"Gathering Storm" Ad in Iowa

[Beanieboy]

Why is nobody scared when the teacher says it's ok to be Muslim?
It's not like a public school teacher can say, "No, sorry, Mohammed. You're going to hell. And you know, I'm not really comfortable with your hijab."

Doesn't someone going to mosque when you go to church hurt the institution of religion, and a violation of your religious rights, because it is breaking the 1st Commandment? It's against your beliefs! The bible says....
I mean, they will raise their children Muslim!

Or can such people understand that if you don't believe in Islam, then don't pray to Allah, but leave your neighbor alone to enjoy the same freedom you extend yourself?

And if so, is it such a leap to see everyone as a citizen?

When I see things like this, I want to spit in disgust for what tries to pass as Christianity, kind of a "Jesus love me, and that's what's it's really all about. Me. Me me me me me..."

It's like being 5, and Mrs. Eisenhower reading, "And then Little Red Ridinghood said, "Gee, Gramma, what big ears you have..." Even at 5, I was like, "what? Was she stupid? If you put a ballcap on my dog, do you think it's me?"

They better hope God isn't coming soon, because if so, they should be scared.

You got off lucky, Anita.

 

[Criada]

I think the adverts are scary... mainly because it seems to be the general opinion that some will believe them.
But this one is the one that really makes me angry:

YouTube - Confused Children TV Ad

At least the adults know what they are saying, and believe it. This is just exploiting kids... and I am surprised it is allowed, even in the US.

 

[Beanieboy]

Especially when there will be kids who have 2 moms and 2 dads (divorced and remarried), or just 1 parent, or are raised by grandparents. People from Muslim countries may have up to 4 wives, and some kids are going to come from, yes, gay couples.

Just because gays can't marry doesn't mean they don't have or adopt children.

So, this suggests the best way to help your kids through the confusion is keep them ignorant. Teach them that 1 man and 1 woman is the only way, and try to ban anyone who disagrees.

They will claim that kids shouldn't be raised by gay couples, because they will get harrassed at school. By whom? Kids raised by heterosexuals.

I brought in a video of kids from gay families in a section called, "What constitutes a family?" The short video said that the kids liked their gay parents, but were often accused of being gay by kids in school or harrassed. One student said, "well, they're going to hell."

I then asked, "what did these kids do wrong? They aren't gay. They are just kids of the gay parents. They're 5-8 yrs old. Why do you have no problem with other kids harassing them, but blame the kids being harassed?"

My guess? They are taught that it is wrong, and see it justified. They aren't people, but perverts, fairies, dehumanized, to assuage guilt.

No one is making commercials about that, though. You have to ask yourself why.

 

[Mumei]

It might be that this has already been covered in this topic. On the off-chance that it hasn't been:

Box Turtle Bulletin No California Doctors Were Harmed In The Making Of This Commercial

“I’m a California doctor who must choose between my faith and my job.”
This California “doctor” refers to a case that has nothing to do with marriage. Last year, the California Supreme Court ruled that a doctor that offers artificial insemination services cannot pick and chose who to offer services to.

This was an important decision, and it should have been a no-brainer. Think of it: what if the decision had gone the other way. It would then have been legal for a doctor to refuse to treat any LGBT person for any illness, condition, or injury simply because doing so might have run counter to their “religious beliefs.” Is that how Maggie Gallagher and the National Organization for Marriage would have it?

Nothing to do with marriage.

The "New Jersey church group"?

As we reported last December, this “New Jersey church group” story has become a new favorite falsehood in an attempt to scare people of faith. This “church group” actually refers to the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, which is not a church. It operates the Auditorium Pavilion, which was made exempt from state property tax in exchange for being open for public use and access. It is not a religious facility, nor are several other facilities built on land owned by the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association — including stores, restaurants, hotels, private homes and a beach boardwalk alongside a public beach.

