Mailbag: RE: “Our Small-Minded Views”


Angry FeedbackWe receive quite a bit of feedback, and we’re doing our best to try to keep up with it. While a growing portion of it is positive, you can probably guess what most of it looks like.

Some of our nastygrams are calm and thoughtful political critiques, and we try to return thoughtful criticism with thoughtful responses. Most of the time it’s a scattershot assault on our “privilege”, our private matters, and our privates. To Michael’s credit, he did manage to keep it more political than personal, but his feedback was anything but calm.

I do not expect to change your small minded views.

This is a very negative and unproductive way to strike up a dialogue.

But gay marriage has nothing to do with your traditional marriage with is riddle with divorce, infidelity, domestic violence, dead beat dads (and mother’s) […]

Right at the beginning of my article announcing our amicus brief, I was careful to note that “The recent campaign in favor of homosexual “marriage” is merely one battle in their generational campaign against the ties that bind our peoples.” We’re as opposed to quickie divorces, open marriages, domestic violence, and broken families as we are against “gay marriage”.

[…] and over population as if the orphanages of the World aren’t full enough and the World needs more children.

This insidious notion that newborn children are anything other than a gift has resulted in the deaths of untold millions of unborn children and encouraged the ongoing decline of the world’s most conscientious and forward-thinking families and communities.

Of course, this is a disingenuous point, as “gay marriage” isn’t about whether or not somebody’s gay, it’s about whether or not a gay couple is considered “married”. It’s about whether or not the community celebrates their lifestyle, not whether or not they abandon homosexuality and turn to heterosexual relationships.

Besides, a growing number of lesbian couples are having children. But fecundity is really beside the point. This is more about the kind of families and communities that the children who end up being born grow up in.

If your going to discriminate and be prejudice then get your facts straight. It is a KNOWN FACT that 96% of Pedophiles are HETEROSEXUALS.

Homosexuals are, statistically speaking, somewhat more likely to molest children. We didn’t actually “go there”, but our facts would have been straight if we had bothered to go there. I certainly don’t claim that homosexuality and child molestation are synonymous. To do so would be to trivialize child molestation and unfairly malign the majority of homosexuals who’ve never harmed a child.

This tangent is also beside the point.

And how can there be incest when the adopted children aren’t of the same blood? Incest happens in Traditional Marriages.

Both intuitively and legally, having sexual relations with adoptive or step-children–even if it’s consensual and they’re legally adults–is incest in just about every jurisdiction in Western Civilization.

But I am not seeking your approval or consent. This county was founded to escape religious persecution.

You do realize that the people escaping religious persecution were the Puritans, right? They came here to establish theocratic communities and jurisdictions where God’s law was the law of the land.

And with pollution, natural disasters, poverty, disease and over population to name just a few your preoccupied with whom I choose to marry?

TradYouth’s official position on natural disasters is opposed. We oppose earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, hurricanes, and tornadoes. Our official position on disease is also opposed.

In all seriousness, the problems you named are all very big generational challenges. History and common sense confirm that strong traditional families and communities are the best prepared to face big obstacles. This is why Hiroshima could bounce back within a few years from a nuclear bomb, yet Detroit and a growing number of American cities are starting to look like a nuclear bomb was dropped on them.

The future belongs to communities with strong links to their past, friendly relationships with their neighbors, and a high investment in future generations.

Priceless.

My “small-minded views” may be “priceless” and amusing for you, Michael. You may think my beliefs and positions are “antiquated” and “regressive” compared to your Modern and Progressive positions. The political class can line its birdcages with our beliefs, but history’s birdcage is lined with the rotting remains of countless communities, empires, and civilizations which through hubris and decadence failed to heed the gods of the copybook headings.

The price of decadence, pride, and self-worship is more than any of us can afford, and it’s a price our children and their children will be paying on our behalf for generations to come.


  • Oh No!

    If our views are “small-minded” (what exactly does that mean?) then it would be ideal for the offenderati to want to separate from us, as in a separate country, autonomous zone, etc. If they can’t expect to change us (into wusses like themselves) then what is the point of staying with other than to have someone to berate constantly?

  • KO

    Mr. Parrott, I admire your good-humored responses to adversaries and hecklers. I hope you will put this talent to use in running for office.

  • “And with pollution, natural disasters, poverty, disease and over population to name just a few your preoccupied with whom I choose to marry?”

    TradYouth’s official position on natural disasters is opposed. We oppose earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, hurricanes, and tornadoes. Our official position on disease is also opposed.

    Not THAT is priceless…

    • Jeff

      In my country, there IS nothing I can’t do as a gay man, because here in the United Kingdom and Scotland, we have FULL equality, and that includes same sex marriage between gay men, and lesbian women.

      Same sex marriage was recently enacted in Scotland just this year. Prior to this year, what was it that you and your significant other could not do that you can do now? Please tell us all how oppressed you have been in Scotland up until this year?

      You have failed to prove that my marrying my same sex partner is going to undo or in any other way impact negatively upon your marriage, or anyone else’s, other than to undermine your belief that you are innately superior to me because you had the good fortune to be born with a particular sexual orientation. This is the same swell-headedness that makes you believe that because you are white, you are a more virtuous and better all-round person than someone who isn’t white.

      For any institution to have meaning it has to been clearly defined with regards to what it is, who it’s meant for, and the purpose it is meant to serve. If marriage is open to anyone and everyone, it loses all of its meaning. There is no point to marriage if it is open to everyone. Marriage as an institution has been a strictly heterosexual institution that dates back thousands of years. It has been recognized and practiced as a heterosexual institution across virtually every religion and many non religious societies. For Christians, this isn’t just a covenant just between two people, but a covenant with God. Across most religions, marriage vows are conducted by a head religious figure and usually occurs in a house of worship. So to most, marriage is a sacrosanct institution. I will admit that heterosexual no fault divorce has done a lot to undermine marriage. It’s hard to listen to someone like Rush Limbaugh discuss the “sanctity of marriage” when he is on his fourth wife. Your gay marriage has further undermined traditional marriage by having it include people that it has never included. If marriage shouldn’t be restricted to a man and a woman and it should include homosexual couples, why stop there? Why shouldn’t it also include throuples, 5 men and 5 women, 100 people consisting of 75 women and 24 men? Why shouldn’t twin brothers, two sisters, mom and daughter, dad and son, dad and daughter, mom and son, grandmother and granddaughter be allowed to marry? Why are they not equal to you and your significant other? By logic, all that should be required for marriage is for two or more people to sign a government marriage certificate. With the bar this low, marriage is meaningless. Marriage doesn’t sound so special now does it? For you, I believe that marriage is important to you so that you can say that you are equal to heterosexuals. I cannot relate to the mindset of people who seek to co-opt preexisting institutions in order to gain of others. I’m not that insecure. This why I believe your homosexual marriage is so important to you. Also, atheist and gay marriage advocates, who are often one in the same, have long had an antagonistic view of religion. Most of you take great pleasure in undermining a religious institution.

    • 1. Prior to this year, I could not legally marry my same sex partner. If he and I were raising children, their adoptive parents would be unmarried.

      2. According to your argument, marriage is primarily religious in character as a “covenant with God”. Therefore, atheists or non-Christians – at least Christians who don’t belong to your particular religion, should be prohibited from marrying, not just in your church, but in any church, synagogue, mosque or temple, or any government civil registry office. It’s clear that like Muslims, you want to end the separation of Church and State, and be ruled by a theocracy, but how will you determine which church/mosque/synagogue/temple gets to force its teachings down the throats of all the other churches/mosques/synagogues/temples, some of whom, like the Quakers and many synagogues, provide sacraments to gay people, including same-sex marriage? Since you want your feeling of superiority to me to be written into law, why not call yours “holy matrimony”, and leave us call our equivalent arrangements plain old marriage?

      Now, what is the difference between a same sex couple raising, say, three adopted children, and an opposite sex couple raising the same children? Why should the latter be the only ones allowed to marry?

    • Jeff

      1. Prior to this year, I could not legally marry my same sex partner. If he and I were raising children, their adoptive parents would be unmarried.

      Good grief. Throughout this whole debate you have not spoken a word about adoption is the reason why gays must be allowed to marry. If you care to notice there is a difference between the offspring unwed biological parents and two men who want to adopt a child. The child won’t be traumatized because he doesn’t have one of his two daddies. You two are redundant after all.

      Once again, you bring out straw men. Never spoke a word about theocracy. I was discussing the traditions associated with marriage. You and your ilk don’t seek marriage equality. What you’re after is marriage mockery.

      Now, what is the difference between a same sex couple raising, say, three adopted children, and an opposite sex couple raising the same children?

      For a gay couple, tell me which one is the mother and which one is the father?

    • For a lesbian or gay couple either they are both the mother, or both the father. Most children up for adoption were conceived accidentally by their biological mother and father and dumped on orphanages either because they were removed by the state because of abuse and neglect, or because couldn’t even be bothered to look after them, despite possessing what you declare as being the indispensable attributes both of gender and heterosexual orientation. Orphans are certainly not better off with such parents.

      Allow me to ease your fears that we are destroying these children by caring for them. Who better to listen to about the results of same sex parenting, than the kids themselves (delete all spaces to open links):

      w w w . youtube. com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q (Zach Wahls)
      w w w . youtube. com/watch?v=IDqiTt7mfsQ (Riley Roberts)
      w w w . youtube. com/watch?v=_qf0puHJ-KM (“Two Fathers” song)
      w w w . youtube. com/watch?v=B9x_E7Gj2qw (“Two Gay Dads”)

      More than 25 years of research have documented that there is no relationship between parents’ sexual orientation and any measure of a child’s emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment.

