« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »


AFA outlines our agenda; shockingly, 'society-wrecking child corruption' left off list

by Jeremy Hooper

Our ol' two step partners at the American Family Association yesterday sent out another of their uber-reactionary "Action Alerts," wherein they encouraged their followers to oppose federal hate crimes legislation. In said alert, the AFA details a list of things that they think "homosexual activists are trying to force on every American," goals that they claim will become more reachable if such federal legislation were to become law. Here now is what AFA perceives to be agenda, followed by our own reasons why we think the AFA should change their name to the American Fallacy Alliance:

*Preaching that homosexuality is a sin from the pulpit will result in the preacher being charged with “hate speech.”

In a word: No. Nobody is targeting what a preacher preaches to his flock. We support the freedom to worship and believe whatever you wish! We just do not support the right to push those beliefs into the public spectrum, or use them to make policy. We also draw a line when such speech is put out into the public sector in a way where it genuinely affects the daily lives of others or anti-discrimnation laws (as mentioned in the billboard situation, six bullet points below).

As far as "hate speech" itself, many, many gays are as unwilling to see it criminalized as are anti-gay activists. America protects unsavory rhetoric (within reason), and many see it as one of our strong points. So if we actually get to a point where the criminality of "hate speech" is up for debate, the AFA might be surprised about who would stand on which side of the issue.

*Churches will have their tax-exempt status revoked if they oppose homosexuality.

Nobody is trying to stop churches from preaching their beliefs. Well, correction -- we are certainly discouraging churches from persecuting and demonizing gays. However, no gay activist is pushing any sort of law that would disallow preachers and congregations from embracing gay antipathetic views. Unless they abuse their tax-exempt status by taking those anti-gay views to the political arena (by endorsing candidates, campaigning, etc.), nobody is realistically targeting this. And again, if there was actually a law before us seeking to revoke the tax-exempt status of gay-unfriendly churches, then there would be many, many gays and lesbians speaking out in opposition (even if anti-gay church teachings make them ill). So while it's convenient to make it sound like we gays are an angry mob trying to force the church to open its coffers for the government, this is not (a) even a real issue of concern or (b) one in which the breakdown is gay vs. anti-gay.

*Homosexual marriage will be legalized and recognized in all states.

We are certainly, unapologetically seeking this. In fact you would have to be living in the darkest recesses of a proverbial cave to not realize that gay marriage is something we gay activists want. And we will get it, because for anyone anywhere who throws out the flawed religious-based arguments of folks like the AFA and rationally considers the legality of the situation, the debate is a no-brainer!

We're not hiding anything in terms of gay marriage (no matter how hard our opposition tries to make it look like we have some insidious, underlying agenda). We want it, and we will inevitably get it!

*Polygamy will be legalized.

This is not a gay rights issue, no matter how much our opposition would like it to be. If polygamists and supporters want to obtain legal recognition of their multi-partnered couplings, then they certainly have the right to take their fight to courts and legislature. And if/when that becomes a national discussion, we will all debate the merits, and there will be gay folks on both sides of the issue.

*Landlords will be forced to rent to homosexuals.

Landlords should not be able to deny otherwise qualified gays from renting! For that we will never apologize! Nobody is going to force landlords to meet a gay quota, but we surely are going to hold them accountable if they seem to be denying folks on the basis of their sexual orientation. If you support the idea that landlords should be able to deny gays, then you are supporting a thoroughly inhumane, discriminatory, un-American concept! No ifs, ands, or "but gays make me nervous."

*Scouts, and all non-profit organizations, will be required to hire homosexuals as leaders.

100% yes -- we will seek a lift of this ban. Again, because denying these roles to folks on the basis of their sexual orientation is complete and utter bullsh*t! By denying openly gay leaders, the Scouts are sending the message to young folks that there is only one time of man that is an acceptable role model. They are fostering a biased outlook on life under the guise of religious freedom. We will unapologetically continue to challenge them on this policy.

*Biblical language used to define homosexuality will be considered “hate speech.” City officials have already had a billboard removed in Long Island, NY, because it was classified as “hate speech.” The billboard read: “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination.” (Leviticus 20:13)

Well, first off -- it was Staten Island, not Long Island. Actually sort of shocking that the AFA would get this wrong, as attorneys from their very organization are representing the billboard-happy individual, Rev. Kristopher Okwedy. But locality misrepresentation aside, there is no way NY anti-discrimination laws will ever or SHOULD EVER allow such a billboard to be displayed. That's because religious freedom, while protected in terms of one's freedom to worship as and where they please, does not trump all other freedoms! Mr. Okwedy has every right to hold and say such a view. He can stand on the street corners of Staten Island and say as much to every single person who walks by. However, billboards on public property are not vehicles for one to push their personal religious views. Staten Island officials were right to deem the billboards offensive, and the billboard company (PNE) was right to reconsider their decision to ever erect them!

*Employees will not be allowed to say anything negative about homosexuality in their workplaces.

