Gay Marriage. Robert and Gary. And Fred. And Martin

by LeftCoastVoter

A fact that the Main Stream Media hid (and quite well) during the Prop 8 battle is the fact that up to 75% of Gay males in a “committed relationship” or a “marriage”  accept their partner having open sexual relations with another male.

It seems a little incredulous, so let me break it down so that we are all on the same page.

Robert and Gary are married.  Or deeply committed to each other.  They are “partners.”

It’s OK with Robert if Gary goes out and has sex with Fred.  And Gary thinks its OK if Robert has a sexual relationship with Martin.

You don’t believe me?  Ask David Benkof over at the Jerusalem Post. He wrote a column about it.  Here’s the highlights:

“…many male couples, including those in “marriages,” have arrangements with each other that allow for mutually agreed upon infidelity under certain circumstances…”

“…many gay couples are quite open about their mutually approved “adultery.”…”

“…Even gays and lesbians in monogamous relationships tend to see nothing wrong with consensual adultery, even when a couple has children. …”

The entire article is here.  Do you need more?  Perhaps David Nimmons is a big enough name for you.  You know, the founder of Manifest Love and a Gay Leader in New York.

In his book, The Soul Beneath the Skin, David cites numerous studies which document approximately 75%  of Gay Men in a “committed relationship” are not monogamous. They go out and have sex with other men.  And they both accept that.  Even when they have children in their “family.”

Remember Bob and Gary? And Fred?  And Martin?

That’s another reason why it’s Gay Marriage Gay Lifestyle is not OK.

I’d welcome your thoughts if they are on topic.  And if you want to say, “No, that’s not true,” then do some research first, perhaps contact David Nimmons (he’s Gay and will tell you the truth) or David Benkof (he got hate mail from Gays when he suggested that they try monogamy…and he is bi-sexual)

Stay tuned, much more to come.

Camel in the Tent: New Jersey Civil Union Findings

We found this post on Beetle Blogger.

We think people should know about it.

“What do we want?” “Equality!” “When do we want it?” Now!”

“All we want is to be equal!” “Stop Treating us like second-class citizens!

Oh…No Wait…Equal Isn’t Enough.
Let’s Call it Marriage!

Camel nose in the tent strategy rears it’s head in New Jersey.

A New Jersey commission on the legal equality of civil unions in that state has weighed in on the marriage debate. After talking to everyone under the sun and not being able to find a single case where the legal benefits of civil unions differed from the legal benefits of marriage, the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission has determined that their state should accept gay marriage because civil unions are “too hard to understand”. This is a new tact for same sex advocate groups who have previously stated that all they wanted was to be able to have the same rights as married couples. Now that civil unions are equal under NJ law, the commission says it’s still not good enough. They need to take it to the next level.

The New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission (NJ-CURC) was established by the New Jersey Legislature after the passage of the Civil Union Act in February of 2007. The Civil Union Act gave civil unions statewide, all of the legal benefits that were afforded married couples. The duty of the commission was to study all aspects of the Civil Union Act, which authorized civil unions. The Commission’s duties included evaluating the implementation, operation and effectiveness of the act.

There are two obvious problems with the credibility of this study. First, the commission was universally comprised of same sex marriage advocates who elevated anecdotal evidence over actual testimony, and second, they totally missed the boat on the purpose of their commission. They basically heard a bunch of private citizens and gay activist groups saying “it’s not the same… we want the word marriage”, and responded to that rather than just doing their job which was to make sure that there was no legal discrimination against civil unions.

They were supposed to come back with results like, “this law makes same sex unions and marriage equal under the law” or “same sex unions are unequal in the following areas.” What they did say was same sex unions are too complex for hospitals and others to understand so we should make Civil Unions into Marriages. This conclusion was based on, as far as I can tell, absolutely no firsthand testimony.
State Healthcare Facility Director, John Calabria who is responsible for responding to complaints from citizens of New Jersey about medical institutions testified directly to them that “We have received no complaints” regarding the compliance of medical facilities to the Civil Union Act. Although the agency receives 8000-9000 complaints per year, none of them was about being discriminated against in a medical institution.
New Jersey Director of the Division of Taxation, Maureen Adams was given the leading question, “If the state moved to marriage, how that might affect [the taxation of citizens with civil unions] that you’ve just testified to?” She responded, “There would be no fiscal impact, any filing impact, has all been realized with the Civil Union Law.” AKA you can’t give these people anything to make them more equal.

On the other hand, impassioned testimony from Peggy Sheahan-Knee who is the President of the New Jersey State Bar Association agrees with the commission. She claimed multiple people were discriminated against and denied access to their loved ones in medical institutions. The trouble is that she didn’t provide any specific examples in her testimony. Not only that but her integrity is somewhat in question since she also stated emphatically that, “The Civil Union Law fails to provide equal rights to same-sex couples” but was was unable to provide a single example of this. She provided several examples where the law was misunderstood by the public but none where the law failed to provide equal rights.

So what is the whole conclusion to this befuddled mess? “Since civil unions and marriages are the same, let’s give them the same name to reduce confusion.”

Here’s a newsflash for the Commission….reducing confusion was not on the menu, legal rights were. All this time we’ve been hearing ad nauseum about the gay community needing rights, wanting rights, demanding rights. Now they have them and they’re still not happy. Now we have to have the name, marriage, which is what the whole ordeal has been about from the beginning.

It’s not about rights.

The Associated Press release can be found here

Major Victory for Prop 8 Protestors

by Greg Gutfeld, Fox News

Today, I salute gays for a major civil rights victory: They forced some old lady to quit her job.

After Proposition 8 passed, angry gays discovered that Margie Christoffersen — who fills pitchers at El Coyote restaurant in Los Angeles — had given cash to the cause, which restricted the definition of marriage to include only straights. So they picketed her place of business with hilarious protest signs until the evil lady finally resigned.

Now, some might say this is nothing like Rosa Parks on the bus. But they're wrong. I mean, it takes guts to ruin some old lady's life just because she supports a bill based on her silly religious beliefs!

Seriously, if I was there, I would have thrown paint on her — a soft lilac shade, of course.

But why stop there? Now that you banished the old broad, get your a-- down to those other parts of town where you don't brunch and give those blacks and Mexicans a piece of your mind. And, when you're done, why not the Muslims — who are not only against you marrying, but living too!

Look, I'm all for gay marriage, but just because some folks aren't as ["enlightened"] as you are, doesn't mean you can treat them like poop. No one is going to take you seriously until you protest more seriously. Blacks sat in restaurants where they weren't welcome and women protested outside the White House for days on end.

But instead of picketing a Cineplex playing a Tyler Perry movie, gays hit a joint in West Hollywood a few blocks from a busy gay bar.

And to that I say: Comer con gusto!

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.