Dozens of gang members visiting Disneyland in California have been evicted after entering the park wearing gang colors according to Kenneth Green, Director of Corporate Communications. He said the company was concerned the groups might intimidate or invoke fear in the hearts of regular patrons. So, Disney can see where a dozen people wearing gang colors might be offensive to regular families but not thousands of same-sex revelers wearing shirts that flaunt and promote homosexual, lesbian and transgender behavior.
In a speech to students on Tuesday, Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant said he fondly remembers organized prayers during his school years and thinks the practice ought to be restored.
According to the Hattiesburg American, Bryant said, “I don’t think it hurt us at all. I think it built our character, and I think it is what we should continue to do.”
Talking to reporters after the address, the governor added, “I know it’s difficult when you start talking about denominations and different beliefs, but I think there is a way for us to have a non-denominational opening prayer when the opportunity is available to let people know there is a God. Those children should know that he does care about them, particularly within their classroom.”
Let’s go over just a few of the things his statement implies:
1. A god exists.
2. It is the only god there is.
3. It is named “God”.
4. It can be described as a “he”.
5. He takes a personal interest in the world, people, and especially classrooms.
The only way such tenets of faith could possibly be described as “non-denominational” is if all of these beliefs are inherently a part of all religions, and every single person follows a religion which shares these views. This is not the case. Not everyone believes in a god. Those who do may not believe it is a “he”. They may not believe in only one deity. They may not believe that god(s) concern themselves with the world at all. They may not pray in the same way or believe that prayer is even necessary.
I am frightened that someone could be elected governor in this country while seemingly lacking the most rudimentary critical thinking skills or any concept of the existence of religions outside of their preferred version of Christianity. None of this should be difficult to comprehend.
In a recent post on his website Americans for Truth about Homosexuality, anti-gay activist Peter LaBarbera criticizes so-called “pro-family leaders” for focusing on issues such as gay marriage while neglecting to oppose homosexuality itself. Citing the need to emphasize “WHY homosexual and transgender behaviors are always wrong”, “how homosexual sex is fraught with health risks”, “why homosexuality violates Natural Moral Law, the teachings of Judaism and Christianity”, and “the inordinate drug and porn use among homosexual men, and ‘gay-on-gay’ assaults and abuses”, he says:
Simply put, we as a movement must conquer whatever timidity, fear and political correctness we have in NOT wanting to debate the morality of homosexuality - because our fanatically-driven LGBT opponents will never relent in their audacious campaign to “sell” homosexuality to the public. Notice that while many conservatives shrink from the homosexuality debate, self-described out-and-proud “queer” activists never back-track in their misguided, indeed, pathological quest to compel society to approve of their aberrant “lifestyles.”
LaBarbera gives little thought to why this might be the case, but the answer should be obvious to anyone who isn’t consumed with self-righteous loathing for gay people. There certainly is a reason why the mainstream anti-gay movement does its best to avoid openly attacking us for being drug-addicted rapist sinners, and that’s because most people just don’t want to hear it.
Over 50% of Americans personally know someone who’s gay, and this figure holds true among liberals, moderates, and conservatives. Those who do know someone gay are more likely to support gay marriage and the legality of gay relations. Knowing gay people puts a human face on what would otherwise only be an abstract concept of what gay people, their relationships and their “lifestyles” are like. Without any actual firsthand experience, their understanding of us remains foggy and vulnerable to rumor, suspicion and distrust. Familiarity serves to ground this in reality - a reality which LaBarbera and his colleagues have dedicated themselves to fighting against.
What is it that makes these personal connections and interactions so effective at humanizing us in the eyes of the public? Many in the anti-gay movement seek to diminish our struggles in a historical sense by asserting that sexual orientation is nothing like one’s race or color. But in one crucial respect, this is absolutely true.
The fact of our sexuality does not visibly manifest itself in an easily recognizable way, with the unfortunate side effect of the superstitious marking of certain appearances or mannerisms as “gay”. While this has often resulted in plenty of anti-gay abuse being directed at young children and anyone who strays even slightly from established norms, it has also deprived people of any certainty about who among them might be gay. Our sexuality does not afford them the opportunity to recoil from our very skin the moment they lay eyes on us. It’s something they must come to learn.
In no small part because of a pervasive history of societal homophobia, many of us have been reluctant to share the truth about ourselves with anyone but those we trust the most: our good friends, neighbors, co-workers, and hopefully our families. By the time we feel comfortable enough to come out to them, this can spark an extraordinary shift in perspective, because these people have already come to know us, appreciate us, and love us for who we are - not what we are. When faced with the fact that the wholesome and upstanding person they respect and care deeply for also happens to be gay, this goes a long way toward dispelling any misconceptions, including the vulgar lies of anti-gay activists. Our own lives testify to the truth.
These wildly hateful confabulations may serve to rile up the anti-gay base, but this is utterly repulsive to anyone who knows us. Does LaBarbera really expect people to believe that their loved ones are actually child-molesting Nazis? If he thinks his moralistic bloviations can take precedence over our humanity, then we can only hope that even more anti-gay groups will follow his lead. He’s just given them a lesson in how to drive their movement directly into a brick wall.
