At last! an article that at least attempts to balance the views. She raises a good point about the effect on children, finally. God’s Word will be done, no matter what.
Now somebody please tell me anything amazing that this woman has done, other than marry a boring, lesbian talk-show host and write a book about who knows what. I’m glad that The Daily Telegraph columnist Miranda Devine wrote this article. Here goes:
Sunday, November 21, 2010 at 02:46am
PORTIA de Rossi’s refusal to be interviewed by men, while posing as the poster girl for equality and tolerance during a visit to Australia to promote her new book, was a spectacular own goal for the gay marriage movement.
The “wife” of US talk show host Ellen DeGeneres told ABC radio she was, “a little bit disappointed” with Julia Gillard’s opposition to same-sex marriage proposals from the Greens, which preoccupied federal parliament last week.
It is a matter of “equality for every citizen”, she said.
Yet when de Rossi appeared on Sunrise she wouldn’t let David Koch interview her - only his co-host, Melissa Doyle. She also insisted on a female interviewer on the Hamish and Andy Show.
De Rossi is entitled to the interviewer of her choice, provided those media organisations are willing to overlook such flagrant sexism. But she has blown her claims of tolerance and equality out the window.
Indeed, such selective intolerance has marked the entire campaign for gay marriage. The debate has been conducted with such intimidatory venom that anyone who speaks against gay marriage is crucified as an evil homophobe or religious extremist, guilty of hounding youngsters to suicide.
The jackboot tactics of personal destruction speak volumes about the validity of the cause. Forcing a change to the Marriage Act through fear is not tolerance, nor is it tolerable.
The debate has also been driven by misinformation and the artificial urgency of inevitability.
We were told last week, for instance, that the majority of Australians, 62 per cent, are in favour of same sex marriage, according to a Galaxy poll of 1050 voters, and that this figure has been rising inexorably over time.
But the poll, commissioned by advocacy groups, Australian Marriage Equality and Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, arrived at its conclusion by asking a leading question.
“A number of countries allow same-sex couples to marry. These include Argentina, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa and Spain, as well as parts of the United States and Mexico. Do you agree or disagree that same-sex couples in Australia should be able to marry?”
Why the preamble? Obviously, asking the question in the way Galaxy did implants the idea that same-sex marriage is so commonplace and widely accepted in reasonable countries that to disagree would be perverse. The meta-narrative, however, is set in aspic, and opinion polls are propaganda tools to prove the case that gay marriage is inevitable, and “dinosaurs” who oppose it had better accept it or “die out”, as one headline put it last week. Dissent is unacceptable.
In 2008, when Californian voters overturned gay marriage, the rage unleashed by the losers was frightening. Churches and houses were vandalised, religious services disrupted, people bashed, windows broken and restaurants blackballed.
Such intolerance is different only in scale to the sorts of eruptions we see in the Islamic world over perceived blasphemy in a cartoon, say, or a book.
The irony, of course, is that in those places, where homosexuality is punishable by death, there is a real human rights issue. The idea, in democratic, egalitarian Australia, that gay marriage is a human rights issue is an insult to homosexuals in less enlightened parts of the world, as well as to those Australians, many of them indigenous, who really are treated as second-class citizens.
This isn’t just the opinion of a married Catholic mother. Has anyone asked what gays want?
It shouldn’t be a surprise that the gay community is made up of people of diverse opinions and ideologies. La Trobe University professor Dennis Altman, a gay rights pioneer, has described the gay marriage campaign as “self-indulgent crap…I mean people around the world are being tortured for being homosexual…and people here carry on as if [gays] not being allowed to marry was a huge abuse of civil rights.”
Valuing gay people and ensuring they do not suffer discrimination is important and in recent years parliament has passed legislation to remove practical discrimination in same sex relationships.
It follows that a good number of Australians have no problem with gay marriage, and take a live-and-let-live attitude. When advocates are so passionate, it is hard to deny them what seems to be their heart’s desire.
People have even argued the conservative case for gay marriage, claiming it will strengthen the institution, and encourage gay monogamy.
But in all the talk of “human rights”, no one has explained convincingly what gays will bring to marriage. How will they improve the institution?
One of the consequences of remaking marriage to include gays is that it will be transformed from an institution centred around the wellbeing of children to one centred on the self-fulfillment of adults.
Marriage will become just another lifestyle choice, rather than the bedrock institution of our Judeo-Christian society, providing the optimal chance for a child to thrive and to grow up free of abuse.
But this belief, it seems, is not worthy of respect or protection.
Wow. I’m not saying that Portia De Rossi has an impact on gay marriage, but this is just bull.