      We can turn to a host of experts and research findings on the topic including:

      American Academy of Pediatrics
      American Psychiatric Association
      American Psychological Association
      National Association of Social Workers

      Starting with the American Academy of Pediatrics, which said the following about same-sex parenting:

      h t t p : / / pediatrics.aappublications. org/content/131/4/e1374.full

      “There is ample evidence to show that children raised by same-gender parents fare as well as those raised by heterosexual parents. More than 25 years of research have documented that there is no relationship between parents’ sexual orientation and any measure of a child’s emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment. These data have demonstrated no risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with 1 or more gay parents. Conscientious and nurturing adults, whether they are men or women, heterosexual or homosexual, can be excellent parents. The rights, benefits, and protections of civil marriage can further strengthen these families.”

      THEN the American Psychiatric Association:

      “Numerous studies over the last three decades consistently demonstrate that children raised by gay or lesbian parents exhibit the same level of emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as children raised by heterosexual parents. This research indicates that optimal development for children is based not on the sexual orientation of the parents, but on stable attachments to committed and nurturing adults. The research also shows that children who have two parents, regardless of the parents’ sexual orientations, do better than children with only one parent.”

      AND the American Psychological Association – which passed a lengthy resolution on this issue. The key parts of that resolution are below:

      “WHEREAS
      there is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation: lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children (citing research by Patterson, 2000, 2004; Perrin, 2002; Tasker,1999);

      “WHEREAS
      research has shown that the adjustment,development, and psychological well-being of children is unrelated to parental sexual orientation and that the children of lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those of heterosexual parents to flourish (Patterson, 2004; Perrin, 2002; Stacey & Biblarz, 2001);
      “THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the APA opposes any discrimination based on sexual orientation in matters of adoption, child custody and visitation, foster care, and reproductive health services;

      “THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the APA believes that children reared by a same-sex couple benefit from legal ties to each parent;

      “THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the APA supports the protection of parent-child relationships through the legalization of joint adoptions and second parent adoptions of children being reared by same-sex couples;

      “THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that APA shall take a leadership role in opposing all discrimination based on sexual orientation in matters of adoption, child custody and visitation, foster care, and reproductive health services”

      NEXT, the National Association of Social Workers:
      “Anyone who wishes to examine the 20 years of peer-reviewed studies on the emotional, cognitive and behavioral outcomes of children of gay and lesbian parents will find not one shred of evidence that children are harmed by their parents’ sexual orientation.

      “The empirical and clinical evidence suggesting same-sex parents are equivalent to heterosexual parents in their ability to care for children and provide loving homes is so compelling that there is a growing consensus among legal and child welfare experts that there is no rational basis to deny adoption to gay and lesbian couples solely on the basis of their sexual orientation.”

      AND the results of a study by the University of California at Los Angeles and the University of Amsterdam, in which children were followed from their adoption by same-sex couples during infancy through to adulthood – 17 years in all. Their finding was that children raised by same-sex parents “were rated significantly higher in social, school/academic, and total competence and significantly lower in social problems, rule-breaking, aggressive, and externalizing problem behavior than their age-matched counterparts in Achenbach’s normative sample of American youth.” This study was published in the American Academy of Pediatrics three years ago.

      In Australia:

      About 11% of Australian gay men and 33% of lesbians have children. Children may have been conceived in the context of previous heterosexual relationships, or raised from birth by a co-parenting gay or lesbian couple or single parent.
      Overall, research to date considerably challenges the point of view that same-sex parented families are harmful to children. Children in such families do as well emotionally, socially and educationally as their peers from heterosexual couple families.
      Some researchers have concluded there are benefits for children raised by lesbian couples in that they experience higher quality parenting, sons display greater gender flexibility, and sons and daughters display more open-mindedness towards sexual, gender and family diversity.
      The possible effect of important socio-economic family factors, such as income and parental education, were not always considered in the studies reviewed in this paper.
      Although many Australian lesbian-parented families appear to be receiving good support from their health care providers, there is evidence that more could be done to develop policies and practices supportive of same-sex parented families in the Australian health, education, child protection and foster care systems.
      Additional key messages, relating to specific family structures and psychosocial outcomes for children raised by lesbian and gay parents, are included throughout the paper.

      w w w . aifs. gov. au/cfca/pubs/papers/a145197/index. html

    • Jeff

      Sorry Derek but Mark Regnerus’ study, the most comprehensive to date, does not come to the same conclusion.

      Compared to young adults in traditional, intact families, young adults whose mothers had a same-sex relationship tended to fare worse than their peers in intact biological families on 24 of the 40 outcomes examined. For example, they were far more likely to report being sexually victimized, to be on welfare, or to be currently unemployed.

      Young adults whose fathers had a same-sex relationship showed significant differences from their peers in intact families on 19 of the outcomes. For example, they were significantly more likely to have contemplated suicide, to have a sexually transmitted infection, or to have been forced to have sex against their will.

      For some anecdotal cases concerning the joys of being a child of gay parenting, here is Robert Oscar Lopez’s piece

      Over the last year I’ve been in frequent contact with adults who were raised by parents in same-sex partnerships. They are terrified of speaking publicly about their feelings, so several have asked me (since I am already out of the closet, so to speak) to give voice to their concerns.

      I cannot speak for all children of same-sex couples, but I speak for quite a few of them, especially those who have been brushed aside in the so-called “social science research” on same-sex parenting.

      Those who contacted me all professed gratitude and love for the people who raised them, which is why it is so difficult for them to express their reservations about same-sex parenting publicly.

      Still, they described emotional hardships that came from lacking a mom or a dad. To give a few examples: they feel disconnected from the gender cues of people around them, feel intermittent anger at their “parents” for having deprived them of one biological parent (or, in some cases, both biological parents), wish they had had a role model of the opposite sex, and feel shame or guilt for resenting their loving parents for forcing them into a lifelong situation lacking a parent of one sex.

      Moral of the story, men and women are not interchangeable. Children need a mom and a dad. A second dad cannot provide to a child what a mother can provide and a second mom cannot provide what a real father figure does.

    • The Regnerus study you cite has been debunked, and practically even disowned by its own author no less, on the basis that his sample was taken from children whose lives were already in turmoil after parental divorce, and some included one parent who had merely “dabbled”. Obviously a child who discovers his natural father is gay, and doesn’t love his mother, or vice versa, is going to be in great distress. You may as well include only children from broken homes to assess the validity of opposite sex adoptive households, something Regnerus conspicuously and I believe disingenuously failed to do. I say this after looking at the sources of his funding (including partly self), and the timing of his study, intended to influence the Supreme Court in its deliberations on DOMA and Prop 8:

      “Regnerus was recruited and his work partially funded by the Witherspoon Institute, a religious-conservative research center. He also recieved $90,000 from the Bradley Foundation, which backs conservative causes. In addition, the University of Texas, where Regnerus works, hired an academic consultant named W. Bradford Wilcox who was a fellow at Witherspoon, and who had been in the institute’s employ when the idea for the study came about.”

      (delete spaces to open this link) w w w . newrepublic. com/article/116741/regnerus-study-same-sex-marriage-michigan-must-defeat-bad-science

      Many of these children were already going to be compromised by the pain of their parents’ breakup, or discovery of the homosexuality of their mother or father, even if they didn’t end up being raised by a same sex couple, and not all those in Regnerus’s sample were anyway. For a study to have validity, like those I adduced, it should be of children adopted by choice by same sex couples, or conceived by surrogacy, not those flung into turmoil by their parents’ divorce or disclosure of their homosexuality.

      Details here (delete spaces to open link):
      w w w .unl. edu/rhames/Social/Controversial%20Gay-Parenting%20Study%20Is%20Severely%20Flawed,%20Journal%27s%20Audit%20Finds%20-%20Percolator%20-%20The%20Chronicle%20of%20Higher%20Education.pdf

      The American Sociological Association, which has rejected the study’s findings said publicly: “If any conclusion can be reached from Regnerus’s study, it is that family stability is predictive of child well-being.”

      We’ve never argued that children don’t do well in heterosexual families – that would make no sense, since we ourselves were conceived into such families, and they will always constitute the norm. The question is, what harm comes to children raised by same sex couples that would not occur, were those children raised instead by opposite sex couples? Based on all evidence to date, the answer appears to be, none whatsoever.

      After you’re done reading through the debunking of Regnerus, please go back and properly read the evidence I posted earlier.

    • Jeff

      Derek,

      No one debunked anything. The main criticism of his paper is:

      Among the problems Sherkat identified is the paper’s definition of “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers”—an aspect that has been the focus of much of the public criticism. A woman could be identified as a “lesbian mother” in the study if she had had a relationship with another woman at any point after having a child, regardless of the brevity of that relationship and whether or not the two women raised the child as
      a couple.

      Regnerus has responded to the main criticism concerning his study. Furthermore, .
      he has mad his data available to his peers. There is nothing wrong with criticizing the sources of his funding. But please spare me that his Left wing counterparts are non-ideological who are only interested in the unvarnished truth. His counterparts have a pro gay agenda. They are not honest with themselves or to the public. Mark Regnerus has not run from anyone regarding his study. He has been open minded enough to acknowledge the fairness of some of the criticize regarding his study:

      “There are some valid criticisms that are being made, such as the measurement decision on who should be called a lesbian mother in this study,” Regnerus said. “People might say that’s irresponsible to do this study without all these stable lesbian couples in the study,” he said, adding the random sampling only found two out of the 175 children who said they lived in a home with both same-sex parents throughout all 18 years. “I would have been happy to compare them but they did not exist in large enough numbers.”

      You can’t blame him because there lacked insufficient children who lived in a same sex home for 18 years based on his random sampling. But like MP stated, you ride in on your “science” hobby horse until you don’t like the results.

