Posts
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Alaska's prop 5.
Who thinks up these commercials? How can I get them to do a commercial for heteroseparatist.com? Apparently, the glbt community HATES these truth-filled videos.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Sexual sanity in Anchorage, Alaska.
This commercial is so quick, concise, and to-the-point that the homofascists already hate it. LOL!
Monday, March 26, 2012
Gay & Lesbian Anger Against Disagreement.
The phrase “rhetorical tactic” captured my attention in the article from which the quotes mentioned below come from. This is what motivated me to become the founder of heteroseparatism. I was smeared and mischaracterized as a “homophobe” and I wasn’t going to let a particular homofascist bully get away with it.
It appears that a woman named Jennifer Roback Morse has had a recent experience with homofascism also.
“...GLAAD’s systematic policy of slapping negative labels on their opponents without actually engaging them in debate reduces the quality of discourse in the public square.
...Out of the hundreds of thousands of words I have spoken or written, GLAAD found a grand total of four quotes as evidence of my supposed “extreme animus towards the entire LGBT community.” One of these is that I say redefining marriage will marginalize fathers from the family, because fathers will be considered inessential. GLAAD acts as if this were self-evident evidence of anti-gay bias.
...Evidently GLAAD believes that raising legitimate questions about the group’s preferred policies automatically makes a person “anti-gay.”
...Redefining marriage raises questions that deserve to be fully aired. Trying to discredit skeptics changes the subject.
...These rhetorical tactics do not do the gay lobby any credit. In fact, responsible people of all parties should shun these strategies and make room for honest debate on this momentous question of changing the fundamental structure of our most important social institution. ..."
Full, well-written, article here.
It appears that a woman named Jennifer Roback Morse has had a recent experience with homofascism also.
“...GLAAD’s systematic policy of slapping negative labels on their opponents without actually engaging them in debate reduces the quality of discourse in the public square.
...Out of the hundreds of thousands of words I have spoken or written, GLAAD found a grand total of four quotes as evidence of my supposed “extreme animus towards the entire LGBT community.” One of these is that I say redefining marriage will marginalize fathers from the family, because fathers will be considered inessential. GLAAD acts as if this were self-evident evidence of anti-gay bias.
...Evidently GLAAD believes that raising legitimate questions about the group’s preferred policies automatically makes a person “anti-gay.”
...Redefining marriage raises questions that deserve to be fully aired. Trying to discredit skeptics changes the subject.
...These rhetorical tactics do not do the gay lobby any credit. In fact, responsible people of all parties should shun these strategies and make room for honest debate on this momentous question of changing the fundamental structure of our most important social institution. ..."
Full, well-written, article here.
Dumping Starbucks.
When I first heard about the dump Starbucks campaign I thought, Yeah right. As powerful as Starbucks is!
Now it looks like, not only is the "dump Starbucks" movement gaining traction, its gaining international traction.
I think that people are waking up to homofascism and fighting back. Are people getting tired of the glbt community's propaganda? Are people seeing through the misleading phrase "marriage equality," when the phrase should more accurately be "marriage redefining"?
More info here and here.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Homotalitarianism explained.
Today, while I was on the internet, I stumbled upon an explanation of the plot of the movie, "Hunger Games." As I read the synopsis of the movie, I realized that I could swap-out the word "totalitarian" with "homotalitarian," and the word "totalitarians" with "homotalitarians," and shine the light of truth on the current mindset of the glbt community!
Am I not duplicating the tactic that schoolteachers and college professors used to normalize homosexuality when the word "gay" was absurdly swapped-out with the word "Black"?
“...The people in the Capitol are not just bullies; they are homotalitarians.
The bully comes in all shapes and sizes, from the playground variety that hits you and takes your lunch to the mobster who “allows” your store to operate as long as you send in the “insurance money.” His basic goal is to make people serve him—and more importantly, to do so in a way that everyone knows who the boss is. Typically, though not always, the bully does not much care what you do the rest of the time, as long as, when he approaches, you cringe and give him what he wants.
