The Gaytheist Agenda

It’s bad enough when the RRRW has to stick their noses in everything that goes on here, but it goes beyond the pale when they push their homophobia into the lives of our neighbors across the pond. Heinz corporation had this wonderful ad depicting family life where the parents just happened to be two men.

Apparently the folks at American Family Association have decided that even in foreign nations they get to define what a family is, and what goes into commercials. After receiving 200 complaints Heinz pulled the commercial from the air. Wayne Besen of Truth Wins Out appeared on CNN to defend the ad.

 
From the Truth Wins Out Blog:

The Headline News segment included Randy Sharp of the AFA, who claimed that the ad promoted a homosexual lifestyle: “What does mayonnaise have to do with homosexuals and their lifestyle?” Sharp claimed that 70,000 AFA supporters in the United States disagreed with the ad.

How is it that 70,000 American AFA supporters in the US even saw the ad to determine that they disagreed with it? I smell BS.

Business marketing analyst Dan Hill said Heinz was right to pull the ad. Hill said:

“In business you can never afford to forget that the bottom line is that ‘family values’ means ‘my family, not your family,’ and I think in the UK most households have traditional family structures.”

Well, perhaps Heinz could rely on “traditional families” to buy their products then since they’re obviously not opposed to throwing us aside to cater to them (which is par for the course really). There are plenty of other brands out there.

 

Let this story put that misconception to rest. Be aware it is but one of many. From The Atheist Blogger:

 

For those who aren’t already aware, I’m a first year Computer Science student at Royal Holloway, University of London. I live in halls, in a flat with 7 other people. Most, if not all of them are from a Christian background and would call themselves Christians, however the fact that I am openly atheist has never discouraged them in any way. Of course the same could not be said for other inhabitants of the halls, as I would find out within the first few weeks of term.

I’d met a fellow atheist in the neighbouring flat, and we had both decided that the university needed an “Atheist Union” of sorts to oppose the active Christian Union. We drafted up some posters explaining our cause and purpose, and began sticking them up around campus, mainly in the vicinity of our halls. After a few days, 3 of them had been torn off the wall and ripped into pieces. Evidently, I thought, there were some people who really didn’t like atheists. So I reprinted them with a message that tried to get through to their sense of reason. I wasn’t imposing on their beliefs, so why should they impose on mine?

The posters stayed up a few more days…before being ripped down again. I gathered up the pieces, stuck them back together, and decided to display them on my door, as a kind of “shrine” dedicated to my futile efforts to reason with these people. One of the posters I found still intact, but with the words “Pricks” and “Nobs” (British slang for the word “penis”) written across it.

Nevertheless, I managed to build up a small gathering of atheist and agnostic students after we changed our name from “Atheist Union” to “Atheist & Agnostic Alliance” (for an awesome alliteration). Things were going well, until a few weeks ago, when the vandals struck again…only this time they attacked my door.
…..

 
Read the rest of the story here.

 

It’s always interesting to see how opinions and perceptions change over time. From the TimesOnline:

A poll by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation uncovered a widespread belief that faith - not just in its extreme form - was intolerant, irrational and used to justify persecution.

Pollsters asked 3,500 people what they considered to be the worst blights on modern society, updating a list drawn up by Rowntree, a Quaker, 104 years ago.

The responses may well have dismayed him. The researchers found that the “dominant opinion” was that religion was a “social evil”.

Many participants said religion divided society, fuelled intolerance and spawned “irrational” educational and other policies.

One said: “Faith in supernatural phenomena inspires hatred and prejudice throughout the world, and is commonly used as justification for persecution of women, gays and people who do not have faith.”
…..
The findings contrast with Rowntree’s “scourges of humanity”, which included poverty, war, slavery, intemperance, the opium trade, impurity and gambling.

Poverty and drugs remain, but are joined by issues such as family breakdown, young people’s behaviour and fears over immigration.
…..
“Britain has had it with religion,” he said.

