeevil....... :lol:

And according to the complete stranger who accosted me for carrying a No on Prop 107 sign last November (the "marriage amendment") people like me are ruining marriage for "the rest of us." She stormed off shouting that parting line over her shoulder as she got in her car. I turned to the guy next to me and said, "I'll be sure and tell my husband when I get home."

Upon learning of the detriment to her own marriage, one homosexual sympathizer bragged to a fellow activist: "I'll be sure and tell my husband when I get home."

If I had no ethics I would have a job. :lol: :lol: :lol:

~~
I hate to ruin that jolly point but come to think of it, how much "sin" is based on or related to the need for money? As in how many truly moral decisions are based on that template? -Just a thought.

tpdncr4christ

01-16-2007, 03:23 PM

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.

I like what you said Rick. Do you all think, maybe this is just an idea here, that SoulForce might start a campaign or something that isn't about redefining marriage, but redefining homosexuality. What if we started a campaing or invisioned a new word that allowed the public to see a difference between those who live harsh lives and us. Rather than being gay we could be ______ (insert word here). Like when African American's decided to call themselves Black instead. What if we change our name, what if we redefine homosexuality so that these people see us as people, not as horrible gays. Does that make sense? Does anyone see what I am saying? If they hate gays, let them hate gays. We can be different. We can be something, obtain something bigger with a new name.

If we refuse to identify ourselves with sinful behavior, what can they say to condem us?

Daniel

01-16-2007, 03:54 PM

I hope this isn't shaping up to be a tug of war between the good gays and the bad gays- may the most righteous win!

To take that thought to it's ultimate conclusion we might turn the tables and differentiate between the good straights and the bad straights- and start by taking away the right to marry from the ones that don't measure up. No divorce. No second chances. That means, gay boys and girls, that you must marry the first person who floats your boat. No test drives. No discovery channel. Mother is watching. Be good or else! No leather bars for you girlfriend! Off limits!

Seriously.

I don't think we have to be 'good' to have equal rights. If equal rights amounted to who is 'good' enough to have them, we're all in trouble, and right back where we started.

I'd like to think that we are aiming for the rights of everyone.

andrewlittle

01-16-2007, 05:51 PM

What if we started a campaing or invisioned a new word that allowed the public to see a difference between those who live harsh lives and us. Rather than being gay we could be ______ (insert word here).

I don't think it's what you meant, but the end result could be a divide created between "socially acceptable" or "relatively normal" gays, lesbians and bisexual folks and those that society just thinks are too far out there - "harsh" transgendered, cross dressers, even people who dress dramatically for gay pride parades.

To some extent, the T and Q part of LGBTQ already feel a little like the "red-headed step children", at least those I have spent time talking with. It would be a real shame to do anything to divide the constituency. No?

tpdncr4christ

01-17-2007, 01:45 AM

Gay is the word that our people have chosen for ourselves to describe ourselves.

I don't want to be, what ever the word is that describes what I am about to be, but I think you've forgotten one simple snipit of information in your statement above. We aren't a people.

There are two generatoins of homosexual's at the moment. There is your generation, the one that went through hell and discrimination during the mid 19th century, the one that had and has trouble with accepting their sexuality and accepting themselves for who they really are, and the one that initiated the "gay lifestyle." Then, there is my generation. The one that has grown up knowing who we are, facing a mere fraction of the sh** that you guys faced, growing up in a more accepting world. My generation has been given an amazing oportunity by yours.

It's like, lets say that everyone starts on top of the snow capped mountain, and everyone wants to get to the bottom where there is no snow and its warm. Your generation started as a snowball, slowly rolling down the hill gaining speed and size as the movement progressed. But there have been obstacles in your way, trees and rocks and stuff. Those obstacles have slowed you down and hindered your generation. Now, because you guys have cleared away those obstacles, the second generation (mine) can roll down the hill gaining size and velocity with no hinderance. It is because of you that we can make a difference. And it is also because of you that we can avoid your mistakes.

My point was not nesiscarily changing the name, but changing the definition. I never chose to be gay. I never chose to be called gay. That is something your generation chose to define yourselves. I don't see any problem with that, but that is what the Conservative Christians are condeming. I ask my parents what they don't like about my comming out and they say they still love me, they just don't like the lifestyle. They are condeming the lifestyle based on the act. If we redefine the lifestyle then they have to think twice about condeming it. And don't say they won't. If we individually change there perception that's not going to do anything. I am suggesting a movement of multiple people redefining there lifestyles to fit the lives they want to live. That might stop the hatred... won't fix the problem, but it will sure help.

Daniel

01-17-2007, 02:46 AM

I ask my parents what they don't like about my coming out and they say they still love me, they just don't like the lifestyle. They are condeming the lifestyle based on the act. If we redefine the lifestyle then they have to think twice about condeming it. And don't say they won't. If we individually change there perception that's not going to do anything. I am suggesting a movement of multiple people redefining there lifestyles to fit the lives they want to live. That might stop the hatred... won't fix the problem, but it will sure help.

I think I hear what you're saying now.

My perception is that what is needed isn't a redefinition the word lifestyle. What needs to change is your parent's conception of what constitutes a life. That they should expect you to adopt certain behaviors which they find discomforting- hanging out in bars- having one-night-stands- going to gay bathhouses etc etc is not anything that straight people don't do too (well not the gay bathhouse part! But there are straight sex clubs. :rolleyes: ). It may not have occurred to them yet that gay people have lives. Ordinary boring lives pretty much like their own actually. ;)

Even writing that word -lifestyle- as in gay people's lifestyle's- with the appostrophe- which makes it possessive- is odd. One doesn't own a lifestyle. 'Having' a life isn't like putting on the latest fashion from Milan.

How many cool gay Christians do your parents know? I bet precious few, right? I know my parents don't yak about me to their friends. Yes. They ARE older (:lol: ) but Christians can have as much, if not a harder time, coming out of the closet as us Queers.

And what about that word?

I know a good many young people in their twenties who seem to relish using that term. It took me a while to get used to it myself. But there is nothing like taking back those words which have been used against us. After all, in academia, they have Queer Studies.

If you can steer them towards an organization like PFlag- great! They'll get to talk with other parents of (fill in the blank) people and their fears may start to soften somewhat.

Now, if what you are referring to by 'act' is the love making between men, well, hopefully, they will learn to have as much respect for your privacy as I'm sure you do for their's.

Lastly, though I hear what you are saying, I think we need to see this matter differently, We can't change anyone's perception. They have to do that themselves. And like drop upon drop of water- that adds up something- your snowball analogy fits here too!. We just don't see this like we see big waves/avalanche.

novaseeker

01-17-2007, 08:47 AM

Good thoughts, Austin!

This is kind of a rambling response, but there were bunch of things I wanted to cover, and I don't have the time this morning to spend much of it editing, so here we go.

The thing about the "lifestyle" reference is that it's never really clear what people are referring to when they say it.

On the one hand, some people may be referring to what they perceive as a promiscuous lifestyle for gay men. Certainly there are promiscuous gay men, and it's possible that this is what the "lifestyle" refers to ... but I think often the reference is broader than that. I think that for many people the phrase "gay lifestyle" means, more or less, "living as a gay person" --- in other words, any "acting out" of one's gayness. I think it's said regardless of how one lives as a gay person. This is why, for example, we hear people complaining about how gay marriage would be a tacit approval of the "gay lifestyle" -- which of course makes no sense if "gay lifestyle" refers to promiscuous behaviors, because it isn't the promiscuous gay people who are getting married, after all. As a result, I think the "gay lifestyle" reference is often used as a code word for "living as a gay person". In other words, it's fine to be gay, just don't act on it, don't have relationships with other men, etc. -- the idea expressed in Christian terms is typically "love the sinner, hate the sin", with active homosexuality being objectively sinful in the eyes of the person typically saying that.

On the rest, while I do think that the more LGBT people who are out, in committed relationships and living in mainstream society, the more we will see prejudicial views fall over time --- to be honest, in my view a much bigger factor will be simply the passage of time itself, and the coming of age of a new generation and generations -- folks who are growing up with less anti-LGBT animus from the get-go. There already are a lot of LGBT people who are out and open, and people still retain their prejudices, although they have learned in many cases to be more private and quiet about them. People know gay people in their workplaces, in their churches, in their own families, and they know gay people are not monsters, and they get along just fine with them ... but when it comes time to vote about gay people, we see what people really think, and it's very negative. I don't think that it's based on a perception of bathhouse culture, I think it's based on a deep-seated discomfort people have with the entire issue of gay people, the "ickiness" of it, the inculturated ideas that it is "not normal", "not natural" and the like, and the presence of gay people in people's lives hasn't seemed to do much to displace these sources of discomfort.

I know that sounds somewhat negative, but what I'm trying to get at is that we must be realistic in our expectations as well. While some people will change their minds about LGBT people by close interaction with us, others won't. That doesn't mean it's useless as a strategy, but it means that it can't be the only strategy because bias is really very, very hard to break without legal intervention.

I think that individual LGBT people should live their lives as they wish to, just as individual straight people do. Just taking gay men, as a group it's already incredibly diverse and embraces a lot of very different approaches to life. Unfortunately, this has led to a lot of division between gay people -- conservatives vs. liberals, religious vs. non-religious, promiscuous vs. monogamous, ghetto vs. mainstream and the like. The temptation to do this is particularly strong in the gay male community, I think, because a lot of gay men are trying to say "Yes, I'm 'gay', but I'm not like that!" -- in a group that has been deprived of approbation for so long, it's very tempting to reach to define oneself in a way that maximizes approbation, even if that invites finger pointing at other gay men. In watching all of this, I've always felt that while people should embrace perspectives that make sense to them, dividing against ourselves like this is a colossal mistake. If we are asking the much larger straight world to embrace diversity, we darned well have to embrace diversity first in our own community, really embrace it, and be proud of that diversity. In short, I think we need to be united, but not uniform. We need to show respect for the various ways that LGBT people choose to live their lives. That doesn't mean condoning behaviors we may find troubling, but it does mean empowering people to make their own choices in life, and respecting those choices even if they are at times unfortunate ones.

I had a conversation a few weeks ago with an acquiantance of mine, a gay man in his late 20s, a church-going mainline Protestant. Like me, he is a big believer in mongamy, committed relationships and the like. Unlike me, he openly and vocally criticizes the "gay community" (by which he means the ghetto subculture) because he thinks it makes it harder for him to "fit in" as a gay man among straight men. His particular bugbear is "fem acting" gay men, a part of the gay world that he dislikes intensely because he feels that the reason gay men are not likes by straight men is because straight men think all gay men are fem. When I pointed out to him that indeed many straight folks know very well that not all gay men are fem, and that the bias has other sources, he refused to accept that, claiming that the predominant image of "fem" gay men impedes his ability to be a masculine "man among men". When I pointed out that no matter how "masculine" he may be in terms of his presentation, appearance and the like, attraction to other men and wanting to be in relationships with them is per se not "masculine" to most straight men, he refused to agree and continued to blame the "subculture" and "fabulousness" for prejudices against gay men.

