QUICK LINKS
Rep Ed Murray Sets the Record Straight
Representative Ed Murray, a Seattle Democrat who is one of a handful of openly gay legislators, told the Seattle P.I. this past weekend that he was not surprised Tim Eyman was working with the religious right on Referendum 65.
He said, “My assumption all along is that Tim Eyman, who has tried to portray himself as this anti-taxtarian, is actually part of the religious right and is showing his right-wing religious connections to try to repeal the civil rights bill [HB 2661].”
It seems that anyone who gets in the way of the gay agenda is attacked and labeled. Sometimes they are even called, “religious right.”
The duplicity and divisiveness of these folks is almost unbelievable.
Ann Levinson, chairwoman for Washington Won’t Discriminate said, “We know that the overwhelming majority of people are opposed to discrimination but during these campaigns [Ref. 65], the rhetoric from the other side is often intended to confuse voters.”
That reminds me of the Genesis account of Adam and Eve being told that if they would eat the fruit, they would be like God.
The passage of HB2661 is not primarily about discrimination against homosexuals. It is part of a systematic effort to incrementally normalize homosexuality and take us yet one more step toward same-sex marriage.
This bill was written to advance the gay agenda by not just normalizing homosexuality, but under the guise of non-discrimination, force our children through public sponsored sex-education that homosexuality is a “normal” lifestyle and should be explored as a possible lifestyle.
And it has the effect of silencing Christian pastors and teachers from speaking out against the Biblical position that homosexuality is sin for fear of being charged with discrimination under this new law.
This bill, HB 2661, is predatory. Those who are advancing it are presenting themselves as reasonable, common sense, live-and-let-live people while doing everything in their power to redefine marriage, the family, and censor Biblical teaching on homosexuality. Left to their devises, they will re-educate your children and redefine our social order as we have know it.
If you have not signed a Referendum 65 petition, please do so immediately. If you have, please forward this blog to others and encourage them to sign.
_____________________
Gary Randall
President
Faith & Freedom
To have this blog delivered to your email inbox, click here.
22 Comments:
“This bill was written to advance the gay agenda by [forcing] our children through public sponsored sex-education that homosexuality is a “normal” lifestyle and should be explored as a possible lifestyle.”
Homosexuality is no more a ‘lifestyle’ to be 'explored' than being female or a twin. Calling it a ‘lifestyle’ implies choice where none exists; you choose to live an urban lifestyle, or a rural lifestyle, but not a ‘gay lifestyle’.
”And it has the effect of silencing Christian pastors and teachers from speaking out against the Biblical position that homosexuality is sin.”
Homosexuality per se is not called out in the Bible as a sin, but usury, eating shellfish, and wearing clothes of mixed fibers (cotton/poly, for example) are. How inconvenient for fundamentalists that we do not have the entire set of purity laws on the books; there would be so many more things to persecute people for.
”This bill, HB 2661, is predatory. … Left to their devises, [sic] they will re-educate your children and redefine our social order as we have know it.”
Sounds like arguments used against civil rights legislation.
We are taking signtures at the mall in our area . People sign the petition when they walk up to our stand . People who say this is not about behavior < also> are lying or just blind . Our School District had a definition of a healthy sexual relationship with vaginal , oral , or anal sex . How can one say the gay agenda is not about behavior ? Unhealthy behavior at that .
"
Homosexuality is no more a ‘lifestyle’ to be 'explored' than being female or a twin. Calling it a ‘lifestyle’ implies choice where none exists; you choose to live an urban lifestyle, or a rural lifestyle, but not a ‘gay lifestyle’.
"
Incorrect. Look into the way that homosexuality was changed from a mental disorder to "normal" behavior within the APA manual. The way it was changed was NOT data driven by objective studies and it was done subversivly by in-the-closet (at the time) APA members in an environment much like today: the people who saw through the weak "data" and "studies" didn't want to go against the grain for fear of being labelled.
"
Homosexuality per se is not called out in the Bible as a sin, but usury, eating shellfish, and wearing clothes of mixed fibers (cotton/poly, for example) are. How inconvenient for fundamentalists that we do not have the entire set of purity laws on the books; there would be so many more things to persecute people for.
