Too Good!
The Family Blah-Blah groups prefer the word "homosexual" to "gay" because it has "sexual" in it, and they want you to think that all gay people ever do is have sex all day, every day. So when they get a, you know, "politically correct" wire story, the America Family Association's OneNewsNow web site just goes ahead and changes all instances of the word "gay" to "homosexual." Automatically.
So there's an Olympic track runner named Tyson Gay. He won his semifinal races, and the Family Blah Blah guys wanted to post the news.
You can guess how it came out:
Right Wing Watch has a whole list of these things.
Sometime you have to laugh just to keep from crying.
So there's an Olympic track runner named Tyson Gay. He won his semifinal races, and the Family Blah Blah guys wanted to post the news.
You can guess how it came out:
Right Wing Watch has a whole list of these things.
Sometime you have to laugh just to keep from crying.
posted by JimK at 1:36 PM
45 Comments:
Wow. That is pretty sad. This reminds me of my students of when I taught elementary school. I guess some people just never grow up and think for themselves.
I teach my Spanish students that we don't translate proper nouns (in this case, from the English language to the Hate language). Should I give the Family BLAH BLAH a lesson as well?
The guy's not all bad. If he would only come out in favor of life, we could have a real election instead of only one acceptable choice:
"CHICAGO (AP) - Reaching out to evangelical voters, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is announcing plans to expand President Bush's program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups and - in a move sure to cause controversy - support some ability to hire and fire based on faith.
Obama was unveiling his approach to getting religious charities more involved in government anti-poverty programs during a tour and remarks Tuesday in Zanesville, Ohio, at Eastside Community Ministry, which provides food, clothes, youth ministry and other services.
"The challenges we face today ... are simply too big for government to solve alone," Obama was to say, according to a prepared text of his remarks obtained by The Associated Press. "We need all hands on deck."
The Democratic presidential candidate spent Monday talking about his vision of patriotism in the battleground state of Missouri. By twinning that with Tuesday's talk about faith in another battleground state, he was attempting to settle debate in two key areas where his beliefs have come under question while also trying to make inroads with constituencies that are traditionally loyal to Republicans and oppose Obama on other grounds.
But Obama's support for letting religious charities that receive federal funding consider religion in employment decisions could invite a protest from those in his own party who view such faith requirements as discrimination.
Obama does not support requiring religious tests for recipients of aid nor using federal money to proselytize, according to a campaign fact sheet. He also only supports letting religious institutions hire and fire based on faith in the non-taxypayer funded portions of their activities, said a senior adviser to the campaign, who spoke on condition of anonymity to more freely describe the new policy.
Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, criticized Obama's proposed expansion of a program he said has undermined civil rights and civil liberties.
"I am disappointed that any presidential candidate would want to continue a failed policy of the Bush administration," he said. "It ought to be shut down, not continued."
Bush supports broader freedoms for taxpayer-funded religious charities. But he never got Congress to go along so he has conducted the program through administrative actions and executive orders.
David Kuo, a conservative Christian who was deputy director of Bush's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives until 2003 and later became a critic of Bush's commitment to the cause, said Obama's position on hiring has the potential to be a major "Sister Souljah moment" for his campaign.
This is a reference to Bill Clinton's accusation in his 1992 presidential campaign that the hip hop artist incited violence against whites. Because Clinton said this before a black audience, it fed into an image of him as a bold politician who was willing to take risks and refused to pander.
"This is a massive deal," said Kuo, who is not an Obama adviser or supporter but was contacted by the campaign to review the new plan.
Obama proposes to elevate the program to a "moral center" of his administration, by renaming it the Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, and changing training from occasional huge conferences to empowering larger religious charities to mentor smaller ones in their communities.
Saying social service spending has been shortchanged under Bush, he also proposes a $500 million per year program to provide summer learning for 1 million poor children to help close achievement gaps with white and wealthier students. A campaign fact sheet said he would pay for it by better managing surplus federal properties, reducing growth in the federal travel budget and streamlining the federal procurement process.
Like Bush, Obama was arguing that religious organizations can and should play a bigger role in serving the poor and meeting other social needs. But while Bush argued that the strength of religious charities lies primarily in shared religious identity between workers and recipients, Obama was to tout the benefits of their "bottom-up" approach.
"Because they're so close to the people, they're well-placed to offer help," he was to say.
Kuo called Obama's approach smart, impressive and well thought-out but took a wait-and-see attitude about whether it would deliver.
"When it comes to promises to help the poor, promises are easy," said Kuo, who wrote a 2006 book describing his frustration at what he called Bush's lackluster enthusiasm for the program. "The question is commitment."
