What Does Win Mean?

Well over three thousand Americans dead in Iraq. Apparently, that’s not enough so we are sending 20,000 more targets over there. Maybe with the increased targets, the insurgents will have more practice and get better at killing. We should be bringing our soldiers home, not adding to the casualty list.

Damn, that’s a liberal leftist thing to say. It might even be a quotable quote from the Democrat Party.

One thing I notice in all the debates is a lack of a “win” plan. On the left is “Bush lied to get us in the War and we need to get out” and on the right is “Bush was right to try to bring a democratic state to the Middle East and end terrorism”.

Everything since has been "Bush is wrong" or "Bush is right".

Let me be upfront. We were wrong for taking on Iraq. Hindsight is 20/20, but I even had my doubts prior to our invasion. Now I know we made the wrong decision.

But that doesn’t take away from the fact that we are there, made a mess of the country, and need to “win”. The question is “What does win mean?” Is ousting Sadam a win? If so, we won. How about forming a democratically elected government? If so, we won.

The bigger question is "How long do we give the new Iraqi government a chance to form a self-sustaining government?" Six more months? A year? Five years? And if the new Iraqi government turns into an iron-fisted dictatorship or theocracy, did we lose the war?

And is winning everything?

As long as we debate along partisan lines about exactly what we are doing in Iraq, we'll never win. Even if we withdraw our troops tomorrow and the new Iraqi government manages to establish a thriving democratic government in spite of us, we still lost the war.

We're there so now how do we ensure that we leave with a solid Iraqi govenment in place that will best serve the Iraqi people? Bush failed to give a clear plan. The Democrats fail even worse.

It's as bad as the War in Iraq

I'm talking about the War on Christmas. You know, that war where the rallying cry is "They're trying to take Christ out of Christmas!" Under the leadership of the ACLU, nativity scenes are being shoved in the closet and the big stores like Walmart and Target instruct their employees to say "Happy Holidays", but are never, ever to utter the word, "Christmas".

The atheists and secularists are losing and losing shamefully. Despite the well-organized, all-out effort to remove Christ from Christmas, those pesky Christians, like terrorists, pop up everywhere to drop the "Merry Christmas" bomb.

"How", you might ask, "do you know the War on Christmas is being lost?"

Let's take my typical day, today, as an example.

I stopped in an Exxon station for my donut like I do every morning. As I left, I said to the clerk, "You have a Merry Christmas."

He responded, "Thank you and you have a Merry Christmas, too."

As I walked out the door, it dawned on me that his name is Wasim and he is obviously of Mideastern decent, which means there's a good chance he isn't Christian. Considering the nature and spirit of the exchange, though, I don't think Wasim lives in fear that Exxon may fire him.

I could be wrong. If he's not around next week, maybe Exxon did fire him. Not only did he dare to speak the word, Christmas, but if he's not Christian then that means he turned on his own kind. I shudder to think what might happen to him. In addition to being fired, he might be brought to trial on charges of being a traitor and have to face the death penalty.

I thought no more of the innocent exchange until I got to work. There's about 800 employees and the CEO of the company is Jewish. Surely the War on Christmas must be experiencing victory on this battlefield.

Nope. Those pesky Christians infiltrated the company and, gasp, dared to decorate their cubes with not only secularist decorations but also Christian symbols - an angel here, the word Christmas there, and the Star of Bethlehem shining over it all. Sure, the Christian symbolism is subdued, but most certainly there.

Oh, and I lost count how many employees wished me a "Merry Christmas". That word is spoken freely and without penalty on this battlefield.

I went out to the parking garage to smoke a cigarette.

Hmmm, now there is a war being won - the War on Smokers.

But back on topic.

Like a common criminal, I went to smoke my cig in hiding. I struck up a conversation with another guy, Marc, like I do every day. "So Marc, do you know where I can get a good deal on a Christmas tree, one that I can plant after the holidays?"

"Hell if I know. I'm Jewish."

"Oh. Well, Happy Hannukah, I guess."

"I don't celebrate Hannukah, but thank you. And Merry Christmas to you."

"Thank you, but I really don't celebrate Christmas. It costs too much."

We both got a good laugh, finished our cigarettes, and went back to work. Neither one of us lost our jobs, had a scolding from our supervisors, or ended up in front of our human resources rep.

I have a feeling that my experience today is typical of almost everyone's day. The War on Christmas is being fought all around us, but no one seems to notice - or care.

That's probably because there is no War on Christmas. Most people run around wondering if they can get off work early and if they can beat the crowds at the stores to finish their last minute Christmas shopping. They're making a list of last minute gifts they need to pick up and wondering if someone will be giving them the gifts they really want. Christmas morning, on the way to Church, they'll think about Jesus, but all the time building up to that genuine moment of Christmas celebration, the Christian aspect of the holiday is AWOL in most peoples' minds.

Of course, there are exceptions. There are people who live and breath Jesus. They're the ones who see the War on Christmas and they are the soldiers fighting the War. Hey, all the power to them. I wish them the best, and a Merry Christmas.

And I'm sure their daughter, Carrie, will be a big hit at her senior prom some day.

For the rest of us, another Christmas will soon be upon us and gone. Then we can shed all our compassion and goodwill to men and pick on the smokers, again. That war hasn't been won - yet.

I Hate America

That's the common theme I've heard since I was a kid. No, no one outright says, "I hate America", but listen to them long enough and you have to wonder what they like about America if America is so wrong.

The laundry list is long. Americans are rude overseas. American foreign policy has screwed up more countries than it's helped. American support of Israel created the Mideast turmoil. American news caters to the lowest common denominator - short blips of what the news people think Americans want to hear because their attention span is much too short to grasp anything more complex. Americans are the biggest global polluters and largest consumers of natural resources. American military is guilty of condoned human rights abuses. Americans still sentence criminals to that barabric practice of the death penalty. Americans can't feed their own poor, but the rich keep getting richer. Americans think their culture is the only one that counts and don't care to respect other cultures.

Americans [fill in the blank here].

For Americans being the rude, bumbling oafs they are, one glaring point stands out: Americans don't go around bashing every little detail of another country's people and culture. (Ok, maybe the French, but France isn't a real country.)

