David/NOM vs. Starbucks/Goliath.

Yesterday, while I was at work, I was far from home, and I was crazy hungry. Not only that, I wanted a cup of coffee, which is rare for me.

I spotted a Starbucks and remembered their great-tasting coffee and their “turkey bacon” breakfast sandwich that I would buy about once every two weeks. But then I remembered their anti-Christ stand for the redefinition of marriage and I decided not to spend my money there. This was the third time I had refrained from doing business at Starbucks since I found out about their support for the redefinition of marriage.

Then I remembered how a homofascist told me that Starbucks received some sort of thank you from 600,000 people for their support of same-sex “marriage.” I then realized that the boycott of a true servant of Jesus Christ will outweigh the support of at least ten non-believers since the Lord is the eternal Word of God. The boycott of true Christians will outlast the temporary, emotional support of non-believers.

Then today, I read this statement...

“...On January 24th, 2012, Starbucks issued a memorandum declaring that a bill in the state of Washington to legalize so called same-sex marriage is “core to who we are and what we value as a company”. ...”

This statement has sealed my resolve to NOT do business with Starbucks, if I can reasonably avoid doing so. I know that Starbucks will probably be just fine without my money, but I also know that all those who stand for the redefinition of marriage will answer to my Lord.

More info here.

North Carolinians defending true marriage.

"Offended" by the natural/true family!?!?

This story illuminates perfectly the influence of glbt organizations in our middle schools and high schools. A mural depicting a married man and woman with their child was deemed "possibly offensive to some" by high school officials, and the natural/true family was actually painted over!

Was the mural too "heteronormative"? Was it too "heterosexist"? What straight person would be offended by this mural? Doesn't this absurd action/point-of-view illustrate the glbt community's perverse mindset? I couldn't believe the homofascist bent/flavor of this story at first, but then my disbelief turned to joy because, once again, the adverse influence of the homosexual lifestyle in our nation's schools can be clearly and easily shown. Anyone offended by a mural depicting a man graduating from college, getting married, and then having a son, is clearly a twisted individual.

This is why I no longer associate with marriage/family redefiners. A person has to be crazy to be offended by true marriage and the normalcy of this mural.

heteroadvocate

heteroadvocate:

A person, entity, or organization that speaks or writes in support or defence of heterosexuality, true marriage, heteroactivism, or heteroseparatism.

Children need their mother and father.

T-shirt homofascists.

Should a t-shirt company owned by a homosexual be forced to print a t-shirt that said,"God hates fags"? Should a Jewish-owned t-shirt company be forced to print t-shirts for a neo-Nazi gathering? Should any company be forced to print a message that they had a problem with?

If a man can be prevented from merely passing out Bibles at a "gay pride" event, can't a Christian decline from supporting an anti-Christ message?

“...GLSO wanted “Hands On Original” to print shirts for the city’s fifth annual Lexington Pride Festival. The store offered to find another company that would honor its price – but that wasn’t good enough for the GLSO.

...“Over the past 20 years, we have declined to produce several other products with different messages than the one at issue here because we disapproved of whatever message it was, and it never had anything to do with discrimination,” he wrote. “People reading this may disagree with my view on the current issue, but I hope they will join us in supporting our right to decline an order that promotes a view so contrary to our personal beliefs.”

...Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, condemned the attacks on the t-shirt company and said Adamson has as much freedom to reject homosexuality as his customers do to endorse it.

“The Left still insists that personal morality take a backseat to its radical agenda,” Perkins said. “Whether it’s a t-shirt company, wedding photographer, or the church, homosexuals will not be satisfied until they compel us to either spread their perversion or promote it.”...”

Full article here.

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.

Sexual sanity in Anchorage, Alaska.

This commercial is so quick, concise, and to-the-point that the homofascists already hate it. LOL!

APA now says gays CAN change.

The gays that worship the APA are in for a shock.

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.

True marriage in North Carolina.

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.

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.

Great video find.

I don't know how old this video is, but it's great and I felt it necessary to post it.

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.

Plain talk about true marriage.

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.

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.

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!!

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.

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.

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.

R.I.P. Ralph McQuarrie

The man who created the look of Darth Vader has died.

"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.

Catholic Priest stands up to lesbian pressure. (updated 01 Mar.2012)

Although I have great compassion for Barbara Johnson in her time of bereavement, the fact remains that she has willfully embraced sexual sin, and her and her lesbian lesbian lover tried to pressure a servant of Jesus Christ into accepting sexual sin.

The mainstream media is, of course, in full-spin-mode, and only reporting the lesbian's side of the story.

"...Somebody claiming to have ‘first hand’ knowledge, responding to somebody being critical of the priest, comments on the situation:

"I happen to know “First hand” that Barbara went into the sacristy before the mass and introduced herself as a lesbian in an active lesbian relationship… introducing her partner as “her lover” (her words). She left the sacristy before Fr. could have the “private discussion” you talk about. Barbara's “Lover” blocked his way out of the sacristy when he attempted to speak with her further.

Before communion, Fr. clearly announced the “rules” for receiving communion to all present (as is common at most weddings and funerals). These “rules” have been consistent for ages and should be nothing new to Catholics… ..."

Here and here's what really happened.

The narcissism in the glbt community.

This video, by Dr. Sam Vaknin, hit my radar today, and I was stunned at some of the points he made that reveal the inner workings of the glbt mind. At 0:01:00, 0:03:02, and especially 0:05:30, Dr Vaknin reveals key points about what motivates the homosexual and “transsexual” mindset. Oh my God this guy has given my some powerful ammo in my fight against homofascism.

Gay "love" not enough for kids.