Or about African-Americans, Jews, Asian-Americans, women, Christians, or anyone else! What sort of negativity should be acceptable in the workplace? Why would you wish it to be?

No, AFA, "
I don't like gay people" and "Gays are immoral" will not and hopefully ARE NOT acceptable in America's workplaces. You found us out! What next, are you going to blow the lid off of our "gay beatings should not be allowed in the alley outside of the workplace" goals?

*Classes promoting the homosexual lifestyle will be included in school curricula beginning with the lower grades.

Contrary to popular "pro-family" belief, we gays actually don't have a PR firm working to promote our lifestyles. What we do have is a desire to see the elimination of the bias that has long tainted tolerant society. Gay animosity is learned, not in-born. Children should be taught to accept EVERYONE from the very first day of their life. This writer is seeing this concept in practice with the young'uns in his life, and it is a beautiful thing!

*Employers will be forced to hire homosexuals.

And just like with the above landlord-centric bullet point, the AFA's phrasing makes it sound like guns will be put to the heads of the nation's employers, demanding that their gay employee allocation is at an acceptable level. But that's bunk-ass! We don't want employers to discriminate against anyone on the basis of anything! What we are saying, seeking, and hoping is already in place in most civilized companies, is a hiring situation in which sexual orientation would never be the deal-breaker! Again, backing the idea that employers should be able to discriminate is inhumane, discriminatory, and thoroughly un-American (not to mention un-Christian).

*Adoption by homosexuals will be legalized in every state

Yes, we 100%, unapologetically want this. And if you want to discriminate against otherwise qualified gay individuals and couples wishing to adopt, then we will fight your efforts with all of our gusto. That's because just like with virtually all of the above bullet points, the AFA's goal in preventing gay adoption is one that weakens society. Whether they will admit it or not, their overall agenda seeks a world in which heterosexual, male, Evangelical Christians viewpoints are automatically considered superior to everyone else's! The favor discrimination over diversity, myth over fact, and closed minds over open ones.

To deny gay couples the ability to adopt is not only hurtful to homosexual would-be parents, but also to the children who could be given a loving, stable home! Like most of their goals, the AFA's desire to judge an applicant's suitability on the basis on who they love and not what they could offer the child, is simply disgusting.

So AFA, there you have it. We've merely scratched the surface of why your thoughts about us are flawed and enraging, but we hope this is a start. If you'd like us to delve further into any or all of these issues, please shoot an email to [email protected], and we'll challenge your hurtful, misguided attacks even further.

House of Representatives set to vote on 'hate crimes' giving homosexuals special rights [AFA email, uploaded to own server]

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper

Your thoughts

You may find that we have some unexpected allies on the gay adoption front. A few years back the usual suspects tried to introduce legislation in the Ohio general assembly to ban gay adoption. Republican speaker John Husted (himself adopted and a vocal advocate of adoption) refused to admit the legislation into the full assembly, stating that so long as he was speaker any legislation that restricted the ability of otherwise qualified Ohioians from adopting would not see the light of day.

Not surprising, he took alot of flack for his position from the GOP and received zero support or recognition from the Dems. He would eventually "clarify" the reasoning behind his position after being accused of the unforgivable sin of granting "moral equivelance" to gay households, but he refused to change his actual position.

Posted by: Ian D. Stewart | Feb 21, 2007 1:52:40 PM

Two areas I find troubling in your response involve free speech and freedom of association. It would be stupid to hand such power over to the government for a short-term benefit only to regret it later on. Think ACLU defending neo-Nazis who wanted to march in a predominantly Jewish neighborhood years ago.

I do not have to like what the fellow wants to put on billboards to agree that he has the right to do so. As for the BSA and other such groups, I find their exclusionary policy for gays absurd but such is their right. However, this does not mean they have the right to exclude gays and still collect public funds or privileges...

Posted by: John | Feb 21, 2007 10:54:45 PM

John: I personally feel Mr. Okwedy's billboards crossed a line, violated the city's human rights ordinance, and could inspire hatred towards gay individuals. Multiple courts have agreed. I support his right to speak his mind and hold his religious convictions. Like I said, he is free to stand on the same street corner where his billboard was erected and speak the sign's contents or hand out tracts saying the same thing. But when his speech became a billboard of indiscernible origin gracing the roads of SI, it became an issue beyond his own personal freedoms of speech and religion. It became a part of the city landscape. What if he had instead included these passage:

Exodus 21:20-21 If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

Leviticus 25:44-45 Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.

Would the debate about the billboard's suitably be different?

As for the Boy Scouts -- All I was saying is that we will 100% fight the ban on gay Scout leaders. The whole piece is about what the AFA is "accusing" us of seeking. While the courts have largely determined that the Boy Scouts CAN get away with their gay ban, I for one am never going to stop speaking out against it! It does send a dangerous message to millions of young boys. That's what I was commenting on, to say to the AFA that we will make no apologies for seeing a lift of that ban. They may HAVE the right, but it doesn't make it right.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Feb 22, 2007 8:31:02 AM

Courts are not infallible and do make mistakes. Hence why we end up with such decisions as Dred Scott, Plessy, and the latest being Kelo. Okwedy used Leviticus 18:22 in making a statement of his disagreement with homosexuality. It makes no difference that you and I disagree with him because he has the right to do so. I have no problem if a private company refuses to sell him the advertising space because they disagree with his message, but I do when it is the government.