In one of my recent videos, I proposed something that is perhaps the most controversial thing I have ever said. Briefly, I suggested that post-op trans women are not always obligated to disclose the fact that they’re trans to a prospective partner, including prior to sex. Judging from the responses to this idea, it’s clear that this is quite a divisive issue, and I think it’s something that we should discuss further.
Many people insisted that not disclosing this fact would constitute a kind of deception. But how is anyone being deceived here, and what would they be deceived about? My suggestion was that men for whom this is a concern should first ask if their partner is trans. I did not recommend lying in response. But these people have flatly refused to ask, and claim that simply not telling someone that you’re trans means lying to them. These people feel they should be able to assume that women aren’t trans - but if that were a valid assumption, this wouldn’t be an issue to begin with. Some women are trans, including the women these men might take an interest in, which is why this is a concern for them. Their assumption does not hold true, and wishing to act as though it does is like saying that the mere existence of trans women is an inconvenience to them, and that they should not have to account for that reality. But if you make a knowingly inaccurate assumption, and make no effort to verify it, and you end up being wrong, it doesn’t mean that anyone else has deceived you. If this is a concern for you, it’s nobody else’s responsibility to divine your expectations when you intentionally refuse to make them clear.
These people then claim that trans women should already know that something like 99% of men would not want to be with a trans woman. In other words, 99% of people would apparently drop them like a hot potato, not even because there’s anything wrong with them, but simply because of who they are - and trans women are expected to inflict this upon themselves with no hesitation. But when men say that they don’t prefer trans women, this stands in blatant contradiction to their actions. After all, what most distresses them here is the possibility that they might sleep with a trans woman and enjoy the experience, without knowing that she’s trans. So, they don’t prefer trans women, yet they have no problem sleeping with them. What does that say about their true preferences here?
Some people have compared this to other information that one could be aware of which might alter their decision to sleep with someone: things like being married, or having HIV, or being a convicted sex offender. (Those are their examples, not mine.) And this seems like an obviously different situation. Nobody is being exposed to contagious and deadly diseases. No one is being dragged into the middle of someone else’s pre-existing relationship. And they haven’t committed some horrible act that would reflect strongly upon their character. So why should the fact that they’re trans change anything?
The principal objection here seems to be to trans women’s bodies: what their body once was, and what their body now is. Yet this objection rings hollow given the reality that they would have had no problem with enjoying the company of trans women and their bodies, even intimately. They claim they don’t like what trans women are, and yet it’s a very real possibility that this is something they would like. But for some reason, they wish to avoid that experience. Why? Many of them depict this as an unquestionable preference: something that just is, beyond the realm of criticism and beyond their ability to change. Much like how some people prefer the same sex or the opposite sex, these people would prefer not to be with trans women - although, for the aforementioned reasons, this is hardly an accurate comparison. And I suspect this stated preference is more informed by common attitudes toward trans people than by a person’s own innate desires.
The world we live in tends to see trans women as something less than women, as if they fall short of being so-called “real” women. As a result, a straight man who sleeps with a trans woman might consider this a threat to his sexuality. Even though she’s a woman, people refuse to accept her as one. And from there comes the idea that trans women are obligated to identify themselves - like they should have to attach an asterisk to their womanhood.
This is a social problem, not just an innocent preference. If a racist was very distraught to find out that his partner was of fractionally African ancestry after they’ve slept together, would we have any sympathy for him? If he didn’t even ask about this first, would we have expected her to know that she should have told him? Well, what if 99% of the population were incorrigible racists? Should she then be expected to disclose this from the outset, even though it doesn’t make any difference? Would we be at all surprised if she doesn’t volunteer this information? Has she “deceived” anyone by not mentioning her ancestry, even when they haven’t asked? And can her partners be said to have been harmed in any way by this? People are certainly entitled to their preferences, and they’re entitled to have those preferences respected. Likewise, the rest of us are free to believe that their preferences are stupid - and their refusal to articulate them, doubly so.
Many people again insisted that they absolutely cannot ask a possible partner if she’s trans, because it would be taken as an insult and hinder their romantic ambitions. It really says a lot about people’s attitudes that being trans is itself considered an insult, and it’s quite ironic that this mindset could end up frustrating the desires of two people who aren’t even trans. If that’s how you feel, then you probably should make your preferences heard, just so any trans women will know that you see them as literally unspeakable. It’s hard to see how this is supposed to be an insult - after all, you’ve already shown an interest in her, and if you’re asking whether she’s trans, that means you can’t tell. Not all trans people are visibly trans, anyway. And if both parties would stop acting like there’s something insulting about being trans, this wouldn’t even be a problem.
What’s really disconcerting is that I’ve seen these people explain, at length, how utterly crucial it is that their partner not be trans. I’ve seen them compare it to exposing someone to HIV in its seriousness. And yet they can’t bring themselves to say this to someone’s face. If people are going to compare this to STDs, then just think about what their attitude toward safe sex must be like. Can you imagine never wearing a condom, never asking anyone if they’re clean or getting tested together, and just assuming that nobody has any sexually transmitted diseases, while doing nothing whatsoever to protect yourself? That would be insane, and there’s a reason we discourage this reckless behavior: it can have serious consequences.
