The Gaytheist Agenda

A Site that calls itself iProtectMarriage.com has everything to appeal to the bigots and people who might be leaning toward their side. Persuasive language, a video “quiz” to help you discover how wrong you are to even consider voting NO on Proposition 8, and plenty of pictures of young adults and children. Won’t somebody please think of the children? What they don’t have are facts, though they claim to. Their “facts” are opinions and propaganda masquerading as facts, which is typical of these sites. So here we go with the nonsense.

Prop. 8 isn’t out to remove rights. In America, we all have the “right” to have a relationship. But what about the legal right to marry?

* For centuries, civil marriage protected society and children by making marriage a legal institution between a man and a woman.
…
The question is, why stop there? If gays have a right to get married, then how can they say a man doesn’t have the right to marry his daughter, or a minor, or three women?

Actually Proposition 8 is out to remove rights. Currently same-sex couples in California have the legal right to marry. If Proposition 8 passes they will lose that right.

For centuries marriage was “protected” by prohibiting interracial unions. Nobody other than lunatic fringe bigots currently suggests we resurrect those laws. But many still think it’s fine to deny equal marriage to same-sex couples.

Notice the standard slippery-slope argument. Allowing same-sex couples marriage equality means we must allow unions between any number of spouses, adults and their children, humans and animals, etc. They never can understand the difference between two consenting, non-related adults and what they’re describing. Then again, logic and rationality aren’t their strong suits.

Q: Isn’t banning gay marriage just like banning interracial marriage?
A: It’s completely unrelated. Blacks who endured prejudice can’t wake up in the morning and not be black. None of us can be counseled out of our race or ethnicity. But homosexual behavior is a choice, and countless gays and lesbians have left the homosexual lifestyle.

Complete and utter lie. The only people who claim and believe being gay is a choice are the homophobic bigots. The American Psychiatric Association and American Psychological Association both have stated that homosexuality is a natural and normal orientation that is unchangeable. They’ve also stated that efforts to change it, so-called “reparative therapy”, are ineffective and harmful to gay people. Nobody has ever “left the homosexual lifestyle”, whatever that is. They have only been bullied, shamed and harassed into pretending they’re not gay in order to please others.

Marriage between a man and a woman goes far beyond procreation.

While death, divorce, and other circumstances may prevent it in many cases, the best environment for raising children is traditional marriage. More than ten thousand studies document significant advantages kids experience when raised by committed and loving moms and dads.

Benefits include:

* Lower poverty rates: On average kids from never married homes spend 51% of their childhood in poverty compared to only 7% for kids in married homes
* Lower crime rate: Kids from married homes are less than half as likely to end up in jail as children of broken homes
* Lower suicide rate: Kids from married homes are six times less likely to commit suicide than those from divorced homes
* Better health: Kids from married homes are generally physically and emotionally healthier when they reach adulthood than kids from unmarried homes

None of that has anything to do with same-sex couples, but instead addresses children affected by divorce or single parenting. If the real issue is protecting the children and their futures from the horrors of homes broken by not having two parents, how about we outlaw divorce and single parenthood for heterosexual couples instead of banning same-sex marriage?

Q: Isn’t it better for a kid to have parents who are the same sex, rather than no parents, or abusive ones?
A: No one wants kids to grow up without parents. But children raised by a married mom and dad do better in school, are healthier emotionally and physically, and are less likely to commit crimes, use drugs, and have children out of wedlock. Sure there are exceptions. But exceptions should not be the rule.

Another lie. Studies have shown that children raised by same-sex couples are as happy and healthy as those raised by opposite-sex couples. What the RRRW likes to do is take studies that show children fare better when they have two parent households (as opposed to single parent households) and use that to falsely claim that they need “both a mother and a father”. Yet another way they misrepresent legitimate studies to advance their anti-gay agenda.

If Prop. 8 loses, children as young as kindergartners must be taught same-sex marriage.

Public schools are required to teach the role of marriage in society. If Prop. 8 passes, that won’t change.

If Prop. 8 does not pass, children as young as kindergartners must be taught about same-sex marriage.

My lovely wife has already addressed that particular lie.

Q: Isn’t all the latest science saying that gays are born that way?
A: If there is a scientifically proven gay gene it hasn’t been discovered. But even if there is a genetic cause of desire, that doesn’t mean society should redefine marriage because of it.

