Monday, November 22, 2010

MCPS Advisor Makes Hate-Group List

Thanks to Truth Wins Out for this one.
The Southern Poverty Law Center today updated its list of designated hate groups, and this year is significant in that some of the larger anti-gay outfits have made the cut. After a litany of ever more extreme statements from people such as Peter Sprigg and Tony Perkins of the FRC, Bryan Fischer of the AFA and Laurie Higgins of the IFI, the SPLC has determined, correctly in our view, that these groups all deserve to be designated as having gone beyond mere advocacy, and into full-blown hatred against the LGBT community. Especially after the recent spate of gay teen suicides elicited no remorse from any of these institutions, they have indeed earned their place in the halls of hate. SPLC Designates American Family Association, Family Research Council, Illinois Family Institute As Hate Groups

Those of us who live in Montgomery County, Maryland, wonder why the spokesman for a major hate group, Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council, is advising the public school district on the development of its sex education curriculum. Sprigg has been an appointed member of the Citizens Advisory Committee for Family Health and Human Development since December, 2005. (In the interest of disclosure, I served on that committee for four years.)

The SPLC report focuses on MCPS advisor Sprigg:
Both [FRC senior research fellow Tim] Dailey and Sprigg have pushed false accusations linking gay men to pedophilia (see related story, p. 31): Sprigg has written that most men who engage in same-sex child molestation “identify themselves as homosexual or bisexual,” and Dailey and Sprigg devoted an entire chapter of their 2004 book Getting It Straight to similar material. The men claimed that “homosexuals are overrepresented in child sex offenses” and similarly asserted that “homosexuals are attracted in inordinate numbers to boys.”

More recently, in March 2008, Sprigg, responding to a question about uniting gay partners during the immigration process, said: “I would much prefer to export homosexuals from the United States than to import them.” He later apologized, but then went on, last February, to tell MSNBC host Chris Matthews, “I think there would be a place for criminal sanctions on homosexual behavior.” “So we should outlaw gay behavior?” Matthews asked. “Yes,” Sprigg replied. At around the same time, Sprigg claimed that allowing gay people to serve openly in the military would lead to an increase in gay-on-straight sexual assaults. 18 Anti-Gay Groups and Their Propaganda

It is not obvious why a progressive county like ours would select such a person to influence the development of a health curriculum that will impact all our children.

45 Comments:

Anonymous David S. Fishback said...

Actually, my understanding is that there is a reason why Peter Sprigg was reappointed to the Citizens Advisory Committee on Family Life and Human Development. The Board of Education wanted a diversity of viewpoints and all the other applicants who were socially conservative were more extreme than Peter.

This is quite a commentary on the social conservative movement. But the SPLC designation should be a signal that there are limits to what constitutes legitimate diversity and what constitutes straight-out homophobia.

November 22, 2010 9:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

every human being on Earth must concern themselves with what behavior is correct and moral

that's not hate because no behavior defines us

we all have choices and we are more than what we do

Peter is an exceptional public servant

he's even been nominated for a special public service award

"that these groups all deserve to be designated as having gone beyond mere advocacy, and into full-blown hatred against the LGBT community"

could we have some examples of advocacy that opposes the gay agenda and isn't considered "hate" by the lunatic fringe?

November 22, 2010 11:13 PM  
Anonymous David S. Fishback said...

Anon,

You say that Peter was "even been nominated for a special public service award"

I seem to recall that Peter was nominated by his friends at PFOX for an MCPS public service award. Not surprisingly, MCPS did not grant the award.

Those who make it their life's work to affirmatively create an atmosphere in which a certain category of people are viewed as people to be shunned and discriminated against contribute mightily to the hate that is directed against them.

If someone were to declare that it should be illegal for, say, Mormons, to practice their religion, would it be fair to say that that person is engaged in hate? Please explain for me the difference between that and Peter's statement to Chris Mathews.

November 23, 2010 6:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Peter Sprigg and Aubrey Sarvis discuss DADT with Chris Matthews

November 23, 2010 8:03 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

update on the American mood:

"WASHINGTON — Just about as many Americans want Tea Party-backed members of Congress to take the lead in setting policy during the next year as choose President Obama, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds.

In a survey taken Friday through Sunday, 28% say Obama should have the most influence on government policy next year while 27% say the Tea Party standard-bearers should. GOP congressional leaders are chosen by 23%, Democratic congressional leaders by 16%.

