pink-swastika

Pink is the New Brown: Mozilla, Homofascism and The Pink Swastika

avatar
Print Friendly and PDF

I once asked a journalist, who was doing a story about my listing as a “hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center, to ask SPLC what I would take for them to de-list me. SPLC replied to him that I would have to recant my book, The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party (co-authored with Orthodox Jewish researcher Kevin E. Abrams). I will never recant The Pink Swastika because it is the truth, so I guess I’m a SPLC “lifer.”

The SPLC knows that the most dangerous aspect of my 25-year Christian ministry to stop the LGBT political agenda is the truth contained in the pages of this book. That militant agenda rests on a foundation of sand: i.e. the premise that homosexuals are victims of society who can only escape persecution and eventual extermination by expunging all disapproval of their sexual perversion from public life. The bottom-most layer of that foundation is the claim that homosexuals were victims of the Nazi Holocaust.

In 1995 Kevin and I published the first edition of The Pink Swastika to counter historical revisionism by the homosexual political movement, which had been attempting since the 1970s to fabricate a “Gay Holocaust” equivalent to that suffered by the Jews in Nazi Germany. In those days the primary symbol of the homosexual movement was the inverted pink triangle, which designated homosexuals in Nazi work camps.

Some homosexual political factions in existence in the early 90s still use the pink triangle on a limited basis, but publication of The Pink Swastika succeeded in stopping that movement-wide campaign, indirectly forcing the “gays” to abandon the pink triangle as the primary symbol of their movement. (They switched to the rainbow.) They didn’t dare to continue using the pink triangle because it would have drawn attention to the damning truth we had published in The Pink Swastika.

Yes, some effeminate homosexual men aligned with the German Communist Party were in fact persecuted by the masculine/macho homosexual men of the fascist Nazi Party, but it was a relatively small number and they were never targeted for extermination like the Jews. The far bigger story is the widespread homosexuality among the perpetrators.

Solely for making this assertion — and proving it with 400 pages of documentation on the centrality of homosexuality to the Nazi movement — the SPLC has also labeled me a “Holocaust Revisionist,” a nasty lie which is close to the top of the list of “100 Reasons to Hate Scott Lively” that is today posted on the refrigerators of every leftist journalist and political activist on the planet (a slight exaggeration, perhaps).

On the contrary, the cover-up of the homosexual roots of Nazism is one of, if not the greatest, feat of historical revisionism the world has ever seen. The sheer volume of documentation that has been suppressed to protect the homosexual movement from its own past is staggering.

Kevin and I are now working on the fifth edition of The Pink Swastika, a slow process, because, believe it or not, there is still such an enormous volume of additional material that our researchers have uncovered. I am methodically working (in my spare time) through a three-foot stack of photocopied pages from at least 200 new sources. The fifth edition may be over 500 pages long by the time we get finished with it.

Importantly, and alarmingly, The Pink Swastika’s claims linking homosexuality with fascism are also being proven by the emergence of a form of homo-fascism in our own society. The forced resignation of Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich is the latest example, but there are many in recent years. “Gay” bullies have become the new Brownshirts (just as they were the original Brownshirts).

Mark my words, these Pinkshirts will eventually grow as violent as the Brownshirts were. We got a taste of it when Floyd Lee Corkins attempted to commit mass murder at the Family Research Council, following the inspiration of none other than the SPLC. The window-smashing lesbian riot against Ryan Sorba at Smith College a few years ago comes close. My own favorite was the time I received the “Truth Teller Award” from Peter LaBarbera’s Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH). Early on the morning of the event LGBT activists smashed out the windows at our host church in Arlington Heights, Illinois with a paving stone scrawled with the demand “SHUT DOWN LIVELY,” accompanied by threats of more violence posted on the Internet by the perpetrators.

At the time of the AFTAH incident I noted that in posting an admission of responsibility and threat of future violence a la Al Qaeda, the “gays” had crossed an invisible line from intimidation into terrorism.

With the firing of Eich, simply for donating six years ago to Proposition 8, the LGBT fascists have crossed another line. “I think there is a gay mafia,” Bill Maher said in a televised discussion of Eich‘s purging. “I think if you cross them, you do get whacked.” When even a confirmed reprobate like Maher acknowledges the existence of homo-fascism you know it’s bad.

What happens next? If history repeats, the answer to that question lies in the pages of The Pink Swastika, which you may read in the fourth edition in its entirety by clicking here. Both of these are free to read and disseminate without charge, and I urge you to make the maximum use of them while it is still possible to do so. God willing we will release the fourth chapter of the fifth edition by the end of April. Stay tuned

In closing, to show that there truly is “nothing new under the sun” regarding the homosexual agenda I will quote Hans von Tresckow from his memoirs of his service as Police Commissioner of Berlin in the late 1800s and early 1900s:

“[I]t is not the sense of duty towards one’s fellow men or the nation that forms the rule of conduct for homosexualists; but in every turn of life and in all their striving they think only of the good or harm they may do to their own clique of friends.”

