QUICK LINKS
Gay activist groups given official U.N. status
The United Nations has granted two radical gay-activist groups official status as non-governmental organizations (NGO).
The Swedish Federation for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights and the Gay and Lesbian Coalition of Quebec now have official input into United Nation’s policy.
How did the U.S. vote and does this make any difference?
The United States voted in favor of the action.
Samantha Singson of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute said the head of the Canadian group is wasting no time spreading their message.
She said, “He’s been saying that he’ll take this as an opportunity to use the U.N. status as a platform to promote rights for homosexuals in basically the countries that opposed us.”
Thomas Jacobson, who is with Focus on the Family and a representative to the U.N. on their behalf said, “The groups can do enormous damage. The primary battles that we’ve had for years at the U.N. are over sexual issues and over the construct of the family.”
___________________
Gary Randall
President
Faith & Freedom
Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.
43 Comments:
"Thomas Jacobson, who is with Focus on the Family and a representative to the U.N. on their behalf..."
So having anti-gay groups like Focus and Catholic Famliy and Human Rights Institute, who consistently side with Islamic groups in efforts to rollback the rights of gays and women worldwide is A-OK with Gary. But if those gays get a place at the table to be part of these debates that affect their lives and rights directly it's time to call out the Brownshirts. Nothing like a little fascism to get you day going, right Gary?
anon 12:25
I guess I missed the part where Gary is condemning the fact that the gays have an official seat at the table. I only read it as reporting a fact.
What cannot be missed is your bigotry and hate toward not just Gary, but the beliefs of Christianity as well. I also think you are jumping to conclusions to make you point. Focus on The Family ddoes not have an official position at the UN. They simply go there to report back to people like us about what is taking place.
Some difference my friend. I think you knew that.
Anon 11:43
Is it possible that as one who is "thinking upon the things that are above" that I should be thinking something other than homosexuals and homosexuality (not once mentioned by Jesus)???
I think the problem is deeper than the "talking points" that you offer.
Sincerely,
Human
Gary,
I noticed that you termed these groups "radical gay activists".
Are there any gay activists who are not radical but only moderate or...???
BTW - with your evident obsession on homosexuals - would you be considered a "radical anti-homosexual activist"??
Sincerely,
Human
You missed where Gary is condemming the fact that the gay groups got a seat at the table? Are you kidding me? It's the ENTIRE point of the post!!
I guess you didn't see the quotes from FOF and CFHRI attacking the move.
There is nothing in my previous post expressing hatred or bigotry of any kind. Perhaps you are projecting your own hatred and bigotry onto me.
As for FoF's UN status, they ARE officially recognized. If one goes to page 26 of this UN pdf, you'll find that FoF has Special Consultive status, just like the gay groups they are so incensed about. http://www.un.org/esa/coordination/ngo/pdf/INF_List.pdf
Perhaps you should do a wee bit of research and educate yourself before intimating that others are being dishonest, when it is you, who is wrong.
I guess I missed the part where Gary is condemning the fact that the gays have an official seat at the table.
Other than labeling them in pejorative reactionary terms like 'radical'. So my talking about the radical Christianist group 'Faith and Freedom Network' wouldn't be considered a-ok with you?
Gary, hello, 411:
They still punish gays with the death penalty in many countries. The same countries that voted against this recognition. This is what these human rights groups work to end, similar to issues like female genital mutilation & the genocide in Darfur.
So, death for gays is biblical. A reasonable person could conclude your opposition to these human rights groups recognition is implicit approval to murder.
Correct me if I'm wrong, Gary.
-Puyallup
Human, you know Jesus said two things about sexual purity. He said, "Have you not read that in the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh...'"
The other was "Go and sin no more."
Anon 1:28
Thanks - good verses. However, the focus on the verses is exactly my point - Jesus taught the Kingdom of God - the truth. He did not spend all his time attacking one specific group of sinners. Gary is obviously obsessed with homosexuals to extent that he is using spin and deception to obtain political control - this did not Christ do.
Peace,
In Him
Human
Human, read Rom.1
Our nation would be going against God's basic principles, allowing the acceptance of the gay community, and making them 'legal'. God would turn His back on our nation, if this were allowed! We were founded on God's principles. In many ways, these principles are being trodded on via the gay community, abortion, within our schools, taking God out, etc etc.
This is a spiritual warfare, and we who believe and know this are praying hard for guidance and deliverance from these movements that are contrary to what our forefathers had established--a nation UNDER GOD, and using God's principles in every aspect of our lives as a nation! Please try to understand our concerns.
Dear Anon 2:20pm,
Sweet Heart... ease up.
Please try to understand OUR concerns... as citizens, as humans, as God's children too.
We don't believe that God will turn his/her back on this nation if civil society recognizes the full humanity and full rights of each and every one. Are these not also key principles upon which this great nation was built? Are these not key principles upon which this great nation went into civil war over?