The results reflect the strength of the Tea Party movement as the GOP prepares to take control of the House of Representatives in January.

The survey also underscores Obama's weakened standing. His overall job approval rating, at 42%, is 1 percentage point higher than his historic low in midsummer. His 35% approval rating on the economy is the lowest of his presidency."

November 23, 2010 12:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"If someone were to declare that it should be illegal for, say, Mormons, to practice their religion, would it be fair to say that that person is engaged in hate? Please explain for me the difference between that and Peter's statement to Chris Mathews."

well, for one thing, freedom of religion is a constitutional right

for another thing, "practice their religion" could emcompass all kinds of behavior

finally, if someone thinks Mormon practices should be illegal, that's not necessarily "hatred" of an individual but, instead, judgment on a set of behaviors

not the same

while I personally prefer libertarianism, some may argue that there are harmful effects of homosexuality to society and, thus, laws discouraging homosexuality are justified

that may be true but I tend to think that measures governments would take to enforce those types of laws would be even more harmful to society

still, none of these positions constitute "hatred"

btw, for what it's worth, my religion considers Mormon beliefs to be false doctrine

I have met a lot of nice Mormons, though

I've also met many personable gays

based on the rhetoric I've heard, and I make it a point to listen to all sides, it seems to me that ultra-liberals harbor more hatred toward those different from them than any other element of society

viva la Sarah Barracuda!

November 23, 2010 11:26 PM  
Blogger Emproph said...

“it seems to me that ultra-liberals harbor more hatred toward those different from them than any other element of society”

It’s not hatred toward those who are different, it’s hatred toward those who hate those who are different.

November 24, 2010 2:26 PM  
Anonymous David S. Fishback said...

Anon writes "while I personally prefer libertarianism, some may argue that there are harmful effects of homosexuality to society and, thus, laws discouraging homosexuality are justified."

Anon, can you name one such harmful effect, and provide a justification?

Happy Thanksgiving.

November 24, 2010 2:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"there are harmful effects of homosexuality to society and, thus, laws discouraging homosexuality are justified"

There are "harmful effects" to society caused by heterosexuals, as well - perhaps more destructive to the well-being of society. Where are the justifiable laws discouraging divorce?
Cassandra

November 24, 2010 11:47 PM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

Jim, Jim, Jim...really now, quoting the SPLC as some sort of authoritative voice on hate groups?!!!

If you want to use SPLC as anything you can use them as an example of an organization using a moral cause in order to personally enrich themselves. Good grief, even a progressive magazine like Harper's recognizes how an organization like SPLC can turn a good cause into their own cash making machine,

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/03/sb-this-week-in-1172847076

November 25, 2010 1:21 AM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

Opps, I forgot to add that when the SPLC gets it own financial house in order then it will have the moral authority it only now pretends to have...

November 25, 2010 1:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anon, can you name one such harmful effect, and provide a justification?"

You miss the point, David

The discussion was whether the idea that homosexuality should be legally discouraged is indicative of "hate."

Arguing that they are wrong, as I presume you want to do, doesn't prove they are "hateful."

"Happy Thanksgiving"

gobble gobble and go Saints!

"There are "harmful effects" to society caused by heterosexuals, as well - perhaps more destructive to the well-being of society. Where are the justifiable laws discouraging divorce?"

Harmful effects caused by heterosexuals are not the same thing as harmful effects caused by heterosexuality.

Heterosexuality is beneficial to society, per se, and to the extent it is strengthened, society is stronger. The opposite is true of homosexuality.

btw, I think most of the groups you lunatics call "hate groups" would also favor laws discouraging casual divorce.

Today, let's be thankful we live in a land where our President says he opposes gay marriage and is fighting to keep homosexuals out fo the military.

November 25, 2010 8:13 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

that's right

out

November 25, 2010 8:14 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Salon reports Anti-gay group: We aren't hateful!
The Family Research Council is angry that its homophobic rhetoric has gotten it labeled a "hate group"

Oh, this is just rich: The Family Research Council (FRC) is upset that it's been categorized as a "hate group" in The Southern Poverty Law Center's report this week on rabidly anti-gay organizations. President Tony Perkins says the list is part of "the left's smear campaign of conservatives," the Washington Post reports, but let's take a look at some of the facts, shall we?

