Apr 27
2007
JoeBrummer| Category: Hate Crime Laws, Hate Speech, Lies |
Cross posted at Replace the Lies With Truth
A man named, Aaron Hall (pictured) was found beaten and murdered and his body found wrapped in a tarp in his garage. The victim had been kicked with a pair of boot over 75 times. Hall was killed, admittedly by the assailants, because they thought he was gay. In reality, he was not.
The report from WTHR in Indianapolis says:
Police say on April 12th, Hall and the three suspects were drinking at Gray’s house. The suspects told police Hall grabbed Coleman King and questioned his sexuality. That set off the deadly beating.
“And they’re saying that’s why they killed him. Because he was gay. And he wasn’t gay,” said Thomas Hall. “I don’t know any crime on the planet that deserves that type of punishment.”
Court papers show Gray and King brutally attacked, then photographed Hall. King hit him with his boots at least 75 times. The suspects told police they dragged Hall down the steps, loaded him into Robert Hendricks’ truck, and dumped his body in a ditch. They say they went back two days later, and found Hall in a nearby field. That’s when they tell police they wrapped the body in a tarp and hid it in Gray’s garage.
To be beaten and kicked 75 times just because someone thinks you are gay is horrible. What a terrifying way to die. Studies indicate that hate crimes tend to be far more violent and brutal than non-biased crimes. That is certainly why we need punishments that fit the crime. Current sentencing guidelines are just not enough to speak to the brutality of hate crimes.
Here is some FACTS, not FICTION about hate crimes:
(more…)
Apr 26
2007
Punted| Category: DADT, Don't Ask, Don't Ask Don't Tell, Don't Tell, Pam's House Blend, Threats |
A press Release today from SLDN says that the Pentagon’s ‘TALON’ (Threat and Local Observation Notices) program that tracked student groups including LGBT activists and labled them a credible threat has been discontinued. This program was discovered back in December 2006 by NBC and was reported by Pam Spaulding and John Arivosis. Below is the press release from SLDN
The Department of Defense (DoD) has announced plans to discontinue its controversial Threat and Local Observation Notices (TALON) surveillance program, launched in 2003 track and monitor domestic terror threats. The program came under intense scrutiny after news reports revealed officials were collecting data on demonstrators and protestors, including those within the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community. In February 2006, Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) filed a federal lawsuit seeking information related to surveillance of LGBT activists and student groups. Documentation released in April 2006 found extensive monitoring of students opposed to the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law at New York University, the University of California at Berkeley, and the University of California at Santa Cruz.
“The Pentagon’s surveillance program undermined the constitution and eroded Americans’ privacy rights,” said Sharra E. Greer, director of law and policy for SLDN. “The freedom to dissent and the right to voice that dissent are fundamental bedrocks of American democracy. Rather than wasting time and money peeping through keyholes, the government should strengthen our country’s defense by lifting the ban on open service and welcoming every qualified American to our armed forces.”
In December 2005, Lisa Myers and NBC News reported that Pentagon investigators had records pertaining to protests at campuses across the country, including those organized to protest “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Among the demonstrations listed was a protest at New York University, coordinated with the law school’s LGBT advocacy group, OUTlaw, which was classified as “possibly violent” by the Pentagon. A UC-Santa Cruz “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” demonstration, which included a kiss-in, was also labeled as a “credible threat” of terrorism.
James R. Clapper, Jr., undersecretary of defense for intelligence, told reporters on Tuesday that he is moving to end the program. The Pentagon, Clapper said, “must lay to rest the distrust and concern about the department’s commitment to civil rights.” Clapper acknowledged problems with the TALON program, noting that, “The history of the intelligence community is replete with instances of abuse of civil liberties – well intended, but abuse nonetheless.” He said it is “important that the proper balance be struck between the counterintelligence mission, on one hang, and the protection of civil liberties, on the other.”