That statement, above all others, proves that their entire campaign is based upon hatred and intolerance. They don’t care one iota about truth. They only care about maintaining their alleged superiority over us.

Simply put, traditional marriage is better for us, mentally, physically and psychologically. We’re not making it up; public health statistics confirm this. That’s just another reason why Prop. 8 needs to be passed.

Take just one example: Men in traditional marriages are way better off than unmarried men.

* They live longer: Unmarried men have a 250% higher mortality rate.
* They’re happier: The latest data show that 40% of married people say they are very happy with their life in general, compared with less than 25% of single or cohabitating individuals.
* They’re richer: Married men earn more too… 10-40% more than single or cohabitating men.

What this means is that fewer of your tax dollars go to pay for social programs caused by unhealthy and unwise living.

No sources are cited for these statistics, which is typical for RRRW sites. But let’s presume they’re remotely accurate for the sake of argument. What we have here is not an argument for “traditional marriage” at all. It’s an argument for marriage, period. If marriage is so beneficial to society, and apparently to men specifically, how is it that banning millions from taking part in it is a good thing? Voting NO on Proposition 8 would allow more people to experience the obvious benefits of marriage, and lead to a healthier, happier society.

Q: Heterosexuals and homosexuals both can form healthy married relationships–why shouldn’t they?
A: No one is telling gays and lesbians who they can fall in love with, and civil unions give them the same rights as marriage.

Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships are the “Colored Only” drinking fountains of the 21st century. No matter how well crafted and intentioned they do not provide the same rights, privileges and protections that marriage does. This has been discovered in Vermont, New Jersey, California and countless other states where such unions have been implemented. Separate but Equal simply isn’t. Only marriage is equal to marriage.

Churches, synagogues, mosques and other centers of worship have beliefs, practices, and traditions they use to determine what heterosexual couples must meet prior to marriage. That isn’t bias; that’s freedom of religion.
The government doesn’t (as of yet) tell faith-based groups who they can…

* baptize
* confirm
* accept for a bar mitzvah
* qualify for any other religious function.

If same-sex marriage remains legal, what will happen if a church or religious institution refuses to perform a marriage ceremony for individuals that runs contrary to its belief system? If it refuses, it may be accused of discrimination and be subject to a lawsuit. That is not freedom of religion.

More hysteria. No church will ever be forced to perform a wedding for a same-sex couple, or sued because they refuse. Likewise no church has ever been forced to marry an atheist couple, a Muslim couple, a Satanist couple, etc.–or ever been sued because they refused.

Those who offer their services to the public, however, and arbitrarily refuse to serve same-sex couples, may experience problems. The Ocean Grove Pavilion is a prime example of this. The RRRW loves to cite this as an example of a “church” being sued for not marrying a gay couple, but in reality it was about a church-owned boardwalk pavilion that was rented to the public–until two lesbians wanted to rent it for their wedding. The “deeply held religious beliefs” excuse is quite flimsy when it’s only used against one particular group. But I recall a saying about consistency and small minds, and that is what we’re dealing with here after all.

Q: Isn’t this belief stuff just a cover for gay bashing?
A: Protecting marriage between one man and one woman isn’t being against gays and lesbians. Instead, it’s in favor of safe and happy children, a healthy society, and the freedom to express your religious beliefs.

Once again, children are just as safe and happy with same-sex parents as they are with opposite-sex parents. Homosexuality is a natural part of life and not a scourge on society. And you can express your “religious beliefs” all you want, but that doesn’t mean you can use them to keep others from having equal rights. The Civil Rights Act hasn’t prevented groups like the KKK from expressing their beliefs, and voting no on Proposition 8 wouldn’t do a thing to stop homophobes from expressing their “deeply held religious beliefs”. It would only provide equal marriage rights to same-sex couples. So ultimately their entire argument is all a cover for gay bashing.

Okay, listen to this and don’t let your eyes glaze over. The legal and civil definition of marriage as between a man and a woman has gone unchallenged for centuries, providing a foundation for the growth of Western civilization. That means your way of life.

If we allow any other sexual relationship to have the same social and financial status as marriage - be it man-man, woman-woman, man-daughter, etc. we will degrade marriage, get less of it and further weaken society and civilization.

My, they love revisionist history and slippery slopes.