Why do so many people in other countries find it perfectly acceptable to criticize anything American? In fact, without living in this country, isn't it rude for non-Americans to be criticizing every little aspect of American life? For the life of me I can never figure out how a foreigner can say "The average American has no clue or doesn't care or is too uninformed or..." when odds are that foreigner probably has never even talked to an average American.

Yup, never talked to an average American. How do I know that? Simple. The foreigner is always quick to point out how rude and arrogant the average American is. Who makes it a point to talk to rude, arrogant people?

I sure don't, which is why I don't talk to foreigners. Maybe some day they'll learn to respect other cultures, including the American culture.

A Group Gone Too Far?

Or maybe outlived it's usefulness?

Prior to 1980, the laws and attitudes towards drunk driving were lax - almost as if drunk driving was an acceptable fact of life. But 1980 saw the formation of Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Through their efforts, public awareness was raised, laws were toughened, and drunk driving deaths took a nose dive.

Over the last few years, the decline has plateaued, remaining at around 13,000 deaths per year due to drunk driving.

MADD has decided to take a more agressive path to get that number declining again, preferably to zero. They are calling for a breathalyzer in every vehicle for every person convicted of a DUI, even first-time offenders. To start the car, the driver has to breathe into a tube and if he's over the legal limit, the car won't start.

Sounds noble until you consider a few things. First, such a device would mean that a 120-pound woman who drinks two glasses of wine during a two-hour dinner won't be able to get her car started. Second, the device can be rigged to require the driver to blow in the tube periodically during a course of a trip to ensure he didn't enter the vehicle sober and then started drinking or had a sober friend blow in the tube to begin with. And third, everything in this country is set on precedence. Rumors (and I emphsize rumors) are being whispered that the ultimate goal of this program is to require this device in every newly manufactured vehicle as "standard equipment". Not only that, but there is equipment that can monitor every movement in the car as well as the air quality, and if alcohol is suspected, the car can shut down.

I don't know about you, but I don't need Big Brother in my car. I'm all for getting drunk drivers off of the road, but I draw the line at requiring equipment in my car that presumes I'm guilty before I start the engine.

Catholic Bishops Are So Understanding

American Catholic bishops on Tuesday called on gays to live a life of celibacy, but still referred to homosexuality as "disordered". They also encouraged gay Catholics to remain in the closet, both spiritually and sexually, by only telling a close circle of family and clergy of their homosexuality. -story

The bright note?

They declined to endorse reparative therapy, claiming there was no evidence it was effective. Instead, they called on homosexual Catholics to seek therapy that would help them lead a life of celibacy.

They still oppose gay couples adopting, but do encourage children of gay parents to be baptized.

At their anuual meeting, they also called on Catholics, especially those of child-bearing years, to shun birth control methods.

"The goal is not negative to stop people from doing things," George said. "The goal is positive—to give themselves entirely to Christ and to do that lovingly. So the goal is to empty yourself of yourself and hold nothing back, including your own fertility, and embrace human life and sacrifice yourself for the sake of something greater."

Perhaps the real motive against contraception - produce more babies because we're losing too many Catholics rejecting our shallow, and sometimes backwards, way of thinking? I'd like to see the New Way Ministries (a break-away Catholic religion who accepts homosexuality) issue their own paper, one encouraging condom use among homosexuals and celibacy for heterosexual Catholics, especially thos of child-bearing years.

The Different Levels of Bias

It is important, as individuals, we recognize that biases and prejudices are a normal facet of being human. Through thousands of years, our tendency to catagorize and stereotype like things has helped us to find beneficial opportunities and avoid danger or trouble. It has helped us to survive.

Carried to the extreme, this natural tendency to categorize and stereotype becomes destructive. It allows us to justify slavery, segregation, wars, riots, marginalization of various groups of people, and violence against individual people belonging to the group of "them."

There's a fine line between bias and prejudism. There's a fine line between prejudism and bigotry. And there's a fine line between bigotry and a racism/homophobia.

As individuals, no matter how open-minded we may believe we are, we need to be truthful with ourselves and accept that we all carry our biases and prejudices inside us. Once we accept that, then we have to recognize when our prejudices are coloring our thinking and what we are saying.

At this point one might be thinking, "This guy is full of it." Let's take a simple example to illustrate what I have just stated.

An avid gardener takes a road trip every weekend looking for plants to add to his garden. Since he knows the habitat where the plants normally grow, he knows what he is looking for. As he winds down back country roads, he passes many side roads. Some he takes, some he passes up. Initially, how he makes these decisions is purely random. A road is a road to him and all are equal. He exhibits no bias.

After a couple of weekends of searching for plants and finding some really cool ones, on his next trip he starts consciously making a decision of which roads to turn on and which ones to pass up. Specifically, he has learned from his past trips that winding roads, roads with cool sounding names like Snake Creek Road and roads that slope slightly downward through a forest of thick trees hold the most promise to finding really unique plants. If the road holds all three qualities, he knows he will almost definitely find something really cool. As he drives through the country, he specifically looks for these roads. He is now showing his bias by ignoring roads that don't have at least one of the three characteristics he's looking for. When he tells his gardening friends, "If you want to find really cool plants, you might have better luck finding them if you go down winding roads or roads with cool names or roads that slope downward into a forest," he is expressing his bias.

His bias moves towards prejudism when he exclusively searches for the roads with at least one of those characteristics and almost always turns down any other road. When he tells his gardening friends, "If you want to find really cool plants, you're best bet is to find roads that are winding or have really cool names or slope downward into a forest. If you find a road with all three characteristics, you'll surely find the plants you want," he is expressing his prejudism. The switch is subtle, but now he promotes roads having at least one of the three characteristics to the exclusion of any other road and even implies that any other road just isn't good enough.

His prejudism moves towards bigotry when he turns down a road that doesn't have any of those characteristics despite being told that the road might have what he is looking for. When he tells his friends, "Oh no. That road isn't a winding road, has a plain name, and doesn't slope downward into a forest so the plant I want can't be down there," he is expressing his bigotry.

His bigotry moves towards racism/homophobia when he seeks out roads with all three characteristics, settles on roads with at least two of the characteristics, begrudgingly accepts roads with one characteristic without holding high hopes for it, and refuses to go down any other road. When he tells friends, "If the road is winding, has a cool name, and slopes downwards through a forest, those are the best roads to find cool plants. A road with two of those characteristics ain't bad, and if it only has one, you'll most likely be wasting your time. Forget about going down any other road. You'll only find trash plants on them," he is expressing his racism/homophobia.

