Wednesday, May 21, 2008

Jailed or sued and publicly slapped

According to American's for Truth:

Michigan’s largest homosexual activist group says once marriage is legally
redefined to include homosexual couples, business owners and even news media
outlets who refuse to recognize such marriages should be jailed or sued and
“publicly slapped,”
This reminds me of something I once read by Michael Swift first published in the "Gay Revolutionary" but reprinted in the Conressional Record (I first read it in something called the NFD Journal, October 1987). You can read the entire article at a website hosted by Fordham University. Exerpts appear below:

We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together.

All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked. Instead, legislation shall be passed which engenders love between men.

We will triumph only when we present a common face to the vicious heterosexual enemy.

If you dare to cry faggot, fairy, queer, at us, we will stab you in your cowardly hearts and defile your dead, puny bodies.

The family unit-spawning ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy and violence--will be abolished.

All churches who condemn us will be closed. Our only gods are handsome young men.
All males who insist on remaining stupidly heterosexual will be tried in homosexual courts of justice and will become invisible men.

Tremble, hetero swine, when we appear before you without our masks.

On the Fordham website, the introduction to this article says, "But when the religious rights [sic]cites this text, they always omit, as does the Congressional record, the vital first line, which sets the context for the piece. In other words, every other version of this found on the net is part of the radical right's great lie about gay people."

Why is quoting this article a "great lie about gay people"? It was written by a gay person! The first line reads, "This essay is an outré, madness, a tragic, cruel fantasy, an eruption of inner rage, on how the oppressed desperately dream of being the oppressor."

Somehow the fact that it was not intended to be taken literally does not comfort me. If the religious right published such a hate-filled diatribe they would not be let off the hook simply because they prefaced their hate-speech with a line that said it was "an outré, madness, a tragic, cruel fantasy..."

I think everyone needs to understand that gay people, like most other groups, are a diverse bunch. Some are hardworking, compassionate individuals who believe in freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and are not interested in forcing everyong else to accept their lifestyle.

But on the other end of the spectrum are some very hateful and psychologically disturbed individuals...

the kind who create pictures of the last supper using sadomasochistic imagery,

or who who mock Christianity with similar sadomasochistic symbols at the Folsom Street Fair

or who dress up like nuns to mock the Catholic church

or who get sexual pleasure out of mock (or real) torture,

or who are so sexually obsessed they will have literally dozens or even hundreds of sex partners during their life,

or who like some in Michigan's largest homosexual activist group, who really do want to shut down the freedom of speech for those who disagree with them (See here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here and here).

No one wants to address this group because it is politically incorrect to do so and becauase the radical gays have intimidated everyone with cries of "homophobe" and "bigot." Instead, what we see from Hollywood and the media is the gay couple who have have lived happily ever after--like a gay version of Ozzie and Harriet--for years and years.

But when Barack Obama becomes President and begins pushing his pro-homosexual agenda (e.g. ENDA and the repeal of DOMA), it is people like the spokesman for the Michigan homosexual group who will rear their ugly heads as Christian Colleges, Christian schools, Christian missions, Christian shelters, Christian adoption agencies--maybe even journalists and bloggers--began to get "publicly slapped," intimidated into silence, or sued out of existence.

To think that there are actually Christians who will vote for Barack Obama just boggles the mind!

16 comments:

Brent said...

I am a Christian, am voting for Barack Obama, and am proud of it.

Dennis said...

Brent, when you say you are a Christian, what exactly do you mean? How do you define "Christian." My question has nothing to do with Obama. I'm just curious.

L'oiseau said...

I am a Christian and I am voting for Obama because I don't buy into conspiracy theories.

Dennis said...

l'oiseau in one of your responses on another post, I could have sworn that you wrote, "who said I was a Christian?" I wish you'd make up your mind.

L'oiseau said...

Excuse me? Please post where I said that if you're going to make that accusation, because I'm pretty sure that wasn't me. Rude.

L'oiseau said...

I believe it is at least conpiracy theory-esque to equate an Obama presidency with a poem written by a hard core fundamentalist of any organization he represents.

Yes, he supports ENDA and the repeal of DOMA, but you know as well as I that this does not translate into "Christian Colleges, Christian schools, Christian missions, Christian shelters, Christian adoption agencies--maybe even journalists and bloggers--began to get "publicly slapped," intimidated into silence, or sued out of existence." as the bill DOES NOT APPLY to religious organizations.