FRC senior research fellows Tim Dailey and Peter Sprigg "have pushed false accusations linking gay men to pedophilia," reports the SPLC. In a conversation about immigration rights for gay couples, Sprigg told Chris Matthews, "I would much prefer to export homosexuals from the United States than to import them." He later apologized for that statement, but went on to argue that there should be "criminal sanctions" against "homosexual behavior." Sprigg also "claimed that allowing gay people to serve openly in the military would lead to an increase in gay-on-straight sexual assaults," reports SPLC. On top of all these noxious comments, the group has taken a lead in the fight against marriage equality.

Hmm, sure looks like hate and acts like hate. As the saying goes, don't blame the mirror if the reflection is ugly.

November 25, 2010 8:19 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Aunt Bea" the Anonymous One

she's priceless....finally, decides she'll try to make some comments on TTF again, and hopes she won't embarass herself this time

you gotta hand it to her

she takes a lickin' and keeps on tickin'

Bea, Tim and Peter don't hate those afflicted with same sex attraction. They support efforts to help such persons overcome this affliction. They would be tickled pink if they thought one of these homosexuals got to the point where they could function in a healthy way in society.

"FRC senior research fellows Tim Dailey and Peter Sprigg "have pushed false accusations linking gay men to pedophilia," reports the SPLC."

Is there some reason you can think of why the sexual abuse scandals that have roiled the Roman Catholic Church have mostly involved same sex attraction?

Just curious what your thought are there...

Or is it just a bizarre coincidence like the fact that AIDS is disproportionately present in the homosexual communities of countries that tolerate homosexuality?

today, let's be thankful that Sarah Palin has a new book out!

stocking stuffer, people!

November 25, 2010 8:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

that's right

stuffer

November 25, 2010 8:47 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Tim and Peter don't hate those afflicted with same sex attraction...They would be tickled pink if they thought one of these homosexuals got to the point where they could function in a healthy way in society.

Homosexuality is not an "affliction," but FRC hacks who work to twist others' research to attempt to deny full civil rights to homosexuals most certainly do suffer from an affliction called homophobia IMHO.

Numerous researchers from Robert Spitzer:

"I anticipated some misuse of the study results but I did not anticipate that some of the media would say such ridiculous things...I did anticipate, and in my presentation warn, that it would be a mistake to interpret the study as implying that any highly motivated homosexual could change if they really were motivated to do so. I suspect that the vast majority of gay people - even if they wanted to - would be unable to make the substantial changes in sexual attraction and fantasy and enjoyment of heterosexual functioning that many of my subjects reported. I also warned against the study results being used to justify pressuring gay people to enter therapy when they had no interest in doing so and I have already heard of many incidents where that has happened. That is what troubles me the most about this controversy."

to Carol Gilligan:

"I am writing to ask that you cease and desist from quoting my research in the future. I was mortified to learn that you had distorted my work this week in a guest column you wrote in Time Magazine. Not only did you take my research out of context, you did so without my knowledge to support discriminatory goals that I do not agree with. What you wrote was not truthful and I ask that you refrain from ever quoting me again and that you apologize for twisting my work."

have pointed out many flaws with FRC "researchers" re-interpreting their studies' results.

Anon's implied assertion that LGBT people are unable to "function in a healthy way in society" is clearly false. For example, Maj. Margaret Witt is clearly able to function in exemplary ways. As opposed to Peter Sprigg, who could only get himself nominated for an award right here in MoCo but couldn't actually win it, Maj. Witt is a "highly decorated Air Force officer [who] had an exemplary 19-year military career, including having been awarded the Air Medal for her Middle East deployment and, later, the Air Force Commendation Medal. Witt received sterling performance reviews and, in 1993, the Air Force literally used her photograph in brochures used to recruit nurses.

Witt was, however, drummed out of the Air Force because of her sexual orientation. She had assumed that under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," as long as she didn't tell, she'd be fine. But a third-party tip prompted an investigation of her personal life, leading to her discharge."


Another example is Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach an 18 year Air Force fighter pilot who has been awarded "nine Air Medals, including one for valor for assaulting an Iraqi ambush position while under heavy anti-aircraft fire during the first days of the invasion."

The attempts to remove these gay military heroes from serving our nation is despicable and wrong, and the SPLC's designation of FRC as a hate group is clearly justified by the facts.

November 25, 2010 10:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

everyone supports research to help those afflicted with homosexuality to get better

that's benevolence not hatred

go work on your dinner, Bea

November 25, 2010 10:41 AM  
Blogger Emproph said...