The real winners of this, are LGBT citizens who belong to organizations like the ones described above who a) appreciate the freedoms guaranteed to every citizen to peaceably assemble and express their grievances, b) don’t want their privacy violated and c) may want to join the armed services sometime in the near future to serve their country. However, it’s doubtful that any of those students would join until the ban on LGBT citizens is lifted.
Apr 20
2007
Punted| Category: Ex-Gay Issues, Exodus International, Fundies, Hate Crime Laws, Lies |
This week according to Baptist Press, professional “ex-gay”-for-pay Alan Chambers and about 50 “others” from Exodus International visited and met with members of the House and Senate to express their opposition of adding “sexual orientation and gender identity” to the existing hate crimes legislation as well as giving the FBI the tools to assist local law enforcement in investigating and prosecuting offenders of all bias related crimes.
“[R]eally what we’re saying is this legislation is unfair, because it means that I was more valuable as a homosexual than I am today as a former homosexual,” Chambers told reporters before he began visiting on Capitol Hill April 17. “You know, this law would give special protection to those who are gay and lesbian, yet it doesn’t give any protection to those who are children. That’s saying that a gay man is more valuable than a child, is more valuable than a grandmother, is more valuable than the majority of Americans. That’s just not fair.”
The bill is “primarily being pushed by those in the homosexual activist community, really as a reinforcement that homosexuality is valid, that they need protection, and that’s just not the case,” said Chambers, who left homosexuality 15 years ago and has been married for more than nine years. “[Homosexuals are] protected as much as I am protected under the Fourteenth Amendment.”
The first and most important part, is that Alan Chambers, “formerly” gay himself, asserts that we are invalid! What? I’m not valid? As I live, breath, love, read, work, pay taxes, I can assure you that I and countless other people in America and throughout the planet are very valid and very real. The fact that most “pro-family” organizations put scare quotes around the word gay and homosexual as though we do not exist is very telling, but to outright say it is well that’s just what we want. Yes, we want Exodus International, and all of the other right wing organizations to relegate themselves into obscurity by showing just how truly hateful they are.
Secondly, Alan, who obviously “left” the homosexual “lifestyle” because he was tired of being a second class citizen, has now said that he thinks it’s unfair for him because it will somehow make him less valuable now than if he had “stayed” a homosexual. Newsflash for Alan, the legislation will make our lives equally valuable to his currently superior RELIGIOUS protection. Children and the elderly already enjoy a higher degree of protection than the rest of us! How do I know? Watch the news. How many stories a day are about children and how they’re treated? How many stories are there about the elderly and how they’re treated? Society will always hold special protection for children and the elderly because THEY ARE THE DEFENSELESS or as Christ would call them “the meak.”
A few questions for Alan. Is your life somehow less valuable to a black person because you are not a racial minority? Oh wait, ALL racial qualities are protected from race related hate crimes. Is your life somehow less valuable because you were born American and not in a foreign country? Nope, because national origin also includes the United States from origin related crimes based in bias. Are you somehow less valuable as a Christian than as a Jew, or a Muslim? Nope, because Religion is also a protected class. So what you’re really saying is that you would oppose all hate crimes legislation if and only if “sexual orientation and gender identity” were added as a protected class. Until this bill passes and is signed into law, the lives of gays and lesbians will continue to be worth less than that of heterosexuals.
Alan Chambers, don’t be afraid to say what you really mean. We already know it, but say it for all of those that don’t.
h/t to Reality Cubed
Apr 19
2007
Punted| Category: 2008 Elections, Barack Obama, DADT, Don't Ask Don't Tell, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, John McCain, Rudy Juliani, Tom Tancredo, Uncategorized |
Running along-side ‘08 Candidate Sen. Obama, Clinton and Edwards both say they support the repeal of the Sodomy statute in the UCMJ, Article 125. Frontlines:
Today, Gay City News reports that two other candidates in the ‘08 field have also indicated their support for repealing Article 125:
“In the wake of Gay City News’ story last week reporting that four of the Democratic presidential hopefuls had gone on the record in opposition to the ban on sodomy in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the party’s current frontrunners, Illinois Senator Barack Obama, New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, and former North Carolina Senator John Edwards told this newspaper that they too believe the policy must change.
