Friday, October 19, 2012

"...the signature meant that I was anti-gay."

So, signing a petition to put the definition of marriage on the ballot makes you "anti-gay," and could cost you your job.  Wow.  Has anyone ever been fired for supporting the redefinition of marriage?  What would happen to a business, or a University that fired a marriage redefiner?

Since it clearly illuminates their gross homofascism, and willingness to violate a person's civil right to vote, Gallaudet University is apparently very unhappy about this video.


  1. "Homofacism" is a pejorative, slanderous term meant to stir up emotion. Please, if you demand others be respectful of you and not refer to you as "anti-gay", respect others the same.

    "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

    Matthew 7:12

    1. If homosexuals do not wish to be compared to fascists, they should stop acting as fascists. Dr. McGaskill was exercising fundamental freedoms--speech, religion, right to petition the government for redress of grievances--affirmed in the Bill of Rights. Gallaudet University is a _public_ (federal) university, and as such it is obligated to respect said rights when exercised by its employees. Gallaudet's administrators are using naked, unconstitutional state power to punish Dr. McGaskill--no doubt hoping also to intimidate other employees and students who believe as she does--despite their obligation to respect her rights . . . that sure sounds like fascism to me.

      As to your "proof-texting," out-of-context citation of Mt 7:12 to try to shame Heteroseparatist into silence, you might want to consider some of Jesus' own "pejoratives" from the same Gospel: "O generation of vipers, how can you speak good things, whereas you are evil? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh," (Mt 12:34) and, "You serpents, generation of vipers, how will you flee from the judgment of hell?" (Mt 23:33). And, since we're quoting St. Matthew's Gospel, you might profit from reading Jesus' definition of marriage in Mt 19:3-6.

    2. In the thread of doing unto others as would be done unto you......

      If I were hopelessly lost to perversion, or any type of sin for that matter, I would certainly feel blessed if someone like Mantronikk were to confront me in my sin with the strongest of terms possible, so that I may repent and therefore have my mortal soul saved from the wrath of God. This is the meaning of what is taught in Leviticus when it is stated that he who does not rebuke his neighbor in fact hates his neighbor in his heart. Furthermore, the stronger the sin, the stronger the rebuke that is required.

    3. Oh wow, I do love the old testament.

      I love that I am allowed to sell my daughter as a servant (Exodus 21:7).

      I love that you can only grow one plant in a garden and that you can't wear polyester or cotton-poly blends (Leviticus 19:19).

      Not to mention all the people we'd have to kill who work on the Sabbath (Exodus 35:2).

      Leviticus 19:27 also makes it wrong to shave your beard.

      Leviticus 19:28 forbids tattoos.

      So I have to ask, Aservant and Mantronikk, have you preached against clean-shaven people? People with tattoos? People who work on the Sabbath? Football players like Matt Birk who touch the skin of a dead pig, directly forbidden in Leviticus 11:8? Have you boycotted the lobster industry (Leviticus 11:10)?

      Have you isolated women who are having their periods (Leviticus 15:19-20)?

      There's a reason we don't live by the Old Testament.

      Mantronikk can preach all he wants about my sin, but I take issue when he tries to enshrine HIS religious beliefs into CIVIL law and restrict MY rights.

    4. @NOM Comments:
      As much as you use the words of Christ, why then do you reject His definition of marriage in the NEW Testament; Matthew 19:4-6 ?

      Don't you understand that the death of Jesus on the cross changed SOME things about what I can and cannot do as His servant?

      Don't you understand that NONE of the Old Testament commandments concerning sexual relations were done away with by the death of Christ on the cross? Just as I cannot marry my mother or sister or daughter, even if I am sterile, YOU cannot marry another man. And, if you're not married in the eyes of God, you are NOT married, no matter what the "civil" laws of your country are.

      I Corinthians 6:9-11.

      I do not "preach" against homosexuality. I expose homofascism and clarify heteroseparatism. The civil laws that allow same-sex "marriage" in some states have bypassed the laws of our Republic. God's definition of marriage is already the law of our nation, and you have no more of a right to redefine marriage than I do. NEVER in the history of human interaction has gender been ignored in a marriage. Even in polygamy, which is outside of the Lord's definition of marriage, gender is recognized.

      If you don't want to marry a woman, is there something wrong with God's definition of marriage, or is there something wrong with you?

    5. The Pharisees did not ask Jesus if "same sex sexual relations are always outside the marriage covenant." They asked about divorce.

      Your interpretation substitutes your opinion - something Jesus didn't say - for what Jesus actually said. You are teaching your opinion - something Jesus did not say - as absolute truth. Obviously that is a false way of interpreting scripture.

      1 Corinthians 7:1-9 seems to suggest that God intended a partner for everyone, even those of us that are gay.

      And honestly, comparing my relationship to an incestuous one? That's insulting.

      But we are being distracted from the main point - that is you imposing your religion in a secular world. Just as you are free to practice your religion I am free FROM your religion. What Jesus said about it makes no difference in the secular, civil world. If you want to violate my first amendment rights, is there something wrong with me, or something wrong with you?

    6. Let’s dissect the words of Jesus Christ, God the Son, in Matthew 19:4-6.

      4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’ 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

      “… the Creator ‘made them male and female, …”

      This means that humans are born either male and female.

      “…For this reason…”

      This means that it takes a man and a woman to create a child AND be called a family.

      “…a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife…”

      Wife; not wives. Female, not male. Born female, not a surgically altered male.

      “…Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate…”

      WHAT God has joined together. Not whom God has joined together. And I looked up the “what” in the original language that the New Testament was written in, and it means the same thing as it does in our modern English. The definition and concept of marriage and family come from God. The one-man-one-woman definition of marriage and family is not born of human thought or bigotry or intolerance.

      The secular definition of marriage in our country mirrors the will of God. To change that, the glbt community must use the proper, legal means to do so. The current definition of marriage violates no one’s civil rights or first amendment rights. Where same-sex “marriage” is legal, civil rights have been violated, and same-sex “marriage” will eventually be ruled on by SCOTUS.

      You quote biblical verse when it suits your purposes, yet you discard God’s definition of marriage in the NEW Testament? You have been deceived by the evil one. God can and will heal you of your same-sex attraction if you allow him to.

  2. But I gave you a the upgraded term, "pro-hetero" to replace, "anti-gay," when referring to my point of view and mindset. If you can come up with an upgraded term for "homofascism," to describe the attack on this woman's civil rights, I'd be more than happy to hear and consider it. Can you do for me what I have already done for you?

  3. The gay marriage mob are in full damage control mode - this women was a horrendous choice of homofacism victim, a public-relations nightmare for the gay community. They've taken to a full-out, faux-villification campaign against that University's President, condemning him in a way to try to isolate his actions from the larger pattern of homofacism. They even took out a full page ad in that state's newspaper to affirm this fake denouncing. For they know: this woman has entirely too much vulnerability, and nobody in thier right mind, even a movent that's drunk with power, would publicly associate with the victimization of a high-profile, disabled Black female. I say "publicly", because had their been no media coverage, they'd gladly sacrifice her on the altar of their "rights".

  4. Replies
    1. You as has been a while...

      Excellent rebuke of NOM comments above, you took the words from my mouth.

      Did you censor my other comment Mantronikk that I posted yesterday?

    2. No I didn't. Look higher on the page.

    3. No, there is only one comment, I posted two....the second had to do with the position of diversity coordinator and the politics involved with that position.

    4. Then something went wrong. When I see your name I automatically publish your comment. I don't remember seeing your name twice.


Debate and discussion are welcome here, but attitude and ad hominem attacks will get you banned.