The Blunt Truth Re: The Removal of Homosexuality from the list of Diagnostic and Statistical Mental Disorders by the APA

The sad fact of the matter is that homosexuality was depathologized by the American Psychological Association in 1973 NOT through the results of any sort of research or groundbreaking experiments, but through pressure, intimidation and threats levied at the group by radical gay activists. If anyone is in doubt about the preceding sentence, then they are welcome to cite the specific study (or studies) at the time that the APA based their decision on. I can save you the trouble of looking though, because such studies/experiments simply do not exist. Parents and Friends of ExGays and Gays (pfox.org) has a highly informative and detailed article about those on the front lines of such discussions at the time and I encourage everyone to check it out if they get the chance.

I would like to thank Ryan Sorba for putting together a great entry on the subject. Check it out at his blog if you get the chance. Here's a brief exerpt to whet your appetite...

"Despite being discredited in April of 1993 by the official journal of the American Psychological Association, American Psychologist, ('Life long hard-left political activist, psychologist and UCLA professor Evelyn') Hooker’s is the only study discussed in the APA’s 2003 amicus brief in Lawrence v. Texas, the United State Supreme court case which suspended the power of states to enforce anti-sodomy laws. Even today, more than fifty years after its publication, and fifteen years after its being exposed as contrived, her study is the only paper referenced in detail on the main website of the American Psychological Association in its discussion of “Gay” and “Lesbian” issues, as it attempts to make the case that there is no evidence for an association between Same-Sex Attraction Disorder (SSAD), Adult Same-Sex Intercourse (ASSI), and psychopathology.

The controversial claims of Hooker garnered her almost instant recognition within homosexualist circles, and in the wake of the Stonewall riots in 1969, as politics began to trump science, militant activists increasingly relied on Hooker’s study to support their demands that the APA remove homosexuality from the DSM."

It has been said that in the upcoming years, the church will increasingly become leaner and moved more towards the periphery of society as it continues to speak truth to power, no matter how inconvenient said truth is to those who don't wish to hear it. The Gay Left is doing a masterful job in arguing their position from a historical standpoint by comparing the advancement of the extremist homosexual agenda with the civil rights struggles of the 1960's when the comparison couldn't be any more faulty if they tried. All such activists need are people to rally around their cause utilizing emotional rather than factual arguments and they can experience success. Given that the majority of leftist talking points are based on emotion rather than FACTS, such activists already have a built-in audience of uncritically thinking lemmings to peddle their nonsense to and convince that they are somehow advancing 'rights' when nothing could be further from the truth.

EDIT: I forgot to mention that Mike Goeke hit one outta the park with his latest entry over at Baptist Press as to how the church should consider and proceed on the topic of homosexuality. Link

Despite evidence, Left still enamored with Alger Hiss

Mark Judge has a wonderful article that provides yet another perspective into the mindless lemming mindset of the fringe Left. Despite overwhelming evidence, Leftists still consider Alger Hiss (above) to be some sort of martyr for the liberal cause, unjustly prosecuted by mean, old conservatives. Besides Hiss, Whittaker Chambers exposed alot of subversives...

"But here's the thing: the people Chambers named were, in fact, guilty.

They include Henry Collins, employed at National Recovery Administration and later the Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA); Lee Pressman, assistant general counsel of the AAA. John Abt, chief of Litigation for the AAA from 1933 to 1935, assistant general counsel of the Works Progress Administration in 1935, chief counsel on Senator Robert La Follette, Jr.'s from 1936 to 1937, council to the Communist Party USA, and special assistant to the United States Attorney General, 1937 and 1938; Charles Kramer, employed at the Department of Labor National Labor Relations Board (NLRB); Nathan Witt, employed at the AAA and the NLRB. George Silverman, employed at the Railroad Retirement Board; Marion Bachrach, sister of John Abt; John Herrmann, who introduced Chambers to Hiss and was an author assistant to Harold Ware (who ran the communist cell in Washington) employed at the AAA; Nathaniel Weyl, Donald Hiss, and Victor Perlo of the War Production Board and later the Departments of Commerce and Treasury.

Either by their own admission or released records, all of these people were revealed to be communists acting against America."

I doubt that history will correct itself in this matter. As to why they cling to an alternate version of reality, I think the last line of Judge's artiicle sums it up nicely for thise who really believed that the Soviets were on to something back then. "To the left, Hiss still represents the Future. It's a faith that, to the Godless, won't ever die."

Gay Activist Supports Supervisor Demoted Over Pro-Traditional Marriage Remarks

Gay activist Peter Tatchell has spoken out in support of a fellow Brit Adrian Smith who was demoted by his employer for remarks he made on his private Facebook page...

"Smith’s Facebook comment went on to state that he felt civil unions were a state issue but that those unions excluded Christian marriage.

"The bible is quite specific that marriage is for men and women if the state wants to offer civil marriage to same-sex then that is up to the state; but they shouldn't impose its rules on places of faith and conscience,” he wrote on Facebook.

Tatchell will testify on Smith’s behalf because he feels that Smith has done nothing wrong.

“He expressed an opinion. He did not personally discriminate against anyone. There is no evidence that he has treated any of his gay housing clients adversely,” Tatchell wrote...

However, despite Tatchell’s strong backing for Smith, other members of the LGTB community have strongly supported the harsh punishment.

Tatchell disagrees: “If a gay employee was treated this harshly by a Christian organization for writing pro-gay comments on their personal Facebook page, there would quite rightly be an outcry and accusations of homophobia. Why, then, are some lesbian and gay people supporting such a harsh penalty for Adrian Smith?”