Notice how there is a kernel of truth to his assumptions about the roads where he thinks he will most likely find some cool plants. Winding roads are usually less travelled because they take longer to get through than straight roads. A lot of times, the cool sounding names imply something about the characteristic of the road. Snake Creek Road, for example, might have been named after the winding creek the road parallels. Cool plants can be found along creeks. Roads sloping down through a forest implies two things: first, the area might not be developed and the downward slopes implies a possible creek, stream, or fertile valley where cool plants love to grow.

Notice, though, that as he moves from bias to racism/homophobia, he moves away from the assumptions above, and begins judging good roads from bad roads based on those assumptions and the assumptions, themselves, move from assumptions to facts.

If one were to point out to him that he can't judge the likilihood of finding cool plants based on the appearance of the first couple of hundred yards of the road because any or all of those characteristics can change a mile or two down the road, his response would be a good clue as to how much faith you should put in his advice.

If he responds, "True, but there's only so many hours of daylight and you want to increase your chances of finding cool plants, try to pick the roads with any of those characteristics," you can probably believe him because he appears to have used reason and logic to come to his conclusion.

If he responds, "True, but a lot of times you'll come up empty-handed whereas if you stayed on the road you were on, a couple of miles down might have been the better road to choose," you can still probably believe him because he is still using reason and logic. Notice, however, the subtle switch in his judgment. I biased person will agree with you about judging the road prematurely, but just wants to increaase his odds, the prejudiced person slips in the nuance that roads that hold none of the three characteristics are a waste of time. It's subtle, but it's there.

If he responds, "True, but most of the times those other roads will get you nothing so why waste your time?", you probably should start questioning his judgment. Unlike the prejudiced person, the bigot is now making a firm, negative judgment on roads that don't possess certain characteristics.

If he responds, "True. I know a road that didn't appear to have any of those characteristics and it turned out that a few miles down, I found a perfect spot with a lot of cool plants. Most roads, though, if they don't have all three characteristics, or at least two of them, are roads that the state may as well as build malls on because you ain't going to find any decent plants on them," you probably already know who you are dealing with and will ignore anything he has to say. He's made it clear there are good roads and bad roads all based on three characteristics.

No matter what topic one is talking about, the critical thinker will pick up on the clues to help him determine just how much faith he should put into what one is saying. And, being honest with ourselves and accepting that we, too, hold the same biases and prejudices as anyone else, we can carefully choose our words and organize our thoughts so as not to be incorrectly judged as a bigot or racist/homophobic.

Repeat Play of 2004?

Flashback, election year 2004: stalemate in Iraq with hundreds upon hundreds of American deaths, no measurable success in the War on Terror, thousands upon thousands of jobs outsourced to India and other developing countries, social security being held together with duct tape, and an overall gloomy outlook by the average American.

Despite the real problems facing the nation, Massachusetts stood on the verge of legalizing same sex marriage. The republicans, seizing the opportunity to divert attention from their failures, mobilized the far right and fundamentalist. Election year 2004 will go down in history as the gay bashing year. The only real problem facing America in 2004 was the homosexuals wanted to marry. The public gay bashing blamed homosexuals for everything from destroying the American family to soiling the great institution of marriage to unraveling the very fabric that holds our Great Nation together.

The fear that allowing homosexuals to marry would mean Mom, baseball, and apple pie would be replaced with two mommies, gay pride parades, and lattes topped with whipped cream and a cherry on top mobilized the far right. The world was fine, but the homosexuals were coming! Sixteen states adopted anti-gay marriage amendments to their constitutions. Republicans playing on the homosexual fear retained majority control. President Bush may have even been helped at the polls by the gay bashing frenzy.

Fast forward to election year 2006 and beyond: stalemate in Iraq with thousands upon thousands of American deaths, no measurable success in the War on Terror, America becomes the largest exporter of jobs, social security is held together with band aids since duct tape is too expensive, energy prices soar higher than a bald eagle can fly, and the average American’s outlook has sunk from gloomy to pessimistic doom.

The average American wants change. Here’s what he’ll get: heavy hitting gay bashing.

The stage is already set. Fundamentalists in Massachusetts have scrapped the referendum that would have nullified same sex marriage - but granted civil unions to homosexuals - in favor of a referendum that would ban any legislation that potentially treated same sex couples as a married couple. That means no marriage, no civil unions, and no domestic partnership benefits. Six other states will decide whether or not to add a ban on same sex marriage to their constitutions and sixteen states will decide if same sex couples should be allowed to act as foster parents or adopt children. And next month, the Senate is expected to vote, again, on adding an amendment to the Constitution banning same sex marriage.

As election time nears - and beyond - expect the gay bashing to take center stage in a repeat play of election year 2004.

Republican candidates will take a firm stand on the side of the traditional family. They’ll kow-tow their way around the issues of civil unions, foster parents, and adoptions by same sex couples without ever giving a firm stand for or against. Only in states overwhelmingly homophobic will they dare to openly join the gay bashers, like Georgia. Voters in Georgia overwhelmingly passed a ban on same sex marriage by a margin of 76%, but a lower court ruled the proposed amendment unconstitutional on technical grounds. The State Supreme Court has put a rush on hearing the case to clear the way for a new referendum. With such overwhelming support for a ban, you can bet Republican candidates from that state will have no problem jumping on the gay bashing bandwagon.

Democrats, feeling the sting from the 2004 election, will be more discreet in handling the same sex issues. In more liberal states, like Vermont, which already has civil unions, they’ll most likely agree to civil unions, but stand firm against marriage. In more conservative states, they’ll quietly cheer the gay bashing bandwagon. In Georgia, for example, the Republican governor, Sonny Perdue, quickly announced he would have a new, more constitutionally sound referendum to ban same sex marriage before the voters in November. His two Democratic opponents, Lt. Gov. Mark Taylor and Secretary of State Cathy Cox rushed to support the Governor’s move.

