Tuesday, April 21, 2009

From Yet Another Email

This article says a lot about the true nature of those who support the "Day of Silence" that some schools offer these days. I'd be shocked (not really) to know that anyone would have a problem with anything Ms. Higgins has said in her article. She's obviously a victim of bullying and harassment.

I have long insisted that lies, distortions, & exaggerations have been used liberally by the homosexual activists to further their agenda. Obviously that is not news to Ms. Higgins, who reprints a few directed at her. And I have presented evidence to support my premise, and do so again here.

I'd like to believe that even with extemists on both sides of the issue (though most extremists on my side aren't really extreme at all), a compromise of sorts should be workable. However, I don't see how a true situation of reluctant contentment will ever come about when one side (that would be the other side I oppose) bases every inch of their journey on falsehoods and faulty reasoning.

In any case, the real bullying is coming from the other side. Preaching the Word, pointing out the obvious, none of that is hate or bigotry or discrimination. But should anyone dare publicly voice their opinion regarding homosexuality, and it does not align with the current politically correct (*gack!*) and pro-homosexual position, that person gets the treatment described in Ms. Higgins' article, the treatment inflicted upon Miss California by the geeky Peres Hilton, the treatment received by that old woman who's cross was viciously slapped out of her hand by tantrum-throwing activists and countless other hateful outbursts against those who disagree.

All I can say at this point is that there would be far less acrimony if these pathetic souls would hold their Day of Silence every day of the year.


Mark said...

Art, like you, I grow weary of defending my position on homosexuality.

Those who would argue with me (and you) tend to obfuscate, distract, and avoid certain questions when they don't have an answer, or if the only answer they can give will incriminate themselves or reveal their own hypocrisy.

For instance, in a previous comment thread on your blog, I asked homo lover Dan one very simple question: Does Leviticus 18:22 say, "Thou shalt not lay with a man as thou liest with a woman. It is an abomination"?

I then told Dan to answer yes or no.

He didn't answer. He has yet to answer. Why? Because the question doesn't leave him any room to avoid answering or dance around the question, or answer the question with another question, or use some other distraction to avoid answering.

When confronted with a simple yes or no answer, he can't do it.

Because, if he were to answer yes, He is admitting he is wrong when he says God blesses homosexuality, (since God cannot say homosexuality is an abomination and blessed both. He is not duplicitous.) and if he answers no, he is admitting he believes God is a liar.

Apparently, the best way to handle people who, like Dan, try to obfuscate, is to ask them one direct simple yes or no question.

If there's no wiggle room, they won't answer.

Hence, we win.

Mark said...

Art, forgive my interruption of your comment thread for my shameless self promotion, but I really would like to know your thoughts on an entry I posted on My religious blog.

As you know, I so rarely post there, it is no wonder I don't get many visitors there.

Anonymous said...

The article is more evidence of the homosexual agenda. They run the same plays over and over and reflexively spread malicious lies. It is bad enough that those claiming to be non-Christians do so, but I am most irritated at those claiming to be Christians that serve the agenda as well.

Dan Trabue said...

When the author of your email (Laurie Higgins) points out that this one person, Timothy Kincaid, is wrong to say:

"it's quite clear that [Laurie Higgins] does not at all wish that the bullying of gay kids should end at all."

"Higgins actually supports making schools unsafe for gay kids."

...Higgins is right. Higgins probably does not actively support making schools unsafe for gay kids or the bullying of gay kids. What Higgins does, instead, is apparently oppose actions that would make schools safer for gay kids. It is not her intent (giving her the benefit of doubt) to make kids less safe, but her actions will have that result.

Regardless, Higgins is correct to state that Kincaid is engaging in hyperbolic point-making with a demonizing edge. Higgins is RIGHT that it is wrong to misrepresent another's intentions or motives.

HOWEVER, when Higgins turns around and does that exact same thing (ie, misrepresents another's intentions or motives) she is just as wrong as Kincaid.

Higgins goes on to say...