Obama also planned to talk bluntly about the genesis of his Christian faith in his work as a community organizer in Chicago, and its importance to him now.
"In time, I came to see faith as being both a personal commitment to Christ and a commitment to my community; that while I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work," he was to say."
Hmmm...Derrick the Pathetic thinks homosexual is a hate term? Could TTF start some kind of glossary with monthly updates to let us know the current version of the English language we should be using?
Dearest Anon:
"Homosexual" is not a preferred way to speak of us. It implies disrespect, at a minimum. I never use it in reference to myself or my community. When the religious right and other anti-lgbt organizations and individuals use this word, they intend to belittle us.
Jim's example is just too funny. Talk about biting yourself in the ass....
Here's a Post story about a trans woman trying to marry her boyfriend in Virginia. Lot's of mystery about this, since the press can't seem to get hold of the people involved.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/30/AR2008063002069.html
In anticipation of the usual Pavlovian response, dear anonymous, no one cares what you think.
rrjr
""Homosexual" is not a preferred way to speak of us. It implies disrespect, at a minimum. I never use it in reference to myself or my community. When the religious right and other anti-lgbt organizations and individuals use this word, they intend to belittle us."
Why shouldn't they? This is what those groups object to: deviant sexual activity between those of the same gender. If two guys just like hanging out with each other and share a apartment, no one has any problem.
However, groups who feel same gender sexual activity is opposed to God's will for man have a perfect right to show such activity disrespect.
"Homosexual" is an accurate description.
That's the facts!
Anon is like having our own little bigot-machine. You press the button and hatefulness comes out. Can I have that with two creams and a sugar?
rrjr
Yes, he sure is, Robert.
That's why I refer to him/her/it as AnonBigot.
Happy Independence Day, everyone!
Have a safe, patriotic weekend. Remember, we are a country of the FREE not of the REPRESSED!
Derrick,
I hope you're enjoying your summer vacation. I'm reveling in the long days of nothing to do, no obligations, no grading. Sadly, I find myself filing my transparencies by chapter and writing lessons for next year. Oy vey!
Happy 4th to all.
rrjr
Anonymous said: "However, groups who feel same gender sexual activity is opposed to God's will for man have a perfect right to show such activity disrespect."
The key question here is: whose God - yours or mine? I prefer mine because he is Love.
RT
Anonymous said...
"Hmmm...Derrick the Pathetic thinks homosexual is a hate term? Could TTF start some kind of glossary with monthly updates to let us know the current version of the English language we should be using?"
Yowza! What a great idea! It should have two columns, one for the liberal/progressive definition of a word, the other column the conservative/regressive (/repressive?) definition.
Let's start with 'truth', 'liberty' and 'freedom'...
Hazumu
Andrea- not anon
This would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.
Robert, could you explain what you mean?
“Homosexual" is not a preferred way to speak of us. It implies disrespect, at a minimum.”
Is heterosexual not a preferred way to speak also? What about bisexual? Should the terms be changed in the curriculum?
"Let's start with 'truth', 'liberty' and 'freedom'"
It would be an excellent start.
We could then move on to "tolerance", "family" and the ever popular "marriage".
You start first, has-uh-moo.
'truth', 'liberty' and 'freedom'
The truth about Bill 23-07 is that the language covering bathrooms was removed before it was unanimously approved by the County Council and signed into law by Ike Leggett. This means the existing law covering bathrooms will not be changed by this bill, which protects transgenders from discrimination in employment, housing, taxi and cable services. Even more of the truth would be that the real reason CRG wants the bill recalled is that they want to be free to continue to discriminate against transgender people in employment, housing, taxi and cable services.
"If two guys just like hanging out with each other and share a apartment, no one has any problem.
However, groups who feel same gender sexual activity is opposed to God's will for man have a perfect right to show such activity disrespect."
Because God is a man, with a penis - as defined by men, with penises. So it makes perfect sense that “God” would get queasy over the thought of two guys doin’ it.
It would also stand to reason that heterosexual men who worship their genitals over their spines would consider their own “ick factor” to be the basis of their religion.
"prohibit discrimination in housing, employment, public accommodations, cable
television service, and taxicab service on the basis of gender identity"
This is the wording of proposed bill 23-07, which has yet to be approved by the citizens of Montgomery County and probably never will be.
Here's what the liar, a poster calling himself "Aunt Bea", said:
"This means the existing law covering bathrooms will not be changed by this bill, which protects transgenders from discrimination in employment, housing, taxi and cable services. Even more of the truth would be that the real reason CRG wants the bill recalled is that they want to be free to continue to discriminate against transgender people in employment, housing, taxi and cable services."
