Monday, January 30, 2012

Same sex "marriage" vs. religious freedom.

Like my last post, here’s another, good-but-long article that I’ve spent some time trimming down to the bone. It’s too bad that the author doesn’t know the word, “homofascism.” He could have used it in almost every instance where “anti-anti-homosexual” is used.

The red highlighting below is an accurate description of heteroseparatism.

“...But those who advocate homosexual marriage as a way of enlarging the American sphere of liberty are profoundly—and deceptively—misrepresenting their aims. ...”

“...the fundamental aim of those advocating homosexual marriage: it is not at all about giving homosexuals a new freedom to participate in ceremonies that they regard as weddings. It is entirely about denying freedom of public speech to anyone who would criticize such ceremonies or the sexual behaviors such ceremonies legitimize. The muzzle that homosexual activists tried (largely successfully) to put on an outspoken monarch represents only the beginning. Homosexual activists in this country deeply desire to place first thousands, and then millions, of even tighter muzzles on all who disagree with them about the nature of homosexual behavior. They well understand that enactment of laws authorizing homosexual marriage will give them sweeping powers to bind those muzzles very tightly on their fellow citizens. ...”

“...Homosexual activists may plausibly assert that they were advancing the cause of freedom when opposing anti-sodomy laws, even if many Americans view the freedom advanced as morally and even medically problematic. However, when these same activists claim that they are still advancing the cause of freedom in advocating laws that grant same-sex unions the status of marriage, their arguments quickly lose all plausibility. For those trying to enshrine the notion of same-sex “marriage” in law are not primarily trying to enlarge the freedom of homosexuals; they are primarily striving to diminish the freedom of skeptics who would deny that the union of homosexuals is—or can ever be—a legitimate marriage. The aim of those trying to inscribe the novelty of homosexual marriage in law is actually that of making an outlaw out of anyone who would question the moral substance of this new social construct and the sexual behaviors it legitimates. ...”

“...the freedom of individuals in positions of public trust to voice their opposition to homosexual behavior. It is this freedom that homosexual advocates hope to make disappear through enactment of homosexual marriage. Enshrining this radically innovative construct in law will not so much enlarge the sphere of freedom for homosexuals as it will shrink the sphere of freedom—in the workplace, legislative chamber, classroom, mainstream media, civic and student club, and marketplace—for those who in any way find homosexual behavior wanting. ...”

“...The ex-nihilo creation of homosexual marriage as a legal notion serves, above all, to give coercive power to those Justice Antonin Scalia has identified as “homosexual activists . . . [intent on] eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.” The success of these activists, as Scalia notes, has helped foster an “anti-anti-homosexual culture.”...”

“...use the notion of homosexual marriage to silence their opponents and to drive them from the public square. ...syndicated columnist John Leo has complained that in recent homosexual activism, “a line is being crossed”: “The traditional civic virtue of tolerance (if gays want to live together, it’s their own business) has been replaced with a new ethic requiring approval and endorsement”..."

“...Americans who resist the normalizing of homosexuality are seeing their freedom shrink. ..."

“...the ingenious camouflaging of power with the rhetoric of freedom.”...”

“...Americans have seen more than a few instances in which anti-anti-homosexual power has flexed its muscles in suppressing the freedom of those who dare resist their agenda for normalizing homosexual behavior. That power was manifest in March 2011 when homosexual activists successfully pressured Apple to withdraw from its iTunes store an app developed by an evangelical Christian group that works with individuals trying to overcome homosexual impulses. That power was manifest again a month later when the prominent law firm King & Spalding announced that, despite its previous commitment to doing so, it would not defend the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act...”

