Glenn Beck's anti-gay army of God
As he attempts to rebrand himself as a spiritual leader, Glenn Beck has surrounded himself with religious and secular figures who share a fervent opposition to the "homosexual agenda."
David Barton
James
Dobson
Randy Forbes
Maggie Gallagher
Jim Garlow
John Hagee
Terence Henry
Alveda
King
Richard Land
Daniel Lapin
Patrick Lee
Richard Lee
Miles McPherson
Chuck Norris
Sarah Palin
James Robison
Charles
Stanley
David
Barton
David
Barton, founder and president of WallBuilders, spoke at Beck's
August 27 event, "Divine Destiny." He also led
the August 16 Glenn Beck Morning Prayer, one of a series of recorded prayers
posted online in the days leading up to Beck's rally.
Opposing military service by gay men and lesbians,
Barton argued that homosexuality "was long
considered too morally abhorrent and reprehensible to openly discuss."
In a 2001 article posted to the WallBuilders website,
Barton argued that "there is substantial merit for maintaining the ban on
homosexuals in the military." Barton wrote that "General Washington held a clear
understanding of the rules for order and discipline, and as the original
Commander-in-Chief, he was the first not only to forbid, but even to punish,
homosexuals in the military." He further stated that "Based on the statutes,
legal commentaries, and the writings of prominent military leaders, it is clear
that any idea of homosexuals serving in the military was considered with
repugnance; this is incontrovertible, with no room for differing
interpretations. The thought of lifting this proscription is a modern
phenomenon, and would have brought disbelief, disdain, and condemnation from
those who established our Armed Forces." After explaining why "the military
[should] be concerned with a person's morality," Barton discussed why
"homosexuality [should] concern a
society:"
Why Should Homosexuality Concern a Society?
Public discussions concerning homosexuality are a purely recent phenomenon; it was long considered too morally abhorrent and reprehensible to openly discuss. Consider, for example, the legal works of James Wilson, a signer both of the Declaration and the Constitution and appointed by President Washington as an original Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court. Wilson was responsible for laying much of the foundation of American Jurisprudence and was co-author of America's first legal commentaries on the Constitution. Even though state law books of the day addressed sodomy, when Wilson came to it in his legal writings, he was too disgusted with it even to mention it.
[...]
In view of the arguments listed by historical and legal sources, there is substantial merit for maintaining the ban on homosexuals in the military. The Founders instituted this ban with a clear understanding of the damaging effects of this behavior on the military. This ban has remained official policy for over 200 years and one would be hard-pressed to perceive the need for altering a policy which has contributed to making America the world's foremost military power.
Barton reportedly spoke at event to promote gay-marriage amendment. The Minneapolis Star Tribune reported on November 11, 2005, (accessed via Nexis) that Barton was among the speakers at an event designed to promote a state constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage:
At the end of a day of presentations from leading state and national social conservatives, participants were asked to sign a five-point pledge to pray for the proposed constitutional amendment, preach "on God's plan for marriage," collect petitions, register voters and distribute information on the amendment effort.
[...]
The pastors' summit was organized by the Minnesota Family Council in the belief that "the only thing that stands in the way of legalization of same-sex marriage in Minnesota is the church," said Chuck Darrell, of the council's Minnesota for Marriage project.
Attendees heard speakers who described how pastors have spearheaded marriage amendment drives in states from Oregon to Maine, offered tips for churches to get active without forfeiting tax-exempt status and recounted the history of religious leaders engaging in the American political culture.
David Barton of the Texas-based group Wallbuilders said the Bible condemns not only homosexuality but also capital-gains taxes, progressive income taxes, estate taxes and minimum-wage laws.
State Sen. Michele Bachmann, R-Stillwater, the Legislature's chief proponent of the proposed amendment, led one session on its uncertain status in Minnesota, while her husband, Christian therapist Marcus Bachmann, led another on "the truth of the homosexual lifestyle."
Barton's group published election guide claiming Obama "supports curriculum that promotes homosexuality. WallBuilders published a voting guide in 2008 claiming that Obama supports "Homosexual Education," i.e. "curriculum that promotes homosexuality," and did not "refuse to support gay pride celebrations."
James Dobson
Beck identified James
Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, as one of the figures
who played a key role in helping him gather other religious figures to start his
Black Robe Regiment.
Dobson endorsed a
sermon blaming "lesbian sex" for the "wrath of abandonment" by God, which could
result in destruction of a U.S. city. On the June
4, 2007, edition of his radio show, Dobson broadcast and
endorsed a sermon by John McArthur, which
announced that "You know a society has been abandoned by God when it celebrates
lesbian sex," and that as a result of America's abandonment, "God would be just"
in destroying a U.S. city. During his introduction to the sermon, Dobson stated:
"I happen to agree with what John MacArthur was saying on this day, and I want
to thank him and his team and Woodman Valley Chapel for allowing us to share
this message."
Dobson predicted
that same-sex marriage would lead to "group marriage," incest,
bestiality. On the October 7, 2005, edition of
his radio show, Dobson predicted that
allowing same-sex marriage in the United States would lead to "group
marriage," "marriage between daddies and little girls," or "marriage between a
man and his donkey." Dobson called this vision of the future "more or less a
prophecy," though, he stressed, not a "divine prophecy, but a prediction." He
said that his specific examples, as well as "anything allegedly linked to civil
rights," will be "doable, and the legal underpinnings for marriage will have
been destroyed" if same-sex marriage is legalized.
Dobson claimed
homosexuality results when a child doesn't "reattach to his father" emotionally.
On the November 22, 2006,
edition of CNN's
Larry King Live, Dobson offered
the following explanation for what causes homosexuality: "[I]t has to do with an
identity crisis that occurs too 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."
Dobson joined Medved in warning about the homosexual "subtext" in children's film Happy Feet. During the December 11, 2006, edition of Dobson's radio show, guest Michael Medved claimed that the children's film Happy Feet, an animated film about penguins living in Antarctica, contains a "subtext, as there so often is, about homosexuality." Dobson then questioned whether the filmmakers are "getting at the idea that homosexuality is genetic."
Calling for a constitutional amendment to forbid same-sex marriage, Dobson wrote that the "homosexual activist movement ... is poised to administer a devastating and potentially fatal blow to the traditional family." In his September 2003 newsletter headlined "Marriage on the Ropes," which is still available on Focus on the Family's South African website, (PDF version) Dobson wrote that "The homosexual activist movement, which has achieved virtually every goal and objective it set out to accomplish more than 50 years ago, is poised to administer a devastating and potentially fatal blow to the traditional family." Dobson went on to say that "the institution of marriage is on the ropes and western civilization itself appears to hang in the balance" because, in part, the Canadian Supreme Court found the "exclusivity of marriage between one man and one woman to be unconstitutional," the "U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Texas law prohibiting sodomy," and a " virtual avalanche of gay and lesbian advances that have descended on us." He went on to discuss the "gay and lesbian movement['s] ... shocking and outrageous objectives:"
The history of the gay and lesbian movement is that its adherents quickly move the goal line as soon as one has been breached, revealing even more shocking and outrageous objectives. In the present instance, homosexual activists, heady with power and exhilaration, feel the political climate is right to tell us what they have wanted all along. This is the real deal: most gays and lesbians do not want to marry each other. That would entangle them in all sorts of legal constraints. Who needs a lifetime commitment to one person? The intention here is to destroy marriage altogether. With marriage as we know it gone, everyone would enjoy all the legal benefits of marriage (custody rights, tax-free inheritance, joint ownership of property, health care and spousal citizenship, etc.,) without limiting the number of partners or their gender. Nor would "couples" be bound to each other in the eyes of the law. This is clearly where the movement is headed.
[...]
Studies show that homosexual men, in particular, have a difficult time honoring even the most basic commitments of "marriage." A recent study conducted in the Netherlands - a "progressive" nation in which gay marriage has been legal for several years - found that the average homosexual relationship lasts only 1.5 years, and that gay men have an average of eight sexual partners per year outside of their "primary" relationship! Does that sound like a stable child-rearing environment to you? By stark contrast, 67 percent of first marriages in the United States last 10 years or more, and more than 75 percent of heterosexual married couples report being faithful to their vows.
I have only begun to describe the meltdown that will occur if same-sex marriage is finally thrust upon society. But for the moment, there is time to act. It will be too late if we don't act now. How can we counter the drive to obtain legal recognition of same-sex marriage? It is with a Constitutional amendment.
Randy Forbes
Rep. Randy Forbes
(R-VA) led a prayer during "Divine Destiny."
Forbes cosponsored the "Marriage Protection Amendment"
that would amend the Constitution to define marriage as "the union of a man and
a woman." Forbes cosponsored proposed constitutional amendments in
both the
111th Congress and the 110th
Congress that would define marriage as only "the union of a
man and a woman." From the bills' text:
Section 1. This article may be cited as the 'Marriage Protection Amendment'.
Section 2. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.
Forbes on banning employment discrimination based on
sexual orientation: "Eventually if we chip away at enough of our values we'll
lose our foundation." In a November 8, 2007, Washington Times article (accessed via
Nexis) on the House passing the
Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would prohibit discrimination against
employees on the basis of sexual orientation, the paper reported that "[s]ome
conservative lawmakers also say extending special rights to homosexuals could
harm protections granted to married couples." It then quoted Forbes as saying
that "[t]his country's great because of the ideals of our Founding Fathers, but
eventually if we chip away at enough of our values we'll lose our foundation."
Maggie Gallagher
Maggie Gallagher is a member of Beck's newly created Black Robe Regiment.
Gallagher is a professional anti-gay activist. Gallagher is the president of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy and is the founder and chairman of the board of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM). Both groups are virulently opposed to the "threat to marriage" they claim is posed by same-sex marriage. Under Gallagher's leadership, NOM spent nearly $2 million in support of Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California.
Gallagher: Polygamy is "better" than same-sex marriage, "winning the gay-marriage debate" comparable to the fall of Communism, losing that debate "means losing American civilization." In a July 14, 2003, National Review column, Gallagher claimed that "[p]olygamy is not worse than gay marriage, it is better," because "[a]t least polygamy, for all its ugly defects, is an attempt to secure stable mother-father families for children." Gallagher went on to argue that there has not been a "culture that has survived without a reasonably functional marriage system" and that losing the debate over gay marriage "means losing American civilization." She also likened the battle over gay marriage to the battle against communism, stating that "[w]inning the gay-marriage debate may be hard, but to those of us who witnessed the fall of Communism, despair is inexcusable and irresponsible."
Gallagher supports constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. In her March 3, 2004, testimony before the Senate's Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Property Rights, Gallagher expressed her support for an amendment to the Constitution that would ban gay marriage. Gallagher concluded that "when we lose the ideal" of a marriage between a man and a woman, "the likelihood of deprivation, poverty and suffering for children dramatically increase." She also criticized the argument that discriminating against same-sex couples is akin to discriminating against interracial couples, claiming that "[t]he race analogy implies that people who believe that children need mothers and fathers are the legal and moral equivalents of racists," and stated that "[l]aws banning interracial marriage had nothing to do with the purposes of marriage. They were about keeping two different races separate so that one race could continue to oppress the other. Marriage, by contrast, is about bringing two different sexes together."
Gallagher opposes same-sex marriage, claiming "[i]t's wrong for government to base a policy on a lie about human nature." In a April 9 speech at Franciscan University, Gallagher expressed her opposition to same-sex marriage, stating that "marriage is the union of a man and a woman because children need a mom and a dad." She also contended that "[i]t's wrong for government to base a policy on a lie about human nature." Gallagher included "[t[he same-sex marriage battle" as a "part of a larger crisis in marriage" that she had been combating for 20 years.
Gallagher suggested same-sex marriage would set the legal precedent for polygamy. In a May 20, 2008 op-ed, Gallagher alleged that California's decision to allow same-sex marriage set the precedent for polygamy. Gallagher claimed that "the California court grounded same-sex marriage in a larger human right to form families of choice and to have the government sanction all family forms as having equal dignity" and asked: "Polygamy anyone?" Gallagher also attacked California's ruling, claiming that "Protestants, Catholics, Jews and Muslims who see marriage as the union of husband and wife, and view sexual activity as best confined to marriage so defined, are in the exact position as racists under California law."
Gallagher suggested same-sex marriage will redefine "infidelity" and "monogamy." In a June 17, 2008, op-ed, Gallagher suggested that gay marriage would lead to a redefinition of "infidelity" and "monogamy" in our culture:
Oddly, at the moment of its greatest apparent victory, the consequences of gay marriage are becoming ever more clear.
As the gay marriage movement becomes more confident of inevitable victory, it is also becoming more open and explicit about what gay marriage will mean for the rest of us.
For example, redefining "infidelity." Back in the '90s, when Andrew Sullivan first suggested gay couples had a thing or two to teach opposite-sex couples about our rigid insistence on sexual fidelity, public reaction was so negative that he recanted (and to this day he gets mad if you even mention he said it!).
But from the new-won confidence of his legally recognized gay marriage in Massachusetts, Eric Erbelding is quite comfortable explaining to The New York Times: "Our rule is you can play around because, you know, you have to be practical." Eric says most married gay couples he knows are "for the most part monogamous, but for maybe a casual three-way."
For the most part ... except for the casual three-way?
Try explaining that one to your wife.
But hey, if the word "marriage" can be redefined as a civil rights imperative, why balk at lesser ideas like "monogamy" or "fidelity"?
Gallagher: "Many gay married couples reject 'heteronormative' assumptions about marriage." In another June 17, 2008, article, this time for National Review Online, Gallagher claimed that "many gay married couples reject 'heteronormative' assumptions about marriage." She again cited Andrew Sullivan and Eric Erbelding's comments about fidelity and monogamy and also cited those of David Benkof, "a gay columnist who gave up sex with men when he adopted a Torah-observant lifestyle" who criticized the "[p]roblematic kinds of relationships that are 'commonly found in the LGBT community but virtually unheard of among opposite-sex couples.'" Gallagher also claimed that polygamy could be the "next natural step" of same-sex marriage and that "if fidelity in marriage is culturally optional ... the case for monogamy will surely be weakened as well."
Jim Garlow
Jim Garlow, senior pastor of Skyline Wesleyan Church in San Diego, led the August 19 Glenn Beck Morning Prayer.
Garlow: "We need to repent of those that would try to destroy marriage." Leading the August 19 Glenn Beck Morning Prayer, Garlow discussed what it means to "restore honor." Garlow proceeded to attack abortion, euthanasia, government debt, and same-sex marriage:
It means that we have to move back to integrity. We have to move back to embracing moral values -- God-given, biblical values. And so as a nation, we need to repent of certain things -- the repenting of 50 million babies being killed in the womb. We need to repent of a debt that 535 people in Washington, D.C., along with an executive officer, would run our nation in such severe debt that they would literally involved themselves in robbery and debt of future generations. They would be taking property, in effect, from those yet unborn. That's immoral. That's a Biblical issue.
We need to repent of those that would try to destroy marriage, the definition of marriage, and redefine it so that little children -- little boys and little girls -- would have two daddies and two mommies. In other words, 100 percent of those families would lack either a mommy or a daddy, the most bedrock institution in all of history.
During Glenn Beck
Morning Prayer, Garlow plugged website which opposes same-sex marriage. During his morning prayer, Pastor
Garlow plugged the website Prayandact.com several times. The "About" section of
the website lists
"three foundational principles of justice and the common good," including the
"sacredness of marriage as the covenantal union of husband and wife." The
website "call[s] on all faithful Christians to join us in the fight to ... protect
and revitalize marriage." In addition to Garlow, Black Robe Regiment members
James Robison and Richard Land are listed on "The People" section of
PrayandAct.com.
Garlow "founded and
led" group of pastors that campaigned for California's Proposition 8.
According to his bio,
Garlow "founded and led the California Pastors Rapid Response Team, a group of
several thousand pastors that was committed to preserving the traditional,
natural definition of marriage as being one man, one woman, which recently
experienced a victorious campaign with Proposition 8 receiving over 7 million
votes, 52.3% of the vote." Proposition 8, passed in 2008, amended
the California state constitution to provide
that "only marriage between a man and a woman is
valid or recognized in California."
Garlow: Same-sex marriage will lead to churches being
"forced to hire active homosexuals," pastors "imprisoned" for preaching against
"homosexual acts." In an August 6 statement
responding to a federal court overturning Proposition 8, Garlow wrote:
The day will come -- not immediately, but eventually -- unless this foolishness is ended -- when churches will be forced to hire active homosexuals. Pastors will be forced to perform gay marriages, or their churches will lose their 501(c)3 status, and consequently, in many cases, they'll lose their church buildings. Like [Swedish] Pastor Ake Green, pastors will be fined and imprisoned for advocating a biblical view of homosexual acts.
Although critics scoff at this suggestion, they most certainly don't seem too concerned about the thought of it happening. They suffer from a severe case of political amnesia, forgetting that there was a day -- not so long ago -- when the radical homosexual agenda was satisfied with "civil unions" and "domestic partnership" saying, "we will never ask for the word 'marriage.' " Only the most historically inattentive could fail to note these continual gradations.
Garlow reportedly encouraged his followers by telling the story of a pastor who told him same-sex marriage would unleash "a spirit worse than radical Islam." On October 2, 2008, Sandhya Bathija of Americans United for the Seperation of Church and State listened in on a conference call organized by Concerned Women of America in which Garlow spoke with participants about campaigning for Proposition 8. According to Bathija, Garlow offered the following encouragement to the callers:
"When I find myself up past the midnight hour," he said, "asking 'why am I doing this?' I think of the conversation that took place in Cairo, Egypt, between an Egyptian Christian pastor who has been severely persecuted by Islam and a man named Lou Engle" (Engle is the theocracy-minded founder of The Call, a fundamentalist youth movement, who is leading a 40-day fast to pass Proposition 8.)
"When Lou was in Cairo, Egypt," Garlow continued, "this pastor said to him, as a pastor that suffers at the hands of radical Islam, he said, 'The eyes of the world are on California. We're watching California and the vote on marriage. Because if you fail there to stop it, if you fail to stop it, what will be unleashed across the world will be a spirit worse than radical Islam.' "
John Hagee
John
Hagee, founder and senior pastor of Cornerstone Church in
San Antonio, Texas, spoke
at "Divine Destiny."
Hagee
said Hurricane Katrina was God's response to the city hosting a gay pride
parade. On the September 18, 2006, edition
of National Public Radio's Fresh
Air, Hagee said:
HAGEE: All hurricanes are acts of God, because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they are -- were recipients of the judgment of God for that. The newspaper carried the story in our local area that was not carried nationally that there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came. And the promise of that parade was that it was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other Gay Pride parades. So I believe that the judgment of God is a very real thing. I know that there are people who demur from that, but I believe that the Bible teaches that when you violate the law of God, that God brings punishment sometimes before the day of judgment. And I believe that the Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans.
Hagee said the coming Antichrist will be "a blasphemer and a homosexual." On March 16, 2003, Hagee reportedly gave a sermon in which he warned of the coming Antichrist, which he described as a seductive figure with "fierce features," as well as "a blasphemer and a homosexual."
Terence Henry
Father Terence
Henry, president of Franciscan University in Steubenville,
Ohio, led the August 26 Glenn Beck Morning Prayer.
Henry: People "who do not honor or acknowledge God"
want to "redefine the institution of marriage." Leading
the August 26 Glenn Beck Morning Prayer, Henry invoked the people in our country
that "do not honor or acknowledge God." He said, "They want to exercise control
over life at its very beginning through abortion, and the power to end lives if
they deem them no longer useful, through euthanasia. They want to redefine the
institution of marriage, as revealed by God in the Book of Genesis. They, in
effect, want to substitute themselves for God, which is the Original Sin."
During the prayer, he also compared Beck to Paul
Revere.
Franciscan University reportedly bans
"groups that promote homosexuality." According to a
March 7, 2008, report
in The New York Sun, a guide of conservative
Catholic schools lists Franciscan University as one of several Catholic
colleges that "often require several courses in Catholic theology and ban
co-educational housing, as well as groups that promote
homosexuality."
Franciscan University offers courses that refer to homosexuality as
"deviant behavior" that "beset" the "inalienable rights and duties of parents."
Franciscan University's 2010-2011 undergraduate course
catalog lists courses titled "Deviant Behavior" and "Human
Life Studies II: Life Issues and the Family" that include the study of
homosexuality as a "deviant behavior" and a "social force" besetting the
family:
DEVIANT BEHAVIOR focuses on the sociological theories of deviant behavior such as strain theory, differential association theory, labeling theory, and phenomenological theory. The behaviors that are primarily examined are murder, rape, robbery, prostitution, homosexuality, mental illness, and drug use. The course focuses on structural conditions in society that potentially play a role in influencing deviant behavior.
[...]
HUMAN LIFE STUDIES II: LIFE ISSUES AND THE FAMILY explores the social, historical, political, and ethical dimensions of the family and the inalienable rights and duties of parents, which are beset today by such social forces as divorce, homosexuality, radical feminism, population control, eugenics, and State control of the family. An appreciation of the family and the duties and rights of parents is central to respect for the dignity of human life.
Alveda King
Alveda King,
niece of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., spoke at Beck's August 28 event at the
Lincoln Memorial.
At Beck's
"non-political" event, King spoke out against same-sex marriage.
Despite Beck's
repeated
insistence that the event would be
non-political, King used her speech to warn that the
"procreative foundation of marriage is being threatened," and listing that as
one of the reasons "America is nearly
bankrupt."
King compared
same-sex marriage to "genocide." At an August 7 National
Organization for Marriage Rally in Atlanta, King
said: "It is
statistically proven that the strongest institution that guarantees procreation
and continuity of the generations is marriage between one man and one woman. I
don't know about you, but I'm not ready to be extinct and none of us wants to
be. We don't want genocide, we don't want to destroy the sacred institution of
marriage."
King reportedly
told Coretta Scott King her support for abortion rights and gay rights would
bring "curses on your house and your people." On August 27,
Salon reported of Alveda
King: "In 1994, she released a letter condemning Coretta Scott King's support
for abortion and gay rights, saying it would bring 'curses on your house and
your people ... cursing, vexation, rebuke in all that you put your hand to,
sickness will come to you and your house, your bloodline will be cut
off.'"
King: Repealing
DOMA would "unleash a storm of sexual immorality." In a
column
published November
17, 2008, by LifeSiteNews.com, King wrote: "Add to this Mr. Obama's
unprecedented support for homosexual rights and anti-procreative marriage
legislation, which includes his promise to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act
(DOMA) and which would unleash a storm of sexual immorality such as America has
never seen: then we can see which way the wind is
blowing."
King: Obama's
purported "support of gay marriage" is "anathema to the dream of Dr. Martin
Luther King, Jr." In a August 15, 2008,
Townhall
column, Floyd and
Mary Beth Brown quoted King as saying, "Senator Obama's answer to the ills of
society, of higher government spending, weaker national defense, continued tax
dollars to Planned Parenthood, and support of gay marriage, are diametrically
opposed to everything African Americans truly believe and an anathema to the
dream of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr."
Richard Land
Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, is a member of Beck's newly created Black Robe Regiment.
Land expressed his desire to instruct his parishioners to vote against candidates who support same-sex marriage. During an interview with Media Matters' Joe Strupp, Land said he planned to boost voter involvement in his church and guide parishioners to use their voting rights to influence government decisions. As Strupp reported:
Land also said he planned to boost voter involvement and guide parishioners to use their voting rights to influence government decisions on many issues.
"Energizing all of our members to register to vote, to be informed as to where the country stands on issues and leave it to them to connect the dots," Land said. "I will do my best to make sure they know what the bible says about the sanctity of human life, marriage and the notion of man."
Asked to be more specific on which issues he would discuss with parishioners with regard to voting, he cited abortion, same-sex marriage, assisted suicide and out-of-wedlock births.
"I think gay marriage is an oxymoron," Land said. "Marriage is between a man and a woman."
Land's group filed an amicus brief in support of Proposition 8. On August 16, CNSNews.com reported:
Dr. Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberties Commission (ERLC) of the Southern Baptist Convention, said the judge's finding was disturbing, but predictable -- his denomination had filed a "friend of the Court" to challenge the finding even before the decision was issued.
"We filed an amicus brief case in this case because we had already heard that this was out there, and that the people who were making the appeal to overturn Proposition 8 were going to say that the religious beliefs of Southern Baptists and Roman Catholics and other groups 'create an animus' and were 'the products of centuries of hate,'" Land said.
The biblical position on homosexuality isn't "hate speech," he said.
"The confession of faith of the Southern Baptist Convention, which states what the Bible says about the family and about marriage - those are not the products of centuries of hate or animus toward homosexuals. They are adherence to the revealed teachings of the Creator of the universe -- God Almighty. These are religious affirmations of revealed truth," Land said.
"It is quite clear that God condemns same-sex relations as particularly abhorrent. And if that is indeed the case, and we believe it is, it is an act of love towards those who are engaged in such relationships to tell them that they are violating the most sacred laws of God," he said. "It would be indifference -- or worse -- to not tell them."
Land called for a constitutional amendment "defining marriage as being between one man and one woman." In an August 4 statement reacting to the ruling that found Proposition 8 unconstitutional, Land said:
"If and when the Supreme Court agrees with the lower court, then the American people will have to decide whether they will insist on continuing to have a government of the people, by the people and for the people, or whether they're going to live under the serfdom of government by the judges, of the judges and for the judges.
"Our forefathers have given us a method to express our ultimate will. It's called an amendment to the Constitution. If the Supreme Court fails to uphold the will of the people of California -- if we are going to have our form of government altered by judicial fiat -- then the only alternative left to us is to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between one man and one woman.
Land called decision of CA Supreme Court to allow same-sex marriage "incredible judicial arrogance." On the August 16 broadcast of his radio show, Land called the California Supreme Court's 2008 decision to allow same-sex marriage, and the implementation of that decision, a case of "incredible judicial arrogance," and mocked the court for having found "some previously undiscovered constitutional right for people of the same sex to get married to each other."
Daniel Lapin
Rabbi Daniel
Lapin, president of the American Alliance of Jews and
Christians, spoke at "Divine Destiny" and led
the August 17 Glenn Beck Morning Prayer. Lapin is also a member of Beck's newly created Black Robe
Regiment.
Lapin claimed
that "in time," "homosexual behavior does indeed threaten the durability of a
society." In a May 9, 2005, column
co-written with Rev. Ken Hutcherson, Lapin responded to criticism of his
position on homosexuality. He and Hutcherson said that "homosexual behavior does
indeed threaten the durability of a society -- maybe not immediately, but in
time." They further stated that "[b]y the time the perils of homosexual marriage
become obvious, it might well be too late" because "[i]t is hard, if not
impossible, to think of a society for which rampant homosexuality was not a
symptom of impending extinction."
Lapin compared a gay pride event in Jerusalem to "the Nazis marching in Skokie." In an April 6, 2005, article
from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Lapin was quoted saying his initial reaction
to hearing about a 10-day Jerusalem World Pride festival was "that it was déjà
vu ... This was the Nazis marching in Skokie."
Lapin was referring to an incident
in 1977 when the National Socialist Party of America -- an American neo-Nazi
group -- attempted to stage a march in Skokie,
Illinois, a suburb of Chicago that was home to a
large population of Holocaust survivors. Lapin claimed that he was "not saying
that the homosexuals are Nazis," but that "there is such a thing as deliberate
provocation. To hold the march in Jerusalem, which is certainly the center of
biblical civilization -- and this is the same Bible that tells us that
homosexuality is immoral -- is a provocation."
Lapin referred to the decision to support defining
marriage as only between a man and a woman as choosing "life over death."
In a column for United Press International (accessed via Nexis),
Rabbi Lapin lamented the fact that Americans were ignoring a Senate vote against
a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as only "the union of a
man and a woman." Lapin suggested to "those who ignore the public debate on
homosexual marriage and to those who feel it is irrelevant in their lives and to
those who advertise their tolerance by singing 'live-and-let-live,' " that "the
time has come to choose continuity over change. The time has come to choose
heaven over earth, and yes, life over death."
Lapin praised Schlessinger for opposing "the radical
project of gay activists ... to eliminate religious values from public life."
In a May 30, 2000, press release, available via the internet archive (PDF version), which was excerpted in The Washington Times (accessed via Nexis),
Lapin defended Dr. Laura Schlessinger as "one of America's most forceful and
persuasive advocates for traditional marriage and family" after she came under
fire for controversial remarks on homosexuality. He continued
by praising the fact that Schlessinger "opposes the radical project of gay
activists, and the secular Left in general, to eliminate religious values from
public life." Lapin also criticized Procter & Gamble for withdrawing as a
sponsor of Schlessinger's show for being an "example of how often ideology
trumps business judgment. P&G has always marketed its products to families.
Very few homosexuals buy Pampers."
Lapin: Same-sex marriage "has the potential to cause
significant damage to the essence of our society." In a statement on
the Vermont Supreme Court's decision to grant marital benefits to same-sex
partners, available via the internet archive (PDF version), Lapin claimed that "The Court's decision will
negatively affect the family structure that has served society so well for
hundreds of generations." He further wrote that "married partners provide a
vital service to society, that same-sex partners can not provide." Lapin also
claimed that "[u]nless it is over-ruled, it has the potential to cause
significant damage to the essence of our society."
Patrick Lee
Patrick
Lee, a professor of bioethics at Franciscan University of
Steubenville, spoke at "Divine Destiny."
At Beck's "non-political" 8-27 event, Lee denounced
same-sex marriage. Despite Beck's repeated
insistence that the event would be non-political, Lee stated
during "Divine Destiny" that marriage "is not up to our choice, rather marriage
has an objective nature, and we as a community must respect the true nature of
marriage."
Lee: The argument that that
"same-sex unions are marriages ... harms children and families" is
"sound." In a July 1, 2008, article
for The Monist, Lee wrote that he
agreed with the argument made by professor Margaret
Somerville that allowing the "political community [to] declare
that (some) same-sex unions are marriages ... harms children and families,"
saying that "Margaret Somerville's argument is sound," and adding that same-sex
couples who raise children are not married, just as hetrosexual couples who
choose not to raise children are not
married:
Should the political community declare that (some) same-sex unions are marriages? Margaret A. Somerville has ably argued that it should not, that doing so harms children and families. Adele Mercier vehemently disagrees, describing Professor Somerville's argument as "contorted," "circular," based on "inert premises;" accusing her of multiple confusions, and of harboring "hidden (or at least unacknowledged) motives."
I argue, on the contrary, that Margaret Somerville's argument is sound, the confusions attributed to her by Professor Mercier are not actually in her argument, and so we need not speculate about Professor Somerville's motives. Her motives are likely just what they appear to be, and what I hope are Professor Mercier's too, namely, a lively concern for families and married life, and for the legitimate rights and well-being of everyone affected by what the political community affirms in its laws regulating marriage.
The argument advanced by Margaret Somerville is essentially this. In every society we find the following type of relationship: an inherently procreative relationship between men and women, that includes a commitment to share their lives with each other, and if children come to be, to rear those children together. That such a community does exist in every society is indisputable. Of course, other relationships are sometimes called by the word 'marriage', but these are different types of relationship. For example, men and women may cohabit and view children as merely an optional extra or as burdens to be avoided. Or two or more individuals may form a friendship for the sake of raising children--for example two sisters, or several celibate religious men or women. But neither of these relationships should be described as marriages. Finally, two people of the same sex may perform sexual acts on each other, may have a friendship, and also be dedicated to raising children together. But this also is not the same type of community as marriage; for in this arrangement, the sexual relationship is unrelated to the purpose of raising children.
Lee: "If the state declares same-sex unions equivalent to marriage, it obscures the nature of marriage ... Doing that will almost certainly further weaken the institution of marriage." In the same article, Lee wrote:
A second reason why the political community should protect and promote genuine marriage is this: where this institution is strong, people's sexual passions and energies--which are frequently difficult to control, and can lead to self-centeredness and exploitation--are channeled toward an intelligible good. It is not that the sexual impulse must be repressed; rather, it needs to be directed to a genuine good.And the intelligible goods it realizes and promotes are marriage itself and families built on the foundation of marriage. In a good marriage one's sexual desires and actions are integrated into one's commitment to one's family and spouse. If the state declares same-sex unions equivalent to marriage, it obscures the nature of marriage--a community that transcends romantic affections. In effect, it will send themessage that marriage is centrally about the romantic attachment andsexual relationship of adults to (or among) each other rather than about a relationship which by its nature is oriented to and suited forbecoming family. Doing that will almost certainly further weaken theinstitution of marriage.
Lee: Legalizing same-sex marriage would "inevitably send" fathers the message "that their role is despensable." In the same article (later portions accessed via Nexis), Lee wrote:
Ideally, then, the child should be raised by his or her own loving and responsible biological parents. In a society that respects, promotes, and protects genuine marriage, this will happen much more frequently than in a society which in effect falsely tells fathers that their role is dispensable--a message that redefining marriage to include same-sex unions would inevitably send. For, since most same-sex couples have no intention of raising children, and since a same-sex union is not especially suited for that--in contrast to genuine marriage--to declare same-sex unions marriages would affirm that marriage is essentially concerned only with sexual or romantic relationships between adults, rather than a community structured by its orientation to becoming family. This would affirm, as Professor Somerville points out, that marriage is a mere social construct rather than a natural institution antedating the legal pronouncements of the state. Moreover, there would then be no principled reason why marriage should be long-lasting, or only between two people, these requirements being logical consequences of marriage's orientation to children.
Richard Lee
Richard
Lee, founding pastor of First Redeemer Church in Atlanta, is a
member of Beck's newly
created Black Robe Regiment.
Lee launched
petition campaign in support of Sen. Sam Nunn's opposition to "lift[ing] the ban
on military service for homosexuals." According to an
April 3, 1993, article in the Atlanta
Journal and Constitution (accessed via Nexis), Lee placed ads in the Atlanta Journal and Constitution and the
New York Times "encouraging
people to sign petitions supporting Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.), chairman of the
Senate Armed Services Committee, in his opposition to President Clinton's
announced intention to lift the ban on military service for homosexuals." Lee
also reportedly "said he does not support a possible compromise on the issue ...
that would simply eliminate questions about sexual orientation from military
enlistment documents." Additionally, the article quoted Lee encouraging Nunn "to
remain strong in his original statements that homosexuals have no place in the
military."
Lee: "Preserving
the traditional family is vital to the future of any great nation."
In his June 2009, article on the
"Seven Principles of the Judeo-Christian Ethic," Lee wrote:
The biblical view of marriage and family is the basis of our society and serves as the backbone of a healthy social order. The clear plan of God involves a man and a woman producing children within the institution of marriage. Since the joining together of Adam and Eve, marriage has been defined as a holy union between one man and one woman, and out of that union comes children born into a loving home with a father and a mother to nurture them and teach them how to become healthy, productive and responsible citizens.
When God's definition of "marriage" and "family" are no longer respected, these institutions become meaningless. World history has proven over and again that preserving the traditional family is vital to the future of any great nation.
Miles McPherson
Miles
McPherson, pastor of The Rock Church in San Diego, spoke at
"Divine Destiny."
McPherson linked homosexuality and pedophilia, called
on congregation to "protect the children" from the "homosexual agenda."
As blogger and author Alvin McEwen noted,
McPherson wrote a May 30, 2004, weekly message on his church's website
entitled "Sodom and Gomorrah, A City Inflamed," in which he advanced false
claims about a purported connection between homosexuality and
pedophilia. As McEwen reported,
the post has since been removed from McPherson's site, but is still available
from the Internet
Archive (PDF
version). From the
message:
Even in today's society there are absolute moral laws in practice; rape and murder are universally condemned as wrong, yet there is an agenda being pushed on us that says homosexuality is normal and natural and right.
Consequences of a Homosexual Lifestyle
God's Word tells us differently and He provides us of the evidence that homosexuality is not natural or normal. There are physiological repercussions from homosexual behavior; male homosexuals are 430 times more likely to contract HIV than a heterosexual, while heterosexuals have a 1-in-750,000 chance of contracting the virus responsible for HIV, a male homosexual has a 1-in-165 chance of getting HIV. A 20 year old gay male has a 30% chance of either dying or contracting AIDS before the age of 30. They are also 23 times more likely to get other sexually transmitted diseases than a heterosexual.
There are also moral repercussions stemming from homosexual behavior as evidenced by the fact that one third of all sexual crimes against children are committed by homosexuals even though they are representative of only one percent of the population. Pedophilia has even been called central to the gay lifestyle. The agenda of the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is to lower the age of consent so that sex with children will be legal.
Emotionally people suffer from homosexuality. Gays are five times more likely to commit suicide than a straight person. They are suffering depression because of God's judgment and their alienation from Him. So God not only tells us what is right and wrong but that by continually doing what is wrong there will be consequences and this is all evident to us so we have no excuse in suppressing the truth.
McPherson's post also called on his congregation to take action against the "homosexual agenda":
- The righteous pray for God's intervention. We need to at the very least protect the children with our prayers and actions. Talk to your schools, your churches and your congressmen about your opposition to the homosexual agenda.
- The righteous provide for security, like Lot who would not allow the angels to sleep outside and counseled them to leave the next morning.
- The righteous point out sin and the coming judgment. This leads to the righteous being called judgmental because people do not like to be told they are wrong.
The righteous response by God will be that He will warn us as he did with Abraham. He will save the righteous as He did with Lot and finally He will stop the spread of sin through judgment, as He did with the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. God's grace is the only thing that protects us from suffering the penalty for our sins which is death.
McPherson: "Satan
uses the marriage issue to attack the image of God." As blogger
Jeremy Hooper noted,
on June 9, 2008, McPherson wrote of same-sex marriage: "This isn't a political
or cultural battle; it's a spiritual battle being fought right before your eyes.
This issue is so much bigger than either side realizes. As Satan uses the
marriage issue to attack the image of God, I urge you to pray for our state."
The post has since been removed from McPherson's site, but is still viewable on
the Internet
Archive (PDF
version).
McPherson
reportedly "campaigned in support of Proposition 8." Los Angeles Times reported
that McPherson "campaigned in
support of Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California."
Chuck
Norris
Chuck Norris, a
syndicated columnist, spoke at "Divine
Destiny."
Norris: "we
should ... adamantly oppose such aberrant sexual behavior from being condoned or
commemorated in our public schools." From Norris' March
25, 2008, column:
Lastly, I was appalled when I read the American Family Association report that on Friday, April 25, several thousand schools across the nation will be observing a "Day of Silence," or DOS, which is a nationwide push to promote the homosexual lifestyle in public schools. (DOS is sponsored by an activist homosexual group - the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network.)
Is encouraging or teaching about homosexuality what our forefathers expected for the public education they founded? Even the most liberal among them opposed it. For example, Thomas Jefferson drafted a bill concerning the criminal laws of Virginia, in which he proposed that the penalty for sexual deviance should be unique corporal punishment. Jefferson's views were indeed representative of early America.
"Whosoever shall be guilty of rape, polygamy, or sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro' the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least" (Bill 64, 1779). Can you imagine a statesman proposing such a law today?
While I'm not of course espousing such treatment, I do believe that we should equally and adamantly oppose such aberrant sexual behavior from being condoned or commemorated in our public schools through textbooks or a so-called "Day of Silence."
Norris said supporters of CA marriage amendment were "following 5,000 years of human history," defending "honest convictions regarding the boundaries of marriage." From Norris' November 17, 2008, column on Proposition 8:
The truth is that the great majority of Prop 8 advocates are not bigots or hatemongers. They are American citizens who are following 5,000 years of human history and the beliefs of every major people group and religion - that marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman. Their pro-Prop 8 votes weren't intended to deprive any group of their rights - they were safeguarding their honest convictions regarding the boundaries of marriage.
Norris defended Boy Scouts over anti-gay policy. From Norris' June 28 column:
New York is not the only city in which the BSA is feeling some backlash. Since 1928, the BSA in Philadelphia has been housed in a government building rent-free. The city of Philadelphia decided to revoke this special housing-provision privilege because, officials said, BSA's national policy banning gays violates the city's nondiscrimination policies. (On Wednesday, a Philadelphia jury ruled in favor of the Boy Scouts, meaning they will not be evicted from their home or forced to pay rent, at least for now.)
One 1991 BSA position statement states: "We believe that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the requirement in the Scout Oath that a Scout be morally straight and in the Scout Law that a Scout be clean in word and deed, and that homosexuals do not provide a desirable role model for Scouts."
Wouldn't you think with all of the cultural hot water the BSA are in, in our courts and in the public square, that the honorary president of the BSA might defend their First Amendment rights to assemble and believe as they have for 100 years?
[...]
President Obama became the honorary president of the BSA in March of 2009, and the White House didn't even mention it. And ever since, any discussion or interactions with the BSA have been "don't ask, don't tell." And how could they, since the president would then have to publicly acknowledge that, as honorary president of BSA, he affirmed the Scout Oath, belief and policies, which prohibit atheists and agnostics from membership, and "avowed" homosexuals from leadership roles?
Sarah Palin
Sarah Palin
spoke at Beck's August 28 event at the Lincoln Memorial.
Palin opposed extending benefits to same-sex couples.
In a 2007 interview
with Newsweek, Palin expressed
her opposition to granting same-sex couples benefits that married couples
receive:
In an August 2007 interview with NEWSWEEK, Palin said she had upheld such benefits (angering fellow conservatives) but only because the state Supreme Court said it was unconstitutional to deny them:
NEWSWEEK : And do you have a position on that? Would you like to see it? Do you care?
PALIN: I would vote to further define the definition of marriage as it pertains to benefits even--yes, I would.
NEWSWEEK: That is, not extend benefits to same-sex couples?
PALIN: Correct. And if it took an amendment to our constitution, I would go there ...
Palin: "I wish"
there were a federal amendment baring same-sex marriage becase "I don't support
gay marriage." In an interview
with CBN's David Brody, Palin stated that she had "voted along with the vast
majority of Alaskans who had the opportunity to vote to amend our Constitution
defining marriage as between one man and one woman." She continued by expressing
her support for a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage,
stating: "I wish on a federal level that that's where we would go because I
don't support gay marriage."
Palin
refered to homosexuality as a "choice." In an interview
with CBS's Katie Couric on September 30, 2008, Palin responded to media reports
about whether the Wasilla Bible
Church had "sponsored a
conference where gays could be made straight through prayer." Palin claimed that
"the media gets it wrong" and that she didn't "know what prayers are worthy of
being prayed." Palin further elaborated on the issue of homosexuality stating:
"I am not going to judge Americans and the decisions that they make in their
adult personal relationships." Palin continued to explain that a gay friend of
hers "happens to have made a choice that isn't a choice that I have made" to be
gay.
James Robison
James Robison,
founder of LIFE Outreach International ministry, led
the August 25 Glenn Beck Morning Prayer. Beck also cited Robison as a founding member of Beck's newly created
Black Robe Regiment.
Robison referred to homosexuality as "detrimental to
society." A May 25, 2003, article on Robison in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram quoted the pastor
responding to criticism of his views on homosexuality by saying, "Don't call me
homophobic. Don't put some fascist title on me because I believe your lifestyle
is detrimental to society. ... But now you can practice your
lifestyle."
Robison warns of coming
"self-destruct[ion]": "if we can just keep getting more of our men to have sex
with more men, we won't have to worry about babies being born." On
the December 2, 2004, edition
of NPR's Fresh Air, host Terry
Gross aired a clip from the documentary With
God on Our Side: George W. Bush and the Rise of the Religious Right,
in which Robison warned of self-destruction caused by men having sex with men,
among other things:
GROSS: Let's hear another archival clip from With God on Our Side. This is evangelist James Robison.
ROBISON [audio clip]: Mr. Lincoln said, "We may very well self-destruct." You don't have to look too long to see the possibility of it today. After all, if we can just keep getting more of our men to have sex with more men, we won't have to worry about babies being born. And if we can just get more women to get out there in the marketplace and start acting like men, and if we can just get other women to look at motherhood as though it is some dread terminal illness, if we can just get society so drunk and so drugged, if ever anybody does get pregnant, then we can abort the baby! That's where we are!
Charles Stanley
Charles Stanley, senior pastor of the First Baptist Church of Atlanta, led the August 27 Glenn Beck Morning Prayer.
Stanley: "[N]othing is happy or gay about the destructive behavior of homosexuality." In his book Landmines in the Path of the Believer: Avoiding the Hidden Dangers, Stanley wrote that "nothing is happy or gay about the destructive behavior of homosexuality":
Recently we have witnessed one sexual scandal come to light after another. Lives are shattered by sin. Families are being torn apart by actions of people who are out of control.
Some proclaim they are living a gay lifestyle, but nothing is happy or gay about the destructive behavior of homosexuality. Anything that opposes the principles written in God's Word leads to one ending -- the end Solomon mentioned, a place of extreme emptiness where wind and sorrow breach the soul. Ultimately it ends in a place of extreme sorrow and separation from God. [page 190]
Stanley: "A home is not two men married together, or two women married together, it is a husband and a wife." In a July 2 sermon about the "rising tide" of socialism in our country, Stanley purported to enumerate the various pieces of evidence of a "war" on Jesus and Christianity taking place in the U.S. He highlighted removing "God's word concerning marriage" and said that "a home is not two men married together, or two women married together, it is a husband and a wife.":
And then, of course, one other thing at this point as far as this tide is concerned, is we've decided to remove God's word concerning marriage. The very foundation of a nation is its homes. And a home is not two men married together or two women married together, it is a husband and a wife.
The Bible is crystal clear. So you see, if you want to have a society that is rampant with wickedness, you have to get rid of the word of God. So we've decided or trying to decide, some people are, that we do not want the Biblical view of marriage.
And, speaking of "morons-in-black-robes" ... has gay rights won ANY election? WHO are the ones who keep making up rules for gay rights? Yes; morons-in-black-robes.
Well, given that the same religion also forbids wearing blended fabrics, shaving your face or eating shrimp, and I've never met anyone who hates gay people and follows through on those...
A majority in favor of bigotry are still bigots. If 70% of people voted to deny you your rights would you be okay with that?
If I lived in a nation where rules are made according to majority votes, then yes, I would be okay with that.
When you find that proof, I'll support your stance that it is a civil right. Not until then.
And no, if interracial marriage doesn't affect you, neither does gay marriage.
I don't know if Floyd is one of these people; it seems like his purpose here is to stir us up. But I think that by and large explains the thinking of people who really do believe this, and those people do exist.
Maybe we should be saluting Pink Floyd for his courage in coming out here instead of beating him up. I'll bet he wouldn't do it at Freerepublic.
If homosexuality isn't a choice, then it is a sexual handicap, since it is a hinderance to passing on genetic material.
Like other kinds of handicaps, even if homosexuality is instilled in a person from birth, it is still a choice. Just like people overcome handicaps they are born with, a sexual handicap can also be overcome.
Just because a person is born a certain way does not mean they have to act a certain way. I have met several people who have chosen to be homosexual. An interesting fact, children who have suffered sexual abuse are more likely to have gender confusion issues.
What's your point?
If a homosexual only acts on their homosexual attraction to the same sex, then they are effectively sterile, since it is impossible for same sex couples to reproduce.
An example of a negative genetic trait that you would think would be selected out long ago is myopia. Imagine a near-sighted cave man. He/she would be extremely handicapped by the inability to see objects clearly. Yet, this tendency is still with us today. It was not drummed out of our genetic material long ago by selection forces. Genetics isn't as simple as most lay people think.
As to your second point, you are right but even if a gene had a high probability of expression in a given generation, if that gene caused infertility whoever manifested it, its probability of being passed on would exponentially decrease with each generation.
Since homosexuality is basically an infertility gene, unless suppressed, or artificially encouraged it would be subject to a decreasing rate of occurrence.
Myopia is a very poor example. Humans haven't been subject to survival based on their eye sight for a very long time. A near sighted caveman could have chosen to be farm rather than hunt. Besides when was the last time you asked someone you meant to reproduce with if they were myopic? I bet that question has come up often in the course of human history.
I certainly don't claim that genetics is simple, but that doesn't change the fact that IF homosexuality is genetic, then it is a detrimental gene, and should be consider so. I don't propose we attempt to eradicate it, but like down-syndrome or any other handicap I certainly wouldn't wish it upon anyone.
Personally, I'd like to find the gene that causes people to be religious and see if we can't do something about that.
By the way, until recently you wouldn't have to ask someone if they were myopic. They'd be wearing glasses. Also, a farmer would be at a disadvantage if he couldn't see as well. Not to mention, humans had been around for millenia before they started farming.
Negative genes don't always fade with time. In fact, due to genetic drift they could actually become more prevalent in time despite selection pressures. Plus, there are many other factors such as recession, expression rate etc. that play into and you have simply ignored.
Whether or not a farmer was at a disadvantage because of bad vision only matters to the extent it affects his ability to reproduce. Like I said, myopia and homosexuality are only comparable as far as they preclude a person from reproducing. Homosexuality by nature precludes reproduction, myopia doesn't.
It is true, genetic drift could cause a detrimental gene to become more prevalent. Genetic drift also tends to affect larger diverse populations far less significantly than smaller localized populations. It is doubtful that genetic drift plays a larger role in phenotype development than selection, especially in a large mobile sample like human beings.
...what point are you trying to make?
Alright, assuming it is a choice, let's scrutinize it; consensual homosexual acts harm noone, therefore there is no grounds for any law discrimating against gays. Scrutinizing complete.
Alright, assuming it is a choice, let's scrutinize it; consensual homosexual acts harm noone, therefore there is no grounds for any law discrimating against gays. Scrutinizing complete.
Birth control and masterbation also are hinderances to passing on genetic material, are they "sexual handicaps" as well?
Funny, all the homosexuals I have known, not one has said they chose to be that way. They say they realized they were homosexual at a certain point in their lives. I also love how you try to pass a baseless opinion about children suffering from sexual abuse are more likely to have "gender confusion issues as a fact. It is NOT a fact.
I didn't say all of the homosexuals I have met, but some of them. There are a lot of forces that push people to perform homosexual acts despite being heterosexual.
Beitchman, Joseph H "A review of the long-term effects of child sexual abuse" Child Abuse & Neglect
Volume 16, Issue 1, 1992, Pages 101-118
Our good canadian friend Mr. Beitchman concluded that children who suffered child abuse were more likely to experiment with homosexuality throughout adolescence and adulthood.
There is no doubt that child abuse has serious consequences for the child. I don't think it is the sole cause for homosexuality though. I agree with several points Robert Kunzig wrote in his article "Finding the Switch." He also suggests that homosexuality is a detrimental trait, but doesn't go as far as to call it a sexual handicap.
Is there a genetic component? Biologically speaking, I would have to assume so because as a heterosexual male I have the same reaction when I see two guys kiss as I do when I see someone eat a cockroach, disgust.
And where does your simplistic conclusion leave asexual animals who don't even have gender differences yet reproduce.
Once again, genetics does not explain nor justify your bigotry.
The existence of penguins, lizards, sheep, or any other animal having a sexual or paternal same sex "relationship" is not evidence of "gay" animals. Even if it were it doesn't change the fact that it is a sexual handicap. whether in the animal kingdom or amongst the human race, it it is still a genetic failure, and a sexual handicap.
And by the by, the prevailing scientific theory is that homosexuality is a biological factor. Of course, when people like you refuse to even admit the general scientific view as valid, then of course you'll claim that there's no evidence to support homosexuality being a biological thing. Anything that demonstrates that it is you simply discard as inconvenient or "false science".
And if you're living as a straight man, and you had to "choose" to do so, I have some news for you.
Gee, no I haven't. I guess I can't whine and whine and whine about rights that I don't have either, huh? But, we do have some these liberals who claim there has been a gay-gene found, I wonder if they found the hetero-gene also? I guess if I'm born with the hetero-gene then my opposition to gays would be a normal and expected position, correct?
Also, if you were born with the hetero-gene your opposition to homosexuals would still just be bigotry.
As Johealy points out, even if you had a "straight-gene" (unlikely, considering you've already said you had to work to live as a straight man), your bigotry still wouldn't get a pass.
I notice you ignored the second part of my post. Congratulations, Floyd, some people live a lie their entire lives. I'm glad you felt comfortable coming out here, where you won't get the hatred you might in your real life or at a right wing site. We support your new "choice".
Again, I ll throw you the words, and you can do the footwork.
Check out the name Dean Hammer...
btw, if you are going to make an argument based on genetics, LEARN about genetics first. Wikipedia and google are not the proper interfaces with which to study genetics; its a complicated field that actually requires dedicated study.
In short, you wont be able to learn it from Glenns chalkboard. Sorry, theres no easy way out of that one for ya dear!
So what you're saying is that gay women have no "right" to marriage rights that gay men are entitled to? Isn't that a bit exclusive for you liberals?
However, to be honest, Hamer never actually found the gene, he simply suspects its presence. He found that 33 out of 40 have a similar gene structure so he dubbed that equals 99.5% certainty that a gene exists. He chose 40 pairs of homosexual brothers and found that 33 of them shared a set of five markers on the long arm of the X chromosome. In the July 19, 1993 edition of Science, Hamer reported that the linkage translated to a “99.5% certainty that there is a gene (or genes) in this area of the X chromosome that predisposes a male to become a heterosexual” I'm guessing math wasn't his strong suit. Unfortunately, neither are facts. Did he ever find actual proof, or is he still searching for the elusive gene that he "translates to a 99.5% certainty"?
BTW, if you're going to whine about having proof of something, try to spell their name correctly. You seemed almost smart until you couldn't even spell the guys name correctly.
Thats not a judgement, just an observation.
First, the fact that you consider a typo to be your big trump card, when its SOOO obvious that you dont have a clue about topic in question, just makes my job here a little easier.
I mean, what you have really done above is highlight the fact that you havent any idea what Hamers research, or subsequent research, or the article which you cite, or even genetics in general are all about.
But what is really hilarious from your response above, is that it makes it so completely clear that you looked this up on (the ever questionable) Wikipedia, as if that little search is a suitable substitute for actual research and study.
Thats very obvious from your lead, when you ssay So what youre saying is that gay women have no right to marriage rights that gay men are entitled to? Isn't that a bit exclusive for you liberals?
So, again with such unmerited righteousness, you write that Hammers study denies rights to gay women, and I guess since thats what Wiki says, you thoughtlessly repeat it.
But if you actually read Hamers study (or even studies that counter it), you would realize that he was only working with male subjects, not female.
See, Flopyd, thats how genetic research works; when you study a discrete series of traits, you have to use a discrete population to isolate those traits.
And if you had even the most basic understanding of that science, you would know that..., no one would have to spell it out for you.
Its not that (as you gleefully hope) Hamers work denies women their natural sexualities (but I can see how you would get that idea from so coarse and cursory a Wiki search as you clearly have done.)
Its that his study was limited to men. Thats why his studies focused on genetic material that triggered same-sex desire in men. Do you understand what discrete means deary? Do you know what a trait or a population is?
And the genetic material he isolated was Xq28. I wont even begin to try to explain it to you..., it would go waaaay over your head. And even if I bothered to explain it to you, you would just retreat into your bogus, hostile (but terribly funny) little denial mechanism.
And I am sorry Flopyd, but a very brief course synopsis from a Davidson College undergrad class isnt the same as reading a book, comparing research, vetting the material that is out there, studying the matter in a classroom, or feedback from a real forensic expert.
Feel free to cling to those few paragraphs as your Rosetta stone for genetics, but it doesnt change the fact that, by your own words, you have betrayed yourself as definitly lacking when it somes to this topic.
If you bothered to go beyond your primary concern with trying to convince yourself through soundbytes, you would realize that Hamer was talking about a genetic component to same sex love, which could be triggered by a number of other factors.
Again, before you try to debate genetics or genetic research, let alont Xq28, Dean hamer, or the media response to his work, learn the basics of genetics first.
Wikipedia cant give you credentials in physical anthropology, you have to work for that.
And before you make a total fool of yourself by such angry and undeserved self-righteousness, take a lesson from Gov. Brewer or Dr laura, and try to think before you speak or write.
Sorry Flopyd, but you have only yourself to blame for throwing yourself under the bus with such fanatical gusto. When your anger eclipses your reason (as it has repeatedly on this page), you might want to take 5, hon.
I don't think your dr has much credibility if he does his research in that manner. Can you reference some real scientist who has done some real research on the matter? Please no more quacks!
Try looking that one up on Wiki (since that is clearly your primary source on Hamer)... you might want to consider what that expression means, because you are truly living that dream; and as high-and-mighty as you may feel, its just a buzz..., you really look quit foolish.
You have only made it clear that you dont know Hamers study,
you dont know the scientific dialogue it sparked,
you dont know who the debating parties are,
you don’t know what the conclusions were,
and you certainly dont know genetics, or how stats are applied in that field.
All the same, when it comes to choice between a world famous and accredited scientist, with several years of real work in the field behind him, and you with your Wiki searches, i tend to favor the latter.
You made the mistake of assuming Hamers work denied the nature of same-sex love in women.
You made that assumption because you went to Wikipedia, did not understand what you were looking at, fished for counter claims, and came back with the idea that somehow, Hamers study denies the naturalness of same-sex love in women. That is glaringly obvious.
And it speaks to how little you know about this issue, or the science in which it is embedded (as well as to the fact that you are trying to pass yourself off as someone who does know these matters... you dont, and you only keep proving that... in fact, you will do it again in response.)
While your own cursory assumptions about a Davidson college undergrad course description seem to pass for hard science in your world, you might want to try actually LEARNING the nature of the debate (let alone the actual science) before shooting your mouth off and making a foolish spectacle of yourself.
That requires not only a sound mind that doesnt jump to hasty conclusions, but an understanding of the dynamics of the science and how it is articulated. That requires training. It requires schooling, and wikipedia does not cut the mustard.
Add this to your denials about the anti-gay violence in Uganada, as sparked by American missionaries (a story which you claim is completely untrue... thats how aware you are... from your mouth to gods ears pal.)
Or the fact that you DONT know what violent dictators (eg Rios Montt) were courted by the Religous Right as militant enforcers of their religious agenda.
Or the fact that you didnt know that Dr. Kings mentor and dearest friend (and the real brain of the Civil Rights movement) was a proud and openly gay man who worked on Satyagraha in India.
I could go on and on, but here are the breaks kidoo,
You are clearly falling for the illusion of omniscience which the internet and google searches can sometimes contrive.
But it is an illusion, and your slap-happy attempts at unmerited righteousness are repeated testaments to that fact.
So rather than assume (as so many in your camp do) that a 5 second soundbyte is the begining and end of a story, try to actually LEARN the subject. Even as an antagonist, you would find that much more worth while.
Now Flop away oh Floppy one. And next time, try JStore as a source.
That should have been-I tend to favor the former... , as I certainly would NOT trust Flopyds self-serving delusions over the work of a respected and renowned expert as Dean Hamer.
Say what you want Floppy, but you are talking about a person who has worked in genetics for decades, who was a contributor to the human genome project, and a renowned professional who is a highranking director at the National Cancer Institute.
Some crack pot there, eh Floppy?
When you start to get published, let me know!
Its been a long tedious argument (and pointless considering Flopoyds obstinante dedication to his bigotry and ignorance), and it been an even longer day.
That should have been-I tend to favor the former... , as I certainly would NOT trust Flopyds self-serving delusions over the work of a respected and renowned expert as Dean Hamer.
Say what you want Floppy, but you are talking about a person who has worked in genetics for decades, who was a contributor to the human genome project, and a renowned professional who is a highranking director at the National Cancer Institute.
Some crack pot there, eh Floppy?
When you start to get published, let me know!
Its been a long tedious argument (and pointless considering Flopoyds obstinante dedication to his bigotry and ignorance), and it been an even longer day.
You lot are WRONG on Creation/Evolution (geology, archeology, paleontolgy, biolgy and every other science wrapped up in that debate); WRONG on Global Warming; were WRONG on Tobacco/Cancer; and take the wrong position on Embrionic Stem Cell Research. The Republican's "War on Science" is well established. So forgive, me if I puke all over your claims to be the "Proper Science Police."
Back your "point": BEING homosexual (meaning being attracted to members of the same sex) is NOT a choice. You can't help who you're attracted to. That's self-apparent. (Believe me, sometime I WISH I was not attracted to red-heads!) That anyone would even argue about this is idiotic.
The only CHOICE you have is ACTING UPON that attraction. The alternaitve? Leading an unfullfilled or lonely life, just because your choices would bother BIGGOTED MORONS LIKE FLOYD! (Even though it's none of their god damned business!)
Grow up Floyd. And learn to mind your own business.
And as for the "hypocrisy" part? How about constantly preaching about "small government" and being the party of "freedom" when:
1) You're against legalizing marijuana
2) You're against abortion
3) You're against making contraception more available
4) You're against any religion that's not yours, or that you disagree with
5) You're against GUY MARRIAGE
I'd say it beyond hypocritical to act like "small government" is some kind of principle when it's used to get tax cuts for the rich, but that is so easy for you lot to throw it out when it gets in the way of your biggoted, or otherwise anti-freedom agenda. It's hypocritical to claim ANY libertarian principles AT ALL while supporting the radical Christian agenda.
---------------------------------------
As usual, I'm not impressed.
6) he's against GAL marriage, too
GUY Marriage, GAL Marriage, GAY Marriage...
Wow. These guys sure are AGAINST a lot of things aren't they?
Party of Freedom my Left...
-----------------------------
IMHO
"If I lived in a nation where rules are made according to majority votes, then yes, I would be okay with that." - Floyd
"You don't live in a nation where the rights of a minority are established according to majority votes." - soze
"Yes, but THAT was a civil rights issue. Personal choice ISN'T a civil right. So, I need a different example for your rant to make any sense." - Floyd
"Homosexuality isn't a personal choice. And even if it was, so is interracial marriage. Are you saying that should be put to a vote?" - soze
"Inter-racial marriages aren't of any concern to anyone." - Floyd
We can all stop pretending as if Floyd has any plans on engaging in any level of intellectual debate at this point. Or that he even has the mental firepower to do so if he tried. I have gotten past laughing at him and are again just feeling pity towards him at this point.
Gays must be bad, a majority says so.
If a majority wanted to restrict your rights, you would be OK with that.
Yeah, I would.
A majority said blacks should be segregated.
But that was civil rights, this is a choice.
What about inter-racial marriage, that is a choice.
No one care about interracial marriage.
Just imagine how stupid you have to be in order to continue making such an argument with a straight face. The shamelessness and ignorance required to do so are actually impressive.
I'm a Christian, Floyd, and Christ said NOTHING about homosexuality. Also, if you are going to condemn one sin, you must condemn them all equally because they are ALL equal in God's eyes save for the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (New International Version)
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
Read The Authoritarians by Bob Altemeyer. Text of the study is freely available on the web.
Floyd is the perfect definitive RWA and would probably score over 150 on the test. It also means he is completely immune to ANY proof you may offer to anything he has been programmed with.
Please note the characteristics of this RWA/Evangelical personality type and exactly how close-minded this makes them.
Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing the Lord. Whatever your task, work heartily...
Titus, chapter 2 verse 9:
Bid slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to be refractory, nor to pilfer, but to show entire and true fidelity.
Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing the Lord. Whatever your task, work heartily...
Titus, chapter 2 verse 9:
Bid slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to be refractory, nor to pilfer, but to show entire and true fidelity.
Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing the Lord. Whatever your task, work heartily...
Titus, chapter 2 verse 9:
Bid slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to be refractory, nor to pilfer, but to show entire and true fidelity.
Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing the Lord. Whatever your task, work heartily...
Titus, chapter 2 verse 9:
Bid slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to be refractory, nor to pilfer, but to show entire and true fidelity.
Love between men or between women is not a choice while, say, deciding to own a gun is. In fact, gun-ownership seems not just a choice, but one based on a very anxious emotional complex at that.
I wonder how Flopyd would react to the idea of conversion therapy for gun-owners?
In any case, same-sex love is certainly more natural, human and spontaneous than any religion or political paltform. Its perisitence throughout history and across cultures is a self-evident testamony to that.
Flopyd seems to work under the assumption that since he doesnt know that history (or even its relevance to Americas past), it must not exist.
that's great!
Then why are you against pedophilia? It's also "perisitence throughout history and across cultures" as you say. If persistence throughout history is your standard then you should be allowing pedophilia for the exact same reasons you want gay marriage allowed. Or, how about multiple wives/husbands? That also has been "perisitence throughout history and across cultures".
Are you going to tell me that all those examples of homosexuality happening in the wild that YOU gave (earlier) ALL had WILLING partners? Take your "consent" and shove it in with all the other garbage you spew. When you can grasp a little logic re-enter the conversation. Until then, you're just trolling.
BTW, it's legal to marry in the US at age 15. Does that person "give up their childhood" too? You failed on every argument you tried this time.
Pedophilia is physically dangerous for the child. Their bodies and minds are not fully developed to understand how relationships work or even what sex implies. Ephebophilia, while not culturally accepted, is not as dangerous to younger subject because theyr have already reached puberty and are capable of natural reprodcution. 15 years is not a child.
Also, learn how to use the word hypocrite. throwing it around just reminds us what a fool you are. And you are the one who is trolling.
Does homosexuality occur in the NATURAL world? Does pedophilia occur in the NATURAL world? Do either one require CONSENTING partners in the NATURAL world?
And it is a sign of a very twisted mind that you should make such an immediate leap right to that subject. That speak more about you than me. (What are you hiding under all that anger Flopyd?)
And actually, you will have to look more to your own religion for that issue... its more at home in your religious history than in the struggle for equal rights.
For myself, I think its just gross that people like Joseph Smith used religion to seduce young girls, even as not few of his followers do today.
I never supported the LDS tradition of marrying small girls to ugly old men.
I never asked Lot to sleep with his daughters, I think that is just gross as well.
You would do better to cleanse the pedophiles out of your own religion and its history before trying to pin that one on anyone else.
After all, it is denial mechanisms like your own that hand-fed so many innocents to the (ir)Reverends Alamo, Wayne Bent, David Koresh, etc... (on that note, should we deny rights to Revivalist or Pentacostal Christians on the basis of the pedophilia that seems to overtake at least an appreciable portion of its clergy?)
So the argument you are making is foolish and stupid. It doesnt make any sense, its just a bad dodge, and one so obvious as that.
The argument for same-sex love is one based on LOVE and ATTRACTION between consenting ADULTS. It has nothing to do with ugly old men who use the scripture as a justification to force young girls to sleep with them (*on that note, the vast majority of molestation cases are committed by older male relatives or neighbors on young girls... remember that, okay?)
Furthermore, your other attempts on this page to dismiss the well-known news about American Evangelicals in Uganda (and with such self-righteous gusto) is really quite telling.
It speaks of a person who doesnt bother to get a full and solid understanding of these issues before blathering out a series of hostile, angry, ill-thought and poorly postured retorts (thats called being prejudiced... just in case your vocabulary is as lacking as your understanding of genetics, scripture or even American history.)
Perhaps your adamant series of disingenuous, hypocritical, and uniformed bursts is the most honest reflection of your approach... scream now, and forget to do the footwork later.
Not only are you unaware of the world outside Becks chalkboard, but you act so high-and-mighty about that fact.
But in the end, it just makes you look quite foolish.
Do you know who organized the REAL march on Washington (you know, that tremendous event which Beck tried to make a total mockery of last week?)
Do you know who taught Dr. King the method of non-violent non-cooperation, and was described by Dr. King as his own mentor?
Do you know who the link was between the American Civil Rights movement and Gandhis Free India movement against the Crown?
Do you know who was described by all persons concerned as the REAL brain behind Americas Civil Rights movement, even as Dr. King was described as its muscle?
Its a guy named Bayard Rustin. He also founded the Southern Church Leadership conference.
Again, google him, go to the library, watch real documentaries on Civil Rights, read Dr. Kings biography, or whatever you have to do to somehow move information passed your stubbornly bigoted denial mechanisms.
Bayard Rustin was also openly gay.
And because of bigotry like yours, the man who gave so much to America, orgnaized one of its most righteous movements, and lifted so many people out of destituion, has to remain invisible in history.
That is a total shame, and a testament to the real injustice of your poorly defended posture.
During the real Civil Rights struggle (not Becks expensive sham), bigots just like Glenn Beck tried every method they could to slander civil rights advocates (just like they do today.)
The fact that Rustin was openly gay made him an easy target for ungrateful and painfully prejudiced people as yourself. As a result he had to remain behind the scenes.
But by all accounts, even by Dr. Kings, and even by people who didnt approve of Rustins sexuality, Bayard WAS the actual brain of the movement.
And this magnificent talent had to hide from the same cruelty which you so gleefully evidence here, and which has been the basis for countless human rights violations and injustices both in our country and across the world(look what your pals in the Evangelical circuit are doing in Uganda.... they should have to sit through the execution of every gay person they hand-feed to the mob.)
And now, you are here to defend a man who sullies the dignity of Civil Rights by spring-boarding from the very hatred which targetted one its greatest authors.
In the process, you relish in that hatred (what a disgusting display of ingratitude.)
Dont you have any shame? For goodness sake, have some humility.
You owe as much to Rustin as anyone else in this country (ESPECIALLY Alveda King.)
As if its not enough to have the bone-head from Alaska pretend she has some common cause with the great Dr. King, so very soon after she exhorted Dr. Laura to RELOAD! (for using the n-word is such a deliberately malicious way.)
Now you want to defend Becks advance of homophobia, RIGHT ON THE HEELS of his bogus co-optation of Rustins sincere and hard work.
That is way beyond reprehensible.
...THAT was a civil rights issue.... you arrogantly demand with such unmerited haughtiness, and in total ignorance..., as if you know everything, and as if that argument somehow makes sense.
it doesnt dear... save it for the next 2 minute hate with the rest of the TeaBaggers.
Know that, in your own lifetime, you will realize how far on the wrong side of history you stand.
But as it is, you have just made an ugly display of your own ignorance of real American history, in a clumsy attempt to defend the undefensible.
For Shame!
thus spake the straight white guy.
here's a hint, floyd: civil rights are not awarded based on popularity contests...
But they ARE awarded on merits of science. Has science found that gay-gene, yet? You have no "civil rights" case until you do.
It wasn't technically legal until Lawrence v. Texas.
Given all that, you jackboot thug, why should anybody respond to you in any sort of way other than was Minitru did?
Hilarious, Floyd. The only thing anybody else is losing is the time they spend trying to have a rational conversation with you.
I am wondering at what age did you decide to be hetroseuxal. What made you choose you future, experimention? Or did you just feel that your choice was best for you?
And concerning the list of "holy men" listed above..I will predict at least 4 are gay...or are in the middle of deciding/experimenting.
Now we have humans deciding what God wants..Now that is very Christian of them.
wait- what's that all about?
arrant nonsense!
Floyd, "science" is still looking for the ignorance gene, but clearly you choose to be ignorant.
No, I didn't say stupid, I said ignorant. Willfully so.
"Science" has done hundreds and thousands of studies in multiple fields. The nature of human sexuality is not something that can be condensed into a single bumper sticker slogan for easy digestion for ignorant bigots to repeat in place of reasoned arguments.
To even ask about "the gay gene" shows a complete lack of understanding about basic scientific principles and concepts.
I'm sorry but science is not faith. We are a nation of laws and science, not a theocracy. You've been turned into a tool for rotten people. You should take a good long look at what you've been manipulated into hating.
This is the single biggest lie ever posted on MMFA. Floyd, you live in a nation where the deck is thoroughly stacked in your white, Christian, hetero male favor... and you STILL come here to whine non-stop about how your "freedoms" are are being taken away by "minorities" who won't stay in their place. Do you really expect us to believe that, if positions were reversed, you shut up and stay in the closet like a good little second class citizen?
Last time I checked, gay Americans are Americans just like you and me Floyd, so why should rights for them have to be "made" up?
Biggotry and discrimintaion is "OK" because "70%" of Americans say it is.
Nice logic.
As for 70% of America being "gullible"? Floyd? You're giving the lectorate in this country WAY too much credit.
----------------------------------------------------
And I count you among the top 1%.
Coming from Martin Luther King's family you would expect her to have some knowledge of the difficult times her uncle had during the civil rights movement.
Now faced with a civil rights question (gay rights) she sides with the bigots.
His best friend was a gay communist. Look it up.
Oh, yeah, these Christian Taliban sure talk like they "like the people"? How many gay people do you know? I mean besides your secret boyfriend.
As long as we know where your line of thought comes from, then being able to tell who the real bigots are is easier.
Your opinion that a minority group should be denied their rights because a millenia-old book that has nothing to do with how our country is governed says so (and because you personally are disgusted by it). Yeah, poor, oppressed you. You're kind of like Jesus, aren't you?
BTW, did you tell us the day you CHOSE to be a heterosexual? The fact that you believe that sexuality is a "choice" leads me to believe that you have some issues with your own sexuality.
You're lying again. Marriage is a LEGAL CONTRACT. You're advocating AGAINST equal rights for gays because you don't like them and you lack even the basic integrity to admit it.
For being people who just can't stop mentioning the constitution, they really seem to despise crucial parts of it.
link please. Even a made up one will do. Please provide proof of that one, though.
That's right, it DOESN'T. I didn't think you'd find any proof of another wild liberal claim. Good try, you've got lots of supporters who don't have a clue either. Keep spreading the fear and bigoty. You're good at it.
Your text to link here...
the law itself
A news report
An article
The religious right's role in all of it.
And another news article.
And seriously, buy a dictionary or better yet, go see an english teacher. You don't seem to know how to properly use words. You have accused liberals of almost everything under the rising sun, yet from what i have picked up, conservatives have no concept of self-awareness.
Before you act so snotty, try doing the footwork yourself.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article7133431.ece
The issue with Evangelists in Uganda is not an esoteric one or a late breaking story, it has been covered by a number of human rights groups and international journalists. NPR already has a large body of work surrounding the matter. In short, if you were really paying attention, you would not have missed it.
I know you probably think ACORN WROTE THAT ARTICLE. But just because Faux or BigGov.com dont have segments on this issue, doesnt mean that the rest of the world hasnt been paying attention.
In your excitement to demonstrate how little you have noticed what is really happening in the world, you might as well add WHAT BP OIL SPILL? NEVER HEARD THAT ONE!
You write with a voice of utter arrogance, and then make a show of your own stupidity by flaunting such shameless and completely unmerited snobbery.
Its like you are proud of being totally clueless about current events. You seem almost excited about that fact.
Its one thing to not know about an issue... its quite another when, being so obviously uninformed, you act like such a snark only to reveal how extremely ignorant of the facts you truly are.
But all you have succeeded in doing is shamefully displaying your own bigotry, your lack of awareness, and your hostility to bare material facts (or even the effort of tracking them down yourself.)
Thats pretty pathetic.
Its a real shame that an airhead like yourself has access to a computer, when some of the smartest kids in our country have have to use text-books from 20 years ago.
Before you act so snotty, try doing the footwork yourself.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article7133431.ece
The issue with Evangelists in Uganda is not an esoteric one or a late breaking story, it has been covered by a number of human rights groups and international journalists. NPR already has a large body of work surrounding the matter. In short, if you were really paying attention, you would not have missed it.
I know you probably think ACORN WROTE THAT ARTICLE. But just because Faux or BigGov.com dont have segments on this issue, doesnt mean that the rest of the world hasnt been paying attention.
In your excitement to demonstrate how little you have noticed what is really happening in the world, you might as well add WHAT BP OIL SPILL? NEVER HEARD THAT ONE!
You write with a voice of utter arrogance, and then make a show of your own stupidity by flaunting such shameless and completely unmerited snobbery.
Its like you are proud of being totally clueless about current events. You seem almost excited about that fact.
Its one thing to not know about an issue... its quite another when, being so obviously uninformed, you act like such a snark only to reveal how extremely ignorant of the facts you truly are.
But all you have succeeded in doing is shamefully displaying your own bigotry, your lack of awareness, and your hostility to bare material facts (or even the effort of tracking them down yourself.)
Thats pretty pathetic.
Its a real shame that an airhead like yourself has access to a computer, when some of the smartest kids in our country have have to use text-books from 20 years ago.
He is TRYING to get negative attention and you all are indulging him by giving it to him!
Why?
YOU are the one trying to get attention. Why?
If you do not want to participate in the discussion, don't, and save your lectures.
[Now, go off on your "personal animus" bit . . . just makes you look even sillier.]
Try again.
And no, I'm NOT trying to get attention for myself in ANY way, shape or form.
But I AM trying to draw attention to the behavior of Floyd and the behavior of those who keep feeding him.
And it IS your personal animus that often drives your replies to me. I understand that you'd rather NOT have that pointed out. Too bad, so sad. You've been caught being dishonest by me on multiple occasions, and you'd rather not acknowledge that, and it tees you off, AND you like feeding troll posts, and so you attack me.
That's clear. But thanks for letting me point it out yet again.
No one has to have the same opinion as me, bintx. Your bogus assertion that it's my need to object when someone has a different opinion is a clear sign that you ARE, in fact, a conservative - it's conservatives who can't/won't understand that objections like mine to trolling posts which are clearly intended to derail a thread have nothing to do with a difference of opinion or disagreeing with someone.
It has SOLELY to do with the fact that he's clearly NOT interested in participating in a debate or a discussion ON THE TOPIC with anyone. If he were, he wouldn't go off on the off-topic tangents, nor would he make irrelevant comparisons, nor would he make hypocritical statements, nor would he allege facts that are clearly not true! That's not the behavior of someone who wants to participate in a discussion!
That's the behavior of someone who wants to garner negative attention to derail a thread. And when people like you (and many others) feed troll posts like his, HE WINS and the site loses.
Re-read the ACTUAL topic of this article by MMFA.
Little begin with a history lesson.--
Look up the name Efrain Rios Montt, and who in the US sponsored him.
Ask yourself, what was the relationship of people like Hugo Banzar Suarez, or Augusto Pinochet, to extremist Evangelical groups such as those headed by Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell?
Have you ever heard of Falwells On Wings of Eagles? Just watch the infomercial, and see if the words ethnic-cleansing dont come to mind. (Worse, this is deliberately locating people right in a war zone as human fodder for Falwells bs End-Of-Times fantasy.)
Look up the Wycliffe Bible translators, and see what political figures they have made alliances with. By the way, if youre younger than 30, you probably dont know about what was going on in Central America 30-40 years ago, or what extreme right-wing American evangelicals had to do with it.
You have the keyords, now I ll let you do the foot work.
You can google it if hopping down to the Public Library is too socialist for ya.
More to come...
In either case, I doubt it will make any difference to a person like Flopyd, who has made such a proud display of his own ignorance and bigotry.
But honestly I like Flopyd better... so Flopyd it is!
Tee hee!
Oh, and I'm a Christian.
Floyd, it's always interesting when people say "the Bible says" in support of their argument.
Well the Bible says Genesis 1:26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
So God created man, but not a gay man? Really?
Native Americans were discriminated against based on ignorance. African Americans were discriminated against based on ignorance. Japanese Americans were discriminated against based on ignorance. And in each of those instances, religion was used as part of the reason for the discrimination. God said this or that according to someone who claims to know exactly what God said.
So IF you consider yourself a Christian, how can you believe that God created us all, but somehow he had nothing to do with the creation of gays? And WHERE in the Bible does God say it's for YOU to judge what is proper and acceptable and what is not?
You'd be wrong Floyd. Dr. King fought his ENTIRE life for EQUALITY for ALL. Dr. King DID NOT believe that you could stand for freedom for one group and deny it for another.
Dr. King said: “I have worked too long and hard against segregated public accommodations to end up segregating my moral concern. Justice is indivisible.”
You're being called a biggot not due to a "differing opinion" but because you are arguing in favor of discriminating against a group of people based on no more than your desire to cling to mideval superstition and taboo. And yes, I'd have no problem syaing that to EVERYONE who does the same. The fact that a lot of people think it's OK to deny a group of people their basic human rights does NOT make it OK.
You ARE a biggot. Your "opinon" here happens to be the DEFINITION of biggotry.
---------------------------------
And, just as with "false science," conservtaives have no credability to be the arbitraitors of what is or is not a "civil right" either.
The next two months should be interesting reading (probably not very informative, however).
With apologies to Stephen Colbert.
I would, but I left my superlatives in my other jacket..
This article could have been sub-titled: "It's what he didn't say that matters."
Every bible-thumper who has knocked on my front door had a smile on their face as they cheerily said: "Jesus loves you*"
*see our devine schitlist for exceptions
BTW, great job C.S., F.J., B.D.D., O.W., & T.K.!!!
What an idiot!! He truly believes that the same things don't occur within heterosexual marriages? For god's sake these people get stupider and stupider!
1/ cult follower and
2/ a false prophet,
after all, Keller IS a bona fide Evangelistic, at ground zero going after Muslims.
That IS FOX's audience, right wing, born again Evangelists..
I've been waiting for this, because ALL Evangelists think that Mormonism is a "cult" and will take you straight to hell just as fast as being a Muslim.
I was rather surprised when Beck took this on BECAUSE he is a Mormon and just as surprised that the teabaggers haven't gone after him before now.
It's the War of the wackos, grab your popcorn!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ground zero church launches with anti-Muslim, anti-Mormon sermon
Extremist pastor opens ground zero church by denouncing Glenn Beck and Imam Rauf as false prophets
To an audience of about 50 people -- fully half of whom were members of the press -- Pastor Bill Keller launched his 9-11 Christian Center at Ground Zero this morning with a fiery sermon targeting Muslims and Mormons as hell-bound followers of false faiths.
Keller took aim in particular at Glenn Beck, a Mormon, and Imam Rauf, the organizer of the Park51 Islamic community center.
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/09/05/911_christ ian_center _inaugural
Without Rustin (an openly gay activist who was Dr. Kings mentor), there would not have been the Civil Rights movement as we know it. And Alveda is very well aware that Rustin was gay, and that she and everyone else owe him so much for his sacrifice, leadership and strength.
Its bad enough that Alveda has sold-out to Beck, and compromised the honor of Civil Rights by attempting to hand over its mantle to a repeated liar, an open bigot and a man who is best known for the lunacy of his politically drive/politically oriented rage.
But to have insulted the personal nature of the very man responsible for the March on Washington, and on the anniversary of that march, unconscionable!
While Beck and his Glenn-droids dont know any better, Alveda does. SHAME ON HER!
I know I might sound like a broken record with the information about Rustin, but the fact that soul of the March on Washington has to take a back seat simply because he was gay is an injustice. And Alveda knows that.
Thats pretty freakin low... so much for Restoring Honor.
Fixed it for him. We sure wouldn't want our youngsters in public schools idolizing "Walker Texas Ranger" now would we?
I think that many of Beck's religious right wing regiment do not see gay and lesbians as human beings, but rather as abominations. I would think that many of these people have no problem with anyone until they think of them as being gay--then nothing else matters. I can accept people a lot more if I relate to them as human beings, whether black, latino, Russian, whatever. I can accept gays and lesbians--human beings who happen to have no choice in sexual preference--if I seek to relate to them as human beings. I think Beck's religious right wing regiment spots a "flaw," then does not see anything else--the people with the "flaw" are the "flaw."
Gays and Lesbians are human beings--without flaws.