This was sent to me by [redacted], who seems to think I need more to be disturbed by. This is in reaction to the famed "genderless child", Storm.
Back to make one last comment .....
As I have previously stated, I am in complete disagreement with the decisions that you have and are making regarding your children. I had to come back to make something very clear. I am a long time Junction resident and I can honestly say that I am thankful that my Son is not the same age as any of your children. Simply because I would not want my Son to be playing with a boy who is wearing a dress. I have chosen to rear my Son in a normal way. I don't think society needs to be exposed to you and your absurd ideologies, or your experiments. Just saying ........
First of all, have you considered going back to school. One does not have decisions, one makes decisions. One has beliefs, which might be what you're going for there.
Secondly, unless your son is the Messiah, you do not capitalize "son".
Thirdly, they're raising the child to be genderless, so why did you go straight to "boy in a dress"? That's . . . odd of you.
Thirdly, what do you suppose would happen if your SON played with a boy in a dress? I mean, I'm trying, but I can't quite . . . hmmm . . . .
1. SON plays with boy in dress
2. ?????
3. SON grows up to be a liberal gay atheoislamo terrorist.
I mean, I've spent some time with men who enjoy wearing women's clothing (women wearing men's clothing? totally normal! you may be doing it right now!) and I swear to you, nothing happened. Nothing at all. I did not become gay, I did not feel an urge to blow up any skyscrapers, I did not come down with a terrible dis- wait a minute. That was right before the porphyria kicked in.
Holy fuck, male transvestites cause porphyria! Lock up the children!
Wait, what's that? Oh, right, genetics. My bad. Transvestites do not actually have the power to change my DNA. They are not, in fact, radioactive.
Well, then, I just have nothing. Other than the fact that once you spend a little time around a person different from you, you realize that people are people and it becomes harder and harder to hate based on small differences. And you wouldn't want that for your SON.
Anyway, enjoy this video. It is the story of an elephant and a dog who are best friends. Then think very, very hard about why humans can't get along with other groups of humans, but an elephant and a dog can be the best of friends.
You remember that poem about what girls and boys are made of? Girls are made of sugar and spice and everything nice, boys are made of snails and puppy dog tails, that one?
As women, we are not made up of the same things men are made of; therefore it is nearly (but not completely) impossible for us to raise boys to be men. I'm afraid that's why we have so many sissy boys today.
I checked. Human males and human females are indeed made of the same things. Those things are not sugar and spice and snails and tails.
This post also includes a list of characteristics of men (not sissy boys!) that's a little . . . um . . . odd.
WANTED- A boy who stands straight, sits straight, acts straight and talks straight;
Queers need not apply, I suppose.
A boy whose fingernails are not in mourning, whose ears are clean, whose shoes are polished, whose clothes are brushed, whose hair is combed, and whose teeth are well cared for;
Actually, I'm okay with that, although I'm not sure what fingernails look like in mourning.
A boy who listens carefully when he is spoken to, who asks questions when he does not understand, and does not ask questions about things that are none of his business;
Well, okay.
A boy who moves quickly and makes as little noise about it as possible;
wut?
A boy who whistles in the street, but does not whistle where he ought to keep still;
um, okay.
A boy who looks cheerful, has a ready smile for everybody, and never sulks;
A human being who likes everyone and never has a bad day? A human being, you say?
A boy who is polite to every man and respectful to every woman and girl;
Yes, because you know you can't just be polite and respectful to both males and females that is too much. Too much, I tell you!
A boy who does not smoke cigarettes and has no desire to learn how;
Inhale, exhale. It's not hard.
A boy who is more eager to know how to speak good English than to talk slang;
I dig it, daddio!
A boy who neither bullies other boys nor allows other boys to bully him;
Yes, because it is up to children to stop bullying. Stop bothering the adults, dear, we're busy making inane lists and making fun of fa**ots.
A boy who, when he does not know a thing, says, "I don't know, "and when he has made a mistake says, "I'm sorry," and when he is asked to do a thing says, "I'll try";
*rolls eyes*
A boy who looks you right in the eye and tells the truth every time;
You know what? Do not tell me the truth about what my butt looks like in this skirt. Nobody anywhere wants the unvarnished truth every time.
A boy who is eager to read good books;
Define "good". I bet your definition is different from mine.
A boy who would rather put in his spare time at the YMCA gymnasium than gamble for pennies in a back room;
Good science, when was this written? Anyway, my husband really enjoys blackjack and poker. They are games of skill it takes a certain talent and dedication to play. While I do agree, as does he, that one shouldn't gamble with money one can't afford to flush down the toilet, I don't really see the problem with exercising one's mind as well as one's body.