Don’t be swayed by the gay bashing sideshow. It’s a ploy to distract the average voter from the real failures of our incumbents and the real problems facing our country. Tune out the candidates on the homophobic bandwagon and the candidates cheering the bandwagon on. Perk your ears up to the candidates who distance themselves from the sideshow by downplaying the significance of same sex issues and, instead, try to address the genuine problems the average American faces. Really perk your ears up to the candidate who dares to jump in front of the bandwagon and declare the rhetoric for what it is: an attempt to enshrine bigotry in our laws, state constitutions, and US Constitution. That candidate may be the closest thing to an honest politician we could ask for.

On the other hand, we could let the rhetoric blind us and have a repeat of 2004 in November 2006 and 2008. The losers, of course, will be homosexuals who will once again be relegated to the margins of our society and denied basic rights most everyone else takes for granted. The real losers, however, will be the average American who will be stuck with homophobic conservatives and wishy-washy liberals who are keen on public opinion, but empty on solutions to the real issues.

If you're gay in America, it'll be a rough two and a half years ahead.

Making fun of the news and the people in it...

"I'm mean. I'm a queen. I'm an Aids fighting machine."

Elton donates to Nepal's HIV fight - story

The Christian Agenda Exposed Part II

story
The Christian Agenda Exposed Part I

In Michigan, they're pushing to eliminate domestic partnership benefits. (story) In California, they're pushing to ban same sex marriage and civil unions, eliminate domestic benefits, and deny children of same sex couples the same legal protections every other child is afforded. (story).

In Massaachusetts, they're willing to throw out a refernedum that would give voters a chance to ban same sex marriage, but leave provisions for civil unions in favor for an outright ban on same sex marriage and civil unions.

Who are they? Various Christian groups and "concerned" citizens. In all three states, the leading opposition groups are headed by an organization usually having some positive name that includes key words like "family" and "concerned" conjoined with official sounding terms like "institute" or "research". These organizations all have their roots with the national organization, The Family Research Council, a known homophobic organization.

The Michigan Family Institute is no exception.

In 2004, when the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that the state's constitution allowed same sex marriages and gay couples could not be denied the basic civil right to marry, the Michigan Family Institute kicked into high gear. They worked hard to gain enough signatures to put a referendum through the state legislature that would ban same sex marriage, but allow civil unions.

Call it panic mode. They needed something fast to counter the gay threat to marriage.

On September 14, the state legislature is set to vote on the referendum to allow it to be put before the voters. Not surprisingly, in the almost two years since the Christian groups pushed for the referendum, they are now abandoning it. In their own words, "This amendment must be defeated."

They shout that commandment in bold face letters on their website followed by a step-by-step plan to defeat the 2006 referendum and get the more restrictive 2008 referendum in its place. They've had almost two years to come up with an alternative that not only bans same sex unions, but would also ban civil unions. The implication, of course, is that same sex couples would then be legally denied many of the state benefits of being married - including domestic partnership and legal protection for the children of same sex couples.

The argument has never been about protecting marriage. It has always been about marginalizing homosexuals to the fringes of society. It has always been about sweeping the gay problem back into the closet - and throwing the key away.

Don't be fooled by their positive spin. The Christian agenda is clear. Demonize homosexuals as a threat to society. Once the threat is established in the minds of the average person, controlling the gay problem becomes easy.

And it will still be socially acceptable to preach against their sins, blame them for the ills of society, and to hate them.

Without the legalized discrimination, more and more people will see their rhetoric for what it is - intolerance, bigotry, and/or hate.

The Christian Agenda Exposed

Related Stories: Michigan Denies Domestic Benefits

CA Supreme Court Affirms Gay Parents' Role

Even though the push for legal, same sex marriage got its start back in the early 1970's, it wasn't until 1993 that the battle began in full force. That was the year that the Hawaii Supreme Court suggested that a ban on same sex marriage may violate the state constitution.

Conservatives and the religious right gathered in full strength. Since then, their battle cry has boiled down to an argument of preserving the sacred institution of marriage and nothing about denying anyone rights.

In 2003, when Massachusetts became the first state to legalize same sex marriage, a firestorm swept the country. That code phrase for legalized discrimination, "protect the sanctity of marriage" mobilized 11 states to pass constitutional amendments defining marriage as between a man and a woman, only.

"It's not about denying rights," the voters were told. "Gays can enjoy all the rights they want in some form of legal civil union."

Voters bought that cheap slogan hook, line, and sinker. Some still do.

But now the truth of the Christian agenda is being exposed. The same sex marriage arguments are all about rights. No matter what you call a same sex relationship - marriage, civil union, a couple with some marriage rights - the fear of the Christian Right is that those people will become acceptable in society. No society can ever accept that - at any cost.

Now, the Christian Right isn't even bothering to hide their true agenda.

In Michigan last year, voters passed an amendment to the state constitution which read "To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as marriage or similar union for any purpose."

Those last six words, or similar union for any purpose, were used to negate the domestic partnership benefits already set into law. While the judge as not yet ruled on the challenge to the legal opinion from the state's attorney general that negated the domestic benefits laws, one of the arguments presented was that the intent of the law had nothing to do with denying benefits to same sex couples. An attorney for the governor of Michigan even presented a brochure put out by backers of the amendment - primarily an offshoot of the group, Focus on the Family - that clearly said the amendment would maintain the status quo of Michigan, i.e. domestic benefit laws weren't in jeopardy.

Gary Glenn, president of the Midland-based American Family Association of Michigan - a primary backer of the amendment, had another story to tell the reporters. The secondary intent of the amendment, and the purpose of those six words, were to ensure the traditional marriage would be honored "including the provision of taxpayer-financed spousal benefits," he claimed.

He just may be the first person to publically expose the real Christian agenda.

Jumping over to California, the state Supreme court just ruled that same sex couples have the same parental responsibilities as their heterosexual counterparts, including child support and custody rights.

Now one would think this is a clear cut case of protecting the children and has nothing to do with same sex marriage.

Wrong.

After the ruling, Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families, which opposes gay marriage, said the court's position "goes against nature."

"Despite junk science and frustrating rulings like this, children still need a mother and a father," Thomasson said. "A child does not have two mommies or two daddies; a child comes into this world because she has a mother who gave her egg and a father who gave his sperm."

The court's stand "ignores the self-evident truth that God designed a man and a woman to fit together and participate in the miracle of procreation," he said.

