FRC: Obama Plans to "Impose Homosexuality"
 

As seen on The Advocate, the Family Research Council, a whack-job fundie group, sent out an action alert which claims Obama wants to "impose homosexuality and silence Christianity in workplaces."


Impose homosexuality?!?!?!? Really!?! How... I mean... What the... SERIOUSLY? That statement is so obtuse I'm dumb-struck.

But just for the sake of argument, let's say those Liberals in DC actually do want to enact this plan. How would they go about it? Do they send goon squads into every Christian home, burn their Bibles, feed their crucifixes into a tree chipper, and point guns to their heads until they copulate with a member of their own sex?

I know the FRC is just trying to scare people, but doesn't this kind of ludicrous claim hurt their credibility? Sheesh, why don't they just say Obama is an alien from outer space and is the head of a galactic race that can only gain nourishment from eating Christian babies? :rolleyes:

Well, actually, these FRC types probably don't have a lot of crucifixes. They're predominantly Protestant, and crucifixes aren't their thing. (Alas, many of them think that the Catholic church is nothing less than the seat of the antichrist. Maybe not as widespread a belief as it used to be, but I still hear it often enough here in the South.)

It's scary to think that anyone takes this nonsense seriously, but these scare tactics really work. A lot of people in my family and circle of friends have started to parrot religious right talking points at me lately as though they are true, and they won't listen to my (hopefully reasonable) answers, because I'm a non-believer, so how could I possibly know. Grrrr....

Exactly. They are targeting idiots who already believe that homosexuality is a choice. It is infuriating. Disgusting and infuriating.

I don't see what's so ludicrous. They obviously don't mean you'll be forced to be homosexual but that you'll be forced to accept homosexuality in the workplace. And that's true. In the same sense that blacks were imposed on the workplace.

They're still horribly silly to be bothered by that.

It's very ironic that this is the same group who, given the chance, would impose their narrow brand of religion on everyone else and silence everyone who disagrees with them.

Yeah, that.

Every time I hear some nimrod complain that recognition of gay marriage would mean that children will be taught about homosexuality in school I wish I could respond with, "Yeah, so?" Damn right they will, they'll be taught that everyone has a right to be with whomever they choose to be with. And that's the way it should be.

But alas, such honesty is not effective in preventing nimrods from voting away people's rights.

Why is it with some people that whenever somebody's opinion differs from theirs, that person is a "radical?"

The same reason that when a judge's interpretation of the law differs from their religious beliefs, that judge is an "activist."

So you're going to teach your kid they'll be taught that everyone has a right to be with whomever they choose to be with. What is wrong with you?! Don't you know you have to protect future generations from this path to hell? Sheesh! [/sarcasm*]


*sometimes it seems sarcasm tags are still needed around these parts

--------

On a side note I told someones 9 y/o that 2 guys kissing was not wrong or disgusting. She came back with "but aren't you a Christian?" and when I told her "no" I thought her little head was going to explode. I did apologize to her dad - I am not that close to them and my brain to mouth filter was not working. Heck, on that topic I don't have one. In my world I don't associate with people who think homosexuality is wrong. I wasn't apologizing for saying it, but that courtesy apology when you just made a parents life a bit more difficult.

I think I was her first experience with someone who openly doesn't believe the same way her parents do. I hope it opens up dialogue and future conversations with her parents about not everyone believing the same way.

I don't share your certainty (but I'll agree it's a possibility). If that's what they meant, why didn't they say, "impose homosexuals"?

Because it's not "imposing homosexuals", it's imposing the concept of homosexuality as being ok.

If they went to every business and presented them with a homosexual person, saying "you must hire them", then that would be imposing homosexuals.

If one believes that by "imposing homosexuality as an ok concept" you are "silencing Christianity" (by not letting Christians complain that working with homosexuals is against their religion) then the statement they are making makes sense.

Discrimination is discrimination, no matter the religious guise, and it looks like we're getting down to brass tacks.

I want to know where in the Bible it says working with a homosexual is wrong.

THEN I want to know how many of them are already working with a homosexual and have no issue with them (most likely because said homosexual is keeping it in the closet, at least at work).

Perhaps a middle ground requiring/allowing workers to be homosexual in front of the building during breaks.

^^ Oh, that gives a whole new meaning to "taking a fag break." Badum-bum.

