Christian Lies

Biblical marriage vs actual marriage vs gay marriage

2007-05-05T19:44:00.000-07:00

Homophobes

2007-04-24T23:12:00.000-07:00

Ms. Neita G. Trollinger, of Salem OR, writes that she is "sick and tired" of being called a homophobe. To be honest, I think she should change her mind and learn to like it; it's an attempt to be kind.

You see, what else are we, as gay people, to think of people who would deny us equality under the law? Who would deny us health insurance? The right to visit our loved one in the hospital? Inheritance rights? The right to make medical decisions to save our loved one's life? Who would see our children suffer in single parenthood when a loving person who wants to be the second parent is at hand? Who fought to maintain the criminalization of our deepest expression of love?

Ms. Trollinger says that Christians do not kill or name-call "homosexuals", and yet in saying so she does so, since we choose to be called "gay" and she insists on naming us "homosexual". Indeed, she compares us to murderers, thieves, adulterers, and liars. If it is true that Christians do not "name-call" us, then Ms. Trollinger should be asking herself if she is truly Christian.

And to claim that Christians do not kill us is a flat falsehood. People who have been convicted of murdering gay people have been well studied, and many have stated bluntly that they did so in whole or in part because of something their church told them about us, such as that we are minions of the devil or that we are trying to recruit their children or that we spread AIDS.

Ms. Trollinger should accept the moniker of "homophobe", because in calling people like her that, we are attempting to be charitible and believe that they do the horrible things they do to us because they are frightened for some reason, perhaps because they are ignorant or misinformed, and that maybe it doesn't mean they're really bad people. The alternative is to believe that they really know what they're doing, and believe they're bigots.

California marriage bill

2007-04-10T23:11:00.000-07:00

"Earned Media" reports:

The California legislature once again flouted the will of the people by passing a homosexual marriage bill from the Assembly Judiciary Committee. Passed on a party line vote, AB 43 would allow "gender neutral" marriage in California. This directly contradicts the people's will in passing Proposition 22, which clearly stated marriage in California is between one man and one woman.

And the will of the people is always so perfect? Remember, it used to be the will of the people that people who weren't white couldn't have civil rights, yet today we recognize that that was horribly wrong in every way.

"Yet again the California legislature has shown that it will arrogantly ignore the will of the people," stated Karen England, Executive Director of Capitol Resource Institute. "Even though the vast majority of citizens oppose homosexual marriage, radical activists continue to push their agenda."

The vast majority? What, exactly, is this "vast majority"?

"61% of California voters believe that traditional marriage is so important that we must protect it," continued England.

61% isn't a "vast majority". It's a little bit over half. Further, when Ms. England claims that 61% believe that "traditional marriage" is so important, she's... well, let's be polite and say she's not factually correct. What would be more true would be to say that 61% believed that gay marriage must be legally stopped, when Proposition 22 was passed, 7 years ago. In the past decade, opposition to gay marriage has dropped significantly. It's even possible that a majority of citizens of California now support civil marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples. But, Ms. England presents a 7 year old statistic as if it was current. That's a rather significant error regarding a contemporary issue about which opinion is changing very quickly.

Facts about hate crimes bill

2007-04-03T03:32:00.000-07:00

On Crosswalk.com, Michael Craven is described as "Author, Speaker, Founding Director of the Center for Christ & Culture". His article, however, doesn't seem very Christian to me.

He writes,

Today, legislators in the House of Representatives are pushing for a “discharge petition” to force a vote on the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2001, (LLEHCPA), H.R. 1343, another federal Hate Crimes bill that would add “sexual orientation, gender, gender identity and disability” to current hate crimes law. Introduced by Reps. John Conyers (D-MI) and Mark Kirk (R-IL), this one has more than 100 cosponsors. LLEHCPA would authorize the Justice Department to conduct local law enforcement hate crimes training, and to conduct expanded hate crimes investigations and prosecutions.

So, let's start with some simple housekeeping: I think he has made some errors here. HR 1343 is the "Health Centers Renewal Act of 2007", which has nothing to do with hate crimes. And, I don't think a current bill in the House of Representatives would be titled with "2001". The House web site doens't list a bill by that title, but it does list HR 1592, "Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007", with those sponsors Mr. Craven lists, so I'm going to operate under the belief that Mr. Craven has somehow got the numbers mixed up.

He continues,

This legislation will ban alleged discrimination based on sexual orientation, whether actual or perceived, as well as “gender,” which include the categories of transgender, cross-dresser, or transvestite.

Uh, no. It bans violent crimes. You can't ban alleged anything, only actual crimes. But that's not the half of it. Mr. Craven claims,

The purpose of “hate crimes” legislation, in this instance, is to apply this preemptive aspect mentioned above, in order to render any speech opposing the legitimacy and promotion of homosexuality illegal, because such speech or even expressed thoughts constitute “hate.” Thus it inhibits the rights of those who resist the imposition of homosexual morality to disagree and brings the power of the state to bear on those who do.

Of course, that's 100% factually false in every way. First of all, as Mr. Craven himself points out in the very same article, banning speech in the US is unconstitutional, so a law can't do that. Further, the actual text of HR 1592 very clearly spells out that it is only applicable to cases of violent crime:

`Sec. 249. Hate crime acts

`(a) In General-
`(1) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law , willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person--
`(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
`(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--
`(i) death results from the offense; or
`(ii) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.
`(2) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, GENDER, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, OR DISABILITY-
`(A) IN GENERAL- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law , in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of any person--
`(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
`(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--
`(I) death results from the offense; or
`(II) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

So, first of all, it's my opinion that Mr. Craven is bearing false witness about the actual text and purpose of the bill. Further, I question whether a real Christian would be attempting to claim that a bill with the exclusive purpose of prohibiting extremely violent crimes would violate the rights of those who "resist the imposition of homosexual morality". What sort of resistance is Mr. Craven trying to protect, anyway? Can he seriously claim that Christians should want the right to use firearms and incendiary devices against gay people? But apparently that's exactly what he's trying to get you to defend, since he writes,

I urge you to contact your representatives today and voice your opposition to this destructive legislation.

It's destructive to ban violent crimes against gay people? I think Mr. Craven has a very un-christian agenda.

Blaming the victim

2007-03-31T09:00:00.000-07:00

Journal Chretien claims:

Authorities in Michigan say a case last month involving the alleged fatal beating of an elderly homosexual man, which was used to promote the need for « hate crimes » legislation, was not a crime after all.

Only, it isn't true. They said the attack wasn't the cause of his death, they didn't say the attack didn't occur. If I recall correctly, I read in another article last night that the coroner did indeed find a large bruise on the back of the head, which is evidence of the attack.

I'm thoroughly disgusted that anyone would take the example of an attack on an old man and twist it around to the point that it's called an "alleged beating", as Journal Chretien refers to it later in the article.

Journal Chretien continues:

Conservative and Christian leaders have argued for years that, if « hate crimes » legislation became law, it could become illegal for pastors to preach from the Bible regarding homosexuality.

Of course, I'm sure they know full well that that's simply not true, no hate crimes law in the US has ever covered speech, and every gay rights law in the US has included an exemption for churches. So, I conclude that Journal Chretien is bearing false witness.

Family Research Fraud

2007-03-27T23:50:00.000-07:00

Lifesite again:

According to two researchers, the largest random sex survey ever conducted has reported that only 1.4% of adults engaged in homosexual behavior.

Interesting, if true. So, what's the methodology used?

Analyzing a 2003 Canadian Community survey of 121,300 adults, Drs. Paul and Kirk Cameron told attendees of the Eastern Psychological Association Convention that 2% of 18-44 year olds, 1% of 50 year olds, and only a third of a percent of subjects 60+ considered themselves homosexual.

Ah. So, that would be the Paul Cameron who was kicked out of the American Psychological Association and the Nebraska Psychological Association. The one who works for an anti-gay organization. The one who a judge ruled lied to a court about the parenting skills of gay people. Okay, so now that we know what sort of people we're hearing from, what was the methodology of the data collection?

Among other questions (read to respondent by interviewer), the Canadian study asked:
"Do you consider yourself to be: heterosexual? (sexual relations with people of the opposite sex)/ homosexual, that is lesbian or gay? (sexual relations with people of your own sex)/ bisexual? (sexual relations with people of both sexes)."

So, the question doesn't determine a person's actual orientation, it asks what orientation they consider themself to be. Many gay and bisexual people are in the closet, and would not tell a random surveyor their actual orientation. Further, because of societal disapproval of homosexuality, many gay and bisexual people refuse to even think of themselves as being gay or bisexual, and while they have homosexual relations regularly throughout their life, they continue to think of it as a passing phase, or not real sex. So, simply asking people their orientation will unquestionably provide a much lower number than the actual percentage of gay people. If Drs. Cameron know anything at all about gay people - and after all the years they've spent fighting our rights, I can't believe they don't - they should be able to figure this out for themselves. I conclude, therefore, that in claiming that this survey proves such a low percentage of gay people in the population, they must be deliberately misconstruing the data. In other words, I believe they're lying.

"The US government survey of 12,381 adults in 1996, reported that 1.3% of men and 1.1% of women under the age of 60 said they'd had homosexual sex in the last 12 months.

By that standard, I would be considered straight. (Let me tell you, I'm definitely not.)

It also found few older homosexuals. The oldest male who engaged in homosexuality was 54 and the oldest female+ 49. So it appears that homosexuality is a young person's activity - one that may contribute to an early death."

That must be a really bad survey - I have four gay male friends in their 60's, a lesbian friend in her late 50's, and I've met many, many gay men and lesbians in their 60's and 70's. You can easily find dozens if not hundreds of older gay people in any major US city's gay pride parade. Such young ages alone is proof to me that the survey was not at all representative of the actual gay and lesbian population. Yet, I notice that Drs. Cameron cite it and attempt to use it to fight gay rights anyway.

For the record, it's my opinion that it doesn't matter if gay people are 10% of the population, 5%, 1.4%, 98%, or 0.001%. I also don't believe it matters if we're born gay or choose to be. As American citizens, it's our civil right to live our lives the way we choose to, and not to be mistreated for any actions we take which do not harm others. Attempting to demonstrate that gay people make up a tiny percentage of the population is a tactic used to try to make it seem like gay people are not populous enough to deserve civil rights, or that we are too abnormal to deserve civil rights. However, this is the United States, the land of the free. It doesn't matter how few or large our numbers are. The Constitution requires that we be given equal civil rights anyway, and to oppose that is, in my opinion, Unamerican.

Day of Nonsense

2007-03-27T09:37:00.000-07:00

Original story:

A national pro-family
coalition, http://www.NotOurKids.com, is calling upon parents to keep their
children home from school on April 18 -- to avoid GLSEN's homosexual "Day
of Silence," in which students and some supportive faculty intentionally
remain silent throughout the school day to protest alleged oppression of
homosexuals.

Because... kids will be traumatized by people being quiet?

Many school district superintendents, principals, and faculty members
also endorse, promote or allow DOS -- subjecting traditional students to
pro-"gay" activism that violates their religious beliefs and right to a
non-politicized education.

The US doesn't grant any special rights not to ever hear anything that your religion disagrees with, or not to hear anything political in school.

NotOurKids.com is a coalition of pro-family groups who object to the
disruptive political hijacking of America's classrooms by pro-homosexual
advocates.

Then they'll have to find something else to complain about, since Day Of Silence was actually designed not to be disruptive. That's why it's silent.

"Even the strongest of our junior high and high school children are not
equipped to serve as frontline soldiers in this culture war."

Funny, but they don't seem to have any problem using kids as front line soldiers in this culture war. And I'm concerned that, unlike the "day of silence" kids, some of the kids on the opposite site may be coerced, not to mention that they seem to me to be trying to be disruptive. I wonder if they're just angling for opportunities to sue people who don't agree with them.

All of that said, I've always thought Day of Silence was kind of silly because I would guess a lot of kids would be unwilling to participate because either they won't want to give up the opportunity to socialize, or because they need to talk in class. I suggest wearing a t-shirt that expresses support for gay and lesbian civil rights instead.

More interesting claims about General Pace's remarks

2007-03-21T00:24:00.000-07:00

Janice Shaw Crouse writes on townhall.com about General Pace's recent remarks regarding his opinion of the morality of homosexuality:

Pity poor Peter Pace. When asked point blank by the Chicago Tribune if he thought that homosexual behavior was immoral, he had the temerity, the audacity, the impertinence, the gall and the bad judgment to respond — get this — in the affirmative.

...[skipping ahead a bit]

Never mind that Pace’s views represent the teaching of all the major religions of the world.

Except, they don't. The United Church of Christ doesn't believe that homosexuality is immoral. Neither do the quakers. The Dalai Llama says there's nothing wrong with it, so a large percentage of the world's buddhists would say it's okay. Reform Judaism doesn't oppose it. Conservative Judaism is presently ambiguous on the subject, leaning toward accepting homosexuality. Shinto and Confucianism apparently have nothing against it.

Never mind that Pace’s views are mainstream for virtually all cultures in human history.

Except, they aren't. His views are increasingly considered outdated and backward in many cultures of the world, including much of Europe, Australia, Canada, Japan, Israel... even South Africa has more codified legal rights for gay people than the US. Moreover, homosexuality was widely accepted as not immoral throughout much of human history: indeed, formal union ceremonies for male couples were widely recorded in ancient Greece and Rome, and throughout Europe, declining toward the 13th century as the church began to formalize the idea of what a wedding was.

Never mind that polls clearly show that Americans are consistent in their agreement with Pace toward homosexual behavior.

Except, they aren't. I believe you'll find the opinions of Americans are split almost 50/50 on the issue, if you check opinion polls. Anyway, even if it were true, it doesn't justify discrimination: Americans were once consistent in their agreement that people with different skin colors were inferior, or that women were property of their husbands. That didn't make such behaviors right at the time either.

Never mind that Charles Moskos, a military sociologist at Northwestern University, told the Tribune that he has repeatedly heard enlisted members oppose gays in the military because “it’s a question of cohesion, but morality is something they always bring up.”

A 2006 poll shows that 3/4 of military personnel report that they are already comfortable serving with a gay person, and one in four report that someone they work with is gay. That doesn't sound like a big moral crisis in the military to me.

Never mind that in 1993 General Colin Powell viewed homosexuality as “incompatible” with a military setting.

Never mind that the former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff thinks the military's policy against gay people should be repealed.

Certainly, expressing views based in morality is not a good career move for anyone in today’s non-judgmental society –– especially a military man –– what with the left in control of Congress and liberals under the control of the lavender lobby.

Oh, puh-leeze. If we controlled congress, we'd have marriage rights nationwide by now.

It took Hillary a try or two to get things properly triangulated, but she finally came down squarely adjacent to the side that says homosexual behavior is most certainly not immoral (her traditional Methodist heritage notwithstanding).

I'm friends with no less than three Methodist ministers who believe that homosexuality is not immoral.

By the way, it was Hillary Clinton’s husband who promulgated the disastrous “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in 1994

And who now says he regrets having done it, and that it's bad for our nation.

You’ll recall that the policy prohibits commanders from asking about a service person’s sexual preference, just as it prohibits service personnel from revealing their sexual preference.

Except, that's not true. What it does is prevent gay people from saying they're gay. A straight guy can say "my girlfriend" or "my wife", and he's not brought up on charges for revealing his sexual orientation. Only gay people aren't allowed to tell, which effectively forces them to lie to conceal it, because even if their commander carefully doesn't ask them anything that could make them reveal their orientation, their buddies will undoubtedly casually ask them something that would.

A gaggle of amateur, self-appointed theologians dismiss the General’s views as “controversial.” Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts, Jr., demanded, “Don’t Lecture us on Morals, General!” He dismissed General Pace’s comments as a “detour around critical reasoning,” reducing Pace’s stance to a simplistic “wrong because it’s wrong.” Further, Pitts called anyone with Pace’s views “bigots.” The New York Times, long the nation’s reliable arbiter of morality, weighed in also, calling Pace’s views “wrong,” “bigoted” and “out of step.” That’s what it means to be non-judgmental and anti-bigotry today. It also exemplifies the left’s respect for free speech and religious liberty as foundations for discourse in the United States.

In fact, it does: the left lets the right say what they think about the morality of gay people. That's free speech: we don't pull out guns and make them shut up. Meanwhile, we point out that we believe they're bigots. That's free speech too: they can't pull out guns and make us shut up either.

On the Hill, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) declared, “We don’t need moral judgment from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs.”

And we don't. That's not his job. Moreover, he knows full well that there are undoubtedly thousands of gay and lesbian people in the service he commands, and by proclaiming his belief that they are immoral, he is damaging their respect for him.

Marines don’t retreat without orders. It would be a crime if General Pace were given such orders in this case. The Marine motto is “Semper Fidelis” — Latin for “Always faithful.” As the daughter of a Marine, I am proud of General Pace for being faithful to Biblical truth as well as having the courage to espouse sound military policy.

As the son of a Marine, I am disgusted with General Pace for dishonoring the service by denouncing the very people he is supposed to be serving to protect. My father, and my grandfather before him, served our nation to make this world safer and freer for all people, and particularly for their descendants. That's me, a gay man. My father tells me that when he served, there were a few guys everyone knew were gay, and nobody cared. I'm saddened to hear that no less than the chairman of the joint chiefs is now less able to serve with loyal american gay people than ordinary Marines were long ago when my father served.

Repeat lies on lifesite

2007-03-15T15:38:00.000-07:00

Lifesite published a new article in which they again published the same tired lie about the Parker case in Massachusetts:

Referring to the Massachusetts Parker case, Bosak continued, “We saw a man arrested because he went to the school headmaster to ask for exclusion of his child of such classes.

Once again, the truth is that Mr. Parker was not arrested for speaking to the school's headmaster, he was arrested for tresspassing when he refused to leave the school when he didn't get what he wanted.

He could have come back another time to discuss it further. He could have left and appealed to the school board. But no, he had to act like a baby and refuse to leave until he got his demands to come true. So the school officials had him arrested so they could close the building for the night.

His fault. Trying to blame it on anyone else is a blatant lie.

General Pace

2007-03-15T00:19:00.000-07:00

On "Christian News Wire", Rev. Rusty Lee Thomas writes:

Years ago, I wrote of the pathetic condition that we are experiencing today as our nation bows to the homosexual agenda. Institution after institution has caved to their perverted juggernaut that is running rampant today. No one dares to have the moral courage like General Pace to say the self-evident truth, lest they face the fierce wrath of the sodomites and the moral cowardice of his feminized peers.

Links added by me for my amusement.

You know, my father was a marine, as was my uncle. My grandfather was in the army air force. I work with military personnel professionally sometimes. I suspect if you called any of those men, or any of General Pace's peers, "feminized", they'd hand you your face.

He was forced to regret his statement that "homosexuality was immoral."

Let me be blunt: I think it's absolutely ridiculous to claim that anyone can force General Pace to do anything, except for the President. After all, they're the ones with the nuclear bombs, flamethrowers, and bazookas, and all we have are harsh words.

I'd also like to point out that General Pace didn't say he changed his mind or in any way disagrees with what he said, but rather, only that he feels he would have done better to focus on other aspects of his opposition to gay people serving their country.

Whether America wants to face it or not, tyranny of thought, belief, and practice is in full swing. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom to dissent is being monitored and controlled by the “powers that be.” [cut by TF] ... More and more the lawless are securing their crooked grip upon the sword of civil government and are beginning to wield it against anybody who has the nerve to stray from their politically correct reservation. Meanwhile, we are drowning in a sea of blood and perversion as the "sheeple" of America worship the "Emperor's New Clothes."

I couldn't have summarized my opinion of the present administration better. And remember, "politically correct" means to be deferential to the views and desires of those in power, and those in power are presently evangelical christian republicans. (Or at least they claim to be. Mr. Bush doesn't actually go to church, after all, unlike Mr. Clinton or Mr. Carter.)

Baptist Press publishes false statements about ENDA

2007-03-14T23:54:00.000-07:00

Baptist Press claims:

Although Clinton didn't re-state her public opposition to “gay marriage,” she did say once again she supports same-sex civil unions, which grant homosexual couples the legal benefits of marriage.

Except, "civil unions" do not grant gay and lesbian couples the legal benefits of marriage. They only grant a limited subset of the over 1200 federal and state special rights which are granted to heterosexual couples. Ironically, many gay and lesbian people, including myself, oppose the passage of "civil union" laws because we are unwilling to accept second class status under the law.

Baptist Press also claims:

Clinton also re-stated her support for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would ban discrimination against homosexuals, bisexuals and transgender people in both the public and private workplace. Pro-family groups have opposed ENDA because it equates homosexuality with such traits as race, ethnicity, gender and religion and because they say it would violate religious freedoms, forcing church ministries to hire people opposed to orthodox Christianity.

Of course, I don't believe for a moment that they actually believe this: ENDA very plainly contains an exemption for churches, so it's a flat lie to claim it would force churches to hire gay people if they don't want to.

So, I conclude that Baptist Press is bearing false witness.

Focus on the Funk

2007-03-14T23:35:00.000-07:00

Focus on the Family ran an article titled Gay Activists Take Aim at Tony Dungy, subtitled Indianapolis Colts coach's Christian pro-family beliefs challenged.

Of course, it's not Mr. Dungy's "Christian pro-family beliefs" that are being challenged, it's his choice to appear at a fundraiser for an anti-gay political organization. It's hard to tell that from the article though... it says:

Jim Buzinski, co-founder of OutSports.com, a Web site aimed at the homosexual audience, claims that Indiana Family Institute (IFI) is a political organization.

"He is speaking at the dinner next week in front of group that is very much a political organization," Buzinski said.

IFI President Curt Smith said neither the dinner nor the award is political.

Notice that they try to confuse you by observing oppenents' remarks that IFI is a political organization, but then saying the dinner and award are not political; firstly, tha's comparing apples and oranges, and secondly, I personally consider it untrue, as a fundraising dinner for a political organization is, in my opinion, a political dinner.

Jim Daly, president of Focus on the Family Action, said gay groups would like to silence anyone they perceive as opposing the gay agenda -- even a celebrated athlete or coach.

It's called "Christophobia."

First of all, it's flatly untrue that gay activists are trying to silence Mr. Dungy. He's entirely entitled to speak in front of IFI if he wants to. And, IFI is entirely within their rights to have their dinner and give him an award. We're merely making our displeasure known.

As for calling "Christophobia", I consider that remark to be bigoted hatemongering, a disgusting slur against innocent gay and lesbian people throughout the nation. Many gay and lesbian Americans are Christian.

Dungy was not available for interviews, but the Colts organization issued a statement saying that the coach is free to speak to any group he wishes.

"The club does not take positions in political issues in which it is not directly involved," the statement said. "The Colts do not endorse any political or religious position taken by any group that any Colts employee decides to speak or lend his or her name to."

However, the Colts haven't objected to IFI's use of their logo to advertise the event.

Cheney makes false claims about Iraq again

2007-03-13T21:39:00.000-07:00

Dick Cheney is once again claiming that the war in Iraq is related to 9/11. This is, of course, 100% false, as even Mr. Bush has admitted. Every investigation has determined that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and indeed that Hussein refused to be involved with or provide help to Bin Laden.

I can not believe for a moment that after 6 years nobody has told Mr. Cheney that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, or that as Vice President he is not privy to the actual facts. So, I feel forced to believe he's deliberately lying.

Fox "News"

2007-03-11T23:03:00.000-07:00

It's not really a Christian issue, but I thought it was worth mentioning... if you like Fox News, you might want to see this collection of screenshots.

Why Ann Coulter?

2007-03-06T15:43:00.000-08:00

On Salon, Glenn Greenwald provides a fascinating analysis of a question I asked recently: why is Ann Coulter being invited to speak at events at which republican presidential candidates are attending, and why are republican presidential candidates willing to be seen at an event where Ann Coulter is speaking?

His answer seems to be that Ann Coulter verbally emasculates liberal politicians (even when they are honorable US veterans), which helps the Republican party to project an image of masculinity on its candidates (even when they are draft dodgers), and that this helps get voters to vote for the candidate that they feel (without any actual evidence) will make them "safe".

I hope that you, kind reader, are above such obvious hatemongering.

Ann "Long Hands" Coulter fails to make nice

2007-03-05T23:21:00.000-08:00

Ann Coulter defends calling John Edwards a "faggot":

"'Faggot isn't offensive to gays; it has nothing to do with gays," Coulter said on "Hannity and Colmes" Monday night. "It's a schoolyard taunt meaning 'wuss,' and unless you're telling me that John Edwards is gay, it was not applied to a gay person."

Of course, it's not true about it not being offensive to gay people. (It's "gay people", not "gays", by the way. "Gay" is an adjective, not a noun.) Of course, Coulter is also being disingenuous in that she clearly knows it's a pejorative term used against gay people, as evidenced by her previous usage of it: (From wikipedia)

On July 27, 2006 American Republican pundit Ann Coulter said that the former Vice President of the United States (Al Gore) was a "total fag", and that former President of the United States (Bill Clinton) was a "latent homosexual", while being inteviewed by MSNBC's Chris Matthews.

According to Slate:

A spokesman for Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., called the comments "wildly inappropriate." Rudy Giuliani harmonized, saying the comments "were completely inappropriate." Mitt Romney's spokesman slammed Coulter's quip as "an offensive remark."

So, even if we accept her pretense that she didn't at the time know what an incredibly, fantastically offensive word it is for her to have used, she has no excuse not to know now, and the fact that she hasn't apologized leads me to believe that she is a hatemongering bigot.

I suggest you should ask yourself why she was invited to speak at an event attended by Republican presidential candiates - and why they chose to attend an event at which she was invited to speak - given that she has a history of making these sorts of remarks.

Special Rights for Religious Heterosexuals

2007-03-05T23:06:00.000-08:00

"Lifesite" also reports on Canadian provincial marriage commissioners seeking special rights. Apparently, unlike everyone else they believe they should be entitlted to do their jobs only when they want to, and get paid for it anyway.

Specifically, Canadian conservatives are pressing for passage of a bill which would give marriage commissionsers the special right to choose when they want to refuse to do their jobs on religious grounds, so they can refuse to preside at the civil marriage ceremonies of gay couples, who have the legal right to marry in Canada.

So, does this mean that the conservatives support the right of, say, a Hasidic Jewish marriage commissioner to refuse to marry a couple if the man doesn't have a full beard? How about an islamic emergency room surgeon who wants to refuse to operate on women who aren't wearing burkas? When does this special right to discriminate on the basis of religion end? And doesn't this mean that a high caste Hindu could get a job as a sewer worker and then do no work at all but demand to get paid because it's against their religion for them to work with excrement?

We all have things we don't approve of in life. There are jobs where the employee has to do things that we may not approve of, like trying to sell extended warrantys to people purchasing televisions or telling the purchaser of a software package who has found a bug that it's really supposed to work that way. The rest of us have a choice: we can suck it up and do the job, or we can tell the employer no and risk being fired. Why should religious people get a special exemption from doing what they're paid for?

Newsflash: Hillary Clinton does something unsurprising

2007-03-05T22:40:00.000-08:00

"Lifesite" delivers to us the astonishing news that Hillary Rodham Clinton is a political liberal. Yup, that's right folks, I know it's such a shocker. They write:

During the revealing intro and speech, Clinton is revealed as more of a homosexual activist than the activist leaders themselves,

Somehow I have a problem with the idea of calling her a "homosexual activist", given that she's heterosexual. Doesn't that make her a "heterosexual activist for homosexuals"?

moreover she is shown to be the prime mover behind fighting attempts to preserve the traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

And here I thought the prime mover was Nathan Lane...

...but seriously, the definition of marriage has radically changed many times in human history. The Bible mentions six different kinds of marriage, not including a consentual union of one man and one woman, none of which would be legal today. Practically every concievable type of "marriage" has been practiced by one group or another: societies have been observed in which women are "married" off before even being concieved and may be bartered by their "husbands" as currency; societies have been observed in which all men practice ritual homosexuality and only visit their wives for reproductive purposes. As gay Americans, we find such societies to be bizarre and distasteful, but their existence demonstrates that the contemporary idea of the heterosexual nuclear family has not been an unchanged standard for all of human history. Marriage as we know it today came about in the 20th century, with women obtaining equal rights and the Supreme Court ordering that interracial couples must be permitted to marry. Marriage has withstood countless changes over the hundreds of thousands of years of human history, and will continue long after gay people have joined the ranks of married couples.

Clinton herself admitted her "agenda" was synonymous with the homosexual agenda.

Ooh, the big scary gay agenda again.

Montel Williams show to feature Ex-facts?

2007-03-01T09:07:00.000-08:00

"Christian Post" reports that Alan Chambers, the president of Exodus International, a so-called "ex-gay" group, will soon be appearing on the Montel Williams Show, and that he's an "ex-gay" person himself.

(*Yawn*) This man is the President of Exodus International. He's professionally "ex-gay". You'll have to forgive me for questioning the legitimacy of his claim (Was he ever actually gay? Is he really straight?) given that the way he makes his living, he can't say otherwise without losing his job. But let's take his claim that he was gay at face value for a moment. The truth is, he won't, when asked in detail, say that he has actually rid himself of desire for men. (Doesn't sound very ex-gay to me.) I guess I should feel sad for him.

Exodus also doesn't seem like the most trustworthy organization to me. While they claim that gay and lesbian people should not be treated unkindly or with harsh language while Exodus tries to tell them they're sinners and must be changed (which seems an oxymoron in itself to me, but nevertheless), Mr. Chambers participates in anti-gay events in which the harshest language is used.

Further, Exodus's web site doesn't seem to be entirely forthcoming. It claims:

Exodus is a nonprofit, interdenominational Christian organization promoting the message of Freedom from homosexuality through the power of Jesus Christ.

Since 1976, Exodus has grown to include over 120 local ministries in the USA and Canada. We are also linked with other Exodus world regions outside of North America, totaling over 150 ministries in 17 countries.

Really? How interesting. I notice that they don't mention that in 1979, one of Exodus's founders, Michael Bussee, quit the group and held a "life commitment ceremony" with his boyfriend Gary Cooper, or that he now states his belief that Exodus doesn't work.

Some remarks from the Chairman of the Board of Exodus:

Exodus International spokesman John Paulk said that in the 21-year history of the organization, they have not come to a definitive statement about what they consider success to be. "That's something Exodus at large is wrestling with," said Paulk. "In the next couple of years we want to develop a uniform definition for what we consider to be change." Paulk, a former drag queen married to a former lesbian, is quick to add that he feels the goal should be heterosexuality, not just celibacy. "At the onset, Exodus did not know whether orientation change was even possible," says Paulk. "But what we've seen in the latter 10 years is that more and more and more people - their orientation is changing and they are marrying."

Wait a minute - After over two decades, Exodus hadn't even defined what it means to be ex-gay, yet they're going around telling people that they can be changed from gay to straight by the power of Christ? It sure sounds to me like they're trying to avoid admitting to a low (or nonexistant?) success rate by refusing to define what constitutes success.

But of course, in 2000 Paulk was seen and photographed in a Washington, DC area gay bar trying to chat up the patrons. (Interestingly, Wikipedia states that he was fired by Focus on the Family. Does this mean that Exodus is really just a puppet of FOTF? And why wouldn't they want to keep him on and help him and give him therapy in a spirit of Christian kindness if they really believe people can change their sexual orientation?) Oh yes, and his "ex-lesbian" wife admitted that she never actually partipated in any actual lesbianism, she just thought about it for a few months during college and that was it.

But back to the Christian Post article...

The subject matter has received much attention more recently following statements from former National Association of Evangelical (NAE) head Ted Haggard affirming that he was “completely heterosexual.” Haggard had resigned after a former male prostitute alleged the pastor paid him for sex and methamphetamines for three years.

Funny how they don't mention that ex-gay ministries have always said that transforming from gay to straight is a long process that usually takes years, but that Haggard supposedly did it in two weeks. I guess he had a lot of incentive, seeing how he makes his living as a right wing fundamentalist Christian minister, that after so many years in the ministry he probably doesn't have other job skills, and that he has a family to support who would no doubt sue him into the ground in divorce court if he didn't "convert". But maybe I'm just being cynical for imagining that there are financial reasons behind his claim to heterosexuality.

Many non-Christians argue that gays do not just become heterosexual. They say that attempts at eliminating gay tendencies are harmful to individuals and simply not effective.

Many Christians agree with them.

However, Christians, including groups such as Exodus International, testify that there is possibility for change.

The Christian Post's Mr. Jackson should speak for himself. I personally know a lot of Christians who would say that gay people are as God made them and that trying to become straight goes against God's will.

On to yet another "ex-gay":

"People are already heterosexual - physiologically, anatomically and biologically," Tim Wilkins, a former homosexual, explained to The Christian Post.

Of course, the article fails to mention that Mr. Wilkins is a professional "ex-gay" minister. It also fails to mention that Mr. Wilkins has admitted that he has not "cured" himself of homosexuality, and that he still lives with gay desires and is merely acting out the part of heterosexuality.

Mr. Wilkins's remarks continue:

"My point being that same-sex attraction is a temptation. We are not exempt from temptation in this life."

Gentle heterosexual readers, I ask you: how often do you feel "tempted" to have sex with someone of your own gender? Never? I thought so.

Other guests on the Montel Williams show include former homosexuals Tom and Donna Cole, who also work with ministry to help Christians struggling with sexual and relational issues.

Yup, that's right... the rest of the "ex-gay" people who will appear are professionally "ex-gay" too.

You know, there's a word for a person who enjoys sex with people of their own gender, and later decides that they want to exclusively be heterosexual and is happy that way... They're called "bisexual".

Anti-gay "Christians" dodge the facts about psychologists

2007-03-01T01:51:00.000-08:00

Lillian Kwon, of the "Christian Post", also makes the false assertion that the American Psychological Association was pressured by "homosexual groups" PFLAG and NGLTF. As a reminder, PFLAG is a heterosexual group (primarily at least, that's the point), and as previously mentioned here, Ex-Gay Watch contacted the APA and was told that not only were they not pressured, but PFLAG only mentioned the idea in a casual meeting, and NGLTF didn't provide an opinion until they were asked for one. That sure doesn't seem like Ms. Kwon's "years of pressure from homosexual groups" to me.

In fact, Ex-Gay Watch quotes an APA representative as saying that their reason for re-examining their policy is that a "growing body of new research has been published on conversion therapy and a number of other medical and mental health professional associations have released new statements and policies on the issue."

Focus on the Falsehoods

2007-02-28T12:15:00.000-08:00

Ex-Gay Watch reports that Focus on the Family has falsely reported that:

Under pressure from homosexual activists, the American Psychological Association (APA) plans to re-examine its policy on therapy for gay men and women seeking change.

As reported by Ex-Gay watch, the reality is that PFLAG (a group of heterosexual people) initially brought up the issue with the APA, and later, according to the APA, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force only provided an opinion to the APA when the APA requested it.

Wow. One.

2007-02-28T08:00:00.000-08:00

Quick! Stop the presses! Catholic World News is reporting on a guy in Italy who claims he used to be homosexual and was converted through the power of the Bible!

Waitaminnit... one guy in Italy claims that he used to be gay (of which I have no substantiation) and is now straight (of which I have no substantiation), and this is news? I thought these people were claiming this is a perfectly reasonable expectation, and that gay people can change... why is it worldwide news when one person claims to have made this supposedly reasonable change?

Hmm... could it be because it doesn't really happen? Even accepting on the face of it that Catholic World News believes reported honestly (in that they are honestly reporting the man's claim) I'm still not buying that it actually happened. Of course, this is the United States, where one can't seem to find an "Ex-gay" person who isn't employed by a right wing religious organization and/or doesn't admit that they still have homosexual feelings and desires but are merely acting out the part of being heterosexual.

Is Minnesota Family Council really Christian?

2007-02-28T07:47:00.000-08:00

Winona Daily News publishes about efforts to gain some small amount of decent treatment for gay and lesbian couples in a state that has banned gay marriage. The example given is that a bill is being considered to allow, but not require, local governments to grant health care to the gay and lesbian partners of their gay and lesbian employees. (And you have no idea how much it galls me to use the word "partners".)

“This is the new strategy,” said Chuck Darrell, spokesman for the Minnesota Family Council. “They’ve changed to an incremental approach to gain a little bit here and a little bit there.”

Well duh! That's exactly what they say they're doing, so it's not like it's some big revelation...

Darrell and Minnesota Citizens in Defense of Marriage held a news conference to outline plans to stoke local opposition in the districts of the bill’s, in hopes they’ll withdraw the measure.

Even if they don’t, Gov. Tim Pawlenty is unlikely to sign the bill. He’s been an outspoken opponent of state benefits for same-sex couples, going back to his days as GOP House Majority Leader, and spokesman Brian McClung said Pawlenty’s position hasn’t changed.

Now, let's be clear about this, folks. These people are actively working to try to make sure that law-abiding gay and lesbian Americans can't get health insurance. Is that Christian? Is it Christian to subject someone to living in the constant fear that if anything happens to them they'll be forced into bankruptcy because they can't afford health care? Is it Christian to subject someone to the risk of dying if they come down with a major disease like cancer or a heart condition and can't afford treatment? I don't think so.

And remember, in cities that have enacted "domestic partner" benefits, most people who have used them have been heterosexual, so these people are hurting heterosexual people too.

That's why I think "Minnesota Family Council" and "Minnesota Citizens in Defense of Marriage" (a lie of a name in my opinion since their goal is to prevent people from marrying) are un-christian.

A lie in Massachusetts

2007-02-26T10:23:00.000-08:00

I'm shocked that the Concord Monitor chose to publish David Testerman's letter, "Homosexual agenda puts our values at stake". I'm always shocked when a paper publishes as an "opinion" piece something that is full of factual errors. To say "I believe gay people are immoral" is an opinion; specific claims about specific events that happened in a specific place are either facts or falsehoods.

I'm also tired of hearing about the Homosexual Agenda. The planning committee is still working on it, and we're stuck on whether we want to ask for pink triangle lanes at the supermarket or pink triangle parking spaces at the hair salon.

Mr. Testerman writes:

Homosexual activists have laid out a thorough plan to gain acceptance of homosexual behavior in America

Oh, darn it, and they forgot to invite me to the planning meeting again!

We all have seen what this 1 percent to 2 percent of our population has done to destroy the fabric of our country.

Yup, we have. Absolutely nothing at all.

A late-stage step in that plan is legislation that would create stiffer penalties for crimes against those who identified themselves as homosexual than against other citizens.

Where do they make this nonsense up? I've never met or even heard of a gay person demanding such an outrageous thing. What many gay people (and not all) do ask for is laws to create stiffer penalties for crimes in which the criminal has made clear their belief that the victim is gay and that they are committing the crime because of this belief. Such laws protect not only gay people, but also straight people who are incorrectly perceived to be gay. And, they are not applicable in cases where the victim is gay but the criminal did not know or perceive the fact, or in cases in which the victim is gay and the criminal did know but the fact was not related to their decision to commit the crime. Indeed, hate crime laws are difficult to apply to most cases, because unless the criminal specifically says something to indicate that hate was their motivation for committing the crime, there is usually no evidence to indicate that it was in fact a hate crime.

Mr. Testerman continues:

It has already happened in the United States, where local hate-crime laws have been enacted. In Philadelphia, Christians ranging in age from 17 to 72 were arrested and jailed for singing hymns and carrying signs encouraging homosexuals to repent.

I don't know if Mr. Testerman is ignorant of the facts or is deliberately lying, but his statement is untrue. What actually happened is that a group of people who claim to be Christian were arrested and jailed because they invaded a gay rights event (which had a lawfully issued permit to parade and assemble in a public place) without a permit and loudly attempted to disrupt the gay rights event, and then refused to leave when asked to. So, these supposed Christians walked into what legally amounts to being a private party and made a point to be as loud and annoying as possible, and then refused to leave... and they have the gall to try to make it look like it's the gay people's fault that they were arrested?

Mr. Testerman writes:

House Resolution 254 establishes a federal hate-crime law. It creates special protection and stiffer penalties for crimes motivated by someone's actual or perceived "sexual orientation." The law does not, in itself, criminalize speech against homosexual behavior.

That's correct. Remember that.

But it will open the door to criminalization of speech.

Last I checked, criminalization of speech was still prohibited by both state and federal constitutions in the United States, and no law passed by congress can change that fact. I consequently conclude that Mr. Testerman is either ignorant of this basic aspect of how our government works, or is trying to whip up hysteria to get people to act against laws protecting innocent people.