And Then, Reality Left the Building

Posted by John Schroeder at the Article VI Blog.

The people behind that now infamous “Mormon Home Invasion” ad against Prop 8 spoke up in the form of an op-ed in the on-line edition of the LATimes this morning. The piece is full of distortions and perceptions born, as best as I can tell, of some sort of paranoia. I will leave it to Lowell to deal with this factually - as an active participant in the Yes on 8 campaign, he has a far better command of those facts than I do. However, there is one comment to which I must address myself:

Unfortunately, this failure to take public responsibility for leading the fight against same-sex marriage, as well as the masking of its efforts behind the shroud of an interfaith coalition, is nothing new for the LDS Church.

This is simply offensive. Think about the implications of that statement. It implies deep conspiracy, something virtually impossible to pull off. It implies that those of us other than Mormons were less than genuine. It implies that those of us other than Mormons were duped.

[Read more...]

Twisted Scripture - Newsweek Preaches to Christians

A Beetle Blogger response to Newsweek's cover story: Our Mutual Joy.

Newsweek Sermon of the Week

In a “if you can’t beat’m join’m” approach, the would-be preachers over at Newsweek have taken the Sunday Sermon to the people in their new issue.

In a thinly veiled propaganda piece, Newsweek, the latest in a long line of same sex allies in the old media, tries to score points against marriage advocates by advocating the Bible…. sort of. Ignoring mountains of facts decrying the myth of healthy gay marriage, they attempt to reinforce the idea that the only thing standing in the way of true love and equality is religion.

This new attack on religious people is a cheap appeal to the sense of goodness and fairness that Christians have for the world, and especially for those who hold different views. Newsweek, take note: the bible teaches tolerance, not acceptance.

Imagine the outrage if the media were to start parsing the Torah or Koran to change votes! No, it would never happen, that’s acceptable diversity. It’s only politically acceptable to rage from the bully pulpit at those hateful, bigoted, lousy Christians right?

Twisting scripture to fit a political agenda is nothing new, but I have to say, this is a new low for Newsweek and the mainstream media.

—Beetle Blogger

Shame On You, You Heterosexist!

Teaching Intolerance through Tolerance Education

An excellent and eye-opening submission from California Crusader

One of the major developers of curriculum for schools about gay issues is the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network GLSEN. One of their programs for schools is called Safe Space. On the surface, this program sounds great. According to the Program Introduction, the goal of the program is to shape a school culture that is accepting of all people, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity/expression, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion or other differences. Now, who wouldn’t want that? But, the problem is that while affirming the rights of gays and lesbians, it preaches against those who may feel differently about homosexuality due to personal or religious beliefs. A classic example is the activity on page 30 of the program called Terminology Match Up. One of the terms students and teachers are asked to define is heterosexism. GLSEN defines heterosexism as a bias against homosexuality rooted in the belief that heterosexuality is superior or the norm..

Do you see the hypocrisy? For gay activists like those who wrote this curriculum, it’s not enough to be tolerant of all people’s gender or sexual identity. They are only satisfied if we wholeheartedly endorse theirs. So, how do you think a little Catholic girl would feel in such an activity? I can hear her now, Teacher, but my church taught me that homosexuality is wrong. Sorry, responds the teacher, your church is teaching you to be a heterosexist, and that’s bad!

Please don’t misunderstand me. I have NO tolerance for hateful speech or actions against the gay community. But, where is the reciprocation for the religious community? I’m still waiting.

For a more detailed definition of heterosexism, including how gays are using it to fight traditional marriage, click here

Demographic Winter

The Beetle Blogger is in the house once again. Boy this lady is in-the-know. This video is a must see and the commentary that follows is right on target. Thanks Beetle Babee.

The Decline of the Human Family

How the road to self fulfillment led us to the perfect storm

From Rick Stout’s Demographic Winter

Of all of the causes we have in the world today, many of which particularly capture the time and space of the media and academia, it is singularly peculiar that the disintegration of an institution as important as the human family should want for attention. Perhaps it is because the family is made up of individual people, and we have become a society obsessed with a focus on the self. Be that as it may, we have ignored this institution to our great detriment. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights got it right when it declared that “the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society”. Implicit in this inclusion in an international founding document declaring universal human rights, is the recognition that stable society’s very survival rests on the strength of this fundamental group unit.

The years have not been kind to this most important institution – the family, particularly the last four decades. Worldwide, families have broken down at a historically unprecedented pace. There are certainly records of how now-extinct societies have experienced similar declines before their demise, but what we now face is unique in that it has a global spread. This has ominous portent.