Notice that bill 23-07 covers five areas and "Aunt Bea" lists four. What's the discrepancy?
Oh, yeah. Public accomodations. One of which is restrooms.
Lest you think "Aunt Bea" is an oddball, lone ranger, remember all the TTF supporters repeat this lie on a regular basis.
He's just a mimic!
Anon said:
“Notice that bill 23-07 covers five areas and "Aunt Bea" lists four. What's the discrepancy?
Oh, yeah. Public accomodations. (sic) One of which is restrooms.
Lest you think "Aunt Bea" is an oddball, lone ranger, remember all the TTF supporters repeat this lie on a regular basis.”
From Montgomery County Code, a list of Public Accommodations:
Sec. 27-10. Scope.
(a) This division applies to every public accommodation of any kind in the County whose facilities, accommodations, services, commodities, or use are offered
to or enjoyed by the general public either with or without charge, such as:
(1) restaurants, soda fountains, and other eating or drinking places, and all places where food is sold for consumption either on or off the premises;
(2) inns, hotels, and motels, whether serving temporary or permanent patrons;
(3) retail stores and service establishments;
(4) hospitals and clinics;
(5) motion picture, stage, and other theaters and music, concert, or meeting halls;
(6) circuses, exhibitions, skating rinks, sports arenas and fields, amusement or recreation parks, picnic grounds, fairs, bowling alleys, golf courses, gymnasiums, shooting galleries, billiard and pool rooms, and swimming pools;
(7) public conveyances, such as automobiles, buses, taxicabs, trolleys, trains, limousines, boats, airplanes, and bicycles;
(8) utilities, such as water and sewer service, electricity, telephone, and cable television;
(9) streets, roads, sidewalks, other public rights-of-way, parking lots or garages, marinas, airports, and hangars; and
(10) places of public assembly and entertainment of every kind.
(b) In this Chapter, “public accommodation” includes any service, program, or activity offered to or used by the general public.
(c) This division does not apply to accommodations that are distinctly private or personal.
Read the last one above again:
(c) This division does not apply to accommodations that are distinctly private or personal.
If 23-07 doesn’t go into effect, you may well discriminate against me at hotels restaurants, hospitals, air ports, and theatres -- and you will legally be able to do so, which I can only guess at what kind of satisfaction you derive from that.
However, transwomen have been using the ladies room in Montgomery County for decades, and transmen have been using the men’s room as well, without incident. If 23-07 doesn’t go into effect, I will not suddenly go back to using the men’s room. I doubt any other trans folk will either.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Peace,
Cynthia
Cynthia
"Private and personal" refers to non-public places like homes and country clubs not restrooms in business establishments.
How do we know? Because it is applied that way for groups that are already mentioned in the unamended law like racial minorities.
As for your "shocking" statement that everyone is already using the bathroom they want to, I'd ask you why then we need this law. I'd also say transgenders are having no trouble whatsoever getting cable, taxis or seats in restaurants. They have may have some employment issues but there are legitimate reasons why someone might not want to hire a transgender and it's not really the government's business to second-guess the decisions of business owners in managing their business.
The real reason for the proposed bill is to further the gay agenda by having a governmental body endorse a redefinition of gender from a biological phenomenom to a behavioral one.
In other words, the bathroom issue is the small lie.
The intent of the bill is the big lie.
Gay: Someone who is attracted to human-intimacy with the same gender.
Homosexual: One who actively seeks mindless promiscuous sex with someone of the same gender.
--
Personally, I try to use the word 'homosexual' with the word 'heterosexual', and gay with straight, etc., depending on how I am describing or talking about a situation.
Sometimes a word just fits better, and sometimes the sexual component is indeed being discussed.
However, to reiterate, the word itself is not the problem, it’s the intentional use of it to depict us as being sexual in a way that is above and beyond human sexuality - specifically in a perverse way.
Obviously that’s the opinion of many, and to much of an extent, I can actually sympathize with it, fair enough. But by defining us by our “perversion” -- through the use of the word “homoSEXual” -- the AFA demonstrates its DESIRE to not only see us as perverts, but to ensure that others see us in the same perverted way that they do.
And therein lies the bigotry rub.
Being prejudiced doesn’t necessarily make one a bigot, it’s in the DESIRE to continue to feel prejudiced and hateful and superior to others that makes one a supremacist.
Which is what a bigot really is when it boils down to it.
As I’ve said before, I too consider myself to be a supremacist, because I consider myself to be morally superior to supremacists.
The difference is, I’m motivated by the desire to eventually be friends with you people. In other words, I don’t WANT to hate you. I do, but I recognize it as a moral failing on my part, and NOT as the basis of any ‘moral’ foundation.