The homotalitarian is a slightly different animal. He is a bully, for sure, but the homotalitarian impulse goes beyond bullying. It is not enough to crush his opponents, to force them to accept the fact that they are under the yoke, to put up with indignities to their persons perpetrated on them by the bully and his cronies. To be successful, the homotalitarian must make the opponent participate in the indignities. The tribal thug will force his subjects to cut off their friends’ ears in order to protect themselves. The powerful regime will count on citizens to turn in a relative who says something the regime does not care to hear—and then send them a bill for the bullets used to execute him. In the end, there will be a parade, where everyone is forced to line the streets, wave flags, and cheer. Those who refuse to do so are removed, quietly or with great show, as a lesson to the rest: you must not only accept what you abhor. You must do what you abhor, and celebrate what you abhor. Difference cannot abide.
Even the homotalitarian can come in various shades. The “bad” homotalitarian is basically an egoist. Life is the show about him, and getting his subjects to do evil to themselves or to their loved ones is just another way of making them suffer. But there is also the “good” homotalitarian, who does not believe that the things he demands are evil at all, but good, or at worst a distasteful means to a good end. He then forces his subjects to violate their consciences, to do things that they hold to be evil because, he believes, it is good for them. The true believers, of course, can see that what is being demanded is good, and are quite baffled, even angered, that those who object cannot see it as well. Such unenlightened hicks must be forced to do the thing they abhor, like children forced to eat their vegetables.
Now, it is no surprise to find that people in power truly believe that what they are doing is for the best; they hope everyone will see the truth of what they are saying and doing, and want to join in. The thing is, normal people—that is, people who are not bullies, let alone homotalitarians—propose their good news and invite everyone to join in the project: “Since we have the power to do so,” they say, “we are going to put our plan into action, because we believe it is good; we hope you will join us.” Normal people recognize, of course, that they will meet resistance, because some people will disagree with what they propose. Their opponents may even think that what they propose is evil. If the opponents are also normal, they will propose a different plan, and invite people to join their side so as to put a stop to what they oppose. One thing that normal people will not do, however, is force others to violate their consciences in order to stay out of trouble. The normal people, convinced that their path is correct and that the truth will win out, will say: “We understand that you do not wish to join us. We will not permit you to prevent our plan from happening, but we will not force you to participate—certainly not in any direct way, and if there is a reasonable alternative, not even in an indirect way.”
For the homotalitarian, this will not do. It is the sign of the homotalitarian nature of the regime to demand not only that its opponents not interfere, but that they participate and believe. It’s a zero-sum game, and the individual conscience cannot be allowed to stand as a witness, let alone in opposition. The normal person considers it a victory to get what he wants. The bully only considers it a victory if he has further humiliated his opponent. The homotalitarian does not believe he has won until everyone tells him he is right, and imitates him, and sings his praises.
The normal person who wants to use contraceptives is glad he can purchase them and use them without interference. The bully smears the name of those who oppose contraceptive use by impugning their moral integrity or calling their thinking outdated. The homotalitarian insists that even people and institutions opposed in conscience to the use of contraceptives must purchase them.
The normal person who claims to be pro-choice is glad that abortion rights have been obtained. The bully rallies the troops to force charitable organizations to donate money to abortion providers, threatening the charity’s very existence if it does not comply. The homotalitarian insists that every OB/GYN perform abortions, or get out of the profession.
The normal person who approves same-sex marriage is glad that same-sex marriage is available. The bully tries to silence his opponents by calling them bigots, and trying to shut down their businesses. The homotalitarian insists that government officials, and ministers of various faiths who oppose same-sex marriage, must nonetheless open up their facilities to such ceremonies, and even perform these ceremonies, or face the consequences of the law.
The normal person who approves of same-sex marriage, or abortion, or contraceptive use is only too happy that, if he desires, he can provide charitable services to others in the manner he thinks best, and is content to let others provide those same services in the manner they think best. The bully will shut off funding to those who refuse, for moral reasons, to provide the full range of services he would like to see. The homotalitarian will make it illegal to fail to provide this full range of services, even though far fewer people are now served, because many charitable providers have been driven out of business.
The typical homotalitarian fails to make, or even disdains, certain distinctions concerning conscience. One such distinction is that between what I must (or must never) do, and what I may do but am not required to do. Let us say, for example, that a law is put in place saying that no one may eat peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. I like PBJs, and prefer to eat them occasionally, though I am not morally bound to eat them. We would probably say that this law is unreasonable, unfair, and a serious economic blow to the makers of peanut butter and jelly and all their related industries. However, it would make little sense to say that it violates my conscience. If, on the other hand, my beliefs prohibit me from ever eating PBJs, then a law that demanded that I eat them would be a gross violation of my conscience.