Now the moral of that story is not that it's a bad idea to be a gay Christian who is committed to monogamy and committed relationships. That pretty much describes me as well, so I don't think that this is a bad idea! The moral of the story is that it's way too easy to get caught up in a mindset that says "I'm not gay like those people are...." and blame "those people" (variously either the "subculture" or the "promiscuous" or the "drag queens" or the "fems", etc.) for the very real prejudice that we experience. In effect, it's a way of telling ourselves, and wanting to tell others, that "I'm not like them, I'm a good homo" --- which I think is really a perspective we need to try to avoid. I'm convinced that the bias against us is not based on drag queens, fems and the subculture, it's based on a very deep-seated discomfort with the very idea of us, and that discomfort applies regardless of how we live our lives. Straight people will certainly applaud certain lifestyle choices made by gay men more than others (as do I, for that matter), but at the end of the day the bias against gay people is independent of lifestyle choices, as is reflected in the current marriage wars where the idea is specifically to foreclose the most committed, most docile, most traditional lifestyle from gay people simply because they are gay.

So while I can totally understand where you are coming from in this, Austin, and I totally think you should live life in a way that meets your own moral and other commitments, I would caution you not to accept that it is the behavior of certain elements of the gay population that is the basis for the animus against us. Not only do I think that this isn't really the case, I also think it's a frame of mind that leads to profound division within the LGBT world, and, in a sense, replicates the same distaste for diversity that we're fighting against.

nmwolfboy

01-17-2007, 09:07 AM

There are two generatoins of homosexual's at the moment. There is your generation, the one that went through hell and discrimination during the mid 19th century, the one that had and has trouble with accepting their sexuality and accepting themselves for who they really are, and the one that initiated the "gay lifestyle." Then, there is my generation. The one that has grown up knowing who we are, facing a mere fraction of the sh** that you guys faced, growing up in a more accepting world. My generation has been given an amazing oportunity by yours.

i would disagree that there are two generations of homosexuals currently. From what i understand, a generation generally refers to a group of people born around the same time, usually within a span of 10 to 20 years. There are several generations of us walking the earth right now. There are those who came of age before & during World War II, then the baby boomers, whom i'd split into immediately post war and 1960s/70s, then those of us who came of age during the early days of the AIDS pandemic, followed by the current young'uns.

We all are marked by the times from which we spring. i graduated from high school in 1981, right into the maelstrom of friends dying all around me. i was radicalized early to march the streets with ACT UP and Queer Nation. That's a very different experience from those who came out under fire in WWII, or during the disco years of the 70s.

But you are right, we all stand on the shoulders of those who came before. It's because of that continuing legacy that i'd say we are a distinct people. An awesome, loving people, to quote the protest song.

andrewlittle

01-17-2007, 10:22 AM

Dave said:
I guarantee that your parents would LOVE my "lifestyle" I am a pillar of my community. I am approaching a quarter century of faithful marriage to a woman. I have made babies and raised fine sons with her. But I am gay.. through and through. Being married to a woman (who knows who and what I am and still loves me as I love her) was a lifestyle choice. Being gay is who I am. The "lifestyle" I chose hurt her and me and took from us things we can never get back. It was an immoral choice. I don't believe that it honored God when I made it. I would have honored God better had I found a boyfriend and done "THE ACT" and been faithful to him in the way that Daniel has chosen to be.

But, Dave, you have been faithful and honored God in finding the ways to make your choice work. You have lived into your covenant, which I think does honor God as well. I can only imagine, and not very well at that, the agony and despair that may have been suffered by you both in the process, but those are conditions that straights and same-sex couples experience as well. Different reasons, maybe. But no-one's life is immune from them. You have obviously NOT taken the easy approach, and that cannot be said for a great many others no matter their sexuality. Blessings to you.

Anyway, back to the discussion at hand (I think).

I think we're discussing another continuum, in a way. Back in the olden days (I am surprised it took so long for Daniel to catch onto the 19th century bit), many of the folks who were "out" were gender-benders. They broke the stereotype rules, and either outed themselves or, more frequently, were outed by nibby neighbors, press or others. Even public figures (take Liberace, for instance, who if I'm not mistaken was a child protege of the grotesquely old Daniel), were not really out, just the subject of rumors and inuendo.

"Fem" or "butch" are not characteristics of just LGBT folks. Many straight men are "fem" to varying degrees, as straight women butch. My wife and I are straight gender-benders - I love to cook, cry at the drop of a hat, and have some distinctly effeminate mannerisms - my wife is very pragmatic, masculine in her approaches to all manner of things like conflict and problem-solving, and leans towards butch. When we met my hair was 36 inches long and her's about an inch. Since then, I've cut my hair, but she freaks if her's gets to be 2 inches long. Separately, we have each frequently been assumed to be gay and lesbian. Even together, people have asked us if we married for "convenience".

So, in earlier years, the "out" GLBT folks were primarily (not exclusively) those who were flamers or biker dykes - those who exhibited mannerisms that were against the stereotypical straight models. God bless them, but their lives were hell many times.

As time went by, many others came out who were not gender-benders - they could pass for straight easily, but came out anyway. God bless them, too. And, yes, their lives have many times been hell as well.

The result is that over time it has become obvious that GLBT span the spectrum of outward mannerisms and behaviors. The more that come out, the more obvious it is that "fem" and "butch" stereotypes are as much bullshit as any others. That is, it's obvious to anyone who has paid attention. There are a great many people, however, who are stuck in the mindset that the stereotypes are accurate - especially the ones that made tabloid headlines back in the olden days. But how "normal" is it for GLBT to have massive sex parties, love being in drag, etc.

I'm showing my age, but I don't think people gave a shit about the antics of Truman Capote or Liberace, because they were just that way. But Rock Hudson - holy shit, he's just like me - he had to be deranged, because he went against his true nature to live a private life of homosexual debauchery. The issue of "going against nature" seemed to have picked up speed with the increase in number of self-identifying LGBT who are not stereotypically gender-benders. We are so damn comfortable with our stereotypes, and threatened when they are shown to be wrong.

Anyway, it would be an absolute shame and disgrace to allow a fracturing of the GLBT unity, based on those that can "mainstream" easily and those that can't/won't. The number of TQ kids living on the streets of big cities because they are so obviously different, and rejected by family and culture because of it, is appalling. The GLB can't, or shouldn't, reject them as well just because they look like the stereotypes that may embarrass us.

Does that make any sense?

Daniel

01-17-2007, 11:22 AM

I think we're discussing another continuum, in a way. Back in the olden days (I am surprised it took so long for Daniel to catch onto the 19th century bit), many of the folks who were "out" were gender-benders. They broke the stereotype rules, and either outed themselves or, more frequently, were outed by nibby neighbors, press or others. Even public figures (take Liberace, for instance, who if I'm not mistaken was a child protege of the grotesquely old Daniel), were not really out, just the subject of rumors and inuendo.

Andrew darling (voice rising imperiously) Whatever do you mean? 'Catch onto the 19th Century bit'? And 'grotesquely old'?

(Honey! Where did you put the walker? I want to go out later....)

Please remember, I'm a voice teacher, not a klinker of keys. That's for sissies. Girly men.

Real men Sing!

Perhaps you were thinking of my other student, Ethel Merman?

keltic63

01-17-2007, 11:33 AM

Please remember, I'm a voice teacher, not a klinker of keys. That's for sissies. Girly men.

Real men Sing!

LUCY!!!!!!! You got some 'splainin' to do! :mad:

Daniel

01-17-2007, 11:40 AM

LUCY!!!!!!! You got some 'splainin' to do! :mad:

Kate? Kate Smith? Is that really you darling? After all these years! My dear (peering down over her trifocals), what have you been doing with yourself?

Bus and truck tour? Really? ? HMS Pinafore? You don't say! Well....my little Buttercup, welcome back to civilization dear. It's so nice to have you back.

novaseeker

01-17-2007, 12:07 PM

I'm showing my age, but I don't think people gave a shit about the antics of Truman Capote or Liberace, because they were just that way. But Rock Hudson - holy shit, he's just like me - he had to be deranged, because he went against his true nature to live a private life of homosexual debauchery. The issue of "going against nature" seemed to have picked up speed with the increase in number of self-identifying LGBT who are not stereotypically gender-benders. We are so damn comfortable with our stereotypes, and threatened when they are shown to be wrong.

I think this is totally right. I don't remember anyone being bent out of shape about Liberace or even Elton John. I mean, I think people thought they were wierd, but it's not as wierd as a "straight acting" gay person like Rock Hudson -- I even remember overhearing questions (I was a teenager at the time) along the lines of "Why would he be gay ?!?"

Anyway, it would be an absolute shame and disgrace to allow a fracturing of the GLBT unity, based on those that can "mainstream" easily and those that can't/won't.

Again I agree completely with this. It's very tempting for some people, I think, but I think it's ultimately counterproductive.

The number of TQ kids living on the streets of big cities because they are so obviously different, and rejected by family and culture because of it, is appalling. The GLB can't, or shouldn't, reject them as well just because they look like the stereotypes that may embarrass us.

Does that make any sense?

The more sophisticated version of that argument is that we shouldn't include them in the main struggle because it's even harder for straight people to accept T people than it is for them to accept Gs, Ls and Bs, and so by including the Ts, we're holding back things for the Gs, Ls and Bs -- basically a political-type argument. Nevertheless I think it's not the right way to go, because the underlying issues, while they appear different on the surface and manifest themselves differently, are really the same.

andrewlittle

01-17-2007, 12:12 PM

I fear, Daniel, in your retort you may have offended some key-clinkers out there. Shame, shame, shame.

Of course, it's probably that gruff, old curmudgeonly persona you like to project but, really, a man of your advanced years should have some notion of propriety.

And, Keltic, why do you resort to calling everyione you take exception to as "Lucy"? And, for God sakes, learn to spell. You know, just because you have a fine, hand-rolled, full leafed cigar (according to Daniel, at least) that doesn't make you Cuban.

As to your assertion that real man sing - well baby, let me tell you -
Real men cook - at everything they do.
(hands on hips, smirking).

Now, back to more serious matters, Novaseeker is obviously a "real man", since he just agreed with ME.

Daniel

01-17-2007, 01:06 PM

As to your assertion that real man sing - well baby, let me tell you -
Real men cook - at everything they do.
(hands on hips, smirking).

Let's see.....I have my Mastering the Art of French Cooking (first edition mind you) right here- thank you Julia...er...Andrew. And we always go into the library for a smoke after dinner. Which reminds me: please bring another bottle of that fine Scottish Whiskey with you next time, will you Dez? Wasn't it this? http://www.scotchwhisky.com/focus/lagavulin.htm

Now that's manly stuff. Goes well with a good cigar.

But I digress.....apologies to those less advanced in years. My mind can get off track you know. What were we talking about?

(puff puff cough cough)

tpdncr4christ

01-17-2007, 03:21 PM

Sorry Dave! I meant to say 1900's not 19th centurty... I always mix those two up...

I just want to make sure everyone sees what I'm saying... You all are cool, but allot of my friends (the boys who like boys anyways) don't like calling ourselves gay. Its hard to determine the difference between whether gay defines you or is a part of you. Most of us, there are about twenty guys I could name for you, but won't ;), won't even admit that we are "gay." If you ask us, we are just boys who like boys, or men who like men. None of us are gay. We just happen to like other boys.

