…and they call us “intolerant.” Liberal Fascism Part MMVIII
Posted on May 13, 2008
Check out the demonstration of “tolerance” at the college in this video.
How is it that homosexual activists claim that one cannot possibly be an “ex-gay” when there are literally thousands of real people who wanted to leave the lifestyle and successfully did so? Who are THEY to say that change is not possible just because they have chosen to continue practicing homosexual behavior? Why do they feel the need to shut down all debate on the issue in a manner that would tickle the toes of totalitarians of every generation?
These are the types of people represented by the extreme leftwing of the Democrat Party. Barack Obama is the exemplar of this movement, despite the lofty “heaven right here on earth,” “fix our souls” rhetoric.
“A Republic…if you can keep it.” We won’t if these totalitarians seize power.
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, ACLU, Bigotry, Fascism, Homosexual Agenda, News, Politics As Usual, Psychology, State of Education, Stupidity, Video
Trackback URL
Comments
15 Responses to “…and they call us “intolerant.” Liberal Fascism Part MMVIII”
Affiliations
The Giants
-
1) Reparative “therapy” has been proven to be harmful and is rejected by every reputable psychological, medical, and child advocacy group. The failure rate is enormous, and there are far more “ex-ex-gays” than there are “ex-gays”.
2) Being celibate is a good choice for some people. Demanding it of others because you don’t like their sexual practices is beyond unreasonable.
3) Would you marry an “ex-gay” person? Would you encourage a family member to do so? I certainly wouldn’t.
3)
No one is demading anything of anyone Thomas.
This is where people like you just don’t get it. It is about personal choice. So why would homosexual activists react so violently to someone’s mere existence.
Your first point is nothing more than propaganda. The professional organizations of which you speak are controlled by boards that are bought, sold, stamped, delivered and convened only with the permission of the radical homosexual lobby.
Anyway, whether all attempts to escape unwanted sexual attraction end up successful is not even a point worth making. The fact is, some people want a choice, some people seek options other than affirmation of and encouragement to continue engaging in dangerous sexual behavior. The truth is, THOUSANDS have successfully freed themselves from the chains they themselves chose to shed. To dehumanize and (sometimes physically) attack people who have made a choice to leave homosexual behavior a part of their past is vile, fascistic and hypocritical when practice by those who fly the banner of tolernace in everyone else’s face.
GF, here’s where you don’t get it. Not every viewpoint or idea requires equal levels of tolerance.
These “ex-gay” people may have made the personal choice to be celibate. That’s completely fine with me and I leave them to it. I bet you wouldn’t marry one, though. And that’s because, deep down where it counts, you know that sexual orientation is not a choice. If you insist that it is, I have to ask how many people of the same sex did you make out with before you decided it wasn’t for you?
The anger comes from the spreading of lies on the subject. I don’t blame the activists (not all of whom are gay, BTW) for speaking out strongly against them.
As for “propaganda”, it seems more than a tad paranoid to suggest that a vast cabal of gay folks could unduly influence scores of well-established medical boards, mental health associations, and child welfare groups. There simply aren’t enough gay people to do that. But if you think that the medical profession is utterly corrupt, do us all a favor if your appendix is about to rupture: put your money where your mouth is and call a faith healer or a vet. I’m sure that handling a few snakes while speaking in tongues will break your fever, and if the vet spays you by accident, it’ll really be no big deal.
The news report was surprisingly balanced. Good for them.
Those protestors are such hypocrites. What is wrong with discussing the topic? Ah, the one way street of liberal “tolerance.”
Neil, would you say that there was “nothing wrong with discussing the topic” if the topic was a debate about African-Americans having genetically lower intelligence? How about a discussion about the earth being flat?
The outrage is coming from the lies that they spread.
These “ex-gay” people don’t want to live celibate lives in peace - they have an agenda, and they use propaganda to spread their lies. Of course, we love “ex-gays”, we just hate their sin. Oh, if they weren’t constantly shoving it down our throats…
Sound familiar? It should.
“it seems more than a tad paranoid to suggest that a vast cabal of gay folks…”
You are right about one thing. It is not a vast cabal, it is a very small, powerful and well-organized intimidation machine.
Did you even watch the report Thomas? Who shut down the debate at the conference?
Who got homosexuality removed from the APA’s list of disorders? There was no new science that led to its removal, just a new brand of politics.
Why do we continue hearing lies about AIDS? Why does AIDS command more per-infection research dollars than any other completely preventable disease in the history of mankind and probably more than any other disease of any kind?
Why do hundreds of public universities have speech codes and “non-discrimination” policies set up specifically to shut down any criticism of the dangers of homosexual behavior?
Why are there “human rights” commissions set up in more than 20 states, some of which (most notably NJ and NM) that have ruled the Christians and Christian organizations must participate in the conduct of same-sex “commitment ceremonies” or face sanction?
If you can’t see the ridiculously disproportionate and freedom-threatening impact that the advocates of the homosexual agedna have had on this country, you choose to be blind.