The family’s importance to basic social structures has perhaps been more explored and discussed than its importance to other aspects of our world, and certainly deserves continued study. What is probably less obvious, and therefore less examined, is the family’s impact on such things as the rule of law, democratic structures, societal and even technological advancement, education, successful commerce and economic structures. Society depends on these in order to remain stable and the family’s impact on them is profound.

When the great social experiments of the 1960’s were launched, and when concern over a “population bomb” loomed large, we did not have the social science and economic studies we have available to us today. So the world embarked unknowingly on a self-destructive course.

Demographic Winter: The Decline of the Human Family seeks to reawaken society to the importance of the stable, intact family, and engender a discussion and greater focus in the media, in academia, in the halls of policy makers, in religious circles, in the committees of civil society and in households around the world. Our hope is that all of these circles will bring to bear on the problems facing the family the tremendous contributions each can uniquely make. In this way, we hope to avert the storm that is now most surely coming on.

These Are Only Words, So Don't Read Them

Another great editorial from Fitz over at The Opine Editorials.  This is a witty must-read.

From LifeSiteNews.com:

When protesters took to the streets in a nationwide rally against California's true marriage amendment, Proposition 8, students from Saint Louis University (SLU), a Jesuit-run school, joined about 1,400 others gathered on the steps of the St. Louis courthouse.

College Republicans president Amy Kaufman attended the rally, and despite holding a sign reading, "You can't legislate love, Republican against Prop. 8," she told the newspaper that she could not understand why the definition of marriage mattered at all.

"There are bigger problems in the world. This is absurd that people are fighting so hard over the definition of a word,"said Kaufman.

That's right, Ms. Kaufman. Words are such a bore and defining words is even worse. It's [don't insert word here]. And it's really absurd when some words mean more than one thing! Fly. Rock. Land. Play. Fire. MVP. Catholic. The list is endless; without words, it's much less.

You're right: "marriage" is just one more word that is not worth bothering with. (Be sure to mention this to your boyfriend.) And so, in the spirit of making the world a wordless place, I offer you some slogans to use, free of charge:

• "This is a word-free zone. Honor our unspoken wishes. Please ask if you have questions."

• "Words: Just another government conspiracy meant to deprive people of their God-given, undefined rights."

• "Words are for birds. Mostly parrots."

• "Wordless: A stateless of mind."

• "A word less each day keeps the dictionary at bay."

• "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me. Because names are words and they don't mean anything."

• "I don't believe in marriage. Mostly because I can't define it."

Oh, and it goes without saying that you should ignore everything I've written here. As the great philosophical trio, the Bee-Gees, once sang: "You think that I don't even mean/A single word I say; it's only words..." Remember, you can't legislate words. Or define "legislate." Or define "define", for that matter. Word up!

From Carl Olson at Ignatius/Press Insight/Scoop Blog

Read More......

Ho⋅mo⋅phobe (n.)

by Beetle Blogger 

Ever wonder where that ubiquitously nifty word that doubles as a spiked club actually came from?  Scientists?  Medical Doctors? English Majors? Nope.  Activists!  Convenient isn’t it?

Psychologist and gay activist George Weinberg coined the term homophobia in his 1972 book Society and the Healthy Homosexual, published one year before the American Psychiatric Association voted to remove homosexuality from its list of mental disorders. Weinberg’s term became an important tool for gay and lesbian activists, advocates, and their allies. He was the first to describe the concept as an actual medical phobia.

A phobia is a persistent, irrational fear of a specific object, activity, or situation that leads to a compelling desire to avoid it. —Dictionary.com

A medically irrational fear.  Really.  Anyone who disagrees with the idea that homosexuality is normal has a medically irrational fear?  Isn’t that just name calling dressed up to look like something official?

The only irrational thing involved with the made-up word “homophobia” is the etymology.  The word “homophobia” makes absolutely no sense etymologically as the Greek ‘homo’ means ‘the same’, so literally, ‘homophobia’ means a fear of things that are the same, but who are facts to stand in the way of homosexual activists?

I find it fascinating that the term began to be associated with anyone who disagreed that homosexual orientations were “normal” only one year before the APA itself decided to change the idea of homosexuality from abnormal to normal.

Here we have a medical sounding term describing heterosexuals as mentally abnormal, and within one year, homosexual behavior declared healthy and normal.  Does that not strike anyone else as odd?  Tell me again that the activists had no hand in the APA changing their tune… ’cause even on sale, I’m not buying it.

Check out this article I came across at the New Yorker’s Family Research Foundation.

–Beetle Blogger

Is Hating “Haters” Hateful?