  • Pam

    The homosexuals are tired of being negatively labeled yet if you take a position against homosexuality you are automatically negatively labeled? What the heck is that all about?? I applaud you for your position and factual basis for it. You are not going with the flow like so many mush minded Americans who only want to be politically correct or hip on their view of this very deeply disturbing trend of destroying (redefining) traditional marriage. Please include the disturbing facts of the homosexual lifestyle; alarming rate of depression, drug and alcohol abuse, physical domestic violence, rate of divorce, instability of relationships due to rampant promiscuity, vulgar public demonstrations (just hang out in San Francisco’s homosexual district and you’ll quickly learn what I mean), and the list goes on. Stay strong, persevere on your position. There are millions of us young and old that agree with you wholeheartedly.

    • Explain exactly how my marriage to the man I love damages your marriage, and why I should marry a female I have no interest in. Why does making other people separate from the person they love make your marriage more stable, and make you a better and happier person?

    • Matt Parrott

      Derek,

      My goodness.

      You’re welcome here. We’re engaging your arguments in good faith despite your being openly hostile to the site. All I ask is that you stop with the incorrect canard that you’re being asked to marry a woman.

    • As already stated, if you show moral disapproval of my same sex relationship, you’re pressuring me to either spend my life in solitude, away from the man I love, and who returns my love, or marry a woman I do not love.

      If I marry a woman I do not love, I do not break any rules of the Bible as you believe it, whereas according to your belief, if I marry a man, I apparently destroy your marriage for reasons you do not properly explain, and I get to spend eternity with the other 350 million homosexuals alive today (assuming 5% of 7 billion), away from the company of the likes of you, who abhor what I am, and feel sad whenever you think about people being gay. I do not wish to keep the company of people who are perennially disappointed in me and are disgusted by my loving relationship with another human being.

      Under your values system, a homosexual can never be an equally valued member of the community. They simply cannot.

    • Oh No!

      Derek honey, you’re being asked the form your own separate country instead of sticking around us and whining while being a tiny part of the establishment yourself, that is all.

    • Matt Parrott

      Were you living your life in solitude before gay marriage was passed in your state?

      Our refusal to clap, fling rice in the air, and file some notarized documents at the courthouse in no way impedes your ability to live your life with your very close friend.

      abhor what I am, and feel sad whenever you think about people being gay

      I don’t abhor homosexuals. Gay people happen, and we’re all sinners in some way, shape, form, or fashion. I know you flip out about being called a “sinner”, too. I don’t know what to tell you. Attend one of the denominations that don’t teach the fallen nature of man. You don’t even have to start with the gay thing. Your pride should keep you busy for a while before even bothering to go there.

      I simply, firmly, calmly, and politely refuse to call your relationship a “marriage”. A marriage is something else.

    • No, I don’t want your rice throwing and applause because you don’t support my relationship and I know it would be insincere.

      Marriage is a civil pact between two people who can be atheists if they want to be. There is separation of church and state, for the very good reasons that not only do not all people believe in the same religion, some don’t believe in any at all. In France, there are two marriages, but only the civil one is binding.

      If you want to continue to look down your nose on my same sex marriage, why not call yours “holy matrimony”? Then you can continue to bask in your sense of superiority.

      “Sins” harm other people. You’ve yet to come up with a convincing reason as to why my marriage to my male partner harms you or your present or future marriage to a female partner. How is your marriage enhanced by my remaining unmarried?

    • @Oh No

      I decline to form another country, since I am accepted, and legally equal in the country where I live.

    • Jeff

      Derek,

      What is it that you and your boyfriend can’t do today that a marriage license will allow you to do? You two can live together, go out together, sleep together, love one another, share each other’s income and wealth, have a joint bank account, visit each other in the hospital, and pass along each other’s possessions upon death.

      If a heterosexual couple cannot and will not have children and if they don’t recognize any religious restriction in sex outside if marriage, then marriage is pointless to them. The same can be said of homosexuals. The main purpose of homosexual marriage is to declare yourselves as being normal, which you’re not.

    • Then you are calling for the compulsory dissolution of heterosexual marriage where it turns out they either can’t or won’t have children? Good luck selling that! What about couples (straight or gay) who adopt children? Should their marriages be annulled too? What’s the point of that? To make sure your moral disapproval impacts on the children? So their peers can look down their noses on them?

      What’s so brilliant about being “normal”, anyway? Being a genius isn’t “normal” and nor is having red hair, or being left handed. Why are you so hostile to diversity? What if not everyone wants to be a carbon copy of you?

    • Oh No!

      Derek baby, your verbose sophistry is typical of nervous nellie homosexuals. You care not for any laws, until they become pro-gay laws in wherein you are a legal beagle. You care not for any studies, unless they are works of the establishment (of which gays are a currently trendy part, not rebels at all) in which case you apply your excessive verbalizing in their defense. You are not a ‘common good’ sort of guy and of this you are well aware.

      Face it son, you are the establishment.

    • Jeff

      Then you are calling for the compulsory dissolution of heterosexual marriage where it turns out they either can’t or won’t have children?

      You sure love strawmen Dereck. I never called for compulsory anything. I only pointed out that it is pointless for non religious or people who cannot/will not have children to get married. Personally , I would like to see government get out of the marriage. Had marriage been strictly defined by religion and Tradition, it could not have been subverted. Two men can wear dresses, perform a ceremony and called themselves married. But if marriage had strictly been defined by religion and tradition, it would be seen as reduce loud by society. By turning over marriage to the government, all that is required for marriage is a piece of notarized paper. The purpose of gay marriage advocates has been to undermine, subvert and co-opt a traditionally heterosexual institution. Modernist and anti traditionalist of all stripes have sought to undermine traditional marriage and the traditional family. I believe the reason you seek “marry” your boyfriend is not for any tangible benefits that you two don’t possess today. It is not because you are being oppressed. I believe that you wish for acceptance and to be seen as equivalent to heterosexuals. In other words, many of you seek to have your behavior normalized. I guess this is the basis for your marriage equality meme. Traditionalist reject egalitarianism/equality. The union between a two males and between two females is not equal to the union between a male and female. Telling yourself this defies logic, reason, and biology. Gays feel so oppressed they actively seek inclusion from institutions they have been excluded from. This is why they must have themselves included into traditional marriage. This is why they
      must force Christians to provide services for they homo nuptials, which is a form if forced servitude. This is why they must be allowed to join and lead the Boy Scouts instead of starting their own gay friendly equivalent of the organization. This is why gays must be allowed to adopt and be thought of equivalent to heterosexual parents even though no same sex couple can provide the complimentary roles of mother and father that’s not only based on tradition and religion but also biology. By the way, I’m opposed to homosexual adoption. If your sexual orientation is natural, I’m sure there is a way for gays procreate with each other.

    • Jeff

      I forgot to add, homosexuals demand for confirmation and acceptance is why St Patrick’s day parades must have an “Gay Irish” float or banner present. The organizers of the parade did not prohibit gays from participating in the parade. They were prohibited from having they own gay theme included. Of course gays are so proud of their sexual orientation they insisted that it be on display for everyone to accept, confirm, and acknowledge. GLAAD got their panties in a wad when the parade’s organizers did not acquiesce to their demands.

    • Niemca

      “alarming rate of depression, drug and alcohol abuse, physical domestic violence, rate of divorce, instability of relationships due to rampant promiscuity, vulgar public demonstrations…”

      Sounds like Straight America.

      I’m wondering how you people, meaning the anti-gays, justify becoming exactly what you decry. You obsess about getting into people’s personal business while complaining that’s all gays do.

      It’s so ridiculous when you step back and look at it. I mean, who is the moral busybody at the end of the day?

      TradYouth is effing obsessed with trying to control people’s personal lives.

      “You’re welcome here. We’re engaging your arguments in good faith despite your being openly hostile to the site. All I ask is that you stop with the incorrect canard that you’re being asked to marry a woman.”

      I definitely feel as if your posture is forcing men on women who don’t want them, whether straight, gay, or simply disinterested.

    • Matt Parrott

      Niemca,

      You obsess about getting into people’s personal business while complaining that’s all gays do.

      Please read our mission statement. The whole point of Traditionalism is encouraging and promoting a holistic revolution in private and public thinking and behavior. We respect and protect privacy, and we’re neither trying to stop Derek from being what he is or wishing we could forcibly stop him.

      If you don’t care for people insisting on the promotion of moral standards and ideals, then you’re at the wrong site.

      I definitely feel as if your posture is forcing men on women who don’t want them, whether straight, gay, or simply disinterested.

      There is a whole panorama of alternatives to marriage, ranging from becoming a monk or a nun all the way down to keeping your decadent behavior where it belongs: in private. Nobody’s forcing anybody on anybody, and your feminist hobby horse is out of place in this thread.

    • Niemca

      Where is my ‘feminist hobby horse’ in place on this site…?

      So are you saying to be allowed to reject men sexually a woman should go into the convent?

      Because that’s sure how it sounds, and how in praxis your posture towards women works out. Ask any Rape Crisis Center and they’ll tell you indifference is a bigger target on a woman’s back for rape than desperation or vulnerability that stems from emotional neediness. This holds true mostly for White women who aren’t allowed to reject men of any stripe when it’s their own space v. whatever man’s invasiveness.

      You entertain Derek’s perpetual ‘hobby horse’ yet mine doesn’t relate. Maybe Carolyn Yeager was right that you indulge gays and lean misogynist…

    • Niemca

      Gay men is what Carolyn said on one of her broadcasts. She mentioned you and Greg Johnson I think.

      Although it is interesting that as a gay man Derek warrants more ‘space’ on here than I do as a woman who is pro-White but not dependent on male validation or male anything.