"
Incorrect. Homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible. The other "rules" you mentioned were not sins, they were rules given by God at the time. Breaking the rules given by God was a sin, but those things you mentioned, in and of themselves were not sinful. For example, consider these verses from Leviticus (which I assume you were referencing above):
9 Of all the creatures living in the water of the seas and the streams, you may eat any that have fins and scales. 10 But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales--whether among all the swarming things or among all the other living creatures in the water--you are to detest. 11 And since you are to detest them, you must not eat their meat and you must detest their carcasses. 12 Anything living in the water that does not have fins and scales is to be detestable to you.
So, here God is telling them they are to consider these things detestable and to not eat them (He didn't say it was a sin, but He does tell them not to eat them, so to go against what God tells you would be a sin). This was likely given, as many of the other eating/cleanliness related laws of the time were, for the health of the people (recall that health care, disease, sanitation, and hygiene issues were considerably different than they are today). These "rules" have largely (if not completely) passed away with the old convenant, but things that were sinful are still sinful.
Here's an analogy to help make this more understandable: In my house, stealing is wrong. End of story. Also in my house, my younger two kids are not to walk to the bus stop by themselves. This is for their own good; for their protection. My oldest, however, is allowed to walk to the bus stop by herself. If my younger two go running out of the house by themselves and up to the bus stop, I will be upset at them and they're going to hear about it, but a time will come when that rule will go away (when they're older and it isn't necessary anymore)... but stealing will always be wrong.
In summary:
Eating shellfish (of more generically, things without fins in the sea): Was prohibitted; Rule changed*
Homosexuality: Was a sin, still a sin**
-Chris
*Acts 10
10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. 13 Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat." 14 "Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean." 15 The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.
**Leviticus. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." (In case the terminology is confusing, to "lie with someone" was "to have sex," whereas a statement like "to go and sleep with his fathers" meant "to die")
1 Corinthians. 6:9-10, "Don't you know that those who do wrong will have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, who are idol worshipers, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals, thieves, greedy people, drunkards, abusers, and swindlers – none of these will have a share in the Kingdom of God." (All these things were sinful and still are.)
"The passage of HB2661 is not primarily about discrimination against homosexuals. It is part of a systematic effort to incrementally normalize homosexuality and take us yet one more step toward same-sex marriage."
Lies. Its about discrimination. Even says in the legislation it is not an endorsement of any quality mentioned and it specifically can NOT be used by a court to justify marriage equality. How easily manipulated does Gary think these people are. Marriage equality is already before the state Supreme Court, the arguments were made BEFORE this legislation was passed. Though marriage equality might be the decision the court reaches it has NOTHING to do with HB2661.
"Our School District had a definition of a healthy sexual relationship with vaginal , oral , or anal sex . How can one say the gay agenda is not about behavior ?"
Again who would fall for 'false witness' as obvious as this? Those are all HETEROSEXUAL ACTIVITIES! Anal sex is performed regularly by 10% of the HETEROSEXUAL population in the US as per multiple studies, the amount that a minority of gay people do is a relative drop in the bucket yet people deceptively present it as a 'gay' activity. And the school district don't teach any of them as 'normal' - they teach them because that's what people do! Not much point in have a sex education class that doesn't teach about the sex that people actually have, is it?
Sexual attraction and pair bonding and adult love are not a 'behaviors' - anyone who says it is is either lying, blind or emotionally disabled to the point of pity. The desire to couple up, to marry, is an innate feature that virtually all humans have. Some marry those of the opposite sex, some of the same sex - neither is a vice, neither is a 'lifestyle' but rather just the way people are. Everyone has a right to the pursuit of happiness, everyone has a right to the pursuit of love. Its amazing that some would have hearts so empty they would deny others the essential things that they take for granted for themselves.
Acts 10
10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. 13 Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat." 14 "Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean." 15 The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.
And this invalidates the dietary restrictions other than in this particular instance how?
*Leviticus. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." (In case the terminology is confusing, to "lie with someone" was "to have sex," whereas a statement like "to go and sleep with his fathers" meant "to die")
Convenient of you to where the other activities you say are now ok were also called 'abominations' (actually the hebrew word meaning ritually unclean)
1 Corinthians. 6:9-10, "Don't you know that those who do wrong will have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, who are idol worshipers, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals, thieves, greedy people, drunkards, abusers, and swindlers – none of these will have a share in the Kingdom of God." (All these things were sinful
And this was a rant by paul to the Corinthians that were still indulging in sexual rituals of other religions AND were using the many 'gimmes' of the complex Roman sexual code (a married person could have sex with a slave, could have sex with a prostitute , could have sex with someone of the same gender, etc and they didn't 'count'). There were no monogamous same sex couples for Paul to even be referencing - how can you know he is doing so? ( Interestingly the word you are translating as 'male prostitutes' meant masturbation for about 1400 years - guess that got too inconvenient, eh?)