I would like to thank Mr. Tatchell for being a voice of clarity and reason in this blatant attempt at free-speech bigotry by Smith's employer. Some of the most deluded people in the entire universe are those who actually believe that by advocating/supporting gay marriage, they are somehow 'standing up against discrimination of a repressed minority'. Nothing could be further from the truth and such mindless, robot lemmings are only aligning themselves with a certain segment of the gay population that actually wants gay marriage when opinions on the topic within the gay community are hardly monolithic. ( Click here and here for examples.)

"Marriage was the most liberal institution known to man. It opened its arms to the ugly and the homely as well as to the beautiful and the stunning. Was it defined as between a man and a woman? Well, yes, but only in the sense that a cheese omelet is defined as an egg and some cheese — without the least intention of insulting either orange juice or toast by their omission from this definition. Orange juice and toast are fine things in themselves — you just can’t make an omelet out of them." Link

Virginia says Nein! to Gay Adoption uber alles

Its only fitting on a day that Rep. Allen West (R-FL) makes note that Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels (above) would be 'very proud of the Democrat Party, because they have an incredible propaganda machine', that a Virginia State Board of Social Services would stand up to the bullying tactics commonly utilized by the Gay Left.

"The Virginia State Board of Social Services voted against proposed regulations Wednesday that would force faith-based adoption and foster agencies to act against their religious beliefs and provide adoption services to gay and lesbian couples.

The decision angered homosexual activists who submitted 2,500 comments in April supporting the regulations. The vote also encouraged officials who believe faith-based adoption groups should have the religious liberty to follow their convictions.

In a 5 to 1 vote, the Social Services board decided not to add extended discrimination protections to final regulations set to begin May 2012. The extended protection would have banned selective service based on “sexual orientation, gender, age, religion and political beliefs disability and family status.”

Wednesday's vote was the second time the board rejected the extended discrimination clause. It was first voted down in April by the same margin.

Currently, Virginia law does not allow unmarried couples to adopt nor does it recognize gay marriage. As a result, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli advised the board in an April memo that it “lacks the authority to adopt this proposed language.”"

Hurrah! for speaking up for decency and common sense. Apparently the agitators activists' tactic to make them Vote 'Till They Get It Right was ineffective in this case.

Poor Gov. Scott Walker (R) of Wisconsin is another case though. It seems that the effort to recall him as governor after the backlash he experienced while battling public workers unions is going on full tilt. Recall petitions would be considered valid even if they are signed by 'Adolph Hitler' or 'Mickey Mouse' so long as they are properly dated and have an Wisconsin address.

EDIT: In his latest entry titled Who hates Rick Santorum?, Molotov Mitchell smacks down the behavior of one of, if not THE biggest gay bullies on the planet, Dan Savage. Its definately worth watching. Link

Donohue: Secularism becoming 'militant'

In a recent interview, Catholic League President Bill Donohue summed up what he believes to be the current state of affairs concerning relations between the Christians and secularists....

"“Secularism has become militant,” ... “Many elites are taking an aggressive secular approach. They have lined up against the Catholic Church and other Christian churches particularly for their stand on moral values.”


Donohue pointed to New York where gay ‘marriage’ was passed without debate or exemptions for clerks who objected to having to grant such licenses. He also noted the closing of Catholic adoption and foster care agencies since they were unable to comply with laws forcing homosexual adoptions.


“The real big one,” he added, “is the [Health and Human Services] of the Obama Administration.” The forcing of abortifacient and contraceptive coverage in private health care plans under penalty of fines was described by the Catholic League President as the Obama Administration “on a full court press to shove its values down the throats of the Catholic Church.”"

In the same article, Cardinal Raymond Burke, former Archbishop of St. Louis and now the head of the Vatican’s highest court stated "“it is a war” and “critical at this time that Christians stand up for the natural moral law.” Should they not, he warned, “secularization will in fact predominate and it will destroy us.”.

Yet further proof that the Christian tolerance that fostered free speech in this country is turned on it's head and used as a wapon against the very institution from which it sprang forth from. In order to support this assertion of mine concerning the origination of freedoms we enjoy here in America, I will quote a transcript from historian Dr. Charles Hull Wolfe...

"As a result of their initial obedience, the Israelites became a free people-the first free people in history. As Moses said, they were to "proclaim liberty throughout the land and to all the inhabitants thereof" (Lev. 25:10)...In God's good time, through Jesus Christ, God not only fulfilled the Old Covenant but confirmed and universaized the Law, and showed men how to obey it better-by receiving Him as their Lord and King . Even more, Christ showed men how to be free-by being governed by Him from within, instead of being tyrannized by men from without! In turn, St. Paul, who knew that "where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty" took the gospel and the principals of the Mosiac Covenant Westwardagain from Israel across the Mediterranean to Greece and to Rome.


Soon other believers took it Westward once more-to England and then to Ireland. In the Year 432 A.D., Patrick-using a Latin document known as "Liber Ex Lege Moisi" i.e. Book of the Law of Moses, in cooperation with the irish leaders whom he had converted, made the Ten Commandments the foundation on which Britons would base their civil law. In 890, King Alfred-the only monarch the english ever called "the Great"- made the Mosaic decalogue and Jesus' Golden Rule the basis of the code of the law for England and the foundation of British freedom.


in 1215, Archbishop Stephen Langton, drawing on Britian's heritage of Bibl-based law, framed the Magna Cartra. A forerunner of the U.S. Constitution, it asserted the God-given rights of the English people and the Christian Church and is remembered today for its contribution to freedom under law."