Seven of the eight contenders for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination have in the past two weeks stepped up in support of the privacy rights of gay military personnel.”
The paper goes on to report that, “Jin Chon, a Clinton campaign spokesperson, wrote, also via e-mail, ‘During Senator Clinton’s recent remarks to the Human Rights Campaign, she agreed with Justice [Anthony] Kennedy, who wrote in Lawrence v. Texas, that ‘times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.’ Therefore, Sen. Clinton believes that the Lawrence decision should be extended to the military as well.’
An April 18 e-mail from Kate Bedingfield, an Edwards spokeswoman, stated that the 2004 vice presidential nominee ‘believes that the treatment of all service members should be based on their role in maintaining national security, not their sexual orientation. The Uniform Code of Military Justice should conform to the Supreme Court’s decision in Lawrence v. Texas.‘”
Joining the Red Team to block their path to drop kick this football is Rudy Juliani who previously tried assisting the Blue team in such endeavors, John McCain who now favors the status quo Tom Tancredo and the rest.
Sitting out this play is Bill Richardson of the Blue Team.
Apr 19
2007
Punted| Category: Americans for "Truth", Lies, Peter LaBarbera |
How can students in the United States of America be allowed to promote the acceptance of homosexuality (e.g., the national Day of Silence) but not criticize it? Remember: many people of faith (and others) do not agree with the modern, trendy notion of “gayness” as personhood — i.e., that it is a part of a person’s intrinsic identity. Instead, they view homosexuality as changeable, unnatural and/or sinful behavior, as evidenced by the many men and women who once considered themselves “gay” but have since left their homosexual lifestyle behind. Judge Hart’s decision creates classic viewpoint discrimination in a public, taxpayer-funded forum (schools) and we hope ultimately that it will be struck down in appeal. I trust that even some of our “gay” critics will see how this ruling is incompatible with the First Amendment.– Peter LaBarbera
Well, Peter, since you said “I” could call you that, but the problem with your statment is…a public school, even though it is run by the government, has the right to limit certain speech. They can limit speech, in the form of signs, banners, and clothing, that goes contrary to policy and law. An example is a student wearing a t-shirt that says “One Tequila, two Tequila, three Tequila, Floor” because that kind of message is incompatible with an alcolhol and drug free environment. Schools can also keep students from wearing shirts with disruptive messages or words on them like F*ck, Sh*t, and D*mn or even saying them and is incompatible with a learning environment. Finally a public school has a responsibility to uphold the fundamental right that students have to a safe friendly and inclusive environment.
An inclusive, safe, and friendly environment cannot be maintained when students are presented with messages that they are not welcome because of some difference that they may or may not have. Students can’t be expected to feel included when a message is being worn by others that say they are immoral, sinners, or that they should change when EVERY CREDIBLE MAINSTREAM PSYCHOLOGICAL ORGANIZATION DENOUNCES SUCH PRACTICES as destructive to one’s mental health. The added hostility and intimidation that students would feel from such a message
Publicly funded schools also have an obligation to prevent messages of faith from ostracizing students who may not share the same faith. If they did that would send a message of established religion which would be against the First Amendment rights of the students that they teach. By this simple logic, the First Amendment rights of the students are being upheld in your school. Whereas, if the message was being squelched on a public street corner, or actually in a church, then yes, their First Amendment rights would be violated and the individuals would have a legitimate case on their hands.
“I” hope this clears things up for you, because otherwise I’m sure your school will let you sit in on a few civics classes.
Apr 17
2007
Punted| Category: Uncategorized |
Barack Obama, a Blue Team Forward and candidate for Head Referee has caught the political football and in an unprecedented maneuver is actually running with it towards the end-zone! Which one of us footballs has he grabbed you ask? He’s taken up the Sodomy Ban (Article 125 of the UCMJ) and declared it needed to be dropped.
From SLDN’s FrontLines Blog:
Illinois Senator (and 2008 Democratic presidential candidate) Barack Obama has gone on the record opposing Article 125, the military’s ban on sodomy.