But what are the consequences of sleeping with someone who’s trans? Certainly nothing comparable to catching a disease - and this is reflected in these people’s actions, or lack thereof. They’re definitely not acting the way that they would if they were trying to avoid contracting HIV. They’re taking no precautions here at all. If this is supposed to be such a terrible fate, then either they’re being flagrantly irresponsible, or this isn’t really as bad as they’ve made it out to be. If they’re prioritizing sex before avoiding this, which they appear to be doing, that’s their choice. Otherwise, there’s no excuse for not being proactive. If this is something they feel the need to protect themselves from, why aren’t they protecting themselves?
Finally, some people pointed out that being trans is a major part of trans people’s lives, and honesty about such significant things is important in a relationship. And that’s absolutely a valid concern in some cases. Depending on whether it’s a committed relationship, or a one-time thing, it may be important to mention, or it might not. In the long term, of course it’s something to be disclosed as part of the trust that should exist between committed partners, but in the context of something more casual, it might not even be relevant. Someone compared it to sterility, and while it’s hardly an exact parallel, if it’s serious enough that you and your partner are considering children, it’s probably serious enough that you should share this with them.
All of this depends on the individual circumstances, and it comes down to individual judgment. It’s hard to say what everyone ought to do, but as a general guideline, I don’t see why being trans should be regarded as something especially different here. It can be treated the same as other such things that you would share with a committed partner, like corrective surgeries or developmental conditions. Honesty is important here, and I see no problem with expecting people to disclose this at the appropriate time. But depending on the nature of the relationship, it may not need to be disclosed prior to sex, or even after. It seems rather unbelievable that this is as serious an ethical violation as people have claimed. And I think most of them already know that.
Your opposition to transdisclosure, even in sexual situations, made me wonder: if someone rejects a transperson sexually upon finding that they are not cis, is the transperson justified in forcing themselves upon their would-be partner? This may sound absurd, but I've heard others who consider ideas of transdisclosure discriminatory come to it nonironically and it seems to logically follow from your argument. What say you?
I’m a little taken aback that this is even something that needs to be answered. Any question of the form “is someone justified in forcing themselves on someone else sexually” can emphatically be answered NO, THAT IS CALLED RAPE, and I challenge anyone to make an ethical case for any other answer. Furthermore, this is completely unrelated to any question of expecting people to disclose certain details about themselves in the context of sex and whether such details should be considered relevant. This has nothing to do with rape or apologists for rape, and conflating the two is so misleading I find it hard to believe this was not done intentionally for certain rhetorical ends.
To sum up: You say “I’ve heard others…” I say name three of them.
I like you. You usually have a well thought out opinion with many facts to support your argument. Your post this memorial day was the opposite of your normal post. If I found that you were suddenly sporting a goatee I would not be surprised.
I’m sorry to say you’re wrong on this. In fact, I’m twirling my mustache villainously.
Its bland characters, repetitive writing and general unbelievability make even Twilight seem lively and engaging by comparison. It strikes me as more of a tool than a work of literature to be read for its own sake: after forcing yourself to endure a chapter’s worth of these people who act nothing like people, the most unbearably dense and dry tome will become an absolute joy.
My reply to a Christian who "cannot accept the practice of homosexuality"
If I can’t accept you, can you not accept me?
The post title isn’t entirely true. I accept you just not your choice. I love you even though I have never met you. I am a christian. I believe that Jesus Christ being fully man and fully God, gave himself for our sins. I have been practicing my faith for 6 years. I am not a biblical scholar by any means, but I know a little bit. I know that the bible condemns homosexuality. I believe that it is wrong. I believe the practice of homosexuality is a choice.
I have watched videos and read articles about homosexuality. I see the truth in your eyes when you tell me you are born this way and this is who you are. I watched the Google video of “It Gets Better” and my heart breaks. The thought of you wanting to take your life pains me and I wouldn’t want that for anyone.
So here we are at a crossroads. I cannot accept the practice of homosexuality. I accept and love you but my God tells me that what you are doing is a sin and I choose to listen. If you want to hang out, have dinner, be friends, talk, need help moving, etc, I am down. But you know how I feel. How do you feel about me?
I regret if this is hurtful to you, because I really wish you weren’t stuck in the situation you’re in, but the god you think exists really doesn’t. At the very least, there is no actual evidence to suggest its existence. If the man called Jesus was real, there is no reason to think he was in any way divine, and the Bible is simply a collection of ancient writings that encapsulate the very human morality of the age. There is no reason for anyone to automatically accept it as an authoritative definition of what’s moral or immoral, any more than you would view the Qur’an as an absolute and final moral guide. What you consider to be God “telling” you anything, is nothing but the product of mankind and its own fallible opinions.
I feel it’s necessary to tell you this because of the effects that such beliefs have on the world, and the rest of us who live in it. This is not a mere matter of opinion when it’s used to justify inflicting harm on people’s lives, like mine and my friends. It is something you are doing without a shred of evidence to prove that what you do is right or appropriate in any way.
You’ve seen the It Gets Better videos, and you know what drove us to make them. You may not want us to kill ourselves, but how do you think a person feels when they’re told that their love for someone is in fact such an utterly repugnant thing that the very maker of our world, who you believe gave his own life to save us all, would reject their loving relationship as something so inadequate it constitutes an intolerable offense?
What would it feel like to you, if in the event that you ever loved anyone in your life, anyone at all, it would always be considered that wrong, that ugly, that evil and offensive and disgusting? What if a considerable portion of society - your fellow parishioners, your co-workers, the people you thought were your friends, even your own family - made it frequently and vividly clear to you that they think your love for someone is unbearably vile?