For those truly interested in this subject, a more in-depth explanation is available by clicking here.

The Coming Wave of Leftist Bigotry

Cal Thomas has a good article in yesterday's Washington Examiner which lays out how the Left is already bearing it's fangs at two of the early front-runners for the GOP nomination who wear their evangelical faith on their respective sleeves...

"Though anti-Semitism and anti-Catholic bigotry sadly are still with us, the new and "accepted" bigotry among some on the left is for those who call themselves -- or are sometimes mislabeled by people who don't know the difference between born-again and born yesterday -- evangelical Christians.

With two evangelicals running for president, the opening salvo in what is likely to be a God vs. government battle has already been launched. A June 22 article in Rolling Stone magazine gives bigots permission for more bigotry. The illustration by Victor Juhasz, which accompanies it, reveals where the writer is headed.

Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., is dressed as Joan of Arc with a Bible in one hand, a bloody sword in the other, a cross on her chest, and the "finger of God" pointing at her from heaven.

In the background, people are being burned at the stake. Father Charles Coughlin at his worst would have had trouble topping this on his bigoted radio broadcasts in the 1930s.

Rolling Stone writer Matt Taibbi says Bachmann is "a religious zealot whose brain is a raging electrical storm of divine visions and paranoid delusions." One of many examples he cites is her assertion that China is "plotting to replace the dollar bill."

Recently, China's official Xinhua News Agency editorialized in favor of a new global reserve currency, replacing the dollar. Don't look for a retraction.

There's plenty more in "Michele Bachmann's Holy War" on which the bigots can feast. This is the argument of anyone who has little or no faith in God. They attack people who believe the Supreme Being does not sit in the Oval Office."

Add to this the infamous and completely biased cover of Newsweek in which they took the worst possible photograph of Bachmann and splashed the highly tolerant words "Queen of Rage" under it. If you were under any impression that the MSM in this country is anything approaching neutral, you can abandon it now.

Not that it actaully gets any better overseas. The campaign to destroy Michelle Bachmann is at full throttle in the UK and is plainly visible by simply clicking here, here, here, and here. Do democrats as a whole get anywhere near the same scrutiny as Bachmann alone in the pages of The Guardian? No way.

Next, Thomas brings up a recent article that appeared in The New York Times which displays more metaphorical feces being hurled by the left, this time over Governor Rick Perry's (R-TX) beliefs.

"The secular left is also going after Gov. Rick Perry's faith. Writing in the New York Times, Timothy Egan refers to the Texas governor as a "biblical bully" and asks, "Is God listening to Rick Perry?"

Ideas that come from the minds of secular liberals are considered right and good, no matter their track record. Ideas from conservatives, be they secular or especially evangelical, are "bat sh*t crazy," according to Taibbi's scatology.

There is a way to blunt this coming tidal wave of anti-evangelical bigotry. Bachmann and Perry -- and any other Republican who wishes to join in -- should not play on the territory of their opponents.

Instead, they should focus on what works and whose lives have been transformed by embracing similar faith and similar attitudes.

Each time a liberal wants to raise taxes to pay for more programs, Republican candidates should introduce to the public people who liberated themselves from government, as examples for others to follow."

Thomas ends his article by saying that "The bigots, like the poor, will be with us always" and I heartily agree. The bigots are on the move people. Let's not let the arena of public discourse to be drowned out by their bigotry but instead focus the relevant debates on the issues at hand and hang them on the petard of empirical evidence based facts and evidence.


UPDATE: Quite frankly, I'm suprised it took them this long. Apparently Rick Perry does not care about science, however he does have a close relationship with guns.

Gay Marriage and the Soft Totalitarianism it Implies

I use the term "soft fascism" every now and again on this blog to denote the intolerance of those on the Left who, while they LOVE to spout off about how inclusive and tolerant they are, they themselves are the most hate-filled, INtolerant bigots on the face of the planet. As author Jonah Goldberg wrote in his landmark classic, Liberal Fascism, The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning, (quoting comedian George Carlin) "When fascism comes to America, it will not be in brown and black shirts. It will be in Nike sneakers and smiley shirts. Smiley-smiley."

For example, one way the closed-minded, uncritically thinking screech-monkeys that support gay marriage scarcely notice their strong resemble to their ideological cousins, the racist segregationists of the American south from several decades ago, is in their arguments that they so predictably invoke involving race to rally their cause. Or as columnist Glenn T. Stanton wrote, (paraphrasing David Blankenhorn), "..some Southern racists redefined marriage to make it something it was never supposed to be about — racial purity — when race is not any part of marriage. It was about making marriage do something it was never intended to do for the sake of their own narrow social ideals. Likewise, same-sex marriage advocates today are drafting marriage into their own narrow social cause, as a way to elevate the social standing of homosexuality. Like keeping the races apart then, marriage has no place in this special-interest-based re-engineering... If the Loving [v. Virginia] analogy is exact, we would have to conclude that our current laws on marriage as a male/female union stem from some effort to keep others in their place. Study the anthropological origins of marriage for as long as you want and you will find nothing of the sort."



Getting back to the Left's "soft fascism" resemblance on this particular subject, George Weigel writes of a couple that he knows from a former Eastern Bloc nation who are all too familiar with the coercive power of government to redefine reality and shape it into an imaginary construct of a bureaucratically-approved fairy tale...