    • Matt Parrott

      Where is my ‘feminist hobby horse’ in place on this site…?

      You managed to turn a conversation about gay marriage into a tangent about the implied rape of women.

      So are you saying to be allowed to reject men sexually a woman should go into the convent?

      I even used the word “panorama” to describe all the alternatives to marriage. You can be single. You can pursue a career. I’m pretty sure it’s not possible for any reasonable person to conclude that I’m demanding that women either join a convent or get married.

      You entertain Derek’s perpetual ‘hobby horse’ yet mine doesn’t relate.

      The topic was gayness, and had nothing to do with women’s issues. Derek’s being topical, you’re not. Of course, everything’s really about women’s issues with you.

      Maybe Carolyn Yeager was right that you indulge gays and lean misogynist.

      The gay guy’s staying on topic and keeping insults to a minimum. You’re derailing the conversation and going out of your way (as you have since you showed up) to get under my skin.

      Although it is interesting that as a gay man Derek warrants more ‘space’ on here than I do as a woman who is pro-White but not dependent on male validation or male anything.

      This isn’t about whether or not you’re pro-white. If you’re hostile to Tradition and you think it’s all an elaborate cover for misogyny, then you have dozens of pro-white sites you can go to. Go to them. Get on Carolyn’s pro-white radio show and join her in a catty little gossip session about my private business.

    • Niemca

      Lesbianism is totally integral to women’s issues so I struggle to follow you. People keep asking Derek what he can’t do as a gay man. Lesbians are kept from doing tons of things, and face grave dangers that gay men do not, precisely for being a lesbian or perceived to be one.

      You indulge Derek’s prattering about essentially nothing, as he can’t come up with anything he can’t do as a gay man, yet you claim discussion of how diversity attacks white women who are singled out for rejecting men for all sorts of heinous abuse is irrelevant, on a pro-White site no less.

      I only remember Carolyn pointing out how anti-woman Greg Johnson was and that gay men often are, and that you indulge their fag contempt for women. I don’t see how that’s personal since she gleaned this from your public dealings.

      But your comments prove she has a point.

    • In my country, there IS nothing I can’t do as a gay man, because here in the United Kingdom and Scotland, we have FULL equality, and that includes same sex marriage between gay men, and lesbian women.

      You have failed to prove that my marrying my same sex partner is going to undo or in any other way impact negatively upon your marriage, or anyone else’s, other than to undermine your belief that you are innately superior to me because you had the good fortune to be born with a particular sexual orientation. This is the same swell-headedness that makes you believe that because you are white, you are a more virtuous and better all-round person than someone who isn’t white.

    • Mr. Williams,

      I do not understand why you have felt the continual need to ignore all of the justification provided to your inquiries into our opinion on the redefinition of marriage. I really wish you could put better use to your valuable time. Instead, you have wasted hours of your life attempting to troll a group of fine young traditional men and women who are standing up for their beliefs. That is all we can ask of them. They are doing a terrific job with this site and do not wish to define you primarily based on your sexual impulses or wherever you wish to stick your genitalia.

      I shall keep you in my prayers Sir.

      – Michael Schleyer

      P.S. I shall not waste my time trying to drill our position into your head for the hundredth time. Do not expect me to respond to you. All I ask is that you find something more productive to do with your time. Thank you.

    • Jeff

      In my country, there IS nothing I can’t do as a gay man, because here in the United Kingdom and Scotland, we have FULL equality, and that includes same sex marriage between gay men, and lesbian women.

      Same sex marriage was recently enacted in Scotland just this year. Prior to this year, what was it that you and your significant other could not do that you can do now? Please tell us all how oppressed you have been in Scotland up until this year?

      You have failed to prove that my marrying my same sex partner is going to undo or in any other way impact negatively upon your marriage, or anyone else’s, other than to undermine your belief that you are innately superior to me because you had the good fortune to be born with a particular sexual orientation. This is the same swell-headedness that makes you believe that because you are white, you are a more virtuous and better all-round person than someone who isn’t white.

      For any institution to have meaning it has to been clearly defined with regards to what it is, who it’s meant for, and the purpose it is meant to serve. If marriage is open to anyone and everyone, it loses all of its meaning. There is no point to marriage if it is open to everyone. Marriage as an institution has been a strictly heterosexual institution that dates back thousands of years. It has been recognized and practiced as a heterosexual institution across virtually every religion and many non religious societies. For Christians, this isn’t just a covenant just between two people, but a covenant with God. Across most religions, marriage vows are conducted by a head religious figure and usually occurs in a house of worship. So to most, marriage is a sacrosanct institution. I will admit that heterosexual no fault divorce has done a lot to undermine marriage. It’s hard to listen to someone like Rush Limbaugh discuss the “sanctity of marriage” when he is on his fourth wife. Your gay marriage has further undermined traditional marriage by having it include people that it has never included. If marriage shouldn’t be restricted to a man and a woman and it should include homosexual couples, why stop there? Why shouldn’t it also include throuples, 5 men and 5 women, 100 people consisting of 75 women and 24 men? Why shouldn’t twin brothers, two sisters, mom and daughter, dad and son, dad and daughter, mom and son, grandmother and granddaughter be allowed to marry? Why are they not equal to you and your significant other? By logic, all that should be required for marriage is for two or more people to sign a government marriage certificate. With the bar this low, marriage is meaningless. Marriage doesn’t sound so special now does it? For you, I believe that marriage is important to you so that you can say that you are equal to heterosexuals. I cannot relate to the mindset of people who seek to co-opt preexisting institutions in order to gain of others. I’m not that insecure. This why I believe your homosexual marriage is so important to you. Also, atheist and gay marriage advocates, who are often one in the same, have long had an antagonistic view of religion. Most of you take great pleasure in undermining a religious institution.

    • Jeff

      Oops!!! That should be 75 women and 25 men. Don’t worry, I can count. I pecked that post on a tablet.

    • @Michael Schleyer

      It is not I but you who define homosexuals solely in terms of “sexual impulses or wherever you wish to stick … genitalia”. It is on the basis of the fact that I was born with a different romantic orientation to you, that you seek to relegate me to second class citizenship, judge my relationship with my same sex partner is “immoral”, and strip us of rights you’re only too happy to claim for yourself because you believe the accident of your birth has made you innately superior to me.

      Your “position” is one that I am challenging with reason and politeness. My posts can not in any sense be dismissed as mere “trolling” just because they challenge your belief in my inferiority.

    • Niemca

      Derek if you’re so content in Scotland as a gay man why do you harass american people?

      You bring up a good point, though, in that the truth about gay men is that they’ve always been able to do whatever they wanted. In the 50’s gay men were tolerated, just not celebrated in the manner they feel should be. My dad went to a fancy all male graduate school in the mid-60’s and two of his close friends were gay and living with one another. Harvey Milk was obsessed with having sex with teens and Mathew Shepard was a druggie who couldn’t pay his debts, and he might have suffered from rejection anxiety. Both have been canonized by your faggot pulpit that well-adjusted people won’t kneel before.

    • Human rights are universal, and not to be diminished by laws that extinguish them in a particular country. That is why the United Nations issued the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, and has taken a direct interest in LGBT rights (delete spaces to open links):

      w w w .youtube. com/watch?v=iupj5ns6s8w
      w w w .youtube. com/watch?v=7uaHZWCgGss
      w w w .youtube. com/watch?v=MudnsExyV78

      It’s also a factor in why the UK and USA continued to prosecute the 2nd World War against Nazi Germany.

      Whether homosexuals were “tolerated” or not, in the 1950’s it was a criminal offence to be in a same sex relationship and many were imprisoned for being in one. Nowadays, homosexuality isn’t “celebrated” any more than heterosexuality is, and is and always will be very far from being mainstream. Equality doesn’t mean superiority. What you’re clearly uncomfortable with is sharing resources with others that previously you’ve been able to claim solely for yourselves.

      Re Matthew Shepard, I am aware that a book has been written that now casts doubt on his probity of character, but that doesn’t take away from the fact that he was brutally murdered, and that symbolised the fate of large numbers of gay men and women, regardless of how imperfect their personal lives happen to be compared to yours. Are you suggesting that by stripping Shepard of “sainthood”, his murder, and that of other gay men becomes justifiable in some way?

      Re Harvey Milk, so long as his relationships were consensual and were over what is now the legal age of 16 years in most of the world, then he has no case to answer, albeit posthumously, but I agree that no-one is above the law. The problem at that time was there was NO legal age of consent, so any same sex relationship cast gay men into the shadows. Nowadays, gay and lesbian people can come out of hiding and be good citizens, since there is motivation to be so with the advent of equal rights.

    • Niemca

      Derek are you doing any activism for redheads in the UK? They’re being exterminated there and in the US while gays, according to you, are killing themselves. If you are correct in some degree, which I don’t assume, the fact is that society is not responsible for gay people’s decisions.

      Gay people can never come up with real life hate crimes against them. Well, some lesbians can although more of the aggression directed at them is soft core and doesn’t get collected as a stat somewhere. But gay men? They’ve been imagining and fabricating their own persecution for decades, for the most part. The truth is you can’t have kids and you resent it. Without people like TradYouth you’d be wallowing in obscurity and irrelevancy. You’re also mad because as a male you were raised to assume the public arena was your domain, when in reality your faggotry just bores people.

      I can see why you hound Matt P. Deep down most gay men are also mad that straight guys dig chicks. The jealousy you feel towards women shows through here.

    • Care to cite your statistics for the “extermination of redheads”? I know there’s bullying and violence, very much analogous to what gays endure at school, but extermination? I’m sure redheads and their political allies will become activists if they’re denied the right to marry, or excommunicated from their churches for being redheads, the way LGBT have been. I’d certainly support their cause if called upon to do so.