If we classify ourselves we place ourselves in a category. A category can be seperated from the rest. If we stop identifying ourselves as different, and start saying we are normal people who happen to like boys (if we are boys, girls if we are girls) then they won't be able to seperate us as easily. Once all this hubbub is over, I forsee that teenagers will date who ever they like, regardless of skin color or sex. I think that the "_____sexual" categories will fade out with time. There won't be heterosexual people, or homosexual people, there will be just people. If we drop the names it makes it harder for them to call us names.

And lastly... there are multiple generations of homosexual people on this planet, but they are definatley differentiations (I hope I spelled that right:confused:). I think we need to let FOTF know this. I think we need to explain our behaviors in the past, and explain where we would like to go in the future. I don't think all gay people are willing to do that. And that is fine, but I think there should be a group of vocally active nonviolent people who are willing to talk with the members of FOTF as well with Conservative Christians as a whole. That group isn't limited to souly people who have "gay" relations, it could very well be for anyone and everyone.

I am sure this group exists, but it is in peices, scattered about through random organizations and churches across the country. If you ask someone on the street what SoulForce is, 9 out of 10 probably won't be able to give you a legitamate answer, if even that many. What we need is unification, spear heading a movement to show these CC's that we are people who deserve rights as any other people. Right now we are scattered, and despondant. There is no solitary organization, no single entity to which the American public can recognize. Until we reach that state, we will get no where. Until we reach that, FOTF has won the battle, and will continue to win. That is what I mean. The African American's lead the Civil Rights Movement, not the African American Movement. We need a Martin Luther King JR. We need a figurehead personality. We need a new name, not to shed the others, but to unify us and bring us into a new day.

See what I'm saying now?

Zerbie

01-17-2007, 08:25 PM

there should be a group of vocally active nonviolent people who are willing to talk with the members of FOTF as well with Conservative Christians as a whole. That group isn't limited to souly people who have "gay" relations, it could very well be for anyone and everyone.

I am sure this group exists, but it is in peices, scattered about through random organizations and churches across the country. If you ask someone on the street what SoulForce is, 9 out of 10 probably won't be able to give you a legitamate answer, if even that many. What we need is unification, spear heading a movement to show these CC's that we are people who deserve rights as any other people. Right now we are scattered, and despondant. There is no solitary organization, no single entity to which the American public can recognize. Until we reach that state, we will get no where. Until we reach that, FOTF has won the battle, and will continue to win. That is what I mean. The African American's lead the Civil Rights Movement, not the African American Movement. We need a Martin Luther King JR. We need a figurehead personality. We need a new name, not to shed the others, but to unify us and bring us into a new day.

You're nailing it there, Austin. The label issue is double-edged, but since my own experience with labels is that I can't find one that is accurate, I tend to agree with you. I think of myself as a normal person who has dated both men and women. But, accepting that labels are 95% valid for some (possibly most) people, we can respect their authority to determine their own self-definition (if they want a definition:D ) while looking beyond those labels to the larger picture. The larger picture is that our fate as human beings is inevitably intertwined. If "the establishment" is willing to dehumanize one "group," however tightly or loosely defined, then it is willing to dehumanize the next "group."

The civil rights movement is a human issue. All civil rights movements are. Identity politics can put people at odds with one another based on stereotypes, ignorance, preconceptions, ideas of scarcity and competition. What we need to remember is that if they will do it to you, they would do it to the next guy, then they next guy, and then someday to me, too. Gay rights may seem like specific issues around a specific identity, but each of the LGBT issues has ripple effects that affect the ENTIRE community. They are human issues. Right now, politics has polarized it as a 'debate' between two sides. It isn't. It isn't a team issue. It is a human issue.

Andy - thank you, bless you, for what you said about the homeless youth who are even now being rejected by their own families because of being LGBTQ. No one should be abandoned or tossed out simply for being.
Ben and I have started a discussion on biphobia and transphobia over on the "Bisexuality. Spin-off" thread, which might be a relevant place to discuss the matter of inclusion more in depth.

Daniel

01-17-2007, 10:02 PM

Its hard to determine the difference between whether gay defines you or is a part of you. Most of us, there are about twenty guys I could name for you, but won't ;), won't even admit that we are "gay." If you ask us, we are just boys who like boys, or men who like men. None of us are gay. We just happen to like other boys.

There won't be heterosexual people, or homosexual people, there will be just people. If we drop the names it makes it harder for them to call us names.

And lastly... there are multiple generations of homosexual people on this planet, but they are definatley differentiations (I hope I spelled that right:confused:). I think we need to let FOTF know this. I think we need to explain our behaviors in the past, and explain where we would like to go in the future. I don't think all gay people are willing to do that.

When I first joined SoulForce I found myself writing about the need for a Gay Gandhi, which, at the time, seemed like a grand idea. And from what I hear you saying, you'd like to take this iead one step further, towards a movement with the principles of nonviolence intact and a definition not associated with negativity.

Though I am wondering, frankly, if your milieu eshews the word gay, not because it has grown beyond it into a post-modern live-let-live world we all aspires to, but because it rightly fears the animus associated with the word itself, and thinking that, by doing away with the word, it will do away with that animus. That seems way too simplistic to me, ignoring, perhaps, the dynamics in how people actually relate to one another based on perception. The multi-sexual Romans and Greeks, while not having our words gay and homosexual, nevertheless wrote about sam-sex'er's with a smirk. That smirk turned into a downright snear when the Christian Church became synonymous with Rome. In that sense, I believe Mel White has it right: the problem isn't words, but the religious based oppression behind words. We could called ourselves Angels and still be seen as Devils.

That said, a good deal of what you aspire to reminds me off the writing of Edward Carpenter, and his use of the word Uranians. It made sound quaint to our ears, but he wrote about the matters we concern ourselves with here in a very lucid and frank manner, which is astonishing considering the Late Victorian/Edwardian period he lived in. If you haven't read his book The Intermediate Sex, I encourage you to do so.

http://www.edwardcarpenter.net/index.htm

I have thought it might be useful to indicate some of the lines along which valuable work is being performed, or has been performed, by people of this disposition; and in doing this I do not of course mean to disguise or conceal the fact that there are numbers of merely frivolous, or feeble or even vicious homosexuals, who practically do no useful work for society at all - just as there are of normal people. The existence of those who do no valuable work does not alter the fact of the existence of others whose work is of great importance. And I wish also to make it clearly understood that I use the word Uranians to indicate simply those whose lives and activities are inspired by a genuine friendship or love for their own sex, without venturing to specify their individual and particular habits or relations towards those whom they love (which relations in most cases we have no means of knowing). Some Intermediates of light and leading - doubtless not a few - are physically very reserved and continent; others are sensual in some degree or other. The point is that they are all men, or women, whose most powerful motive comes from the dedication to their own kind, and is bound up with it in some way. And if it seems strange and anomalous that in such cases work of considerable importance to society is being done by people whose affections and dispositions society itself would blame, this is after all no more than has happened a thousand times before in the history of the world.

tpdncr4christ

01-17-2007, 10:57 PM

When I first joined SoulForce I found myself writing about the need for a Gay Gandhi, which, at the time, seemed like a grand idea. And from what I hear you saying, you'd like to take this iead one step further, towards a movement with the principles of nonviolence intact and a definition not associated with negativity.

So who is our Gay Ghandi? Why is he hiding?

your milieu eshews the word gay... what does that mean?:eek::confused::eek:

Daniel

01-17-2007, 11:01 PM

So who is our Gay Ghandi? Why is he hiding?

what does that mean?:eek::confused::eek:

Maybe he's you!

And use answers.com for 'milieu' and 'eshew'. ;)

Zerbie

01-18-2007, 12:00 PM

So who is our Gay Ghandi? Why is he hiding?

what does that mean?:eek::confused::eek:

I was about 7 when I first thought "we need a gay Gandhi." Have been waiting for such a personality to appear since then. Daniel has a good point. Maybe he's you. Or me. Or one of us here. Or maybe not.

We DO need a person with the insight and communication abilities of an MLK who can communicate the humanness of these LGBT issues to the entire community. Who people can unify around. Who inspires the entire community, that means of course also many straight-identified people, to perceive their connection to their LGBT friends and neighbors, to understand that our fates are all linked. That "our" cause is "theirs" too.

I suppose the appearance on the social scene of such a person requires a specific set of events both coincidental and planned, all intersecting in such a way to make such a rallying persona visible. Whoever he/she is needs tremendous inner strength.

Emproph

01-27-2007, 07:50 AM

This one’s entitled “Why Liberals Hate Christians (http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53955)”

This is the guy from World Net Daily that claims that gays hate marriage because we all hate God. He’s perfected “at level” projection, watch:

They do this because in doing so their own guilt is appeased, their anger is justified, and they can finally lay blame for their own misery at someone else's feet.

This is a bitter angry man, I would know. Something’s going on here.

Last night, Alexandra Pelosi's newest documentary, "Friends of God," aired on HBO.
That’s as much as I’m going to post out loud about that. Mind you, if you choose to read this article by clicking on the link, I’d advise you to check on your Pepto Bismol supply before proceeding... Fair Warning.

This is what really caught my eye though, (Pepto now! I’m not kidding):
Pelosi then turns the camera over to the most dishonest voice in the entire presentation. Mel White, a former ghostwriter for Jerry Falwell and now a gay activist, states, "Gay people love God and are in every church and have been since the beginning of recorded history."

"THE most dishonest voice?" I Love it! Right on Mel :tup:. Not that he was irked by what Mel said, but that he was infuriated by Mel saying it. I got the impression that it was the Christian aspect of 'legitimate gay voice' that was so threatening.

After the Hiroshima I skipped, He ends with:
While they may think that evangelicals are filled with hate, if they were but to ask, they would find instead the wellspring of grace, mercy and love.

...And it is the reality in seeing the joy, peace and contentment that we have and that they do not that drives liberals to draw angry conclusions.

Conclusions that will send them to a Godless eternity...

I wonder if he’s been introduced to Peter LaBarbera. Then again, do you think he’s in his league?

tdogg

01-27-2007, 01:27 PM

So who is our Gay Ghandi? Why is he hiding?

Well....in another thread Keltic mentioned he might be interested in seeking a difference career line....Keltic? What do you say?

Emproph

02-20-2007, 12:13 PM

02-16-2007
Homosexual Group to Protest Christian Colleges (http://www.citizenlink.org/CLtopstories/A000003917.cfm)
Gay-activist group Soulforce is organizing protests of Christian colleges because of their codes that forbid sexual immorality.
And this one has got to take the cake:
Activists will tell emotional stories, and they'll twist Scripture to fit their agendaThereby characterizing any and all personal first hand eye-witness testimony as being politically motivated.

:sick: upon :sick:. It's just proof to me as to why the Equality Ride (this year Rides) is ESSENTIAL.
~~
It reads as a bad rock tour write up, replete with cities and dates in list form. You may prefer to read about it here on our site though as it's coming up next month. http://www.soulforce.org/equalityride

The offensiveness of the outright slander in the article goes without saying, so this is what gets me:
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Check this list of targeted colleges. Below that you'll find resources that offer biblical context on the issue of homosexuality.

That's the bad news, the good news is that most of the "resources" they offer are "same ol' same ol,'" and require as little to refute them.

Then there's this one:
Stanton Jones, provost of Wheaton College in Wheaton, Ill., prepared a response to Soulforce's arguments (http://www.wheaton.edu/CACE/resources/booklets/StanJonesResponsetoMelWhite.pdf) last year.