Marriage has not always been defined as between a man and a woman. Over the course of history and around the world same-sex marriages have been recognized, as have polygamous unions. We also can’t forget the Biblical concept of marriage with one or more wives and multiple concubines.

Marriage has evolved continuously over the course of history. Why do some people think that it should stop doing so on their say-so?

Q: How does gays getting married affect others? Live and let live!
A: Rejecting the traditional definition of marriage (as between a man and woman) means it’s open to whatever anyone thinks it is, and that includes extreme stuff like polygamy, man-boy love, and multiple partners. Where does it end?

Will they ever reach the bottom of this slope? BTW, people predicted allowing interracial marriage would spell doom. In fact, the arguments against interracial marriage were eerily similar to those currently used against same-sex marriage. Makes you think, eh?

So that’s what the pro-8 people have to offer. Propaganda, hysteria, hand-wringing and lies. Really, they should just come right out and say, “We hate gay people and want to keep them permanent second-class citizens”. It would be easier and faster than the convoluted mess they’ve presented at iProtectMarriage.com . But then honesty has never been one of the virtues of the RRRW.

 

While the economy is in the tank and sinking further thanks to the Wall Street fiasco (which We the People are paying for, mind you) Congress was passing yet another bill that does nothing beneficial, and discriminates against atheists, agnostics and gays. It’s called S. 3070: Boy Scouts of America Centennial Commemorative Coin Act. That’s right. Millions of people in the US are going without food, shelter and health care–which Congress doesn’t seem to care about. Yet it’s apparently an urgent matter that wealthy collectors be afforded the opportunity to buy coins that commemorate a discriminatory organization.

Mind you the Boy Scouts of America stand to gain a great deal from this. They receive $10 from the sale of each coin, meaning they will get up to $3.5 million from the deal (hat tip Secular Coalition for America . It appears this is a sneaky way of getting around the ban on allowing the BSA government funding due to their discriminatory practices. Now why am I not surprised? Certain individuals and groups are often under the impression that the law is not designed for them, but only for everyone else.

Funny how it’s the atheists and the LGBT people who are always accused of being immoral, evil, sinful, and so on. Guilty consciences engaging in projection, perhaps?

 

The pretzel-brained bigots over at One News Now always manage to make me want to bang my head against the wall in utter frustration. They’ve done it yet again with this piece of hypocritical tripe.

A federal court has ruled against the Library of Congress for refusing to hire a transgendered person.

The American Civil Liberties Union says the ruling sends a message to employers everywhere that if they fire or refuse to hire someone for transitioning to another gender, they can be held liable. Mat Staver, dean of Liberty University’s law school and founder of Liberty Counsel, believes the decision is outrageous.

“This is why there needs to be sanity within our legal system with regards to this homosexual agenda, which will literally undermine the whole concept of law and the rule of law,” Staver contends. “And it also underscores why we need judges on the bench who will judge and not legislate their own ideology.”
…..
Staver hopes voters will keep in mind when they go into the voting booths in November that the next president will likely appoint several new justices.

Right. So a judge that legislates from the standpoint that refusing to hire a person because you don’t approve of their gender identity/expression (their sexual orientation, etc.) is illegal is “legislating their own ideology”. But Staver no doubt thinks that it’s perfectly fine for a judge to use “Biblical values” and a “Christian viewpoint” when making decisions. How is that not “legislating their own ideology”?

Please, if somebody could explain it to me like I were a half-witted five-year-old I would greatly appreciate it. I just can’t seem to think clearly right now because I’ve been banging my head against the wall for the past ten minutes.

 

Levi’s has just donated $25,000 to Equality for All, and Robert Haas, the company’s chairman emeritus, has given $100,000! But Levi’s is not alone in the effort to stop Proposition 8.

Two labor unions, the California Council of Service Employees and the California Teachers Association, each have given $250,000. Telecommunications company AT&T has given $25,000.

These are just the latest in a long list of contributions from people like Brad Pitt, Steven Spielberg and Kate Capshaw and businesses like PG&E.

Exciting news indeed! (But we still need your help, Ellen.)

 

I’m sure the local citizens can barely contain their excitement, but one of the RRRW’s leading homophobes will be paying them a visit this weekend for his annual visit to the Folsom Street Fair. Now Peter claims to despise this horrifically depraved event, but considering the amount of space he devotes to it on his site–not to mention the amount of time he spends at it photographing participants–I rather think The lady doth protest too much. At any rate, he’s put out a news release about his upcoming weekend visit to SF.