“The anger comes from the spreading of lies on the subject”
OK, so who is lying: Special interests who claim it is impossible for someone to leave the homosexual lifestyle or someone who has actually chosen to leave the homosexual lifestyle and is now, not “celibate” (as you seem to think it’s sodomy or celibacy, nothing in between), but happily married for many years with children?
“Not every viewpoint or idea requires equal levels of tolerance.”
Oh yes, and every idea with which Thomas disagrees deserves to be shut down and every person expressing those ideas deserves to be physically accosted by a raging mob. A little of that fascist instinct infecting you Tommy Boy?
“would you say that there was “nothing wrong with discussing the topic” if the topic was a debate about African-Americans having genetically lower intelligence? How about a discussion about the earth being flat?”
I can’t imagine more irrelevant analogies than what you have attempted here.
Wow, GF. The disinformation machine has ground your mind to bits.
“It is not a vast cabal, it is a very small, powerful and well-organized intimidation machine.”
Really? Who? Evidence, please. I mean, real evidence that a teeny crew of gay folks can alter countless peer-reviewed studies.
“There was no new science that led to its removal, just a new brand of politics.”
Really? The APA is a scientific organization, not a political one. Also, 1973 was a long time ago, with fads in politics coming and going in predictable cycles. There is no evidence supporting your bizarre paranoiac claims.
“Why do we continue hearing lies about AIDS?”
What lies?
“Why does AIDS command more per-infection research dollars than any other completely preventable disease in the history of mankind and probably more than any other disease of any kind?”
Um, cancer gets a lot more attention. As for AIDS, Africa seems to be having a pandemic among its heterosexual population. Kind of a problem, methinks.
“Why do hundreds of public universities have speech codes and “non-discrimination” policies set up specifically to shut down any criticism of the dangers of homosexual behavior?”
Because those codes allow gay students to do what they are there to do, which is study, rather than be bait for bigoted cracker fratboy [edited].
“OK, so who is lying…”
The class of people who think that gay people can marry the opposite sex and merrily dance about with spouses and kids. McGreevey, anyone? Why won’t you marry an “ex-gay”? Hmm?
“Oh yes, and every idea with which Thomas disagrees deserves to be shut down and every person expressing those ideas deserves to be physically accosted by a raging mob.”
The only person who made that assertion was you. Not me. I think the fascist here needs to check a mirror, bub. However, I will say this… hate speech is not protected. It never has been - it has always had consequenses, usually ranging from social ostracization to other forms of disapproval. Welcome to the closet, GF, and enjoy your stay.
“Really? The APA is a scientific organization, not a political one. Also, 1973 was a long time ago, with fads in politics coming and going in predictable cycles. There is no evidence supporting your bizarre paranoiac claims.”
Read Satinover.
“What lies?”
Read Fumento.
“Um, cancer gets a lot more attention.”
Reading is fundamental Thomas. Per-infection spending for AIDS absolutely DWARVES that for each cancer patient.
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/NCI/research-funding
http://www.kff.org/hivaids/upload/Fact-Sheet-U-S-Federal-Funding-for-HIV-AIDS-The-FY-2006-Budget-Request.pdf
“As for AIDS, Africa seems to be having a pandemic among its heterosexual population. Kind of a problem, methinks.”
Have you been asleep? Have you noticed how much AMERICAN taxpayer money has been spent “fighting” AIDS in Africa? Yes, what has happened in Africa is a tragedy. Much different from what has happened in the US. AIDS in America can be eradicated in a generation if people would stop engaging in the behavior that results in AIDS (male-male sodomy, intravenous drug use and men who’ve engaged in sodomy having sex with unsuspecting women). But of course, we are all expected to be silent — the PC forces would rather people DIE than to tell a truth that will hurt the feelings of a group with disproportionate political influence.
“Because those codes allow gay students to do what they are there to do, which is study, rather than be bait for bigoted cracker fratboy [edited].”
So you agree with fascistic suppression on the free expression of ideas. I think the problem is squarely in your corner. If you can’t concentrate on studies because someone out there somewhere adheres to traditional values regarding sexual behavior (and of course is not doing ANYTHING to prevent you from engaging in any sort of behavior you choose) you have the problem. Speech codes, the fascist policies you so love, are flat-out unconstitutional. Welcome to America, where people are actually allowed to hold different viewpoints Thomas.
“The class of people…”
I am not talking about a “class of people,” I am talking about individuals who have made a choice and who are living their lives according to their own choices. Just because YOU can’t fathom that people can make choices like this doesn’t mean that these people are either lying or non-existent. That is the arrogance of the totalitarian mindset by which you are burdened.
“Why won’t you marry an “ex-gay”? Hmm?”
This is just plain stupid. Number one, I am already married. Number two, I believe in grace, mercy and changed hearts and lives. So if I weren’t married, I would not disqualify a woman simply for having once lived a homosexual lifestyle. Another of your “arguments”…up in flames.
“the fascist here needs to check a mirror”
Hey, I’m not the one who wants to criminalize ideas with which I don’t agree. You have stated a number of times in this thread that you would. I beleive in free debate and the exchange of ideas. You classify the expression of ideas YOU don’t like as criminal acts and justify your position by calling those ideas “hate.” Weak.
Poor, sad GF.