Day of Silence is not merely about ending bullying. It's about ending bullying by eradicating the belief that homosexual behavior is immoral....
The Day of Silence IS about ending bullying. I have no desire and I know of no one else who has any desire to "eradicate" someone else's position on homosexuality. We would like to eradicate the notion that it is okay to demonize, belittle and treat as a leper our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. This is something you'd think Christians could get behind.

The Religious Right would have more credibility if they'd stand in strong opposition to the sort of bullying that happens to gay folk, if they gladly joined with such efforts as a Day of Silence. IF you truly "love the sinner but hate the sin," why wouldn't you come out in opposition to someone who'd beat up a sinner and in support of days to educate that such folk are normal human beings worthy of being treated with dignity?

Ultimately, though, Higgins is right: We ought not misrepresent someone else's position. And she is wrong when she does just that.

Mark said...

OH GOODY! Dan is back!

Now, Dan, perhaps you are ready to answer the question:

Does Leviticus 18:22 say, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination"????

Yes or no?

That's all I'm asking. Just one simple yes or no answer. Why won't you answer?

Answer the question or stop saying homosexuality is "God blessed".

Dan Trabue said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mark said...

HA! Dan says, "I'm not speaking to actively proselytizing perverts like brother Mark here."

Not the reason at all. You simply don't want to answer the question because you know to answer it honestly, you can't be honest about your "God blesses Homos" thing, and if you if you don't answer it honestly, you prove yourself to be a liar.

Marshall Art said...


You're obviously working that twisted angle that says the DoS is designed for protecting homosexual kids. This is false to the extent that it's real intent is to promote the lifestyle. Honest people can see through the rhetoric, knowing that if bullying were the true concern, the reason for it is besides the point. We've been through this before and bullying is bullying and it must be stopped regardless of who is being bullied. If the true concern is to protect any kid, why single out one group of them when others are at risk for bullying as well? The only possible reason is that there is concern that some people won't see the lifestyle as acceptable. Your constant defense of the DoS lie convicts you of the charge that enablers like yourself, along with those you enable, seek special considerations. We want all kids to be free from bullying. You want to focus on homosexual kids.

So Ms. Higgins isn't misrepresenting anything. You are, as is Kincaid.

We don't care if the kid is a homosexual. We don't want kids bullied. You want to preach to the bully that homosexuals are just like everyone else. We want to teach them that despite their sexual confusions, they have the right to live without assholes beating them up. We want to teach the bullies that they are to treat everyone with kindness and respect, even if they disagree with the poor life choices of their intended targets.

We want the focus on the evils of bullying, you want the focus on homosexuality as an acceptable, equal, and normal lifestyle. Groups like the Gay/Straight Alliance, GLISTEN or any other pro-homosexual, or for that matter, any pro-sex-of-any-kind group have no business in any school. The only concern these groups have for the kids is that no one interferes with them if they believe they are homosexual. They're in the business of promoting their version of morality. They don't need to say so in their brochures for reasonable and honest people to know it, but the fact that they don't gives them and dishonest people the room to say otherwise. Grow up.

Dan Trabue said...

This is false to the extent that it's real intent is to promote the lifestyle. Honest people can see through the rhetoric

Its "real intent"? Says who? YOU THINK its real intent is something other than it is. I am an honest person and I see no rhetoric there. Rather, I see an honest attempt to stop the assault on children for their orientation.

That you disagree with the approach (ie, trying to prevent assaults on gay kids through education specifically about homosexuality) is not the same as us having some hidden agenda. The agenda is to stop bullying targeted towards gays. Period.

I repeat: Higgins is right that one should not misrepresent others' positions or motives. None of us should, you included.

You simply can not speak to my motives for wanting to support such a program. You might disagree with how wise that approach is and that is fine. We could reasonably discuss whether or not it's the best way to get the desired results. But you can not speak to my motives because you are ignorant of my motives. You are not a god.But don't feel too badly. I'm not a god, either.

Dan Trabue said...

The only concern these groups have for the kids is that no one interferes with them if they believe they are homosexual.

YES! Finally! You are right. We just want them left alone to be who they are. The same as each of us wants.