(PS I'm sure that's the right link, so if it's not working try it later.)
Which is a direct "refutation" of Mel White's What the Bible says – and Doesn't say – about Homosexuality (http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible).

We've discussed Stanton Jones' response previously, here (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=538) and here (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=1293&highlight=jones+wheaton), but I haven't had a chance to fully assess it yet. (Which I'm actually kind of looking forward to – and I do say that sneeringly...)

Emproph

05-13-2007, 12:42 PM

BTW, when I put the word Christian in quotes like that, that means that it's not the Golden Rule type Person.

~~
Nearly a month after the Day of Silence and Day of Truth, controversy continues.
CitizenLink 5-11-2007 (http://www.citizenlink.org/CLtopstories/A000004605.cfm)
Sophomore Oleg Manzyuk and many of his friends stayed home..the Day of Silence.

On that day, homosexual students and their supporters wore tape over their mouths in protest.

No source given, but it sounds disturbing doesn't it? It could have been two persons or three, out of 100,000 participants, but I am NOW under the impression that every single one of them, high school students mind you, wore tape over their mouths "on that day." :x

Two years ago, the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) established the Day of Truth — April 19 this year — to express a Christian perspective. Nearly 7,000 students participated in the third-annual Day of Truth.

The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), an organization that was established for the sole purpose of portraying "Christians" as victims in the public sphere for the sake of generating political media capital, is the same organization that "established the "Day of Truth"" ? :laughing: :rofl: :lol: :rofl: :laughing:

Ok, back to "Christian morality" :sleep:

David French, senior counsel for ADF:

“If the school is going to allow one side unfettered free speech on the issue of homosexuality,” he said, it has to let the other side speak, too."

Yes indeed David French, what is the "other side" of the argument against violent crime?

Their version of free speech includes the right to openly protest -- with social impunity -- any demonstration that would so much as raise the AWARENESS of the violence done to us.

“This would all be settled without a Day of Silence,” Oleg said. “It’s a promotion of homosexuality and the homosexual lifestyle...”

Remember Oleg, from the first sentence?:

Sophomore Oleg Manzyuk and many of his friends stayed home from San Juan High School on April 18, the Day of Silence. On that day, homosexual students and their supporters wore tape over their mouths in protest. :x every single one of them, or maybe none of them. We'll never know thanks to Oleg Manzyuk... He stayed home "on that day."

Simon

05-13-2007, 12:50 PM

Emproph,

I see that you are against ADF. I wonder why? Let's see. Blacks have NAACP, Jews have ADL, LGBTs have NGLTF, GLAAD, and GLSEN. All these organizations are intended to protect freedom of speech and civil liberties in public spectra, for each respective indentified groups, legally. So, why can't conservative Christians have a legal organization that protects their constitutional rights, just like other groups have similar ones?

Emproph

05-14-2007, 05:43 PM

Emproph,

I see that you are against ADF. I wonder why?

#63, 64, & 65:

http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=1685&page=4&highlight=alliance+defense+fund+osten

Given that you defend the practice of bearing false witness to harm your neighbor, what makes the ethos of your morality any different than that of a criminal’s, other than the fact that you call it conservative Christianity?

Zerbie

05-14-2007, 06:23 PM

Simon

05-14-2007, 07:42 PM

They already have one. It's called the ACLU.

The ADF is not about protecting constitutional rights. It's about expanding into special privileges at the expense of others.

Apparently ACLU is not very efficient in doing their job. Otherwise, these organizations mentioned above would not emerge.

As per this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_Defense_Fund), the mission of ADF states that they want to defend the right of CC's to speak what they believe. Nowhere, I saw them wanting to expend special priveleges at the expense of others, but I saw that ADF was defending Christian people whose 1st Amendment rights have been curtailed by liberals. Sounds like a very honorable thing to do. I mean, GLAAD defends homosexuals who were discriminated because of their orientation in public settings, so having ADF for conservative Christians in public settings, is my friends, a fair game.

And Emproph, in that thread that you linked me to, talking about the book "Homosexual Agenda" and all the things described in there, where conservative Christians were unjustly persecuted, is the truth.

PS: I don't defend harming anybody but I defend all people to speak what they think, regardless of what the differences in their beliefs. This is called democracy and this is what our country was based upon. I think I have stated that already, somewhere else.

Emproph

05-14-2007, 08:41 PM

#63, 64, & 65:

http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=1685&page=4&highlight=alliance+defense+fund+osten

Given that you defend the practice of bearing false witness to harm your neighbor, what makes the ethos of your morality any different than that of a criminal’s, other than the fact that you call it conservative Christianity?

PS: I don't defend harming anybody but I defend all people to speak what they think, regardless of what the differences in their beliefs.

I guess that's where our beliefs differ. I don't believe that just saying something makes it true, or that provable lies can be morally justified by calling them beliefs.

dewdrop_world

05-14-2007, 09:32 PM

I guess that's where our beliefs differ. I don't believe that just saying something makes it true, or that provable lies can be morally justified by calling them beliefs.

Hear, hear... that's it in a nutshell.

If I believe that the moon is made of cheese, that doesn't make me a prophet... just an idiot. Likewise, if I flog the intellectually dishonest "research" of Paul Cameron as if it were scientific fact, I might believe every word of it but it is still not true.

Of course, I and everybody else on this earth have the right to be idiots. What we do not have is the right to be exempt from criticism for our idiocy, or lies, or manipulativeness, or slander.

James

Zerbie

05-14-2007, 09:41 PM

Apparently ACLU is not very efficient in doing their job. Otherwise, these organizations mentioned above would not emerge.

e else.

Now that's rich. :lol:

To argue this further I would have had to have kept a record of things I've seen ADF do in recent years. I did not. All I remember is that everything I saw the ADF do was bad. But I HAVE seen the ACLU defending the free speech rights of some very conservative Christians - IF that's what anyone would ever call the likes of Fred Phelps.

Simon

05-14-2007, 09:55 PM

Hear, hear... that's it in a nutshell.

If I believe that the moon is made of cheese, that doesn't make me a prophet... just an idiot. Likewise, if I flog the intellectually dishonest "research" of Paul Cameron as if it were scientific fact, I might believe every word of it but it is still not true.

Of course, I and everybody else on this earth have the right to be idiots. What we do not have is the right to be exempt from criticism for our idiocy, or lies, or manipulativeness, or slander.

James

Good points, James.

So, based on your argument that you and everybody on this earth have the right to be idiots, shouldn't we defend our rights when we encounter dogmatists, people who claim to know everything? If yes, how can we do that? If not, why not?

Zerbie

05-14-2007, 10:02 PM

Good points, James.

So, how about we form an organization called "Dummy task force" and make a motto of our campaign saying: Social Justice and Freedom for Idiots from Dogmatic Oppression?:)

Whoaaaaaaa!

Was that "motto" chosen intentionally to draw a parallel to the Soulforce motto, in order to make fun of it?

Would be blatantly revealing of your disdain for everyone here, if so.

I'm tired of this "debate' Simon. It's farcical. I'll sign off for now.

Simon

05-14-2007, 10:19 PM

Whoaaaaaaa!

Was that "motto" chosen intentionally to draw a parallel to the Soulforce motto, in order to make fun of it?

Not at all. But I think that people who are idiots, hypothetically speaking of course, are being oppressed by dogmatists, the ones who claim to know everything. Trust me, I had many professors like that in college, so I could say that it was me (an idiot) being oppressed by dogmatists. It was James who brought up the subject of idiots, and I picked up on it. I didn't mean to single out anybody, not even Soulforce. I was wondering what would be so wrong to model their motto as an advocacy for other groups, who are also being mistreated, in this case; it's idiots?

Would be blatantly revealing of your disdain for everyone here, if so.

I'm tired of this "debate' Simon. It's farcical. I'll sign off for now.

I was only joking and I don't intend to debate anything not prove anybody wrong. Is that what you mean by this? I'm sorry if I accidently offended you.

Daniel

05-14-2007, 10:49 PM

I didn't mean to single out anybody, not even Soulforce. I was wondering what would be so wrong to model their motto as an advocacy for other groups, who are also being mistreated, in this case; it's idiots?

I was only joking and I don't intend to debate anything not prove anybody wrong. Is that what you mean by this? I'm sorry if I accidently offended you.

Accidentally? Oh come on Simon.

Using Soulforce's motto in the way you did was pretty rude. Yep. Rude. And now you chalk it all up to an 'accident'?

That was no accident. So please don't pass it off as one.

Either you have no clue as to the people you are addressing here or your motives for being here are not all you profess them to be. I hope that the former is more true than the latter.

Simon

05-14-2007, 11:04 PM

Accidentally? Oh come on Simon.

Using Soulforce's motto in the way you did was pretty rude. Yep. Rude. And now you chalk it all up to an 'accident'?

That was no accident. So please don't pass it off as one.

Either you have no clue as to the people you are addressing here or your motives for being here are not all you profess them to be. I hope that the former is more true than the latter.

Well,

I don't know too many from here and who they are, very well. Maybe, I should edit my post. What would you advise me to do?

keltic63

05-15-2007, 06:30 AM

from: http://www.ericberne.com/games/games_people_play_schlemiel.htm

The following is a brief description of the Party Game Schlemiel from Games People Play by Dr. Eric Berne.

Thesis: The term "schlemiel" does not refer to the hero of Chammiso's novel (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect?tag=ericberne-20&path=tg/detail/-/0880641428/qid=1110378487/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl14/?v=glance&s=books&n=507846), who was a man without a shadow, but to a popular Yiddish word allied to the German and Dutch words for cunning. The Schlemiel's victim, who is something like the "Good-Natured Fellow" of Paul de Kock, is colloquially called the Schlemazl. The moves in a typical game of "Schlemiel" are as follows: 1W. White spills a highball on the hostess's evening gown.
1B. Black (the host) responds initially with rage, but he sense (often only vaguely) that if he shows it, White wins. Black therefore pulls himself together, and this gives him the illusion that he wins.
2W. White says "I'm sorry."
2B. Black mutters or cries forgiveness, strengthening his illusion that he wins.
3W. White then proceeds to inflict other damage on Black's property. He breaks things, spills things and makes messes of various kinds. After the cigarette burn in the tablecloth, the chair leg through the lace curtain and the gravy on the rug, White's Child is exhilarated because he has enjoyed himself in carrying out these procedures, for all of which he has been forgiven, while Black has made a gratifying display of suffering self-control. Thus both of them profit from an unfortunate situation, and Black is not necessarily anxious to terminate the friendship.
from Wiki: Transactional analysis, commonly known as TA to its adherents, is a psychoanalytic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoanalysis) theory of psychology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology) developed by psychiatrist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychiatrist) Eric Berne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Berne) during the late 1950s.
Revising Freud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud)'s concept of the human psyche as composed of the id, ego, and super-ego (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id%2C_ego%2C_and_super-ego), Berne postulated instead three "ego states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_analysis#The_Ego-State_.28or_Parent-Adult-Child.2C_PAC.29_model)"—the Parent, Adult and Child states—which were largely shaped through childhood experiences.
Unhealthy childhood experiences could damage the Child or Parent ego states, which would bring discomfort to an individual and/or others, in a variety of forms including many types of mental illness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_illness).
Berne considered how individuals interact with one another, and how the ego states affected each set of transactions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_analysis#Transactions_and_Strokes). Unproductive or counterproductive transactions were considered to be signs of ego state problems. Analysing these transactions, according to the person's individual developmental history, would enable the person to "get better". Berne thought that virtually everyone has something problematic about their ego states and that negative behaviour would not be addressed by "treating" only the problematic individual.
Berne identified a typology of common counterproductive social interactions, identifying these as "games (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_analysis#Games_and_their_analysis)".