In response to a Gay City News article last week, Senator Obama’s campaign now says he opposes the sodomy ban. The paper says it will publish an update to its original story, reflecting Obama’s position, in its next issue, on April 19th. The Senator joins Christopher Dodd, Dennis Kucinich, Joe Biden and Mike Gravel in opposing the ban.
Apr 15
2007
JoeBrummer| Category: American Family Association, Americans for "Truth", Cross-Posted, Exodus International, Family Research Council, Hate Speech, Lies, Peter LaBarbera |
Crossed posted at Replace the Lies with Truth
A 1933 article published in a German magazine made one of the first calls for the extermination of the Jews. It should have been the first sign for people to be wary of the Nazi’s and what immoral things they were planning. Sadly, we know that over 6 million Jews, Homosexuals, Gypsies and others were in fact exterminated. The last part of the 1933 article states:
The Jewish people is the people of the Devil. It is a people of criminals and murderers. The Jewish people must be exterminated from the face of the earth.
Now here were are in the year 2007 making the same mistakes all over again. Anti-gay activists including Peter La Barbera, Exodus International, the American Family Association, and many others are touting the work of anti-gay propagandist, Paul Cameron. While I think it is great that pro-gay writers like Jim Burroway of Box Turtle Bulletin and RTLWT writer Kevin Kaatz have exposed the most recent study by Dr. Cameron for all its lies, flaws and propaganda like qualities, I can’t help fear that the greater and more alarming issue is that anti-gay activists, much like Nazi supporters of the early part of the 20th century are giving further platform to a scientist who has called for the extermination of gays and lesbians. Paul Cameron, speaking to a 1985 Political Action Conference made the following comments:
“Unless we get medically lucky, in three or four years, one of the options discussed will be the extermination of homosexuals.”
Former US Surgeon General, C. Evert Koop, states that Dr. Paul Cameron has been suggesting the extermination of gays and lesbians since 1983, yet the machine known to us as the anti-gay industry has been using this man’s writings for years and continue to do so even after this has been made public. Aside from the fact Dr. Cameron’s work is flawed; Aside from the fact Dr. Cameron has misrepresented the place he has printed and presented this flawed work, one has to ask: Why is Peter La Barbera and the rest of this machine using the work of a man who is calling for a systematic genocide of gays and lesbians?
Mr. La Barbera has gone as far as to try and defend Dr. Cameron with this statement before printing Dr. Cameron’s latest research:
Homosexual activists reject out-of-hand any research that shows homosexual behavior, generally speaking, is unhealthy compared to normal sexuality.
Homosexual activists, as well as everyone on this planet should reject the work of Dr. Paul Cameron. After any man on this planet calls for the extermination of an entire group of people, we as a human race should reject anything they say further. Why this is past Mr. La Barbera and why he would defend the work of a man calling for murder is beyond my understanding. I would suggest to Mr. La Barbera to retract the statements he has made in support of Cameron’s work, and remove the article promoting the work of the evil scientist.
I would urge all to read the sources and references on any anti-gay science they read on the websites of Americans for Truth, the American Family Association, Stephen Bennett, Concerned Women for America, Matt Barber and others for the name Cameron and reject it. These are all people who have, at one point or another used or help to further through others, Dr. Cameron’s work to dehumanize and demonize gays and lesbians.
If any of them are curious why GLBT people call their speech hate, this is it! This is the reason!
Apr 12
2007
Punted| Category: Debate, Fundies, Good-As-You, Hate Crime Laws, Hate Speech, Lies, Threats, Video, Violence |
A big hand to Jeremy at Good As You for the hat tip on this one.
Old Lou-ser Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition created a really interesting video in which he makes the standard set of lies about the pending hate crimes legislation in Congress. Specifically, H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007. But then he throws an easily fact checkable lie out there to further bait his audience into frantically calling their Reps and Senators to squash this bill Immediately.
Surf on over to Jeremy’s Pad to view the video for yourselves. Careful, it’s a doozy!