…..
The 25th annual “Folsom Street Fair” will be held this Sunday, Sept. 28, in San Francisco. AFTAH President Peter LaBarbera will join other pro-family leaders in pre- and post-Folsom press conferences on the steps of San Francisco City Hall to highlight the public depravities that could only happen in San Francisco – home to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (third in line to be President):

WHAT: Two press events denouncing and exposing the Folsom Street Fair and the politicians who enable it;
WHERE: San Francisco City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, San Francisco
WHEN: Friday, Sept. 26, 11:00 AM – prior to Folsom; and Monday, Sept. 29, 10:00 AM – post-Folsom;
WHO: Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH; Linda Harvey, Mission America; Diane Gramley, American Family Association of Pennsylvania; and Anthony Gonzalez, St. Joseph’s Men’s Society
…..

Right. Of course in between the Friday and Monday press events Peter will be following men around with cameras so he can go back with plenty of pictures for his usual “look at all of these naked men isn’t this awful these gay people are so sick sick sick” post.

I wonder why it is that Peter never posts any pictures of the many women and straight couples who attend the FSF. Perhaps he doesn’t even take any. Maybe somebody could ask him about that if they run into him this weekend.

The RRRW has been known to distort legitimate research repeatedly in their campaign to denigrate LGBT people. They twist actual facts, print certain information while leaving out certain crucial supporting factors, or use other such misleading techniques.

They’re at it again, this time claiming that a UK study proves the “Homosexual Lifestyle” is dangerous because gay people have a 50% higher rate of depression and an elevated rate of suicide.

LONDON - A new study in the United Kingdom has revealed that homosexuals are about 50% more likely to suffer from depression and engage in substance abuse than the rest of the population, reports Health24.com.

After analyzing 25 earlier studies on sexual orientation and mental health, researchers, in a study published in the medical journal BMC Psychiatry, also found that the risk of suicide jumped over 200% if an individual had engaged in a homosexual lifestyle.

These findings strongly support the results of similar studies conducted in the United States, which have unveiled the severe physical and psychological health risks associated with homosexual behavior. Drs. Paul and Kirk Cameron of the Family Research Institute revealed in 2007 that research shows that the lifespan of a homosexual is on average 24 years shorter than that of a heterosexual. As a health threat, even smoking pales in comparison, as studies show smoking can shorten one’s life by only 1 to 7 years on average.
…..

Well, they’ve already violated Buffy’s Law, which doesn’t surprise me in the least considering how fallacious the entire article is. But if you read the whole article take care to notice what isn’t in there. A link to the study they claim to be quoting from.

If you read these sites routinely as I do for any reason, you’ll notice a pattern. They cite study after study, but they never provide any links to what they cite–particularly the legitimate research. There’s a reason for this. They presume like-minded readers won’t care to look beyond the claims they’re making in their “news” story and just take what they’ve said at face value: Homos bad, research says so just like we do. They hope others who stumble upon it won’t take the time to work a search engine to find what they claim to be basing their “facts” on to discover what they left out, how they distorted the facts, etc.

I always look for the original article because I know they’re liars with an agenda. Guess what they didn’t print in their attack piece?

The chief research specialist at the Human Sciences Research Council’s Gender and Development Unit, Prof Vasu Reddy, agreed with the study’s findings, saying sexual orientation was a “deeply private matter because of the social stigma”. “To come out of the closet is to run the risk of being exposed and ostracised by a very demeaning society. It’s a moment of vulnerability, because you are usually faced with the risk of harassment by friends and family, public insult, rejection and sometimes even physical assault,” said Reddy.

But he said young Indians were better exposed to public discussion about sexuality, in which previous generations were reluctant to engage.

“I sense a shift in attitude in the way the Indian community is engaging in issues of sexual identity today. That said, it is still, in my opinion, a community relentless in its homophobia, often because of the strong patriarchal values that run deep in the community.”

It’s not the “homosexual lifestyle” that causes depression, increased suicide rates and all of those other issues. It’s the homophobia we encounter from others. It’s the homophobia fostered by individuals like those at One News Now, who shirk their own responsibility and try to lay the blame at the feet of the victims.

For so-called Bible believing Christians they violate the 9th Commandment quite frequently. Or perhaps somebody gave them the impression that anything, even breaking a Commandment, is acceptable so long as LGBT people are harmed. I don’t know but I’d sure like the disconnect explained.