Emproph

05-15-2007, 07:22 AM

The moves in a typical game of "Schlemiel" are as follows:

W = White
B = Black

1W. White spills a highball on the hostess's evening gown.

1B. Black (the host) responds initially with rage, but he sense (often only vaguely) that if he shows it, White wins. Black therefore pulls himself together, and this gives him the illusion that he wins.

2W. White says "I'm sorry."

2B. Black mutters or cries forgiveness, strengthening his illusion that he wins.

3W. White then proceeds to inflict other damage on Black's property. He breaks things, spills things and makes messes of various kinds. After the cigarette burn in the tablecloth, the chair leg through the lace curtain and the gravy on the rug, White's Child is exhilarated because he has enjoyed himself in carrying out these procedures, for all of which he has been forgiven, while Black has made a gratifying display of suffering self-control. Thus both of them profit from an unfortunate situation, and Black is not necessarily anxious to terminate the friendship.

I'm Full

And speaking of my own self righteousness, how dare you make more sense than me?

tdogg

05-15-2007, 03:23 PM

Good points, James.

So, based on your argument that you and everybody on this earth have the right to be idiots, shouldn't we defend our rights when we encounter dogmatists, people who claim to know everything? If yes, how can we do that? If not, why not?

Wow Simon, I hope you aren't calling James an idiot. I had really thought you were here legitimately to get some questions answered and figure out why SF does the actions it does. After reading some more recent posts from you, I would have to say I'm disappointed in you. I had expected more. My bad... :(

Emproph

05-31-2007, 08:26 AM

If you'd like to read it without the interspersed rant...
http://www.citizenlink.org:80/CLtopstories/A000004741.cfm

Otherwise:
5-30-2007

Study Suggests Teen Sex OK in "Committed" Relationships

by Jennifer Mesko, associate editor

Urge your lawmakers to renew funding for abstinence education.

Sex deemed officially "ok." Demand that it stop.

Confusing but thought provoking.

Nearly $200 million in abstinence-education funding — and the mental health of American teenagers — hangs in the balance.

That sounds awfully threatening, from the headline I got the impression that teenage sex was ok.

New research, to be published Thursday in the American Journal of Sociology, suggests premarital sex doesn't harm the mental health of teens, except those 15 or younger, whose relationships tend to be less committed, USA Today reported today.

So in regard to sex, there's a direct link between one's mental health and their level of commitment in the relationship?

Sounds right to me, or at the very least a notion of the benefits of responsibility.

"For this study to state that teens 15 and younger tend to be less committed in sexual relationships demonstrates its incredible disconnect from reality," said Linda Klepacki, analyst for sexual health at Focus on the Family Action.

Oh my goodness, that sounds ominous. I have the distinct sensation that I'm not being given the full story, yet I am confident that Linda Klepacki -- an official analyst for sexual health at Focus on the Family Action -- will inform me of the truth being witheld from me.

"Research shows us that young girls are much more likely to be pressured into sex by much older boys than older teen girls. The term 'statutory rape' is more apropos for 14-year-olds having sex than the term 'committed.'"

According to the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, 63 percent of sexually experienced 12- to 19-year-olds wish they had waited longer before having sexual intercourse.

Interesting, so you're saying that 20-year-olds and above never wish they had waited longer before having sexual intercourse, but weren't we talking about committed relationships, not just p and v? And if so, how do you justify characterizing relationships -- though less committed -- as rape?

Then again, who wouldn't trust the official words of an analyst. And certainly Focus on the Family Action wouldn't hire anyone other than an official analyst.

analyze - examine in detail the elements or structure of.

analyst -a person who conducts analysis.

I often hire my own analysts. Why recently I hired an analyst to determine the cause of my overflowing commode. I was advised to purchase a manually powered suction device stick, and I haven't had any problems since. So I can't speak highly enough of the superior expertise of analysts.

"Is this statement not a direct result of an emotional response?" Klepacki asked.

"wished they had waited longer" (study) or "Rape" (Klepacki), hmm, which do I find more "emotional?"

Nearly $200 million in abstinence-education funding..hangs in the balanceMeanwhile, Congress seems ready to drop two programs that fund abstinence education.

Oh yeah, that's right, I forgot. There's Z:dollar: 200 million dollars :dollar:Z at stake.

Ashley Horne, federal policy analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said: "People must take the opportunity this week while members are in their home districts to urge reauthorization of Title V abstinence-education funding."

Emproph

06-04-2007, 01:19 PM

CitizenLink 6-01-2007 (http://www.citizenlink.org/CLtopstories/A000004766.cfm)
by Jennifer Mesko, associate editor

http://www.citizenlink.org/images/07/06-01-07.jpg

Just a thought Jenny, but you might want to change that sign to "leave your integrity at home."
-Patrick
~~

Gay Activist Group Opposes Surgeon General Nominee

Man of faith is under fire for biblical stance on homosexuality.

Holsinger has opposed a decision to allow a lesbian to be an associate pastor, and he supported a pastor who would not permit an openly gay man to join the church.

Soulforce claims that makes him unfit to be "America's doctor."

Which is to-be-confused-with the original quote unrelated to Soulforce:

The surgeon general is often called "America's doctor."

Fortunately though, like a laser beam I see through confusion like that. I just want to know why Soulforce is so against Surgeon Generals?

If all they’re basing their opposition to Dr. James L. Holsinger on is his ability to diagnose millions of homosexual Americans as chosen lifestyle behaviors – by faith alone – wouldn’t that make him MORE qualified for the position?

And where does it all end? Would Soulforce also protest the nomination of Dr. Mengele if he were still alive? I imagine that his patients (cured by him of their lifespan) would be rolling in their mass graves upon learning of such an atrocity.

"Dr. James Holsinger has demonstrated in the past that he harbors religious-based prejudice towards homosexuals," Jamie McDaniel, coordinator of Soulforce Lexington, told the Herald-Leader

Prejudice eh? Can’t wait to see how this turns out...

Bob Moffit, director of the Center for Health Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, said there should never be a religious test for public office.

"Any religiously based moral determination would make anyone unfit," he said. "If you start that, you basically are establishing a religious test for public office. Basically, you are overthrowing over two centuries of religious toleration.

Agreed, especially when you use the word "religious" once every sentence to make your point. It would be just like saying:

Any prejudice based moral determination would make anyone unfit
Any Bigotry based moral determination would make anyone unfit
Any libelous based moral determination would make anyone unfit
Any corruption based moral determination would make anyone unfit
Any criminally based moral determination would make anyone unfit
Any anti-American based moral determination would make anyone unfit
Any domestic terrorist based moral determination would make anyone unfit

And who among us can say they don’t deal with each of those on a daily basis?

Best just to call it all religion and then cry foul.

Emproph

07-14-2007, 02:33 PM

Citizenlink 7-12-2007
Bias, Cut and Dried (http://www.citizenlink.org/clcommentary/A000005044.cfm)

by Gary Schneeberger, vice president, media relations

It’s one of the most blatant examples of media bias I’ve ever seen – and I’ve seen a lot of them.
This is regarding the fact that the APA didn’t invite to the table (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showpost.php?p=34825&postcount=11) those whose "religious belief" it is to have us all imprisoned and/or put to death.

The opening statement for the persecution’s side:
Thanks to the wizardry of CitizenLink Online Editor Andrew McCauley, we've made it possible for you to see the full AP story on the American Psychological Association's (APA's) consideration of the ethics of therapy for those who no longer want to live homosexually -- and the edited version (http://www.citizenlink.org/apcomm.html) that appeared in July 11th's Detroit Free Press.
And their cornerstone exhibit from that comparison:
Another curious edit occurs in the same paragraph -- the excising of the word "sexual" as an adjective before "orientation." Might the editor be trying to suggest that "sexual orientation" is not something that can be changed?
Yes, the editor, always the editor, never the hypocritical bigot who defines all LGBTQ persons as mindless "SEXual" perverts. Hence the offense taken at the word "sexual" being edited out of the article.

Gary Scneeberger, vice president, media relations, Citizenlink, Focus on the Family......INDICATIVE of some of the "hundreds (http://www.citizenlink.org/pdfs/apa_letter.pdf)" that he quotes below as being under-represented in the legitimate medical community.

the Free Press ran only a portion of his piece – about how hundreds of psychological, educational and ministry groups are questioning the objectivity of an American Psychological Association (APA) committee considering whether it’s ethical to offer therapy to patients who are dissatisfied living homosexually.
___
This strikes at the heart of their ministry to convince the public that homosexuality is a choice.

Reparative therapy Good = Gay is a choice
Reparative therapy Bad = Gay is not a choice

And if gay is not a choice, they’re out of business.

RedneckDyke

07-16-2007, 12:22 PM

Love Won Out came to Raleigh a couple years ago. I was there with a counter protest we called "Love Welcomes All". There was a fabu guy there with this little terrier. The dog had a sign that said "ex-cat". Every time someone would come through the gate into the conference he would say "Ex-cat! Now it's a dog. Reparative therapy!" It was so funny. We laughed all day long. :lol:

I love old gospel songs, so I held up a sign that said "When the roll is called up yonder I'll be there. Won't some people be shocked!" and also a sign that said "Im gay. I pray. Get used to it!":p