“...In 2008, a biology professor at San Jose City College was dismissed for indicating—in answer to a student’s question about how heredity affects sexual orientation—that environment might be a cause of homosexuality. In 2010, Hasting College of Law denied official recognition and funding to the Christian Legal Society as a student organization (the first time it had ever denied a student organization recognition) because the group required officers (not its members) to affirm Christian sexual ethics, including the scriptural proscription against homosexuality. In 2009, a student was expelled from a counseling program at Eastern Michigan State University for refusing to affirm that homosexual behavior is normal and acceptable. In 2005, a student in a counseling program at Missouri State University found that the university had filed a grievance against her for refusing to fulfill a class assignment requiring her to write a letter to the state legislature advocating the legalization of homosexual adoption. And in 2011, a counseling student who dared to voice her opinion in class that homosexual acts are immoral learned that Augusta State University would not let her continue her academic program unless she successfully completed diversity-sensitivity training. The list goes on, with reports of similar anti-anti-homosexual bullying at Washington State University, Georgia Tech University, and the Ohio State University. ...”

“...the university has become the new surrogate church, laying down the moral imperatives guiding judges, policymakers, executives, and media moguls. The outlaws who oppose homosexuality will find no right of sanctuary in this church. Far otherwise. They will find that that new church regards them not only as outlaws but also as dangerous heretics. ...”

“...Outlaw-heretics have reason to fear inquisitorial persecution from the priests in the surrogate church, ... outlaw-heretics have reason to fear that the new priests—for all their professed

commitment to freedom for all—will actually lock them out of the democratic process. ...”

“...Those Americans can also point to election results on ballot initiatives in thirty-one states across the country defining marriage in ways consonant with religious belief, but not in alignment with the progressive homosexual-affirming agenda. ...”

“...silenced and marginalized church-goers actually constitute a majority only makes the process by which they are denied their full democratic liberties all the more insidious. For those in doubt as to how this process works, California has provided a prime illustration: through a costly and bruising electoral fight, defenders of natural marriage passed a measure (Proposition 8) acknowledging marriage as the union of man and woman—only to have a single unelected federal judge, Vaughan Walker, strike down the voter-approved measure because he, a “now-outed” homosexual, disapproved of the moral and religious impulses of those who championed it! In this fashion, a progressive anti-anti-homosexual elite dramatically diminishes the political liberties of those who wish to affirm an understanding of marriage consistent with reality as affirmed by nature, history, biology, reason, as well as religion. It is this kind of assault on religious liberty...”

“...It is precisely that liberty-denying process that elite activists are trying to advance through the legal notion of same-sex marriage. For outlaws, enforcement of the law can mean only punishment—usually loss of freedom. That contraction of freedom is exactly what those advocating same-sex marriage seek: they want to lock those who oppose homosexuality into as small a box as possible. Just how terribly small that box can be is illustrated by the case of the fertility specialist in California who in 2001 declined to artificially inseminate a lesbian, though he referred that woman to a colleague who would perform that service for her. When the doctor, who happened to also be a devout Christian, later lost a discrimination suit filed by the offended lesbian woman, he found no relief upon appeal to the California Supreme Court, which found—unanimously—that this doctor’s religious convictions did not afford him even the very, very minimal freedom of declining to perform a medical procedure that violated his convictions!...”

“...military chaplains must “embrace the new openly homosexual military, resign from service, or face court-martial for their ‘religious, conscience’ objections.”12 All these assaults on religious liberty have occurred in jurisdictions without the legal innovation of same-sex marriage. ...”

“...Catholic Social Services to suspend its handling of adoptions in the Bay State because of its refusal to violate its religious principles by placing children with homosexual couples. ...”

“...This disturbing pattern of hostility to religious freedom should leave little doubt as to the consequences of broader enactment of homosexual marriage.. ...”

“...But Americans may increasingly wonder why this spatial and transcendent liberty and autonomy of self do not extend to those Americans who want to distance themselves from homosexual acts, to stand apart, as it were, from those who engage in such acts. ...”

“...homosexual activists do, in fact, know that advancing their agenda means reducing the liberty of Americans. They hide that reality behind rhetoric of freedom, just as they hide their exclusion of religious Americans from the public square behind rhetoric of inclusion, and their extirpation of every deviation from the approved attitude toward homosexuality behind the rhetoric of diversity. ...”