History never repeats identically, there are always variations colored by culture of the day. The cultural color of Nazi Germany was brown, but in millennial America pink is the new brown.

Print Friendly and PDF



Posting Policy

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read More

  • thisoldspouse

    They are homo-terrorists, every one. If they don’t commit the violent, despicable acts, they heartily approve of them.

    • John

      you and your ilk are christoban in your efforts to margianlize your fellow man. No true christian acts this way. There are no true christians on this site by a long shot. such a hateful bigot and oppressed at that

      • thisoldspouse

        Some deviants deserve to be marginalized. We marginalize criminals by locking them up for long periods of time, restrict their voting rights, and right to possess fire arms. Are you against this?

        • shepetgene

          Criminals break the social contract. Consenting adults in a personal relationship do not break a social contract. Nothing about a consenting, adult same-sex couple threatens the basic tenants of the social contract. You may have a personal abhorrence of same-sex couples, but your personal distaste does not determine the legal equality of a group of people.

          • thisoldspouse

            Prostitutes and their Jons are “consenting adults.” So are drug dealers and their customers. Should we legalize all activity based on “consent?” Is that your great “god” now?

          • shepetgene

            We’re going to get into a philosophical argument at some point here. You’re making broad statements that require pretty complicated explanations to explain why each of these are separate situations. Just making quick, false analogies doesn’t undermine the basic argument of why criminals are not the same thing. Quickly, illegal drugs form a significant risk to public health without providing any significant benefit to society. Prostitutes are often not consenting adults, they are often forced by threats of violence into those jobs or trafficked into these jobs – lack of coercion is required for legal consent.

            Now let me just briefly head off your next statement. HIV/AIDS is a significant risk to public health so we need to criminalize homosexuality. It is possible to have safe intercourse. HIV/AIDS is not specific to gay men – and especially not in Africa where the crisis is larger. And same-sex couples do provide benefits to society and maybe especially more so if we allowed them to marry.

          • thisoldspouse

            No, YOU invoked “consent” as the ultimate determiner of legality, of “constitutionality.” I’ve shown where this is not the case. You cannot invoke this and then dance around the implications, hoping no one notices.

          • shepetgene

            I never said consent was the “ultimate determiner of legality” or makes something “constitutional.” I did imply it was required for sex between two adults to be legal. I used the word consenting in my first comment because not having consent would break the social contract. I was arguing that the personal activity between two adults that does not undermine the social contract is not a criminal act. I was trying to show why your analogy to criminals being marginalized is not the same thing. I then went on to show why your analogies to sex workers and drug dealers are also not the same thing.

          • partiZancritic

            Yeah, but consent between two ‘adults’ could mean consent between a 13 year old and a 50 year old. It can be so in Spain, as a result of never ending homosexualist pushing for more and more social and moral ‘reforms’. The thing is that it is not just a matter of two homosexuals consenting to sodomize each other, as you well know. However disgusting some of us might find it, most of us can tolerate it as long as it is done in the privacy of your own spaces. No. The point is that you will not stop at this, as society has finally come to understand; right now we have arrived at a point in our history where we are forced to recant any knowledge we might have about the effects of homosexuality and instead made to celebrate it, and to accept it as normal. Or else! (Most recent example: Bernard Eich). Do you not realize that countries like Uganda, Russia and others see this? Do you actually believe that it is Dr Lively’s activities alone which has led to a backlash against the Western homosexualist ideology’s push into their societies?

          • shepetgene

            I don’t know what you’re responding to. I didn’t make any claims about Scott Lively. I’m not asking you to ignore the negative effects of anything. In another article I commented on an inaccurate description of anal intercourse because it was factually untrue. Is that why your commenting here?

            My consent comment was not even an argument of mine. My argument was that comparing marginalizing criminals and marginalizing LGBT people are false analogies.

          • partiZancritic

            I am replying to you. You simply don’t understand what the social contract is, which explains your difficulty in understanding what I am saying. The social contract (if you’re referring to the philosophical tradition stemming from Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau) does not mean what you’re implying.

            The previous poster provided apt examples to refute the efficacy of your analogies. Get over it, and beat a graceful retreat from the nonsensical line of argument you’re pushing. Develop a new one, informed by the corrective information afforded to you. That’s what most rational people do.

          • shepetgene

            You didn’t make a single argument addressing anything I said above. You went on a weird tangent about how consent is defined differently in Spain and then some convoluted statement about how the LGBT rights movement is somehow forcing everyone to celebrate homosexuality and ignore the nebulous term – “effects of homosexuality.” I didn’t make any analogies, I explained why the earlier poster’s analogies were false and straw man arguments. Also if you want to back down from that patronizing pedestal I’ll be more likely to actually engage with you.