A boy who does not want to be "smart" or in any wise to attract attention;
Sit down and act stupid! And read good books!
A boy who would rather lose his job or be expelled from school than tell a lie or be a cad;
Yeah, because grocery stores accept morals as well as VISA.
A boy whom other boys like;
I thought we were against gays?
A boy who is at ease in the company of girls;
No, really, are we against gays or not?
A boy who is not sorry for himself, and not forever thinking and talking about himself;
Okay.
A boy who is friendly with his mother, and more intimate with her than anyone else;
O.o O.O o.O
A boy who makes you feel good when he is around;
A boy they call Doctor Feelgood?
A boy who is not goody-goody, a prig, or a little pharisee, but just healthy, happy, and full of life.
Okay, did you read the enormous list that preceeded this? There is no way to be all that and not be a little prig. So pick one, lady.
This boy is wanted everywhere. The family wants him, the school wants him, the office wants him, the boys want him, the girls want him, all creation wants him.
Love the sinner, hate the sin. How many times have you heard that one? It's always being delivered by some hateful asshat after they've been called on the essential hypocrisy of claiming to follow a person who said that the greatest of these is love and then spewing vile hatred at people different from them.
Now, I could explore the idea that one can separate a person from their actions, which is problematic at best. (Pro tip: if zie tells you zie loves you and continually treats you badly, it doesn't matter whether or not zie loves you, you're still being treated badly.) I could also ask how one could feel hatred for a person's actions without any of that hatred rubbing off on to how you feel about the person themselves.
I could do those things, but it would be a lot easier to simply show you how love the sinner, hate the sin actually works in the really real world.
The below all relates to the commercial above. If you can't watch the commercial, it's from the NBA. It shows basketball players trash talking each other until one of them uses "gay" as a pejorative, at which point various NBA stars unequivocally state that using "gay" as an insult is unacceptable and hurtful. It's quite well done.
Of course the evangelical Christians, who are, at this point, an organization solely devoted to oppressing gays and women, cannot handle this at all.
Watching the NBA semis and I cant believe I'm watching a commercial about not using the word "gay" because it's offensive to gays.
Wow
I can't believe how stupid you are. It is stated in the commercial, out loud, in words, small words, that it is using "gay" as an insult that is unacceptable. Using "gay" as a descriptive is still acceptable. You idiot.
The word "gay" actually originally meant "to be happy". Not sure how the word "gay" began to be used to describe homosexuals. But either way, forget the commercial's message. The gays and lesbians have to be told flat out that their behavior is sin, regardless of what the world says.
Actually, the word "gay" originally meant really, really (hetero)sexually active. So, word origin fail. As to the idea that gays need to be told that their behavior is a sin, (a) I'm sure they all know how you feel about it by now, and (b) I'm sure you'll be fine with me stopping by your house once a day to point out all of your sins, and, oh yeah, (c) not a sin. Get over yourself.
You can hardly watch any shows anymore where there is blatant display of gay talk and behavior. Is not like before where one guy just played to be gay for the funny part of it (the feminist acting that looked awkward funny in a guy) but now is about relationships, kissing, and beyond. And I am talking about just regular channels, not cable.
I have started watching shows where I thought they were really good but had to stop because I saw the direction they were going with.
Sigh....
It was totally okay to have gay people in public as long as they were the punchline of a joke, but gay people as real people doing what real people do? outrageous!
No gays? well we can go back to the word we used as kids - bundle of sticks.
Homosexuals are trying to whitewash our language so as to make their conduct "normal".
It will not work. Yes we can live peaceably with homosexuals. They are sinners just like us - in need of love and redemption.
But sin is still sin. And men will label it what they will. Even if they do not acknowledge the One who defines it.
I'm fairly certain one cannot live peacefully with someone who throws a temper tantrum when they can't call you names. I get the impression this entire group has a list of acceptable insults, starting with "n***er" and ending in "slut", and they cry every time they have to cross out a word.
If someone's named "Gay" can you still call her by her name?
Well, "John" is also a slang term for a prostitute's client and a toilet, can you still call someone named John, John? Clever: ur doin it rong.
Why is it wrong for NBA players to use gay slurs (and get heavily fined for doing so) because they are so worried about offending homosexuals, but its ok to blaspheme God regularly? I cringe every time I hear God's name used in vain. And I have heard players say it and seen them mouth it. I as a Christian am offended. Will the NBA make the players stop?
How backwards is that? When people are more worried about offending gays than God we are in deep trouble folks.
Maybe because the people using "Jesus Christ" as an expletive- assuming this is even true- are Christians themselves expressing frustration, not heterosexuals enforcing second class citizenship on homosexuals? Just a thought.