After the fold read the letter I sent to Lou. I’ll be sure to post a response should I get one! (more…)
Apr 11
2007
Kevin| Category: Uncategorized |
I occasionally post on my own blog comics/political comics from The Bad Reporter, (The LIES behind the TRUTH, and the TRUTH behind those LIES that are behind that TRUTH) drawn by Don Amussen. Here is another that I thought was totally hilarious (it is one of three). Considering all the hypocrisy of the adulterers and many divorces and remarriages of the ’sanctity of marriage crowd’ I thought this was pretty appropriate:
The small text reads:
Institution of 3rd Marriage is in Danger, Gingrich Warns. But GOP hard-liners are quick to warn voters that the more centrist Rudy Giuliani does support gay third civil unions as an alternative.
Apr 11
2007
Kevin| Category: Uncategorized |
The other day I sent an email to three people who are running the Eastern Psychological Association (and I know that others sent email as well, such as Jim Burroway at Box Turtle Bulletin). Prof. Hineline, the President of the EPA, just sent me back an email and stated that:
“it is suitable for for public distribution, provided that quotations from it are not lifted out of context.”
So if you copy this (and please send it out everywhere), then copy the whole thing:
Paul Cameron and Kirk Cameron have posted for circulation a controversial and lengthy manuscript that purports, via the tagline at the bottom each page, to be the account of a presentation at the March 2007 meeting of the Eastern Psychological Assocition. The title of that manuscript, as well as its main emphasis, focuses upon an issue that was not present in the title nor was it in the supporting materials that were submitted by the Camerons for a poster presentation at EPA.
The submitted title, which appears in the EPA printed program, is: “Federal distortion of homosexual footprint.” The accompanying Abstract asserts that the proportion of the Canadian population identified as lesbian, gay and bisexual is substantially lowered if adults over age 60 are included than if they are excluded from the sample. The asserted implication is that federal agencies are exaggerating the size of the homosexual proportion of the population by excluding adults over 60 from the assessments.
In contrast, the manuscript at issue carries the title: “Federal Distortion Of Homosexual Footprint (Ignoring early Gay Death?).” Two of the three paragraphs in its accompanying Abstract focus upon the topic of the added parenthetical phrase, which is an inference — indeed a topic — that was not present in the materials submitted to EPA. Irrespective of its potential for controversy, it is highly unlikely that the augmented/altered version would have been accepted for presentation, for there clearly are many reasons other than differential longevity that could result in the under-reporting of homosexuals over 60.
Whatever its content, even the format of the manuscript to which the EPA identification has been affixed — a manuscript of more than 7000 words plus three tables and six graphs, would have been completely inappropriate as a poster presentation, which was the venue in which Dr. Cameron proposed to participate in the meeting.
To clarify the relevant history and circumstances:
After putting out the call for submissions to be proposed for the EPA meeting, we typically receive over 700 submissions as was the case this year. These submissions are divided into categories (e.g. Animal Learning, Social psychology, etc ..) and each section is reviewed by a volunteer on the program committee. As each submission typically has at least two authors, vetting authors against other organizations’ lists of people with problematic ethical records is simply an impossibility, especially given the time-frame of preparations for an annual convention.
For acceptance, a work had to be complete, be methodologically sound using proper data collection techniques and/or experimental methods, the conclusions had to be derivable from the presented results, and the topic deemed to be one that could stimulate interest and discussion among those attending the meeting.
The submission by Dr. Cameron indicated that there was a possibility that the prevalence of homosexuals in the population had been overestimated by previous techniques. Data were presented, reportedly using a broader defined sample than that used by government agencies, which indicated that the prevalence of homosexuality in the population was smaller than had been previously suggested. The submission by Dr. Cameron was for a poster presentation, and it was accepted as a poster, not as a paper or address. Whatever the Camerons ultimately presented, occurred in an hour-long “poster session” among approximately 70 posters.
There was nothing in the materials submitted by the author for review by EPA that indicated that the work could, or would, be informative with respect to the longevity of homosexuals.