“...Apparently, homosexual activists do not want anyone to notice that all the arguments that their political allies have made against the decidedly illiberal and dehumanizing logic of genetic determinism in other contexts tell against their reliance upon genetic determinism in advocating restrictions on the liberty of those who would criticize homosexual conduct. ...”

“...The second justification for restricting the freedoms of those who oppose homosexuality is that of asserting that this freedom has no content except that of hatred and bigotry, or that this freedom amounts to nothing but the equivalent of a group, African Americans—who should be the very first to recognize a fundamental kinship between racial bias and resistance to homosexuality—are actually more resistant to homosexuality than are whites...”

“...George Orwell would not normally be classed as an unthinking exponent of bias. Yet he opposed homosexuality, and as a twenty-first-century critic has remarked, “Orwell’s anti-homosexual position (definitely not ‘homophobia,’ which would suggest irrational fear) flowed naturally from beliefs and values about which he was quite forthcoming.”...”

“...Surprisingly, even the homosexual poet W. H. Auden—famous both for his insistent honesty and his astonishing prosodic talents—said some very negative things about homosexuality. “I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s wrong to be queer,” Auden said. “In the first place, all homosexual acts are acts of envy. ...”

“...Of course, millions of Americans who oppose homosexual acts for religious reasons will not want to simply wait while the elite decide what restrictions to impose on their liberties. They will want to vigorously protest every incursion upon those liberties...their witness for truth will be most effective when it is expressed with empathy and compassion, including especially a merciful compassion for those who are suffering from AIDS or other diseases often found among homosexuals. But devout Americans can express genuine love for homosexuals without accepting or endorsing their sexual behavior. An authentic faith indeed requires both firm opposition to homosexual acts and unfailing love for those who commit such acts. ...”

“...perhaps it is time for sympathetic law-makers to start enacting “conscience clause” protections—comparable to those that protect medical professionals from being compelled to perform abortions—for justices of the peace, fertility doctors, wedding caterers and photographers, and others who will find themselves forced to choose between their careers and their convictions. If they cannot prevent the enactment (often by judicial fiat) of same-sex marriage laws, lawmakers should at least be able to give an opt-out to citizens who object to homosexuality for religious reasons. ...”

Very interesting, full article here.

How the same-sex "marriage" proposal is unjust.

I almost couldn't believe the strength of this piece of ammunition I found yesterday. The homofascists are going to hate this post! I spent 40 minutes editing out the core pieces of data that I wanted to display below...

“...The implicit argument is that the state’s granting marriage licenses only to opposite-sex couples is undue discrimination...this charge, I will show, rests on a profound confusion about both marriage and equality. A state’s recognition that marriage is only between a man and a woman is not unjust. ...”

“...But whatever one holds about the morality of homosexual acts, it is clear that the state does have an interest in promoting and regulating marriage as traditionally defined, and that the sexual relationships of same-sex couples are distinct in kind from that. ... And so the two types of relationships or arrangements should not be lumped together. Moreover, falsely to equate the two is to obscure the nature of marriage. ...”

“...First, marriage is a bodily union...which consummates the marital form a single subject of a single biological action...that could procreate, provided conditions outside their conduct are present.

“...marriage is not a mere means in relation to procreation, but a sharing of lives (bodily, emotionally, and spiritually) that is good in itself—and so a man and a woman who have consented to such a multi-leveled union are genuinely married, and have an intrinsically fulfilling marital union, even if it turns out they cannot procreate together.

“ simply this: marriage, as traditionally defined, is a distinct type of community and not an arbitrary set. Unmarried cohabitators have a different type of relationship. Alliances to raise children also are not necessarily marriages: a group of celibate religious women running an orphanage, for example, are not married. And, plainly, same-sex sexual relationships are a different kind of relationship: they cannot become biologically one, nor is their relationship of the kind that would find its fruition in conceiving, bearing, and raising children together. (True, same-sex partners can form an alliance to raise children—for example, those from a previous marriage or produced by artificial reproduction; but that alliance is not an extension or prolongation of a bodily-emotional-spiritual union already begun, as is the case in marriage.)...”