"As analysts running the gamut from Hannah Arendt to Leszek Kolakowski understood, modern totalitarian systems were, at bottom, attempts to remake reality by redefining reality and remaking human beings in the process. Coercive state power was essential to this process, because reality doesn’t yield easily to remaking, and neither do people. In the lands Communism tried to remake, the human instinct for justice — justice that is rooted in reality rather than ephemeral opinion — was too strong to change the way tastemakers change fashions in the arts. Men and women had to be coerced into accepting, however sullenly, the Communist New Order, which was a new metaphysical, epistemological, and moral order — a New Order of reality, a new set of “truths,” and a new way of living “in harmony with society,” as late-bureaucratic Communist claptrap had it.

The 21st-century state’s attempt to redefine marriage is just such an attempt to redefine reality — in this case, a reality that existed before the state, for marriage as the union of a man and a woman ordered to mutual love and procreation is a human reality that existed before the state. And a just state is obliged to recognize, not redefine, it.

Moreover, marriage and the families that are built around marriage constitute one of the basic elements of civil society, that free space of free associations whose boundaries the just state must respect. If the 21st-century democratic state attempts to redefine something it has neither the capacity nor the authority to refine, it can only do so coercively. That redefinition, and its legal enforcement, is a grave encroachment into civil society.

If the state can redefine marriage and enforce that redefinition, it can do so with the doctor-patient relationship, the lawyer-client relationship, the parent-child relationship, the confessor-penitent relationship, and virtually every other relationship that is woven into the texture of civil society. In doing so, the state does serious damage to the democratic project. Concurrently, it reduces what it tries to substitute for reality to farce."

When viewed in this light, the term "soft fascism" doesn't seem far-fetched at all.

Comparing Gay and Traditional Marriage

In today's article by Glenn Stanton, we are reminded of the fundamental differences between gay and traditional marriage that no amount of demonization by leftists is ever going to change. Apparently, one of the more popular tactics favored by those who would reengineer society is to compare old segregation laws that prevented whites and blacks from marrying to the current struggle to redefine marriage as anything other than between a man and a woman...

"Segregation was a profound social evil. Marriage as an exclusive heterosexual union is a necessary social good. It is why all cultures since earliest days, regardless of religion, law, or culture, have marriage as only between men and women.

Loving v. Virginia struck down a legal regime, peculiar to certain parts of the nation that was wholly racist at its core. As the court observed, the Virginia law was about "the absolute prohibition of a 'white person' marrying other than another 'white person.'" It was about nothing more than the racial purity of whites and all the ugliness that implies. If the Loving analogy is exact, we would have to conclude that our current laws on marriage as a male/female union stem from some effort to keep others in their place. Study the anthropological origins of marriage for as long as you want and you will find nothing of the sort.

As David Blankenhorn sagely pointed out in his book, "The Future of Marriage," some Southern racists redefined marriage to make it something it was never supposed to be about -- racial purity -- when race is not any part of marriage. It was about making marriage do something it was never intended to do for the sake of their own narrow social ideals. Likewise, same-sex marriage advocates today are drafting marriage into their own narrow social cause, as a way to elevate the social standing of homosexuality. Like keeping the races apart then, marriage has no place in this special-interest-based re-engineering...

..on the note of mothers and fathers, it is a very different thing for a child to say "I have a white father and black mother" than "I have two moms." There is scant research indicating that interracial parenting is developmentally harmful to children, but literally hundreds -- if not thousands -- of strong published studies showing how negatively children are hindered physically, emotionally, educationally and socially when they are denied being raised by their own mother and father, which is exactly what every same-sex home does by definition."

I'm starting to realize that no amount of logical argumentation will ever persuade an ardent supporter of gay marraige that they are, like the white supremacists of the 1960's, attempting to remake the idea of marriage into "their own narrow social cause". It reminds me of a reporter who visited a madrassa a few years ago in Pakistan. When the reporter spoke to a young boy about Osama Bin Laden, the boy wouldn't hear a single bad word spoken against Bin Laden. When the reporter tried to point out that many Muslims were murdered in the Twin Towers tragedy on 9/11, the boy would simply shout Osama! each time the reporter tried to persuade him, so ingrained was the kid's worldview.

Kelly Boggs sheds some further light on the differences between the two types of "marriage".

"A study by University of Vermont researchers showed that only half of male couples who had entered into civil unions in 2000-2001 believed monogamy was important."

.. The EdgeBoston.com website, popular among homosexuals in Massachusetts, commented on the findings with its editor in chief writing, "Some may put this into the category of 'studies that confirm the painfully obvious.'" The story ran under the headline "Surprise! Lots of Gay Marriages Are 'Open."

I wonder why these points are never trotted out by those who support gay marriage and instead there is the prejudiced notion that any reservations one might have to gay marriage are rooted in bigotry and hate. I suppose that its because it's much easier to demonize an opponent for temporary political gain than engage in meaningful dialogue.

Obama - Fund abortion or we cut off low-income healthcare

In the tradition of open-mindedness, civility and caring for their citizens that characterizes other leftist leaders like Mao and Lenin, Obama is letting Indiana know what he thinks about initiatives to reduce the number of abortions in that state.

"A looming showdown over Indiana's new law that cuts funding for the Planned Parenthood organization may test how far Republican-led states are willing to go in pressing their tough new anti-abortion agendas. The stakes are high. The future of health care for more than 1 million poor and elderly Indiana residents hangs in the balance.