If you’re asking me to read the Satinover who’s a well-known bigot and Bible-code crackpot, I’ll pass, thanks. Likewise on the Monsanto whore-for-hire Fumento. Reading is indeed fundamental, but you would be well advised to elevate the quality of your reading material.
“Speech codes, the fascist policies you so love, are flat-out unconstitutional.”
Um, no, GF. Educational institutions have a stated purpose of educating, and may implement speech codes to avoid disruption of that process. See the Tinker case for details.
“Welcome to America, where people are actually allowed to hold different viewpoints Thomas.”
That doesn’t mean that all viewpoints are correct or of equal value. The KKK may parade through communities where Jews live in abundance, and Fred Phelps may spew vitriol at a nice safe distance from military funerals. That doesn’t make them right or worthy of any sort of recognition.
“So if I weren’t married, I would not disqualify a woman simply for having once lived a homosexual lifestyle.”
I think you’re lying. I mean you lied with this: “Hey, I’m not the one who wants to criminalize ideas with which I don’t agree. You have stated a number of times in this thread that you would.”
Face it, GF. All you’re really looking for is the “right” to demonize a segment of the population that scares you and threatens your cozy assumptions about the way things “ought to be”.
In much the same way that using ethnic slurs is no longer tolerated by decent, polite people, demonizing gay people is rapidly becoming unacceptable. There’s little you can do about it, and I know that must chafe. Perhaps you could consider expending your energy doing something worthwhile?
After all, history will not be kind to you and those who share your views:
http://www.hatecrime.org/subpages/hitler/hitler.html
Okay. You want gay people to believe in ex-gay conversion? Let me tell you, clearly and honestly, what it will take to start changing minds.
Y’all keep saying there are so many thousands of ex-gay people. PRODUCE SOME. But, the ones you’ve produced so far are inadequate, because they all carry the taint of money, or turned out to be liars. Gay people have seen too many “ex-gay” people shouting from the rooftops about their conversion to heterosexuality, only to be caught at a local gay bar six months later. Among those who don’t get caught so obviously, the rest all seem either to be in the pay of an organization with a vested interest in their heterosexuality (so they look like frauds), or to be wishy-washy about the level of their commitment to heterosexuality and the level of their departure from homosexuality. Even the major ex-gay organizations now state that “ex-gay” people (which they’ve never defined, by the way) usually have little feeling of actual heterosexual desire and usually have ongoing feelings of homosexual desire. A recent research study that they funded showed that hardly any people in their programs actually become straight, and that the programs are better at supporting behavoral modification, not actual change of feelings, and that the majority of those who say they have experienced “change” merely stop having sex, not become heterosexual. And the study was not long term.
So, there need to be some criteria for the ex-gay people you get to stand up and tell their story:
1) They need to have been “ex-gay” for at least 7 years. (To demonstrate they’re unlikely to change their mind.)
2) They must disclose their tax returns for the past 7 years to prove they’re not in the pay of anyone who would want them to fraudulently claim to be ex-gay, and swear under penalty of perjury that 100% of their income comes from sources unrelated to christian organizations or churches or any kind of “ex-gay” organization. (If they can’t do this, why should anyone believe they’re not “paid to be ex-gay”?)
3) They must clearly and unequivocally state that they were gay, had gay sex regularly, and felt physically and emotionally fulfilled by it, and that they were repulsed by heterosexual sex, with no feelings of heterosexual desire. (If they can’t honestly state this, why should anyone believe they were really gay?)
4) They must clearly and unequivocally state that for the past 7 years they are and have been fully heterosexual, have had heterosexual sex regularly, feel physically and emotionally fulfilled by it, and now feel repulsed by gay sex, with no feelings of same-sex desire in the past 7 years. (If they can’t honestly state this, why should anyone believe they’re really straight?)
If you can produce a couple dozen people who meet those four criteria, the gay community - and psychiatrists, most likely - may begin to take notice. Until then, whether it’s real or not, the whole “ex-gay” thing gives the appearance of being a big fraud.
Take ‘Miss Manner’s advice Thomas…
This is not someone with whom you should attempt to argue. Be grateful for the delete button.
See, Thomas? Your only real right to expression on this subject seems to be the right to be deleted. Buh-bye.
Don’t be so arrogant as to presume to tell members of this site what their rights are or are not!
Lobo
[...] The intolerance of the pro-GLBTQ movement - it is a one-way street. No discussion allowed. I thought the media reporting was surpisingly balanced. [...]
The fact that you are here making these claims is proof that you are 100% wrong when you say “no discussion allowed”. Nobody has a gun to your head. Grow up.
Sure there can be ex-gays! Heck, “ex-straights” make up about 99% of the homosexual community don’t they?
Seriously folks… Sexual orientation is an enduring attraction to the opposite or same or both genders. It has nothing to do with behavior. Otherwise all those girlies who try it with a girl in college would all be considered lesbians.
BUT…regardless, no one is allowed to define who you are. If you want to lay claim to being an ex-gay, so be it. If you want to lay claim to being an ex-straight, homo, gay, queer, christian, muslim, hindu, or a living room ensemble - so be it.
Don’t let others decide for you, who you are.