      Regarding your idea that I fancy Mr Parrott, you are delusional. Not only do I have zero interest of a sexual nature in Mr Parrott, my circle of friends is mostly straight men, and occasionally their female partners. There isn’t a scintilla of sexual frisson either way. What you just wrote is pure fantasy.

      As to your assertion that there are no hate crimes against gay people, kindly study this (delete spaces to open link):
      h t t p ://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/History_of_violence_against_LGBT_people_in_the_United_States

      If you want to find stats for the rest of the world, Google is your friend.

    • Oh No!

      Much of the “violence” you cite ends up being hoaxes or inter-special folks violence. Kind of like Kerri Dunn. Whatever.

      Derek, We’re here, we’re not queer, get over it.

    • There have been very few hoaxes, considering that it’s hard to fake your own murder, and that all the gay teen suicides I have previously adduced were acknowledge by their schools and the parents to have been the result of homophobic bullying and violence.

      I sent you links to the evidence. You fail to cite any evidence that all the examples given on the site are hoaxes. Come back with proof, not conspiracy theory. Exceptions don’t prove your rule.

    • Oh No!

      @Derek the Wordy

      Son, you don’t tell us when to come back and with what in our own space. I know you equals like to walk around like you own the place- but you don’t cop the attitude in your own place and when you are addressing the politicians that grovel to you and impose your will on others.

      Most of those suicides are probably induced by the confusion brought about by gay propaganda about suffering (ie- being ignored by breeders) and not by any mythical bullying which politically correct teachers discipline.

      There have been many hoaxes besides Dunn, I don’t need to write a book about it in a comment, do the research if you dare.

      On with the sophistry.

    • It is obvious you haven’t done any research into LGBT youth suicide. The attached stories should tell you whether these are all “hoaxes”. While you’re studying them, you can come back to me with evidence of all the hoaxes you’re alleging are in this sample: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_violence_against_LGBT_people_in_the_United_States

      Some US LGBT youth suicide stories:

      Jaheem Herrera 11yo
      http://rodonline.typepad.com/rodonline/2009/04/antigay-bullying-drives-11yo-georgia-buy-to-suicide.html

      Carl Joseph Walker-Hoover 11yo
      http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/04/mom_says_springfield_boy_11_wh.html?category=Deaths+category=Education+category=Springfield%3B

      Kenneth James Weishuhn Jr 14yo
      http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/14-year-old-gay-iowa-teen-bullied-to-death-report/news/2012/04/16/38145

      Jamie Hubley 15yo
      http://www.xtra.ca/public/National/Gay_Ottawa_teen_takes_own_life-10909.aspx

      Jamey Rodemeyer 14yo
      http://globalgrind.com/news/jamey-rodemeyer-suicide-funeral-lady-gaga-bullying-photos-video

      Seth Walsh 13yo
      http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2023083,00.html

      Justin Aaberg 13yo
      http://www.towleroad.com/2010/09/yet-another-gay-teen-lost-to-bullying-suicide-in-minnesota.html

      Kameron Jacobsen 14yo
      http://releasedorothy.wordpress.com/2011/01/23/14-year-old-bullied-new-yorker-commits-suicide/

      Billy Lucas 15yo
      http://www.care2.com/causes/education/blog/bullied-indiana-teen-commits-suicide/

      Cody Barker 17yo
      http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2010/09/23/gay-teenager-kills-himself-in-wisconsin

      Asher Brown 13yo
      http://www.nowpublic.com/world/asher-brown-13-yr-old-commits-suicide-over-bullying-2686147.html

      Raymond Chase 19yo
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/01/raymond-chase-suicide_n_746989.html

      Tyler Clementi 18yo
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Tyler_Clementi

      Brandon Bitner 14yo
      http://www.queerty.com/suicide-brandon-bitner-14-kills-himself-in-early-morning-tractor-trailer-suicide-20101108/

      Rafael Morelos 14yo
      http://www.wenatcheeworld.com/news/2012/feb/05/vigil-sheds-light-on-bullying

      Jeffrey Fehr 18yo
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/17/jeffrey-fehr-gay-california-teen-cheerleader-suicide_n_1211623.html

      Dominic Crouch 15yo (and his dad 6 months later)
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2068532/Roger-Crouch-father-bullied-boy-Dominic-committed-suicide-dies-suddenly.html

      Jordan Yenor 14yo
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2019035/9-student-suicides-Michele-Bacmanns-Minnesota-linked-anti-gay-bullying.html

      Lance Lundsten 18yo
      http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2011/03/gay_teen_lance_lundsten_death_ruled_suicide.php

      Aaron Jurek 15yo
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2096922/9-student-suicides-Michele-Bacmanns-Minnesota-linked-anti-gay-bullying.html

      Samantha Johnson 13yo
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2019035/9-student-suicides-Michele-Bacmanns-Minnesota-linked-anti-gay-bullying.html

      Thomas John ‘TJ’ Hayes
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2019035/9-student-suicides-Michele-Bacmanns-Minnesota-linked-anti-gay-bullying.html

      EricJames Borges 19yo
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2086123/Eric-James-Borges-Gay-teen-film-maker-commits-suicide.html

      Brandon Elizares 16yo
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/14/brandon-elizares-gay-teen-commits-suicide-leaves-note_n_1598272.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009

      David Hernandez 16yo
      http://www.queerty.com/long-island-teen-commits-suicide-after-possible-anti-gay-bullying-20121010

      Josh Pacheco 17yo
      http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/bullied-gay-teen-michigan-commits-suicide051212

      Tim Ribberink 20yo
      http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/parents-publish-suicide-note-bullied-gay-son071112

      Carlos Vigil 17yo
      http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2013/07/bullied-n-m-gay-teen-posts-suicide-note-online-before-taking-his-own-life

      AJ Betts 16yo
      http://www.queerty.com/gay-teen-is-fifth-suicide-in-five-years-at-iowa-high-school-20130729/

      Jacob Rogers 18yo
      http://www.metroweekly.com/news/last_word/2012/01/another-gay-teen-phillip-parker-commits-suicide-af.html

      Phillip Parker 14yo
      http://www.metroweekly.com/news/last_word/2012/01/another-gay-teen-phillip-parker-commits-suicide-af.html

      Jadin Bell 15yo
      http://www.salon.com/2013/01/30/another_bullied_gay_teen_commits_suicide

    • Oh No!

      I don’t waste time researching this stuff. That is the job of sacred gays who’s only interests are litmus testing breeders and being the arbiters of all experience.

      Perhaps if you didn’t fill confused kids full of “oppression” fables then they wouldn’t have felt the need.

  • The study you cite to support your contention that I am more likely to sexually assault children that you are is fundamentally flawed because it assumes a fixed percentage of the population to be lower than it is. No-one knows exactly how many people are gay, because most gays pretend to be heterosexuals so as to avoid persecution. It’s certainly higher than the percentage used for the study.

    Instances of same sex child sexual assault are calculated as a percentage of ‘known’ homosexuals, which is far smaller than the real number against the total population, thus making the proportion higher than it would be if divided by the true, larger sample.

    Even so, the fact remains that same sex child sexual assaults are dwarfed in number by the assaults on underage girls by heterosexually identifying males.

    • Matt Parrott

      Derek,

      The study leapfrogs the contentious debate about what percent of the population is actually gay by relying on phallometric testing of convicted pedophiles for both homosexual and pedophilic attraction.

      “This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually.”

    • The phallometric tests of convicted pedophiles assumes a consistent rate of conviction proportionately for same and opposite sex pedophilia. This was not, and probably cannot be accurately ascertained. The only way to be really certain is to work in a community where zero gays and bisexuals are closeted about their orientation, and look at the conviction rate per capita of population, and then compare it with the heterosexual conviction rate proportionate to the known heterosexual population. Conviction rate may also differ between same and opposite sex pedophilia for other reasons, for example female complainants may be believed by a jury less than male alleged victims.

      Sampling convicted pedophiles may skew the results for a variety reasons we cannot fully determine. A more convincing method would be to sample, say 10,000 randomly selected individuals from the general population, and show them same and opposite sex pedophile stimuli, and separately show them same and opposite sex adult stimuli.

      From the same site, you can find this (delete spaces to open link): w w w .ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/pubmed/8772014

      Do you likewise accept this discovery that phallometric tests of homophobic heterosexuals show they’re actually closeted gays?

    • Matt Parrott

      Your first proposition is really specious, on a couple levels. But whatever, you’re welcome to indulge in your own idle conjecture.

      But you forfeit the right to trot around on your “science” hobby horse once you’ve started to reject solid peer-reviewed research out-of-hand because of your obvious and confirmed biases.

      Of course, you know your proposed study is impossible.

      Do you likewise accept this discovery that phallometric tests of homophobic heterosexuals show they’re actually closeted gays?

      I accept the probability that individuals with a strong fixation on (opposing) homosexuality are plausibly more likely to be struggling with homosexual urges than the general population. I reject the childish inference commonly made from that research; that anybody who objects to or opposes your agenda is secretly a homo.

      Besides, even if we here at TradYouth are all a bunch of closeted homos, we’re still right.

    • I don’t challenge the fact that the research you cite is from a reputable source – it’s actually a source I use myself, but I do challenge its scope and methodology, because as I already stated, it doesn’t factor in different reporting rates between male and female victims and different conviction rates, and what kind of acts constitute abuse. Moreover it isn’t taken from the general population, but from an atypical criminal element. The study I proposed is by no means “impossible” although I concede it would take a while to conduct with a sample of 10,000 people.