Sociopathanon: “everyone supports research to help those afflicted with homosexuality to get better

that's benevolence not hatred”


The decision to define the human-sexuality of others as an affliction to be ‘cured’ is hatred.

“Is there some reason you can think of why the sexual abuse scandals that have roiled the Roman Catholic Church have mostly involved same sex attraction?”

The decision to blame ALL gays -- literally or by implication -- for the Catholic Churches decades long cover-up of shuffling around child molesters from parish to parish to parish to molest again and again and again is hatred.

“Or is it just a bizarre coincidence like the fact that AIDS is disproportionately present in the homosexual communities of countries that tolerate homosexuality?”

The decision to malign an entire group based on the reckless behavior of a small subset of that group is hatred.

The decision to Imply -- by use of the term “homosexual” -- that AIDS is disproportionately present among lesbians is hatred.

The decision to hate people with a disease, instead of the disease itself is hatred.

To think of all that as “benevolent” is delusion.

November 25, 2010 1:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Looks like improv DECIDED to celebrate Turkey Day by making one of himself:

"The decision to define the human-sexuality of others as an affliction to be ‘cured’ is hatred."

The inability to enjoy normal relations with the opposite gender is an affliction, imp.

It has all kinds of consequences.

Hoping those afflicted can find a way to avoid those consequences is not ill will, by definition.

"The decision to blame ALL gays -- literally or by implication -- for the Catholic Churches decades long cover-up of shuffling around child molesters from parish to parish to parish to molest again and again and again is hatred."

Nobody blamed ALL gays. Still, the reason that this was virtually all homosexual activity is something that needs to be examined.

While the Roman Catholic Church was culpable for allowing this to continue, the primary responsibility for these heinous acts falls on the homosexuals who perpetrated them.

"The decision to malign an entire group based on the reckless behavior of a small subset of that group is hatred."

No one did that. That "small subset" constitutes a high percentage of homosexuals.

Imp is actually on to something here when he acknowledges that AIDS is usually caused by "reckless behavior." AIDS is actually close to being 100% preventable. If biblical sexual morality were practiced by a society, AIDS would disappear.

"The decision to Imply -- by use of the term “homosexual” -- that AIDS is disproportionately present among lesbians is hatred."

No one did that. No one took anything said that way.

The only one acting imply is imp.

"The decision to hate people with a disease, instead of the disease itself is hatred."

Well, no one did that but there is a third choice.

How about hating the behavior that causes this horrible disease?

"To think of all that as “benevolent” is delusion."

Technically, I think someone merely said that wishing those who are afflicted with homosexuality would get better is benevolence.

Technically, that's a little hard to argue with.

Look how improv failed.

November 26, 2010 6:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I noticed that

November 26, 2010 6:17 AM  
Anonymous Dr Roberts said...

This Emproph fellow certainly is hateful.

He wants those who suffer from homosexuality to have no hope at all.

November 26, 2010 6:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Happy Homophobia, Haters!

November 26, 2010 8:42 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Look what the tryptophan has done to Anon.

"Hoping those afflicted can find a way to avoid those consequences is not ill will, by definition."

The only "consequences" suffered by Maj. Margaret Witt and Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach was to be run out of the military by homophobic ill will promoters like Anon. It is wrong to remove someone from a job they have been highly decorated for doing because of how they conduct their private lives. The "consequences" suffered by these two highly decorated soldiers are the direct result of the affliction of homophobia, like that we have all seen so clearly displayed day after day over the years by Anon right here on Vigilance.

Witt and Fehrenbach are only a few of the many highly qualified men and women who have been forcibly removed from providing service to this country because of homophobia, which haters like Peter Sprigg get paid by hate groups like FRC to foment. Fortunately, the end of institutionalized homophobia in the military is looming. Enjoy DADT until the DOD report is officially released in December, Anon, because the end of institutionalized homophobia in the military is near.

November 26, 2010 9:13 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The only "consequences" suffered by Maj. Margaret Witt and Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach was to be run out of the military by homophobic ill will promoters like Anon."

This is a common tactic of Bea the Anonymous. Make a statement for which she has no basis of knowledge. She has no idea what consequences these people have brought down on themselves- or others. She really knows nothing about them.

"It is wrong to remove someone from a job they have been highly decorated for doing because of how they conduct their private lives."