“...marriage also provides the crucial social function...will provide the safest and healthiest environment for children. is in everyone’s interest for the state to promote a sound understanding of marriage, and certainly to avoid obscuring its nature. ...”

"...Since a same-sex couple is unable to form the kind of union marriage is, not granting same-sex couples marriage licenses is simply a decision by the state not to engage in a confusing and harmful fiction. ... Denying a marriage license—or the privileges, protections, and obligations of marriage—to those who are unable to marry is not unjust discrimination. ..."

"...The state denies marriage licenses to threesomes or foursomes (refraining from declaring polyamorous groups marriages) and denies marriage licenses to twelve-year-olds (requiring valid consent for a marriage). These denials are not unjust because threesomes, foursomes, and twelve-year-olds are unable to form the kind of union that marriage is. But the same is true of same-sex couples. So, just as the distinction between eighteen-year-olds and twelve-year-olds is relevant to the purpose of marriage—because the former but not the latter are actually able to form the union that is marriage—in the same way, the distinction between opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples is relevant to the purpose of the marriage laws, because the former but not the latter can actually form the kind of union that marriage is. ...”

“...benefits such as hospital visitation, inheritance rights, and so on, is really a side issue—such benefits could be secured by other means for individuals who need them (for example, a durable power of attorney for health care, a will, etc.). ... what proponents of same-sex “marriage” principally desire is the social affirmation and endorsement of homosexual relationships as such. Judge Walker indicated this point clearly in his Proposition 8 decision: “Plaintiffs [some same-sex couples] seek to have the state recognize their committed relationships...”

“...So, the proposal is...that marriage...will include same-sex partners. ... But the same-sex “marriage” position cannot provide a coherent account of what that something is. ...”

“...If marriage is not a bodily, emotional, and spiritual union of a man and a woman... then what makes a union marriage and why should the state support it? It is not simply a union that is formed by a wedding ceremony:... Nor is every romantic and sexual relationship a marriage... Suppose John and Mary have a romantic-sexual relationship while college students but plan to go their separate ways after graduation: is that stable enough to be a marriage? If not, why not? ...”

“...suppose Joe, Jim, and Steve have a committed, stable, romantic-sexual relationship among themselves—a polyamorous relationship. On what ground can the state promote the relationship between couples, but not the relationship among Joe, Jim, and Steve?... the point is: There must be some non-arbitrary features shared by relationships that the state promotes...fair for the state not to promote in the same way other relationships lacking those features. ... marriage is a distinct basic human good, that needs social support and that uniquely provides important social functions; ...inherent orientation to procreation distinguish it from other relationships similar in superficial respects to it. ...”

“...The problem is not solved if one adds to one’s description or definition of marriage, that it must be a permanent commitment...since marriage is a bodily and procreative-type union, and an irreducible basic good, it is non-arbitrarily distinct from other types of relationships. ... (since a strong marriage culture provides a safe haven for children) ...only a relationship between a man and a woman, pledged to be permanent and exclusive. The conjugal conception of marriage is just and coherent; the same-sex marriage proponents’ conception of marriage is unjust and incoherent. ..."

Brilliantly written, complete article, here.

Tolerance FOR Julea Ward.

Looks like the word “tolerance” is beginning to haunt the glbt community. People are starting to see that tolerance is a two-way street, and the gay activists that yell “tolerance!” the loudest, are the most intolerant when it comes to Christians or anyone else who won’t accept homosexuality as normal. Homofascists don’t even want people who disagree with homosexuality to even be allowed to be heard. Free speech that does NOT condone or inspire violence will be labeled “hate speech” by homofascists who hate the truth. Although I have thoroughly denounced hatred for and proactive violence against the glbt community, my blog is attacked at least three times a week!