Imagine if they were talking about the love that you feel in every fiber of your being, the love that you know is true and beautiful and the most uplifting thing you’ve ever felt in your life, the love that binds you and entwines you with your beloved and makes it so simple to know that you’re going to spend the rest of your lives together. Imagine that, degraded and insulted as something so lowly it’s offensive to the creator himself. The one who made you - who made you who you are, a human being who wants nothing but to be allowed the love that everyone else is entitled to.
Imagine if society felt so strongly that your affections are wrong, that they forbade any mention of them during your entire compulsory education. Any notion that you could one day find someone to love, someone of the gender you prefer, would be immediately quashed - and any suspicion that you yourself might harbor such proclivities would make you the target of unending, hateful mockery from your own classmates. The harassment is so ceaselessly furious, and it’s all aimed at you - when you’re only a kid. Where did your peers learn to treat you like that? It’s because they know people like you are nothing but failures to God himself. Worthless.
And even once you make it through that hell on earth and enter the world beyond school, you’ll find that all the people who were raised to hate your kind are still around, out in force, more energized than ever, high on their own collective revulsion toward people like you. So they start passing laws to legally mark you as something less than they are, something that doesn’t deserve the same kind of recognition and affirmation as they do. Maybe they’ll allow your employer - any employer, for that matter - to fire you simply because of who you are. Maybe they’ll allow businesses to specifically refuse to serve you. Maybe they’ll try to keep you away from anything that might involve being around children, since for some baffling reason they’re certain that you might abuse them.
Maybe some of them will start to feel it’s acceptable to assault you, or beat you, or rape and violate you, just because of who you are. You’re nothing but God’s reject. Some of them might decide to just kill you. Or, if not you, someone like you - maybe a friend, maybe not. It doesn’t matter; the message is clear: Your life is not safe. After all, you’re not even worthy of the same respect as everyone else, so maybe your own life isn’t that important, either. God’s own trash. That’s all you are.
Now suppose that the reason you find yourself in this nightmarish, unthinkable situation is because the great raging masses of society that so viciously despise you are convinced that an invisible, imperceptible being has officially designated you as an evildoer. They know this because they insist they can detect the will and intentions of this being, either by having its own desires directly inserted into their own brains via forces unknown to us, or by analyzing the contents of a very, very old book.
Upon reading the book, you find that it’s nothing more than the cobbled-together writings of mostly unknown authors from millennia ago, massaged together into a somewhat consistent series of events with a vaguely coherent storyline - if you really make an effort to see it as such. And, fundamentally, you realize that there’s simply no reason why the great being that’s so venerated by everyone else would actually be real, merely because this strange book happens to discuss it. You know there are many books which talk about many things, many different kinds of beings or other characters - but you know these stories aren’t a description of the reality we live in. Not at all.
You may be inclined to discuss this with believers who insist this being is quite real. But, when pressed, they’re evasive or even aggressive towards you, and the answers you do get out of them don’t make much more sense than the book itself did.
And you start to see, that after all the pain you’ve been through, the hatred heaped upon you for most of your life by the rest of society, the exclusion and isolation and vilification that’s been stabbed through your very heart… it was all for nothing. No reason. Nothing but millions upon millions of people who think they’re following the wishes of something that isn’t even there. You’ve been so despised, so deeply wounded in your life, reviled by the world - your own friends, murdered - in the name of an idea that could never even be proven.
How do you think you would feel about all of that?
I may see that you are a decent person in most areas of your life. I may recognize that you usually treat others kindly, work diligently, support your family and love them genuinely. And I realize that you’re a person who, honest to goodness, thinks they’re just doing the right thing.
But as long as you hold a belief that who I am is a moral violation and who I love is a mortal sin, as long as you hold such a dehumanizing and life-denying belief based on no credible evidence whatsoever, you are presenting a problem. You and your fellow believers are causing very serious problems for me and those whom I love dearly. Yes, you are hurting me - but more than that, you’re hurting my friends. And I don’t think you have any idea how much it pains me every day to see the evil at work in our world, the hatred that’s literally killing us, all because of beliefs like yours.
But I wish you did. Because as long as you’re unwilling to let go of this terrifying, terrorizing belief, this pernicious, malignant mistake, this annihilator of life itself… I will not be able or willing to view you as a good person.
HOUSTON—A judge threw a 17-year-old 11th grade honor student from Willis High School in jail after she missed school again.
Judge Lanny Moriarty said last month Diane Tran was in his Justice of the Peace court for truancy and he warned her then to stop missing school. But she recently missed classes again so Wednesday he issued a summons and had her arrested in open court when she appeared.
Tran said she works a full-time job, a part-time job and takes advanced placement and dual credit college level courses. She said she is often too exhausted to wake up in time for school. Sometimes she misses the entire day, she said. Sometimes she arrives after attendance has been taken.
The judge ordered Tran to spend 24 hours in jail and pay a $100 fine. Judge Moriarty admitted that he wants to make an example of Tran.
“If you let one (truant student) run loose, what are you gonna’ do with the rest of ‘em? Let them go too?” Judge Moriarty asked.