What's he saying? The children of same sex couples are less deserving of protection of the law than children born to a man and a woman.

Still think it's not about keeping homosexuals as second class citizens? Denying them equal footing in our society? Consider this. Opponents of same sex marriage in California are diligently trying to get several referendums on next year's ballot that would roll back many of the gains in domestic benefits.

The Christian agenda is clear. After more than twelve years of lying to the voters, their real goal on the same sex marriage issue has nothing to do with "protecting the sanctity of marriage" and everything to do with sweeping homosexuals back into the closet.

And at least in Michigan and California, at the expense of the children if need be.

Why NARTH Is a Hate Group

Note: This is a rough draft that some day I'll polish up for my website.

From Narth's own website:

...says Nicolosi. "And, when the research comes in--as indeed it has--showing gays and lesbians to be less psychologically healthy than straights."

"Also, many people coming from a homosexual background have, sadly, spent so many years in self-protection and self-absorption that they have difficulty in giving to others."

"That doesn't make the reality of change any less valid than it does for the alcoholic who returns to drinking, or the anorexic who returns to unhealthy eating patterns." (Reinforces NARTH's position that homosexuality is a disease or disorder that requires treatment.)

"The conclusion arrived at by the researchers, based upon these figures, is that the rate of abuse between urban homosexual men in intimate relationships 'is a very serious public health problem.' The study compared the rate of abuse among homosexual men (22%) to the rate of abuse to heterosexual men (8%) and concluded that homosexual men are more violent.

"Unfortunately, the AMA appears to have accepted the unsubstantiated claim that the numerous psychological problems and self-destructive behavior found among persons who self-identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual (GLB) are caused by social discrimination. It has ignored substantial evidence that these negative outcomes are related to the homosexuality itself."

Citing Stein (1999, Oxford University Press), they find corroboration in his conclusion that "Even if one's sexual orientation is primarily biological and not a choice, much of what is ethically relevant about being a lesbian or gay man is not biologically based and is not determined, [such as] engaging in sexual acts with a person of the same gender."

"The Concept of Disorder Derives from a Moral Concept" - Subtitle to an article that links homosexuality to pedophilia. The article goes on to explain that the APA ignores moral considerations when determining what is and what is not psychological disorder. In simple terms, if you believe something is morally wrong, then it is a disorder that requires treatment. That is their philosophy with homosexuality - they believe it is morally wrong so they fix it. See above quote.

Ok, you get the idea. Let's face it. Hate groups are smart, today. The KKK doesn't go around saying "The niggers are inferior to Whites." Nope. They couch politically correct language between questionable studies and personal testimonials to "prove" their stance that Black people are inferior to Whites.

Narth uses the same technique. They use professional sounding language to hide their two basic principles:

1. Homosexuality is a disease that can be cured either through "incremental change" to heterosexuality or by celibacy
2. Homosexuality is a moral choice even is a biological component can be proven

They believe homosexuality is caused by one of two factors: either the failure of the self-identified gay to have formed a meaningful relationship early on with his/her same-gender parent or they were victims of childhood sexual abuse.

Both presumptions are easily disputed, especially in today's world where many heterosexual children grow up in single-parent households. Why aren't they all gay?

So yes, NARTH is nothing more than a prejudicial hate group.

Quiet Acceptance From the Homophobes - Naturally

The twice-divorced Angelina Jolie adopted a Ethiopian, baby girl who was left orphaned by AIDS. While she has been linked romantically to Brad Pitt and Pitt did accompany her to Ethiopia to file the adoption papers, a source told People magazine that the two aren't planning to start the family together. "Angelina is adopting as a single mother and she wants that emphasized," the source said.

Earlier this year, after a trip to Ethiopia, Jolie said, "My son is in love with Africa, so he has been asking for an African brother or sister."

He got his wish.

Now, where is the conservative's and Christian right's uproar? A single Mom adopting? And adopting because her son wanted an "African brother or sister" as if African children are to be traded as commodities?

A gay couple's adopting gets the conservative's panties in a wad. Just ask anyone in Florida (where gay adoption is illegal) or Texas (where gay adoption ban legislation is pending). But a single Mom adopting doesn't raise an eyebrow.

The hypocritical silence is deafening. Can you hear the silent approval of single-parent adoption and the thunderous roar of gay condemnation?

I can.

Maybe it has to do with Jolie being rich and able to buy what she wants - including an African child.

Be sure to check out Little Guy Protest's campain in favor of gay marriage.

For all the Racists, Bigots, and Homophobes

My note: I wrote this in response to the continual bantering against the need for hate crime legislation, anti-discrimination laws, affirmative action programs, and anything against homosexuals spewed on the myriad of BBs on the web. I doubt any of them actually see themselves as racists, bigots, or homophobes, but their words speak for themselves.

Imagine for a moment that you are a wheelchair bound, Black transsexual. Despite your faithful attendance at your Church and the practicing of its magic that is supposed to help you through life, you feel the Church of Satan isn't enough to protect your from the inujustices of the world.

What injustices do you think they are? What do you think are appropriate remedies to those injustices?

If you're mind is a bit too small too imagine a handicapped, transsexual, Black Satanist, which most likely it probably is, then pick one of those minority groups and pretend for a moment you aren't a White, middle class suburbanite, but are Black or handicapped or gay/transgendered or a member of a religion other than a mainstream Christian religion (Satanist, Wiccan, Islamist, Hindu - pick one, any one).

And, yes, we all know you are at least White. We can tell by what you write with 99.9% certaintity.

Now picture yourself as a minority:

As you are wheeling yourself to your Church, a group of teenage thugs tease and taunt you because you are worthless cripple sucking off of society while everyone else has to work hard. Since they never hit you, the most they get is a slap on the wrist for juvenile delinquency. Since they targetted you for being in a wheelchair, do you think their punishment should have been more severe (hate crime)? What about if you came home from Church and found your door spray painted with "Satan ain't watching you, but we are. Burn at the stake you witch!" The vandals are caught and charged with criminal trespassing (a misdemeanor) and vandalism (another misdemeanor). They're ordered to pay for a new door and sentenced to 80 hours community service, typical sentence for first time misdemeanor offenses. Should their punishment have been more severe? Do you really believe the teen's parents (those perfect role models who raised and taught them to act that way) will mete out a more severe punishment to teach them a lesson in tolerance?

