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

[Emproph]

I get so many of these and so often want to respond to them but don’t want to start a new thread for each so I thought I’d just make this thread ongoing.

I wanted to keep this intro separate for future changes. I'll clarify I bit more later, I just want to get this next post up right now.

[Emproph]

Article

Dissection of Highlights:

U.S. Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., 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]

Omigosh Emproph, do you *really* read these things *every* day?!?!

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]

Originally Posted by Zerbie

Omigosh Emproph, do you *really* read these things *every* day?!?!
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?

Originally Posted by Zerbie

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]

Originally Posted by Emproph

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....

.

Oh my god, I love you!

[Rick336]

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]

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]

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 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. 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]

{Welcome to the Emproph no spin zone }

This one was a bit odd, and only three paragraphs.

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]

Not much to make fun of here , but I found this article 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]

Originally Posted by Emproph

{Welcome to the Emproph no spin zone }

This one was a bit odd, and only three paragraphs.

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")

Omigosh! She's the White Witch come to Narnia to make it always Winter, but NEVER Christmas!!!

[Zerbie]

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.

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by Dash

Omigosh! She's the White Witch come to Narnia to make it always Winter, but NEVER Christmas!!!

That’s a good line, I haven’t seen it yet.

Originally Posted by Zerbie

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.

Originally Posted by Zerbie

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]

Originally Posted by Emproph

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

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

[Emproph]

{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. }

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 .
_______________________________

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 . 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?

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]

Citizen Link June 16th 2006

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.

[Zerbie]

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!!



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

[nowvoyager]

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]

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 (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
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. 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."

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]

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!