Tran said she is working so hard because she is helping to support an older brother who attends Texas A&M University and a baby sister who lives with relatives in Houston. Tran said her parents divorced “out of the blue” and both moved away, leaving her in Willis. Her mother lives in Georgia, she said.
Well, there’s your fucking example: Take college-level courses while working two jobs to support your family at the age of 17, and you’ll be thrown in jail by a dipshit judge whose concept of justice is “making an example” out of people.
itshard2findusernam has made a comment on The meaningless death of Jesus:
Yeah, this is a sad video, but I suggest you READ the Bible before you go and tell everyone everything in it is wrong. Why would you make this video anyway? I mean this is the best thing that’s ever happened to the world and you sit here and make un-informed accusations. Okay, well God bless anyway, and I’ll pray for you too.
A heretic being brutally executed 2,000 years ago: the best thing that’s ever happened to the world.
Simply put, we as a movement must conquer whatever timidity, fear and political correctness we have in NOT wanting to debate the morality of homosexuality–because our fanatically driven LGBT opponents will never relent in their audacious campaign ”sell” homosexuality to the public. Notice that while many conservatives shrink from the homosexuality debate, self-described “queer” activists never back-track in their misguided, indeed, pathological quest to compel society to approve of their aberrant “lifestyles.” And they’ve almost won (thanks in no small part to the media serving as “gay” cheerleaders).
Oh, oh, I know why! It’s because most level-headed, decent people would rather recognize the basic humanity of their friends, neighbors and family members than listen to absurd rumors about their sexual practices. Like those offered by LaBarbera’s acquaintance, pastor Patrick Wooden:
“I was giving anecdotal examples that I am personally aware of that have happened as a result of men who have given themselves over to this lifestyle. One man past away … where what used to be his anus had become a gaping hole and he literally died in diapers, he literally lost control of himself.”
“I know of a case where in a hospital a homosexual male had a cellphone lodged in his anus and as they were operating on him the phone went off, the phone started ringing! There’ve been instances where men have put bats, baseball bats, in their rectums!”
And they wonder why more anti-gay organizations don’t want to use such a lovely and persuasive tactic.
A Washington Post-ABC News poll released Wednesday put support for gay marriage at 53 per cent, its highest level yet. Opposition fell to a new low of 39 per cent. The increase in support was driven by an 18-per-cent jump (to 59 per cent) among African-Americans, but the small sample size of black voters may have skewed the results.
“There is not a chance in God’s green earth that African-Americans support same-sex marriage,” Frank Schubert of the National Organization for Marriage said in response to the poll. (Blacks have traditionally opposed gay marriage more than whites.)
Because, you know, black people uniformly support one political position. Since they’re black and all.
Paul Jennings Hill, executed in 2003 for the murder of Dr. John Britton and James Barrett, explained his rationale at length:
Two days after Michael Griffin killed Dr. Gunn, I called the Phil Donahue Show and told them I supported the shooting. Three days later, I appeared on the show with the abortionist’s son, and compared killing Dr. Gunn to killing a Nazi concentration camp “doctor.”
Most people don’t realize that legal abortion requires a sin of omission by forbidding people to intervene as mass murder is taking place. By legalizing abortion the government has robbed you of your right to defend your own relatives, and neighbors, from a bloody death. It’s as though a machine gunner is taking aim on bound peasants, huddled before a mass grave, and you are forbidden to stop him. In much the same way, the abortionist’s knife is pressed to the throat of the unborn, and you are forbidden to stop him.
Instead of faulting Griffin for going too far, is it possible that people should be accusing themselves of not going far enough? As distasteful as it is to kill a murderer, isn’t it infinitely more repulsive to allow him to murder, not just one or two, but hundreds and thousands of unborn children?
I realized that many important things would be accomplished by my shooting another abortionist in Pensacola. This would put the pro-life rhetoric about defending born and unborn children equally into practice. It would bear witness to the full humanity of the unborn as few other things could. It would also open people’s eyes to the enormous consequences of abortion—not only for the unborn, but also for the government that had sanctioned it, and those required to resist it. This would convict millions of their past neglect, and also spur many to future obedience.
While most Christians firmly profess the duty to defend born children with force (which is not yet being disputed by the government) most of these professors have neglected the duty to similarly defend the unborn. They are steady all along the battleline except at the point where the enemy has broken through.
I doubted I would ever take my family to the beach like this again. I would be in prison—separated from my beautiful wife and children. The sight of them walking along the beach, so happy and serene, and the contrasting thought of being removed from them was startling, almost breathtaking. Waves of emotion swept over me—threatening to bring up tears in my eyes.
I could not allow my emotions to show. To retain control, I lifted my heart to the Lord in praise and faith. As long as I responded to the swelling pain in my chest with praise, I could rise above it, and still see things clearly—and what a strikingly beautiful sight it was.
Though I would almost surely be removed from my precious family, I knew that God would somehow work everything out. I would not lose them but only be separated from them. The separation would be painful, but the reward would be great, too great to fathom; it was simply accepted in faith.
When I went from mentally debating whether to act, in general, to planning a particular act, I felt some relief. Romans 14:23b says”… and whatever is not from faith is sin.” If I had not acted when I did, it would have been a direct and unconscionable sin of disobedience. One of the first things I told my wife, after the shooting was, “I didn’t have any choice!”
As hard as it was to turn around, I knew I could not continue down the road. Obedience was the only option.