I've been covering the Julea Ward case since 11 Nov. 2009.

“...The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit ruled Friday in favor of Julea Ward an Eastern Michigan University graduate student represented by Alliance Defense Fund attorneys who was expelled from a counseling program for her beliefs. In a strongly worded opinion, the court reversed a district court decision in favor of the university and sent the case back for trial, saying “a reasonable jury could conclude that Ward’s professors ejected her from the counseling program because of hostility toward her speech and faith….” ...”

“... “Rather than allow Julea to refer a potential client to another qualified counselor--a common, professional practice to best serve clients--EMU attacked and questioned Julea’s religious beliefs and ultimately expelled her from the program because of them.” ...”

“...That her conflict arose from religious convictions is not a good answer; that her conflict arose from religious convictions for which the department at times showed little tolerance is a worse answer.” ...”

“...EMU faculty denigrated Ward’s Christian views...”

“... “That is why she asked to refer gay and lesbian clients (and some heterosexual clients) if the conversation required her to affirm their sexual practices....does not require a Muslim counselor to tell a Jewish client that his religious beliefs are correct if the conversation takes a turn in that direction and (2) does not require an atheist counselor to tell a person of faith that there is a God if the client is wrestling with faith-based issues. Tolerance is a two-way street. Otherwise, the rule mandates orthodoxy, not anti-discrimination.” ...”

Original info here.

Sunday, January 29, 2012

Father-hunger and homosexuality.

I don’t buy it when gay men say that there is no link between homosexuality and pedophilia. “Daddy Hunt” is a gay website whose focus is revealed by its title, and father-hunger is a big part of how some boys develop into a homosexuals.

“... I started having sex with grown men when I was 12. Lost count at around 35 and I was 13 at the time. ...”

“... I was way too young to be dealing with sex and understanding the potential consequences of it. ...”

“... I just wanted the attention of men and discovered that if I was sexual with them, I got their attention. It disgusts me now to know that all those men were committing crimes by being with me while I was still a minor. ...”

Original info here.

Thursday, January 26, 2012

More trouble for viral YouTube "transsexual."

Remember the viral-video where 22 year old Christopher Lee Polis committed a sex crime by exposing himself in a women's restroom at a McDonald's and got attacked by two Black girls?

Well. The same man is in the news again for an altercation with a police officer. The mainstream media ignored this story, probably so as not to appear "transphobic."

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

Lesbian Sex in the City.

Well. Well. Well.

We have here what the glbt community hates. A lesbian coming out (no pun intended) and saying that her entry into the glbt community is voluntary. The problem for the gays is that she’s famous and she’s inadvertently blowing the lid off of a major piece of homofascist propaganda. She’s already being persecuted by some in the glbt community.

“... Cynthia Nixon stands by her statement that she is gay by choice, despite the backlash she’s received from members of the gay community. The remark caused a stir in the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community. Nixon told last Sunday’s New York Times magazine that she was pressured to change what she said, “because they said it implies that homosexuality can be a choice.

“For me, it is a choice,” Nixon told the Times. “I understand that for many people it’s not, but for me it’s a choice, and you don’t get to define my gayness for me.” ...”

Full story here.

Supreme Court's opinion on marriage.

Bombshell info at 0:01:50.!/lgbtfacts

Click here.

Tuesday, January 24, 2012

Todd Carlson: anti-Christ bigot?

A high school student named Brandon Wagner was asked to write an article that opposed the adoption of children by same-sex couples. When he did, he used Biblical verses to point out that the homosexual household was a sinful environment, and therefore unsuitable for children.
Well..... DUH!!!

“...Wegner, a student at Shawano High School, was asked to write an op-ed for the school newspaper about whether gays should be allowed to adopt. Wegner, who is a Christian, wrote in opposition. Another student wrote in favor of allowing gays to adopt. ...”