Sincerely,
Philip N. Hineline
President, Eastern Psychological Association
Apr 09
2007
JoeBrummer| Category: Cross-Posted, Ex-Gay Issues, Exodus International, Hate Speech, Peter LaBarbera, Uncategorized |
Daniel Gonzales wrote a great video piece on the “Day of Truth”. It has been release by “Truth Wins Out“. Dan examines the lies and misinformation behind the “Day of Truth” and shows you how their is sadly, little truth in the day of truth or the anti-gay industry behind it!
Apr 09
2007
JoeBrummer| Category: Americans for "Truth", Cross-Posted, Hate Speech, Peter LaBarbera, Uncategorized |
Paul Cameron, almost famous for distorted research, has once again put out some shady statistics on how married gays die younger. The conclusions reached in this latest study not only are absurd, they have been misrepresented to the Christian Press as way more legit than they are. This hasn’t stopped Americans for Truth and others from shouting from the rooftops how gays die younger and that homosexuality is worse than smoking.
Jim Burroway over at Boxturtle Bulletin has the details on the Cameron and Cameron study.
Jim writes:
In 1993, Paul Cameron, of the Family Research Institute, began touting a paper he said he presented at the Eastern Psychological Association entitled, “The lifespan of homosexuals.” Using obituaries from various gay newspapers around the country, Cameron claimed that the average lifespan for gay men was a mere 42 years. For lesbians, the average was 44.
While that study was roundly criticized for its ridiculous methodology, those statistics have persisted as a sort of macabre urban legend among some anti-gay activists. Among them include Christopher Rosik, a California psychologist who cites Cameron’s lifespan figure as justification for sexual orientation conversion therapy.
Well, Cameron’s at it again, hijacking the Eastern Psychological Association’s reputation once again to claim that gays and lesbians in registered partnerships in Denmark and Norway experience a lifespan up to 24 years shorter than their heterosexual counterparts. His latest claims are already being picked up by anti-gay activists, conservative news organizations, blogs, and pundits. Conservative columnist Armstrong Williams commented on Cameron’s claims and asked, “Considering these statistics, do you now believe that vulnerable children should be raised in such an unstable environment?” It’s only a matter of time before these statistics make their way into the mainstream media.
Cameron’s paper, “Federal Distortion of Homosexual Footprint,” is filled with all the strange and bogus statistics we’ve come to expect from him. I examined his methods and in my latest report, “Paul Cameron’s Footprint,” I show you why the claims he makes based on data from Denmark and Norway are completely worthless. My conclusions:
Yes, Cameron is up to his same old tricks again. You can bet that this won’t be the last time we hear from him. And no matter how ridiculous his methodologies may be, he will continue to provide statistical fodder for the anti-gay lobby. But with his latest paper on the “Homosexual Footprint,” he doesn’t have a leg to stand on. This time, as always, his “footprint” is planted firmly in his mouth.
You can read the whole report here.
Apr 06
2007
JoeBrummer| Category: Hate Speech, Uncategorized |
Stacy Harp, now writing for Renew America, has an interesting opinion piece rolling around the web titled “Language does matter when it comes to homosexuals“. She writes this time about how gay advocates prefer the word “gay” over the word “Homosexual”. The basic argument she makes is that those with same sex attractions are homosexual, not gay. She touts over and over in the article about how gays and lesbian desires are all about “SEX”, but that view is pretty short sighted and superficial.
Stacy writes:
The bottom line is that the truth is that a person who has sexual attraction to a person of their same gender is a homosexual. It is about sexual desires and what the homosexual activists and media want to tell you is that it has nothing to do with sexual behavior or desires. Don’t fall for their language trap by using the word gay or lesbian. Because there is nothing “gay” about being homosexual. And a homosexual is a person who desires to have sexual relations with someone of their same gender.