Two thoughts sustained and impelled me as I went through this ordeal. The first was that if I did not intervene and prevent the abortionist from entering the clinic, he would kill two or three dozen children that day. The second, and more prominent thought, was that if I did not succeed in killing the abortionist, but merely wounded him, he would, in all probability, return to killing the unborn as soon as he was able. In the coming months and years, he would likely kill thousands of unborn children, under the security of the best police protection available. I was determined to prevent this.
As I came out of the door of the station, I seized the initiative, and raised my voice in a carefully planned declaration: “Now is the time to defend the unborn in the same way you’d defend slaves about to be murdered!”
Prior to the shooting, I experienced the oppressive realization that I was not free to defend my neighbors as I would defend myself. Wrath was ready to be poured out on me if I cast off the shackles of passive submission to the state. The fear of being persecuted for disobeying our tyrannical government made submitting to its yoke seem attractive. My mind and will recoiled from the high cost of acting responsibly. It required an act of the will to even consider obeying the Lord.
Others object that killing Dr. Britton was excessive. But many who hold this position would not object if they learned that, during the Jewish holocaust, someone had shot and killed a Nazi concentration camp “doctor”.
Would it also be wrong to intervene if the government was to sanction the murder of any other minority, and thousands were being slain in the streets every day?
While many people realize that abortion is a serious problem, they still categorize it as one among many other “social issues” that should be given a lower priority than family or church concerns. But it is important to understand that a life threatening crisis in any area of life normally suspends all other duties.
Here is the truth I spent so many years denying and keeping from the public – I killed two of my children, robbed my parents of grand-children, and murdered my son’s siblings. These abortions directly caused a medical condition known as incompetent cervix which resulted in the premature birth of another son who died after a week long struggle in the NICU in 2001. The suffering I’ve endured and caused others is immeasurable and the guilt almost drove me suicidal. I am a coward in every way.
At which point we realize, “Oh, you mean you had an abortion or two. That’s it?”
Something does not become murder just because you call it murder. Most people grasp this intuitively and recognize that taking the life of an embryo or fetus is not equivalent to taking the life of a child. The jig will be up as soon as they see that you were actually referring to abortion, and not literally killing your children. Few people genuinely consider abortion to be murder, and they will rightly see this rhetorical sleight of hand for what it is.
Even when people claim to believe that an abortion is an act of murder, their actions do not reflect this, short of people like Paul Jennings Hill who are willing to kill doctors in order to prevent abortions. If you actually believed that thousands of toddlers were being thrown into a gas chamber or meat grinder every day, this would seem to merit a more substantial response than a fun trip to the capital with your church’s youth group once a year.
Some anti-abortion advocates want us to believe that abortion constitutes an atrocity of the same magnitude and horror, but even they know that it doesn’t. Their own behavior proves this.
Listen to me carefully. You are so corrupt in the head it is unreal. Even by atheist logic, homsexuality is 100% unnatural and wrong. Why do you think anal sex causes fatal diseases, and according to many people, it hurts. Because it’s not the way it’s supposed to be. God created you. But the devil is taking over your sexuality. Overcome it. Stop dressing like a woman and go find a woman. Date her. Fall in love with her and then marry her and have kids. That’s the way its SUPPOSED to be. It’s not supposed to be, you fall in love with another queer then you buttfuck and both die of fatal diseases and die. That’s horrible. That’s the reason God doesn’t like it. Because, hello??? It kills you. Obviously you have very low self esteem, you can work on that. But stop being a homo atheist. It’s a disgusting way to live.
“Let’s step back for a second, Gordon, and say okay, let’s assume you’re right that homosexuality among humans is only because of marketing,” Pakman countered. “What about in the 4,000 other species that have homosexuality? Because, as far as I know, they don’t have TV. They don’t have advertising. They don’t have the iTunes store to recruit people. How is it that humans are gay sometimes because of marketing, but 4,000 other species… Why? Is it something else?”
“It is entirely possible — we know from the Bible, for example, when Jesus cast the devil out of Legion, he went into a herd of pigs,” Klingenschmitt said. “So, it is possible for demons or the devil to inhabit or invade animals just the same way they invade humans, and that causes the sin of lust.”
“So, what you’re saying is, in humans it’s marketing that makes people gay; in animals, it’s the souls of gay humans who have invaded the animals,” Pakman replied. “That makes them gay?”
Klingenschmitt laughed and scratched his temple. “Well, I think you twisted what I’m saying there,” he said.
So what is the damage that I think has been done to the arguments for same-sex marriage? Well, one of the endlessly repeated arguments of the advocates for this revolution in the meaning of marriage is that the defenders of the only meaning of marriage ever known in human history (that it unites men and women to form families) are “imposing their religion” on people who disagree with them. This is supposedly un-American, unjust, unconstitutional, unconscionable—un-you-name-it.
Here I will content myself with observing that every one of these wrongheaded criticisms is exactly on point as a criticism of President Obama and all other supporters of same-sex marriage who rely in any way on their faith, as they understand it, to justify their support. If the people of California can be faulted for “imposing their religion” on their fellow citizens by passing Proposition 8, then it is equally true that President Obama is “imposing his religion” on his fellow Americans when he says, as he did last week, that laws preventing same-sex marriage are unjust to gay couples desiring to get married. If he is not imposing his religion on anyone, neither is anyone else.
