Focus on the Family Will Keep your Kid from Being Gay

The description is NOT BS, Tal. He is a radical cleric. He spouts anti-homosexual hate-speach.We "deport and kill" radical muslim clerics who foment and perpetrate acts of terrorism. Not because they are radical clerics with hateful ideas, but becuase they commit crimes.Dobson is indeed a radical cleric - he just hasn't crossed the line into murder or inciting people to murder. If he does, he'll be charged just like any others.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Ah, like Fred Phelps. You know, he and Dobson don't sound all that different to me. Well, I would disagree, both about the morality of homosexuality and the definition of hate speach. When you tell homosexuals that they are evil and are going to Hell for having a sexual lifestyle you don't like, that sounds like hate speach to me.Honestly, Dobson isn't all that different from Phelps. "Being gay is evil" isn't all that different from "kill gays."For example:

quote:

---

From: Rod Swift
Subject: Focus on the Hate....
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 11:57:03 +0800 (GMT+0800)

​

FEEDBACK From: PietrzykM@aol.com

​

As many of you know, James Dobson of Focus on the Family has been complaining lately of the unfairness of linking the religious right's recent "ex-gay" ad campaign to the death of Matthew Shepard, arguing that the religious right has only love and compassion for the homosexual.

​

Today in the mail I received my copy of the October 1998 issue of Focus on the Family's magazine Citizen. In the issue is an article ("The Living Proof," pp. 18-21) about the latest Exodus ex-gay conference in Seattle. The article profiles Exodus member Tim Hysom and his father Glen Hysom. Six years ago Glen Hysom's wife revealed to Glen that son Tim had sent a letter to them while he (Tim) was away on missionary work, telling them he was gay. In the letter, Tim complained he didn't want to be gay and blamed his father's absence during his childhood for his subsequent sexual orientation.

​

The father, Glen Hysom, describes his reaction to the letter before an audience at the Exodus conference [here's a direct quote]:

​

"It was like a bomb went off right in my lap. One of my kids could not be homosexual. This is an impossibility. They weren't raised that way."

​

"My next reaction was that I'd just go blow my brains out. But I knew that there would be people hurt. So then I thought, Well I'll just go blow his brains out, so he doesn't have to be homosexual.' But I knew that would hurt all of us, too. So, I'll just go blow that guy's brain out that got [Tim] into the homosexual lifestyle. That'd solve it all.' Well, then I'd go to prison. So I couldn't do any of those things. That's when I decided that since I was part of the problem, I had to be part of the repair." (p. 19)

---

Let's take a look at Phelp's ideas:

quote:

---

Fags have a 3 point agenda: 1) decriminalize sodomy, 2) add fags to the protected classes as victims like blacks, and 3) criminalize Gospel preaching against fags. Sweden's doom is now irreversible!

​

With the arrest of Ake Green, Swedes have allowed the filthy sodomite agenda to be completely fulfilled. See our monument to Pastor Green here. Just because Green's conviction has been overturned, don't think that makes things right! The fact that the vast majority of the Swedish population either sat by silently while this rape of justice took place, or actually applauded it, solidifies the idea that Sweden is a land of the damned.

​

Just because Green preaches the doctrine of devils that "God loves everyone" doesn't make it right for Sweden to arrest him for also preaching that fags are an abomination (Lev. 18:22).

​

With this act, as well as the vitriolic response given to this preaching, Sweden has drawn to it the wrath and mocking of God!

​

...

​

THANK GOD FOR ALL DEAD SWEDES!!!

​

...

​

Unconfirmed numbers of Swedes are dead as a result of the tsunamis which ravaged Thailand and the other lush resorts of that region, and thousands more are unaccounted for, either still rotting in the tropical conditions or buried, as they deserve, as asses in mass graves (see Jeremiah 22:19). Scarcely a family in Sweden has been untouched by the devastation. Bible preachers say, THANK GOD for it all!

---

It's not that far of a jump. Like I said - Dobson hasn't quite crossed the like like Phelps has - but their ideals are the same. His ideals are what makes him a radical cleric, Tal. Committing crimes based on those ideals would make him a criminal.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Yes and no, Tal. I don't believe homosexuality is immoral, and there are scores of Christians who agree with me. There is no 11th Commandment that says "Thou shalt not have teh buttsex!"Not all Christians embrace the "We all deserve Hell, but if you believe in Jesus He'll save you" doctrine. I don't even believe in Hell in the classical Christian fire-and-brimstone sense.It's one thing to say "murder is evil" or "theft is evil." It's another to say "having sex is evil if it involves someone of the same gender even if it's not rape." I didn't say he did. He wouldn't anyway - he'd lose the majority of his listeners and political stength. But he IS fomenting the ideas that lead to that line of thinking. That's not strong enough - his ideas and the things he says are a very, very small step away from turning into a Phelps, who protests at the funerals of gay soldiers and yells "Kill fags" and "He's burning in Hell now" at the soldiers' friends and relatives. It's like the radical muslim clerics who call the US "the great Satan" and say that we are all heathen dogs. You don't have to specifically tell someone to commit murder to foment hate speach.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Landoverbaptist.org is a spoof on extremist Christians. Its points are valid, they just tend to also be very funny.Hey, my job's net filter calls the movie page on the local newspaper's website pornography. Net filtration does not an unreliable link make.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

