Radical Homosexual Activists Hijack Valentine’s Day For Completely Selfish Reasons

My my, everyone around the world just had the great idea to turn Valentine's Day into a marriage equality campaign stunt, didn't they? That flash mob in Iowa, and a giant cake in Australia. Which is fitting, because after you stuff your face with all those simple sugars, you're gonna need a create workout to burn things off.

CONTINUED »


Permalink | Post a comment | Add to del.icio.us


Tagged: , , ,

Queerty

—  David Taffet

Cain & fable: Another GOP hopeful dignifies Bryan Fischer’s ‘radical’ tales

Screen Shot 2011-01-18 At 1.22.16 PmWhat’s with socially conservative presidential hopefuls choosing the AFA’s uber-incendiary Bryan Fischer as the place to break news? Last week it was Tim Pawlenty announcing he wants to reinstate Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. This week it’s TEA party favorite Herman Cain, kibitzing with Fischer about all kinds of “radical homosexual agenda” planks.

We’ve yet to hear the audio, but here’s Fischer’s take on what went down:

Yesterday, perhaps for the first time since forming his exploratory committee, [Herman Cain] declared his firm pro-life convictions and his opposition to the radical homosexual agenda.



Another goal of the homosexual lobby is passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would give special workplace rights to individuals based solely on their participation in sexually deviant behavior. It further would expose any values-driven employer to a business-destroying lawsuit should he ever take abnormal sexual conduct into account in personnel decisions.

I asked Cain about whether, as president, he would veto ENDA if it made it to his desk, and he assured me that he would. Said Cain, “I would veto that relative to special rights to homosexuals.”

Bottom line: in Herman Cain, social conservatives as well as fiscal conservatives have a lot to like.

Bryan Fischer: Cain would defund Planned Parenthood, veto ENDA, supports DADT [AFA]

***UPDATE: Right Wing Watch has the video.

***UPDATE2: Newsweek notes recent raised profile: “You might think that attention in the form of mockery is not what a public-policy organization would want. But when your business is waging a culture war, there is no such thing as bad publicity for ideological or rhetorical extremism.” [Newsweek]

***

**FOR THOSE NOT FAMILIAR WITH FISCHER: He’s the guy who’s said that “homosexuals in the military gave us…six million dead Jews,” who’s said “homosexuals should be disqualified from public office,” who has called on Christian conservatives to breed gays and progressives out of existence, has called gay sex a “form of domestic terrorism,” who’s said only gays were savage enough for Hitler, has compared gays to heroin abusers, has directly compared laws against gay soldiers to those that apply to bank robbers, who once invoked a Biblical story about stabbing “sexually immoral” people with spears, saying we need this kind of action in modern day, who has spoken out against gays serving as public school teachers, has questioned why Medals of Honor are given to people who save lives (rather than take lives), who says that open service will “assign the United States to the scrap heap of history,” and who has blamed gay activists for dead gay kids, saying that: “If we want to see fewer students commit suicide, we want fewer homosexual students.” His words pretty much single-handedly landed the American Family Association on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s hate groups list.




Good As You

—  admin

Gays’ radical drive to be treated like equals forced conservatives to tell us why we’re not

This from Jennifer Roback Morse of the NOM-affiliated Ruth Institute:

We (Maggie [Gallagher], David [Blankehorn], and others more so than me) just about had people convinced that kids needed their dads, and that marriage is a social good. Then same sex marriage errupted [sic] onto the public stage and took up all the air in the room. And incidently [sic], same sex marriage advocates called into question all the arguments and data about the significance of marriage for childern [sic] and society.



We, Maggie, David and I, got dragged into the debate over same sex marriage kicking and screaming. We care about same sex marriage because we believe that redefining marriage as the union of any two persons will harm the institution of marriage, not particularly because of anything same sex couples do or don’t do. In the past, the legal and social institution of marriage has provided structure to people’s lives, helping them to avoid some socially destructive actions and steering them toward socially constructive actions. We think that the legal redefinition and all the social practices that will inevitably follow, will reduce to near nothing the capacity of marriage to structure people’s lives and shape their decision-making
.”

