Posted on 03/01/2006 12:01:59 PM PST by Jim Robinson
Whose children will be allowed to participate in the White House’s annual Easter Egg Roll on April 17? Not the sons and daughters of gay parents, if the Christian right gets its way.
In November, when the Family Pride Coalition, a D.C.-based gay rights advocacy group, invited its members to participate in one of the “great traditions of our country” the religious right sprang into action. The Institute on Religion and Democracy, a religious think tank, accused the Family Pride Coalition of trying to “exploit a children’s event for political purposes.” Even the White House has weighed in.
~~snip~~
The Christian right blogosphere is afire, condemning the presence of gay parents on the White House lawn as “nearly terrorist threats from the homo lobby.” One post suggests that “White House psychologists” should be deployed to help the children of gay parents and implies that they are molested in their homes. Another wishes the gays “good luck,” reminding readers that “the Secret Service carries automatic weapons.”
Such posts are, of course, “those of the individual posters” to http://www.FreeRepublic.com, “and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of … its operators.” The site claims 200,000 registered members, known as “Freepers,” and a daily readership of “tens of thousands.” Free Republic, founded in 1996, has been embraced by right-wing social conservatives as the online water cooler for “patriots” who are “biased toward God, country, family, liberty and freedom.”
Or at least liberty and freedom for some. “These lowlife scum should just be mowed down like terrorists,” writes one good Christian.
(Excerpt) Read more at inthesetimes.com ...
No it isn't, actually its very similar to Islam, convert to our way of living or die
Uh huh, and silence those who will tell people that if you DO convert to our lifestyle, you will more than likely die.
Wrap your mind around this:
ALL homosexuals are actually heterosexuals in denial. The human body is inherently heterosexual regardless what activities one chooses to engage in with their heterosexual body. By analogy -an automobile is an automobile EVEN if one drives it at high speed while flapping thier arms...
Just checking in - did I miss everything?
The original story posted on this forum on January 13 was a press release from the Institute of Religion and Democracy (IRD) entitled, “NEWS ALERT: PRO-HOMOSEXUALITY ‘SOULFORCE’ TO CRASH WHITE HOUSE EASTER EGG ROLL.” The term “crash” comes from the IRD. Soulforce’s text, which is heavily quoted includes, “millions of Americans – many for the first time – will meet our families,” and “you and your kids will have a great time.” The organization calls the Easter Egg Roll an “opportunity to reach homes in blue states and red states with positive images of our families.”
Notice that the urgent tone was set by IRD. It was “sounding the alarm,” which I think was purposeful to incite the very response that resulted in this forum. Individuals and organizations on both sides of the issue are capable of manipulation. In my article, I quoted primary sources, including Family Pride’s press release, the source of the story, which prompted Scott McClellan’s response in the White House briefing room.
I personally know of no gay parent who would plan to “crash” the White House. Honestly. I think sometimes people are so traumatized by the “bearded Liza Minelli’s” they see on the news coverage of gay parades. Most gay people are not cross-dressing and stripping in public. I hope the average poster in this forum does not sincerely believe that is what gay families look like. If so, I can think of nothing better than a reality check on April 17th. Families act like families. Period.
Many posts reference “those gays,” or the “liberal media.” I can take credit and responsibility only for myself. I am John Ireland, not some “gay agenda” or media mogul. I see the world through the eyes of a father. My primary job in life is to provide positive role models and love and support for my son. I am also a son to my parents and brother to my siblings. I love my family and I am lucky to have their love, as well. I was raised to be respectful and to work hard to achieve my greatest potential. I do not carry a gay membership card in my wallet—I carry pictures of my loved ones. This is not revolutionary. It should not surprise many people. It certainly does not get on the news when the fringe of the gay community is more than happy to absorb the attention with their street theatre. Let’s not even get started on NAMBLA…
DirtyHarryY2K asks me (#427) what I think of The smirking chimp.com. I took his advice and took a look at it. The site has reposted my article from “In These Times” (without permission) and I’ve never heard of it before. Like so many extreme sites, it seems to have attracted a group of followers, some of whom show little decorum in their posts. I certainly would not feel comfortable there.