Do you know anyone who has ever been in the military? It's not just a job. They control every aspect of your "private lives," regardless of how many you have going on. If these people "told,"
they violated military regulations. They chose to pursue a highly regulated career in an organization that believes you have no private life.

November 26, 2010 12:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The decision to define the human-sexuality of others as an affliction to be ‘cured’ is hatred."

One must wonder if Mr. "Emproph" has ever encountered an end-stage victim of full-blown AIDS, languishing in pain and despair.

Every such victim probably at one time took a public school sex ed class where they were taught that some people just like to have sexual relations with those of their own gender- and that there's nothing wrong with that.

How many cursed the teacher of that class with their last breath?

And, somehow, Mr. Emproph believes that wanting to see an end to this horror is "hatred?"

How bizarre and sad...and malevolent...

November 26, 2010 8:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Q: "How many cursed the teacher of that class with their last breath?"

A: None

Your logic is ridiculous.

November 26, 2010 8:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

actually, I think what most readers think is "ridiculous" is how unequivocable your assertion is

asserting such ubiquitous certainty is a sure sign one knows they are wrong

teachers who mislead their students are remembered

November 26, 2010 9:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

First of all, anon, most of what you learn in school is bullshit and every kid knows that. You can't go to your grave remembering every stupid or wrong thing a teacher told you, so your assertion is, in fact, ridiculous, it is deserving of ridicule. If the person was a student in Montgomery County and had learned that some people are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender, then of course there is no reason to think back to that lesson, which is factual.

It appears that you are somehow linking a person's contracting AIDS with something they were taught in a class at school. You seem to think that the lesson will cause the child to become gay or indulge in risky sexual behavior with someone of their own sex, and there is nothing in the world that supports that speculation. Of course learning about sexual orientation does not make a person "turn gay" or even experiment with sexual behaviors.

November 26, 2010 10:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"First of all, anon, most of what you learn in school is bullshit and every kid knows that."

Sounds like you think we could save a lot of money cutting some programs here.

Does you "most of what you learn" include the sex ed curriculum?

"You can't go to your grave remembering every stupid or wrong thing a teacher told you, so your assertion is, in fact, ridiculous, it is deserving of ridicule."

Oh, I think some will remember this.

"If the person was a student in Montgomery County and had learned that some people are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender, then of course there is no reason to think back to that lesson, which is factual."

Do you really think there are any kids who didn't already know that?

The heart of the lesson is not that deviants exist but that they are defined as normal. Thus, a kid who has taken the lesson seriously might easily sucuumb to a fleeting feeling in the future or a kid that already has these feelings might drop any resistance to them.

"It appears that you are somehow linking a person's contracting AIDS with something they were taught in a class at school."

Gee, why would anyone do that?

They're taught a lifestyle is normal and safe when, in fact, that behavior is deadly dangerous.

Where could the link be?

"You seem to think that the lesson will cause the child to become gay"

You seem convinced the world is divided into straights and gays.

It could be that people who are not intrinsically gay sometimes engage in gay behavior and it also could be that no one is intrinsically gay.

"or indulge in risky sexual behavior with someone of their own sex, and there is nothing in the world that supports that speculation."

Oh, nothing but common sense.

"Of course learning about sexual orientation does not make a person "turn gay""

see above

"or even experiment with sexual behaviors."

It might, if it is taught in a valueless context.

There is already, with the heightened gay agenda emphasis of the last couple of years, a new trend of high school kids declaring themselves to be "bi".

And those who call themselves "bi" may experiment.

November 27, 2010 12:13 AM  
Blogger Emproph said...

Sociopathanon: “If biblical sexual morality were practiced by a society, AIDS would disappear.”

1) I could respect that position, but it’s not credible coming from someone who is only interested in enforcing “biblical sexual morality” onto society’s LGBT population.

2) “Biblical sexual morality” is just a ruse to attempt to hide your personal disdain for gay persons. If you truly believed in “biblical sexual morality,” you would also approve of incest and polygamy.

3) Incest: How do you think God’s original design for the first immediate family was able to “be fruitful and multiply?” Just wondering, were the kids screwing each other, or their parents, or was it a combination of both?
---God approved incest

4) What the Bible says is irrelevant. If you need an outside source to tell you what to believe then you’re the one with the problem.