No one citizen is superior to another. No one religion is superior to another. America's greatest foundation is its centuries old advocacy for equal rights and justice.
So live and let live Anon. Spiritual warfare will make you bitter and deepen the wrinkles between your eyebrows. No body wants that.
Yours Truly,
Lezzlie
No one religion is superior to another .
In the eyes of the Constitution you are correct
"Our nation would be going against God's basic principles, allowing the acceptance of the gay community, and making them 'legal'. God would turn His back on our nation, if this were allowed!"
This is a total bullsh!t, fascist argument attempting to give you a personal stake in the private personal lives of others.
I'm curious about the Jacobsen quote that these groups can do "enormous damage"?????
Since Gary is spreading this word, maybe he could give some examples of the potential damage?
"This is a total bullsh!t, fascist argument attempting to give you a personal stake in the private personal lives of others"
Actually sweetie its Bibical. Examples of the Bible are found when the nation of Israel turned its back on God and negative consequences occured for Israel. . There is Bibical debate to say that was just Israel , but of course there Bibical grounds for those concerns of negative consequences.
Not being a student of the Bible you would not know that , interesting you commented on it without any knowledge of it though .
6:22 PM, August 01, 2007
Biblical or not, sweet cheeks, it's still a BS, facist attempt to give you a stake in the private personal lives of others.
Unlike your earlier erroneous claims about Fof's UN NGO status, I don't need to know the details of your religion to respond to a political argument you make. The status of our nation's laws is a political discussion.
I would like to share a few thoughts with you folks regarding this blog.
First, regardless of whether the U.N. should or should not have given status, the fact that these groups now have status has potential implications which should not be overlooked. For myself, I wouldn't necessarily find it inconsistant to hold that the U.N. should have given them this status and also that their obtaining this status is a negative thing. Our [America's] first amendment is a classic demonstration of this principle. If a group steps forward to promote political views that I find strongly disagreable, I may feel that their efforts will lead to bad laws; however, I would still have to recognize their right to such speech. Another analogy would be democratic elections. I may not like the candidate with the most votes. But they're still the winner of the election, and I support a system in which they can peaceably take office. So opposing these groups doesn't necessarily mean believing that the U.N. did wrong in recognizing them.
[For what it's worth, I don't read anywhere in this posting where Gary Randall says that the U.N. was wrong in admitting these organizations - or that they were right in doing so. I wouldn't be so bold as to make any judgement as to his position on that.]
Nor do I believe supporting the values promoted by these groups means necessarily supporting U.N. recognition of them. By analogy, I may go to church, but that doesn't mean by church should recieve government sponsorship or even that I think it should.
So the first questions I would have to ask is: Does the U.N. have a reasonable and fair criteria which is publicly adopted and consistently followed? Second, was this criteria (if it exists) followed? Based on these questions, I would have to answer the following: Does the U.N. recognition of these organizations consitute or imply an endorsement of them or their views, or merely recognize that they have met the qualification necessary to receive whatever privledges they are being granted?
But even if the U.N. was fully justified in granting standing, it would appear that there are still serious political implications which make this incident worthy of notice. Of those with ties to the LGBT-rights movement, I ask: In all honesty, do you believe that these organizations with only seek what I may call the elementary rights of humans (e.g. life) or will likely also campaign for (what I would call) more qustionable "rights" (e.g. same-sex marriage)? I cannot say today what the answer is, but I suspect the latter.
I think there is a wariness among "conservatives" that the LGBT & Ally community will continue to push for additional concesessions. So even some who might be willing to support limited changes might hesitate to do so for fear of giving momentum to the movement.
I know someone mentioned earlier on this blog that some countries use capital punishment for homosexuality. I'm not trying to justify or argue for anything like that.
I don't think very many of "us" (I don't like being boxed in a group like that either), "conservatives" would want to see our LGBT neighbors systematically killed. Sure, I don't assume I can speak for everyone: there are all sorts of people out there. But I hope and believe that that is not what is behind Gary's opening to this blog.
Anon 2:20
I am very familiar with Rom 1 (and the rest of the Word of God). There are a couple verses about the impact on individuals of engaging in unnatural behavior. That has NOTHING to do with how our civil government, a reflection of ALL our citizens, is structured. Further, your orientation, and that of the religious right, is a fundamental violation of the Word of God on several counts - most predominately ICor5:12, 13 - God is to judge those without - we are called to judge those IN THE CHURCH - not attempt to surpress the world with the legislation of our ethics - this is the cause of great evil and not only totally unnecessary but totally contrary to Christ. Further, our battle is NOT against flesh and blood but against principalities and powers - it is time to end the evil of suppression via the use of our flesh and, rather, fall on face before the Lord of Glory in humility and repentance that He might change the hearts of men by His Spirit in a genuine man rather through the artifice of the flesh and the sword of the State.
