Shuck and Jive

Thursday, November 05, 2009

But we Love them...

Can anyone possibly believe that those who are against equality for gays and lesbians are not motivated by homophobia? I mean really. This is in Thursday's USA Today:
"Every time Americans vote on marriage, traditional marriage wins," said Wendy Wright, president of the conservative group Concerned Women for America. "As people become aware of the true homosexual agenda — that it is not about equality but indoctrinating children and discriminating against Christians — they shore up protections against it."
The homosexual agenda is about "indoctrinating children and discriminating against Christians."

Uh huh.

Homophobes, a bit of advice:

When you tell lies about people it is hard to believe it when you claim that you love them.

Meanwhile, some Presbyterians think we should remove the word homophobia from our vocabulary as it makes some who are against equal rights feel bad when they are called on it.

I think we'll keep this word for a while.


  1. I just saw on another blog (which I won't name) the usual whining by a the busybodies, tattletales, fusspots, and scolds who are all bent out of shape that they can't sell his snake-oil these days without having someone call them on it. In this case, some quack wants to indoctrinate, but is annoyed that the horrible, terrible "homosexualists" keep challenging his homophobia. It's particularly funny that he writes a 20 page screed about his experience in which he was invited to speak, was allowed to speak, and then complains that his freedom of speech was infringed. And then I see a comment about this on that blog was deleted. LOL

    In other words, they just want the right to indoctrinate without anyone disagreeing.

    But no, of course we shouldn't use the word "homophobe" because it might hurt someone's feelings. In the meantime this quack should be allowed to compare homosexuality to pedophilia and incest.

  2. You know, the "right" is constantly dismissing such requests (to sanitize language for the masses) from progressives as "political correctness thought control".

    As for the voters standing up to "protect traditional marriage", yes, they are: including the 50% divorce rate, spousal abuse, and, last but not least, that bastion of American traditions, the shotgun wedding (after all, when's the last time any of y'all heard of a father forcing a lesbian to marry his daughter because one of them got knocked up by the other?). None of these topics are broached on their website, from what I could see.


  3. Well and don't forget the "right's" unwavering support of their poster girl, former Miss USA and former porn star Carrie Prejean, their votes for any number of senators and congressmen whose definition of traditional marriage involves paying for sex from prostitutes and adultery...

    Makes you wonder how those folks sleep at night.

  4. Well, I don't know about "How", but it is questionable as to "with whom". :-D

  5. Come to think of it, I don't even want to know how, particularly in like of the afore-mentioned "with whom".

    That would make me too much like them! EGADS!!!

  6. Maybe it is a good sign that people are ashamed of their bigotry and try to put a nice face on it?

    When I am honest with myself about where I used to be on many issues (just for example, Palestinian rights), I cringe at where my original thoughts and language were...

  7. Speaking of just how much they "love" us, on November 16, some clergy are going to DC to attempt to incite hate crimes against LGBT people:

    "We're going to declare the whole counsel of God, including those parts that some may consider 'inciting a hate crime' to see if the attorney general is going to come down and arrest a group of peaceful clergy exercising their First Amendment rights."

    Warning, this link goes to WingNut Daily, a website which may not be suitable for those who are sane, Christian, or otherwise have morals or consciences...

  8. Alan,

    That was my post that Busybody deleted.

    On my campus we students didn't let William Shockley speak. We walked him off campus.

    Bigotry has no place in America's Universities. The right to free speech was not invented to support hate language, anymore than the right to bear arms was invented to support murder.

    Gagnon has some serious personal issues. His bigotry knows no bounds. As far as I can tell there is nothing rational about his obsession and vendetta. For Inter Varsity to invite him to speak on their behalf could not have been more misguided.

    Might as well have invited the KKK to lead them in prayer.

    It is unfortunate that the Inter-Varsity staff member at that campus was not wise enough to screen him out. Usually the IV staff is more careful about who they allow to speak at IV sponsored events.

    I hope they reconsider his or her contract.

    As far as Busybody and her own obsession, I find little in what she and her friends promote that can be reconciled with the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles. John is right in comparing them to a cult.

    Cults are famous for coming up with perceived enemies from which they need to circle the wagons. That's one of the early warning signs I think. If a person's religious activities are based on fear of some kind of foe, it opens the doors to all kinds of paranoia and bigotry.