But see, you're wrong. His views may be based on the past views of Christianity, but by no means are they mainstream. THe vast majority of people don't care if a person is gay or not, and certainly don't consider homosexuality immoral. His (and your) views are extremist. Yes, thank God he's not a violent radical. Hes only a step away, but as long as he doesn't cross that line he (and you) have a right to those radical beliefs. You apparently haven't actually read the Constitution. The Supreme Court never made any laws regarding abortion - they only interpreted existing law. If lawmakers disagree with their interpretation, they can certainly make a Constitutional amendment to make things more explicit - but they'd need a lot of support that just doesn't exist. As to "telling Congress what laws they can make about homosexuality," the Supreme COurt EXISTS for the express purpose of ensuring that the laws of Congress are Constitutional - it's their freaking job! If COngress wants to pass a law currently Unconstitutional, they must amend the Constitution - a feat fully within their power should the vast majority of people support it.You see, we have this thing calles "checks and balances" to ensure that no one branch of the government has too much power. THat includes COngress - an out of control majority could wreck havok and ignore the COnstitution entirely if not for the Supreme Court - but the SC cannot overrule a Constitutional Amendment. You see how it works? You'd be surprised at how many "liberals" there are, by your apparent standards. Treating gays as equals and not as "sinners" is not the minority view. And yet many of us interpret the Bible differently than you do. Perhaps theree is more of this "grey area" than you think? Certainly, so long as they are not inciting violence. Even hateful speech is protected to a degree. Appeal to consequence. He IS a radical cleric - the fact that many violent muslim extremists are ALSO radical clerics in no way diminishes that fact, even though you "don't like" having the two connected. Tough.He's a radical cleric, but he's not a terrorist. Nobody is going to change the definitions of terms just because you don't like them being applied to someone who shares your views.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

His views are extrremist and outside of the mainstrwam. What would you have us call him? Conservatives are exactly the same. Both sides of the political aisle have their whackjobs. Dobson is not the worst of the conservatives, but his views are still radical. He just hasn't totally lost it and gone the way of Phelps yet. He's still an anti-gay bigot, and his views are not the views of the majority - not even the majority of Christians. His view on gay marriage maybe (I disagree with his position, of course, but polls suggest most Christians don't like gay marriage), but not on homosexuality itself. The majority of people don't believe homosexuality is evil, or some sort of disease to be treated or prevented. Elections aren't that simple. Many people are single-issue voters, and would disagree with much of what Bush stands for, but disagree more strongly with his opponent. I know that I, for one, can't remember the last time I would have voted for a president instead of against the other guy. Pot, meet Kettle. Conservatives throw around the word "Liberal" like it's some sort of insult or curse word. Ever heard of Michael Savage? His most recent book is entitled "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder." I know I certainly can. But I can also tell when someones views are, in fact, radically outside of the mainstream. Like Dobson. And recent research confirms that Dobson is wrong. A recent study involving flies modified a single gene and completely altered the behavior of the subjects. In other words, they found a "gay swith" in flies that made male flies attempt to mate with other males, and females do the same. I'll post a link later if I can find it again. In any case, homosexuality appears to be at least partially genetic. As to homosexuality being a sin, well, I'm a Christian and I don't believe it's a sin. There is not 11th Commandment that says "Thou shalt not have the buttsex," after all. Except Dobson does resort to extremism. He's not willing to let homosexuals have the same rights and priveledges "good God-fearing straights" can have - he wants a COnstitutional Amendment to make gay marriage illegal. He wants to force his views on others who don't share them. What right doe he or anyone else have to tell a gay person that they can't do what the rest of us can just becuase his religion says being gay is icky?! He can think it's a sin all he wants, but the moment he decided to try to force the issue on others he became extremist.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