5) Polygamy: 2 Samuel 12: 1) The LORD sent Nathan to David. … 7) Then Nathan said to David … This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: …8) I gave your master’s … wives into your arms. … And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more. … 11) “This is what the LORD says: … I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives…
---God approved polygamy

6) Luke 16:18: 18 “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
---God condemned remarriage

If you really believed in the Bible, one would think you’d have more concern for those unrepentant adulterous souls.

So cut the crap about your sexual mores coming from the Bible.

November 27, 2010 8:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

emprobably stupid:

the topic here was whether opposition to the gay agenda constitutes "hatred"

most who oppose the gay agenda also support other aspects of biblical morality

most who support the gay agenda believe as you do: "What the Bible says is irrelevant"

adherence to all aspects of biblical morality, including the prohibition on same gender lust, would end the AIDS epidemic

Christianity does indeed concern itself with redeeming all types of sinners

thieves and murderers and sorcerers and adulterers, however, are not claiming they have a civil right to such activity

attitudes like yours condemn homosexuals to more suffering and are, thus, malevolent

and so, it could be argued, TTF is a hate group

November 27, 2010 9:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Christianity does indeed concern itself with redeeming all types of sinners"
We assume, hypocrite "Anonymous" that you include yourself if the category of those who must be redeemed.

"They who prematurely put themselves forward to root out whatever is displeasing to them overthrow the judgment of God and rashly intrude upon the office of angels."
John Calvin

"In judging of others, a man laboreth in vain, often erreth and easily sinneth; but in judging and examining himself, he always laboreth fruitfully."
Thomas a Kempis

November 28, 2010 12:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"We assume, hypocrite "Anonymous" that you include yourself if the category of those who must be redeemed."

You would assume correctly. There is no one who doesn't fall into that category.

""They who prematurely put themselves forward to root out whatever is displeasing to them overthrow the judgment of God and rashly intrude upon the office of angels."
John Calvin"

Those who oppose the normalization of homosexuality aren't pushing a personal preference but applying God's preference as revealed in scripture.

Not supporting gay "marriage", the repeal of DADT or teaching kids that homosexuality is normal is not "rooting" anything out. It is resisting planting seeds that grow into roots.

""In judging of others, a man laboreth in vain, often erreth and easily sinneth; but in judging and examining himself, he always laboreth fruitfully."
Thomas a Kempis"

You fail to distinguish between judging individuals and judging behaviors.

This goes back to your failure to recognize that we are not defined by our behavior.

You fail to do so because you hold a deterministic materialist viewpoint.

You also fail to recognize that homosexuality is a unique sin in the sense that it does more harm to the one who commits it than to anyone else.

"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."

Therefore, it is benevolence to hope those caught up in this self-destructive act would get better.

It is malevolent to encourage others to fall into this self-destructuve trap.

The Family Research Council endeavours to provide help to those afflicted with the desire to have same gender sexual relations.

TTF tells them they must learn to live with it, and celebrate their suffering.

November 28, 2010 6:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon:
"...applying God's preference as revealed in scripture."

This is, of course, YOUR interpretation of what scripture says. YOU are not the final determiner of what is contained in scripture. People who do not hold to your simplistic ideas of what the scripture tell us do not agree with your viewpoint.

You also hypocritically say: "You fail to distinguish between judging individuals and judging behaviors."

You ALWAYS, endlessly, judge homosexuals, based on your constant focus on what you think is homosexual behavior, never on individual behavior. This blog site is replete with your obsession about this. I suppose that compulsively focusing on other's perceived "sins" makes you feel much better about yourself. In the end, you will be judged for this sin.

"Judge not, lest ye be judged"

November 28, 2010 12:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

here, from Genesis 2, is the story of the first sin:

"1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”
2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves."

Basically, the devil said, that whole idea that you can't eat the fruit is a simplistic interpretation.

Where else have I heard that recently?

oh yeah, here we go:

"This is, of course, YOUR interpretation of what scripture says. YOU are not the final determiner of what is contained in scripture. People who do not hold to your simplistic ideas of what the scripture tell us do not agree with your viewpoint."

The passages that condemn homosexuality are clear. The idea that they aren't is as devilish as what the serpent said in the Garden.

"You ALWAYS, endlessly, judge homosexuals, based on your constant focus on what you think is homosexual behavior, never on individual behavior."

No, I agree with the scriptural view of homosexuality.

Everyone must judge what behavior is right and wrong.

Are you saying you don't?

November 28, 2010 1:32 PM  
Blogger Emproph said...