--
Breaking News: Exclusive interview with Militant Homosexual Activist “Emproph”:
“I’m homosexually motivated by the homosexual desire to eventually be homosexual friends with you people. In other words, I don’t WANT to homosexually hate you. I do, but I -- as a homosexual -- recognize it as a moral failing on my homosexual part, and NOT as the basis of any homosexual moral foundation.
--
anonymous said...
"Homosexual" is an accurate description.
In quick succession, Aunt Bea, Hazumu and Cynthia pressed the"spew" button, with the expected and invariable results, a stream of hatred. The consistency is remarkable.
I wonder if Anonymous passes the Turing Test. Is he/she a human being typing at us, or is it a machine which can not be distinguished from a human being by its electronic communications?
BTW, if anyone has time, go to Wikipedia or another source and look up Alan Turing, originator of the Turing Test. He was a remarkable mathemetician, a hero of the allied war efforts against fascism, and a victim of governmental homophobia. His story, though tragic, for me underscores how far a society (England) can come in ending discrimination and hatred, even in the short span of 50 years. It gives me hope for my own nation.
rrjr
"However, to reiterate, the word itself is not the problem, it’s the intentional use of it to depict us as being sexual in a way that is above and beyond human sexuality - specifically in a perverse way."
OK, em, what you object to is the idea that homosexuals are more promiscuous than normal people. Why can't you just argue that position without trying to redefine words? We are charitable when we note your tendency to try to redefine all language to support the gay agenda.
What we really mean is: you're a liar.
"In quick succession, Aunt Bea, Hazumu and Cynthia pressed the"spew" button, with the expected and invariable results, a stream of hatred. The consistency is remarkable."
I believe you brought up Pavlov yesterday, Robert. I wonder if any Pavlovian techniques have been used to try to cure homosexuals.
Have you ever seen Clockwork Orange? Maybe that would work.
Our own little Turing machine posited:
"I believe you brought up Pavlov yesterday, Robert. I wonder if any Pavlovian techniques have been used to try to cure homosexuals.
Have you ever seen Clockwork Orange? Maybe that would work."
Dear friends,
Anon's knee-jerking aside, I can witness from horrific personal experience that neither of the techniques he references is effective. It is much to the shame of the profession of medicine that its practitioners used regularly to engage in shock treatments (ECT), aversion treatments, chemically induced coma, ice baths, and administration of large doses of estrogen to "cure" same-gender attractions. As recently as seven years I had a psychitrist suggest electro-shock therapy for exactly that purpose.
Because I myself, from my own experience, can speak of the horrors of "reparative therapy", and beyond that to the general humiliation involved in "conversion ministries", I've earned the personal hatred of Regina and Theresa. As for Anon, I don't really have to do anything to get hatefulness from him, just press the button, press the button, press the button. His inhumane and dangerous suggestions only emphasize that this isn't, for he and his like, about defending marriage, keeping bathrooms private, and effective military, or any of that: it's really about a basic desire to harm queer people.
I can not express my endless thanks to groups such as TTF that fight the frontline battle of keeping PFOX and CRW, and other anti-queer groups, away from our vulnerable and impressionable children. You don't have to do it, you don't make money doing it, you engender verbal and personal attacks doing it, but you continue, because you think it matters.
Hurray for TTF and all it's supporters.
rrjr
"it's really about a basic desire to harm queer people"
Robbie
If a person voluntarily enters a program where their eyelids are taped open and shown films and they lose the desire to engage in homosexual acts, they are not harmed. They are helped.
"what you object to is the idea that homoSEXuals are more promiscuous than normal people.
What we really mean is: you're a liar."
Except that you have no evidence of this about me, which makes you not only a liar, but one who projects their own dishonesty onto others.
emslob
the AIDS statistics continually support the fact that homosexuals are more promiscuous than normal people
Again we press the buttons on the machine, and hatefulness is served up. I wonder if he/she/it will ever break down and cease to function, or run out of power.
I think its source of energy is other people's righteous anger; or perhaps it is greased by the oil of meanness.
Regardless, I am amazed that time after time, response after response, post after post, he/she/it takes other people's comments as an opportunity to express hatefulness. Remarkable.
The name Robbie, by the way, reminds me of a short story by Isaac Aximov (of glorious memory), about a robot with feelings.
BTW, Emproph, I thought your explication of the use of "homosexual" in different contexts was very cogent. Do you mind if I steal some of your material?
rrjr
sure, go ahead, Robbie
it belongs to the whole homosexual agenda
I press the button and....