1. Portia’s book is about her life and mainly her eating disorder and her conflict with her sexuality. And maybe she even helps someone with her book as they see that they’re not alone with their problems. And what she has done? Well, she’s an actress - yes, it’s not something too meaningful or political, but she’s in the spotlight of our society as we value actors and actresses quite a lot. She speaks out, plain and simple and maybe even raises awareness on eating disorders and lgbt issues. Additionally, she does support a variety of charitable organizations.
2. The “wife” of US talk show host Ellen DeGeneres (…)
This actually already tells me all that I need to know. Why is wife in quotation marks? They did marry when gay marriage was legal in California. Also, I find it plainly rude, because I’m sure the writer would want to have their decisions at least respected.
3. In 2008, when Californian voters overturned gay marriage, the rage unleashed by the losers was frightening. Churches and houses were vandalised, religious services disrupted, people bashed, windows broken and restaurants blackballed.
I’m too uninformed on that matter, so I don’t know about this supposed rage, but I’d really appreciate a link. Also: mormons. The unleashed rage might be frightening, but what about how a group of rich people can just change the whole legislation (compare with Blackwater)
4. One of the consequences of remaking marriage to include gays is that it will be transformed from an institution centred around the wellbeing of children to one centred on the self-fulfillment of adults.
Marriage will become just another lifestyle choice, rather than the bedrock institution of our Judeo-Christian society, providing the optimal chance for a child to thrive and to grow up free of abuse.
yes, because gay people don’t want kids. And straight people only marry because they want their child to be save and not as a symbol of love.
If marriage is an institution centered around the wellbeing of children, what is the marriage of heterosexuals who don’t have kids and don’t want them? A fake marriage? Marriage provides the optimal chance for a child to thrive an grow up free of abuse. Again, are only children who grow up with unmarried parents abused? There are plenty of cases where marriage isn’t even a factor in child abuse. Also, our society is only Judeo-Christian.
What is pansexual? I identify with pansexual and I know what it is, yet I get a lot of shit from people who say that it is just bisexual, but its not. I wanted to know your opinion/definition of what it is.
To be hones, pansexual is new to me though I definitely see it as a legit sexuality. It’s one of those that never gets the respect it really deserves (like a-sexual and often bisexual).
From what I’ve learned, pansexual, is used when someone can be attracted to not only men and women but bis, trans, and any other gender. Typically their sexual attraction is so ingrained into their emotional connection that they can be sexually attracted to just about anyone they feel an emotional attachment to, despite gender. While bi is more about attraction to both men and women. It does seem to overlap a bit but pan can be distinct from bi if we look closer.
I personally don’t care about labels, your sexuality is yours and you can call it whatever you want, but I know it helps to know especially when we are asked to clarify who we are attracted to.
I hate when people are really overly flamboyant about being gay. Being gay is not something you go skipping down the halls and shouting it. You’re not cool.
So… straight people can flaunt their sexuality left right and centre, but gay people should just basically shut up about theirs? Sounds to me like you have got a problem with them.
I don’t have a problem with straight people but I hate it when they are all over the place with it. Girls wearing pink? Guys liking football? People expressing themselves?God, keep it in the closet you freaks.
“A Letter to Louise” is a real letter from the Rev. Bruce Lowe to one of his closest friends regarding her statement that,”My brother hates God because God made him gay, and he knows he is going to hell, and I do, too, for that is what the Bible says.” After reviewing what the Bible actually stated regarding homosexuality, Rev. Lowe wrote the powerful “A Letter to Louise” in which he outlines a positive affirmation of homosexuality.
“Bruce Lowe is a graduate of Ouachita Baptist University in Arkadelphia, Arkansas (1936) and of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas (1946). He married Anna Marie in 1944; they have two sons and two grandsons. His ministry included the chaplaincy during World War II, pastorates in Louisiana, and teaching Bible at Louisiana College, Pineville. He left the ministry in 1966 and worked until retirement in the Office for Civil Rights of the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services.” [www.godmademegay.com]
Re: (“Can our kids live with that?” Forum/Nov. 14).
Dee Lundberg has rightly commented that bullying is a “tragedy” that needs to stop. She suggests that her emphasis on combating bullying was to “introduce tolerance and acceptance of those who are different.”
Since in one way or another we are all different, it would take a journey to the extreme fringes of society to find anyone who would disagree. It was hard to escape the conclusion, however, that her real interest in opposing bullying was to see homosexual behavior legitimized. She would have us believe that homosexual sex is a difference like the difference between nationalities. Some people are Irish, some African, some are gay. We should appreciate the fact that she provided the statistics indicating that the “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered and questioning youth are up to four times more likely to attempt suicide than their heterosexual peers.”