First, if you really believe the homosexual lifestyle is a huge sin, having any interaction with a known homosexual would be anathema.

The keyword is "known" and one of the workarounds is don't ask don't tell. If you didn't know you were palling around with a sinner, you won't have to explain yourself to Jesus.

So yeah, they're fine with closeted homosexuals. They're fine with a person who can't possibly talk about their home life in any meaningful way. When asked what they did this weekend, just saying they had a picnic with their partner is enough to send any good Christian running from the room, fingers in ears, yelling "LALALALACAN'THEARYOU!!"...or worse, running to attempt to get the offender fired for speaking of indecent subjects.

Ugh, I shudder just thinking about it, and I'm not even gay.

I'd love to see that conversation.

"But Jesus, I didn't even know he was gay and as soon as I found out I told him he was going to hell unless he changed his sinful ways"

"First off, do you watch lesbian porn?"

"Yes"

"do you think it's hot?"

"yes"

"Do you think they are going to hell?"

"Well I never thought about it like that"

"Second, who are you to tell someone they are going to hell? Isn't that my job... to judge? Or my dad's job? Oh and by the way, do you eat shell fish? Did you sell your daughter to be a bride? Have you ever worked on a Sunday? What's that? You enjoy crab and you've worked on Sunday's? Off to hell with you!"

Unless, of course, they're right about Jesus's views on homosexuals (I've no strong opinion on the matter) in which case the ending might be:

"Now, the question is does being right about that one thing overwhelm your other lapses? I say [yes | no]."

There's also the issue that failure to live up to one's ideals does not, in itself, invalidate the ideal.

Or are they?... Here is, word for word, exactly what Jesus Christ said about Homosexuality in the New Testament:

Now I understand why people get so upset about the gays.

Yes, so that means you also have no idea what his views on homosexuals were. If he was indeed a real historic person I suspect he would not have approved of them (though it would be another layer of speculation as to what he thought should be done about it) but like I said I have no strong feeling either way (a freedom gained by not caring a whit about what he said on much of anything).


And while Jesus may be up in the air, God (as presented in the bible) certainly went through periods of homophobia, and if you're a Trinitarian they're the same entity. Ergo proctor ipso loqua erat demonstratum.

Suuuuure... he hust hung around all the time with 12 like-minded guys, none of whom had wives. ;)

They were just bad at picking up women. Philosophers can be very dorky.

Kinda like in this book?

There were homosexuals in Roman times. And someone in the military who turned out to be homosexual would probably be "hidden" by his family by getting sent off to a far flung province. Like um... Judea. So there were homosexuals in his time, and he probably would have been aware of them. Yet did not directly address them. But he hung out with a whore, forgave thieves, etc. So we can wonder - would a "real Christian" associate with teh gays? Yeah, probably.

Yeah, I was about to say - though Christ said nothing about homosexuality in the Bible, there's a great deal said about being compassionate. I highly doubt that, according to Jesus' personality as documented, he would have behaved similarly to the FRC, even if he did consider it to be a sin.

Perhaps the fact that he didn't specifically mention them means that he didn't see them as any different then anyone else.

Just like you don't go around saying - my hetero friend Greg and I went bowling this weekend, he didn't go around saying that he and his gay friend went...er... whatever it was they did back in the day. ;)

Sure, that's the beauty of it. You get to make up whatever answers most satisfy you.

Jesus didn't mention homosexuals so he must have been ok with him.
Jesus didn't mention homosexuals because the Judaic disapproval of them was already so ingrained in the culture that it was unnecessary to mention.

He also didn't mention toaster ovens and I personally think he would have disapproved. Get a toaster or get an oven, none of this halfway hybrid crap.

So that's how this religion stuff works. ;)

Pffft. You're assuming he disliked Toaster Ovens simply because that's Teh Gay's main recruitment weapon. Guilt by association. :p

I DO know that Jesus Said (if you believe the accounts, and plenty do):

Well, Homosexuals are lovin' each other left, right and centre, so they HAVE to have some merit in Jesus' eyes.

...it also means that the ones that hate the homos are not acting as jesus' disciples. Hate isn't love.

I'm off for breakfast now. I'm having Avocado on toast. Done in my Toaster-Oven.

...and I just found this Youtube video series explaining "Why Obama is not a Christian" which is pretty nutcase if you ask me...