Pro-Marriage, not anti-gay [Ruth Institute]

The nerve never fails to astound. Because here we have someone who, of her own free will, chose to step in and convince society that gays and their families are supposedly outside of God’s plan for life:



NOM Tour Tracker

And yet Jennifer’s suggesting she and Maggie and others were drug into this fight by the uppity, tax-paying, decent gay people who decided that they too deserved an equal shake?! As we said: The nerve is simply astounding!

In reality, the conversation of gay people and how we protect their families in our body of civil law should have had no bearing on Maggie or Jennifer’s work in other areas. In a world that’s rife with divorce and marriage mockeries that fill the news on daily basis, Jennifer and Maggie and David and [insert self-appointed 'marriage protector'] could’ve chosen to see more marriages as a good thing (especially when factoring in the common conservative canards about gays’ supposed lack of stability). But instead, they made the lifestyle choice to turn gays’ marriages into this insane bogeyman that threatens heterosexuals and their children in every way imaginable. They did so for the sake of electability. They did so for the sake of fundraising. They did so for the sake of the conservative movement. They did so for their own career$.

Had these conservatives not obfuscated so, we might be beyond this ridiculous “culture war.” But muddy the waters they did and continue to do. The kicks and screams are on them, not us.




Good As You

—  admin

Barney Frank on the radical homosexual agenda




AMERICAblog Gay

—  admin

WND’s Joe Farah on debate with GOProud’s Barron: I’m going to expose its ‘radical goals and agenda’

Earlier I posted the statement by GOProud’s Chairman of the Board, Chris Barron, about the September 17th debate in Miami against WorldNetDaily publisher Joseph Farah (7:30 PM ET). Now Farah’s spinning about the upcoming event, where they will tussle over the thesis “Is GOProud Conservative?”

You haven’t seen this at any conference before.

The founder and chairman of GOProud, the homosexual activist group courting the conservative movement, has agreed to debate its biggest detractor, WND founder Joseph Farah at the “Taking America Back National Conference” here Sept. 17.

WND disinvited Ann Coulter from a keynote speaking role when she agreed to address GOProud’s “Homocon” conference a week later, prompting outrage from the pundit and intense media coverage. Farah contended she was “affirming” the group with her high-profile speech and was permitting herself to be exploited by the group, permitting it to make deeper inroads into the conservative movement.

GOProud supports hate-crimes legislation, same-sex marriage, open homosexuality in the military and special tax breaks for people based on sexual proclivities, says Farah. He says there’s nothing “conservative” about GOProud’s agenda, which he calls “radical.”

…”This conference has always been about debate,” Farah said. “We invited, among others, the American Civil Liberties Union, La Raza, the NAACP and Freedomworks, to come debate the issues of the day with us. To GOProud’s credit, it was willing to stand toe to toe with us. I’m looking forward to the challenge. From my point of view, this represents a much-needed opportunity to expose GOProud’s actual goals and agenda.”

We learn a bit more about the format, as well as Farah’s correct assumption that he will be labeled a hypocrite for inviting Barron when he disinvited Coulter to what Joe calls “The Tea Party at Sea“:

To ensure the fairest debate circumstances possible, WND proposed a format affording both Farah and Barron five-minute opening statements, five-minute rebuttals, 20-minute affirmative and negative cross examinations apiece, five-minute closing statements and 30-minutes of audience questions.

The standard agreement included a platform for GOProud to market event tickets – in advance, at the door – to its supporters, keeping revenue derived from its sales. However, GOProud is receiving no payment from WND for the appearance.

Anticipating that critics will lob a “hypocrite” label his way, Farah draws a sharp distinction between his decision to disinvite conservative star commentator Ann Coulter from the Taking America Back Conference for addressing GOProud’s ‘Homocon’ event in New York and inviting Barron to the WND conference to debate GOProud’s positions.

Coulter’s paid speaking appearance at GOProud’s event serves to validate the group’s agenda, which as I’ve written goes far beyond just tearing down and remaking the Judeo-Christian institution of marriage, attacking free speech with hate-crimes laws or integrating open homosexuality in the military,” he said. “With so-called ‘conservative’ superstars embracing GOProud, a faceoff like this becomes an absolute necessity. If Ann Coulter were going to ‘Homocon’ to debate and expose GOProud, I would have congratulated her.”

If Blenders in the area are interested in attending, the tickets are for the debate only — not the wingnut cruise — this could be a seriously entertaining and historic live-Tweeting opportunity.
Pam’s House Blend – Front Page

—  John Wright