There are so many blogs/forums accessible through the internet that become popular “hang outs” for vociferous and ill-tempered people. I would challenge hateful posts and those with violent imagery, regardless of who posts them.
I really appreciate the items Pollyannaish brings up in her post (#429). Most importantly, I do not consider myself a victim whatsoever. Actually, I think it must be difficult to go through life acting the victim, let alone feeling like a victim. There will always be victimizers and victims to fulfill their need. I make it a point in my life NEVER to fit into either category. I am just as annoyed by any person who claims special status by virtue of their victimhood.
That being said, some people are victims of discrimination based on intolerance and hatred. No one deserves to be gay bashed, yet it happens. No one should lose his or her job or their home because their boss or landlord does not agree with their life choices. We all make choices in our lives—it’s called living. Unless someone is hurting me or someone else who is unable to defend him/herself, it’s not my business/not my life.
I did not write off the “mowing down” post as coming “from a loon” because I do not think Sweetliberty is a loon. From what I have read from her, she is principled and firm in her convictions. So am I. I would never post such a sentence in a public forum because it creates a violent image that satisfies a prurient element that will not see it as extreme. I relate to people as an equal. I expect civil discourse because dehumanizing anyone is a dangerous road to go down.
I do not seek approval here, by the way. It’s not a very healthy way to live, always seeking validation. I do not need someone to tell me I’m okay. As an individual, however, I will always fight for equality. In my opinion, no one has the right to take away my freedom. My son should be able to go to public school free of instruction that invalidates his family structure. I will work for sensitivity in my community, so my son does not suffer under the ignorance and intolerance some would impose on him. Gidget7 would like me to accept reality that “most in the country” disagree with me (#404). That may be Gidget7’s reality, but it is not mine. Her tagline references schools and I would pose to her the following question: How should a public school react to speech and action set against a gay student, teacher, or parent?
Pollyannaish suggests I develop a thicker skin. I am not threatened personally by extreme language—I am simply asking that people mean what they say and understand that their words have power. She closes with a message of peace to me. I wish the same to everyone here. I could not have put it any better, so I’ll close with her words, “I wish you the best. I wish you not only no harm, but a satisfying and decent life. I respect that fact that your belief system is different than mine.”
"Sorry for the bad link. scripter noticed and corrected it and pinged you to it already."
Got it - thanks!
Thanks for your reply.
If I recall correctly, this political response was to a gay agenda to use the Easter Egg Hunt to protest and promote gay and lesbian adoption.
Of course, an Easter Egg hunt with the Easter Bunny isn;t exactly a Christian celebration of Easter. It's somewhat amusing for gays to label their adversaries as Christian and hosting an Easter Egg hunt.
When they take an approach that is intended to incite and inflame, they shouldn't be too surprised at the results.
"Most gay people are not cross-dressing and stripping in public."
Most of the ones who choose to make a public spectacle of themselves and who force themselves and the ugliest side of their ideologies on others do. Instead of cramming the intolerable down the throats of the people, the majority of which do NOT want to see it, and demanding tolerance for their behavior, perhaps they should be tolerant respectful of those who do not find their shameless displays acceptable and cultivate a little cultural "sensitivity" of their own. If they conducted themselves with dignity and treated others with respect, they might discover that they are treated with respect. But when their behavior is anything but dignified and they impose it on others with complete disregard for those individuals and their families, then it is reasonable to expect an indignant response. The majority of people do not shove other people out of line at the grocery store, even though most of us don't like waiting. Every now and then, though, someone will come along who thinks that he/she is the only one that matters and will shove his/her way to the front of the line, a behavior that will most likely provoke an indignant response from the mildest mannered of little old ladies. This is the same thing on a much grander scale. You simply cannot demand for yourself a level of consideration that you are unwilling to extend to others.
"No one should lose his or her job or their home because their boss or landlord does not agree with their life choices. We all make choices in our lives—it’s called living."