      The statistic read by that study could lead some to believe that 1 in every 11 gay men is pedophile, a common false syllogism approach unless you’re aware of it. The crucial thing is that same sex pedophilia isn’t attached to being gay, any more than opposite sex pedophilia is attached to being a heterosexual, it is attached to being a pedophile, an entirely separate category of attraction, and one that will never be acceptable.

      Your portrayal of homosexuals as “people struggling” only confirms what should be obvious to any rational person, that if a homosexual child is raised by parents hostile to homosexuality, and surrounded by peers and a workplace comparably hostile, they will be forced to manifest an overt hostility so as to avoid discovery of their own homosexuality. Their struggle is to be able freely to be themselves against a background of hate. Of course a gay person would wish they had never been born that way, because of the hopeless way they see their future. That’s why so many gay kids suicide, from ages 11 upwards.

      I encourage you to watch this YouTube video about a girl who was born with black skin and prayed every day for God to make her skin white (delete spaces to open link): w w w . youtube. com/watch?v=ZPCkfARH2eE Every day she would look in the mirror and be disappointed. Why didn’t God answer her prayer?

      Now, how many gays do you imagine wished to escape persecution, ostracism and violence, and prayed every day of their lives for their god to switch their inborn orientation from gay to straight so “Christians” would quit judging them? Religion based groups that claimed you can “pray away the gay” have mostly shut down, because all they succeeded in doing was distressing their charges, leading often to suicide ideation, or in some chapters, merely causing gay people to meet other gay people and start relationships.

      This is instructive: w w w . youtube. com/watch?v=aDiYeJ_bsQo

      I never said, nor do I believe that all people who hate homosexuality are ipso facto homosexual. My homosexuality was never chosen, and I cannot change it, but homophobia is chosen and can be changed. That isn’t to say you should be forced to hold an unrealistic view that we’re all “fabulous”. Nothing of the kind. Just educate yourself by thinking outside the box. Look at all the time I waste defending myself instead of pursuing my career. Being gay and an activist has cost me dearly and seriously compromised my life. Why do you think I would choose that?

      I am not a bad person, no matter how much you like to think so. Uttering this lie that gay people are intrinsically bad and straight people are intrinsically virtuous over and over again doesn’t make it truer and truer.

  • Mr. Parrott, when are you going to learn….??

  • Orthodox Mike

    Don’t feed the sodomite troll…

  • Oh No!

    Derek baby,

    We’re here, we’re not queer, get used to it. Accept it and move on.

    • I accept you’re “not Queer”, if only you would accept others are “Queer” and quit shoving your religion down their throats. No-one is telling you to be gay, no-one is saying you should marry someone of the same sex. No-one.

      It is you “Christians” who judge homosexuals as “sinners” for being in a same sex relationship, tell us to “pray away the gay”, when this is impossible, tell us we should be heterosexuals and marry an opposite sex partner to “straighten ourselves out”, and deny goods and services we’re willing to pay for, that are available to everyone else, and that you claim for yourselves.

    • Jeff

      Derek,

      You forgot one Bible verse

      Leviticus 20:13
      New Living Translation (NLT)
      13 “If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense.

      How many people at TY have called for your execution? Are you insisting that we should follow this scripture with the others you posted?

    • Oh No!

      Derek my dear equal friend, you put words in my mouth again in accord with you prejudiced and preconceived war-footing catechism. I am not opposed to your manly buttsex. I am not particularly “religious” nor am I shoving anything down your throat (I can’t imagine having things shove down your throat is too problematic for you anyhow).

      It is not xtians but nature that judged you Derek. You are the nervous nellies not us. I don’t care if you are a xtian or not. I don’t especially want you to be one and could care less if you “repent” or not.

      All I ask is that you clowns just zip it. Enough with the wailing and the abuse of power. Enough with the trying to get everyone fired (cowardly) and enough with pretending. Everything you goofballs do is just a parody of breeders. “Oh look, we’re married too!” I mean come on Derek, isn’t it lame that you guys try to set up a parallel universe to ours? Isn’t it lamer that you want the gov’t to prevent anyone from noticing. You guys were supposedly living and “alternative” lifestyle. Why is it a mock breeder pseudo-lifestyle?

      You are oppressed by your own confusion. Now go get someone fired.

  • Walt Bialkowski

    Sometimes I wonder why people who are opposed to what I think most of us here believe find it necessary to keep posting their negative comments. I don’t think most of us would bother doing that to them. I think it’s precisely the loss of Christian tradition in what was obviously a Christian-based society that has caused the social chaos we see in our culture today. The damage to marriage and the family, the rise of pornography , foul literature and entertainment with the resultant corruption of minds and souls ~ this is due to the decline of Christian tradition in our society. It’s especially evident these days in any issue that has to do with sex or gender. From the perspective of logic alone, ‘Same-sex’ marriage is a contradiction in terms. Only a very sick society would consider such nonsense worthy of discussion, let alone condone it and make it ‘legal’. Mind you, this turnabout has happened in the short span of one lifetime or less. Behavior that was considered criminal not long ago is not only protected, but if you don’t agree with it, then you are persecuted. “Woe unto them who call evil good, and good evil” says God’s Word. If you reject Christian tradition, then you can make up any nonsense you want and pretend it’s good, bad, or whatever. “Ye shall be as gods – knowing good and evil” said the evil one in the garden, along with his other lie of “ye shall not surely die”. The one claim was just as false as the other. We are not gods, we do not make up our own definitions of good and evil, and we do surely die and will give an account to our Creator. This country was founded by Christians and was intended to be a Christian nation, albeit without a state-run church. While it was Christian, its people prospered. You can see yourself how things are going now.

    • You speak of “Christians” as though you’re all in agreement and are a single entity. Not so. There are over 41,000 denominations of monotheistic Christianity in the world today, with hundreds of new ones forming every month as tax dodges. There is fundamental and oppositional disagreement amongst these religions on many issues, like the biblical rightness or wrongness of women’s ordination, divorce, and birth control, let alone homosexuality. Thus, there is no single Christian religion, nor any Christian spokesperson who can say authoritatively on behalf of all Christians exactly whether these are right or wrong.

      Each religion makes its own god. The Catholic God condemns birth control, women’s ordination and divorce, yet the Anglican God was no problem with family planning or female clergy, and was founded by divorcee King Henry VIII. There is no rational way that these two disagreeing gods can be one and the same entity. Moreover, I can name dozens of Christian religions which teach that homosexuality is a God-given trait, and which welcome LGBT with open arms, hearts and minds as parishioners with full sacraments, including communion, ordination to the clergy, and perform same sex marriage.

      People generally shop for the designer religion that most closely fits their tastes, and their prejudices, so if your religion hates what you are, you don’t need to tolerate them for a second longer.

      The following Christian religions welcome openly LGBT members to participate and receive sacraments:
      Calvary Chapel
      Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
      Reformed Church in America
      Oriental Orthodox
      Community of Christ
      Mennonite*
      Moravian Church
      National Baptist Convention*
      New Apostolic
      Unification Church
      United Methodist Church*

      The below also ordain, and bless same sex unions or marriage:
      Anglican*
      Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)*
      Church of Scotland*
      Episcopal*
      Community of Christ
      Church of Denmark
      Evangelical Lutheran Church of America*
      German Lutheran & United Churches in Evangelical Church in Germany
      Metropolitan Community Church
      Church of Norway
      Pentecostal*
      Protestant Church in the Netherlands
      Presbyterian Church (USA)*
      Religious Society of Friends (Quaker)
      Old Catholic
      Swedenborgian*
      Church of Sweden
      Swiss Reformed Churches in Federation of Swiss Protestant Churches*
      United Church of Canada
      United Church of Christ*
      Unity School of Christianity
      Waldensian*

      *varies

    • Walt Bialkowski

      In my short piece I mentioned the term ‘Christian tradition’ a number of times. Before we can converse, we have to have a common understanding of the terms we are using. The Christian tradition I’m referring to dates back to the time of the apostles, and includes, obviously, the moral code generally recognized by most Christian bodies up until about the 1930’s when some denominations began to depart from that tradition. The traditional Christian moral code, based on the Ten Commandments and other the other moral principles enunciated in the Bible most certainly does not accept moral aberrations like homosexuality, abortion, or even divorce. These are emphatically condemned as immoral in God’s Word in several places. Too many Christians in the last 70 or so years have been affected by the chaos and moral deterioration of these times. Christian tradition, right understood, is actually complementary to God’s Word the Bible and in no way contradicts it. The denominations you mentioned are those who have departed from or are in the process of departing from that tradition, and, in consequence, have adopted policies contrary to it. This is a development that would have shocked the adherents of those same denominations as recently as 60 or 70 years ago. When a culture loses its moral anchor (Christian Tradition in this case) and begins its downhill slide, its decline accelerates as time goes on. We have yet to see to what depths of depravity it will go before it hits bottom.

    • “God’s word”? You do like to pick and choose, don’t you? It is appalling how right-wing “Christians” like you talk about how loving, dutiful and compassionate you are, while you practice hypocrisy to the highest degree. Your willful ignorance of the Bible combined with your two faced idealism to preach it, is even more disturbing considering you want to discriminate against a minority in the name of “strongly held religious beliefs”.

