Wednesday, April 08, 2009

Nom nom nom and anti-nom

(NOM: the National Organization for Marriage has just ruined a wonderful lolword.)

They have absolutely flipped out over the Iowa acceptance of gay marriage.
National Organization for Marriage’s new tactic: fear-mongering without using the word ‘religion’
The National Org for Marriage has made a moronic video stuffed with untruths.... so make sure to watch the video response at the end of the post.

Update 4/13: A hilarious riff on the NOM ad:

7 comments:

Mahakal / מהכאל said...

Call them the National Organization for Bigotry, instead.

ellroon said...

Nobs?

How about the Bizarre Organization for Obviously Benighted Saps?

Susan said...

on April 10, 2009 at 7:03 pmSusan Salisbury
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
The statements made in this video are true.
Read Parker v. Hurley, 474 F. Supp. 2d 261 (D. Mass. 2007)– in this case a federal court held that Massachusetts parent have no right to withdraw their children from school during times when it teaches that homosexual marriage is normal and desireable. If you favor homosexual marriage– you may think this is a good decision but it is disingenuous in the extreme to claim that the legalization of gay marriage in Massachusetts which lead to this teaching and this decision has no impact on those parents. Their children are being taught that their parents are bigots. So there is state enforcement of the pro gay marriage view through the children.

Catholic Charities adoption agencies were given the choice to either treat placement with gay couples as equal to placement with heterosexual couples or lose their license to run an adoption agency. They gave up their state license.

Contrary to other comments that have been posted in response to this story, the California Supreme Court held in North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group, Inc. v. Superior Court (Benitez) (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1145 [-- Cal.Rptr.3d --; -- P.3d --] that a doctor may not refuse to provide artificial insemination services to an unmarried woman who was a lesbian because of religious objections to pregnancy outside of marriage.

so the video is true and the people who think it is filled with hate are at least wrong as to the facts alleged in the video. The truth is that the pro gay marriage group seeks to impose its views on those who disagree with them.

If that is not the case, I challenge each of you to show where you have been willing to sponsor exemptions for people who disagree with you— where you have been willing, for example for President Obama to keep the conscience clause in place ( allowing physicians to refuse to perform certain services like abortions) where they have a firmly established religious belief that such procedures are immoral.

I’m still waiting. Where are the pro- gay marriage people who think that Mr. Parker had a right to control what his children are taught about gay marriage? Not on this blog, I’m pretty sure.

Where are the pro-gay people who think that Catholic Charities has a right to keep its license to operate an adoption agency even if they have moral qualms about placing children with same sex couples?

Again, I think most of you think that people should not have the right to disagree with you about homosexuality and gay marriage. You think anyone who disagrees with you is a bigot and should be punished or sanctioned for expressing his or her opinion, so far as I can see. You think it is a good thing that public schools and the law should line up to force YOUR point of view on those who disagree with you.

Some of think that’s fascism and tyranny. You all seem to like it as long as it is the fascism you have chosen.

Steve Bates said...

Susan, what a huge, steaming pile! I'd suggest you go fuck yourself, except that autoeroticism is in a very literal sense a same-sex activity...

ellroon said...

Susan, my response to your post is here in this post.

Steve Bates said...

And an excellent response it is, ellroon, in every respect. Most days, I have the patience to be at least minimally civil to people like Susan. Yesterday, on the other hand, she and I are both very fortunate she was not physically present within arm's reach of me; I might have lost my commitment to nonviolence.

Susan is interested neither in civility nor in dialogue. She wants to beat the Hell out of her imagined religious opponents, never mind most of us don't care what her religion is. I have met her kind before; they are so furious at encountering people like me who espouse the Universalist side of our UU tradition... in particular, no one, and I mean no one, goes to Hell... that they lose all attachment to reason. I lost it for all of five minutes. Susan... is she back from utter unreason yet? Somehow I doubt it.

ellroon said...

I very much appreciated your first response, Steve, so I could then take the more measured one.

All bases got covered!