The facilities were granted a tax exemption by the state of New Jersey on the provision that they be maintained as public accommodations. (Two chapels are tax exempt due to religious use, but they are not a part of the dispute.) The Auditorium Pavilion has been rented out to the general public for all sorts of events, including concerts, debates and even Civil War reenactments — none of which are religious in character. In March 2007, a lesbian couple was rejected by the Association when they tried to rent the Pavilion for a civil union ceremony. They filed a complaint with the State Division on Civil Rights and won. A state commissioner explained:

“When people hear the words ‘open space,’ we want them to think not just of open air and land, but that it is open to all people,” said [Lisa Jackson, state commissioner of environmental protection]. “And when the public subsidizes it with tax breaks, it goes with the expectation that it is not going to be parsed out, whether it be by activity or any particular beliefs.”​

The state of New Jersey didn’t challenge the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association’s beliefs about homosexuality. It only held that a public facility must remain open to the public — and that means all of the public.

Nothing to do with a church being forced to recognize same-sex marriage - and the individuals in charge of the location have the option of giving up tax-exempt status if they find the idea of a gay couple holding a commitment ceremony that objectionable.

And the Massachusetts parent who was, "helplessly watching public schools teach my son that gay marriage is okay?"

This refers to David Parker, the Massachusetts parent who sued his local school district when they provided students with a book called Who’s in a Family? The book illustrated various family constructions: single parents, mom-dad-kids, grandparents, mixed-race families, and same-sex parents. Parker complained to the school district, demanding that the district change its curriculum to accommodate his religious belief that any discussion of same-sex parenting must be excluded — including any conversations about children of gay or lesbian parents.

Now this is a difficult requirement for the school district to meet. After all, there were children of gay and lesbian parents in those same schools. Should teachers pretend that their parents don’t exist? Should the district bar those parents from school functions? Should kids be prohibited from talking about their families?

The school district found Parker’s demand to be impossible to meet. And besides, they weren’t teaching that “gay marriage is OK,” just that it happens and some of the children from those families attend school, and other kids in school shouldn’t treat them badly because of it.

That didn’t satisfy Parker, who sued the school district in Federal Court. In February 2007, U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf dismissed the lawsuit. Parker appealed, but the three judge appeals panel unanimously upheld Judge Wolf’s decision:

“Public schools are not obliged to shield individual students from ideas which potentially are religiously offensive, particularly when the school imposes no requirement that the student agree with or affirm those ideas, or even participate in discussions about them,” the court said in its ruling.​

The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case.

As anyone who regularly keeps up with the back and forth between the pro / anti gay rights movements knows, the fact that all three stories are easily checked lies should come as no surprise.

Hopefully some of my old favorites still post here.

 

[Morcova]

YouTube - Gathering Storm: Anti-interracial marriage PSA parody by reddit

 

[DZoolander]

One thing I love about Teddy Roosevelt is how astute he was regarding human behavior. People simply like to fight over their perception of a word.

I figure we can do one of two things.

First alternative - if marriage is a truly religious thing - then our laws ought to cease recognizing them. No more legal benefits to being married...no more marriage licenses...no more tax benefits...and treat them legally as cohabitants living in the same house with all the legal standing of a guy living with his girlfriend.

Second alternative - understand that "marriage" is a term that has ceased meaning (in culture) a union before God - that the word has been adopted by the secular mass - and has become simply a legal state/agreement between two people. If religions don't want to marry same-sex couples in their churches - that's their right. However - when it comes to the secular majority - they have no say in what goes on in court/etc (or in churches that wish to perform those marriages.)

 

[Mumei]

One thing I love about Teddy Roosevelt is how astute he was regarding human behavior. People simply like to fight over their perception of a word.

I figure we can do one of two things.

First alternative - if marriage is a truly religious thing - then our laws ought to cease recognizing them. No more legal benefits to being married...no more marriage licenses...no more tax benefits...and treat them legally as cohabitants living in the same house with all the legal standing of a guy living with his girlfriend.

Second alternative - understand that "marriage" is a term that has ceased meaning (in culture) a union before God - that the word has been adopted by the secular mass - and has become simply a legal state/agreement between two people. If religions don't want to marry same-sex couples in their churches - that's their right. However - when it comes to the secular majority - they have no say in what goes on in court/etc (or in churches that wish to perform those marriages.)

I think that it probably still means "a union before God" for most people "in culture," and even for a sizable group of gays who marry one another, it's just that that's irrelevant to the question of whether gays should have legal equality.

Great post, though.

 

[Beanieboy]

That makes a lot of sense.
We don't register our babies when they are baptized.
So, I see no problem with it.