      Where are your strongly held religious beliefs when it comes to divorce? How many Christians like you are into your second, third or fourth marriage? Why aren’t you appalled by divorce? Why aren’t you upset to see a man and woman who have been divorced kissing? The Bible clearly states:
      “Whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery; and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced commits adultery” (Matthew 5:32, 19:9 & Luke 16:18)
      “…whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, commits adultery against her” (Mark 10:11 & Luke 16:18), which applies to women as well (Mark 10:12)

      Your policy of “quote it if you like it; ignore it if you don’t.” doesn’t wash I’m afraid. Now let’s take a closer look at the “Word of God”. If you’re a fundamentalist Bible-believer, that every single syllable in the Bible was literally written down by you god, you MUST obey all the following laws:

      Alcohol absolutely forbidden:
      Ephesians 5:18. Proverbs 20:1, Proverbs 23:20-21, Isaiah 5:11, Leviticus 10:9, Romans 14:21, Galatians 5: 21, 1 Corinthians 6:10
      Women inferior to men:
      CORINTHIANS 14:34 Women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but should be submissive, as the law also says.
      TIMOTHY 2:12 “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence”
      Killing ok:
      DEUTERONOMY 13:13-17 A town that allows the practice of more than one religion must be burned to the ground and its citizens slaughtered.
      DEUTERONOMY 21:18-21 “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother… then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones.”
      DEUTERONOMY 22:13-21 A woman not a virgin on her wedding night must be executed.
      DEUTERONOMY 22:22 If a married person has sex with someone else’s husband or wife, both adulterers be stoned to death.
      DEUTERONOMY 22:28-29 A virgin who is raped must marry her rapist.
      DEUTERONOMY 25:11-12 If a man gets into a fight with another man and his wife seeks to rescue her husband by grabbing the enemy’s genitals, her hand shall be cut off and no pity shall be shown her.
      LEVITICUS 18:19 A married couple who have sexual intercourse during a woman’s period shall both be executed.
      LEVITICUS 20:9 “Anyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.”
      NUMBERS 15:32,35 Anyone who picks up sticks on the Sabbath must be killed.

      Marriage:
      • No marriage will be sanctioned between people who have been divorced. (Matthew 5:32)
      • No marriage shall be sanctioned between Christians & non-Christians. (2 John 1:9-11, 2 Corinthians 6:14-17)
      • No marriage shall be sanctioned in which the wedding ceremony shall occur during the women’s menstrual cycle (Leviticus 18:19, 20:18, & Ezekiel 18:5-6)
      • No marriage shall be sanctioned of people of different races. (Deuteronomy 7:3, Numbers 25:6-8, 36:6-8, 1 Kings 11:2)
      • No marriage shall be sanctioned involving a widow (unless it is to her brother-in-law). All women whose husbands have passwed away shall refrain from intimacy & pleasure for the remainder of their lives. (1 Timothy 5:5-15)
      • No marriage shall be sanctioned for any man who has had sexual thoughts of any woman other than his intended (Matthew 5:28)
      • A woman not a virgin on her wedding night must be executed. (Deuteronomy 22:13-21)
      • If a married person has sex with someone else’s husband or wife, both adulterers be stoned to death. (Deuteronomy 22:22)
      • A virgin who is raped must marry her rapist. (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)
      • If a man dies childless, his widow is ordered to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bears her deceased husband a male heir. (Mark 12:18-2)

      w w w . youtube. com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw (delete spaces to open link)

      Polygamy OK:
      • Solomon … had 700 wives … and 300 concubines. (1 Kings 11:2-3)
      • Rehoboam … took 18 wives, and 60 concubines. (2 Chronicles 11:21)
      • But Abijah waxed mighty, and married 14 wives…. (2 Chronicles 13:21)
      Slavery OK:
      COLOSSIANS 3:22 “Slaves, obey your human masters in everything; don’t work only while being watched, in order to please men, but work wholeheartedly, fearing the Lord.”

    • Mr. Williams, you do understand that most of your citations are from the Old Testament – the old covenant – and most laws like that are not valid for Christians, right? Read some Thomas Aquinas.

    • Jeff

      Derek,

      You forgot one Bible verse

      Leviticus 20:13
      New Living Translation (NLT)
      13 “If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense.

      How many people at TY have called for your execution? Are you insisting that we should follow this scripture with the others you posted?

    • That’s a faulty translation. Alleged references to homosexual conduct in the Bible are not taken up in any ‘motherhood’ statements, such as the Ten Commandments, the Seven Deadly Sins, Christ’s Two Commandments, the Eight Beatitudes, The Seven Last Words, and so forth, nor in any of the recorded statements of Jesus Christ.

      Returning to Leviticus, here are two translations of the Leviticus passage that some claim condemn me because I happen to be a homosexual:
      King James, Leviticus 18:22: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”
      Living Bible: “Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin”

      The second translation is unsubstantiatable, because neither the word ‘homosexual’ nor the word ‘homosexuality’ have any equivalence in Ancient Hebrew or Ancient Greek. No reference, stated or implied includes female homosexuals, nor is there ever a biological specificity in regards to any type of intercourse, to say nothing of committed, monogamous same gender relationships.

      In transliterated Hebrew, the verse is written: “V’et zachar lo tishkav mishk’vey eeshah toeyvah hee,” meaning:
      “And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman”
      Its precise meaning is ambiguous. The phrase “lay lyings” has no obvious interpretation.

      Looking at Leviticus 19:19:
      New International Version: “Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.”
      English Standard Version: “nor shall you wear a garment of cloth made of two kinds of material.”
      American Standard Version: “neither shall there come upon thee a garment of two kinds of stuff mingled together.”
      King James Version: “neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee”

      Under King James or English Standard Version it is ok to wear a polyester/cotton shirt since it is neither linen nor wool, nor woven, but New International Version forbids such shirts. Which is one to believe? And what about a garment that is woven of two different fabrics of which only one is either linen or wool?

      And since you’re so keen on Leviticus:
      LEVITICUS 11:6-8 Outlaws the playing of football (touching the skin of a dead pig).
      LEVITICUS 11:9-12 Eating shellfish or pork strictly forbidden.
      LEVITICUS 18:19 A married couple who have sexual intercourse during a woman’s period shall both be executed.
      LEVITICUS 19:19 May not wear polyester cotton shirts (wearing garments of mixed fabrics forbidden)
      LEVITICUS 20:9 “Anyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.”
      LEVITICUS 20:18 No marriage shall be sanctioned in which the wedding ceremony shall occur during the women’s menstrual cycle.
      LEVITICUS 21:17-21 “Speak to Aaron, saying, ‘No man of your offspring throughout their generations who has a defect shall approach to offer the food of his God. | ‘For no one who has a defect shall approach: a blind man, or a lame man, or he who has a disfigured face, or any deformed limb, | or a
      man who has a broken foot or broken hand, | or a unchback or a dwarf, or one who has a defect in his eye or eczema or scabs or crushed testicles. | ‘No man among the descendants of Aaron the priest who has a defect is to come near to offer the LORD’S offerings by fire; since he has a defect, he shall not come near to offer the food of his God.”
      LEVITICUS 25:45 Says it’s OK for a foreigner in your country to sell you their child, and equally OK for you to buy them and treat them as chattel.
      LEVITICUS 26:14-30 “Then if you walk contrary to me …you shall eat the flesh of your sons, and you shall eat the flesh of your daughters.”

      For an anthology that is supposed to be the Word of God, it’s a wonder that it was not all simply handed down by God himself, yet it is not written in the 1st person singular. Nor is it provided to every living being on Earth in a single version in their own language, which an all-powerful God would surely have not only the capacity to accomplish in a heartbeat, but an unquestionable duty to do so, given the dire consequences some threaten will result from not heeding its admonitions.

      You have failed to explain why you only obey the verses of Leviticus that are convenient to you. You’re not a homosexual, so you have no problem obeying what you perceive as his condemnation of loving same sex relationships between to homosexual people, whereas you’re presumably not a child killer, yet you refuse (I assume) to obey God’s Holy Commandment to kill any child that is disobedient.

      Your behaviour is hypocritical. Your policy of “quote it if you like it; ignore it if you don’t.” doesn’t wash I’m afraid.

    • @Michael Schleyer

      Jesus said the Old Testament must be obeyed – every word of it:

      1) “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV) Clearly the Old Testament is to be abided by until the end of human existence itself. None other then Jesus said so.
      2) All of the vicious Old Testament laws will be binding forever. “It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” (Luke 16:17 NAB)
      3) Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn’t the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17 NAB)
      4) “Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.” (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)

      Right-wing “Christians” like you use the lame excuse that the laws against divorce, copulating during menstruation, marrying outside your race or your religion, marrying during menstruation, eating crustaceans or pork, playing football, wearing polyester cotton shirts, picking up sticks on the Sabbath and that pass sentences of infanticide for disobedience, genocide for practising a different religion, and so forth, are somehow “obsolete”, yet you choose to take the two verses in the New Testament that supposedly talk about homosexuality as the Word of God himself. You take the position that the New Testament supersedes the Old Testament – except when it comes to selecting a single verse out of context as the “divine word of God” and ignore all other verses that you believe are “obsolete”.

      The Bible also clearly prohibits women from being ministers or otherwise speaking in church: “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak.” (1 Corinthians 14:34) Is this “obsolete” or “God’s word”? Who gets to decide?

      Ostentatious piety of the anti-gay evangelicals runs contrary to the very teachings of Jesus Christ who said prayer should be devoid of public display: “And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret.” (Matthew 6:5-6).

      In another paradox, Jesus said “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:26) This clearly means that anyone who is a disciple of Christ hates his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters.

      Yet the Bible also says “Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, ‘You shall not commit adultery; You shall not murder; You shall not steal; You shall not covet,’ and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. (Romans 13:8-10) Notice that there was not a single word about homosexuality! But it did say that “love is the fulfilling of the law.”

      There are many Christians who devoutly believe that every single word of their translation of the Bible is the literal Word of God. This means they can refuse service to to a mixed race couple, or one remarrying after a divorce, or a marriage that takes place during the bride’s menstrual cycle. Equivocate all you like, but these are in the Bible and a Bible-believing Christian should obey ALL of it. None of it is “obsolete” just because it doesn’t suit you to kill naughty children.