At any rate, I’ll always be here to expose their duplicity. I anticipate there will be plenty more before this is all done. They don’t have any facts in their favor, so all they can resort to is lies and deception.

For further reading:

From Truth Wins Out: Minnesota Scientist Accuses PFOX of Misrepresenting His Research

Top Researcher Claims Focus on the Family Distorted Work.

Mississippi Jumps on the “No Gay Adoptions” Bandwagon.

Anti-Gay Lies and Liars

Resepct My Research

 

The Minister of Italy has decided not to prosecute Sabina Guzzanti for joking that Pope Ratzinger would “go to hell and be pursued by two big, gay and very active devils”.

…..
“I decided not to authorise it, knowing well the stature and capacity of the Pope for forgiveness,” Justice Minister Angelino Alfano said.
…..

I don’t know if I buy his reasoning. Nonetheless, Ms. Guzzanti will not be jailed for an asinine non-offense and that is a fine outcome.

 

No On 8 videos have been appearing on YouTube, both professionally created ones and very personal efforts. My wife has posted some on the Newswire, and here are a few others for you to enjoy.

 
Save My Marriage


 
Prop 8 California Same Sex Marriage Amendment


 
No on Prop 8: A Love Story


 

I don’t say that lightly. I’ve seen and heard plenty of outrageous claims made about same-sex marriage, how it will allegedly destroy the very fabric of society and why people must “protect traditional marriage”. But this one, from a so-called libertarian, takes the cake. It makes many of the RRRW claims seem almost rational.

1. It is a power grab by the government. Now only the government has the right to say what a marriage is…. and courts at that. Previously, a marriage was a marriage no matter what a government said.

Really? You mean previously you could get a legal marriage without any assistance from the government? No marriage license or other government issued paperwork of any kind? And just now the government stepped in and decided how to define what marriage would be and who would be eligible for it? I’d love to hear about that.

2. It contracts the definition of marriage. It doesn’t’ expand it. Gay couples are not “married.” The court has simply denied marriage to all. We can now only become “Party A” and “Party B.”

Oy vey, not another person so obsessed with semantics that they think the substitution of Party A and Party B for Husband and Wife invalidates a Marriage License. Newsflash: People are still married in California, but while some of them are Husband and Wife, some of them are Wife and Wife, and some are Husband and Husband. I am married. Deny it all you want but it changes nothing.

3. The court has ordered everyone to deceive his neighbor by using the word “marriage” in a manner consistent of the joining of a man and a woman when now it doesn’t mean even that.

My marriage license and the law say otherwise.

4. The California laws violate basic civil liberties. These civil liberties (the right to marry for instance) should be precious to all Americans, but certainly to true Republicans.

Actually it just recently stopped violating basic civil liberties. Marriage equality is a civil liberty. Voting yes on Proposition 8 will allow it to do so once again.

5. The California law is so bad it puts the issue into the hands of federal courts.

I haven’t heard any threats from the federal government to step in and take action. Given that they’ve done nothing to Massachusetts over the course of the past four years I don’t imagine they’ll be taking any action here.

 
What’s truly sick is that this individual is attempting, with this bizarre argument, to convince Log Cabin Republicans to vote for Proposition 8. Fortunately it appears nobody is buying it.

 

The Hayward, CA, City Council was debating whether or not to take a stance on Proposition 8. Most of them were very much opposed to the ballot measure, but didn’t feel it was an appropriate item for the city agenda. Then Marvin Burroughs took the floor and spoke briefly and eloquently.

Marvin Burroughs, 72, said his partner of 51 years died of a heart attack in 2005.

“Without marriage, I lost his pension, the right to dispose of his body, and my home even with domestic partnership,” he said. “I urge the council to support a no on 8 so that what happened to me won’t happen to anybody else.”

The Hayward City Council has officially voiced it’s opposition to Proposition 8, and is urging residents to vote against it in November.

 
No matter how much opponents may claim the Colored-Only drinking fountains of the 21st Century known as Domestic Partnerships (or Civil Unions) are adequate, they simply aren’t. They make same-sex couples a permanent second class with fewer rights and protections, and deny us what others take for granted. They are inherently morally and ethically wrong. Only fully equal marriage will do.

Do the right thing. Protect marriage by voting NO on Proposition 8.