Indiana became the first state this year to cut off all government funds to Planned Parenthood, fulfilling conservatives' goal of financially weakening organizations that provide abortions. Other conservative states have considered such action in recent years but backed away under the threat of loss of all federal money for their Medicaid programs.

The willingness of Indiana, led by a Republican governor and GOP-controlled Legislature, to challenge the federal government and risk a huge financial penalty could take the issue into uncharted legal and political territory. Conservative leaders in other states will be watching the confrontation as they plan their own action on abortion and other social issues.

"I think this is an instance in which a state is really trying to overturn national policy and in so doing is likely to forego federal funding," said Christopher Arterton, professor of political management at George Washington University and an expert on federal-state issues."

Of course, we can't encourage responsible behavior. It's completely out of the question and the public is incapable of it. As always with the left, the violent option is first and foremost. The option that punishes the only completely innocent party in an unplanned pregnancy is the one who has to pay with their life. Way to go Chairman Zero. What else could we expect from someone who as a state senator condoned infanticide?

When Homocritics charge in

"Let me get this straight JD. You want to allow discrimination against a group of people. Some of the reasons you post on your blog are that this group is -

-more likely to suffer from depression
-more likely to abuse substances to hide depression
-more likely to abuse substances
-more likely to contract STD's
-etc

than the group you belong to.

Let's see what other groups you can put into your discrimination model.

African Americans. African Americans are more likely to suffer depression, more likely to abuse substances, more likely to contract STD's than white Americans. Hell, I think they might even be more likely to smoke cigarettes but I couldn't find the data for that.

It's institutional intolerance of gays. If a religious group said that they were withdrawing from providing adoptions because they might have to place children with black families, I hope you'd have no problem roundly condemning that.

You are a foul person, Jd. There's a reason why everyone thinks you are a homophobic bigot. And I want you to know that the word 'bigot' means something. It's not just an insult that you seem to like to carelessly throw around.

Reasonable people do not disagree about gays and lesbians. Reasonable people may differ on whether there is a God or not or several. But reasonable people cannot disagree that gays and lesbians deserve the same rights in society, even if it contravenes their religious beliefs.

I pretty much see it as them saying they have roughly the same respect for equality as the KKK. They are *explicitly* withdrawing to avoid having to accept treating citizens with equal respect. That is done at the cost of the services provided to children who more often than not have no adult guardians at all. Quoted from No Longer Catholic

The above is a prime example of what can occur when a well-meaning, yet completely ill-informed supporter of gay adoption charges in to a conversation without first switching their brain to the 'ON' position and checking emotionalism at the door.


Not only is the above completely filled with errors but almost comically so. Let's desconstruct the comments by NLC and analyze them in the light of reason, shall we?

Let me get this straight JD. You want to allow discrimination against a group of people

More precisely here, the issue here is that Catholic Charities would like to defer to other adoption agencies when it comes to placing children with couples that are co-habitating, whether straight or GBLTQ. They just don't want to get involved with that themselves and apparently it's Gay Adoption uber alles and dissent is apparently not allowed.


Notice how NLC uses the word 'discrimination' as if it is a bad thing in and of itself. Could an agency 'discriminate' if the parents were philanderers? Could they discriminate if there was a history of abuse? Or alcoholism or drug use? Of course they could, and with good reason.

Some of the reasons you post on your blog are that this group is -

-more likely to suffer from depression
-more likely to abuse substances to hide depression
-more likely to abuse substances
-more likely to contract STD's
-etc

than the group you belong to

Observe how NLC conveniently focuses on less serious factors such as STD's and glosses over much more serious issues like.."In regards to homosexual couples and domestic violence, a recent study by the Canadian government states that "violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with heterosexual couples". Also, according the American College of Pediatricians who cite several studies, "Violence among homosexual partners is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples." Link

But such evasion is to be expected when your overall goal is Gay Adoption uber alles. The kids don't matter a wit in these instances.


Let's see what other groups you can put into your discrimination model.

African Americans. African Americans are more likely to suffer depression, more likely to abuse substances, more likely to contract STD's than white Americans

Yet another clumsy attempt to equate gay civil rights with black civil rights. I'll tell you what NLC, simply point me to the support group that assists African Americans cope with the struggles associated with being formely black and have left the black lifestyle behind and I concede the point. Not even Martin Luther King's niece is falling for such nonsense.


"I have met many ex-homosexuals just as I have met many ex-husbands, ex-wives, ex-drug addicts and ex-lawyers. Yet I have never met an ex-Negro, ex-Caucasian or ex-Native American" Alveda C. King

You are a foul person, Jd. There's a reason why everyone thinks you are a homophobic bigot. And I want you to know that the word 'bigot' means something. It's not just an insult that you seem to like to carelessly throw around"


Yes, it is a bad word that nobody wants associated with their name. Now, since I have been called as such multiple times by more than one person on the thread you are quoted from..,

And since I have asked that "one single, solitary shred of evidence whatsoever" be presented to substantiate the claim that I am a bigot or homophobe,..

And since there has been absolutely none, zippo, zero, nada forthcoming in the way of any evidence whatsoever, then do you feel like calling out the free speech bigots at Justin's blog for the intolerant little hate-filled zealots that they so evidently are? I would be pleased that you show some backbone and actually do so but I'm not going to hold my breath.

Reasonable people do not disagree about gays and lesbians

Demonstrably incorrect. In the matter of causation alone there is a great deal of disagreement, even within the homosexual community itself.