    • Jeff

      So Derek, for the references to Leviticus that you’re you’re holding us to, the translations are very clear. But for the verse that calls for the execution of homosexuals, that’s where the translation gets all fuzzy. Am I correct?

    • No, I am calling you out on your hypocrisy.

      If you decide that you’re going to disobey the clear and unequivocal instruction of your Bible to kill me, then you’ve already shown some humanity and common sense, but you’ve also shown that you don’t take the Bible seriously, EXCEPT when it comes to a certain verse in Paul which you perceive as applying to me, but not to you, since you’re not homosexual. But the ones that DO apply to you in the New Testament, you cherry pick, unless you really believe and obey the following:

      COLOSSIANS 3:22 “Slaves, obey your human masters in everything; don’t work only while being watched, in order to please men, but work wholeheartedly, fearing the Lord.”
      CORINTHIANS 6:14-17 No marriage shall be sanctioned between Christians & non-Christians.
      CORINTHIANS 14:34 Women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but should be submissive, as the law also says.
      JOHN 1:9-11 No marriage shall be sanctioned between Christians & non-Christians.
      MARK 10:1-12 Divorce is strictly forbidden in both Testaments, as is remarriage of anyone who has been divorced
      MARK 12:18-27 If a man dies childless, his widow is ordered to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bears her deceased husband a male heir.”
      MATTHEW 5:28 No marriage shall be sanctioned for any man who has had sexual thoughts of any woman other than his intended.
      MATTHEW 5:32 No marriage will be sanctioned between people who have been divorced.
      TIMOTHY 2:12 “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence”
      TIMOTHY 5:5-15 No marriage shall be sanctioned involving a widow (unless it is to her brother-in-law). All women whose husbands have passed away shall refrain from intimacy & pleasure for the remainder of their lives.

      Either the Bible is to be taken literally, or it isn’t. If it is, then I should call the police now, but if it is not, then one religion’s bona fide interpretation is no less valid than another’s. i have already posted a list of Christian religions that welcome LGBT as parishioners with full sacraments including communion, ordination to the clergy and same sex marriage.

      There is no world Christian authority to determine once and for all which religion is right on birth control, women’s ordination and divorce, let alone whether a homosexual is being sinful when he or she enters into long term, monogamous relationship with another homosexual.

    • Oh No!

      @Derek the Equal

      Hypocrisy. Fine. Great. I’m totally cool with it. Am I being a hypocritical xtian, or un-american or not being true to the founders? Fine, I don’t care. Just as you don’t care for anything other than gaining power through guilt without compunction.

      If any guilt is holding anyone here back, just drop it. Does it matter if this goofball calls you hypocritical or un-Christian, un-American or un-Democratic? I’ll take it, thanks.

      Now about separation Derek………

    • “About separation”? Since the overwhelming majority not only in the USA, but the world at large now support LGBT equality, including the United Nations, and you’re committed to racial segregation, it would make far more sense for YOU to set up your own continent. And when you have gay kids, just send them to the mainland so you can continue to have the gay-free society you’re hellbent on having.

      It makes no sense for me to create my own country, since the country where I live affords me full equality, including same sex marriage. After going through all the heartache to achieve equality, and getting it, why would I now leave my family, friends, colleagues and political allies?

      I am not interested in “gaining power”; that’s your aim by virtue of the manifesto of this blog. I am just not interested in being powerless, that’s all. I am happy with my life.

    • Oh No!

      My dear equal ballbag, I did not mention racial segregation, but thanks for the putting of words in my mouth. You folks never tire of propagandizing. The majority do not “support” you, they are not in the mood for the constant badgering and (falsely) believe you’ll stop calling them names if they “support” you. Good luck with that one.

      Since we are eeeevil folks, why not separate from us? Why not let us separate from you (without the gay worshipping US gov’t bombing us that is, since you guys are so allegedly peaceful and all).

      What you seek is to use the gov’t to stifle any wrongthink Derek, and you know it. You guys are paranoid beyond anything you impute to those you hate but claim to be hated by. You fantasize about getting people fired.

    • Not true at all. Where do you get your sample data from? Maybe your church, but certainly not from your country:

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/support-for-same-sex-marriage-hits-new-high-half-say-constitution-guarantees-right/2014/03/04/f737e87e-a3e5-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html

      • For the first time, 50% or more of Americans in every region of the country support the freedom to marry. In the South, support is at 50% to 42% opposed; in the Midwest, support is at 66% to 28% opposed; in the West, support is at 59% to 32% opposed; and in the Northeast, support is at 68% to 26% opposed.

      • For the first time, every age grouping shows a plurality of support. Among Americans age 65 and over, support is at 47% to 43% opposed; among voters age 40-64, support is at 54% to 38% opposed; among voters age 18-39, support is at 72% to 22% opposed.

      • Support cuts across political beliefs: Among Republicans, support is at 40%, with 23% strongly supportive. Among self-described moderates, support is at 64% to 27% opposed.

      • 50% of Americans believe that the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection gives gays the right to marry, while just 41 percent say it does not.

      • Among all voters, Americans who are supportive feel more intensely about their position than those opposed — 39% are strongly supportive versus 24% who are strongly opposed.

      Note the figures above are for same sex marriage, not for LGBT equality per se, the support for other rights exceeds 75%, and those against of minimal statistical significance. 18 out of the 50 US states now have marriage equality, and it’s likely to be 50/50 in two years time.

      Do you have data to back up your claim that the majority of your countrymen are so hostile to their LGBT compatriots that we should form our own country? I put your words to me, right back to you: “Since we are eeeevil folks, why not separate from us?”

    • Oh No!

      @Derek our Equal

      Honey boy, what data is required? I’m not the one writing a propaganda book over the comment section. I know Amurkin folks and so do you. They’ll approve whatever they think they have to to get you to shut up and go away, but you already knew that.

      As far as us leaving your tiny, tiny minority of special people the whole country in order to separate, once again- the gay worshipping gov’t would bomb us, which would cause much arousal in people so full of love as yourself. Our foreign policy is concerned with sacred glbt, why wouldn’t our domestic. The Mozilla guy didn’t wind up jobless because of me.

    • Brendan Eich is not “jobless”, and he wasn’t fired. He left of his own accord because he accepted that his position against marriage equality conflicts with Mozilla’s LGBT, gender, and racial equality policy. Mozilla wasn’t going to renege on these policies to suit one person. Lower down the scale, no-one would be fired for holding any opinion they like, including anti-gay ones, but they don’t make and administer company policy like the CEO does.

      We may be a tiny minority, but our families, friends and allies are our supporters. They are what make up the majority that now supports LGBT equality. I don’t say you should leave and stsrt your own country, but if you’re going to keep telling me to do this, when i am happy in the country and you’re not, because it is LGBT supportive, then all I can say it you’re making no sense.

      I am happy with my country, and so have no need to start a new one. You’re not happy with your country, so unless you can persuade your fellow countrymen to turn against its minorities again, then you’re better off taking your own advice and starting your own country, where you can be racist, xenophobic, homophobic, sexist and racist all you like. When you have gay kids, you can get rid of them by sending them to the majority to look after on the mainland.

    • Oh No!

      @Equal Derek

      Well, your ilk are certainly sophists my dear sacred homosexual. You have written two books in the comment section in your efforts to tire us out in a verbose manner. How masculine of you.

      The VP claimed foreign policy is based on your specialness and when they bomb countries for you, you’ll spin some tale on how it’s not true. You know why Eich is jobless son. If this is how you guys behave when you are granted ‘rights’ by breeders then it is no wonder you’ve been denied them in the past (according to gay mythology).

      You are happy with nothing. If the country didn’t agree to be cowed by special people then you’d act oppressed (you’ll still act oppressed, there is only gain in it).

      Derek you equal you, who does not rejoice in the firing of his chosen enemies:

      We’re here, we’re not queer, get over it.

    • I never said you were “queer”, but some people are LGBT, so I’ll give your own advice right back at you: “Get over it”.

    • Oh No!

      No Derek, you are part of the establishment, and so I say to you and your offenderati ilk:

      We’re here, we’re queer- get over it.

  • Niemca

    Matt P do you interpret the study about homosexuality and pedophilia to mean that lesbians develop the disease at higher rates than straight women? The reference to ‘homosexuals’ doesn’t seem clear. From what I hear there is evidence that gay men might, in part because some studies reflect that males are biologically more prone to pedophilia.

    I don’t know what to make of the scientist who told me that it was an ‘epigenetic’ disorder. I tend to doubt it develops in utero for some reason.

    What I do know is that gay men don’t belong around Boy Scouts, while I’d be much less concerned about lesbians near the Girl Scouts, especially if they got involved as parents of girls.

    • There are plenty of gay men who emerged from the Boy Scouts as Eagle Scouts, in fact a former partner of mine did so.

      Under current BSA policy, as soon as they achieve Eagle status they are booted out, regardless of whether they ever posed any danger to children. You have more no evidence to support your assertion that all gay men are dangerous to all boy scouts than that all straight men are dangerous to all girls.

      Pedophilia is not conflated with either homosexuality or heterosexuality, and is an entirely separate orientation. Whether it is inborn or not is irrelevant, because it harms children and can never be condoned.

    • Matt Parrott

      Niemca,

      While there are certainly some exceptions, my limited research suggests that even the women who are guilty of child molestation are typically engaging in it under the influence of a dominant male pedophile.

      If lesbians are more likely to be pedophiles than straight women, it’s a statistically irrelevant minority.


By: Matt Parrott


Matt is a founding member of TradYouth and is currently the project's Chief Information Officer. He's been active in the White Identity cause for years, primarily as a blogger but also as a street activist and regional organizer.
%d bloggers like this: