Pages

Saturday, January 24, 2009

Prop 8 UPDATE: Militant Homosexual Rights Movement Keeps the Pressure On

From United Families International

Militant Homosexual Rights Movement Keeps the Pressure On
It’s time to take our blinders off and throw away the rose-colored glasses.  If they’re getting busy, we need to be organized, united, and, more importantly, even busier than they.  If you haven’t done so already, be sure to join the DNA and receive daily actions items for blogging, Facebooking, contacting legislators, talking with neighbors, and writing letters to the editor for your local newspapers.  Whether you’ve got 30 minutes or four hours each day to be an activist, we need you.

Gay-Rights Boot Camp (LA Times):

Determined to avoid the mistakes of their last, losing campaign for gay marriage, gay rights activists are launching the first of what they hope will be many “marriage equality training camps” in Los Angeles this weekend.

The idea is to train activists in “the practical, hands-on skills to organize in their communities to restore marriage equality for same-sex couples to California.”

“The Camp Courage training, inspired by ‘Camp Obama,’ is based on grassroots organizing models that have developed leaders and nurtured progressive social movements for many years, including the fundamentals of community organizing; volunteer recruitment and management; voter persuasion and more,” according to a statement.

Prop 8 Opponents Distribute Maps of Traditional Marriage Supporters’ Homes:

Radical opponents of Proposition 8, the proposition that democratically amended the California constitution to define marriage as the union of one man with one woman, have used a variety of tools to alter, and then reject, the popular will of Californians. They tried running vile ads that unfairly targeted groups such as Mormons. When that failed, they resorted to violence and brutal assaults.

And now, they’ve crossed the line once again. They have posted maps online that very clearly show the addresses of those who donated money to the Prop 8 cause (supporting traditional marriage), including even small donors who gave $50 or less.

UFI blog EXCLUSIVE NEWS:

The UFI blog has learned that up to 1/3 of the Christmas packages that were sent to Californian missionaries of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS) were not delivered. The LDS church has been widely criticized by the Militant Homosexual Rights Movement for their opposition to Same-Sex Marriage. It is suspected that the Christmas presents were stolen in retaliation to the passing of Proposition 8.

 

27 comments:

  1. Regarding the maps: this is interesting. They have our home mapped on there even though we donated through my husband's business, which is located in a different city. How did they get that? It creeps me out!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Oh. That is interesting, Laura. And creepy. Seems like they are extending past what public record supplies to increase the scope of their intimidation. Lovely.

    Thanks for the re-post, Kingfisher. I second the shout out for the DNA. It's a fantastic organization!

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree Pearl people need to stand up to this minority group. Join the DNA and help preserve society from further break down.

    ReplyDelete
  4. i heart the DNA!
    also that picture. i feel like i'm the guy standing there. that's exactly how prop 8 felt.
    you know?

    like people were SCREAMING in your face all the time. wow, glad that is over. go marriage!

    ReplyDelete
  5. "It is suspected that the Christmas presents were stolen in retaliation to the passing of Proposition 8."

    Is an evidence-free allegation considered a "traditional value" now?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Daniel, what are you going on about?

    ReplyDelete
  7. oh he's always "going on" :) it's fun to watch!

    ReplyDelete
  8. I have to agree with Daniel and ask for some evidence of the missing packages. Note: I am LDS; I support marriage amendments; I just like to have proof of such "outrageous" (not necessarily wrong) claims as "up to 1/3" Christmas packages to missionaries in CA went missing. Besides, "up to" is misleading because it could really mean anywhere from 0% to 33%.

    If we are going to successfully defend traditional marriage we can't rely on pathos or hearsay. We need to have documented cases, not just "I heard that this happened to a friend of a friend." Truth is on our side; it is the militant supporters of same-sex "marriage" who have to resort to pathos and lies. The missing Christmas packages statement could be true but we do need evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Sure Jared. I agree. And no one here was defending it as fact (or even mentioning it, for that matter...until Daniel). I would just like to know exactly what it is you are agreeing with Daniel about? His statement made no sense to me...meaning, I was hoping for clarification.