And regardless its unimportant as far as HB2661 goes - these are the tenets of YOUR religion, a religion YOU are free to practice YOURSELF. But forcing others to practice it too, or treating others as if they were sinners because of YOUR religious tenets? How unAmerican, how unChristian is that? Jesus and Paul made it clear that each individual can practice Christianity or not - its their choice, not yours to make for them.
the only argument against homosexuality is a religious one.
Please stop imposing on my freedom of religion by telling me what my beliefs should be. And I won't impose my beliefs on you.
And quoting the bible in English to make your point is silly since you are quoting someone else's translation of the Word - not the actual Word itself.
Left to their devicesa, all children will be indoctrinated into gaydom and there will be more children born and humankind will end. Unless the apocalypse comes first, God willing.
Left to their devicesa, all children will be indoctrinated into gaydom and there will be more children born and humankind will end. Unless the apocalypse comes first, God willing.
Reminds me of a personal story - was down in orange county california in the early 80's and some friends were active in the local gay political action committee ECCO. They were having a press conference and talked about decriminalizing homosexuality when one attendee in the back exclaimed 'But if they did that then everyone would be gay!' The entire room of predominately gay men turned around and looked, all realizing that this guy had some real issues.
Being gay isn't a choice - From the repressive 50's till now there has been NO significant change in the relative percentage of the US population that is straight or gay. Sexual orientation is no more a vice or choice than handedness is. Every Starbucks could turn into a gay bar and there wouldn't be one more gay person, bigots could be allowed to persecute them as much as their wicked little heart desires and there would not be one less (other than the ones killed as a result of this persecution of course).
What we do have are a far number of 'bi-curious' men that feel tempted and threatened by openly gay people and they think that every other man feels like they do just as the guy at the ECCO meeting assumed. The University of Chicago study found that 2.8% of men are out 'gay' men, 0.6% were bisexuals, 2.4% have had sex with men but say they aren't attracted to them. But there was a whopping 4.3% of men that said they had had sexual attraction to men but never done anything about it. Just how many of these ones that say things like 'everyone will be indoctrinated into gaydom' do you think fall into this group?
Reality check - most men aren't sexually attracted to other men and no ad campaign or 'indoctrination'. will make it otherwise. The reverse is also true. What's disconcerning is that someone is looking forward to 'the apocalypse'. Now there is something hopefully we can all agree is 'perverse'.
Got a signer today , he asked about I 65 , and all I said was
a teacher comes one day as man , the next as a woman . Has nothing to do with religion , just common sense . The way way the law is , schools will not have the right to have dress codes , amazing the only religion liberals tolerate is the Muslim Faith , unless it is the Muslim Faith that does not believe in Killing Americans and those in favor of Democracy , then they just become anti choice fanactics.
"Got a signer today , he asked about I 65 , and all I said was a teacher comes one day as man , the next as a woman"
So you got a signer by presenting a situation that doesn't actually happen. Bravo. You're proud you got a signer through demagoguery and deceit - why am I not surprise?
There was a school recently that had a survey given with aparental knowledge , it asked kids if they ever had homosexual sex . Then when the answer was no , a follow up question then asked then how do you know your not homosexual then . Now that is not behavior I agree, but its sick ..
http://www.equalrights
washington.org/
This past weekend Tim Eyman and the radical right stooped to a new low. They tried to use churches across the state in a mean-spirited attempt to place a referendum on the November ballot that would repeal Washington’s civil rights protections for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Washington residents. Stand up to the radical right; sign ERW's resolution in support of the Washington Won't Discriminate campaign!
http://eqfed.org/campaign/WWD
Equal Rights Washington, the state's largest LGBT advocacy organization, calls on its advocates and all those who support Washington's anti-discrimination law to sign this powerful resolution. We’ll share the names of the signers of this petition with Washington Won’t Discriminate. The campaign will list your name on their website as an endorser and send you e-mail updates about how you can help protect Washington’s historic civil rights law. It’s time for all of us, straight and gay, to take a public stand.
http://eqfed.org/campaign/WWD
Washington Won’t Discriminate is the campaign formed by groups and individuals across Washington State to protect the state's civil rights law that prohibits discrimination in housing and employment because of sexual orientation or gender identity. ERW is proud to be a founding member of the Washington Won’t Discriminate Campaign. Today we ask our advocates, their friends, families, co-workers and neighbors to take action.