I agree with you...to an extent, but I don't believe that discrimination is always a bad thing. Perhaps "discernment" is a better term. I am of the opinion that if "lifestyle choice," as you call it, is handled with discretion, it need not become an issue, but when a sexual preference is presented as defining who or what that person is, it then becomes an issue to the boss, the landlord or whatever. If a person's sexual behavior is discovered by accident when a person is already on a job or in a home, all else being equal, I don't believe that that alone should be grounds to dismiss or evict. I do, however, believe that if the person becomes a disruptive influence in the workplace or the neighborhood to the extent of compromising the ability of others to work effectively or the quality of life for others in a neighborhood, then it has to be a consideration.
I also believe that if a person makes his sexuality an issue when he applies for a job or to rent a home, he needs to be prepared to accept that it could be a determining factor in whether or not he gets the job or the home. It becomes a matter of business for the employer or landlord. It may also be personal. That's reality. They have rights, too. I believe that if I buy a house and choose to rent it out or start a business and need to hire someone to help me, it is my house and my business and as such I determine who will be the best person to fill the position or rent my property. It may be strictly a matter of business. If my business is computer repair and I need the most skillful person available to do the work and the most qualified applicant happens to mention that he is homosexual, it might be irrelevant as long as does his job. If he insists on wearing makeup to work and is hitting on the customers, then we have a problem. But if my business is a Christian bookstore or a day care center, then we are looking at different issues altogether.
It may also be a matter of conscience. I might believe that hiring someone or renting to someone who is openly homosexual is enabling something I believe to be morally wrong, or that I believe, rightly or wrongly, might put others at risk, so I might prefer not to take that chance. Bottom line: my business or property; my choice. I decide who best represents me in the business or the community. Period. Life is full of disappointments for all of us. They need to realize that a great many people do not accept their "lifestyle" and get on with their lives and play the hand they've chosen.
I give you credit for sticking around to address the issue in a civilized way. We are suffering from a pervasive lack of civility in this country, and an equally pervasive lack of common sense. Most of us on this forum are not hateful people. We are people who do have deep convictions and are angry at the disregard for those convictions shown by those who demand, enable and facilitate the sacrifice of those convictions on the altar of alternate ideologies. We are angry that our "elected" officials allow themselves to be coerced by organizations like the ACLU, La Raza, CAIR, etc. to compromise the will of the majority of the people they serve and who, in effect, are selling us into slavery and putting constraints on us such that it is virtually impossible to even communicate freely with others.
I think if you got to know us you'd find that most of us are intelligent and caring people who work hard and play hard, who have a good sense of humor and who love our families. You would find people from all walks of life, all ages and races and with varying religious beliefs. But we are grieving over what we see as the greatness of our nation being sold "for a mess of pottage." Sometimes that grief and anger comes out in unattractive ways.
Then why all the fuss? Why write an article about how Conservatives react to militant homosexual activists that choose to use their children as pawns in a political pot licking? To borrow a favorite phrase of the "gay" activist, methinks thou dost protest too much.
"As an individual, however, I will always fight for equality".
We are equal. You are legally allowed to do every thing I am legally allowed to do. You can legally marry someone of the opposite sex just like I can. And like me, you cannot legally marry someone of the same sex. That's equality, No?
Are were you trying to imply that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality?
"In my opinion, no one has the right to take away my freedom".
What freedom would that be?
"My son should be able to go to public school free of instruction that invalidates his family structure".
Primarily, two men living together playing house and adopting children is not a "family". And the majority agrees. If you want a family marry a woman, love honor and respect her, have sexual relations with her exclusively and you'll be blessed with children and have a family. If you're fortunate enough to be able to afford it and provide a natural loving environment for an extra child or two adopt them and welcome them into your own family.
"I will work for sensitivity in my community, so my son does not suffer under the ignorance and intolerance some would impose on him".
So people are ignorant and intolerant because they don't agree with your version of reality? Your choice to cut across the grain and use children as pawns in social experimentation is the root cause of the child's social problems. IMO it is child abuse to subject children to such insanity. The majority of society would agree.
"Gidget7 would like me to accept reality that “most in the country” disagree with me (#404). That may be Gidget7’s reality, but it is not mine".