Oh, yeah, that's right. A reminder to you tunneled-vision practioners of hate. Religion is protected under hate crimes legislation, including your Christian religions. So is disability and race. Sexual orientation/identity isn't always a protected status.

Being Black, how would you describe your quality of life, especially when you are trying to navigate in a White world? You're an inner city Black youth. You graduate high school in the top third of your class. What do you think are your chances of being accepted to a good-named university? (We know Harvard is out of the question.) Let's say you work hard and through scholarships and affirmative action programs, you manage to tweak your way through a community college. How far behind are you compared to your White, suburbanite peers? How much harder will you have to work to attain a middle management level job than your White suburbanite peers - the ones who teased you on the way to Church? How many Black CEOs of fortune 500 companies are there?

Being gay/transgendered, how safe do you feel being yourself in public? Dare to hold your boyfriend's/girlfriend's hand at the mall while shopping together? How about hanging up pictures of you and your "other" in your cube? Talk about your vacation gay cruise? Do you think your company can fire you because you don't fit the "family image" the company is trying to project? How about being evicted from your apartment because the complex is family-orientated with children running around and you make your neighbors nervous?

Of course, you can't answer these questions. No one really expects you to answer them. Discrimination doesn't happen and when it does, it's all the social programs discriminating against the Whites. Affirmative action deprives qualified Whites an equal opportunity to acceptance in a school or a job. Hate crime legislation makes crimes against minorities more important than crimes against Whites. And anything that gives homosexuals a fair shake in the world is forcing acceptance of something Christians are strongly opposed.

See the trend? If something threatens the secure world of White Christians, then it must be bad.

Be sure to write your own bill to Congress in support of gay marriage...

It's the Women's Fault

Ok, this is a first draft and will need tweaking, but you get the idea of how easy it is to write that far right, anti-gay stuff - only this time I chose women.

Remember the good ol' days. Women knew their place - in the kitchen. They couldn't vote and sure as heck weren't allowed to open their mouths about such heady topics as religion and politics.

The world was a lot better back then. God knew what He was doing when he made women subserviant to man. The day she defied God and Adam and bit into that apple was proof enough that women were like children. They need constant supervision lest trouble brews.

Before women could vote, the country ran smoothly and was prosperous. A couple of elections after a bunch of whipped boys allowed women to vote, our great nation was plunged into the Great Depression. When those same whipped boys allowed women into the workplace, fast food and pre-packaged meals hit the market. Obesity has skyrocketed and our children suffer a disproportionate number of ailments ranging from asthma to ADD to autism. Let women into the White House and they seduce our leaders with their wicked ways. Give them effective birth control and they take sexual freedom to new heights. Marriage has crumbled under the weight of divorce and a record number of our children are being raised in single-parent households. Millions of children who could be born are ruthlessly killed in their first few weeks of life. It may be the woman's body, and even though it took a father to create the child, the woman, alone, decides the child's fate. Under the feminine agenda, the unborn child is to be viewed as invasive tissue in the woman's body that she can do with as she sees fit. And if the woman decides to bring that "invasive tissue" to term, the woman uses the child as a weapon to financially, and sometimes emotionally, destroy the father.

It's time to take our nation back from the women and the feminine agenda. The Bible makes it very clear where a woman's place is. If we put them back in the home caring for the household and raising the children like God intended, juvenile delinquency rates will plummet. The need for medicating our children to control them will nearly vanish. More children will have the opportunity to see daylight instead of ending up as another abortion statistic. Politics won't be muddied with irrational thinking. For example, if you're homless, your homeless because you don't have a job. That can be fixed. But if you don't have a job because you don't want to work, then that is not a social ill that needs fixing. That's you being lazy.

1 Timothy 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

It's time to put an end to the feminine agenda and embrace the natural order of things as God intended.

Moral Stance or Homophobia?

Take a look at the polls. Any poll. Almost any poll shows most Americans favor equal rights for homosexuals by a two to one margin. Most people feel homosexuals should not be discriminated against in the workplace. Homosexuals shouldn't be denied housing solely because they are gay. They should be entitled to the many legal rights and protections a marriage grants such as inheritance rights, power of attorney, next of kin status, and right to make medical decisions. By nearly the same two to one margin, Americans even favor a civil union status for gay couples.

But ask the average American if same-sex marriage should be legal and by nearly the same two to one margin, most Americans oppose granting marriage status to homosexuals.

By now, most everyone has heard at least one, if not almost all, of the justifications to deny same-sex marriage. They're all easily disputed, but many people cling to their favorites as if they were the gospel truth. That begs the question: why are equal rights for homosexuals embraced by the majority, but that same majority rejects the one basic civil right of marriage of homosexuals?

One dirty little word no one wants to hear: homophobia.

"Wait," you might think, "How can it be homophobia when most Americans believe homosexuals should have equal rights?"

Let's skip over to the KKK website for a moment. They proudly boast that they don't hate Black people. They don't stop there, either. They believe that Black people should be treated equally and with dignity and respect. They also state that White people are the victims of reverse discrimination and by allowing Blacks special rights and privileges in our society - such as hate crime protection or affirmative action - the Whites' status in society is being diminished. By allowing Blacks to marry Whites, the White race is becoming muddied and destroying the core family values which built this country.

Do those arguments sound familiar? Do you still consider a Klansman a racist? If you answered yes, then you see why the arguments against same-sex marriage are homophobia-driven.

The million dollar question is where this homophobia derives its powers.

The answer, directly or indirectly, points to the Bible and religion.

In all fairness to most of the major world religions that condemn homosexuality, homophobia may have its roots even further back in human history. Roman soldiers, for example, would rape the men of a defeated army believing the defeated soldiers would lose their "manhood" and be unable to fight in the future. Looking at primate behavior, when two male chimps battle, the weaker male will show his submissiveness to the stronger male by holding his rump in the air and the fight is over. The weaker chimp learned his place.

I'll leave it to the sociologists and anthropologists to debate the origins of homophobia. It's not hard to see, though, that as human civilizations moved from an extended family of hunterers and gatherers to the more complex agrarian societies and cities to the complex civilizations we have today, the innate beliefs that homosexuals were different became codified in our religions as being a bad thing.

