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

[Dash]

Originally Posted by Daniel

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. 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]

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]

Originally Posted by Daniel

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.

Originally Posted by Daniel

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]

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
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]

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]

Originally Posted by novaseeker

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]

Originally Posted by Time article (Dobson)

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

Originally Posted by Carol Gilligan, PhD New York University, Professor

Not only did you take my research out of context, you did so without my knowledge to support discriminatory goals that I do not agree with.

Originally Posted by Kyle Pruett, M.D. Yale School of Medicine

You cherry-picked 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.

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

~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.

Originally Posted by Time article (again)

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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/publ...cle_1637.shtml

[Daniel]

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]

Originally Posted by Daniel

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]

Originally Posted by Daniel

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.

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 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.......

Originally Posted by Zerbie

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.

~~

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]

Originally Posted by Rick336

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]

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]

Originally Posted by tpdncr4christ

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]

Originally Posted by davidcom

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.