I already did. He believes homosexuality to be a sin, he believes homosexuality is like a "disease" to be cured or prevented. I'm not talking about gay marriage. Gay marriage is indeed a hot topic, and whether it's right or not, you are correct - current polls indicate that the majority does not support gay marriage. However, the majority does not consider homosexuality a sin, and does not look at gays as a bunch of dirty evil sinners. The majority does not believe homosexuality can be cured. The majority, most importantly including modern psychiatry, does not consider homosexuality to be a mental disorder, or other disease to be prevented or cured. Which is my point, and what makes him a radical. Just because he's more in touch with the majority on one issue does not make him less radical. See? We agree. His views are not representative of the majority. As is, most heterosexuals don't like to think too hard about gay sex, becuase it's not attractive to us. THat doesn't mean in any way that most heterosexuals believe homosexuality to be wrong or immoral. Nobody likes the pliticalization of their views. It always turns into some kind of black/white " we oppose everything they say because they are not us" kind of shouting match. The real issue and any honest discussion gets lost in the smear campaigns. That, and people tend not to actually think beyond their gut reaction. But I'm not actually talking about gay marriage. That's not the issue that makes him radical, though his radical views are likely the source of his opinion on the matter. Yes, gay rights movements can actually be harmed by pushing the issue too hard or too fast, as well as flaunting homosexuality. That doesn't mean that gays don't have every right to do so, however. They have every right under the COnstitution as it stands to marry each other, and to have gay prode parades, and to push for equality as quickly and determinedly as they want - they should have had equality in the first place. But you're right, doing what's right before the majority is ready to accept it as right can push equality movements back a few steps.Again, though, not what I'm talking about. Gay marriage does not make Dobson radical. Considering gays to be evil sinners who consciously decide to be attracted to the same gender and "defy God's Will" is what makes him a radical. Being one tiny baby-step seperated from Phelps is what makes him a radical.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Prove it. Your opinion is wrong. On gay marriage, yes. But that's not what I'm talking about. Perhaps you should read a bit more. I'm well aware of "the way it is." And yeah, I think the majority is wrong in this instance, and I think the views are bigotted. It's really not any different from the interracial marriage issue a few decades ago. I feel confident that society will eventually be ready for gay marriage, just as it eventually came to accept interracial marriage. It's not "tough to swallow" that the average American is a bigot and an idiot. I see evidence of that every day at work. Well, the idiot part anyway. It's just unfortunate. He is more "mainstream" than myself with regards to gay marriage, yes, if recent polls are to be believed. But the remainder of his views on homosexuality are not mainstream - they are extremist. It is these views that make him a "radical cleric," not his opposition to gay marriage.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Yep. Your view is not held by the majority, and is extremist.You're still entitled to it, of course. If you believed being black was "just one sin" you would also be an extremist radical. "Just one sin" does not make you any less radical. Your (or Jesus) "forgiveness" of them is irrelevant. They don't need forgiving because it's not evil. Only a biblical inerrantist would believe that passage to be the Word of God. I certainly don't, and I'm not alone.You can use the same "forgiveness" to excuse murder and rape. They are "just two sins," after all. The fact that you put homosexuality on the same level as crimes like these (sins) makes you radical.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

I apologize if I was unclear. I consider the average American to be a total fool - the vast majority don't know the sort of things we teach to elementary students. They are not idiots becuase they disagree with me, they are idiots because they can't turn a computer on without help. They are idiots because they always want to blame someone else instead of taking any responsibility. They are idiots becasue they don't even remember the very basics of their education.As such, it doesn't surprise me if the majority makes a decision I consider foolish or not fully thought through. Did I ever say that I'm totally mainstream in my views? I fully acknowledge that the majority does not agree with me on every single topic. SOme of my views could be considered outside the mainstream, even radical depending on who's judging. But I at least don't try to force my opinion on others. Nope. I'm entitled to my views just aas they are entitled to theirs. I think they're bigots...but they probably think I'm going to Hell. We're even, as far as I'm concerned, so long as they don't go Phelps' route.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

You showed numbers regarding gay marriage, which has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. The majority of people do not consider homosexuality to be "an abomination." You didn't read my previous posts. Experimentation with flies has shown that certain gene will turn otherwise normal flies into homosexuals. Switch the gene, and bam! they act like they are the opposite gender, and attempt to mate with other flies of their own sex.Homosexuality is at least partially genetic. Ahhh, so you slectively read these forums, and didn't realize that not all Christians are literalists! I believe that Paul was a sexually repressive bigot and was more concerned with starting the Christian religion than keeping its message (love thy neighbor, and forgiveness). The authors of the Bible attached their own perspectives to what they wrote, and not everything in the Bible is God's Direct Word. Or do you think we should start killing witches again? God didn't write the Bible. Yes, certain authors of the Bible called homosexuality a sin. Whether GOD considers it a sin is an entirely different matter, and is a matter of personal belief.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Here you go.It's even a religious source.

quote:

---

Roughly half of the public expresses an unfavorable opinion of gay men (50% unfavorable) and lesbians (48% unfavorable). Nearly one-in-three (29%) have a very unfavorable opinion of gay men, and 26% have a very unfavorable opinion of lesbians.