“...After the op-ed was published, a gay couple whose child attend s the high school, complained. ...”

“...“The superintendent wants everyone to accept homosexuality as normative and homosexual adoption as something that should be standard practices,” Staver said. “In doing so, he’s belittling the views and the biblical views of many people across this country. He is playing a zero-sum game. He’s not interested in dialogue. He wants to cram his view down the throat of everyone else and will not tolerate an opposing viewpoint.”...”

Complete story here.

Sunday, January 22, 2012

Denying the reality of gender.

99.999999% of human beings are born either male or female. But there are those who want people to ignore this overwhelming fact. There are those who war against, "gender stereotypes."

I've noticed this predisposition in the glbt community; anyone who points out the differences between male and female will be attacked.

The parents of this boy hid the fact that he was a boy for the first five years of his life. Why? To avoid any "gender stereotypes."

I see a bisexual in the making.

"... Of (this) case, Dr Harold Koplewicz, a U.S. child psychiatrist, said he was ‘disturbed’ that well-meaning parents could be so misguided.

‘When children are born, they’re not a blank slate,’ he said. ‘We do have male brains and female brains. There’s a reason why boys do more rough and tumble play; there’s a reason why girls have better language development skills.’ ..."

Full story here.

Friday, January 20, 2012

Fatherless boy invades Girl Scouts. (updated 20 Jan. 2012)

This young girl is exposing the foolishness of gender denial in the Girl Scouts of America. When did common-sense facts about gender become inactionable and unmentionable? When did merely wanting to be a girl when you were born male become acceptable? This video was "made private" a few days ago.

“...“Right now, GSUSA and councils are focusing on adult agendas that have nothing to do with helping girls,” she continues. “I ask all fellow Girl Scouts who want a true, all-girl experience not to sell any cookies until GSUSA addresses our concerns. I ask all parents of Girl Scouts who want their girls to be in a safe environment to tell their leaders why you will not allow your girls to make any more money for GSUSA.”...”

More details here, and "updated" info here and here.

Wednesday, January 18, 2012

Even an anti-Christ bigot can understand this article.

“...The present law states: “marriage is a civil contract between a male and a female…” This same law also prohibits marriage to close-blood relations, a clear indication that the definition of marriage is related to bringing children into the world and the continuation of the human race. The legislation to redefine marriage, therefore, is not in the public interest. ...”

“...the state is recognizing the irreplaceable contribution that married couples make to society. Married couples who bring children into the world make particular sacrifices and take on unique risks and obligations for the good of society. For this reason the state has long understood that it has a compelling interest in recognizing and supporting these mothers and fathers through a distinct category of laws. Were the definition of marriage to change, there would be no special laws to support and recognize the irreplaceable contribution that these married couples make to society and to the common good by bringing to life the next generation. ...”

“...present law defining marriage as “a civil contract between a male and a female” is grounded not in faith, but in reason and the experience of society. It recognizes...the unique and irreplaceable potential of a man and woman to conceive and nurture new life...”

This well-written article is brief, to the point, and doesn’t contain any scriptures to frighten any anti-Christ bigots. But it does get across the point that redefining marriage is wrong. Just right for my blog.

Also, even if a man and woman who cannot have children marry, their marriage sets forth an example that is witnessed by children and, therefore, serves towards the good of humanity.

Tuesday, January 17, 2012

SPLC labeled a hate group. (updated 18 Jan.)

“...LaBarbera said the SPLC is engaged in a thinly-veiled, one-sided campaign to demonize adherents of traditional Judeo-Christian morality. He noted that despite the considerable hatred and anti-Christian bigotry emanating from homosexual activists (e.g., Dan Savage’s vile hate-site, Santorum[dot]com), the SPLC has never labeled a “gay” organization or website as “hateful.”...”

Complete info here and here.

A libertarian view on same-sex "marriage."