Except, no. When other people are legally permitted to conduct themselves in their private lives in a way that your personal faith disapproves of, nothing is being imposed upon you. But when everyone, regardless of their personal religion, is legally prohibited from doing something because of the views of a certain faith group, then this is being imposed upon them because of religion.
If everyone is legally allowed to consume pork products, this imposes nothing upon anyone, even if some people hold religious views which forbid this. But if no one is legally allowed to eat pork because some religious groups disapprove of it, then this religious view is being imposed upon everyone. Also the use of alcohol, the keeping of dogs as pets or service animals, the equality of women in marriage, and so on.
The absence of a particular limitation on everyone’s liberties does not (inherently) constitute a limitation on the liberties of a group of people who wish to impose the aforementioned limitation on the entire population. Their freedom already does not extend far enough to infringe on everyone else’s freedom.
I hate to keep revisiting Bristol Palin’s remarks about gay marriage and same-sex parents, but she actually did take notice of my last article about this, and I feel she deserves a response. In her latest post, she claims that she was not “playing ‘the victim card’”, and was really only saying two things:
1. Those who claim to be loving and tolerant certainly are hateful and bullying.
2. But despite their efforts at name-calling and even their threats, I won’t be deterred from speaking out.
So, let’s recap. Bristol, here’s what you did:
You falsely implied that President Obama only chose to support marriage equality because of his daughters’ opinions, and you ignored everything else he said on the matter.
You cited “thousands of years of thinking about marriage” as a reason why gay marriage is wrong.
You claimed that “in general kids do better growing up in a mother/father home”, contrary to actual studies about same-sex parenting.
After people reacted to your statements, your only response was to quote a selection of rude comments and threats you’ve received, and accuse people of “hate and bullying”.
You then said that they had no arguments against your views.
And here’s what you did not do:
You did not acknowledge that you blatantly mischaracterized Obama’s support for gay marriage.
You did not provide any explanation for your use of tradition as an argument against marriage equality.
You did not offer any evidence that “kids do better growing up in a mother/father home” or that same-sex parents are inferior.
You did not explain why that would mean they should be deprived of the right to marry.
Throughout all this, you gave no further defense of your position on gay marriage.
Again, while death threats are clearly intolerable and repugnant, this is unfortunately par for the course for anyone of even slight notoriety online, let alone the daughter of a vice presidential candidate. Practically any discussion could be diverted from the issues at hand to how hostile some people are, and you’ve seized that opportunity shamelessly. You say, “Those who claim to be loving and tolerant certainly are hateful and bullying.” Really, all of them? Would that happen to include yourself? I’m sure you can see how misleading it is to accuse literally everyone who supports gay rights - or just love and tolerance - of being “hateful and bullying”, and this argument certainly doesn’t make you any more right.
Do the rude comments you’ve received mean that gay marriage is actually wrong? No. Do they prove that same-sex parents are worse at raising kids? No. Do they justify your misrepresentation of Obama’s position? No. Are they grounds to dismiss any disagreement with you as mere hostility? No. You’re just using them to reorient the conversation from your position on marriage to how mean people are.
Do you really think that does justice to the question of equal rights? Gay marriage is a significant issue that affects millions of people, and you even described it as “a policy position that could affect the entire nation”. Yet you’ve shown curiously little interest in treating it as an important concern that ought to be addressed seriously. Doesn’t this deserve critical analysis and debate beyond how rude people have been to you?
While your perseverance is admirable, it would be better directed toward actually supporting your views and engaging in genuine discussion on these matters, instead of coming up with so many irrelevant distractions. I may not be the “professional pundit” you seem to think I am, but I’m willing to focus on the real issues here. Are you?
After Mississippi state rep Andy Gipson cited Leviticus 20:13 on Facebook in response to Obama’s support for marriage equality, he’s now trying to backtrack:
Since that time, a well-known radical liberal blog (The Huffington Post) ran an article falsely claiming that this Facebook post was a call “to kill gay people.” Nothing could be further from the truth. I have never publicly or privately called for the killing of any people. I believe all people are created in the image of God and I stand firmly for the sanctity of all human life.
Okay, Rep. Gibson: Even if you do “stand firmly for the sanctity of all human life”, your god apparently doesn’t. Even if you’ve never called for the killing of any people, your god allegedly has. What did you expect people would think when you cited a Bible verse that says “If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”? Why else would you do that?
Go ahead, rationalize this as being Old Testament ritual law which is no longer applicable. Even if it isn’t now, it once was - your god supposedly ordered the killing of gay people before he changed his mind or something. If you don’t want people to believe you meant something like this, then don’t quote Bible verses that actually say men who have sex with men should be killed. What were you thinking?
"I figured a way to get rid of all the lesbians and queers," he says in his sermon, delivered on May 13. "Build a great, big, large fence — 150 or 100 mile long — put all the lesbians in there… Do the same thing for the queers and the homosexuals and have that fence electrified so they can’t get out… And you know what, in a few years, they’ll die."
I don’t understand why you’d make a post defending a hate group who got attacked, and a restaurant that housed them. Why not focus on the damage the hate group does to the community?