The high suicide rate itself should be a signal that the gay lifestyle is problematic. She even notes that the “bullying” problem is responsible for one out of four suicides in our state. What about the other three? While it is unfortunately true that people can be found who “bully” and are “using God as a scapegoat” to promote their personal prejudices, bullying is not the exclusive behavior of those who disagree with gays. The gay community is also notorious for “outing” others in ways that are not too different from what happened to the Rutgers University freshman.
The film “Outrage” is a recent example. It is not just heterosexuals who are bullies. It would be more appropriate, however, to consider the gay socialization as a more reasonable explanation for the high suicide rates. When a sexually confused teen is told they need to get over their fear of being gay and accept their gay identity and even rejoice in it, they jettison whatever hopes they may have had in the heterosexual community. When they discover that the gay life is not as fulfilling, satisfying or guilt-free as they expected it to be, there is no escape. The person who has been labeled as gay will be told, “You are gay and it is wrong to even suggest that you could change.” Counselors lose their jobs for suggesting that it is even possible for gays to change their orientation.
Charles Plant feels fine placing his title of Doctor before his name as if that gives his analysis legitimacy [newsflash: not a doctor] but cannot afford Rev. Lundberg her title. His letter is full of the very bullying he’s so concerned about.
I wonder if he thought about the high incidence of suicide in GLBTQ youth being at ALL connected to hatred like he is exhibiting. This is not Christ’s love. This is not love, period.
Joe Rehyansky, a part-time magistrate and Vietnam veteran, wrote on conservative news site The Daily Caller that lesbians should be allowed to serve in the military because straight male soldiers could “convert” them.
The UN has removed a reference to sexual orientation from a resolution condemning arbitrary and unjustified executions.
The UN General Assembly resolution, which is renewed every two years, contained a reference opposing the execution of LBGT people in its 2008 version. But this year’s version passed without any reference to gay rights after a group of mostly African and Asian countries, led by Mali and Morocco, voted to remove it.
Gay rights groups fear the move — which passed in a narrow 79 to 70 vote — will act as a signal that persecuting people for their sexual orientation is internationally acceptable.
“This vote is a dangerous and disturbing development,” Cary Alan Johnson, executive director of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, said in a statement. “It essentially removes the important recognition of the particular vulnerability faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people — a recognition that is crucial at a time when 76 countries around the world criminalize homosexuality, five consider it a capital crime, and countries like Uganda are considering adding the death penalty to their laws criminalizing homosexuality.”
Johnson was referring to a bill introduced in Uganda’s legislature last year that would mandate the death penalty for multiple acts of gay sex or for any gay person carrying HIV. Though the bill appeared to be shelved after an international outcry, its principal supporter said last month the bill would be law “soon.”
Uganda was among 79 countries that voted to remove the reference to sexual orientation from the resolution. Among the other countries were Afghanistan, China, Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Most Western countries, including the US, voted in favor of keeping the reference to sexual orientation in place.
The resolution “gives a de facto green light to the on-going murder of LGBT people by homophobic regimes, death squads and vigilantes,” said Peter Tatchell, a British LGBT activist. “They will take comfort from the fact that the UN does not endorse the protection of LGBT people against hate-motivated violence and murder.”
He added: “The UN vote is in direct defiance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees equal treatment, non-discrimination and the right to life. What is the point of the UN if it refuses to uphold its own humanitarian values and declarations?”
I have a few acquaintances who, when we talk about gay rights etc, say "I don't have a problem with a people, just what they practice." Personally, I think this is a terrible statement, and roughly equivalent with saying "I don't have a problem with them, just the fact that their skin is a different color" when addressing racism. However, I can't think of a good way to combat this kind of statement, since I tend to get a little more vicious when this kind of thing crops up. Any suggestions?
Oh, you’ve stumbled on my #1 pet peeve.
1) It assumes that love is more valuable than respect or can be extracted from it.
2) Assumes love is based on what you can say/feel not your actions.
3) “Love the sinner, hate the sin” can only even sorta come close to working with the people closest to us in life. Say a child or a lover. Not an entire group of strangers grouped together on exactly the thing we “hate” about them. I hate murder and I will not be fake and pretend I love all murderers since I don’t know any outside of the acts they have committed.
4) Sexuality is not the whole picture of a person but it makes up more of our everyday lives than many people realize. The pictures you bring to work, bringing a new love to the family, the conversations you have with friends… there is nothing about telling someone to deny such a deep part of themselves that shows any amount of understanding.