Once, in an online discussion, in an effort to pull him back into the realm of sexual sanity, I asked a homosexual what he would do if he found out that his male friend was having sex with a seven year old girl. To my horror, the homosexual responded that he would, “talk” to his friend to, “see what his reasoning was.”

I know what I would do if my best friend told me that he was having sex with a seven year old girl. I would tackle him and hold onto him until the local police took him into custody.

It really boggles my mind when I stop to think that there are people that actually believe that a same-sex household does NOT harm a child, or that the redefinition of marriage won’t harm children. What kind of a depraved mind can’t understand the concept of just how important a safe environment for children is?

Today I found a great article concerning sexual sanity and the safety of children...

“...Men and women bring diversity to parenting...Mothers and fathers simply are not interchangeable. Two women can both be good mothers, but neither can be a good father. ...”

“...children progress through predictable and necessary developmental stages. Some stages require more from a mother, while others require more from a father.”

“...if a young boy is to become a competent man, he must detach from his mother and instead identify with his father. A fatherless boy doesn’t have a man with whom to identify and is more likely to have trouble forming a healthy masculine identity.”

“...Overall, fathers play a restraining role in the lives of their children. They restrain sons from acting out antisocially, and daughters from acting out sexually. When there’s no father to perform this function, dire consequences often result both for the fatherless children and for the society in which these children act out their losses.”

“...Certainly homosexual couples can be just as loving as heterosexual couples, but children require more than love. They need the distinctive qualities and the complementary natures of a male and female parent. The accumulated wisdom of over 5,000 years has concluded that the ideal marital and parental configuration is composed of one man and one woman. Arrogantly disregarding such time-tested wisdom, and using children as guinea pigs in a radical experiment, is risky at best, and cataclysmic at worst.”

Complete, homofascist-crushing-article here.

Hetero backlash?

At 0:04:00, Ms Gallagher touches on what got me involved in the fight against homofascism. When a homofascist called me out of my name for not supporting his homosexual lifestyle, and then I heard sexual activity being equated with race, I couldn't let such absurd concepts go unchallenged and I decided to participate in this culture war to defend my name and my religious freedom to walk away from the glbt community.

Gender Identity DISORDER

A five year old boy in England decided, when he was four, that he wanted to be a girl, and his parents don't have the guts or the moral clarity to tell him that he cannot be a girl. Not only that, the NHS in England doesn't have the guts to tell this boy's parents that THEY are nuts. Is the NHS crazy?

What part of the word "disorder" don't the adults involved in this case understand? "Disorder" means that something is not IN order. If a person has a disorder, that means that something has gone wrong. Has glbt propaganda gained such a foothold in the minds of Godless people that this madness exists? People are now afraid to tell a little boy that he cannot be a girl?

This is madness!!

The unmatchable beauty of true marriage.

Is there anybody in this world insane enough to think that what takes place in this video would have the same beauty if this man were proposing to another man?

These two will have a much harder time getting their kids out of the bathtub than getting them in.

The importance of true marriage.

Even when a man and a woman who can't produce children marry, their marriage protects children by setting forth an example to children of how a man and a woman declare their relationship before God and humanity.

Intresting info on prop 8 from ADF.

Interesting info concerning even more judicial bias against prop 8 at 0:00:58.

A feared, strong, heterosexual man.

This is the type of strong, heterosexual man that gays and feminists hate. This man has created my favorite viral video so far and I had to post it!

Santorum on homointolerance.

Rick Santorum sums it up perfectly. Those who believe that those who stand for true marriage are motivated only by bigotry are the real, anti-Christ bigots.

Homojudicial tyranny.

Is God “unconstitutional”? It is His law that defines marriage as being between one man and one woman. What will marriage redefiners say to God when they stand before him?

A vote to preserve the one-man-one-woman definition of marriage cannot be compared to a vote to uphold slavery because sexual orientation is not morally innate like race or gender. It is wrong to be sexually attracted to a family member or a child or someone of your same sex.

Gay people have the exact same right to marry one person of the opposite sex that I do, therefore marriage equality already exists.

Judge Walker, who wrongly nullified the votes of over seven million people should have recused himself-not because he was gay-but because he stood to gain personally from his ruling.

“...Denouncing the ruling, Brian Raum, senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, said the court undercut the democratic process "by taking the power to preserve marriage out of the hands of the people."

"No court should presume to redefine marriage," he stated. "Americans overwhelmingly reject the idea of changing the definition of marriage. Sixty-three million Americans in 31 state elections have voted on marriage, and 63 percent voted to preserve marriage as the timeless, universal, unique union between husband and wife."

Supporters of Prop. 8 will likely now appeal the ruling. The primary sponsor of the measure, ProtectMarriage, can appeal to a larger panel of the 9th Circuit or, like many experts predict, go directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. ...”

More detailed info here.

Prop 8.

Prop 8 post coming soon. Lots of data to crunch.

Homocensorship.

Is "hate speech" anything that the gay community says it is? I'm not buying that. Hate speech condones violence, and I've already denounced proactive violence against the glbt community.

I can see where the word ”fa**ot,” could be seen as hate speech. But the phrase, “that’s gay,” is something that I’m not going to allow the glbt community to forbid me from using.

The glbt community keeps comparing their sexual behavior to the skin color of the African American community despite being told by Black people that sexual behavior does not compare to skin color. And the vast majority of African Americans are infuriated by the comparison of sexual sin to the color of their skin.

Story here.

Rally for true marriage in Maryland.

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 racism...as 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 union...to 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.

“...is 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. ...it 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.

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.

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."

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.

https://twitter.com/#!/lgbtfacts

Click here.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Another glbt end-run around parental rights.

Under the guise of "anti-bullying" no less. How about anti-bullying for parental rights?

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?

"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.