Reasonable people may differ on whether there is a God or not or several

I guess. Whatever.

But reasonable people cannot disagree that gays and lesbians deserve the same rights in society, even if it contravenes their religious beliefs

Are you talking about voting rights, free speech rights, freedom to assemble peacefully rights, freedom of religion rights or freedom of the press rights? I support all of these and I hope youre not trying to conjure up rights out of thin air that were never debated or ratified.

I pretty much see it as them saying they have roughly the same respect for equality as the KKK. They are *explicitly* withdrawing to avoid having to accept treating citizens with equal respect

This is the most unbelievably stupid remark that I have seen in quite some time, and I'm on the internet alot. Just for starters, let us examine the civil rights marches in Selma, Alabama in 1965.



From Racial Justice and the People of God: The Second Vatican Council, the Civil Rights Movement and American Catholics, we read...



"One participant observed that many speakers at the headquarters of the Selma campaign "pointed out with happiness and gratitude that this was the first time that so many Catholic priests, acting with their bishops permission, had joined them on the frontlines of the movement. Ralph Abernathy congratulated one priest on the Catholic turnout, jocularly adding " the only ones they hate more than Negroes down here are Roman Catholics, especially Monsignors."

Newspapers across the country including the New York Times and the Washington Post, carried front-page photos of nuns in full-habit striding down Dallas county roads. One editorial concluded that "For a great many Catholics the pictures of demonstrating clergymen and religious flashed on TV screens or bannered on front pages, spoke more more clearly and directly than any other conciar degree could ever do about the effective presense of the Church in the world today." A nun marching down Selma's Highway 80 made the same point emphatically: "We are the Church", she declared."



Now compare this to the actions of the Ku Klux Klan in Selma of 1965. If one were to ask family members of Viola Liuzzo if the Catholic Church and the KKK deserve to be on equal footing, what do you think their response would be?



Of course, all of this is before we get into other measurable metrics between the two groups such as lynchings since the Reconstruction, number of universities founded, number of orphanages founded, food pantrys for the poor started and other examples then your comprison begins to become apparent as the complete canard that it truly is.



I await your reply NLC, however I'm about 100% positive that you will fade to black and disappear, failing to support the statements that you have made. But who knows? I might wind up being suprised.

Gay adoption uber alles

Over at Justin Vacula's blog, they are wringing their collective hands over the fact that Catholic Charities of Illinois is giving up the adoption business altogether rather than be bullied into placing children with same-sex couples. Why the state of Illinois is pressuring Illinois Catholic Charities into doing so rather than just leaving them alone is a mystery to me. It seems that the charitable organization wanted an amendment to the Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Unions Act that would "have allowed Catholic Charities to refer unmarried, cohabitating couples, whether same-sex or opposite sex, to other agencies so as to not violate the teachings of the Catholic faith". But the amendment failed to pass and you know the story, it's gay adoption uber alles and the possibility of opting out is apparently off the table.



I am quite sure that the charity in this case objected due to religious reasons along with others. However, I am not convinced that objections to young kids having to be canaries in a coal mine in a grand social experiment due to the lobbying efforts of radical gay activists necessarily need to be grounded upon religious reasons. After all, doesnt a charity that places these kids owe the childen they are dealing with the most optimal environment possible in which to live? Please consider the following...



First, " Sociologist David Popenoe of Rutgers University has done extensive research on the different functions that mothers and fathers play in their children's lives. His studies show that while fathers tend to stress competition, challenge, initiative and risk-taking, mothers stress emotional security and personal safety. When disciplining, mothers provide important flexibility and sympathy, while fathers provide predictability and consistency. By nature, same-sex couples are unable to provide one-half of this equation." Someone once stated that gender does not equal role playing, and I agree.



To argue that homosexual and heterosexual couples are quite similar to one another flies in the face of empirical evidence. It seems that the right-wing, religious zealots over at the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association seem to agree on the following facts...

• "Gay men use substances at a higher rate than the general population, and not just in larger communities such as New York, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. These include a number of substances ranging from amyl nitrate ("poppers"), to marijuana, Ecstasy, and amphetamines
  
  
  
  
• Depression and anxiety appear to affect gay men at a higher rate than in the general population






• Men who have sex with men are at an increased risk of sexually transmitted infection with the viruses that cause the serious condition of the liver known as hepatitis






• it is still thought that gay men have higher rates of alcohol dependence and abuse than straight men






• Recent studies seem to support the notion that gay men use tobacco at much higher rates than straight men, reaching nearly 50 percent in several studies






• gay men are much more likely to experience an eating disorder such as bulimia or anorexia nervosa"

In addition to these facts eminating from the gay community, those homophobes over at the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence state that "23% of men reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by a male intimate partner." Exactly how do these numbers stack up against married, heterosexual couples?



Of course all of this is before we get into the fact that..

"Dr Sotirios Sarantakos from Charles Stuart University, Australia did research comparing primary school children in married, cohabiting heterosexual and homosexual couples. Children in normal marriages faired the best, and children in homosexual homes the worst. Children of homosexual couples scored the lowest in language ability, mathematics and sport. They were more timid, reserved, unwilling to work in a team or talk about home lives and holidays. They felt "uncomfortable when having to work with students of a sex different from the parent they lived with" and were the least sociable. Although homosexual couples gave their children "more freedom", married couples cared for and directed their children most. Children of married parents had clear future plans, while the children of homosexuals and cohabiters wanted to leave school and get a job as soon as possible. Children of homosexuals were "more confused about their gender" and more effeminate (irrespective of their gender)."