The problem I know is coming is:
"Gay people are going to change the definition of marriage, so now I will have to get married in a church, and register as a civil union in the courthouse! I'm the victim!"

I get a tissue.

Others want to have Marriage, and Gay Civil Unions - because marriage is only between a man and a woman. This implies male/female sex is the cruxt and most important part of marriage. That's probably why there is so much divorce. Sex is the easy part, but communication, support, encouragement, sacrificing for one another, caring for each other is far more central to a successful marriage. That doesn't require that the couple have opposite sex parts.

And yet, "God made Adam and Eve" gender point, seems to be THE issue. The context is not, however.

The claim is holiness of marriage.
The Vegas Drive Through Weddings are sacred? The 18 yr old girl marrying to 70 yr old guy for money is sacred? Rush being married, and divorced, 3 times is sacred?
A straight couple can be married by a judge, without God mentioned. Is that sacred?
Allowing atheists to marry shows the importance of it's sacred nature?
Yet, their marriage is legal and supported.

No one is signing Prop 9 to ban divorce or ban remarriage. That's in the bible. Why is that?

If an atheist bathes his child, is the child baptized? Same idea.
Buddhists can marry. Can a Buddhist who is not Christian be your pastor of a church?
Nope.

But if it is sacred, why can they marry?
Where is the "won't someone PLLLLLEASE think of the children!!!" about Atheist parents raising atheist children, which according to some, means they are all going to hell?

I have not heard one good reason of why gays should not be allowed to marry that makes a lick of sense.

And how is Ernie and Bert marrying going to hurt Luis and Maria's marriage? Well, they know exactly, and can't prove to anything specifically, but it will. And that's a good enough answer, right? Look at Iowa. Men are marrying their dogs. Well, no, but it just opens the floodgates. And it's going to rain fire from the sky.

It's like talking to someone who went off their medication.

 

[DZoolander]

I agree.

Gay marriage will do no more to destroy the institution of marriage than say...the Fox network.

 

[b&wpac4]

I agree.

Gay marriage will do no more to destroy the institution of marriage than say...the Fox network.

......

You have successfully turned me against homosexual marriage. Kudos to you.

Fox? *shudder*

 

[DZoolander]

......

You have successfully turned me against homosexual marriage. Kudos to you.

Fox? *shudder*

lol - I wasn't talking about Fox news network. I was talking about "The Fox Network" - which is the one that aired things like "Joe Millionaire", "Who wants to marry a midget?" etc.

 

[b&wpac4]

lol - I wasn't talking about Fox news network. I was talking about "The Fox Network" - which is the one that aired things like "Joe Millionaire", "Who wants to marry a midget?" etc.

So, Fox News will still do more damage?

 

[DZoolander]

Ehhh - we're confusing "Foxes".

There are a lot of things that I could argue the Fox News Network is damaging - but I don't think a compelling argument could be made that marriage was one of them.

 

[b&wpac4]

Ehhh - we're confusing "Foxes".

There are a lot of things that I could argue the Fox News Network is damaging - but I don't think a compelling argument could be made that marriage was one of them.

I like you.

 

[Beanieboy]

Looks like a twistah...

 

[Maren]

Ehhh - we're confusing "Foxes".

There are a lot of things that I could argue the Fox News Network is damaging - but I don't think a compelling argument could be made that marriage was one of them.

Depends on what you consider "damaging" to marriage. I'm sure there are many in California who believe marriage has been damaged by Fox News due to their coverage and the opinions expressed on air about Prop. 8.

 

[Maren]

Ehhh - we're confusing "Foxes".

There are a lot of things that I could argue the Fox News Network is damaging - but I don't think a compelling argument could be made that marriage was one of them.

Foxes?

Maren (who figured it wasn't confused enough yet)

 

[Beanieboy]

Did someone say Fox-es? We are....two wiiiild and crazy guys.....

 

[IzzyPop]

I was going to point that out! They've basically just lost the internet campaign before they ever started with that acronym

It gets better. They had a petition drive trying to get 2 million signatures. 2 Million For Marriage. They abbreviated it 2M4M. And they didn't check to see if the domain name was registered...

 

[Chazemataz]

Jesus would be proud. Everyone knows that he always was hatin' on them gays. Thats the whole reason for the New Testement DUH