The real issue here is that Stacy, like many people in the religious right, fail to see that homosexuality is not just about a desire for sex. It is about attractions, not just physical, but emotional attractions to members of the same sex. See, it is convenient to her argument to leave that very important part of the story out of it. She wants her readers to only see one small part of what homosexuality is about, sex. She figures if she can make it all about sex, it somehow makes gays and lesbians look just a little more evil. Also, by only focusing on the sex it removes any reference to what being gay is really about, love.
The real bottom line is that gays and lesbians are attracted to “people” of the same gender, not just for sex but emotional reasons. If it was all about sex, then gay relationships would just end in the morning after the sex, but that isn’t the case. GLBT folks don’t have just a desire for sex with someone of the same gender, but also a desire for companionship, family and love. Stacy, like many misinformed individuals in the religious right, don’t understand or just wish to ignore that gays and lesbians in committed, long term relationships are in it for love, not sex.
Another major point in this that Stacy left out is that this argument works both ways. Conservative anti-gay media outlets and anti-gay activists like Stacy prefer to use the term “homosexual” as opposed to “gay” for the same reasons that gay media does the reverse. They know they can shock and incite fear more effectively using the term “homosexual” which tends to have negative reactions, which is exactly what they want. Ms. Harp and those like her wouldn’t be as effective at invoking fear in others about homosexuality if they used the term “Gay” or “GLBT”.
Use of such terms becomes much like violence since the goal is to hurt others. If Stacy had written her article using terms like “gay” as opposed to homosexual, the same post would loose the edge of hate she is aiming it to have. The article has little to do with gay rights, she wasn’t reporting on any action or legislation, she is just picking out another thing she dislikes about gay people and writing about it so others will dislike that about gay people as well. That why I would call it hate speech rather than good writing. What other point is there to her article other than hate? What is the end purpose of her article other than having the reader have another bullet point they can use to hate gay people? Is she trying to educate people about gays? I wouldn’t think so or she would have been more accurate in her facts and given her readers the whole story. Is she really going to be so shallow as to think this is all about getting laid?
Next month, my partner and I will celebrate our 7th anniversary. It was seven years ago I was gay bashed outside a Providence, RI Club. It was my partner who took me to the hospital, stayed with me and later took me to his apartment so I wouldn’t have to go home alone with broken bones. I can honestly say our meeting, our friendship and our relationship is built in a solid diet of love, trust, companionship and fun not sex. Contrary to Stacy’s misinformation, we have a “gay” life and I mean gay in the happy way, not the homo way.
Apr 05
2007
Kevin| Category: Uncategorized |
(I’ve cross-posted this at my blog and at Replace the Lies with Truth)
I’ve been putting some syllabi together for some American history courses I want to eventually teach. I find that I am very interested in the early U.S. history, from before the Revolution through the Civil War (I am an early church/Roman historian by trade). And not surprisingly, I really like the religious history of the U.S. I also like that many of things that I blog about currently are tying into what I am reading, especially on the formation of the new government and its laws against religious persecution and laws set up to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. These two issues, I believe, highlight the struggle that gays and lesbians are dealing with.
All of these anti-gay laws are based on religious principles and when enacted into law, it breaks both of these founding-father principles: no one is obligated to practice a particular religion, including even having a religion at all; and minorities need to be protected from a vicious majority. The anti-gay marriage laws that are sweeping the country are good examples of this. If you look at any of the anti-gay websites, what legislators have to say, or what people have to say about gay marriage, they quote the Bible as justification for their beliefs. I think the lawsuits against these anti-gay laws should all be abolished by the Supreme Court just for this reason. I should not have to live under the religious law of anyone. People who want to be religious can live their own lives according to the principles they choose, but when they force their religious beliefs on the whole population, then something is seriously wrong with our government and it goes against the very principles that created this government in the first place. And this is especially the case when the federal government supports suppressing a minority–and this covers any minority.
Religious principles should be kept in religious institutions and those who follow these religions. They should not be used to create laws. I do, however, understand that some religious ideas are used to create good laws, such as “thou shall not kill.” However, when religious laws are used to condone the practice of slavery, or to continue the punishment of gays and lesbians, then there are serious problems. And these are problems that gays and lesbians are facing today. That is why the court system and the legislature, both state and federal, should be treating these anti-gay laws as both religious persecution, and as an example of the tyranny of the majority. When the courts and the legislatures support these laws, then they are perverting the very principles upon which our country is founded.