And all of this is just off the top of my head. I'm just some putz sitting in his undershirt in Florida, laughing at the leftist nonsense trotted out as legitimate commentary because none of this information was that hard to find. I can hardly wait to hear the rebuttals. Can we at least hope for, "B-b-b-but a stable home environment isn't everything JD!"

The Creeping Advance of Soft Fascism

"A guest suggested that when Tea Party activists said they wanted to "take back" their country, their real motivation was to stir up anger and anxiety at having a black president, and Obama didn't dispute the idea. He agreed that there was a "subterranean agenda" in the anti-Obama movement—a racially biased one—that was unfortunate. But he sadly conceded that there was little he could do about it" Link

Trying to paint one's opponents as racist/bigoted/intolerant because you disgree with them is nothing new. In fact, it's something that Saul Alinsky (above) would have fully appreciated given that in his Rules For Radicals he states "One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other". Thusly, Tea Party members are not in fact, over-taxed and unrepresented people who are appalled at the invasion that is occuring at our borders and government spending and bureaucracy run amok. No, they are merely ridiculed as racists. And the fact that since the election of Obama, more black Republicans have run for congress than at any time since the Reconstruction gets conveniently swept under the rug and quietly forgotten and never discussed in the MSM.

Maggie Gallagher warns us with a dire prediction of what she feels will be the next wave of leftist bigotry to stifle rational discussion in America's cultural discourse...

"There's going to be an incredible effort to paint good, decent and honorable Americans who believe marriage is the union of husband and wife, as if Minnesotans who believe that are hateful bigots," claims National Organization for Marriage Board Chairman Maggie Gallagher. "No matter how sincerely and thoughtfully and reasonably we talk about our concerns, we get treated as though we are the biggest haters."

Today's article from Vox Day mentions the historical importance of traditional marraige as being one of the cornerstones of Western Civilization..

"The problem is that marriage is more than an institution; it is a structural foundation of society. Moreover, marriage is historically proven to be the best means of producing and raising healthy children, which means that it is integral to the continuation of both American society as well as the human race. Without a strong base of healthy marriages between men and women, no society is likely to survive, let alone prosper."

Let us hope that Ms. Gallagher is proven wrong and that there is actual, serious discussion on upcoming gay marraige amendments. Let us hope that the Left does not lapse into Chuck Schumer Mode and paint those on the side of traditional marraige with an unfounded moniker like "extreme".

"I always use extreme, Schumer said. "That is what the caucus instructed me to use." Senator Chuck (you) Schumer, (D-NY) March 2011

Why is the Left so Obsessed with Race? (Part II)

In a follow up to an earlier blog post, Andrew Klavan raises several more interesting points concerning the Left's obsession with the subject of race...

"So obsessed with race are leftists – so convinced are they that black people especially are unable to care for themselves as men and women must – that they seek to exempt blacks and other minorities from the normal rigors of competence and good behavior. Having then disgracefully and destructively lowered the standards for people with dark skin, they accuse the rest of us of racism simply for treating dark-skinned people the same as we would treat anyone! A world turned upside down.

Questions about Barack Obama’s birthplace have been long resolved and were resolved yet again when funny-haired blowhard Donald Trump bullied the White House into releasing the president’s long form birth certificate. Many on the left then railed against so-called birthers as being racist, of all things. The “racers’” convoluted logic is that demanding Obama’s birth certificate is suggesting that he’s somehow “other” because he’s black...

Twenty years in the pews of hate-monger Jeremiah Wright? Never mind. Old interviews suggesting Obama is an anti-constitutional socialist? Nothing to see here. Cowardly votes of “present,” lies about his associations with Bill Ayres, black holes in his biography? Rather than investigate, the MSM ran interference for the candidate, turning their ire instead on citizens who asked the sorts of questions they should have been asking all along.

They did this because, one, they supported Obama’s leftist policies and, two, he was black and as the press is left wing – that is to say, racist – they felt he couldn’t be treated as roughly as a white candidate would be."

I heartily agree. The performance of the lapdog media in this country is pathetic and Klavan spells out the major reason why.

Although I do differ with Klavan on at least on one aspect. It would appear that the so-called Serengeti Saviour has multiple problems with the alleged birth certificate he has proffered up. Link 1 and Link 2 and Link 3 (with video

CBS News: Americans aren't buying Leftist spin on Tucson shootings

"Nearly six in 10 Americans say the country’s heated political rhetoric is not to blame for the Tucson shooting rampage that left six dead and critically wounded U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, according to a CBS News poll.

In the wake of the shooting, much focus has been put on the harsh tone of politics in Washington and around the country, particularly after a contentious midterm election. Rhetoric and imagery from both Republicans and Democrats have included gun-related metaphors, but the majority of the country isn’t connecting the shooting to politics." Link

Isn't it great how truth always comes out in the end? The American people are waking up to the fact that they are being intentionally manipulated by a regime that was desperately looking for it's own Oklahoma City Moment.

"Clinton was in deep political trouble in April 1995. Six months earlier, voters had resoundingly rejected Democrats in the 1994 mid-term elections, giving the GOP control of both House and Senate. Polls showed the public viewed Clinton as weak, incompetent and ineffective. House Speaker Newt Gingrich and his GOP forces seized the initiative on virtually every significant issue, while Clinton appeared to be politically dead. The worst moment may have come on April 18, the day before the bombing, when Clinton plaintively told reporters, "The president is still relevant here."