Click here to sign the resolution and be counted as a civil rights supporter.
While it was indeed disturbing to see signature collecting happening at fundamentalist churches, we should all take a moment to honor the churches and synagogues and other houses of worship that have led the movement for LGBT civil rights. Clergy, congregations and lay leaders have long been at the forefront of our human rights movement. Over 500 clergy and lay leaders have already signed a faith statement in support of Washington’s anti-discrimination law drafted by the Religious Coalition for Equality.
All of us working together will preserve Washington’s Anti-Discrimination law. After signing the resolution please forward this e-mail to all your friends and family.
Thank you for your support!
Barbara Green
Interim Executive Director
Equal Rights Washington
Yes I have used the man cross dressing as a perfect example of how perverted special rights are .
Also teaching of anal sex in school could now be used as discrimination if not allowed in health class. Hopefully logic and health concerns will win out . Heterosexuals use anal sex , but the health risks and accurate information would never be stopped
because it used by heterosexuals , so hopefully young homosexuals will not be subjected to propaganda to promote an agenda .
I guess we should be glad picking a nose is not an orienation , I can just see the health films promoting that .
You people are just a hate group. You should be ashamed of yourselves. People are born gay, but bullies are created in childhood. Bullies are the product of an overbearing father and a frightened mother. Childhood bullies grow up to be adult bullies--and bullies only feel good when there is someone to pick on! You are a hate group--but you can change. You can become an 'ex-bully' by opening your minds to the diversity of humanity and the benefits of living in a diverse culture that values reason and science. Try 'ex-bully' reparative therapy--address your own lives, and stop picking on people.
And one other thing...a presumably 'heterosexual' man who feels so strongly about discriminating against gays that they are out collecting signatures to do so--this man invariably has issues with his own sexuality. Often closet cases vent their frustration and anger at living a secret life against those who had the courage to 'come out.' I gurantee there is not a single man who is completely comfortable with their (hetero) sexuality that truly cares about this issue. It's always the closet cases who scream loudest about gay rights--it makes them resent the life they would have if they had the courage to live with integrity. I'm not trying to bait anyone here, it's just the sad, pathetic reality. Undeniable really.
Uhhhh, Nose picking as a protected status . Is that just going a bit far , no pun intended.
I guess the parades would be a bit interesting , and the kids would be more inclined to understand .
Yes I have used the man cross dressing as a perfect example of how perverted special rights are .
What's special about the right to dress as your gender identity? Everyone else gets to too?
Also teaching of anal sex in school could now be used as discrimination if not allowed in health class.
Hmmmm, the VAST majority of anal sex is performed by heterosexuals. No sexual orientation 'requires' anal sex. If they teach about it it would be because people engage in it regardless of sexual orientation and has NOTHING to do with HB2661. Might as well say the already existing civil rights protection of 'marital status' means we have to teach kids how to get a divorce. Seems the only way you can justify your desire to discriminate is lie - not surprising I guess.
I guess we should be glad picking a nose is not an orienation , I can just see the health films promoting that .
So acknowledging something exists is 'promoting' in your mind? You do realize that makes no logical sense, right?
Why are you against nose picking ?
Its an orientation, not a behavior . Are you afraid you will get cooties if you sit next to a nose picker ? Don't worry my friend , you catch it .. Almost all people behind bars have picked their nose at one time , this proves they are being discriminated against and deserve special protection . I don't mind you not picking your nose , just leave me and my nose picking out of your small bigoted little world.
Nose Pickers The next Civil Rights Movement , remember its not a behavior , its an orientation.. That makes it Ok ..
CK this out ..."It's always the closet cases who scream loudest about gay rights--it makes them resent the life they would have if they had the courage to live with integrity."
Lets see this is said by a homosexual activist who spends his off hours roaming around a political Evangelical blog , that really has not much action , from my previous look a few months ago no action at all , in fact there are more homosexual activists on here name calling , , insulting , promoting said to be their religion and morality that they really do not believe in , ..