Simple, Biblical, but oh so hard for the flesh of religious people to do....
Peace and love,
In Him who loved us,
Human
Rebecca - Why are the basic rights of citizens considered to be "concessions"???
Human
human. I have just finished reading a number of your comments on a number of different blogs that Gary has posted over the past month or so. You are a bitter confused person. I saw some reference to you being associated with Mars Hill church. I am closely connected to Mars Hill and you do not repersent either the teaching or the spirit of Mars Hill church.
to human,
You profess to being a Christian; but, with your remarks on much of this issue of gay issue, it came to mind something else Jesus said when, "Peter took Jesus aside and began to rebuke him. 'This shall never happen to you!'
Jesus turned and said to Peter, Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."
That was a pretty strong statement Jesus made! Your salvation I am not questioning, your accuracy of what God says is in question! Since what is going out in this blog, we will be held accountable for every idle word we say! Best not to go ahead of God, but seek him for what he wants us to relate.
To Human,
For you or gay people to say Gary or other hetrosexuals have "an obsession of homosexuals" made me think:
GAYS are the ones obsessed with sex, deviant sex! Gary and other heterosexual people are only trying to fight back this obsession of the gays! An obsession that is seeking to gain legal recognition and then total social acceptance (to the tune that if any one counters their practice, they will sue!) So, who is the obsessed??!!!
The same as war. When one is attacked without provocation (9/11), is not one to defend themselves?! The insidiousness of this war is that it is not easily pegged! The element that started the war make claims WE are the ones that provoked them to attack!! They have their twisted reasons and insist on jabbing those whom they want to hurt or destroy. Maybe that is why there are so many who protest the war!
It appears there is a great similarity between the "war" with the gays and the "war" with the Islamic fanatics! The element of "war" (fighting against) is a very real antagonism! Just as the Islamic terrorists claim WE are the ones who don't capitulate to their demands; so the gay activist's claim the same thing!
Of course, both will deny up the kazoo and throw accusations that this is not so! That is their "mo". It is to try to deflect their confronters words of truth. They then use distortion of information to try to confuse!
Folks, the same "spirit" is behind both these "wars"!
GAYS are the ones obsessed with sex, deviant sex! Gary and other heterosexual people are only trying to fight back this obsession of the gays!
In what way are gay people 'obsessed' with sex in any way that straight people aren't? Sure you can see that your diatribe could be used by any group about anything?
Exactly what does any of the civil rights or marriage equality issues have to do with sex specifically for people of any sexual orientation?
And as to comparing the controversy to Islamic fanatics - you realize YOU are the ones in their role, right? You are the ones who are saying 'everyone must do things my way or we fight'. Equal rights activism is all about choices and YOU are the one who wants to limit the choices that other people can make according to your beliefs even if they don't share them.
" In all honesty, do you believe that these organizations with only seek what I may call the elementary rights of humans (e.g. life) or will likely also campaign for (what I would call) more qustionable "rights" (e.g. same-sex marriage)?"
So? Why is not possible to work with them were you agree and don't where you don't agree? Why shouldn't they be allowed to seek rights (not "rights") that you wish to deny them?
"I think there is a wariness among "conservatives" that the LGBT & Ally community will continue to push for additional concesessions. So even some who might be willing to support limited changes might hesitate to do so for fear of giving momentum to the movement."
I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about. Just what concessions have conservatives made to the LGBT community? Also, what kind of morality leads one to do nothing about the state sanctioned murder of gays because some other gays in other countries are seeking equality with regards to civil marriage?
9:50 AM, August 02, 2007
What a sad, frightened, paranoid pathetic world you live in.
Oh, and BTW it is the Christian NGO's at the UN that consistently side with the islamic states against gays, not the other way around.
Just what concessions have conservatives made to the LGBT community
Refraining from stoning them on sight?
Anon 1:46AM
Please read my response to your statement. You will have to be the judge of my confusion. I would appreciate your prayers.
Sincerely,
Human
PS - What are doing up at 1:46AM??
Anon 7:34
I am relating the Word of God only - see ICor5:12, 13. I have mentioned several other texts - at no point has anyone ever refuted the clear word of God to support Gary and the religious right's deviant obsession with homosexuality.
Sincerely,
In Christ,
Human
Anon 9:50
With all due respect, you post simply does not make sense.
If you want to pick one point and genuinely and honestly deal with in before the Lord and the Word of God, I will be happy to do so.
Peace,
Human
Anon 1:46AM
I should have said
Please read my response to your post on the former blog re: Paradox on the Michael Vick case.
I cannot edit - sorry for the confusion.
Human
Human,
The Bible can be used by anyone to substantiate whatever they want to say! This is a known fact.