There is no hidden agenda beyond wanting them to be left alone. If that is what you mean, then, by George, you've got it.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall illogically preened:

They don't need to say so in their brochures for reasonable and honest people to know it, but the fact that they don't gives them and dishonest people the room to say otherwise. Grow up.

And crap like this is why people don't care to comment on blogs like this. You don't seem to care a bit about anything beyond your own rhetoric. Either someone agrees with you or they must be lying or have ulterior motives or are idiots.

In the real world, adults have differences of opinion and they can do so without getting all goofy and thinking they're omniscient about it.

I've had it with certain creeps out there, but you (Marshall) at times seem to have a bit of reason and integrity within you. Then you go all goofball like you are here and frankly, people just don't have time to talk with brick walls.

Mark said...

Dan, you consistently misrepresent your position. Remember when you said "God Blesses Homosexuality?"

You know God said it's an abomination, yet you continually misrepresent what God says about it.

And you don't even have the nads to admit you are wrong.


Marshall Art said...

"There is no hidden agenda beyond wanting them to be left alone. If that is what you mean, then, by George, you've got it."No. That is not exactly what I mean. What I mean is that their concern is not as much for the safety of the kids as it is for the promotion of the lifestyle as an acceptable one in our culture. This nonsense about bullying is merely another avenue for them to work to achieve that goal. Let's put it this way: if they really cared about the bullying issue, then the fact that the victim is a homosexual would be besides the point. The victim could be a bully himself and, at least to us on this side of the issue, it would still be wrong to bully even a bully, and I don't approve of bullying anymore than I do homosexual behavior. So if the victim is a bully himself or a homosexual, that doesn't matter to one who is truly concerned with ending bullying and the safety of the victims of bullying.

"Its "real intent"? Says who? YOU THINK its real intent is something other than it is."Mindreading is not required here, Dan. Only eyes to see. Remove bullying from the equation and then tell me their purpose isn't to promote the lifestyle. And what do you suppose they would teach the bullies about homsexuality, but something meant to promote the lifestyle? In the meantime, any other target of the bully is left to his own devices.

"I am an honest person and I see no rhetoric there. Rather, I see an honest attempt to stop the assault on children for their orientation."Then you're a chump and a hack for the cause.

And just how can you justify such an interruption of the school day anyhow? If he victim was an actual Christian, it would still be an interruption to allow kids to not respond to class discussions, or worse, for teachers to postpone class discussions, in order to bring attention to the Christian lifestyle. And what would the bullies be taught then, but the very thing that sends shudders up libs everywhere, instruction in the Christian faith. But hey, make it homosexuality and it's freakin' mandatory for the benefit of gay-bashers everywhere!

If these groups really cared about the kids, they would counsel them to put off concerns about sexuality until adulthood. Do they do this? Hell no. They encourage them to "explore their feelings", taking advantage of their hormonally challenged mental states in order to lead them astray. They care about kids as much as Planned Parenthood does.

Your argument is lame and it is YOU who is the brick wall, defending the lamest of propaganda for the benefit of those you like to believe are the most saintly in your misguided church. Oh, that we all could cast off our crosses and live as we choose, confident that God will accept us no matter how we live, as if He will.

Craig said...

Let's not forget the loving and gentle response of Perez Hilton to Ms. California. It would seem as though this could be construed as verbal bullying. Obviously, Mr. Hilton chose to use his position of power to verbally abuse Ms. Cali. What class, maybe he should try the day of silence.

Marshall Art said...

Oh no, Craig! You've got it all wrong! It is perfectly acceptable to bully and harrass those with deeply held religious beliefs, especially those who's beliefs are based upon true Christian teaching. NOBODY is entitled to the level of protection due those poor, sensitive and apparently especially special homosexuals.

Mark said...

Let me finish that thought for you, Art...

"who really aren't homosexuals in the first place, except for the homosexual activists who have convinced them they are".

Craig said...


I'm sorry, you are right. Just like blacks can't be racist, obviously gays can't be bullies. The fact that no one form the gay community has come forward to disavow this Hilton idiot is as telling as their response to the loss in the prop 8 vote. The even more disturbing thing is that this Hilton idiot actually has some degree of credibility. Just goes to show how desperate the gay community is for role models.