Being a woman, lesbian and atheist I can’t say I disagree much with their perceptions. Religious beliefs are the most significant reason I don’t have my full Civil and Human Rights. It is because some people think their religious beliefs trump my Human/Civil Rights that I am treated as a second-class citizen though I am a law-abiding, tax-paying adult. And it is through (certain) religions that people are taught to hate and seek to harm me and others like me simply because I am a lesbian and atheist.

No, I’m not a hater of religion or those who ascribe to religion. I’m merely tired of being a victim of those who think their religious beliefs trump the rights of everybody and everything, and I know I’m not the only one. It would be nice if religious adherents were to consider how their actions affect others, and practice The Golden Rule every now and then. That’s in the Bible and is also found in myriad other religions and philosophies. Just imagine how much nicer life would be if everyone live by that one simple rule.

 

A recent report found that gay is the most frequently used term of abuse in UK schools. According to the report 83% of teachers stated they’d heard students using the word against other pupils as a slur.

For the current generation, “gay”, “bitch” and “slag” are the most frequently used terms of abuse, according to a survey by the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL).
They are used by children of all ages, from nursery school upwards. But the worst offenders are secondary school pupils, says the teaching union.

The most popular by far is “gay”. Of the teachers interviewed, 83% said they heard it being used regularly and much more than its nearest rivals, bitch (59%) and slag (45%). So how did it achieve this dubious honour?

…..

“Every generation grows up with a whole lexicon of homosexual insults, in my day it was ‘poofter’ or ‘bender’,” says slang lexicographer Tony Thorne. “They were used much more because they were considered more offensive than ‘gay’, which is more neutral.

…..

“It’s only in the last four years that I’ve documented it being used so much by young people. It’s what we call a ‘vogue’ word, which is a fashionable word.”

One reason for this increase in use could be because “gay” has partly lost its sexual connotations among young people, he says. While still pejorative, for the majority of youngsters it has replaced words such as “lame”.

“I have interviewed scores of school kids about this and they are always emphatic that it has nothing at all to do with hostility to homosexuals,” says Mr Thorne, compiler of the Dictionary of Contemporary Slang. “It is nearly always used in contexts where sexual orientation and sexuality are completely irrelevant.”

The ATL survey seems to say otherwise, lumping it in with clear insults such as poofter and batty boy. But Katie, a 12-year-old from Colchester, knows it in different context. A bad pair of trainers is much more likely to be called “gay” than a person, she says.

“It’s used as more of a way to tease a friend rather than have a real go at someone. I wouldn’t call someone ‘gay’ because I know that’s sort of bullying them.”

Here is where the problem lies. When a person is using gay as an insult it doesn’t matter whether they’re using it to mean gay or lame. Either way their intent is to characterize gay as bad and the end result is the same; gay is associated with undesirableness. That is why whatever the intent, use of gay as a pejorative must be considered inappropriate.

But while “gay” may have changed for some, it is still being used as a means of bullying, as are many other homophobic insults (see table, above). Last year, the Westminster government announced the first guidelines for schools on how to deal with homophobic bullying.

Gay lobby group Stonewall says 65% of young gay people experience homophobic bullying. And many who aren’t gay also get labelled as such.

“It’s a form of peer group control,” says psychologist Helen Cowie. “Boys have to be masculine and macho and anyone who isn’t must go along with it or face being bullied. It’s a form of bullying that domineering people seek out vulnerable people and school age is a time of emergent sexuality which is itself a vulnerable time.”

Precisely why any anti-gay slurs of all kinds must be strictly disallowed. They are harmful by their very nature and only foster an environment of intolerance.

Fellow psychologist Ian Rivers says the potency of such words is in the fact they “go to the very core of who we are”. Yet sexual orientation is also invisible.

“It’s not about your heritage or your race, it’s not about things which someone can see.” So it can’t even be challenged, he says. “How can children demonstrate that they are heterosexual. There’s no effective recourse and this is what makes it so effective as a bullying tactic.”

Donald Christie, professor in the Department of Childhood and Primary Studies, says “sexual orientation” is a source of potential vulnerability. “If there’s an area of life that children themselves feel insecure about they’re aware of their own vulnerability. The whole point of bullying is about identifying and accentuating weakness in others.”

Such is the insidious nature of calling someone gay. How can they prove otherwise? Even if they publicly engage in behavior with somebody of the same gender people can easily accuse them either of acting to hide the truth or of being bisexual. It’s a no-win situation in a homophobic environment. And whether or not the person is gay, the belief of others that they are opens them up to myriad forms of abuse.

So despite what some may think about their casual tossing about of words, or their “right” to preach their cherry-picked Biblical viewpoints about gay people, it’s important to keep in mind that words do have power. Names can and do impact the lives of others in a very significant way. Please pass it on and help end the cycle of hurt.

A few days ago I posted a story from The Daily Mail about Ophelia Kirwan. The story in The Daily Mail claimed that Ophelia’s parents were considering cosmetic surgery for the toddler, who hasDown’s Syndrome, so that she might fit in better with her non-disabled peers. Being a staunch disability-rights advocate I came out very much against that idea.

I have been contacted by Mr. Laurence and Mrs. Chelsea Kirwan and they have stated that the story in the Daily Mail was entirely false and obtained under false pretenses. Here is their e-mail as follows.

I would recommend that you read Chelsea’s and my comments in response to the Mail
Article. Please see Ophelia’s web site Ophelia My Life So Far where the comments are posted. You can also read my interchange with the ‘Mail on Sunday’ writer, Bonnie Estridge prior to publication of the article. As a friend of mine with a Down syndrome child said, ‘the only thing you can believe in the Mail is the date!’ This article by Amanda Cable infers that she had an interview with the Kirwans prior to writing the March 10 piece. Neither I nor Chelsea has ever spoken to Amanda Cable. We never stated or implied the title. Ophelia is reported as living in Knightsbridge
whereas the Mail commissioned her photographs at her home in Greenwich, Connecticut, USA. All of the interviews between Bonnie Estridge of the ‘Mail on Sunday’ and Chelsea were held by transatlantic telephone calls.

We have never recommended or even considered cosmetic surgery for Ophelia. We are far more interested in her health, as well as her physical and mental development. Of course we love Ophelia as she is.

The decision to have surgery on a child with congenital anomalies is a complex one taken between the parents and their surgeon. We should leave that decision to the individual family and their medical advisors to decide on its own merits. Reconstructive surgery for congenital anomalies of all kinds has improved the quality of life of millions of children. As a plastic surgeon I have spent my life correcting congenital deformities in the USA and in Third World countries, as part of charitable missions

Please take the time to read our comments on Ophelia’s web site as well as her diary which documents Ophelia’s progress over the last 2 years and our emotions during that period.

Lastly, Chelsea and I were assured that this was a mother daughter article for Mother’s Day without any mention of me or plastic surgery. If we had known otherwise we would never have been a party to this shameful article which is a disservice to all individuals with disabilities and to the Down syndrome community in particular. We have always championed research into Down syndrome and that is why in the original article of March 2, Bonnie Estridge gives the names of the charities we support. Neither charity has any interest in cosmetic surgery but is primarily concerned with developmental progress and quality of life issues.
Laurence and Chelsea Kirwan

Thank you for your letter, Mr. and Mrs. Kirwan. I’m pleased to discover that you love your daughter just as she is and wish you well in your dealings with The Daily Mail.

Why, you might ask? Because they believe it will help her “fit in better” with others if she looks more like her non-disabled peers.

Ophelia Kirwan is a beguiling toddler with wide eyes and a mop of blonde hair. At the age of two, she’s too young to know that she has Down’s syndrome, or to understand why this makes her different from other little girls.

…..

At the weekend, her parents - a world-renowned plastic surgeon and his surgically-enhanced wife - admitted they are considering altering their daughter’s appearance with surgery in the future to help her become more ‘accepted’ by society.

Laurence Kirwan insisted that he would make that decision if Ophelia - who is two this month - reached the age of 18 and was being unfairly judged on how she looked.

The procedure, he explained in the blunt words of a surgeon, would correct “eyes slightly wide apart, flat nasal bridge, thin lips, tongue that sticks out, thick neck”.