I’m not especially broken up over something like this happening to white supremacists. I just don’t think it’s very justifiable, and people who are willing to suggest that this is actually completely acceptable don’t seem to have put forth any real explanation of when it’s right to use these tactics, why, who they should be used against, what the specific goals are, and how much collateral damage is acceptable in the process.
Basically, I’m defending this hate group as a specific instance of defending people in general from being violently beaten unless there’s solid ethical grounds to do so such as self-defense or possibly deterrence, which should encompass virtuous people, average people, and really shitty people alike. I think it’s valid, and important, to ask whether this actually had to happen.
If a certain goal absolutely had to be effected, and this was how it had to be done, then hey, full speed ahead! But I’m hesitant to conclude that whatever they sought to accomplish was indeed morally imperative, and that this particular tactic was the best or the only way to go about it.
diddlebot said: If Ashford House chooses to be a host to a racist shitlord dinner, they can suffer the consequences.
I’d first like to know if the restaurant was aware that they would be there, who they specifically were, and what their purpose was. And even if they were, I’m hesitant to propose some ethical principle that if such people are allowed in your establishment, you should therefore accept the risk that it may possibly be destroyed as a result of action against these people. I lean towards thinking that isn’t something anyone should be subject to in the first place except in the course of self-defense.
It now appears that a vicious brawl at a south suburban restaurant on Saturday involved hammer-wielding “anti-fascists” attacking a group of self-professed “white nationalists.”
The attack occurred at 12:45 p.m. Saturday, according to Tinley Park police. Ten were injured, with three taken to local hospitals. Among innocent bystanders terrified by the bizarre explosion of violence were several dozen women there for a wedding shower.
Sources tell Fox Chicago News that at least one of the white nationalists was a fugitive wanted on as many as seven different warrants.
After the attack, several injured white supremacists fled immediately, declining medical treatment. Tinley Park Police said they detained five of the suspected attackers, who apparently call themselves members of the “South Side Chicago Anti-Racist Action.” Police and Cook County prosecutors said criminal charges could be filed Sunday.
The white supremacists had apparently posted on one or more of their websites that they planned to have lunch at the Ashford House restaurant, 7959 W. 159th St, Tinley Park. Their internet postings refer to a “5th Annual White Nationalist Economic Summit.” Not clear is whether they chose this weekend and this suburban Chicago location as some sort of response to the NATO Summit in Chicago.
I’ve been to the Ashford House before, and it’s shameful that such a lovely establishment and its patrons would suffer because of this completely unnecessary violence. The only way it could possibly be ethically justifiable to storm a restaurant and attack people with hammers is if it were reliably known that those people were soon going to commit similar violence if they weren’t stopped. Even then, you could wait for them in the parking lot instead of ruining an uninvolved restaurant. If this didn’t serve to preempt a future attack by the targets, then it probably only gave these racists a means to cast themselves as victims, and an excuse for any use of violence on their part.
Oh my God you're even a Fever Ray fan; it's official, you're perfect.
I actually hear this sort of thing a lot when people find out what sort of music I listen to. I like that I can make someone’s day just by enjoying certain music. Really, I’ll listen to nearly anything: Yes, The Doors, Led Zeppelin, Eric Clapton and other classic rock, Faith Hill, The Dixie Chicks, Garth Brooks and some other 90s country, Celine Dion, Thomas Dolby, Michael Jackson, Brian Eno, Harold Budd, Cocteau Twins, Boards of Canada, Massive Attack, Telefon Tel Aviv, E.S. Posthumus, BT, The Avalanches, Daft Punk, Darren Tate, Above & Beyond, Ferry Corsten, Blumchen, Madeon, Ayumi Hamasaki, Pendulum, Hadouken!, Skrillex and some other dubstep/”brostep”, Ils and other drum and bass, S.T.F., Every Little Thing, Nujabes, Wyclef Jean, Will Smith, Lady Gaga, Ke$ha, Britney Spears, Madonna, Janet Jackson, Erik Satie, Gustav Holst, Debussy, Tchaikovsky, Johann Strauss, James Horner, William Stromberg, Leahy, Scala & Kolacny Brothers, Black Sabbath, The Birthday Massacre, The Pillows, Jay-Z, Eminem, Snoop Dogg, N.E.R.D., The Gipsy Kings, Linkin Park, William Basinski, MSTRKRFT, Royksopp, She, Electric Valentine, Ultraviolet Sound, Katy Perry, LMFAO, Natasha Bedingfield, Ellie Goulding, Depeche Mode, No Doubt, Suzanne Vega, and Marilyn Manson, just to name a few.
…so I’m looking for any reasons why it might actually suck. Looking for contrary evidence is important! I’m kind of tired of getting my hopes up over shitty movies, so I’d rather be pleasantly surprised than disappointed. I’ll start:
1. Trailers are designed to make a movie look good, so this doesn’t tell us anything about it. Remember how Tron Legacy looked like it was going to be so fucking cool? Yep.
As a parent and a member of OneMillionMoms.com, I am highly offended by your company’s disrespect for the millions of parents whose children will be exposed to your latest “Be One” GAP billboard ad. Selling clothes has nothing to do with a person’s sexual orientation. In attempting to be politically correct, you are offending a huge majority of your customers.
Yes, sexual orientation has nothing to do with selling clothes - which is why everyone in clothing ads must be straight and never gay. Again, this has nothing whatsoever to do with sexual orientation. As long as you’re straight.