BrentRichards

07-16-2007, 09:17 PM

Emproph

07-17-2007, 05:20 AM

I love this one:
"Im gay. I pray. Get used to it!" :p
That just totally jumps over the whole "how dare you call yourself a Christian" thing. :D :tup:

~~~
Back to business *sigh,* and I post this for posterity purposes only. http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x269/Emproph/rollEyes.gif

In addition to hate newsletters, Focus on the Family is now delving into the business of hate videos.

A very recent example:
(I'm not even going to link to this one as it's too despicable, but you can watch it vicariously through Good As You (http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2007/07/video-subsitute.html) if you so desire.)

Hi I’m Stuart Shepard, this is Stoplight.

So-called hate crimes legislation would add extra penalties if someone is convicted of a crime that is "motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived... sexual orientation (or) gender identity... of the victim."

But ya know what, I don’t think that goes far enough, liberals are missing a terrific opportunity here. Why stop at just hate crimes? Congress really needs to pass something for "Just Really Hacked Off Crimes."

This is the guy who has actual or perceived thoughts about the driver who sees this sign [gestures to highway merge sign] and thinks it means drive really really fast and then cut in at the last minute, making all the other drivers stomp their brakes.

Or how about "Mildly Peeved Crimes?"

This is the guy who has actual or perceived thoughts about the guy in the drive through who seems to have problems understanding the nuances of "no onions."

And what I think is the most dangerous one of all: "Totally Ambivalent Crimes"

This is the guy who doesn’t have any actual or perceived thoughts about you at all, he just wants to punch you in the nose.

Ok, you get the idea. Judges have enough work to do just figuring out who did what to whom, without having to figure out what "who" was thinking when they did "what" to "whom."

If we’re going to have equal justice for all, it needs to be based on what "who" did. Which shines the light on a simple truth; hate crimes legislation is not really about hate or crime. What it’s really about is getting the federal government to grant civil rights status to a particular behavior. Which is the off-ramp that leads to the end of marriage and family.

[Ending jab, standing again in front of merge sign on highway]

Hey, a little red sports car—cuttin’ in front of a semi—talkin’ on her cell phone...

Set aside for a moment the "I'm a punk in high school trying to impress girls" mentality, this is what stood out for me:

Judges have enough work to do just figuring out who did what to whom, without having to figure out what "who" was thinking when they did "what" to "whom."

Isn't "what they were thinking" (as far as intent/motive is concerned) the entire basis behind whether killing someone is manslaughter, negligent homocide, first, second, third degree murder?

Radical Russ (http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2330) put the concept pointedly:
Some people engaged with me and pointed out their view and how mine was flawed. I defended my view and pointed out how their view was flawed. We went around and around until I had an "Aha!" moment (thanks to Sarah in Chicago) when I realized hate crimes aren't just plain old violence, they are terrorism. It's not punishing the white guy for hating a black dude, it's punishing the white guy who terrorizes the whole black community when they understand that the black dude was killed just for being black and they could be next.

Some of the same sentiments were expressed locally here (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=3071).

It seems to me that the application may be different, and perhaps even flawed, but the principle for the need to determine intent--and thus its resultant consequences--is the same.

It's the difference between not just bad and worse, but also between worse and worser. If killing is bad and intentional murder is worse, then intentional murder to terrorize is worser.

An additional grand chasm worthy of note as I see it. Or am I just not understanding the "nuances of "no onions?""

I repeat: http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x269/Emproph/rollEyes.gif

Emproph

07-17-2007, 05:38 AM

Via Citizenlink:
7-06-07
California Bills Fact Sheet
SB 777 – Homosexuality Protected/Promoted in Schools

The bill would turn the public schools into a fantasy world of smiley faces only, by prohibiting any teaching or any activity at all that would "reflect adversely" on any person because of disability, gender, race, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation. Please note: that's any person at all. So, can we expect to see lessons on:

-- the gentle side of Adolph Hitler?

-- why Osama Bin Laden is really a nice guy once you get to know him?

-- how the Visigoths overran the Roman Empire by killing them with kindness?

Protecting gay or thought to be gay schoolCHILDREN from the promotion of discrimination and violence is exactly the same as minimizing genocide?

And this is coming from people who say WE have no moral compass?

I repeat: http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x269/Emproph/rollEyes.gif

Emproph

07-17-2007, 11:04 AM

(I was bored so I transcribed the other video too :eek:)

I'm going to post this transcript now but I may be hyperlinking for some time.

Warning! Pepto Bismol is required beyond this point..

That said, consider this James Dobson’s promotion of James Kennedy’s tribute to The Eternal Jew.

I call it, Goebbels Smile. Enjoy.
7-14-2007 citizenlink (http://www.citizenlink.org:80/clspecialalert/A000005045.cfm)

Excerpt from Censoring the Church

NARRATOR: Indeed, the homosexual movement has attempted to align itself with the Civil Rights movement. And hate crime laws have been portrayed as a civil rights issue. But that doesn’t sit well with some civil rights activists.

William Owens is the founder and president of the coalition of African American Pastors.

WILLIAM OWENS: “I marched with Dr. King, I marched for civil rights, I fought for civil rights, and for the hate crime—the people who want a law for the hate crime movement, I find it very frustrating and disgusting. Because that was not the purpose of the civil rights movement. And they’re trying to hijack and take over the civil rights movement, and make it their movement, and they didn’t pay the price, nor do they suffer the things that blacks suffered, prior to the civil rights movement.

KEN HUTCHERSON: I’m not only upset about that comparison, I’m appalled at that comparison. It is so different, it is amazing. I remember two water fountains, in my day. This is something I lived. Where there was “colored” water fountains, “white” water fountains...I have never seen a homosexual water fountain. Have you?

CHRISTINE SNEERINGER: To make homosexuality the equivalent of race, which is immutable, unchangeable, but homosexuality is not. It is not genetic, it is not inherent, it is not inborn. And I’m living proof of that.

NARRATOR: An Egregious example of Christians being charged with a supposed hate crime, for trying to preach the gospel to homosexuals, happened recently in Philadelphia. Michael Marcavage is the founder and director of Repent America.

MICHAEL MARCAVAGE: On October tenth of two thousand four, our ministry was present at an event in Philadelphia called Outfest, which is a taxpayer funded event, which celebrates homosexuality. And we were there for two reasons, one being to address the public celebration of sin. And the second to proclaim the word of God and the gospel of Jesus Christ.

NARRATOR: Marcavage and ten other people carried signs and proclaimed the message of repentance and change through Christ at the event, which took place on the public streets of downtown Philadelphia.

MICHAEL MARCAVAGE: Uh, when we did arrive, we were interfered with by this uh, militant group of homosexuals, who came together to oppose our presence. To basically say, that uh, they’re not going to allow us to come into the public streets to share the gospel. And uh, certainly we went ahead and tried our best to try to communicate what we were there to do. And that was to share the message that homosexuality is sin, and Christ can set you free.

Police, instead of dealing with those who were acting disorderly, which was the homosexual group who were blowing these loud piercing whistles and engaged in blocking us with, these uh, styrofoam boards that were cut into the form of Angels, they had surrounded us and began to follow us around. Police didn’t deal with that situation even though I’d asked.

NARRATOR: Instead, police arrested the members of Repent America, and took them to jail.

Arlene Elshinnawy is a 75 year old grandmother who demonstrated with Repent America that day.

ARLENE ELSHINNAWY: I’ve never been arrested for any reason, what so ever. We were hand cuffed, and taken into the paddy wagon. Which was without windows, so that we really didn’t know where we were going, or were being driven to. We ended up at some police station, to this day I don’t know where.

NARRATOR: Ted Hoppe, and attorny affiliated with the Alliance Defense Fund, represented the so-called Philadelphia eleven.

TED HOPPE: They ultimately were arrested, uh charged with disorderly conduct, put in hand cuffs and taken away. They were held in jail for about 21 hours, um charged, and then ultimately released, ah, But still facing the criminal charges. After that time, what ended up happening was, the district attorney’s office formally charged them, and included in the charges against them were the, a charge under the Pennsylvania hate crimes law. In Pennsylvania it’s called “Ethnic Intimidation,” but it really is a hate crimes law. That crime is a felony, and if they were convicted of that, would carry jail time in a state penitentiary.

MICHAEL MARCAVAGE: And what we were simply saying was that homosexuality is sin, but Christ can set you free. That was the message of our presence at that event. Is that, what you’re doing here is celebrating sin, in the public streets of Philadelphia, and as Christians we’re here to address that. But we’re also to give the hope that is found in Jesus Christ to you, and that was what we were there to do. And the prosecutor in this case said, uh, that’s hate speech, and we’re not going to have any of it.

ARLENE ELSHINNAWY: When we were released and given this piece of paper—which were three felonies, and five misdemeanors, if they had found us guilty of these things it was worth 47 years in prison. Plus a 90,000 dollar fine for each of us. The charge was ethnic intimidation, in my case, pretty ironic. That I would be charged with ethnic discrimination. But since when are uh, is yer, does yer, sexual preference....um...qualify as..making you an ethnic group?

TED HOPPE: That’s hard time in a state penitentiary for a long period of time. For being on the public streets and sidewalks engaging in free speech activities.

NARRATOR: Linda Beckman is another Christian grandmother who was arrested and charged with a hate crime for participating in the demonstration.

LINDA BECKMAN: I can remember when I saw the paper, with our charges, as I had said in the beginning, my eyeballs about popped out of my head. When I saw three felonies, I could not believe, we would be charged with these charges, when we had done nothing.

MICHAEL MARCAVAGE: As we were charged under Pennsylvania’s hate crimes law, we found ourself (sic) in a situation where they were labeling the Bible as hate speech. And they were saying that us being at this event, to explain that the Bible does teach that homosexual behavior is sinful, uh, would be considered hate speech in Philadelphia. And not only in Philadelphia, but this was under the state hate crimes laws.

NARRATOR: Though the Philadelphia’s district attorney’s office zealously pursued hate crime prosecution in the incident, the charges against the Philadelphia eleven were all finally dismissed in February 2005.

TED HOPPE: When we look back on this and try to figure out why the district attorney’s office did what they did—they wanted to send a message to these Christian Evangelists, that if you come down, were going to make it as painful to you as possible, so stay away.

NARRATOR: We invited Philadelphia’s district attorney, Lynn Abraham, and prosecutor Charles Ehrlich to be interviewed for this program but they declined.

NOT NAMED: These laws can be violated easily by zealous prosecutors who have it in for the particular group targeted. In this case the Philadelphia prosecutor made his views about fundamentalist Christians quite well known. And even called the Bible hate speech.

© 2007 Coral Ridge Ministries

seifer_boy

11-05-2007, 06:04 AM

seifer_boy

11-05-2007, 06:09 AM

I'm not surprised really. I went to an ex-gay.org (or is it com? whichever), and I read about something or other that was full of lies. It was an article. So I made a comment under the article about Dobson being a psychopath and that the ex-gay programs should be sued and shut down. Plus I made the comment on how they don't have real psychologists, they just train their own and throw out all scientific evidence given to them.

Anyway, the editor of the website contacted me about the comment and sent me a couple of links. They were about how demon possession is the reason behind homosexuality. I replied back that Jesus would be appalled at their behavior.

This is what I posted:

Dobson is a complete psychopath. I do not trust people who quote the bible “A man who lies with another man shall surely be put to death.” All of these “ex-gay programs” do not work anyways. People can try to change, but deep down they get depressed because they feel like they can’t be who they really are.

If they do think they are happy, then these programs did a great job at brainwashing people. All these programs are ran by fundy Christians and they have turned these programs into a cult. I for one will not be subjected to dehumanizing, humiliation and mental torture.

These so called “psychologists” are trained by these groups. They are not real psychologists. They do more harm to a person than good and in the end, it will destroy many families and relationships.

These programs should be sued and shut down! They ruin everyone’s life!

P.S. If this doublew posted, it's because my internet connection disconnected me and messed it up.

Jamie McDaniel

03-16-2008, 01:58 PM

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

DOBSON: 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.

