Sexually Attracted to Traditional Marriage

This is too funny.  We loved this letter posted on Playful Walrus.

Defending Your Support of Prop 8

Are you being criticized for your support of Prop 8?  Maybe friends, family, bosses, customers, coworkers, social networking contacts, bloggers, and commenters have lashed out at you or pressured you?  Maybe you have received angry calls from strangers that you perceived as threatening bodily harm to you, but in retrospect, you realize that the person calling you willingly subjects himself to the described treatment for jollies?

Well, I think I have a solution.

Feel free to copy and paste this defense I am providing below.  You don’t even have to give me credit.  Just be sure to modify it so your critic's name appears in the salutation.  Modify as necessary to be relevant to your circumstances.

============
Dear [insert name of your critic here],

I know you are upset with me.  Perhaps I can get you to understand why I supported Prop 8.

You see, from an early age, I have felt something deep inside me.  I knew I was different from a lot of other kids around me.  I thought maybe I was the only one who had these feelings.  I felt shame and self-loathing.

But as I got older, I found out that I wasn’t the only one.

You see, I am sexually attracted to supporting marriage amendments.

Now, I thought maybe I just needed the right experience with judicial tyranny.  That if I had a good experience with judicial tyranny, I could live happily ever after with letting judges tell me what to do, changing the meaning of words, invalidating my vote, and making me give things to other people even though I don’t want to.

But I couldn't deny the truth.  I tried.  I tried to conform to what those judges wanted.  I tried to listen to my Hollywood idols, my lesbian pastor, my college professor, my hippie parents- who all said that Prop 8 was wrong and would rot my brain.  Still, I found myself keeping the official voter pamphlet under my mattress, and sneaking peaks at the text of Prop 8.  It was so short, so simple, but it was enough to turn me on.  I couldn't sneak around anymore.  I couldn’t live a lie.

Bells went off when I donated money or time or my words or expertise to supporting the passage of a marriage amendment.  In pulling that lever to support Proposition 8, I felt true love.  I felt so happy and free.  I was so alive!

I had come to grips with my sexual orientation.  I am attracted to supporting marriage amendments.

I know that’s not what you wanted to hear.  I didn’t choose to feel this way.  It is how I've always felt.  And since it is my sexual orientation, you have to respect that and allow me to do whatever I need to do to find fulfillment of my desires.  You may find it repulsive or disgusting, or dysfunctional or irrational or just plain wrong.  But please don't judge me or hate me for being who I am.  Perhaps you can get over your Eightophobia by attending meetings of Parents and Friends of Marriage Amendment Supporters?  That would mean so much to me.  If you'd like, I can send over a new book for your kids to read that will help them deal with this: My Uncle Likes Supporting Traditional Marriage.. a Lot.  It is a pop-up book.

Thank you for your understanding and acceptance.  I know that, since this is my sexual orientation, you have to support me in how I feel and can’t criticize me for doing anything that I say is a result of my sexual orientation, nor deny me anything that I say I need because of my sexual orientation.  After all, it is all about love and happiness.

That is why I supported Prop 8.  I had to be true to myself.

Thanks again!

Why is Gay Marriage a 'Right' That is Being Denied?

Opinions submitted to The Wall Street Journal.

In regard to the Dec. 2 Letters to the Editor "Gays Are Fighting the Tyranny of the Majority," responding to William McGurn's Nov. 25 column "Main Street: Gay Marriage and the California Courts":

The correspondents obscure the absence of rational justifications for "gay marriage." Even if substantial majorities in many states are not fooled by phony argumentation and create laws that do not recognize "gay marriage," this does not provide any evidence that a right has been denied. Just because someone claims something as a right does not make it so.

The union of a man and a woman is the natural means by which procreation occurs, and it provides the opportunity for the optimal environment for delivering offspring to maturity with the interplay of male and female perspective. It does not take religion or even a belief in God to come to such a conclusion. And civilized societies free of confused and misplaced guilt recognize this.

Marriage does not discriminate. Whether people choose to marry or opt for an alternative lifestyle is their choice. Californians have been quite tolerant and have made substantial provisions in their laws for gay unions. Other systems (e.g., health insurance, Social Security, etc.) could be easily modified to facilitate the well-being of gay people without corrupting the primary unit of society. But this is not what advocates for "gay marriage" are pursuing. The debate is not about civil rights; it is an attempt to obtain total public acceptance through the pressure of political correctness and ultimately through the force of law.

Dan Pisenti
Mill Valley, Calif.

[Read more...]

Gays Organize "Pink Christmas" in the Netherlands

by The Pomegranate Apple

“AMSTERDAM, Netherlands — A Dutch gay group said Monday it has planned a ‘Pink Christmas’ festival for the first time in Amsterdam, featuring a manger stall with two Josephs and two Marys.”

read the article here

Appropriation is the process of taking something or identifying with something to make it your own. Its dictionary definition #4 has interesting wording: “to take to or for oneself; take possession of.”

Dante stole/appropriated specific phrases, images, and words from other great works of writing not only because literary appropriation enriches the text, but because it put him on par with the very texts from which he was stealing: the Illiad, the Odyssey, you get the idea.

Dante is an example of how appropriation can be helpful to society (ie gorgeous works of written art). But appropriation can have destructive results as well. Groups often use appropriation as way of control (this has happened over and over throughout history). Currently, some homosexuals appropriate Jesus for their own purposes by claiming he was gay. There is no hint or suggestion that Jesus was/is/could be gay, yet, when they take his symbol and equate it with themselves–just by saying the words– it gives their cause more legitimacy, and directly counters the claim that homosexuality is a sin.

Saying, “Jesus was gay,” is much more persuasive than saying, “Homosexual behavior isn’t a sin.”

Jesus was gay = divine definition change

Homosexual behavior isn’t a sin= simply refutes bible passages

By using a religious symbol (in this case, Christ: also seen literally as God to millions of people) and literally changing its definition, they claim that their lifestyle is divinely supported, even exemplified. (regardless of whether they really believe in the divinity of Christ).

Whether you are religious or not, you can see how this claim could be extremely offensive and sacrilegious. But when it is said over and over, Newsweek may write a supporting argument.

In the fight to have homosexuality regarded as normal, healthy behavior (despite the many health risks, despite the arbitrary way it was dropped from the APA’s list of disorders), gay activists are very smart. They use appropriation all the time.

In Amsterdam, this tactic is now being extended to the entire Christmas holiday.

Not only are they appropriating the holiday but they are taking the traditional colors (red and green) and inserting their own symbolic color: they are planning a 10-day “Pink Christmas Festival” in Amsterdam.

List of activities:

Live nativities featuring two Marys and two Josephs

Iceskating

Religious services on Dec 25

Parties

Gay-themed films

The reason:

• Encourage people to think about homosexuality and religion .
• “…help promote Amsterdam as a gay capital after a decline in its reputation in recent years.”
• “Christmas is about more than religion, it’s also about love and families, not to mention shopping…” –Val Dalen (ProGay group chairman).

Read the article here

Christmas is a religious holiday. It’s the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ .

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Isaiah 9:6

Changing its symbols to promote homosexuality does not make same gender “marriage” a smart idea for society.

However, those who struggle with SSA are always welcome to participate.

Christ invites all to forsake sin and worship him.

Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light. Matthew 11:28-30

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...]