​

In general, young people have more favorable views of homosexuals than do older people. Half of those under age 25 have a favorable view of gay men (50% favorable to 44% unfavorable) and a majority have a favorable view of lesbians (57% favorable, 37% unfavorable). Women tend to express more favorable opinions of both gay men and lesbians, and this is especially true among very young people. Among men age 18-24, opinions about gay men are far more negative (52% unfavorable) than about lesbians (35% unfavorable).

---

This part, I think, is particularly interesting:

quote:

---

Majorities of college graduates hold favorable views of both gay men and lesbians (54% each), while opinions of those with less education are considerably more negative.

---

Now to the part pertaining to religion:

quote:

---

Among white mainline Protestants and Catholics, opinion is divided: 43% of mainline Protestants and 46% of Catholics have a favorable opinion of gay men; their views of lesbians are comparable.

​

White evangelicals are much more negative, with 69% unfavorable (including 47% very unfavorable) and only 22% favorable. Black Protestants also hold generally unfavorable views (62% unfavorable, 27% favorable).

---

According to a Sports Illustrated poll:

quote:

---

It is a sin to engage in homosexual behavior 44% {agree} 46% {disagree}

---

It would appear that both of our views could be considered mainstream - there is a near 50/50 split on the issue. I think it's interesting that better educated individuals have a more favorable opinion. Everyone I know thinks it's not a sin. Yeah, that's pretty stupid. You're right. Good thing that's not what I said. I said that the study observably PROVES that homosexuality is at least partially caused by genetics. I didn't say that genes are the only factor, and that you can flip a switch in a human being. But the fact that you can flip a switch in a fly shows that genes are a factor, if not the only one. When did I ever try to use the Bible to prove my position? I don't take the Bible literally - I only hold to what I consider the root message - love thy neighbor.As far as Dobson goes - he steps further than most. He believes homosexuality is a choice, and is preventable. Popular opinion aside, this is blatantly false and contrary to modern psychiatry.If sexuality is a choice, when did you decide to be heterosexual? I know I remember the day I came home from elementary school and told my parents "Gee whiz Mom and Dad, I've decided I like girls."...oh, wait, that's not the way it works.Perhaps he's not as "radical" in his views as I previously believed - he simply seems to represent roughly half of the population (of the US anyway. Worldwide may be very different). It's difficult to make a call on how divergent a person's view is from the norm when there is such an even split in popular opinion. I will retract my accusations of radicalism unless and until I find additional statements made by Dobson that step further outside the norm.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

quote:

---

Making it legally possible for same-sex couples to get "married" in America will forever alter the meaning of marriage for everybody. It is a much more profound change than modifying the wording in a few laws. Marriage is more fundamental to the human experience than the laws regulating it because it was around long before there were laws; marriage statutes merely recognize and regulate an institution that has always existed.

​

Redesigning those laws to reinvent that institution - the foundational unit of society - is a genuinely groundbreaking concept. No civilization in the history of mankind has ever done it. Never in human history has there been a society, advanced or primitive, in which same-sex marriage was embraced as an ordinary family form and a normal part of everyday life. Certainly, a few societies have experimented with such unions, but they were anomalies even at the time.

​

Every major world religion - Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism - have for millennia defined marriage as the union of man and woman. Why is it reasonable to believe that a small, vocal minority pushing a totally self-serving agenda, have suddenly discovered some profound truth that the greatest thinkers in the history of mankind somehow missed?

​

There is one plain truth that has gotten mangled almost beyond recognition in the cat fight over same-sex marriage. It is simple and clear. Man cannot redefine marriage because he didn't define it in the first place; man can't change the nature of the marriage unit because he didn't invent it. God did.
  —Tal's preacher who doesn't know anything about marriage

---

Do you really want to get into what marriage has been, traditionally?Marriage for love is a recent development. For millenia, marriage was simply a legal contract to legitimize children and make clear lines for succession and inheritance. The wife was considered property, and had no rights. Commoners would frequently not marry until their prospective mate became pregnant - to ensure that they could have children. After all, children were a viable workforce back then."Traditional marriage" as we know it today has only been around for a few decades, not millenia. If you oppose change only becuase "that's the way it's always been," then you'd better suggest that women be stripped of their rights and made the property of their husbands. Marriage shoukld then be a legal convenience, and have nothing to do with the deeply significant bond that it is today. Otherwise you are being inconsistant.It's a simple appeal to tradition fallacy. Just because something has been done a certain way for a while, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. Blacks were considered subhuman, and interracial marriage was against tradition - but those traditions were wrong, too.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

So, when exactly did you choose to be heterosexual?I don't remember making such a choice, and I doubt the homosexual members here ever made one of the like either.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.