That's all conjecture, of course. Early man doesn't appear to have been as focussed on homosexuality as we are today. Even our early religions didn't pay much mind to homosexuality. The attention to homosexuality by the Christian religion didn't begin to gain steam until a few hundred years ago. As Churches struggled to define the crimes against nature, homosexuality stood in the spotlight.

Today, many of those old beliefs hold true for many. Homosexual men aren't real men. Lesbians can't possibly have a mothering, nurturing instinct. Homosexuality defies natural law. And when all else fails, the Bible condemns homosexuality.

Rest assured that teaching homophobia isn't a matter of parents sitting their child down and, while explaining the birds and the bees, also explain that homosexuality is a bad thing. The lessons are more subtle than that.

Uncle Charlie is the skeleton in the closet no one talks about. When he comes over for a visit, he brings a friend, the same one he's been bringing for the last fifteen years. When Uncle Charlie is introduced to new family friends, he's Uncle Charlie and his friend Bob. When his nephew or niece asks who Mr. Bob really is, the answer is simply a really good friend who goes way back. Bob is never Uncle Charlie's spouse.

When the nephew or niece is old enough to put two and two together, the lesson taught is that homosexuality is shameful.

Every time a child turns on the television and hears our political and religious leaders debate homosexual issues in less than flattering terms, the lesson taught is that homosexuality is shameful.

When the child goes to school and is taunted with fag barbs or learns he can bring another little boy near tears by calling him a fag, the lesson learned is homosexuality is shamful.

When a child hears his parent make an offhand remark about homosexuals, whether overhearing a joke Daddy tells his friend or hears a negative comment towards something on television, the lesson is homosexuality is shameful.

When a child looks around for a positive gay role model and finds none, the lesson is homosexuality is shameful.

The child grows up carrying these prejudices inside him. As an adult, the lessons learned early on are hard to shake off. Sure, the compassionate adult can see the need to treat homosexuals with dignity and respect. It's not hard to convince an adult that in legal matters concerning a couple, the gay couple should be afforded the same legal protections.

But marriage? Now you are asking the adult to forget all his early lessons that were drilled into his head. Allowing homosexuals to marry is forcing an acceptance of something that has always been shameful. For some people, not only is homosexuality shameful, but it ought to be because the Bible says so. Asking people to accept same-sex marriage as legal is asking them to throw away a lifetime of lessons and asking them to throw away centuries of stereotypes and quiet acceptance that homosexuality is not normal.

If we look at the polls again, though, there is hope for acceptance of gay marriage. While the overall polls show a two to one opinion against legalized same-sex marriage, demographic breakdown of the polls show a slightly different story. Among degree holding, college graduates, there is a nearly even fifty-fifty split in favor of same-sex marriage. Among young adults in the 18 to 25 age group, almost half favor legalized gay marriage.

The key, then, to acceptance of legalized, same-sex marriage appears to be education. The more people understand homosexuality, the faster the homophobic fears will fall by the wayside.

Update on "Communion Denied"

Read Story

After further investigating, it turns out that the reason the Church denied communion is because last year, some parishioners decided to make a scene and block the sash wearers from receiving communion. To avoid problems this year, the Church made the decision to ban the wearing of the sash of you wanted communion.

Keep in mind, the sash wearers are heterosexuals who take one day out of the year to show their compassion for homosexuals. The Church teaches that homosexuals are "intrinsically disordered", a definition leaning more towards hate speech than it does to the teachings of Jesus. Many of these sash wearers have a gay child and by wearing the sash, they are saying to homosexuals, "You have a friend in Church" and to the Church they are saying, "We really need to talk about human sexuality and not sweep it under the rug like some dirty little secret."

This Church in St Paul decided to take the easy way out. Instead of denying communion to the parishioners who created the scene, the anti-gay folk, they decided to punish the parishioners who wanted to show compassion for homosexuals.

In all fairness to the Catholic Church, a Church in Rochester, NY and one in Seattle both experienced similiar disturbances. The priests in those Churches made sure the sash wearers still received communion.

Communion Denied

Read Story

Yesterday, in St Paul MN, the Rev. Michael Sklucazek told his parisioners that anyone wearing a rainbow sash would be denied communion. He felt that the wearing of the rainbow sash was a political statement and contrary to Church teachings. Protests are fine, but not in the Church, he reasoned.

The story begs the question: why did the wearing of the sash for the last four years mean nothing to the Church, but now it's an issue?

Parisioners wearing the sash weren't homosexual activists. One was a nun. Another was a husband and wife and their three children. (They chose to wear a rainbow pin instead of the sash, but were still denied communion.) They all chose to wear the rainbow to show they support gay Catholics.

Yup, there's gay Catholics. And the official teaching from Rome is that homosexuals should be treated with compassion. A group called the Raibow Sash Alliance decided to wear the colors for no other reason than to let gay Catholics know they have friends in the Church.

They didn't set out to change Church policy. They didn't advocate the changing of Church teachings. They just wanted to let gay Catholics know they have friends.

The official Church lesson taught yesterday in St Paul, MN: "show compassion to homosexuals" means keep them in the closet and out of sight.

You'd think the Pope would stop the double talk and speak plainly. Remember, the Vatican describes homosexuals as "intrinsically disordered." The Pope, while a Cardinal, referred to homosexuals as "sinful deviants."

In St Paul, yesterday, the Catholic teachings spoke loudly. It's still ok to hate homosexuals.

"It's a Shame"

Read Story

Jerry Walker, a 28-year, retired Navy veteran elected to a college board won't apologize for saying "It's a shame" when he learned one of the colleges he represents has a gay-straight student union. He won't apologize to the individual for saying "That's a shame, too" when the individual stated he was gay.

Ok, maybe he wouldn't need to apologize if he were just anybody. There are rude people in the world. Liberals certainly don't have a shortage of them and neither do conservatives. But this man represents a college that celebrates diversity. His opinion represents the college in an indirect way. In his position and with his level of education and experience, you'd think he might have an inkling about decorum and diplomacy.