          • shepetgene

            Please explain how homosexuality is breach of the social contract. Please explain to me how those analogies are not straw man arguments. Though I disagree with you, I’m not a moron. If you want to take a step down from your patronizing pedestal for a second, maybe we can have a real conversation.

  • John

    scott has perpetrated crimes agaisnt humanity and is currently being tried for it. What an example for the christian community…someone who advocates jail and death for gays

    • Progressive Patriot

      Mr Lively is ecstatic over the fact that gays will be jailed for life in Uganda thanks to his extensive efforts in that regard. David Bahati freely admits that he could not have done it without Mr Lively.

      Love and tolerance, theocrat style. Can hardly wait until one is forced to submit to a religious test prior to voting or owning property. Dominionist tyranny will be wonderful !

    • thisoldspouse

      The case will be dropped. It is a political attack, purely.

    • WXRGina

      John, do you have anything useful or truthful to add to the conversations here? Or are you coming on here to hurl slanderous lies and baseless insults against those of us who tell the truth? Please read our commenting guidelines and adhere to them.

      • thisoldspouse

        Hi Gina,
        The obscene left can never accuse conservative sites of being intolerant of opposing views, seeing what’s allowed to stand here.

        Try going to a leftist site and see how long a conservative lasts by making his case politely.

        • Progressive Patriot

          Well, there are a PLETHORA of conservative sites that delete comments made politely which do not reinforce the intended narrative. OneNewsNow and WND certainly come to mind. But there are dozens of others.

          Sure, some liberal/progressive sites behave similarly, but less so, because from a liberal perspective, the antipathy contained within the opposing remarks shows the mindset of the conservative crowd. And, it is just outright entertaining.

          Hmm, which side portrayed President Obama as a witch doctor with a bone through his nose over and over and over during the debate on Obamacare ? Just saying.

          • thisoldspouse

            True, but many of these sites initially allow the comment to be made, being purged only after examination and reports of policy violations are received.

            I can’t even count how many leftist sites have BANNED me from even commenting.

          • Progressive Patriot

            On their behalf, sorry about that. Freedom of speech means freedom of speech for all, regardless of whether or not it makes your blood boil or offends. That is the price of freedom.

            One does not enter the public square with the expectation to not be offended by whatever is said. That is part and parcel of the arrangement by design.

          • partiZancritic

            “freedom of speech” does not mean having to put up with comments like yours, which are cast with the obvious aim not to add anything constructive to the discussion. There is no freedom possible without responsibility. Being constantly negative about whom you consider to be your opponents within their own web spaces is a strategic means to disrupt their activities. So, no matter how ‘civilly’ you might put your negativity, my view is that people like you ought to be purged from these spaces. Go dust off your pink swastika and join your comrades at Mozilla, you’ll feel more comfortable there.

          • Progressive Patriot

            Hmm, quite the curious reply. Freedom of speech does mean freedom of speech for all.

      • John

        Sorry but what I wrote is the truth whether uyou like it or not.

        • Matthew T. Mason

          No it’s not. I am aware of the allegations against Scott Lively, and this is just another attempt by homosexuals to silence those who oppose any part of their agenda.

          The fact this legal matter has been allowed to go forward in spite of the absence of evidence merely indicates this whole thing is 100% political.

          Finally, I actually have no idea why you are attacking the author of this piece instead of the article itself.

          No. Wait. Yes, I do. It’s all true.

          • John

            In His Own Words
            “Because no matter what, [homosexuality] is still abnormal, wrong, harmful and perverse.”
            – Eugene Register-Guard, Nov. 1, 1992

            “There is no question that homosexuality figures prominently in the history of the Holocaust. … The first years of terrorism against the Jews were carried out by the homosexuals of the SA.”
            – The Pink Swastika, 1996

            “It is not mere coincidence that the emperors of Rome in its horrific final days were homosexual; that Adolf Hitler’s inner circle were mostly homosexual; and that nearly all of the most prolific serial killers in U.S. history were homosexual. It is not mere coincidence that America’s cultural decline parallels the rise of ‘gay rights.’”
            – “Agents of the Death Agenda,” May 1996 edition of Life Advocate magazine, quoted in “Northwest Update,” Coalition for Human Dignity, June 1996.