Apr 04
2007
Kevin| Category: Uncategorized |
(I’ve cross-posted this at my blog)
This was the title of a letter (Worthiness and Marriage) to the editor in today’s San Francisco Chronicle. It was written by Rev. John Malloy, S.D.B. Someone had recently written a piece about the discrimination that gays and lesbians go through when they are denied marriage equality. The good reverend disagrees. Here is his letter:
Worthiness and marriage
Editor — The most ridiculous argument offered for the justification of gay and lesbian marriage is that expressed in The Chronicle’s April 3 article, “Marriage law battle goes to high court:” “The marriage exclusion tells lesbian and gay men that they are less worthy than child abusers or sex offenders, or convicts in prison for murder.”
Where is the discrimination? Gays and lesbians have a right to get married to each other! But gays want to be married to gays and lesbians to lesbians. So what is the purpose of marriage? According to the gay and lesbian mind-set, any two people should be able to enjoy sex together, despite the genders involved, and call it marriage.
To effect this, we must change the definition and principle purpose of marriage: union of man and woman and the begetting of children, without which there will be no human society.
Are bachelors and spinsters not worthy member of society? I fail to understand how the changing of the definition and purpose of marriage would make gays and lesbians more worthy members of our society.
Rev. JOHN MALLOY, S.D.B.
SS Peter & Paul Church
San Francisco
My comments:
1) Malloy used the same old and tired reasons for not allowing gays and lesbians to get married. Oh wait, he claims we can get married–just to members of the opposite sex. So does Malloy want people to be in a sham marriage, where there is no love or sexual desire for each other? Maybe he thinks that would solve the problem, but he is sadly mistaken.
2) Malloy makes a mistake by equating having sex with marriage (”According to the gay and lesbian mind-set, any two people should be able to enjoy sex together, despite the genders involved, and call it marriage”). If that were the case, there would be many more marriages than he could handle. What he doesn’t understand is that love makes a marriage–and sex is a by-product of that love.
2) Malloy seems to think that without straight couples in a marriage, the human race would end. Surely Malloy must know that gays and lesbians have forever had children–some when they were in these sham marriages that Malloy seems to think we can be in and be happy. Children will come regardless, if that is what gays and lesbians want. And I wonder if Malloy thought out his new definition–there are many married people who either don’t want kids, or can’t have kids. Is he going to have them divorced because they are not perpetuating the species as he would like? Maybe he supports the ballot proposal in Washington State that will annul marriages that do not produce children within three years…
3) Bachelors and spinsters are worthy members of society. However, what Malloy doesn’t understand is that these bachelors and spinsters have made their own choice to be un-partnered (and I have to wonder if some of these bachelors and spinsters are actually gay and have been forced into their situation by views like Malloy). Unlike them, I am forced to be legally single, despite being together with my partner for fifteen years. I am forced to be legally single because laws are passed in this country based on religious principles of the majority. This is religious persecution on minorities and this is why I think all of these anti-gay marriage laws need to be overturned. They are based on religious laws and this country, at least the last time I checked, is not a theocracy.
4) As I’ve said before, I don’t feel that Malloy and his other priestly friends have any moral authority to enforce their views on the rest of the population. Christianity has a male god with no female counterpart. It has a male God-Son, who apparently never has sex with anyone, despite the fact that Christ should be fully human. Even the idea that Christ might have human genitals (as witnessed recently with the chocolate Jesus) puts people into fits. The Catholic church does not allow its priests and nuns to marry (and this wasn’t always the case, by the way). This could explain Malloy’s misunderstanding that for gays and lesbians, sex=marriage. If he has made the choice not to love a spouse, then I can forgive him for that misunderstanding. However, I don’t feel that they are good examples to be teaching about families or what families are.