“...In an interview with Reason TV, author and libertarian icon George Gilder explains why he opposes gay marriage: "The family is critical to raising civilized, creative, responsible people who can exploit and enjoy freedom." When asked how he is defining the family in this sense, Gilder responds: "Nuclear family, a man and woman and children."

When asked how he feels about New York legalizing gay marriage, he says: "I think it's a bad thing ... this whole idea that homosexuality resembled race in any respect is nonsense. The whole idea that male homosexuality resembles lesbianism in any respect is nonsense. And so this whole idea of gay marriage is just a parody. It's an absurd concept." He goes on to say later in the interview that "laws about marriage" make sense to him, even as a libertarian. ...”

More info here.

Monday, January 16, 2012

The difference between "Black" and "gay."

When I say “Black people,” or “gay people,” I am talking about two social groups. But when I say “Black person,” or “gay person” the words “Black” and “gay” take on an entire different meaning. When it comes to an individual, the word “gay” describes that person's behavior, and therefore cannot be accurately swapped out with the word “Black.”

The glbt community has effectively stolen the nobility of the African-American civil-rights movement by manipulating those who cannot or will not discern the difference between race and sexual behavior. A homosexual has the exact same right to marry one woman at a time that I do.

"...One constituent likened denial of marriage rights to gays and lesbians to racial apartheid in South Africa. “I saw apartheid, I was in South Africa and I can tell you this is different,” Haugen shot back. She recalled the “necklacing” practice in which victims were stuffed in a tire which was then set afire. ..."

Example here.

Anti-Christ bigotry spotlighted.

"... "Should the Catholic Church find itself discriminated against by the Obama administration in key delivery of services because of the bias and bigotry of the administration?” he asked, referencing the Obama administration’s unprecedented denial of a health care grant to the U.S. Bishops over their pro-life stance.

“The bigotry question goes both ways and there’s a lot more anti-Christian bigotry today than there is concerning the other side, and none of it gets covered by the media,” he concluded to applause. ..."

More info here.

Friday, January 6, 2012

Santorum stumps young homofascists.

At 0:07:40, Rick Santorum gets to the meat of why marriage should not be redefined; redefining marriage will harm children by depriving them of their birthright to a married mother and father. Does the glbt community even care about harming children?

Monday, January 2, 2012

"Gender liberation."

What a way to start 2012!

The glbt community used to scoff at and ridicule people who would say that they were after children. Now, the gay community doesn't even try to hide their efforts to circumvent the parental civil rights of those who don't think that homosexuality is normal.

The highlighting in red below is my doing.

“...“In other words,” Tyler explains of what “gender liberation” means, “male-female distinctions must be eliminated in order to ‘liberate’ children from unnecessary ‘stereotypes.’ This is not a movement seeking ‘equal rights,’ but a movement seeking to obliterate our God-given distinctions between male and female.” ...”

“...SB 543, signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2010, “allows school staff to remove children ages 12 and up from government schools and taken off-campus for counseling sessions, without parental permission or involvement. The purpose is to permit pro-homosexuality teachers and administrators to remove sexually confused children in 6th grade and up from campus and take them to pro-homosexuality counselors who will encourage them to embrace the homosexual lifestyle.” ...”

“...Said the email, according to Thomasson, “You were right: Our daughter was told she had to attend a gay straight alliance rally to honor Harvey Milk. … She shared she was a Christian with the teacher and only after she saw Lauren was clearly upset about going to this rally did she issue her a hall pass. She was persecuted by another student but made it out of the class. I picked up her and she was very upset. How many other Christians were forced to go to this rally?” ...”

“... “Parents, realize there was NO advance parental notification of this happening or the opportunity to opt out your children. Even more, realize there was no parent permission sought, no opt-in form to sign. No, Harvey Milk sexual indoctrination, and other sexual indoctrination implemented, because of other perverse laws are being done behind parents’ backs and despite parents’ objections,” Thomasson’s report said. ...”

Complete info here.