DOBSON: So, it can't be simply genetic.

I read in the paper today that the longstanding gene theory (i.e. that identical twins have identical DNA) is being challenged. I had always read that identical twins were naturally occurring clones and that their DNA was 100% the same. Seems a new study is revealing that is not true.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/health/11real.html?ref=science

Added: Also, in reference to the post above mine, I feel the need to say let's refrain from calling Dobson a psychopath please. I know the harm he has done makes us very angry. Yet even with the disclaimer that "The views expressed in the Soulforce Forums are the views of the individual authors and do not necessarily represent the views of Soulforce" visitors take what is said on the forums as being a reflection of who the "people of Soulforce" are. Remember, nonviolence of fist, nonviolence of tongue, nonviolence of heart. Obviously the first is much easier than the other two. I miss the target too!

Emproph

05-15-2008, 10:15 PM

by Devon Williams, associate editor (http://www.citizenlink.org/CLtopstories/A000007441.cfm)

'The justices have undermined and endangered the basic building block of society.'

Dr. James Dobson, founder and chairman of Focus on the Family, is outraged by the court’s blatant disregard for marriage and the voters of California.

“The will of the people has now arrogantly been declared null and void,” he said. “In so doing, the justices have undermined and endangered the basic building block of society, which has been honored and preserved in every nation on earth through most of human history.”

Staff had originally argued over using the overtly anal implicative photo below for the article:

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e308/angel1789/gay_wedding_cake.png

But eventually voted in favor upon something much tackier and tasteless in order to portray their concern for children as having a shred of credibility:

http://www.citizenlink.org/images/08/05-15-08.jpg

Concerned Women for America's Matt Barber, via Citizenlink:
We know that it's in the best interest of children to be raised with a mother and a father

The Association for Children Who Have Brains quickly issued a statement:

We agree that all children living without their biological mother and father should immediately be taken from their homes and placed in foster care, and would add that all single nutrient international-aid foodstuffs (rice, corn, wheat, etc.), should immediately be stopped - as anything less than four square meals a day is not nutritionally ideal, and is therefore useless.

To which the United Starving Children Organization of the World responded:

Thank you for showing us the end result of our starvation ways. We have now stopped drinking water that does not come from a faucet or Britta filter - as to do so would be to go against God's design for the ideal in all situations and circumstances.

Hours later, repeated requests for clarification of the seriousness of that statement have gone unanswered..

Rick336

05-16-2008, 04:18 PM

I'm not surprised really. I went to an ex-gay.org (or is it com? whichever), and I read about something or other that was full of lies. It was an article. So I made a comment under the article about Dobson being a psychopath and that the ex-gay programs should be sued and shut down. Plus I made the comment on how they don't have real psychologists, they just train their own and throw out all scientific evidence given to them.

Anyway, the editor of the website contacted me about the comment and sent me a couple of links. They were about how demon possession is the reason behind homosexuality. I replied back that Jesus would be appalled at their behavior.

The belief that invisible evil demons can enter a human body and change that person's sexual orientation is a result of meme replication. Since 1976 research in psychology and ethnology have discovered that memes (thoughts that attach themselves to the brain and then replicate themselves) can infect a healthy brain and cause it to believe otherwise preposterous ideas.

Examples are beliefs in the Loch Ness Monster, the Bermuda Triangle or that one has been visited by supernatural spirits, space aliens, or dead relatives. Memes are why many believe that President Bush was behind the September 11th attacks or that Senator Obama is a Muslim or that homosexuals are out to destroy the American family.

Meme replication works the same way gene replication does except memes are ideas that replicate themselves from one brain to another by word of mouth or other ways such as the media.

The growth in membership of the Assemblies of God is an example of successful meme replication. Members believe in evil spirits, demon possession, laying of hands healing, and that "speaking in tongues" is God using them to speak an unknown language. They then go out and spread these beliefs to others increasing their membership.

Rick

BrianB

05-16-2008, 04:43 PM

The belief that invisible evil demons can enter a human body and change that person's sexual orientation is a result of meme replication. Since 1976 research in psychology and ethnology have discovered that memes (thoughts that attach themselves to the brain and then replicate themselves) can infect a healthy brain and cause it to believe otherwise preposterous ideas.

Examples are beliefs in the Loch Ness Monster, the Bermuda Triangle or that one has been visited by supernatural spirits, space aliens, or dead relatives. Memes are why many believe that President Bush was behind the September 11th attacks or that Senator Obama is a Muslim or that homosexuals are out to destroy the American family.

Meme replication works the same way gene replication does except memes are ideas that replicate themselves from one brain to another by word of mouth or other ways such as the media.

The growth in membership of the Assemblies of God is an example of successful meme replication. Members believe in evil spirits, demon possession, laying of hands healing, and that "speaking in tongues" is God using them to speak an unknown language. They then go out and spread these beliefs to others increasing their membership.

Rick

Rick, could you please provide a link to such a study. Otherwise I would have to assume that you just pulled something out of thin air. You can say anything on a forum but where's the proof?

Rick336

05-16-2008, 05:02 PM

Brian,

Please don't assume that because I didn't provide a link that I "pulled this out of thin air."

Google the word meme. (It rhymes with dream) There is a wealth of information on the internet about memes. Memes are not necessarily bad or unfounded beliefs. Some memes are catch phrases, fashions, songs, or cultural trends.

Also, google Susan Blackmore. She has written a wonderful book titled "The Meme Machine." It explains in detail how memes replicate themselves in society and how memes effect religious beliefs.

Google Richard Brodie. He has written a great book on memes called, "The Virus of the Mind."

And Richard Dawkins talks about memes in his book "The Selfish Gene."

Rick

Rick336

05-16-2008, 10:59 PM

In his book, "Virus of the Mind," Richard Brodie explains memes this way.

"A virus of the mind is something out in the world that infects people with memes. Those memes, in turn, influence the infected people's behavior so that they help perpetuate and spread the virus."

A viurs of the mind is not an actual virus. It's not a microscopic organism. It's a thought (meme) that the brain immediately accepts as fact without ever questioning it's validity. Then the belief quickly spreads from person to person like a virus.

Here's an example of a meme spreading like a virus:

When I was younger I was told that below the equator water drained counter clockwise. My brain automatically accepted this as fact. I told others that below the equator water drained counter clockwise. They also accepted it as fact.

Last year I found out that below the equator water drains clockwise the same as it does above the equator. What I had automatically taken as fact for over 50 years was false.

Here's another example of a virus of the mind:

"For nearly sixty years, the homosexual activist movement and related entities have been working to implement a master plan that has had as its centerpiece the utter destruction of the family," - From the book Marriage Under Fire by James Dobson

James Dobson writes in his book "Marriage Under Fire" that the goal of gays is to destroy the family. Hundreds of thousands of people buy his book and read this without ever questioning it. They believe it to be true. Then they tell others that the master plan of the homosexual rights movement is to destroy the family. Those people tell other people and the idea is spread from person to person as if it was a fact.

But is the "master plan" of LGBT rights movement to utterly destroy the American family? Of course not. The goal of LGBT movement is equality, respect, and fairness. To believe LGBT people want to destroy the family is absurd.

But since this meme ( and many similar ) has been accepted as fact and spread among Christian conservatives, they actually believe it to be true. The false idea infects the minds of millions of people because the idea has replicated itself over and over like a virus.

This is one reason why Christian conservatives are so fearful of LGBT rights and why they have collected a million signatures in California to put gay marriage to a vote in November.

In his book, Richard Brodie says:

"Nazi beliefs spread quickly throughout Hitler's Germany because a virus of the mind was unleashed that successfully infected people with memes - not because they were "good ideas" in any other sense. In fact, Nazism was a pathological virus of the mind - a classic case of an epidemic thought infection producing horrifying atrocities as a result of the behavior of people infected with its memes."

Christian conservatives are not Nazis. And in no way am I comparing James Dobson to Hitler. Hitler was a brutal and murderous dictator. James Dobson is a child psychologist and founder of Focus on the Family. The similarities here are in the spread of false and harmful memes.

Rick

Zerbie

05-16-2008, 11:24 PM

When you first posted, Rick, I was like "What the *bleep*?!?!" :eek::confused:

How did they coin this word "memes," anyway? Well, I might look for one of the books.

It sounds like the essential premise of the "memes" thesis is that thoughts are powerful influences that spread from one person to another via the conduction known as "words." This would be made possible by our tendency to believe much of what we hear, ESPECIALLY if heard from a trusted source, but not only from trusted sources, also from repetition, or merely from a doubt planted in the unconscious reservoir of the mind.

Which would go back to an essential premise, that words are immensely powerful and that we must learn to be discriminating and responsible about how we use them.

Would the "memes" theories line up with my description, Rick??

Hm. Might be interesting to check out the books. Have any of the authors suggested ways of countering harmful "memes?" I can certainly suggest one: that we be mindful not to spread any harmful "memes" by our own words.

Emproph

05-17-2008, 07:40 AM

The Mind Virus (http://www.bidstrup.com/virus.htm)

Ideas behaving in society like viruses in the body

An essay in hypertext by Scott Bidstrup

What is a meme? A meme is an idea that behaves in society like a virus does in a body. They're all around us. Political or sexual jokes, for example, can behave like memes, they start with one person, are retold time and again, and end up travelling around the world, as they're told and retold, and in so doing, they behave like viruses. They infect (the joke is told to the 'host'), they reproduce (are retold by the 'host' where they 'infect' new 'hosts,' etc.), they mutate (are told in variations that arise in the retelling), and they can even have vectors (books and magazines, for example).

Like viruses, memes can be benign like many physical viruses, or they can be pathological, producing illness, just as do many physical viruses. Like physical viruses, they can be only modestly infective, or they can be highly virulent. They can control behavior, just as physical viruses can, and they can even direct physical evolution, as explained by the recent article on them in Scientific American (see The Power of Memes, by Susan Blackmore in the October 2000 issue, page 64). The whole range of behaviors that are seen in physical viruses can be seen to have analogies in memes.

This essay is the story of the most successful meme complex of all time, how it infects, why it is virulent, and the effects it has had on culture and society.
But be forewarned:
This meme complex is one in a major category of memes, studied by the science of memetics, and that category is religion. The specific meme complex we are going to study is that of Christianity, and its principal vector, the Bible, specifically the New Testament.

Steven E. Webster

05-17-2008, 09:08 AM

The Mind Virus (http://www.bidstrup.com/virus.htm)

Ideas behaving in society like viruses in the body

An essay in hypertext by Scott Bidstrup

[quote]Can we stand by and allow the unfortunate consequences of this meme complex to continue to propagate themselves? Personally, I think not. One and a half millenia ago, the meme complex led to the destruction of the Great Library of Alexandria. That single act, for which the perpetrator was sainted, led to the stifling of scientific progress for more than a millenium, and allowed the death and persecution of millions. We know better now. Let us not make that same mistake again.

I had never heard this claim about the cause of the destruction of the Great Library of Alexandria before. This essay presents as "fact" that it was destroyed by some Christian saint. It seems to me that a website that claims to be about "Veritas et Ratio" (Truth and Reason) ought to be more careful about its facts.

Here's the wikipedia article on The Great Library of Alexandria:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Alexandria

The Wikipedia article states:
It has been reasonably established that the Library or parts of the collection were destroyed by fire on a number of occasions (library fires were common and replacement of handwritten manuscripts was extremely difficult, expensive and time-consuming). To this day the details of the destruction (or destructions) remain a lively source of controversy.