    "Is an evidence-free allegation considered a "traditional value" now?"

    Could you clarify this, Daniel?

    ReplyDelete
  10. I was talking about the UFI blog paragraph that implied that "The Militant Homosexual Rights Movement," acting in retaliation for the passage of Prop 8, was somehow responsible for the Christmas packages sent to the LDS California missionaries not being delivered

    ReplyDelete
  11. UFI didn't "imply" anything, Daniel, they simply stated that the occurrence is suspect. And it is. They didn't claim to have conclusive evidence, they just brought the issue to our attention. But then, fair reporting isn't exactly something that homosexual activists look kindly upon, is it?

    At the NLGJA's (National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association) tenth anniversary gala conference in 2000, MSNBC producer Ramon Escobar began a conversation regarding fair reporting practices like this, "This whole issue of 'balance' that we as journalists are supposed to achieve....When we cover the black community, I've never seen a newsroom where you're covering one side and then you have to go run out and get the Klan's point of view: 'Well, I've got to go do my Klan interview.' How do you be fair?" Jeffrey Kofman, CBS correspondent and NLGJA member echoed the biased sentiment when he followed with "The argument [is]: Why do we constantly see in coverage of gay and lesbian, bisexual and transgender issues the homophobes and the fag-haters quoted in stories when, of course, we don't do that with Jews, black, etcetera?" And to top it all off, Paula Madison, VP of diversity at NBC chimed in with, "I agree with him. I don't see why we would seek out...the absurd, inane point of view just to get another point of view."

    So you see, the press, back in 2000, not only decisively lumped sexual orientation with race and religion, but they conclusively determined that anyone opposing the normalization of homosexuality was a "homophobe" and a "fag-hater" or "absurd and inane."

    No wonder people have lost faith in the mainstream media.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "...not only decisively lumped sexual orientation with race and religion..."

    I agree with you that sexual orientation shouldn't be equated with race, but I have no problem with it being lumped in with religion. Both s.o. and religion, unlike race, involve feelings and chosen behavior. If homosexuality is a mutable characteristic of a person, then certainly so is religion (the very idea of religious conversion illustrates that fact).

    ReplyDelete
  13. Yes, they do both involve feelings and chosen behavior, but choosing religion is a positive choice, one that benefits society for its unselfish nature, and choosing to pursue homosexual sexual relations is a choice which negatively impacts society for its promotion of self over others. While religion asks of its adherents to be better and do better, homosexuality is marked by its high instance of promiscuity, STDs, and infidelity. Religion as a whole is good. Homosexual sexual relations are bad.

    ReplyDelete
  14. That's a good summary of the two Pearl. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "Yes, they do both involve feelings and chosen behavior,..."

    Okay, then why did you complain about the press in 2000 (supposedly) lumping together sexual orientation and religion?

    "...homosexuality is marked by its high instance of promiscuity, STDs, and infidelity."

    Since you think homosexuality is wrong even when those three factors are not present (i.e. two disease-free homosexuals in a monogamous relationship), what exactly is your point here?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Daniel, I already answered why I disagree with the press lumping sexual orientation and religion together in 2000. Read my comment on 1/28, at 10:50PM.

    The point is that there are reasons to condemn homosexual sexual relations beyond just religious convictions. It is unhealthy mentally, physically, and spiritually.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "It is unhealthy mentally..."

    What about all the homosexuals with no mental health problems?

    "...physically,..."

    What about all the homosexuals with no physical problems?

    "...and spiritually..."

    I thought your threefold list of why "homosexual sexual relations" are unhealthy was based on things "beyond just religious convictions." Apparently not after the "spiritually" inclusion.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Same sex attraction is a disordered desire. Homosexual acts are disordered behaviours. The behaviours are disordered because they do not affirm human nature. Sexual intercourse reveals the fullness of what it means to be human. Two men or two women do not fully reveal humanity. It is husband and wife together that reveals the fullness of humanity.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Ah, but see Daniel, this is just the type of selfish thinking that is so damaging. I was referring to the mental health of society, the physical health of society, and the spiritual health of society. We all contribute consciously or subconsciously and when we adopt deviant behaviors and embrace them as normal, society suffers and true healing for individuals becomes impossible. Instead homosexuals are supported in their deviant behavior. I apologize for the confusion.