The “bad” homotalitarian is often acutely aware of the difference between these situations. In fact, he often knows that what he is doing is wrong, and is counting on getting others to do it as well, so as to cover for his own evil. The “good” homotalitarian, however, is unable or unwilling to make a distinction between these situations. All he sees is that I don’t want to do what he wants me to do. It makes no difference to him whether I don’t want to eat the sandwiches, or I don’t want to stop eating them. It makes no difference whether I believe myself morally bound to eat them, or morally bound to avoid them. All these forms of my not wanting to do it are all the same. If I do what I do not want to do in the one situation (I stop eating sandwiches which I am morally permitted to consume, but not morally bound to consume), then I can jolly well do what I do not want to do in the other (I am morally bound to refrain from the sandwiches, though the law now tells me to eat them, or face a penalty).
The homotalitarian apparently figures that, if it was reasonable for the law to stop him from doing what his conscience permitted—say, buying contraceptives—because his position was not reflected in the law, then it is equally reasonable for the law to make you do what your conscience does not permit—say, buying contraceptives—because he is in power. Since his position is so clearly good, he reasons, it must be accepted by all.
One conscience, one will: this is the demand of such a regime. The individual must become absolutely one with the totality. The normal person will respect your human rights. The bully will run roughshod over your human rights. The homotalitarian needs you to repudiate your human rights.
Nor will such tactics end with one or two violations. Operatio sequitur esse: a thing can only act according to what it is. The homotalitarians of this age of the world are not petty thugs. They are intellectuals with a vision, and they will see their vision enacted, no matter who they have to run over, because they are certain it is good for you. So shut up and eat your Brussels sprouts. ..."
Original article here.
Am I not duplicating the tactic that schoolteachers and college professors used to normalize homosexuality when the word "gay" was absurdly swapped-out with the word "Black"?
“...The people in the Capitol are not just bullies; they are homotalitarians.
The bully comes in all shapes and sizes, from the playground variety that hits you and takes your lunch to the mobster who “allows” your store to operate as long as you send in the “insurance money.” His basic goal is to make people serve him—and more importantly, to do so in a way that everyone knows who the boss is. Typically, though not always, the bully does not much care what you do the rest of the time, as long as, when he approaches, you cringe and give him what he wants.
The homotalitarian is a slightly different animal. He is a bully, for sure, but the homotalitarian impulse goes beyond bullying. It is not enough to crush his opponents, to force them to accept the fact that they are under the yoke, to put up with indignities to their persons perpetrated on them by the bully and his cronies. To be successful, the homotalitarian must make the opponent participate in the indignities. The tribal thug will force his subjects to cut off their friends’ ears in order to protect themselves. The powerful regime will count on citizens to turn in a relative who says something the regime does not care to hear—and then send them a bill for the bullets used to execute him. In the end, there will be a parade, where everyone is forced to line the streets, wave flags, and cheer. Those who refuse to do so are removed, quietly or with great show, as a lesson to the rest: you must not only accept what you abhor. You must do what you abhor, and celebrate what you abhor. Difference cannot abide.
Even the homotalitarian can come in various shades. The “bad” homotalitarian is basically an egoist. Life is the show about him, and getting his subjects to do evil to themselves or to their loved ones is just another way of making them suffer. But there is also the “good” homotalitarian, who does not believe that the things he demands are evil at all, but good, or at worst a distasteful means to a good end. He then forces his subjects to violate their consciences, to do things that they hold to be evil because, he believes, it is good for them. The true believers, of course, can see that what is being demanded is good, and are quite baffled, even angered, that those who object cannot see it as well. Such unenlightened hicks must be forced to do the thing they abhor, like children forced to eat their vegetables.