    "Homosexualist agenda"?

    Who makes up these words anyway?

  9. Well, we'll have to agree to disagree about free speech. Gagnon is a hack and a buffoon and far, far too obsessed with queers than any typical straight guy I've ever met, but he's not the KKK.

    But in any event, he was invited, and he was allowed to speak, so I think we can agree that anyone trying to claim that his freedom of speech was infringed upon is obviously lying and should be ashamed of themselves. That they're not, simply says even more about their character.

    He just didn't want anyone contradicting his particular brand or theological quackery. Hardly surprising given the speciousness of his "arguments."

    BTW, I think "Homosexualist" was a word invented by another big ol' queen, Gore Vidal. That Gagnon and friends use it is pretty ironic, I think.

  10. He also lied about the veiled threats against the IVCF staff. To begin with, Universities don't even have a say so about who is on staff for IV.

    And of course he is lying about the biblical witness, text and context.

    The worst lies are always those that are told with facts.

  11. I can see where they would think that there is an agenda. It is your intent to legalize same sex marriage in all 50 states? So you can see where they would call that an "agenda".

    As far as the "Homophobe" or "H" word is concerned. I think that everyone is allowed to express what they want. If being called a homophobe is felt to be offensive, then they might want to annalyze themselves and find out why.

    We have had discussed the "Liberty of Conscience" and how everyone interprets the bible. So being called a homophobe, for what I believe, makes no sence. Its like wanting compare advance physics and cake recipes. They have nothing in common to argue.

    Alan I read that link and watched a few of the videos. And I am not sure what there intent was it did seem to push the histarical button, the videos...Did they really send the police on that couple because they wrote a letter stating they were against the gay pride parade? Is that a hate crime?

  12. Mary -

    Yes, there is an agenda. Here it is:
    1) Equality
    2) See 1

  13. "Is that a hate crime?"

    Of course it isn't.

    A hate crime must involve an assault, and clear evidence that assault took place based on the victim's religion, sexual orientation, disability, race, etc. Period. That's no different than the hate crimes laws that have been on the books for decades in this country.

    So, when a preacher stands up and says that they want to incite a hate crime, they're saying that they want to incite assault and/or murder.

  14. Also, Mary, I don't call anyone a homophobe based simply on their opinion.

    But when people make obvious lies, bear false witness, etc. to argue their opinion, then I'd say that's homophobia. If they're right, and if they believe they're right, why do they need to base their opinion on lies and why would they need to lie to others unless there is some irrational fear or hatred motivating their continued lies?

  15. IF they think they are right and they beleive they are right then they don't see themselves basing thier opinion on what they perceive to be right.

    So telling them what they are saying is based on lies has no effect on their opinion, because they have no reason to think that anything that they have said or done is wrong. It is just seen as you taking the opposite side of a disagreement.

  16. "IF they think they are right and they beleive they are right then they don't see themselves basing thier opinion on what they perceive to be right."

    But that doesn't mean that they *are* right.

    I can believe that 1+1=400 all I want, but just believing it doesn't make it true. This isn't Neverland. There are facts in the world. And I believe that intentionally contradicting those facts is a lie, regardless of whatever opinion motivates that action.

    If there are facts and they contradict them, either intentionally or because they want to remain intentionally ignorant, I'd say that is different than an acknowledgement of the facts but interpreting their meaning differently.

    Truth just ain't that malleable.

  17. But see it does not me that they are wrong either. They think there facts are just as sound and as correct as you feel about yours.

    Don't get me wrong I think that women coalition is a little shaddy, but there is no evidence that they are wrong.

  18. Glad you all are keeping the chat going. What is that truism,

    "We all have a right to our own opinions but we don't have a right to our own facts?"

  19. "They think there facts are just as sound and as correct as you feel about yours."

    Um. No.

    If my thermometer reads 48˚F outside right now, that's a fact. One may dispute the calibration of the thermometer, but if it is shown to be well calibrated, the temperature is what it is. We can get 20 more thermometers to determine an average temperature if we wish, but that doesn't change the fact that it is cool outside, no matter how much some crazy person wants to wear swim trunks on an autumn day.

    People don't just get to make up facts.

    That is the difference between fact and opinion. You're talking about opinions, which need not be based on facts and in the case of the homophobes, they aren't at all.