By Scott Lively, J.D., Th.D.
www.defendthefamily.com

Hate has a pretty bad name in the world today.  No one wants to be called a hater, especially Christians, which is probably why we get accused of it all the time by our opponents.

Homosexuals are especially fond of calling people haters.  They even invented the word homophobia, which means hate and fear of homosexuals, envisaged as a mental illness (a phobia is an anxiety disorder).

I hate being called a homophobe.  It has such an ugly connotation.  It’s especially unpleasant because, as a Christian, I’m supposed to have a reputation for loving people, not hating them.  So I’ve worked really hard over the years to try to get the homosexuals to stop calling me a homophobe.  I’ve pointed out the difference between hating people and hating their behavior (loving the sinner but hating the sin).  They hated that.  Then I tried “walking my talk” by taking an ex-“gay” man who was dying of AIDS into my family.  My wife and I and our children loved and cared for him during the last year of his life.  They hated that even more.

Then I began asking for guidance from homosexuals themselves:  “Tell me, where is the line between homophobia and acceptable opposition to homosexuality?” I asked.  “What if I just agree with the Bible that homosexuality is a sin no worse than any other sex outside of marriage?”  “No, that’s homophobic,” they replied.  “Suppose I talk only about the proven medical hazards of gay sex and try to discourage people from hurting themselves?” “No, you can’t do that,” they said.  “How about if I say that homosexuals have the option to change if they choose?”  “Ridiculous” they answered. “Maybe I could just be completely positive, say nothing about homosexuality, and focus only on promoting the natural family and traditional marriage?”  “That’s really hateful,” they replied.

After a while, I realized that the only way I could get them to stop calling me a homophobe was to start agreeing with them about everything.  But here’s my dilemma:  I honestly believe the Bible which says that homosexuality is wrong and harmful and that all sex belongs within marriage.  I’ve also read the professional studies and know that “gay” sex hurts people because it goes against the design of their bodies.  And I’m friends with a number of former homosexuals who are now married and living heterosexual lives.  Do I have to give up my religion?  Ignore scientific facts?  Betray my friends?  Is that the only way to avoid being called a hater and a homophobe?

There’s no escape.  A homophobe is anyone who, for any reason, disapproves of homosexuality in any way, shape, manner, form or degree.  This leaves me with just two choices:  agree that everything about homosexuality is natural, normal, healthy, moral and worthy to be celebrated OR be labeled as a mentally ill, hate-filled bigot.

Am I wrong? Is there any way to openly disapprove of homosexuality without being a homophobe?  “Gay” leaders, please set me straight on this.

Because if I’m right, that means the “gay agenda” is to stop everyone from following the Bible regarding sexual matters.  It is, after all, their stated goal to “stamp out homophobia.”  No more religious freedom.  It’s also to suppress scientific research that has reached conclusions they don’t like, especially if it helps people to change their homosexual orientation back to a heterosexual one (ask the doctors and scientists at narth.com what they’ve had to endure).  If it discourages homosexuality, even by implication, it’s homophobic and can’t be used.

There’s a queer reasoning behind all of this.  Homosexuals call me names like bigot and homophobe, condemn my religion, mock my rational conclusions about social issues, impugn my motives, display intense hostility toward my actions, and curse my very existence, all under the justification that I’m a “hater.”  But if I’m a “hater” for civilly opposing what they do, why aren’t they haters for uncivilly opposing what I do?  Such a double standard, in the context of a public debate on “civil rights,” is not just hypocritical, it is surreal.

I admit I have some hate. I hate watching people kill themselves with preventable diseases like AIDS.  I hate seeing children being steered toward unhealthy lifestyles.  I hate having my pro-family views distorted by dishonest journalists, politicians and academics.  And I hate seeing my God being treated like a homophobe for what He teaches in His Bible.

So if you’re not going to stop calling me a “hater” for wanting homosexuals to be saved and healed, or for opposing their political agenda, let’s at least see a little more of that famous “American sense of fair play” in the public debate on this issue.  Hatred of “haters” is hateful too.

Silence 'Deafening' Over Murder By Homosexual

As reported at OneNewsNow.com
by Allie Martin and Jody Brown

[A pro-family activist is questioning why there is no outrage over the murder of a college student by a homosexual.

On November 21, William Smithson, 43, of Delaware County, Pennsylvania, was sentenced to life in prison for the September 2006 strangulation murder of 23-year-old Jason Shephard. Smithson, a homosexual, murdered Shephard after slipping him GHB, a date rape drug, then hid the body in the basement of his home.

...