"the AIDS statistics continually support the fact that homosexuals are more promiscuous than normal people"
According to that reasoning, heterosexual Africans are more promiscuous than gay American males, and lesbians have no sex what so ever!
Argument By Repetition (Argument Ad Nauseam): "if you say something often enough, some people will begin to believe it.
----
"BTW, Emproph, I thought your explication of the use of "homosexual" in different contexts was very cogent. Do you mind if I steal some of your material?"
Steal away :), always!
"According to that reasoning, heterosexual Africans are more promiscuous than gay American males, and lesbians have no sex what so ever!"
Actually, those two statements don't follow from the same reasoning but thanks for making a fool of yourself.
"Actually, those two statements don't follow from the same reasoning"
Sure they do, but thanks for making a fool of yourself for pretending that they don't.
oh, OK, emslob
I must be a fool
Go ahead and 'splain how the logic leads to blacks and lesbians
Personally, I think the major factor in the differences in HIV infection rates is the differential in the transmission rates between the risks of insertive and receptive intercourse, the differential between men and women in IV drug use and incarceration. This could explain the rise in new infections among young women.
Anon, no need to comment.
You just can't comprehend science can you Anon?
Maybe you will understand the figures on race discussed here.
As to lesbians, they have the lowest rate of HIV/AIDS of any group. Scroll down to the table for FEMALES and you'll see that 80% of their HIV/AIDS was acquired from "High-risk heterosexual contact," 19% from "Injection drug use," and 1% from "Other."
Interesting table on females, Aunt Bea.
It appears that being a lesbian who does not inject drugs greatly reduces females' chances of being exposed to HIV/AIDS.
Pat
"You just can't comprehend science can you Anon?"
I understand it just fine. So does everyone else. Male homosexuals have the highest rate of AIDS infection because they commonly engage in anal intercourse with a large network of inviduals.
Lesbians don't so they don't.
They are other factors for the race statistics.
You "comprehend" pseudo-science that rationalizes an acquittal of deviant behavior for its crimes against public health. You have no regard for facts.
Emslob's notion that rates among lesbians and blacks prove that homosexual males are not promiscuous is ridiculous.
Homosexual males engage in a promiscuity of a type that exposes them to a large pool of infections and engage in high-risk sexual practices at a higher rate.
That's the facts!
And lesbianism is safer than heterosexuality for women.
That's the facts.
It is indeed a fact but lesbianism may not be healthy for society in general.
While we're at it, we must also remember that a life where safety is the sole goal is not much of a life at all.
life where safety is the sole goal is not much of a life at all.
Tell that to your people the fear mongerers from the showernuts to the GOP.
"Emslob's notion that rates among lesbians and blacks prove that homosexual males are not promiscuous is ridiculous."
I didn’t say blacks, I said heterosexual Africans - “normal people” as you call them, for whom HIV rates are greatest. Which is in direct contradiction to your statement that: "the AIDS statistics continually support the fact that homosexuals are more promiscuous than normal people"
Nor am I trying to “prove” that homosexual males are not promiscuous. Gay males who are promiscuous, are promiscuous. Gay males who are not promiscuous, are not promiscuous. Your assertion that you not only speak for all gay males, but that all monogamous / celibate etc., gay males are somehow also promiscuous, simply because they are gay, is what is ridiculous.
Nothing applies to everyone, emslob. Obviously, there are some homosexuals who limit their deviancy to a small group but the general tendency is for homosexuals to be promiscuous and very promiscuous. Homosexuality leads to that. The AIDS numbers bear this out.
That's the facts!
"Tell that to your people the fear mongerers from the showernuts to the GOP."
If you're talking about responsible people as opposed to liberals, they already know it, B.
They just don't think deviancy is worth the risk.
Which brings us right back to where we originally started. I repeat:
"According to that reasoning, heterosexual Africans are more promiscuous than gay American males, and lesbians have no sex what so ever!
Argument By Repetition (Argument Ad Nauseam): "if you say something often enough, some people will begin to believe it."
Andrea-not anon
In honor of our freedom of choice, I am going to use the men's room at Starbucks tomorrow just like I did on Memorial day. To heck with you, anon.
No, sorry, AnonBigot, "fearmongers" are not "responsible people," although you apparently equate the two. Fearmongers are cowards who use fear and loathing rather than reason to try to denigrate our LGBT brothers and sisters, among others.
Fearmongers are cowardly deviants. You, for example, are such a coward and so ashamed of yourself that you can't even pick a "nom de plume" and stick to it. Instead of saying "that Anon wasn't me," try being confident enough in what you say to accept responsibility for your own statements.
Post a Comment
<< Home