So, when you quote verses, you assume you are quoting correctly. I really do not think you are interested in a Bible lesson on 1 orinthians 5:12-13. You are not harmonizing the Scripture but only taking one (two) verses and trying to make them a "gospel". Sorry, but that is wrong.
Anon 7:19
When Jesus says the greatest commandment is "To love Jehovah thy God with all the heart, mind, soul and strength" (or some derivation thereof), I do not need anymore verses to understand that the greatest command is to love God with all my heart strength and soul.
You are attempting to confute the clear text of scripture because you recognize that it is condemning not only behavior but your entire right wing infuse belief system. My encouragement is simple repentance before the Lord and acceptance of the simple truths of the Word of God beginning with Jn 3:16 and moving to Rom 13:10 - stop hurting people. Not too complex... does not take a theology degree.
Peace,
In Him who is our peace,
Human
"The Bible can be used by anyone to substantiate whatever they want to say! This is a known fact."
Hmmm, seems like we ought to seek a less capricious source for our laws then, right?
Hmmm, seems like we ought to seek a less capricious source for our laws then, right?
Yeah like a Constitutional Republic .
whooops but that constitution can change its intent by those secularists who believe differently also .
Like a right to homosexual marriage that was never intended but now it is found .
Its a non religious constitutional miracle .
"whooops but that constitution can change its intent by those secularists who believe differently also . Like a right to homosexual marriage that was never intended but now it is found ."
Mick, there was no right to same-sex marraige found in the consitution. The Supreme Court upheld DOMA. You're getting your Roe v Wade and same-sex marriage talking points confused, maybe it's time for a reboot?
Hmmm, seems like we ought to seek a less capricious source for our laws then, right?
Hmmm the source of US laws is pagan anglo/saxon with roman influnces, not the Bible.
Mick, there was no right to same-sex marraige found in the consitution. The Supreme Court upheld DOMA. You're getting your Roe v Wade and same-sex marriage talking points confused, maybe it's time for a reboot?
whoops , your right
Ms Faust,
You were asked to clarify and expound on your comments five days ago. Can we take your lack of response in that time as evidence that you have no interest in discussion or debate, but are merely a drive-by poster?
Source of US laws is pagan Anglo-Saxon with roman influence?
What a hoot!
The number one source of quotes in the Founding Fathers comments, over 34% of them was from the Bible.
Next was Blackwell with 8% of their quotes, and when they traced where Blackwell got his information for the formation of law, it was from the Bible.
I have written all of this to OV before, but he is bent on misleading people. He does not want to learn, and while he pretends to be learned, he is really very closed minded and not willing to learn at all.
(The source of our very unique government with 3!!! branches of government is "The Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver,and the Lord is our king...." Isaiah 33:22)
That is Sir William Blackstone, not Blackwell, renowned English jurist who played a leading role in forming the basis of law in America. He lectured at Oxford, and from 1765 to 1770 published his highly influential work, "Commentaries on the Laws of England", which by 1775 had sold more copies in America than in England.
Blackstone also stated: "Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator, for he is entirely a dependent being...And consequently, as man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should in all points conform to his Maker's will...this will of his Maker is called the law of nature. These laws laid down by God are the eternal immutable laws of good and evil....This law of nature dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this..."
And your comments are irrelevant as always since all the legal structures existed in Britain before the spread of Christianity. Yes, the newcomer Christians adopted them, but that doesn't mean they are their originators.
Yes the victors write the histories but that doesn't mean they actually created what they might be attributed.
And your last quote from Blackwell is a perfect statement of the deist belief - that good and evil are intuitively found in the laws of nature, not from magic books or messianic zealots. Jefferson's Declaration of Independence quote about our inalienable rights are a simple distillation of the quote you just stated and one I totally agree with. Oddly enough it is the Xtians that think people don't have these rights...
Don't think Jehovah necessarily means God or the Creator, they aren't the same.
?????
Where in the world did you make all that up from?
The modern form of government originated with started with the Magna Carta, LONG after Christians came to Britain. You need to study up on your history a little.
And, Jehovah is not really a name for God. There is no "J" in the Hebrew language, that was the misinterpreted name given by Germans to God...probably YHWH. But I have no idea where you came up with the term Jehovah anyway, since I never mentioned.
As far as relevancy, only those who really want to learn or know something need read and learn.
The modern form of government originated with started with the Magna Carta
Humorous - you think before the Magna Carta there was no law? Funny if you don't for saying it and funny if you do for believing it. ;)
I brought up Jehovah (the transliteration used in the King James version of the bible) because it seems you think that anyone talking about God or a Creator is talking about Christianity and its Judeo Christian roots when that isn't necessarily true. The Deist Creator is not the Xtian Jehovah, just as Jehovah isn't Allah, and Allah isn't Brahma. All monodeistic religions aren't necessarily talking about the same deity.
Post a Comment
<< Home