The verses you cite would get funny looks, but are innocuous. I have a few more suggestions for the man on my own blog. Now if Okwedy had chosen Leviticus 20:13, that would be a different matter since such could be construed as advocating violence against gays.

As for the BSA, if I understand your comments correctly than I agree. You and I are just as free to protesting the Boy Scouts and pressuring them to change their assinine policy as the BSA is to remain obstinate in keeping it in place. My only point here is that freedom and rights go both ways here.

Posted by: John | Feb 22, 2007 9:09:20 PM

Nor did I imply that courts are infallible. I just think in this particular instance, SI officials were right to deem the billboards offensive. It should be noted, however, that then- Bourough President Guy Molinari did not demand the billboards be removed or covered, but rather he contacted the billboard company (PNE) to voice his displeasure. PNE was the one who then chose to take down the boards, with a full refund given to Mr. Okwedy. So while the argument is that PNE did so out of fear of retaliation from SI officials, the company was the one to make the ultimate decision.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Feb 22, 2007 10:15:43 PM

If you are going to force the Boy Scouts to hire gay scout masters, then you need to force gay activist groups to hire Pat Robertson. You need to force the ACLU to hire Zell Miller. You need to force rights groups to abandon their mission since it discriminates against other philosophies.

Private groups should have the right to hire and fire based on their philosophical underpinnings.
Or maybe a Jewish synagogue should be forced to hire an atheist as its rabbi.

Forcing your gay selves on the boy scouts is just stupid.
It's going to hurt you in the long run.
You just don't understand what you are doing.
What if one of these Christian fundamentalists you love to hate forced himself on one of your gay rights organizations and demanded to be its president?

Posted by: JoeJenkins | Mar 31, 2008 3:46:09 AM

Joe: First off, if you are looking for people who "love to hate" anyone, then you are on the wrong website. We don't hate anyone here, and we don't "love" to have bones of contention on any of these issues. Our goal is peaceful acceptance of gays as what they are -- part of the spectrum of the world's normalcy.

As for your examples -- they are red herrings. True, the Human Rights Campaign would be unlikely to hire someone with Pat Robertson's views and the same with the ACLU and Zell Miller. However, it would be because their outlooks go against the organization's own goals, and NOT because of those gentlemen's characteristics (including sexual orientation). The scouting ban casts judgement against people on the sole basis of who they are, not because of their "philosophical underpinnings."

Nobosy is "forcing" ourselves on the boy scouts. We are saying that it would be the proper, decent thing for them to drop their discriminatory ban. But if they choose to not do so, then we are saying that they absolutely be cut off from any public funding or free passes in terms of using public facilities.

DO NOT trivialize our stances by saying we don't understand what we are doing. We understand both the matter at hand and what falling on the side of equality would do for society.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Mar 31, 2008 9:32:45 AM

There is that entity that sits on the top of our chest we christians call it the human spirit after all is said and done what is the condition of that entity when all sensual desires are long gone and the body is dead to all those sensualities what will the the person be? A man's identity can never be built on a desire as temporal as sexual desires. You might not know it but there comes a time in our lives that our desires are not what they used to be when that day comes what will you be. I will never stop being a human being but sooner or later my sex drive will come to an end on sex highway. Who will I be? Ladies a gentleman the creator still knows better. This battle for Gay rights is not new, we are just coming around the same old block. There are many things people do with reckless abandon that christians are opposed e.g. fornication, Adultery, reveling, lying, stealing and more and none to the billions that practice these despicable acts have formed a fornication rights movement to stop Christians from airing their views on their choice of depravity. Smokers have not banded together to form a group to fight a world that is increasingly becoming Anti-smoking.
The Great thing about American and her freedom is the ability to air your views even if nobody likes them. I hate the fact that sex is used to sell everything in America and rather than seek to stop people who use sex as a marketing tool I discipline myself to reject communications that promote such acts. There are billboards I see as I drive the streets of America that are contrary to my belief system I do not advocate their removal because I believe it is the most unAmerican thing to do. Taking down my billboard was the most unAmerican act of the 21st Century. It literally uproots one of the major pillars of the American Society. Ladies and Gentlemen when you start messing with the foundation of your house you are preparing to bring done that house. This is not about Leviticus 18:22 it is about the life or death of America. America dies if I cannot say something you do not agree with. If you have the money to advertise Alcohol that aids the death of millions every year why stop me from airing views I believe that you don't agree with. An America that allows selective freedom of speech is no America at all.

Posted by: Christopher Okwedy | Nov 16, 2008 3:10:45 AM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy

Related Posts with Thumbnails