So if we are not supposed to refer to 'gays' as gays or homosexuals, what?? Surely they aren't advocating going back to the 'q " word, are they? I really hate using the word 'gay' for them because when I grew up 'gay' was a good, 'happy' word. My sister's middle name is Gay, and I had a friend whose first name was Gay. Anyway, just commenting.
You know what word would solve your problem? None. Just refer to people by their names, like you would anyone else. Solves the whole problem.
Okay, I have the solution - let's call them what G-d calls them . . . ABOMINATION
Yeah, that same god called dashing infant's heads against rocks a good thing.
You know, I realized why I'm having trouble writing my book. The main character is supposed to stop the Apocalypse and save mankind. Quite frankly, the more of this sort of thing I read, the more I think, "Let it all burn." Then I read this, from Charles Barkley, and I feel better.
"First of all, every player has played with gay guys," Barkley said. "It bothers me when I hear these reporters and jocks get on TV and say: ‘Oh, no guy can come out in a team sport. These guys would go crazy.’ First of all, quit telling me what I think. I’d rather have a gay guy who can play than a straight guy who can’t play.”
“Any professional athlete who gets on TV or radio and says he never played with a gay guy is a stone-freakin’ idiot,” he said. “I would even say the same thing in college. Every college player, every pro player in any sport has probably played with a gay person."
We'll start with the other news because what can follow the discovery that I may potentially be God's favorite little light?
When it comes to adolescents genuinely committing to their faith, a study found that their social environment determines how strong their faith level will be.
...
According to the study, titled “Seven Anchors of Religious Commitment,” parents, religious leaders, a faith community, rituals and traditions, faith tradition or denomination, God and sacred texts are crucial to a young person's faith.
Emily Layton, who conducted the analysis as part of her M.S. thesis for the study, explained to The Christian Post, “Relationships were extremely important – relationships with parents, with church leaders and relationships with people in their faith community. That was interesting to me, the relationships with other adults in their faith community as well as other younger teens.”
Shock, shocked I am! Religion is a function of society? The more religious the people around you, the more normalized ritual is in your community, the more likely you are to believe and believe strongly? It's almost like religious belief is like every other sort of belief: a function of it being so pervasive and normal that you never really think about it.
Well then.
Anyway, in the wake of the horse killing homophobes, somebody in real life* told me that the perpetrators could not have been Christian. For the record, I did not say that the perpetrators were Christian, I said that many of the people who spew homophobic hatred are. She not only strawmanned my argument, she whipped out a No True Scotsman so fast I got whiplash. I, of course, argued against the No True Scotsman and was told to read Isaiah and see if anyone who could do such a thing- kill horses, not spread hatred, I don't think she was really opposed to that- could possibly be the light of God, i.e., a Christian.
It's a damn good thing she used the phrase "light of God" because Isaiah is a big book, and what she was referencing, I think, is in chapter 58.
They ask me for just decisions and seem eager for God to come near them. 3 ‘Why have we fasted,’ they say, ‘and you have not seen it? Why have we humbled ourselves, and you have not noticed?’
“Yet on the day of your fasting, you do as you please and exploit all your workers. 4 Your fasting ends in quarreling and strife, and in striking each other with wicked fists. You cannot fast as you do today and expect your voice to be heard on high. 5 Is this the kind of fast I have chosen, only a day for people to humble themselves? Is it only for bowing one’s head like a reed and for lying in sackcloth and ashes? Is that what you call a fast, a day acceptable to the LORD?
So . . . I'm a socialist, which makes me obviously against worker exploitation, and I'm not in favor violence . . .
6 “Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen: to loose the chains of injustice
I am so against injustice!
and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free and break every yoke?
I am so trying to break every yoke! It's the whole point of my blog.
7 Is it not to share your food with the hungry and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter—
I do that (and then end up being the hungry, but whatever) and I rarely don't have someone sleeping on the couch in the basement.
when you see the naked, to clothe them, and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?
I've never actually seen a naked person in public, but if I did, you'd better believe I rush to cover that up.
8 Then your light will break forth like the dawn, and your healing will quickly appear;
Metaphorical healing, perhaps . . . wait! Cognitive Behavioral Therapy is totally making me better mentally.
then your righteousness[a] will go before you, and the glory of the LORD will be your rear guard.
If anyone can make an argument that "righteousness" and "rear guard" actually mean "Jägermonster", I will worship the Christian god with a fervor previously unseen in all 2,000 years of Christianity.
“If you do away with the yoke of oppression, with the pointing finger and malicious talk,
oppression like American business and landowners being free to legally discriminate against gays? Malicious talk like telling people the gays are coming for your children? Like that?
DO THESE PEOPLE EVER READ THEIR OWN DAMN BOOK?
10 and if you spend yourselves in behalf of the hungry and satisfy the needs of the oppressed,
How do they syncretize this with going galt? am I insane or are they?
then your light will rise in the darkness, and your night will become like the noonday.
Which would doubtless make it hard to sleep, but seriously folks, by this measure, I'm the greatest fucking christian of all time and god's favorite little light. (Or the greatest Jew of all time, given that Isaiah is Old Testament.)
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.
I used to hate that little ditty. I still do, but as a child, as a victim of bullying, I knew that was not true. Words hurt. Words hurt as much, if not more, than fists and weapons. Words are powerful. Words have power.
No, words are power.
Which is why I spend so much of my time talking about the use of words. Why is it important to discuss that atheist have morals, too? Because every time someone says that morals come from god, the idea is planted in another person's mind that atheists are immoral, dangerous perhaps. Maybe shouldn't be suffered to live. I mean, who knows what they might do to the children?
Why is it important to confront it, each and every time, when someone says that a man "cried/threw/whatever like a girl"? Because any time you compare undesirable behavior to being female you spread the belief that to be female is to be lesser. And people who believe that women are lesser have no problem raping women, taking away their rights, paying them less and generally oppressing them. And women who believe that they themselves are less have more trouble fighting against that.
It is important to hold people responsible for the words that they say because words are power. We should hold people as accountable for their words as we do for how they use their guns. If a person randomly fires off a gun into a crowd and kills someone, we do not accept the excuse that well, I wasn't really aiming for anyone in particular, I just wanted to see what people would do.
Which is why I'm holding accountable every single Christian who spreads hatred against gays for the deaths of 8 horses. If you stood up online, at a church, among your friends and spewed hatred and lies and vitriol against gays, then you may as well have held the torch. You may as well have slit the throats of these 8 horses because that would have been kinder than what did happen.
Seven adult horses and one foal died as a result of an arson fire at 874 West Richards Road in McConnelsville just after 11:30 p.m. on Sunday. Owner Brent Whitehouse said he woke to discover the barn engulfed in flames and immediately called 911, but it was too late.
"I couldn't get the door open I could still hear the horses kicking and I tried as hard as I could to get them out and I just couldn't get them out in time," he said.
Those who know Brent believe this was a hate crime, explicit words relating to his sexuality were spray painted in large white letters on the side of the barn before the fire was started.
You. You did it. You spread hatred and fear. It's your fault. Oh, I know, you didn't tell anyone to go torch a barn with 8 horses in it, but don't think that makes you innocent. You put the idea in a person's mind that gays are evil and wrong and will harm your children. You're responsible for that idea. It's that idea that led to 8 horses desperately trying to escape a raging fire and failing. Your idea. Your words.
Failure to notify parents of sexually charged discussion, which will be used to indoctrinate impressionable young children about high-risk behaviors[*], by praising adults in a high risk lifestyle (without mentioning the dangers thereof), is a blatant usurpation of the rights and responsibilities of parents to teach their own children about sexuality, as well as a thinly-veiled power play by homosexual activists, seeking to mainstream and promote behaviors which are not healthy, normal, admirable, or moral or conducive to a healthy self*, a strong family, or a healthy society.
Wow. That sounds like they're going to be showing gay porn to kindergardeners and insisting that high school students have at least one sexual encounter with a member of their own sex, film it and show it to the entire class.
That seems so unlikely, I checked to see what CA SB 48 actually calls for:
The FAIR Education Act would ensure that LGBT people are included in instructional
materials, which studies have shown is linked to greater student safety and lower
rates of bullying. The FAIR Education Act would require that lesbian, gay, bisexual,
and transgender (LGBT) Americans are included and recognized for their important
historical contributions to the economic, political, and social development of
California. Specifically, this legislation would add LGBT to the existing list of
underrepresented cultural and ethnic groups, which are covered by current law
related to inclusion in textbooks and other instructional materials in schools. This
inclusion will help to ensure that students get a fair and accurate picture of the
people and events that have shaped our society, and that fair and accurate
portrayals of LGBT people are no longer excluded from classroom discussions. The
FAIR Education Act will bring classroom instruction into alignment with nondiscrimination laws passed by the California Legislature and adopted by the State Board of Education a decade ago, by prohibiting the adoption of discriminatory instructional materials and textbooks.
Oh. So we'll be acknowledging reality then. That's certainly . . . the least upsetting thing I can think of. Gay people have always been and always will be a part of the human race, and therefore have shaped society and continue to do so. Acknowledging that should be about as controversial as acknowledging that the sky is blue and grass is green. And working against discrimination and bullying? That should be the sort of thing parents demand for their children.
Unless, of course, you're a homophobic asshole, in which case merely acknowledging that gay people exist is horrifying and ending the discrimination against them is an assault against the very core of their discriminating, bullying souls.
So vote yes on CA SB 48. Vote yes for acknowledging the really real world** and vote no to bullying and discrimination.
*Those are the original links from the post, not my links. I don't recommend clicking on them if you have high blood pressure, or other stress impacted health issues.
First of all, I can't see what's wrong with this picture. I'm fairly certain that legally, you can get married in a clown costume if you want to. I'm not sure what that has to do with equality. I also think a man can legally get married while wearing a dress or sporting a mohawk. I'm fairly certain a woman can get married while dressed like an extra in a Wagner production, too. As for the dog, I've seen pictures of weddings in which dogs performed the role of best man and ringbearer, so yeah . . . I dunno.
As for Simple Dollar: Who Do You Love, I would like to start with WHOM! WHOM do you love. "Who" is a subject, "whom" is an object. In the sentence "Whom do you love?", the subject is "you", you are the person doing the loving, therefore it is "whom", not "who". Grammar, people!
You see, when a reader asks me if marriage is about love, then why can't they marry the person they love? The answer is simple, marriage is about who is most deserving of that love -- who you are most responsible to -- then who you most conveniently love, or who you figure might give you the kind of romance you want most expediently. When you focus on your responsibilities, the love grows between you naturally. And as the love grows, so does your ability to recognize your responsibilities. It all ties back to the man and the woman.
That is an entire paragraph of wharrgarbl followed by "because- look over there!" That is not a valid argument. That last sentence has nothing to do with the preceding four. On Lawn may as well as have written four oddly constructed sentences on the proper way to prepare hummus* and then tacked on "it all ties back to the man and the woman". It would have made exactly as much sense.
If On Lawn is going to wharrgarbl his way through some bigotry, he could at least do me the great favor of doing it grammatically. Honestly.
*A blender, a lot chick peas, some garlic and some olive oil. Anything else you'd like to add is up to you.
This deeply homophobic post (proving once again that "love the sinner, hate the sin" is sophistry at its finest) gets pretty darn hilarious pretty darn quickly.
Sex is—have you noticed?—a big deal in our world. It seems to be a truism that every person has a right to whatever sexual experience they want, and that putting limits on sexual practice is somehow offensive to humanity. Maybe Freud is to blame for sexualizing our world and persuading our culture that sexual “repression” was a form of neuroticism. While the theistic consensus regarding morality was eroding away, the Freudian imperative arose to take its place as our source for behavioral norms. This—along with the obvious pleasures of sex—added up to making sexual expression a virtual imperative while removing most limits on what form that expression might take.
Yes, there world was entirely innocent to sex prior to the 1880s. Prior to Freudian Theory, no one ever desired sex or enjoyed sex or lusted at all. Babies were produced as part of a perfunctory act not unlike washing the dishes in level of desirability or enjoyment. It wasn't until Freud thought up penis envy that the people of the world realized that they liked sex and wanted sex. Nobody paid prostitutes for sex prior to that, no one was gay prior to that, and . . . look, not even I can keep that up. The theory that Frued sexualized the world is so insane, I'm flabbergasted. I know thinking about people in the past doing it is a bit weird, given our general views on the past, but I assure you, the world was plenty sexualized prior to Freud.
Psychologists and psychiatrists who follow Freud’s sexual theories have become hard to find. The Freudian framework has been discredited by its utter lack of scientific testability and its poor clinical effectiveness. Yet individuals in Western culture still think they must express their sexuality. So when we Christians tell homosexuals they cannot unite in same-sex “marriage,” and that they should not fulfill their sexual preferences, we’re not just being spoil-sports. It’s as if we’re saying they must deny their own person-ness and stunt their own humanity. They can’t join in the game everyone (and if you look at popular media, we mean everyone) else gets to play.
It's not so much that one "must" express one's sexuality, it's that one cannot avoid expressing one's sexuality. Sexuality is deeply rooted and essential to humans. That is, in fact, why there are humans today. Our ancestors just couldn't stop "expressing their sexuality".
You know how I can prove this? Step outside of America, where it's far from easy to be gay, but it usually isn't deadly, and take a visit to Uganda, where "expressing one's sexuality" (or merely being suspected of being gay) means your picture in the paper and a beating and possible killing to go with it. Think about this logically for one moment. If that's what "expressing one's sexuality" as a choice means, why would anyone do it? If it were possible to deny one's sexual nature long term, wouldn't every gay person in Uganda be doing just that? Since they're not, I think we can reasonably say that denying one's sexuality simply isn't possible long term.
Now, the author does admit that "reparative therapy" (google "Exodus International" if you must, but I'm not linking to that) is a crock, but what is his answer? Replace your sex drive with Jesus.
Jesus demonstrated joy (Luke 10:21, John 3:29), taught joy (Matthew 5:12, Luke 10:17-20, prayed for joy (John 17:13), gave reason for joy (Matthew 28:8, Luke 24:41, John 16:22). All of life is available for us to find joy. This is the message of the most misunderstood book of the Bible (in my opinion), Ecclesiastes, whose theme can be summarized as, There is much pleasure in earth that we may justly pursue, yet ultimate delight is in God himself.
Okay, you do it. Seriously, you give up sex altogether and pray instead. Tell me how it goes 80 years from now. Actually, I don't need you to do that. I just need to look at all the "chaste" priests and their multitudinous sex scandals to know that doesn't work. It's not just the sexless Catholic priests, either, it's married Protestant preachers, who can presumably get some at home, boinking their secretaries and doing meth off the asses of prostitutes. Hello, your own holy men can't hack the prayer instead of sex diet, why do you expect that to work for the rest of us? Logic, anyone?
Why do I even ask? This is religion, we don't need no stinkin' reason.
Day after day after day I read blog posts and articles written by people who define their religion by their bigotries. "I'm not a homophobe, I'm a Christian." "I'm not a misogynist, I'm a Christian." "I'm not hateful, I'm godly."
For one thing, thank you. Thank you for making your entire religion so revolting I don't have any doubts. It's easier on me that way. The Slacktivist gives me doubts occasionally, so filled is he with generosity and love for his fellow man. He makes me think*. You do not.
You make me grateful for my atheism. Good job.
Good job to Chuck Colson, who can be counted on to make me feel good about my lack of ability to believe.
For the past year, we’ve talked a lot about the threat to religious freedom in America.
You've talked. I've been over here nattering on about equal rights for all the women and gays and atheists.
We’ve talked about Christian adoption agencies closing rather than being forced to place children with same-sex couples.
No, those are adoption agencies who decided it would be better to leave children in group homes and foster care than give them to couples who would love and raise them simply because of a burning hatred for those couples. Get it right. Gays didn't make anyone shut down adoption agencies, adoption agencies chose to hurt, or at least stop helping, children instead of giving up their hatreds. Don't mistake hatred for nobility.
We’ve talked about health care professionals having to choose between their consciences and participating in immoral medical practices.
No, those are doctors and nurses and pharmacists who have decided they know better than women- always women, never men- what those women should do with their own bodies. They know whether or not a woman can afford or wants to be pregnant, they know exactly what every woman should do with her body far better than she does. Don't mistake arrogance for professionalism.
We’ve talked about the Administration playing fast and loose with the notion of religious freedom-choosing instead to talk about freedom of “worship.”
It took me a second, but he's referring to Obama using the phrase "freedom of worship" instead of "freedom of religion", ignoring the fact that Reagan, Bush the Elder, Eisenhower and Lincoln all used the phrase "freedom of worship" and nobody clutched any pearls. Don't mistake sophistry for meaning.
But these threats to our first freedom pale in comparison to the threat posed by a single court case now before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
It's the gays again, isn't it?
The case is Perry v. Schwarzenegger, in which federal Judge Vaughn Walker overturned California’s Proposition 8 restricting marriage to one man and one woman. Judge Walker not only overturned the will of the people of California, he put all religious believers on notice: Their faith means nothing in the eyes of the law.
Actually, it’s even worse than that. The judge found as fact that “Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.”
If this judge’s decision is upheld by the Ninth Circuit and eventually the Supreme Court, the religious beliefs of hundreds of millions of Americans will be seen as harmful in the eyes of the law.
Yes, because the most important thing about Christianity is it's homophobia, just as Jesus said . . . wait, he didn't say that? He said the most important thing is loving your neighbor as yourself? Huh.
Why is it that I know that and Mr. Colson doesn't?
Judge Walker also concluded that, quote, “Many of the purported interests identified by proponents are nothing more than a fear or unarticulated dislike of same-sex couples.” End quote. So, according to Judge Walker, if you believe marriage should be reserved for one man and one woman, you are a homophobe and a bigot.
Well, yes, actually. I guess this is hurtful to you, but yes, that's exactly what it is. There's really nothing else I can say about that. The sky is blue, water is wet, you are a bigot.
Such legal reasoning not only charts the course for destroying religious liberty, it paves the way for societal chaos. Arguing against so-called same-sex "marriage" is not "gay bashing." It is an argument for preserving traditional marriage. I've spent 35 years ministering in prisons and have seen the tragic results of broken homes. I know the disaster that awaits if so-called same-sex "marriage" is allowed to further devalue marriage and weaken the traditional American family.
What do broken homes have to do with same sex marriage? Nothing, really, but Chuck has seen people in prison- prison!- and you should be afraid!
Fortunately, Chuck doesn't really have any answers, just a video and the Manhattan Declaration. I think we'll be okay on the Chuck front.
*I think Fred would be as good a person had he never heard of Jesus, but he does make belief attractive.
This is weapons grade stupid right here. So fucking stupid I'm losing brain function thinking about it. So fucking stupid I would think the writer would have been rendered catatonic, except that she's posted blog entries since, so the only conclusion I can draw is that homophobes are so saturated in stupid they have become immune to it.
If you think that sounds unnecessarily mean, keep reading. Just don't complain when you find yourself unable to do basic math or find the US on a map afterwards. I warned you.
(The following is supposed to be the result of DADT being repealed. Keep that in mind. The following is the result of a ruling that allows gays in the military to openly discuss their partners, just like their heterosexual compatriots have always been allowed to.)
Scene: Military base, mess hall. Several male soldiers are seated around a table.
Soldier A: So, yeah, then I got a call from my...
(He pauses, and looks down at the table.)
Soldier A: Sorry.
Soldier B: No problem. You were saying?
Soldier A: Yeah, I was on the phone and she said...wait, can I say that?
Soldier C: Um, I think so.
Soldier B: No, actually. You can tell us what you heard--no pronouns.
Soldier A: Right. Well, anyway...well...oh, forget it.
(There is silence. A female soldier enters and joins them.)
Soldier D: Hi, guys. Why so quiet?
Soldier A: (glumly) Oh...you know.
Soldier D: Let me guess. The Military Personnel Conversational Restriction Act?
Soldier B: Mmm-hmm.
Soldier C: Better know as the Just Shut Up Already Act.
If you are still able, please consider this for a moment. This fucking idiot truly believes that a gay soldier being allowed to say, "I talked to my boyfriend last night" without being kicked out of the military will lead to all soldiers being unable to talk about anything.
I'd ask how fucking stupid any one person can be, but there it is. That fucking stupid.
[another h/t to [redacted] who probably needs a good dose of prozac by now]
Remember our friends with the hate filled hearts? Well, now that antigay bullying is in the news again, tragically because of the suicide of a gay teen, they've decided that guns don't kill people*, gays kill themselves. And their hate filled hearts have nothing to do with it.
names have been changed to protect the innocent, and the hateful. (actually, i have no idea what the rule is with FB postings and privacy, so i'm covering my own ass.)
There is no good news in this story. None. It's sad, and it's endemic of the nightmares today's LGBT youth continue to face every. single. day. [another redacted],
[i have approached nazi levels of hate] Yes, it is terrible....for so many young to misunderstand their lives and be so confused as to embrace a life that leads them to these ends is horrible...children like these need all of the help that we can get for them (and don't give malarky about bullying, these kids are depressed without ever being bullied)...they need real love, caring, and concern...as well as a lot of help with their misunderstandings on sex and what is natural.
2 hours ago
[i'm an evil little man who deserves mockery] "Brown, his family said, was "bullied to death" — picked on for his small size, his religion and because he did not wear designer clothes and shoes." ....I agree with the idiot - NOM's support of designer shoes must end !!!
about an hour ago
[i am a reasonable person] If the schools don't start addressing the bullying issue and take a stand against bullies and their co-defendent parents there will be more and more suicides among young people. I was picked on my whole 12 years of school for being fat, believe me I know the scars it leaves behind.
exactly, beth. i was picked on just because i was somewhat smaller than the bullies of the school. i got beaten up, teased, tormented ... you name it.
did i use it as an excuse to end my life? no. now ... that is not to belittle the loss of... the brown family. i don't know asher's mental state, and i guess none of us ever really will. i completely agree with the "co-defendant" idea. if the kids are being bullies at school, the parents shoulder some, if not a lot, of the responsibility, if it can be shown that they're not doing something to alter the bully's path.See More
45 minutes ago
Nothing touches these people, does it? They look at the suffering they help cause and see only another chance to hate. I would say we are doomed, but I look back at history and see times where blacks were regarded as animals, when the Final Solution wasn't viewed as such a bad thing and then I look around today and think, "there is hope, but I doubt I'll live to see it." Well, if not me, perhaps my niece. Perhaps her children.
So we have to keep trying. And never forget about Asher. Ever.
*I despise the argument that guns don't kill people, people kill people. Sure, guns don't leap out of their holsters and fire themselves, but guns make it very easy to kill. If every killer had to kill with their bare hands, there would be a lot less murder in this world. You'd really have to want it and be physically capable of it.
You know Catholic Church officials think is worse than a priest molesting children? A priest having consensual gay sex. With an adult. Who is consenting.
I know, I wasn't surprised by that, either.
Mind you, Catholic Church officials knew they had priests who molested children and protected them by moving them from parish to parish for decades. They didn't call the cops, they didn't kick these priests out of the club, they protected the child molesting priests. But priests who go to gay clubs and have casual sex? They gotta go!
A gay priest sex scandal has rocked the Catholic Church in Italy today after a weekly news magazine released details of a shock investigation it had carried out.
Using hidden cameras, a journalist from Panorama magazine - owned by Italian Prime Minister and media baron Silvio Berlusconi - filmed three priests as they attended gay nightspots and had casual sex.
. . . .
The Vicar of Rome today called on homosexual clergymen in the Catholic Church to “come out” and leave the priesthood.
Yeah. We wouldn't want to give those priests a second chance. They clearly aren't as deserving as child molesters.
On an only somewhat related side note, I find the phrase "casual sex" highly amusing. I've been lots of things during sex, but I can't say I've ever been "casual".
Sex Ed 101 (Please, if you actually need Sex Ed, this ain't it. Email me. I've given the speech before.)
Human beings have corresponding they write letters to one another? fascinating. sexual organs sex organs. sexual organs, well, that's not what you mean. It's "their", unless you mean one sex organ primary function is to procreate on a biological scientific level. um, what? is there some other level of procreation? nonbiological procreation? unscientific procreation? wut?Human beings commabeing social creatures comma do more then just mate and abandon their offspring. because our offspring aren't capable of surviving on their own immediately. in fact, most mammals don't immediately abandon offspring. i'm not sure what the point is here.We all bond and form relationships through our biological kinship as children with our parents. It's how we are able to survive beyond birth. is this advanced tautology or is renee slamming adoption? i have no idea.
Our first social interaction is with our mother, or the doctor slapping your ass. i guess it depends upon what you mean by social.this is something highly encouraged in modern day society. but not 100 years ago? what do you mean?! Babies born for instance commas aren't helping that. "babies born"? as opposed to babies appearing suddenly out of nothing?are placed on the mother's chest, babies are to be with mother's stop molesting the innocent apostrophe. along their bedside, and moms whenever possible are encourage and supported to breastfeed. advanced tautology, then.
We also know through science, women don't just self-produce. i, from science, WUT?!Human life is created with an egg released at the time of ovulation in a woman's body, if sperm is present from the conjugal act (ejaculation of millions of sperm from a man's penis inside a woman's vagina) conception may occur and human life is created.
i can't even imagine what the point was there. really cannot imagine. "conjugal act"? does renee mean fucking? mah brane, it hurtz.
Hopefully for the nest Rouge Angles of Satin strike again! 38 weeks of gestation a human being will be present in a woman's uterus. i don't . . . i . . . "present"? does that make sense? Again hopefully a woman may have natural childbirth and have a new born baby. as opposed to an old born baby? WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY?!
Man + Woman (Heterosexual Sex) = Baby I'm glad renee explained (Heterosexual Sex), because we wouldn't want to confuse anyone that anal or oral sex might result in a baby. or, you know, birth control. or woman on top, that's just wrong.
My six year old is just figuring that one out! yeah, well, if you're the one teaching said sixDASHyearDASHold sex ed, I can see why they don't just understand it.
Not all sex is equal. yeah, [redacted ex] just wasn't nearly as proficient as [other redacted ex]. that's so true. Just saying.... I'm not a hateful bigot, i'm definitely leaning towards stupid bigot who needs to read a freakin' grammar book but I have to say that's a really uninformed poster. i've never found posters to be particularly informed. especially about sex. and biological, scientific babies.
There are plenty of posts here on Opine for anyone who has any more questions on this unique way every human being is created actually, if we're all created that way, it's hardly unique. in fact, basically all mammals procreate the way we do. just not unique, sorry. incredibly fun if ur doin' it rite, but not unique. in which I can link marriage to healthy fathers for a mother's offspring. i can link your stupidity to natural disasters, that doesn't make it true or relevant. It does sound quite logical considering a woman needed his sperm to create a baby.
according to renee, this is logic:
A. A man and a woman having unprotected sex will result in a baby a certain percentage of the time.
B. Teh Ghey Is Bad!
So, Renee, when you're done reading that grammar book- there will be a test, it will involve electricity- I suggest some Logic 101.
But either way, forget the commercial's message. The gays and lesbians have to be told flat out that their behavior is sin, regardless of what the world says.