And then came the explosion at the Murrah Federal Building. In addition to seeing a criminal act and human loss, Clinton and Morris saw opportunity. If the White House could tie Gingrich, congressional Republicans and conservative voices like Rush Limbaugh to the attack, then Clinton might gain the edge in the fight against the GOP.

Morris began polling about Oklahoma City almost immediately after the bombing. On April 23, four days after the attack, Clinton appeared to point the finger straight at his political opponents during a speech in Minneapolis. "We hear so many loud and angry voices in America today whose sole goal seems to be to try to keep some people as paranoid as possible and the rest of us all torn up and upset with each other," he said. "They spread hate. They leave the impression that, by their very words, that violence is acceptable."

At a White House meeting four days later, on April 27, Morris presented Clinton with a comeback strategy based on his polling. Morris prepared an extensive agenda for the session, a copy of which he would include in the paperback version of his memoir, Behind the Oval Office. This is how the April 27 agenda began:

AFTERMATH OF OKLAHOMA CITY BOMBING

A. Temporary gain: boost in ratings -- here today, gone tomorrow

B. More permanent gain: Improvements in character/personality attributes -- remedies weakness, incompetence, ineffectiveness found in recent poll

C. Permanent possible gain: sets up Extremist Issue vs. Republicans

Later, under the heading "How to use extremism as issue against Republicans," Morris told Clinton that "direct accusations" of extremism wouldn't work because the Republicans were not, in fact, extremists. Rather, Morris recommended what he called the "ricochet theory." Clinton would "stimulate national concern over extremism and terror," and then, "when issue is at top of national agenda, suspicion naturally gravitates to Republicans." As that happened, Morris recommended, Clinton would use his executive authority to impose "intrusive" measures against so-called extremist groups. Clinton would explain that such intrusive measures were necessary to prevent future violence, knowing that his actions would, Morris wrote, "provoke outrage by extremist groups who will write their local Republican congressmen." Then, if members of Congress complained, that would "link right-wing of the party to extremist groups." The net effect, Morris concluded, would be "self-inflicted linkage between [GOP] and extremists."

Clinton's proposals -- for example, new limits on firearms and some explosives that were opposed by the National Rifle Association -- had "an underlying political purpose," Morris later wrote in another book about Clinton, Because He Could. That purpose was "to lead voters to identify the Oklahoma City bombing with the right wing. By making proposals we knew the Republicans would reject…we could label them as soft on terror an imply a connection with the extremism of the fanatics who bombed the Murrah Federal Building."

It's amazing how predictable yet crudmudgeonly the Left behaves in this country.

The Selective Evangelization of the US State Department

Jeff Walton informs us of a growing trend in the Obama/Clinton State Department to selectively cater to certain "soft targets" and ignore the 500 Pound Gorilla In The Room known as radical Islam.

"The State Department's increasing interest in homosexual rights comes as critics -- such as the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom --have accused the Obama Administration of weakening their commitment to the freedom of religion in favor of a more narrowly defined "freedom of worship." The State Department's sudden focus upon homosexuality in sub-Saharan Africa is puzzling, as countries with far harsher policies towards homosexuals -- such as Iran and much of the Islamic world -- get an apparent pass on the matter."

Is anyone the least bit suprised here? Providing lip service to what they deem to be a repressed, minority community but doing effectively little to nothing for them is a hallmark of the liberal Left.

A Response From Jill D.

"He (JD Curtis) seems to think bigotry is using racist names or categorizing any entire group (Entire group minus one person is enough of a loophole for him) .
He's not racist because he married a black woman and has links to black commenters on his sidebar is JD's frequent defense."



Jill D., Nov. 14th



I stand by each sentence of it.



Jill D., Nov. 25th



Outstanding Jill, welcome to the party. Better late than never. It's nice that you "stand by" your statements, now please defend them. In case it somehow escaped your notice, I posted my rebuttal to your remarks immediately below yours, yet curiously, you don't address a single point that I raised. I guess if I were a maleducated intellectually vapid fool, I wouldnt try to defend such slop either. In case you have forgotten, I will repost that which I wrote...



#1. Did I ever say that an "entire group minus one person is enough of a loophole for me" or even remotely try and argue as such? If the answer is absolutely never, then why is this not an complete and outright lie? I'm sure that you meant to answer this earlier, so please post your response here. As it stands now, you are accused of lying.



#2. I will go on record and state that it is an absolute, 1000% fact that my wife is black. The above writer (Jill D.) mentions this but then fails to square this with the alleged, yet factually bankrupt notion that I am in any way, a bigot, (or a racist). Please explain why this is so.



#3. "..links to black commenters on his sidebar is JD's frequent defense". As if I use this as mere cover for my latent racism. Jill D. fails to take into consideration that the sidebar of columnists on my blog serves as a resource for me. In a blog that is about a year and a half old I have cited columns and created threads for writers like Larry Elder, Walter E. Williams, Ellis Washington (at least 3X), Mychal Massie (at least 5X),Deroy Murdock (at least 5X), and from Thomas Sowell a minimum of SEVENTEEN TIMES. Can you cite any other blog on the internet that you frequent that cites more black columnists then this one? If not, then perhaps you can provide a link to the blog that you comment on in which black columnists are featured at all. If you comment on no such blog at all, then why are you so closed minded to exploring the writings of black columnists? Youre not a racist, are you?



Please answer the above in order that we can get to the bottom of this. Happy Thanksgiving BTW.