Apparently not. Walker doesn't like homosexuals and he's let the world know it. The college is running damage control operations, but that's it. Makes you wonder what would've happen if he said, "That's a shame" upon learning that the college had an inter-Tribal Club. No, no one can say that Walker believes Native Americans belong on a reservation the same way he believes homosexuals belong in the closet, but I'd bet a tootin' dollar that if he had said that, there would be no damage control - he's be out on his ass in the unemployment line.

Instead, the college board issued a statement saying that Walker "wasn't speaking for the board" when he made those comments.

That's it.

And that's the fashion of the day. The mainstream media wouldn't dare publish blatantly racist or sexist articles. Homophobic articles are ok. No respectable talk show host or news organization would favorably interview a racist or chauvinist, but a homophobe is granted legitimacy towards his views. No organization would tolerate racist or sexist comments in any official capacity, but homophobic views are treated as respected opinions people are entitled to hold.

One homophobic is no big deal. A system that actively or passively promotes homophobia, though, now that's a shame.

Hate Speech or Moral Convictions?

Related Reading:

Do No Gay Marriage Arguments Hold Water?

The Eight Forms of Marriage Recognized by the Bible

Mormon Church:
"We want to help these people, to strengthen them, to assist them with their problems and to help them with their difficulties. But we cannot stand idle if they indulge in immoral activity, if they try to uphold and defend and live in a so-called same-sex marriage situation. To permit such would be to make light of the very serious and sacred foundation of God-sanctioned marriage and its very purpose, the rearing of families"

Catholic Church:
Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

Southern Baptist Church:
We affirm God's plan for marriage and sexual intimacy – one man, and one woman, for life. Homosexuality is not a "valid alternative lifestyle." The Bible condemns it as sin. It is not, however, unforgivable sin. The same redemption available to all sinners is available to homosexuals. They, too, may become new creations in Christ.

United Methodist Church:
We affirm the sanctity of the marriage covenant that is expressed in love, mutual support, personal commitment, and shared fidelity between a man and a woman. We believe that God's blessing rests upon such marriage, whether or not there are children of the union. We reject social norms that assume different standards for women than for men in marriage. We support laws in civil society that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

A sampling of official stances issued by a few of our major churches – all saying the same thing: marriage is between one man and one woman. It's how they sat it that we have to ask, "Are they expressing legitimate moral views or hate speech?"

Throughout history, man has used the Bible to separate “us”, the good guys, from “them”, the bad guys. It helped man to make sense of the world and, more importantly, helped to civilize the world.

We don’t need to rehash the historical abuses of the Book, though. From the Crusades to the witch-hunts to slavery, the Bible guided the good people in fighting evil and defining the world. If the Bible is Eternal Truth, history begs the question: why don’t we kill non-Christians until they convert? Why don’t we burn witches at the stake or drown them in the lakes? Why did we ignore Noah’s Curse and abolish slavery?

For almost four centuries, many mainstream Churches defended the practice of slavery through Scriptural reference. When society abolished slavery, many of these same Churches justified segregation through Scriptural references. Not until recently, within the past thirty years or so, have these Churches abandoned their discriminatory practices, at least in official edicts if not in practice. They no longer preach that the races were meant to be separate in society and marriage.

As the Churches slowly evolved and adopted the belief that all people, regardless of race, are God’s children and deserve equal respect and as they adopted policies that the races could marry, many who could not accept the new teachings – or even the silent acceptance of racial equality – splintered off into new, and old, hate groups. The KKK and the World Church of the Creator, two well known hate groups, still use the Bible to justify their belief that God meant for the races to be separate.

The Churches now face a new challenge: homosexuals.

As our knowledge in the sciences and genetics grew and the general populace moved from superstitious beliefs to rational thinking, changing our belief that non-Whites were heathens not worthy of God’s love to our belief that all people of all color are God’s children and all are descendants of Adam and Eve was relatively simple. It took almost five hundred years, but the Churches did change their interpretation of the Bible.

Homosexuality, though, issues new challenges. Despite all the evidence that homosexuality is most probably genetically linked, Church leaders cling to the notion that it is a choice. At most, they might concede that God gave homosexuals a “special challenge” in life to overcome by living a life of chastity. Depending on their view of the causes of homosexuality, mainstream Churches view homosexuals as deviant child molesters to loving human beings deserving all the love and respect afforded everyone else.

So when does the Churches’ official stance on homosexuality cross the line of sound, moral teachings as guided by the Bible to a form of hate speech?

The defining line depends on who you are. Look at the official Church standings above. Mormons view homosexuals as immoral, selfish sinners. The Catholics view homosexuals as “intrinsically disordered”. Southern Baptists view homosexuality as an “invalid lifestyle”. The Methodists ignore homosexuals all together and simply state that marriage is “one man, one woman”.

If you believe homosexuality is a choice, you see no problem with any of the wordings. If you see homosexuality as genetic, then you probably see a lot of problems with some of the wording. And if you have a child, family member, or close friend who is gay, you may be struggling with your own beliefs and may be having problems sorting out what is hate speech and what is not or what is intolerant and what is not.

The most interesting thing to observe with many Christians who condemn homosexuality is how they justify it. They don’t hate homosexuals. In fact, they have a friend or work with someone who is gay and they’re all right people. They just hate the sin. It’s not that they don’t think homosexuals should live together under some civil union arrangement. They just believe marriage is God ordained and is reserved for one man and one woman.

Now contrast that rationalization with the racist groups’ philosophy. They don’t hate Black people. In fact, they have a friend or work with someone who is Black and they are all right people. They just take pride in their race. It’s not that they think Black people should be separate from Whites. They just believe that Whites are God’s chosen people and are not meant to mix with the races.

If you’re in doubt if anything the Church leaders say is hate speech, substitute yourself or a group you belong to in place of the words gays or homosexuals. Doing so, you might get a better feel how homosexuals feel when they hear this speech.

Of course, if you believe homosexuality is a choice, then you’ve read this far for nothing. You may choose to ignore the overwhelming evidence, the majority opinions of the medical, psychological, and social work professionals, and the almost every homosexual, who can unequivocally tell you he was born that way. As everyone else comes to understand and accept homosexuality as a normal facet of human sexuality and the Churches come to accept them as God’s children and equals, you can always splinter off into your own group, or old ones, who believe otherwise. And you can add Faggot to their list of Niggers, Jews, Spics, and Gooks to hate.