You could also imply, if you wanted to, that Obama is supportive of this statement simply because he is a Christian: "God hates fags".

I don't believe in tying people to extremists. Innocent until proven guilty.

jazzycat said...

I am also really interested in how brent and l'oiseau define Christian. Having had discussions with emergent church and theological liberal people, I have discovered some definitions that run counter to the teachings of Jesus and Paul. I have a series at my main blog called Christianity 101, which was written to clarify this definition for an atheist.

Given Obama's support for the infanticide of partial birth abortion, as well as the doctrinal position of his church and his Marxist tendencies, I to find it hard to understand how he has Christian support. Make no mistake, any discerning intelligent person (surly Obama qualifies) that stays in a church for an extended period of time is giving de-facto approval to the basic beliefs of said church. You can be assured that I would not remain in my church or denomination for one second if they crossed the line as Rev. Wright did on many occasions. I would have no problem walking out during a sermon if necessary. FYI, I am a member of the Presbyterian Church in America.

L'oiseau said...

Jazzycat,

I would bet my home, my car, my children, and my life, that your pastor is a sinner, just like Rev. Wright is and just like I am. That said, it looks like you'll be leaving the Presbyterian Church denomination soon. Google "Presbyterian sex scandal".

I'm loving this "calling out" that Brent and I are getting because we are Democrats, we couldn't POSSIBLY be Christians. This is a huge problem with the Christian Right.

I am not going to "prove" my Christianity to you on a blog, because for one, it's impossible, so you can believe what you want to believe about me, I really couldn't care less. I have a relationship with my Savior, Jesus, and that is what makes me a Christian, not your postulations or judgments.

And FYI, just because you disagree with Democratic politics, doesn't mean they are anti-biblical or any-Christian, as you suggest with your constant flogging of "Marxism".

I don't know why you are worried about persecution from non-Christians in America. Christians are doing a fabulous job of it against each other.

L'oiseau said...

*anti-Christian (sp)

Brent said...

I was going to respond at first despite my inclinations toward privacy about my personal life, but after reading all of these comments I realize like L'oiseau that there is no point (such as Dennis stating that she can't make up her mind about her religion based on his faulty memory). Even if I did answer in full, it probably would not satisfy you one way or another.

Instead I will borrow from L'oiseau, because I probably won't be able to say it any better and I agree with the following fully: "I am not going to "prove" my Christianity to you on a blog, because for one, it's impossible, so you can believe what you want to believe about me, I really couldn't care less. I have a relationship with my Savior, Jesus, and that is what makes me a Christian, not your postulations or judgments."

jazzycat said...

L’oiseau
I would bet my home, my car, my children, and my life, that your pastor is a sinner, just like Rev. Wright is and just like I am. That said, it looks like you'll be leaving the Presbyterian Church denomination soon. Google "Presbyterian sex scandal".

It is hard to believe you are serious with this comment. You inability to discuss our differences with rational thinking and respect is quite striking, unless of course your hatred for conservatives simply will not permit it. Certainly we are all sinners as the Bible makes clear. There is a huge difference between being a sinner and validating, condoning, and supporting such sins as partial birth abortion. If the PCA Presbyterian Church ever condones and supports sexual sins, then I will be leaving. However, if a preacher falls into sin and it is Biblically handled, then I will not be leaving.

I'm loving this "calling out" that Brent and I are getting because we are Democrats, we couldn't POSSIBLY be Christians. This is a huge problem with the Christian Right.

Again your judgmental attitude here telling. No one said you couldn’t possibly be Christian and your lumping me in a group you call the Christian right and then criticizing the identity is very judgmental and inflammatory.

I am not going to "prove" my Christianity to you on a blog, because for one, it's impossible, so you can believe what you want to believe about me, I really couldn't care less. I have a relationship with my Savior, Jesus, and that is what makes me a Christian, not your postulations or judgments.

No one asked you to prove your Christianity. The question was to define being a Christian. Whether you like it or not there is much erroneous thinking on this definition. What does it take to have a relationship with our savior Jesus Christ? If you indeed have such a relationship that is great and I would hope you would like to spread the news as to what it takes. I know I would love for people to ask me to define what it takes to be a Christian and I certainly would not be offended as you seem to be. However, you took the opportunity to impugn my motives.