Me/Mine.... Uh huh..
"Her tagline references schools and I would pose to her the following question: How should a public school react to speech and action set against a gay student, teacher, or parent?"
I can only answer for myself but I'm sure Gidget7 and a lot of others would agree, sexuality should be reserved for private situations and should be a forbidden subject at any school. Why burden children with sexual issues?
Why not let them study more appropriate subjects beneficial to the quality of their education? Perhaps then as intelligent responsible adults they can make decisions about sexual issues on their own behalf.
Honestly?
SoulForce invited its members and like-minded individuals to invite themselves to a social event hosted by the White House.
White House social affairs are usually invitation-only, and this one is.
What SoulForce contemplates doing is, indeed, defined socially by the word "crash, crashed."
Your accusation that conservatives have distorted the import of the SoulForce initiative is not sustained by the circumstances, nor adequately bearded by rhetorical diversions into discussions about Gay Pride theatrics.
Your insistence that conservatives are torquing the issue, when this is in fact an exercise in guerrilla theater using kids as props and human shields, is both invalid on the facts and propagandistic in delivery.
We have every right to disapprove and decry what SoulForce, and you -- since you've announced you have plans to attend -- are up to.
Which is exactly what Gay Pride and SoulForce are doing with their attempt to crash the White House Easter social.
And you've already said, you'll be there -- to put yourself and your son front and center in the gay propaganda war.
"I think sometimes people are so traumatized by the “bearded Liza Minelli’s” they see on the news coverage of gay parades".
Wonder why he would edit the word "pride" out of his statement about gay pride parades ? He even spelled "gay" with a lower case "G".
Seems like he has a bad habit of editing things that shed a truthful light on the "gay" effort to normalize their "proud lifestyle".
No, you don't.
Sell that line to Michael Swift, author of "A Gay Manifesto." Tell it to Michelangelo Signorile, who, like Swift, dreams of a society without families or marriage.
It's still early days, still time for you to follow the dicta of Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen/"Erastes Pill", "portray gays as victims of circumstance and depression, not as aggressive challengers" and "[i]n practical terms, this means that cocky mustachioed leather-men, drag queens, and bull dykes would not appear in gay commercials and other public presentations. Conventional young people, middle-age women, and older folks of all races would be featured, not to mention the parents and straight friends of gays...."
In other words, exactly what's planned for the White House guerrilla-theater event.
Later on, the SLAPP suits, the court orders, the arrests.
It's called wanting things both ways.
We're normal, we're middle-class, we're almost square........and when we're not, we're free.
And vice versa.
The constant is, gays will be the arbiters -- not you, not the 98% -- of what constitutes "acting out."
bookmark. Some great comments.
Right. Good catch. Ayn Rand was no robot, but still think she was/(is?) a bit of a Socialist. Not necessarily a misanthrope, but shamelessly amoral, none-the-less. No real foundation other than worship of intellectual ambition, and base sexual heat. How does one decide what kind of ethics are proper, with no moral or emotional base for making decisions?
Brilliant, and passionate, but misguided. A sharp intellect in the wrong hands is worse than a violent dullard to society. The dullard will be caught and punished. Cleverness, untempered by conscience, will do more harm, and not be caught-out so easy.
IMHO - She's not really an atheist. Don't know if anyone really is. Most are in some stage of doubt, denial, or outright anger at God. She's more along the lines of some Intellectual Darwinistic type philosophy, with just a touch of Secular Humanism as the base.
Governmental philosophy would probably equate to either Anarchy or Totalitarianism based on some rationalized common-good rather than God-given rights; Illuminati-style. Chaos, or velvet-gloved tyranny would result.
Enjoyed Atlas Shrugged, and fountainhead, but wouldn't want her running the government, or a daycare, for that matter.
Your thoughts?
I'm not an expert on Ayn Rand, and can't say if I'd want to live in her world. All I can say is that I don't see how she could be considered "a bit of a Socialist"--she was perhaps the most vigorously anti-Socialist thinker in the history of the world. All of her writings were designed to point out the evils of socialism and the superiority of individual initiative and freedom.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.