Anon: “the story of the first sin:”

Genesis 2:17: “but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil”

[Genesis 3:6] “she took some and ate it”

How is it possible for someone to commit a sin before they know the meaning of evil?

November 28, 2010 11:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

read Genesis 1-3 and see how

November 29, 2010 4:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The Family Research Council endeavours to provide help to those afflicted with the desire to have same gender sexual relations."

The Family Research Council is a radical Christo-fascist organization that preaches ignorance, hate, bigotry, and intolerance.

Hardly an example to follow.

November 29, 2010 12:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The Family Research Council is a radical Christo-fascist organization that preaches ignorance, hate, bigotry, and intolerance."

As the 38-comment dialogue above demonstrates, you are wrong.

November 29, 2010 6:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well now, Anon...we are even. I believe that you are wrong, too!

Your focus on what the Bible says about homosexuality (six admonishments) fails, at the same time, to mention the 362 admonishments to heterosexuals.

Quoting Lincoln: "It is better to keep one's mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and resolve all doubt"

November 29, 2010 8:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Your focus on what the Bible says about homosexuality (six admonishments) fails, at the same time, to mention the 362 admonishments to heterosexuals."

the topic is here is homosexuality

you are using the regular diversionary tactic

all the admonishments of the Bible are correct, 6 + 362 + many more

you're fooling no one

November 29, 2010 8:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not diversionary at all, Anon. Although it is really not necessary to point out your obvious and well-known hypocracy to regular readers here, it does help to illustrate your ignorance and hatefulness for any new readers who might happen upon this site.

If you are so troubled by what you perceive to be the sins of GLBT people, perhaps you could take a breath once in a while and do some self-examination about your role in life.

If you want to save the world, why not begin at home and in the vast arena of nasty, loathsome heterosexual sins? Solving those is more likely to favor you in the eyes of God.

November 30, 2010 10:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous
You said: "Everyone must judge what behavior is right and wrong."

I believe the message in the Biblical injunction to "judge not, lest ye be judged" tell us to be responsible for our own sins and seek redemption...it does not place us in the position of judging others and what might be perceived to be their sins.

"In judging of others, a man laboreth in vain, often erreth and easily sinneth; but in judging and examining himself, he always laboreth fruitfully."
Thomas a Kempis
Dwell

November 30, 2010 10:13 AM  
Blogger Emproph said...

Sociopathanon: “thieves and murderers and sorcerers and adulterers, however, are not claiming they have a civil right to such activity”

To equate stealing and killing with same-gender attraction is to equate malevolence with existence. Which…carry the one…equals amorality.

sorcerers … however, are not claiming they have a civil right to such activity”

Oh you’d be surprised, the “casting spells to conjure up goblins” movement is gaining momentum.

adulterers, however, are not claiming they have a civil right to such activity”

That’s because remarriage is already a civil right. To spell it out for you, people who already have the civil right to do something don’t have to “claim” a civil right to it.
---
“and so, it could be argued, TTF is a hate group”

No need to argue, TTF is a hate group. We hate lying and hypocrisy.
---
“You also fail to recognize that homosexuality is a unique sin in the sense that it does more harm to the one who commits it than to anyone else.”

Am I to understand that you think the only way to protect us from doing harm to ourselves is to demonize us, dehumanize us, demoralize us, lie about us and spread lies about us?
---
-Emproph: “How is it possible for someone to commit a sin before they know the meaning of evil?”
-Sociopathanon: “read Genesis 1-3 and see how”

The question stands on its own.

In other Genesis news…

"“But the LORD God called to the man, “Where are you?” … “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?” … “What is this you have done?””

That’s a lot of questions for a god who knows all, don’t you think?
---
-Commenter with a conscience: “The Family Research Council is a radical Christo-fascist organization that preaches ignorance, hate, bigotry, and intolerance.”
-Sociopathanon: “As the 38-comment dialogue above demonstrates, you are wrong.”

Which 38-comment dialogue have you been reading? Do you know what year it is? Can you tell me the name of the current president? How many fingers am I holding up?
---
And finally, the award for the most pitch-perfect projection quotes in a row goes to…

Sociopathanon: “You fail to distinguish between judging individuals and judging behaviors.

This goes back to your failure to recognize that we are not defined by our behavior.

You fail to do so because you hold a deterministic materialist viewpoint.”


Good god man, open a cineplex already.

December 01, 2010 8:53 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home