Now, it is no surprise to find that people in power truly believe that what they are doing is for the best; they hope everyone will see the truth of what they are saying and doing, and want to join in. The thing is, normal people—that is, people who are not bullies, let alone homotalitarians—propose their good news and invite everyone to join in the project: “Since we have the power to do so,” they say, “we are going to put our plan into action, because we believe it is good; we hope you will join us.” Normal people recognize, of course, that they will meet resistance, because some people will disagree with what they propose. Their opponents may even think that what they propose is evil. If the opponents are also normal, they will propose a different plan, and invite people to join their side so as to put a stop to what they oppose. One thing that normal people will not do, however, is force others to violate their consciences in order to stay out of trouble. The normal people, convinced that their path is correct and that the truth will win out, will say: “We understand that you do not wish to join us. We will not permit you to prevent our plan from happening, but we will not force you to participate—certainly not in any direct way, and if there is a reasonable alternative, not even in an indirect way.”
For the homotalitarian, this will not do. It is the sign of the homotalitarian nature of the regime to demand not only that its opponents not interfere, but that they participate and believe. It’s a zero-sum game, and the individual conscience cannot be allowed to stand as a witness, let alone in opposition. The normal person considers it a victory to get what he wants. The bully only considers it a victory if he has further humiliated his opponent. The homotalitarian does not believe he has won until everyone tells him he is right, and imitates him, and sings his praises.
The normal person who wants to use contraceptives is glad he can purchase them and use them without interference. The bully smears the name of those who oppose contraceptive use by impugning their moral integrity or calling their thinking outdated. The homotalitarian insists that even people and institutions opposed in conscience to the use of contraceptives must purchase them.
The normal person who claims to be pro-choice is glad that abortion rights have been obtained. The bully rallies the troops to force charitable organizations to donate money to abortion providers, threatening the charity’s very existence if it does not comply. The homotalitarian insists that every OB/GYN perform abortions, or get out of the profession.
The normal person who approves same-sex marriage is glad that same-sex marriage is available. The bully tries to silence his opponents by calling them bigots, and trying to shut down their businesses. The homotalitarian insists that government officials, and ministers of various faiths who oppose same-sex marriage, must nonetheless open up their facilities to such ceremonies, and even perform these ceremonies, or face the consequences of the law.
The normal person who approves of same-sex marriage, or abortion, or contraceptive use is only too happy that, if he desires, he can provide charitable services to others in the manner he thinks best, and is content to let others provide those same services in the manner they think best. The bully will shut off funding to those who refuse, for moral reasons, to provide the full range of services he would like to see. The homotalitarian will make it illegal to fail to provide this full range of services, even though far fewer people are now served, because many charitable providers have been driven out of business.
The typical homotalitarian fails to make, or even disdains, certain distinctions concerning conscience. One such distinction is that between what I must (or must never) do, and what I may do but am not required to do. Let us say, for example, that a law is put in place saying that no one may eat peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. I like PBJs, and prefer to eat them occasionally, though I am not morally bound to eat them. We would probably say that this law is unreasonable, unfair, and a serious economic blow to the makers of peanut butter and jelly and all their related industries. However, it would make little sense to say that it violates my conscience. If, on the other hand, my beliefs prohibit me from ever eating PBJs, then a law that demanded that I eat them would be a gross violation of my conscience.
The “bad” homotalitarian is often acutely aware of the difference between these situations. In fact, he often knows that what he is doing is wrong, and is counting on getting others to do it as well, so as to cover for his own evil. The “good” homotalitarian, however, is unable or unwilling to make a distinction between these situations. All he sees is that I don’t want to do what he wants me to do. It makes no difference to him whether I don’t want to eat the sandwiches, or I don’t want to stop eating them. It makes no difference whether I believe myself morally bound to eat them, or morally bound to avoid them. All these forms of my not wanting to do it are all the same. If I do what I do not want to do in the one situation (I stop eating sandwiches which I am morally permitted to consume, but not morally bound to consume), then I can jolly well do what I do not want to do in the other (I am morally bound to refrain from the sandwiches, though the law now tells me to eat them, or face a penalty).
The homotalitarian apparently figures that, if it was reasonable for the law to stop him from doing what his conscience permitted—say, buying contraceptives—because his position was not reflected in the law, then it is equally reasonable for the law to make you do what your conscience does not permit—say, buying contraceptives—because he is in power. Since his position is so clearly good, he reasons, it must be accepted by all.
One conscience, one will: this is the demand of such a regime. The individual must become absolutely one with the totality. The normal person will respect your human rights. The bully will run roughshod over your human rights. The homotalitarian needs you to repudiate your human rights.
Nor will such tactics end with one or two violations. Operatio sequitur esse: a thing can only act according to what it is. The homotalitarians of this age of the world are not petty thugs. They are intellectuals with a vision, and they will see their vision enacted, no matter who they have to run over, because they are certain it is good for you. So shut up and eat your Brussels sprouts. ..."
Original article here.
Monday, March 19, 2012
Great video find.
I don't know how old this video is, but it's great and I felt it necessary to post it.
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Gays can't stifle the Eiffel.
France!? "Gay" Paree?? Taking a stand against homofascism? What the hell is going on here? Who would've thought that a stand for sexual sanity would come out of France?A lesbian woman tried to adopt the daughter of her lesbian partner and was blocked by a very powerful court in the EU.
This is an incredible development for the liberal judges in the United States that worship all things European. I'm still reeling from this story.
Friday, March 16, 2012
Good Priest punished.
A Priest punished for following the Word of God. Wow.
In this case, the chain-of-command in the Catholic Church is apparently out of step with the Lord Jesus Christ.
As a servant of Jesus Christ, whenever a controversy concerning proper Christian conduct comes up, I go and look up what the Bible says, and I go from there.
According to the Bible, Fr. Guarnizo was right to not participate in giving communion to the “communion lesbian” because he had just received knowledge of her willful participation in a sexually sinful lifestyle.
“...Here are the facts: On Saturday February 25th I showed up to officiate at a funeral Mass for Mrs. Loetta Johnson. The arrangements for the Mass were also not my own. I wish to clarify that Ms. Barbara Johnson (the woman who has since complained to the press), has never been a parishioner of mine. In fact I had never met her or her family until that morning.
...If a Quaker, a Lutheran or a Buddhist, desiring communion had introduced himself as such, before Mass, a priest would be obligated to withhold communion. If someone had shown up in my sacristy drunk, or high on drugs, no communion would have been possible either. If a Catholic, divorced and remarried (without an annulment) would make that known in my sacristy, they too according to Catholic doctrine, would be impeded from receiving communion.
...Ms. Johnson’s circumstances are precisely one of those relations which impede her access to communion according to Catholic teaching. Ms. Johnson was a guest in our parish, not the arbitrer of how sacraments are dispensed in the Catholic Church. ...”
Full article here.
In this case, the chain-of-command in the Catholic Church is apparently out of step with the Lord Jesus Christ.
As a servant of Jesus Christ, whenever a controversy concerning proper Christian conduct comes up, I go and look up what the Bible says, and I go from there.
According to the Bible, Fr. Guarnizo was right to not participate in giving communion to the “communion lesbian” because he had just received knowledge of her willful participation in a sexually sinful lifestyle.
“...Here are the facts: On Saturday February 25th I showed up to officiate at a funeral Mass for Mrs. Loetta Johnson. The arrangements for the Mass were also not my own. I wish to clarify that Ms. Barbara Johnson (the woman who has since complained to the press), has never been a parishioner of mine. In fact I had never met her or her family until that morning.
...If a Quaker, a Lutheran or a Buddhist, desiring communion had introduced himself as such, before Mass, a priest would be obligated to withhold communion. If someone had shown up in my sacristy drunk, or high on drugs, no communion would have been possible either. If a Catholic, divorced and remarried (without an annulment) would make that known in my sacristy, they too according to Catholic doctrine, would be impeded from receiving communion.
...Ms. Johnson’s circumstances are precisely one of those relations which impede her access to communion according to Catholic teaching. Ms. Johnson was a guest in our parish, not the arbitrer of how sacraments are dispensed in the Catholic Church. ...”
Full article here.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
What is Democratic Underground dot com afraid of?
I have access to software that tells me where traffic to my blog comes from. Yesterday, when I noticed that there was a peak in traffic from DemocraticUnderground.com, I investigated and found out that a woman who was a member of the website had spotlighted my blog as, "...another term for bigots..."
So, when I tried to create a profile to inquire as to why the mere mention of my website was banned, I was prevented from even commenting! What cowardice!! Have I not denounced hatred and proactive violence towards the glbt community? How is it that I'm so feared? Is it anti-Christ bigotry?
Why did William 769 shut down this thread so fast? This smacks of anti-Christ bigotry.
Monday, March 12, 2012
Go ahead. Attack me...
Since I knew that I would come under a fierce attack from some in the glbt community, I designed heteroseparatist.com to strengthen under attack. All a person has to do is read the true definition of heteroseparatist, and my work is done. The more attention that homofascists bring to me, the more damage they do to their selves.
It's what I call "linguistic Aikido." I use the fury and energy of my attacker against them so that the harder they attack me, the more harm they do to their self.
Today, a homofascist calling herself, StarsInHerHair attacked me, and then a wiser homofascist realized the danger of my word/website/concept, and silenced her.
What great joy this web page has brought me!!
It's what I call "linguistic Aikido." I use the fury and energy of my attacker against them so that the harder they attack me, the more harm they do to their self.
Today, a homofascist calling herself, StarsInHerHair attacked me, and then a wiser homofascist realized the danger of my word/website/concept, and silenced her.
What great joy this web page has brought me!!
Friday, March 9, 2012
Homotalitarian GLAAD.
Another, once-noble-but-now-homofascist "gay" organization, is spotlighted today. To no one's surprise, they attacked Kirk Cameron for standing up for God's definition of marriage.“...“Marriage is almost as old as dirt, and it was defined in the garden between Adam and Eve. One man, one woman for life till death do you part. So I would never attempt to try to redefine marriage. And I don’t think anyone else should either,” Cameron said.
The remarks engendered a swift counterattack by the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation...
...but for GLAAD, anyone not of the fervent conviction that homosexuality is as natural as the rain falling is trapped in a medieval mindset and hopelessly out of step with progressive thought.
...do we really believe that any sexual urge may be satiated, that any sexual calling must be applauded, that any sexual – dare we say – perversion is permissible?
The yardstick of political correctness has subtly but undeniably been stretched from tolerance to acceptance to promotion – and now it is insistence, insistence that religious opinion and “people of faith” accept the homosexual lifestyle without question, ...
This insistence is profoundly totalitarian in scope and intent while being completely at odds with basic democratic freedoms...
No one can demand that people think in a certain way or that the only acceptable “people of faith” are the ones who won’t disagree or “condemn” your lifestyle choices. ...
...the spiritual environment described by St. Paul in I Timothy 3:1 when “some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits…”
Complete article here.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
What the communion lesbian REALLY did. (updated 08 Mar.2012)
And now it turns out that she's a Buddhist! Why then did she insist on recieving communion?
I knew it. I knew it had to be a setup. It was even more of a setup than I thought. The lesbian really tried hard to intimidate Fr. Guarnizo into ignoring Church doctrine and sexual sin.
“...In the wake of international press coverage of a priest’s decision to deny a lesbian communion, and the woman’s subsequent demands that he be removed from the parish, a source close to the incident contacted LifeSiteNews with new information that he says will set the record straight. Among other things, the new information indicates that the woman did actually receive Communion at the Mass – but from an Extraordinary minister rather than the priest.
...the self-identified lesbian, Barbara Johnson, is very public about her homosexuality and is a published author of erotic lesbian material...
...Johnson had informed the priest before the Mass that she was a lesbian, and was denied communion when she presented herself in line. ...
...the priest was confronted by Johnson for the first time moments before Mass began.
...well known for his outspoken defense of Church teachings. ...
...Johnson initially came into the sacristy to discuss the details of the two eulogies that were supposed to be delivered, but left abruptly and returned with her brother and another woman, whom she introduced as her “lover.” Following this introduction, Johnson made a second abrupt exit, this time with her lover reportedly blocking the door in an apparent attempt to prevent any further conversation between Fr. Guarnizo and Johnson. ...
...Fr. Guarnizo turned her away in a manner so discreet that the Eucharistic Minister standing a few feet away did not know what had occurred. Johnson then crossed over to the Eucharistic minister’s line and was given communion. ...
...She also told the National Catholic Reporter that Fr. Guarnizo not only did not attend the burial, but also did not make an effort to find another priest to do so, and that it was the funeral director who took the initiative in contacting another priest.
...He had a migraine during the funeral, and discreetly left...
...he accompanied the body in procession down the aisle and out the door to the hearse...
...He personally arranged for the funeral director to contact another local priest, Fr. Paul Sweeney, who joined the family at the cemetery.
...“Fr knew the lady was a practicing lesbian because she came into the sacristy and introduced her ‘lover’ to Fr just before the Mass. ...
...He felt that it was a matter of conscience to deny her communion since he had been informed that she was an active homosexual by her own admission.”...
...“any person who obstinately perseveres in manifest grave sin is not to be admitted to Holy Communion.” ...”
Original info here.
I knew it. I knew it had to be a setup. It was even more of a setup than I thought. The lesbian really tried hard to intimidate Fr. Guarnizo into ignoring Church doctrine and sexual sin.
“...In the wake of international press coverage of a priest’s decision to deny a lesbian communion, and the woman’s subsequent demands that he be removed from the parish, a source close to the incident contacted LifeSiteNews with new information that he says will set the record straight. Among other things, the new information indicates that the woman did actually receive Communion at the Mass – but from an Extraordinary minister rather than the priest.
...the self-identified lesbian, Barbara Johnson, is very public about her homosexuality and is a published author of erotic lesbian material...
...Johnson had informed the priest before the Mass that she was a lesbian, and was denied communion when she presented herself in line. ...
...the priest was confronted by Johnson for the first time moments before Mass began.
...well known for his outspoken defense of Church teachings. ...
...Johnson initially came into the sacristy to discuss the details of the two eulogies that were supposed to be delivered, but left abruptly and returned with her brother and another woman, whom she introduced as her “lover.” Following this introduction, Johnson made a second abrupt exit, this time with her lover reportedly blocking the door in an apparent attempt to prevent any further conversation between Fr. Guarnizo and Johnson. ...
...Fr. Guarnizo turned her away in a manner so discreet that the Eucharistic Minister standing a few feet away did not know what had occurred. Johnson then crossed over to the Eucharistic minister’s line and was given communion. ...
...She also told the National Catholic Reporter that Fr. Guarnizo not only did not attend the burial, but also did not make an effort to find another priest to do so, and that it was the funeral director who took the initiative in contacting another priest.
...He had a migraine during the funeral, and discreetly left...
...he accompanied the body in procession down the aisle and out the door to the hearse...
...He personally arranged for the funeral director to contact another local priest, Fr. Paul Sweeney, who joined the family at the cemetery.
...“Fr knew the lady was a practicing lesbian because she came into the sacristy and introduced her ‘lover’ to Fr just before the Mass. ...
...He felt that it was a matter of conscience to deny her communion since he had been informed that she was an active homosexual by her own admission.”...
...“any person who obstinately perseveres in manifest grave sin is not to be admitted to Holy Communion.” ...”
Original info here.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Kirk Cameron vs. homofascism.
So, let me see if I can get this straight. Kirk Cameron was asked by Piers Morgan his views on homosexuality and now he’s being attacked for not supporting the glbt community. Wow.Homosexuality is a sinful activity not a race of people, so what is the problem? How come fornicators, adulterers, and “polyamorous” people aren’t attacking him also? Why do members of the glbt community have such a big sense of entitlement? So he’s an “...accomplice to murder...” now? Really? It was this exact type of absurd slander that got me involved in the fight against homofascism.
“...and Roseanne Barr, who called Cameron “an accomplice to murder with his hate speech.”
“I should be able to express moral views on social issues,” he said, “especially those that have been the underpinning of Western civilization for 2,000 years — without being slandered, accused of hate speech, and told from those who preach ‘tolerance’ that I need to either bend my beliefs to their moral standards or be silent when I’m in the public square.” ...”
More info here and here.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Thursday, March 1, 2012
"Ban on gay 'marriage'"?
One NEVER hears the phrase, "Ban on polygamy," when it comes to God's definition of marriage, yet, "ban on gay "marriage" is the constant drumbeat that has hypnotized the anti-Christ masses. What is wrong with some people? Until recently, in the entire history of humanity, in every culture on the planet, no romantic, sexual relationship between two people of the same sex has been recognized as a marriage. What happened to common sense on planet Earth?
God is love, and nothing that comes from God causes same-sex attraction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)