    Also, I do not for one minute believe that homosexuals, in their heart of hearts, are okay with their homosexual identity and I don't think that is a result of society's refusal to accept their lifestyle as normal, either.

    When one experiences desires that are contrary to natural and spiritual laws, they can't possibly be happy...which is why homosexuals keep demanding privileges...in an eternally fruitless, socially damaging search for personal happiness through acceptance by humanity.

    Now, I understand that personal experience is no indicator of communal thinking, but since this whole comment is purely my opinion anyway, I have no compunctions against sharing this as well. I have a close homosexual relative who has expressed his absolute knowledge that his lifestyle is wrong spiritually, wrong socially, and wrong mentally, but he continues to live it and advocate for it simply because, in his words, he is too weak to fight the physical desires and impulses.

    So, why are there so many who are so eager and willing to promote a lifestyle that is defined by its lack of self-control and misguided search for acceptance? And if that is not the defining factor, if homosexuals are able to exercise self-control like the rest of their human peers who abstain from sex, then why do homosexuals not walk away and pursue a more spiritually, socially, and mentally satisfying relationship with a heterosexual? Why force others to accept the you that you despise yourself?

    Anyway, I've wandered in my opinionated ramblings. My apologies for the off-topic nature of this conversation.

    I am grateful for the DNA and its determination to advocate for healthy marriage and family and, therefore, healthy society and government.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "Sexual intercourse reveals the fullness of what it means to be human."

    That's a pretty nonsensical argument against "homosexual acts" since two men or two women can engage in sexual intercourse. It's not the kind of intercourse that you agree with, but it's still intercourse.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Homosexual acts do not reveal the fullness of humanity. Only female and male intercourse can do that. Humanity is not just male and it is not just female, it is male and female together.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "Homosexual acts do not reveal the fullness of humanity..."

    And you define "the fullness of humanity" as...

    ReplyDelete
  23. Male and female together. A bunch of men together only reveals half of what humanity is. A bunch of women only reveals the other half. Sexual intercourse reveals the completeness of what it is to be human. It becomes like a one flesh union of male and female together. This is an authentic union because new life is possible. Without it new life would be impossible.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "Male an female togehter... Sexual intercourse reveals the completeness of what it is to be human."

    Again, this fails as an argument against "homosexual acts," since "sexual intercourse" can two men or two women, not just "male and female together."

    "This is an authentic union because new life is possible."

    So intercourse between an infertile heterosexual couple does not represent "an authentic union?"

    ReplyDelete
  25. Two men having sex with each other does not reveal the feminine aspect of humanity. It is like a scale that is out of balance. There is no complimentary of the sexes, since both are men. The sexual act itself is always sterile. Never ever will two men having sex with each other produce new life.

    The primary purpose of sex is to have babies. Therefore sexual activity that is not open to life is not fulfilling its primary purpose. Even a male and female couple who are contraception free and are biologically sterile, still have a union which is open to life. New life won't come because of biological issues but the sexual act itself is open to life. This is an important distinction, the act must be open to life for it to fulfill its purpose. Homosexual sex is never open to life this is why it is wrong. It is an abuse of our sexual abilities to take part in it.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "The primary purpose of sex is to have babies."

    Ugh. This is the kind of attitude that leads to some people having more babies than they can afford, which, in turn, leads to cases of poverty, divorce, crime, and/or welfare.

    ReplyDelete

This forum is open to anyone with a desire to express him/herself with respect, civility, and understanding. Please remember, therefore, that comments are not always reflective of the opinion of this website and its community. We reserve the right to delete any commentary or content, including, but not limited to, material that is obscene, profane, irrelevant, or otherwise inappropriate as per our discretion.