I guess the logic with this person means he really wants to be the Pope , and he just spins his hatred to hide his dedication to the Ten Commandments , the Rosary , and really wanting to be an Altar Boy . But then hat would mean hewas saying sometihing that he had not seen on a bumper sticker .
I think it is terrible when open homosexuals are elected to positions of great power. Such confused people cannot be good leaders of men.
"Nose Pickers The next Civil Rights Movement , remember its not a behavior , its an orientation.. That makes it Ok .."
Ah but if you never see a nose-picker pick than what difference does it make to you? No one is saying they have a right to pick their nose in front of you, just that they can be a known nose picker and not be discriminated against.
Same with gays - no one is asking you to watch them do any of the handful of 'behaviors' proscribed in the bible. In fact these activities are illegal to do in public. So if you never see the behavior and you think being gay is just a behavior what exactly is your complaint with someone being gay in the first place?
May not have to watch someone pick your nose , but some people want you to pay for it
Convicted Killer Seeks Sex-Change Surgery
May 30 6:50 PM US/Eastern
Email this story
By DENISE LAVOIE
AP Legal Affairs Writer
BOSTON
A man serving a life sentence for the murder of his wife is asking a federal judge to order the state to pay for a sex-change operation for him, saying that denying him the surgery amounts to cruel and unusual punishment.
A psychiatrist testified Tuesday that he believes Robert Kosilek will kill himself if state correction officials refuse to allow the surgery and Kosilek is unable to complete his transformation into a woman.
Kosilek, 57, was convicted of strangling his wife, Cheryl, in 1990.
In 2002, U.S. District Judge Mark Wolf ruled that Kosilek _ who now goes by the name of Michelle _ was entitled to treatment for gender identity disorder, but stopped short of ordering the state to pay for the sex-change operation.
Since then, Kosilek has received psychotherapy, female hormone treatments and laser hair removal. Kosilek, who wears his hair long and tucked behind his ears, has developed larger breasts since beginning hormone treatments.
Kosilek sued the Department of Correction for the second time last year, saying that numerous psychiatrists who had examined him _ including two of the DOC's own experts _ had determined that a sex- change operation is "medically necessary."
"We ask that gender identity disorder be treated like any other medical condition," said Kosilek's attorney, Frances Cohen.
Kosilek sat quietly in court Tuesday as his attorney and an attorney for the state Department of Correction made opening statements in a trial that is expected to last up to two weeks. Kosilek opted to have the case heard by Wolf instead of a jury.
During the 2002 trial, Kosilek testified that he has suffered from gender identity disorder since the age of 3. He said he had twice tried to kill himself and also tried to castrate himself.
The DOC's attorney, Richard McFarland, said that DOC Commissioner Kathleen Dennehy made the decision to deny surgery for Kosilek based on "significant safety and security concerns."
McFarland said correction officials fear that if Kosilek has the surgery and returns _ as a woman _ to the all-male, medium-security prison in Norfolk where he is now serving his sentence, he could be a target for assault by male inmates. If he is transferred to the women's prison in Framingham, there are concerns he will pose a risk to female inmates there, McFarland said.
Two psychiatrists will testify that Kosilek functions "at a very high level" and that a sex-change operation is not medically necessary, McFarland said.
Neither side gave an estimate on the costs of the sex-change operation. Kosilek's attorney told Wolf she believes the DOC could argue that the surgery should be covered by the DOC's provider under its overall mental health contract.
Dr. George Richard Brown, a psychiatrist who said he has treated over 1,000 patients with gender identity disorder since 1979, acknowledged that Kosilek's depression and anxiety have improved since he began receiving female hormones. But he said that improvement was based on Kosilek's sense of hope that he will be allowed to become a woman.
"I believe that she would kill herself," Brown said, when asked by Kosilek's attorney what would happen if Kosilek does not have a sex- change operation.
"I don't believe she would consider life worth living without hope for completion of her treatment plan," he said.
___
May not have to watch someone pick your nose , but some people want you to pay for it
Convicted Killer Seeks Sex-Change Surgery
May 30 6:50 PM US/Eastern
Ha! Someone asks for something and you think its big news doing a 'cut and paste' spam through out this blog! The only reason this is news is because it is a 'man bites dog' story. No indication that the individual will get what they want, nothing to even vaguely relate to the issues being discussed here.
An analogy would be because the state protects marital status that every prisoner is due a divorce if they want one. Anyone can ask for anything - please try and think a bit before you spam.
Post a Comment
<< Home