And FYI, just because you disagree with Democratic politics, doesn't mean they are anti-biblical or any-Christian, as you suggest with your constant flogging of "Marxism".

Support of partial birth abortion is most definitely anti-Christian and anti-biblical no matter where it comes from.

I don't know why you are worried about persecution from non-Christians in America. Christians are doing a fabulous job of it against each other.

Christians are not persecuting one another. However, many who are professing Christ are most definitely persecuting Christians who accept the entire Bible. I have got to leave now, but I could certainly go into much greater detail on this subject.

St.Lee said...

Here is a quote from the comments:

"I am not going to "prove" my Christianity to you on a blog, because for one, it's impossible, so you can believe what you want to believe about me, I really couldn't care less."

Here is a quote from the Bible:

But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: (1 Peter 3:15)

L'oiseau said...

Ok, fair enough, if you want me to explain true Christianity to you, which any atheist could research and do, I will, but it proves nothing about me or you and you know it, that is why I did not originally do it.

I take no part in the emergent church and find much of it to be border-line heretical. My beliefs come strictly from the Bible. Many of my beliefs on Salvation come from Romans, obviously. Some good examples: Romans 10:9 If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Also my mostly Calvinist view of Salvation come from Romans 9.

Salvation is by faith not works (Romans 9:30-33, James 2:14-1).

As a Follower of Christ I believe my roles are an ever continuing Sanctification through the Holy Spirit, Glorification of God, the carrying out of the Great Commission, and helping the poor and needy around the world.

I hope this meets with your standards.

(I'm now wading through your personal insults to get to the "respect and rational thinking")

When you said: "You can be assured that I would not remain in my church or denomination for one second if they crossed the line as Rev. Wright did on many occasions." You implied that Obama should have not only left the church, but the denomination United Church of Christ. So that was what my google example was proving ridiculous. I'm glad to see we agree on that one.

I'm sorry. I thought you were a Republican and a Christian, is that not the "Christian Right"? My mistake, if not.

I'm not sure about you, but I am not a one-issue voter. Partial-birth abortion seems to be your cry of dismay against Obama, along with the vague dismissal of Marxism, which you have yet to specify which of Obama's policies are like.

Democrats are for abortion. I am against it. Republicans (McCain specifically) is for cluster-bombs which kill innocent civilian children overseas. Pardon me, but I care for children after they exit the womb as well as before, and I also care for children overseas equally to American children.

I think Democrats and Republicans are equally wrong on these issues, but my principles fit more into other Democratic policies (health care, environment, foreign affairs, Iraq, the poor, to name a few).

Obama, as a community organizer, knows what social organizations can do to help poor, single mothers choose between abortion and adoption or raising their child. He believes that many abortions can be halted with the use of social organizations, and so do I. If you are concerned about abortion, I suggest you volunteer with a pro-life organization, as that is the best way to combat this horrible atrocity. If you already are/have, fabulous!

Also, I would like to apologize if I was overly "snippy" in my responses in this thread, but my faith was called into question, so I admit that got me a little hot-headed and annoyed. I never asked any of you to explain your faith to me, I took you at your (real) words and unless you proved otherwise, I would stick to that.

Dennis said...

l'oiseau and brent,

I was not calling your faith into question, nor was I demanding that you prove it.

But as Jazzycat pointed out, some definitions of "Christian" run counter to that of Jesus and Paul, and as St. Lee pointed out we should always be ready to gave an answer for the hope that we have.

And as I said, my question had nothing to do with Barack Obama at all. It had to do with brent saying he was a Christian.

I thought we could have a good discussion on what it meant to be a Christian.

For the first time in 2 or 3 years of blogging, I guess I was wrong....about the discussion, I mean ;-)

l'oiseau thank you for your answer. I really did think you had once semi-denied being a Christian but no, I'm not going to try to find it. I will take your word for it--especially in light of my poor memory. Please accept my appology for attributing to you something you did not say.

L'oiseau said...

Well, thanks, I appreciate it. And, I am always for a good theological discussion, if that's what was wanted! It did sound to me like we were being put on trial :) so I apologize if I was wrong on that.

Brent said...

I will apologize as well if I misread the intention of the question (which was further intensified by some of the other comments that were made).