5) I like how your say acquaintances ”practice” like it’s something homosexuals just picked up one day and could easily throw away. We all know the problem there.
I think in the end we all know how much that statement is just a way to cover homophobia up. No matter what they might want to think about themselves as open-minded or with good intentions; when they marginalize people, vote to lower their quality of life and remove civil rights, it is an act of hate.
I'm sorry to ask a less relevant question, but is there a preferred browser for STFU, Homophobes? I'm having issues viewing older posts.
Sorry for taking up your time with this.
It’s okay, I’m not great with this site mostly because I’m finding I have less and less time for it. I have no problem seeing it on Safari or Firefox but I have not tried with Chrome or IE. Hope this helps!
I believe God is with us in this struggle, because I believe God always stands on the side of love. To me, it’s the everyday graces that signal that the tide is changing. I believe in my heart that they are a divine indication that our hope is not in vain.
That’s the only conclusion that can be drawn here:
The Salvation Army is threatening to close soup kitchens for tens of thousands of New York’s homeless and walk away from other projects if the city enacts legislation requiring firms that do business with New York to offer health benefits to the partners of gay staffers. The evangelical faith is prepared to give up the $70 million a year in city funding it receives and pull out of New York entirely the New York Post reports…
An official from the organization is quoted as saying that opposing gayness is a deep theological issue for them. Funny, he doesn’t say that about, you know, helping the poor. This is a good time to remind readers that when you see the Salvation Army Santas, it’s best to take whatever money you would be inclined to give them and give it instead to a better, more loving organization that does the same work.
“If you are a woman, if you are a person of color, if you are gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, if you are a person of size, if you are person of intelligence, if you are a person of integrity, then you are considered a minority in this world.”—Margaret Cho (via sarahgraham7)
This chick Ariana wrote some really shortsighted bigotry and I answered18 minutes ago · LikeUnlike
Will Welch Ariana—I call bullshit. Btw I’ve also been to school. There is an actual piece of legislation that specifically bans gay people from telling the military that they are gay and also requires that the military not ask although they certain…ly have investigative panels and procedures for it. DADT actually creates a legal space for the military to have procedures for systematically discriminating against gay people (not straight people—oh no—the legislation is written for gay people). How much do straight people like to talk about their loves back home—imagine when everyone is doing that and you have to sit there, feel like a loser make stuff up, whatever. take stuff for granted much? And that’s just ONE thing that sucks about it. What can the courts do? Well two federal courts have found DADT unconstitutional for three different reasons in the last year. The courts can do a lot—the question is will they? You say not everyone against repealing DADT or marriage equality is a homophobe????? What other excuse is there to want to disenfranchise gay people, to disallow them the same privilages as others??? Let me guess that you actually think they are inferior, or is it the children?See Morea few seconds ago · LikeUnlike
Ariana—-This is the problem with making changes that you can’t promise the people. Caleb, I have done some reseach and learned this in my Poli Sci class (more research is necessary though), the President is only the Commander in Chief during times …of duress on the nation, ie, times of war. Yes, he said that he was going to fix DADT, but like the health care reform, instead of sitting down for more than 6 months, he is actually listening for once to his commanders on ground and getting their input before getting rid of this policy. THat is what needs to happen. As far as the courts are concerened, what would the argument be? Discrimination, harrassment? Heterosexuals could than argue the same. I know its stupid, but you have to look at this topic not just in your view, but as the devil’s advocate as well. I don’t believe he is a homophobe (not all people are who are for DADT, against gay marriages…etc….), I believe he “bit off more than he could chew.” @Ronald-I too worked along side many gay men and women, but what happens when the transgenered person comes into play? What shower do we allow them to go to? That is just one of the questions that need to be looked at. Just because you are not open about being gay, does not mean that many people in have harsh feelings about it. Some people are nice and will say it doesn’t bug them, but you get them in a one on one situation (not in a time of war) with a gay person, their feeling may change. Like I keep saying the military needs to take control of this situation, not the President, he needs to support what his military is doing, and encourage them to change it, but forcing a change is not the answer to the matter at hand.See More
Passengers on a red-eye woke up to an announcement more interesting than the typical “fasten your seatbelts” as they approached New York early Thursday: Two men had gotten married on board overnight when the captain briefly flew over Canada, where gay marriage is legal.
At a question and answer with youth in Australia, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was asked about same-sex marriage and whether or not she supports it. Her answer? Uh…. no. Watch the video below.
In one breath she says she says she wants to end discrimination, but in the next says she only supports civil unions or contractual relations. Sad… very sad. Still think we would have had anything different if we’d voted in Hillary?