"The murders of both Matthew Shepherd and Jason Shephard were tragic, but one murder is being used by homosexual activists to push their agenda of special rights," Diane Gramley, president of the American Family Association of Pennsylvania, states. "Murder is murder and increased penalties for attacking a specially protected group listed in a hate crimes law is a waste of everyone's time and resources. Such a law creates unequal protection under the law."]

[Read more...]

A Case For Morality

By William K. Vogeler, Esq.

Marriage is between a man and a woman.

It is such a simple declaration, but seemingly necessary as a matter of law today. Gay rights advocates rage that it is bigoted; activist courts claim it is discriminatory. But it is neither. It is, rather, an indication of moral confusion. Joyce Kilmer, a soldier and poet, stated the problem in the contradictions of his time. He recognized the greatness of God and the smallness of man. "Poems are made by fools like me, But only God can make a tree."

We as human beings have made many marvels, but we will never create better than God has created. Or if your god is Nature, you will never do better than evolution. Whatever our philosophical persuasion, we know this is true: we cannot create a universe, a planet or a person. And we cannot survive as a species without heterosexual relations.

The principle --- the supremacy of God or Nature --- underlies all human endeavors. We can change, even improve, the human condition. But ultimately we must recognize our very being depends on certain, self-evident truths.

One saving truth is that we are still moral beings. It defines and guides our conduct as individuals and as a society. If we deny our morality, we deny our humanity. In the realm of government, morality is center stage. But she has become more like a dreary background than a leading lady. Because of our limited ability to appreciate the real drama of life, we have lost sight of the fact that life is a morality play.

So the same-sex marriage issue --- without morality at its center ---has divided good people, independent states and a great country. The United States have defined marriage as between a man and a woman many times. But courts increasingly have overturned these laws, focusing on
notions of equal protection over democratic processes.

A handful of judges have called traditional marriage laws unconstitutional. At the same time, these non-elected jurists have frustrated millions of voters and fueled hate across the country. The arguments have pitted heterosexual rights against homosexual rights, civil rights against children's rights, and set in conflict many other public policies. And in the crossfire of this battleground issue, morality has been dismissed.

But morality cannot be ignored in this debate. Same-sex marriage laws raise the same moral questions as laws against bigamy, incest, prostitution, bestiality and pedophilia. As a country and as people, we have consistently outlawed these behaviors on moral grounds. We justify them to preserve families, protect children, promote health and otherwise bring order to society. But we do so ultimately because we know it is right.

For those of us who chose divine intelligence, we act on faith. For those who prefer human intelligence, we act on reason. In either case, we make a choice consistent with our belief about what is right. That is the essence of morality. This dynamic is more than a philosophical perspective. It is the engine of human progress. It is natural selection and faith in action --- opposite sides of the same coin.

So it is time for Americans to make another decision based on a moral conviction. We must hold this truth to be self-evident: Marriage is between a man and a woman.

Like our Founding Fathers, we must enact a national constitutional amendment to ward off an encroaching aristocracy --- those courts that have overruled the will of the people. As Thomas Jefferson wrote, enumerating certain inalienable rights endowed by our Creator:

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

In so doing, we will regain our democratic right to govern ourselves. We will assert our sovereign power to act according to the dictates of our conscience and our moral choices. In the words of Abraham Lincoln:

"That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

Prop 8 Umbrellas

Public Forum Letter
From the Salt Lake Tribune
D. James Croft
Great Falls, VA

"There has been substantial coverage of the protests against the involvement of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with a coalition of Catholics and Evangelicals that supported California's Proposition 8. Much of the coverage has focused on protests at LDS temples in California and New York.

But a recent demonstration at the Washington, D.C., LDS Temple produced interesting results. A small group of protesters gathered outside the temple grounds. They displayed their signs but did not block traffic. They did not deface any property or engage in any intimidating conduct.

When a rainstorm came up, sister missionaries working at the temple's visitor center ran out with umbrellas, which they gave to the demonstrating group.

Participants on both sides of this emotional issue can learn from all those involved in this episode."

Fired For Documenting Risks of Homosexuality

Australian Health Minister Fires Men’s Health Ambassador for Documenting Risks of Homosexuality

By Ellen M. Rice
As reported on LifeSiteNews.com

SYDNEY, December 1, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Last week, Australian Health Minister Nicola Roxon appointed Warwick Marsh of the Fatherhood Foundation as one of six men’s health ambassadors who were charged with the task of building a federal men’s health policy, in part to address the epidemic of male suicide in Australia. The Australian homosexualist group, Coalition for Equality, however, immediately demanded Marsh’s firing, and two days later, on November 27, he was gone.

[read more...]