But would the decision to erase these tell-tale features of Down’s syndrome be made with their daughter’s happiness in mind? Or would it simply be an attempt to mould a child into a society which cares more about looks than vulnerable children?

Her mother Chelsea said: “It just isn’t right that Ophelia and others like her should be judged on how they look - particularly if they are turned down for a good job that they could handle.

“It’s a matter of self-esteem: if you’re not happy with yourself then why shouldn’t you fix something? All I want is for Ophelia to be happy.”

I get the impression from her words and from the picture that accompanies the story that Mom is much more hung up on appearance than many people are, and Ophelia will ever be. The fact that she herself has gone under the knife for vanity only reinforces my suspicions.

At least one other couple have already gone ahead with radical and painful cosmetic surgery to alter their daughter’s Down’s syndrome “appearance” to help her “fit in” with her peers.

By the time Georgia Bussey was five, her parents Kim and David, from Pimlico, South-West London, had put her through the ordeal of surgery three times.

In the first procedure at the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, her tongue was reduced to stop it protruding. Then, folds of skin were removed from the inner corners of her eyes to take away the “slantiness” characteristic of Down’s syndrome. Finally, she had surgery to stop her ears sticking out.

The couple - who deliberated for a year before arranging for their daughter’s face to be surgically altered - claimed, like the Kirwans, that they were simply motivated by love for their child.

I don’t call subjecting a child to multiple painful and potentially deadly surgeries to take away the appearance of a disability “love”. The disability itself is still there, and erasing merely the outward features of it does nothing but feed into the notion that surface perfection is of utmost importance.

Kim insisted: “We live in a society that judges people by the way they look. Society is not going to change overnight - so Georgia has to fit into society, rather than society fitting into the way she is.

“The people who criticise us are usually people who don’t have Down’s children of their own. They don’t see the teasing that goes on and the problems Down’s children have. I just want to give Georgia a helping hand - an “edge” to get on in life.”

I worked with people who have developmental disabilities, including Down’s Syndrome, for over 20 years. We never did anything to try to hide or change their appearances, nor did we attempt to hide them away from the world. Instead we worked to change societies misperceptions and increase acceptance.

Moreover, there are many parents with Down’s children who are horrified at the idea of somehow airbrushing their children’s appearance, as though having the condition is something to be ashamed of.

Some claim that the procedures - on a child who could scarcely comprehend the pain they were suffering - were tantamount to child abuse.

Rosa Monckton, the wife of former newspaper editor Dominic Lawson and mother of 12-year-old Domenica, who has Down’s syndrome, agrees.

“What these children bring to our lives is something so deep and extraordinary, it is humanity stripped to the bone,” she says.

“It is not about how they look, but who they are. First and foremost, they are our children, children to be loved and cherished - not tampered with and altered because they look slightly different.

“It’s a sad indictment of what our must-have society has become - the expectation is for something perfect. Anything which isn’t aesthetically perfect - be it breasts, bodies or the faces of children just out of babyhood - must be fixed until it is. These are grotesquely skewed values.

“Our natural instinct as parents is to cherish and love our children. Not to gaze at the faces of toddlers and wonder what we might change surgically later on.

“The thought of allowing your own child’s face to be cut open in an attempt to make them more ‘acceptable’ to society is appalling. Perhaps these parents are struggling to come to terms with the shock - and it is a shock - of finding out that your child won’t be exactly as you expected.”

I couldn’t agree more. To complain that society expects perfection while you feed into that by cutting up your child is obscene. If it allowed the child function better–helped them walk or grasp objects better–it would be a different story. I can even understand correcting significant deformities, but normal features of Down’s Syndrome do not fall into that category.

Children and adults with disabilities have long fought perceptions that they’re imperfect and demands that they change to please others. The inability of some parents to accept their children’s disability has led to abuse and even murder. Will parents who can’t even tolerate their child’s appearance of disability be able to tolerate the other manifestations of the child’s disability?

I truly feel for Ophelia, should she be forced to endure this nonsense, and for the others like her.