The Wikipedia article lists a number of claims about the destruction of the library, and finally concludes:
Each of these has been viewed with suspicion by other scholars as an effort to place the blame on particular actors.

Steven Webster

Zerbie

05-17-2008, 10:17 AM

Steven E. Webster

05-17-2008, 10:18 AM

So... the idea that the Library at Alexandria was destroyed by a Christian who was later "sainted" for it is... a meme?

Interesting.:confused:

Here's that quote again from Scott Bidstrup's website (linked to above by Emproph and I)

Can we stand by and allow the unfortunate consequences of this meme complex to continue to propagate themselves? Personally, I think not. One and a half millenia ago, the meme complex led to the destruction of the Great Library of Alexandria. That single act, for which the perpetrator was sainted, led to the stifling of scientific progress for more than a millenium, and allowed the death and persecution of millions. We know better now. Let us not make that same mistake again.

Isn't this an example of "scapegoating". The "stifling of scientific progress for more than a millenium and the death and persecution of millions" is all to be laid to the blame of "that single act, for which the perpetrator was sainted" Is Christianity, then, like a dangerous virus that we can no longer "stand by and allow. . . to propagate"?

I would like to suggest that Mr. Bidstrup's essay would not be in accord with the Soulforce commitment to the nonviolence of "heart, tongue and fist." To compare the Christian faith to a disease that must not be allowed to propagate is all too similar to false claims by so-called Christians that homosexuality is a disease that must not be allowed to propagate itself.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

Steven Webster

Steven E. Webster

05-17-2008, 10:37 AM

Steven E. Webster

05-17-2008, 10:58 AM

I thought Wikipedia was an unreliable source? But presumably, the section you just quoted happens to reflect a controversy that you were already aware of, so that particular section is accurate, then? Btw: more ignorance from me, I'd never heard of the burning of that library.

About the Great Library of Alexandria:

I had heard many times before of this library and its destruction. I'd always been given to understand that its destruction was accidental--one of those things that happens with libraries and fires. So I was very surprised to read that its destruction was attributed to some particular Christian "saint." Being a skeptical sort, I went to the handiest source, google, which led me to the wikipedia article.

About Wikipedia's reliability:

I judge wikipedia articles based upon their apparent scholarship and the scholarly balance and caution with which they present their conclusions. It was these same criteria of scholarly skepticism that led me to question Bidstrup's claim in the first place.

Someone else here might be more informed about Wikipedia than I, but I believe there is a process for disputing and correcting Wikipedia articles. That is one of its good features. Occasionally one comes across a Wikipedia article that is marked as disputed. Conservatives have been known to attack Wikipedia because information there sometimes contradicts ideas they hold dear. Some conservatives have created a competing source of information more in keeping with their philosophy called "Conservapedia". For example here's Conservapedia's article on homosexuality: http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality. Compare that with Wikipedia's article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality.

Which do you think is more reliable??

Sometimes folks have been known to deliberately post false information on Wikipedia--there is a process to correct that.

Steven Webster

Zerbie

05-17-2008, 12:04 PM

Whoa- I didn't know any of that! Thanks. I did not know there was a "process" - I was somehow of the impression that anyone could just modify anything on Wikipedia and then, there it was for all the world to read.

"Conservapedia?" OMG. Why should I be surprised? It's just - I don't understand why anyone would deliberately try to be ignorant, which this would seem to imply, along with things like 'museums' about early people hangin' out with the dinosaurs, and Bible tracts on the walls. :confused:

Rick336

05-17-2008, 01:33 PM

It sounds like the essential premise of the "memes" thesis is that thoughts are powerful influences that spread from one person to another via the conduction known as "words." This would be made possible by our tendency to believe much of what we hear, ESPECIALLY if heard from a trusted source, but not only from trusted sources, also from repetition, or merely from a doubt planted in the unconscious reservoir of the mind.

Yes. Memes are units of thoughts that are passed from person to person. But memes can be helpful, harmful, or neutral. In her book, "The Meme Machine," Susan Blackmore explains it this way:

"Memes spread themselves around indiscriminately without reguard to whether they are useful, neutral, or positively harmful to us. A brilliant new scientific idea, or a technological invention, may spread because of its usefulness. A song like Jingle Bells may spread because it sounds OK, though it is not seriously useful and can definitely get on your nerves. But some memes are positively harmful - like chain letters and pyramid selling, new methods of fraud and false doctrines, ineffective slimming diets and dangerous medical 'cures,' Of course the memes do not care what that means to you and your genes."

And example of a harmful meme is, "Homosexuals spread diseases." This meme is harmful because it replicates easily among ultra-conservative Christians and omits a huge amount of information about homosexuals. It gives the impression that the sexual orientation itself is responsible for spreading diseases. It produces very negative reactions and behavior against homosexuality. The meme is harmful because it doesn't meet with reality.

Reality is, a high number of sexual partners and unsafe sexual behavior increases the spread of sexually transmitted diseases among, not just homosexuals, but heterosexuals, and bisexuals. The above meme "homosexuals spread diseases" wrongly blames same sex orientation for spreading diseases instead of the behavior of unprotected sex.

The meme "homosexuals spread diseases" also discounts the many homosexual men who practice safe sex and have a lower number of sexual encounters. It also leaves out the millions of gay men in monogomous relationships.

It leaves out the important fact that lesbians who are roughly one half of the homosexual population have a very low rate of sexually transmitted diseases.

So the meme "homosexuals spread diseases" is a harmful meme.

The meme, "homosexual men who have a high number of sexual encounters and who do not practice safe sex have a higher rate of sexually transmitted diseases" would be more correct.

An even more accurate meme would be "people who have a high number of sexual encounters who do not practice safe sex have a higher rate of sexually transmitted diseases." This meme would be helpful because it focuses on the behavior instead of a sexual orientation.

Or it could simply be, "Unprotected sex with multiple partners increases the spread of sexually transmitted disease."

Another accurate meme is, "Same sex attraction has no direct effect on the spread of diseases."

Rick

Zerbie

05-17-2008, 03:24 PM

Does anyone know who named it "meme" and why?? We could just be saying something like "contagious thought-construct," (short, CTC) or any of a number of similar names.

Steven E. Webster

05-17-2008, 04:41 PM

Does anyone know who named it "meme" and why?? We could just be saying something like "contagious thought-construct," (short, CTC) or any of a number of similar names.

Zerbie,
Googling brings me right to the Wikipedia article on "meme"!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme

Notice that this article is a good example of work in progress at Wikipedia--there's a couple of warning notes at the top indicating deficiencies in the article that folks are being invited to work on.

Here's a pertinent quote indicating that the term was coined by Richard Dawkins:

A meme (pronounced /miːm/[1]) consists of any unit of cultural information, such as a practice or idea, that gets transmitted verbally or by repeated action from one mind to another. Examples include thoughts, ideas, theories, practices, habits, songs, dances and moods and terms such as race, culture, and ethnicity. Memes propagate themselves and can move through a "culture" in a manner similar to the behavior of a virus. As a unit of cultural evolution, a meme in some ways resembles a gene. Richard Dawkins, in his book, The Selfish Gene,[2] recounts how and why he coined the term meme to describe how one might extend Darwinian principles to explain the spread of ideas and cultural phenomena. He gave as examples tunes, catch-phrases, beliefs, clothing-fashions, and the technology of building arches.

Steven Webster

BrianB

05-17-2008, 05:58 PM

Brian,

Please don't assume that because I didn't provide a link that I "pulled this out of thin air."

Google the word meme. (It rhymes with dream) There is a wealth of information on the internet about memes. Memes are not necessarily bad or unfounded beliefs. Some memes are catch phrases, fashions, songs, or cultural trends.

Rick

Thank you for the extra links, Rick. I did look up memes on Wikipedia. My feathers got a little ruffled because you used the AoG as an example. I grew up in the AoG and still believe that much of what they do is genuinely from the Holy Spirit. I fired off a post before getting more info. I'm sorry.

Rick336

05-17-2008, 06:29 PM

My feathers got a little ruffled because you used the AoG as an example. I grew up in the AoG and still believe that much of what they do is genuinely from the Holy Spirit. I fired off a post before getting more info. I'm sorry.

Brian. No problem. :)

Emproph

05-17-2008, 06:35 PM

Not that I take offense to thread drift, but I too feel that this is an interesting topic. It might help to focus on it if it had its own venue. Especially without having to continually bring up the monstrosity of Citizenlink bloodboilers each time - others might be more prone to tune in as well.

Starting perhaps at Rick's post?
http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?p=55977#post55977

And with meme in the title: "What is a meme?" or "Discussion on memes," etc.

Rick, others?

Rick336

05-17-2008, 07:26 PM

"Conservapedia?" OMG. Why should I be surprised? It's just - I don't understand why anyone would deliberately try to be ignorant, which this would seem to imply, along with things like 'museums' about early people hangin' out with the dinosaurs, and Bible tracts on the walls.

Zerbie,

I agree. It boggles my mind why so much time and energy is put into justifying hate.

On another forum I used to read, a man was obsessed with illegal immigrants. He'd go on and on, writing long posts about how illegal immigrants were taking over America and destroying the country. He was always coming up with statistics on how many immigrants were criminals or drug addicts or jobless or whatever. It was all that he ever talked about. He was completely obsessed with Mexicans in particular and Hispanics in general. He was filled with anger and hate. I always wondered if there was something else going on there.

Eventually it was revealed that his wife had died of cancer, his kids had become uncontrollable, and he'd lost his job. He was extremely angry at the world and how his life had turned out and he had to find somebody to kick.

I don't know if this answers why so many find the need to lash out at LGBT people but I suspect that dissatisfaction and unhappiness with life at least explains some of it.

Rick

Rick336

05-17-2008, 07:44 PM

Not that I take offense to thread drift, but I too feel that this is an interesting topic. It might help to focus on it if it had its own venue. Especially without having to continually bring up the monstrosity of Citizenlink bloodboilers each time - others might be more prone to tune in as well.

Yes. I agree. I'll start another thread on the subject.

Thanks.

Rick

Emproph

05-17-2008, 07:55 PM

Yes. I agree. I'll start another thread on the subject.

Thanks.

Rick

I was actually thinking that maybe a monitor could separate all the posts on the meme in this thread - as we are already well into the conversation. I just wasn't sure where to cut it off at. ;)

Zerbie

05-17-2008, 08:05 PM

Zerbie,

I agree. It boggles my mind why so much time and energy is put into justifying hate.

Yes, that as well, of course. In addition to the hate part of it, what stymies me even more is that anyone would deliberately try to shut out knowledge of the world around them, with constructions like "conservapediae" and fictional museums. It's like they are trying to maladapt to the world, and trying to maladapt their children who they 'educate' (inculcate into gross falsehood?) in such ways.

On another forum I used to read, a man was obsessed with illegal immigrants. He'd go on and on, writing long posts about how illegal immigrants were taking over America and destroying the country.

Eventually it was revealed that his wife had died of cancer, his kids had become uncontrollable, and he'd lost his job. He was extremely angry at the world and how his life had turned out and he had to find somebody to kick.

I don't know if this answers why so many find the need to lash out at LGBT people but I suspect that dissatisfaction and unhappiness with life at least explains some of it.

Rick

I worry about that. If that's true, then we need to buckle our seatbelts, b/c with the economy the way it is a lot more folk are going to be struggling. One would HOPE they would recognize some of the factors contributing to their economic problems, but maybe they don't or maybe they do and feel powerless to do anything about it (I guess that might include me, actually). I wouldn't be surprised if some of those folks who are unfamiliar with gay persons vote for the marriage amendments in their respective states on the basis that voting against gays may seem like *something* they can do to fight - like, fighting back against the failing economy in a misplaced direction. (Here in AZ in 2006, a LOT of anti-immigrant stuff was on the ballot and passed by a landslide. Actually, I think immigrants will have more to worry about than LGBTs in the near future.)

If so, we all better buckle up. :( Direct our attention to the REAL problems and face those so that they don't swallow us up.