            “Homosexuality is thus biologically (and to varying degrees morally) equivalent to pedophilia, sado-masochism, bestiality and many other forms of deviant behavior.”
            – “Deciphering ‘Gay’ Word-Speak and Language of Confusion,” May 2002

            “Homosexuality is a personality disorder that involves various, often dangerous sexual addictions and aggressive, anti-social impulses.”
            – “Letter to the Russian People,” 2007

            “The gay movement is an evil institution [whose] goal is to defeat the marriage-based society and replace it with a culture of sexual promiscuity in which there’s no restrictions on sexual conduct except the principle of mutual choice.”
            – Conference in Kampala, Uganda, March 2009

            “We need to bring back public discussion of AIDS as a ‘gay’ disease, pederasty as [sic] major subculture of male homosexuality, mental health problems and domestic violence as major problems associated with lesbianism, the increasing recruitment of children into a homosexual identity through experimentation with ‘gay’ sex, etc. – all the truths we stopped telling because the other side screamed so loudly about them.”
            – WorldNetDaily, September 2012

      • John

        On March 14, 2012, Lively was sued in U.S. Federal Court by gay rights group Sexual Minorities Uganda under the Alien Tort Statute, who accused Lively of inciting the persecution of gay men and lesbians. Lively responded “[t]hat’s about as ridiculous as it gets. I’ve never done anything in Uganda except preach the Gospel and speak my opinion about the homosexual issue”.[25]

        Pam Spees, a staff attorney for the organization representing Sexual Minorities Uganda in the case against Lively, the Center for Constitutional Rights, said, “This is not just based on his speech. It’s based on his conduct. Belief is one thing, but actively trying to harm and deprive other people of their rights is the definition of persecution”.[25][26][27]

        In August 2013, a federal judge rejected an attempt by the defense to dismiss the case against Lively. U.S. District Court Judge Michael A. Ponsor rejected the jurisdictional claims by the defendant, ruling that the plaintiffs were on solid ground under international and federal law and that First Amendment arguments were “premature”.[28]

        • partiZancritic

          The homofascists living up to their ideological mantra, that’s all. There is no ‘right’ to sodomize people without telling them that you have aids. There is no ‘right’ to tell young people that sodomy is normal and ‘safe’. There is no ‘right’ to demand that society should accept homosexuality as normal.

          Whatever the outcome of this farcical act by the United Sodomites of Amerika, the fact remains that Dr Lively has helped save thousands of lives in Africa, and for this he will gain a place in history. It is also a fact that he co-authored The Pink Swastika – and you can’t undo that!

          • Progressive Patriot

            Clearly someone has a peculiar notion of rights that does not quite square with the constitution. There is, indeed, the right to speak one’s opinion in the public square, even if that opinion states that the LGBT community has the right to equal protection under the law.

            It even has the right to defend itself against attack as well as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Some can disagree as is their right as well. No one said that listening to the opposition was a requirement.

  • John

    The more appropriate cover pic for this article would be a swastika on a cross

  • Norm

    Good grief..I have posted before, do your research..read and research and then someone will invariably post they will have nothing to do with biased research, etc.. without reading anything. Read Brown’s book “A queer thing happened to America” read the historical documents referred to in this article instead of lurking around to say what terrible people we all are for believing in historical facts.

  • Progressive Patriot

    One of the other options with regard to Mr Eich’s departure from his corporation was that MARKET FORCES WERE SPEAKING. He made his position known as is his right. No one attempted in any way to limit his free speech.

    Those who are incensed over his resignation seem to forget that he should not have had an expectation to not be judged in the court of public opinion for having taken such a stance. Free speech remains intact. As do market forces. His free speech offended the employees and board of Mozilla who ALSO acted with freedom of association in choosing to disassociate with Mr Eich.

    Sounds exactly like the system that social conservatives champion all the time: preservation of Freedom of Exercise, Freedom of Association, Freedom of Speech. All these facts remain true. We know Mr Eich’s position precisely because he was not limited from making his position known.

    The fact that there are CONSEQUENCES for such free speech is the reality here. He should not have had an expectation to get a “free pass” for espousing a position which clearly marginalized a part of the population, making them second-class citizens. Meh. He was shunned for his deplorable position. Makes perfect sense.

    • S_O_T_A

      The truth is that it is only a vocal minority that had a problem with Eich. The majority understand his donation has nothing to do with his ability to do his job. And there is no marginalization, that is just an attempt at emotional manipulation from you. Prop 8 was only about bringing clarity to the definition of marriage, because people like you wish to pervert it.

      • Progressive Patriot

        Proposition 8 had no purpose but to treat a segment of the population with disfavor, similar to Colorado’s Amendment 2 which was struck down at the Supreme Court for its blatant animus. Clearly, such actions are the very essence of marginalization no matter how many times one repetitively and inanely tries to deny it.

        Mr Eich was no longer effective and opted not to change his position going forward. How could the board continue his employment knowing his inherent bias against the LGBT community and how that would come across in the public square, let alone the workplace ?

        Would he revoke company benefits for same-sex couples who were now legally married in the state ? Deny promotions based on his belief system ? Hard to say. Working there as a gay employee after such an episode would be like walking on eggshells. Better that he leave for the sake of the company.

        And, the clarity with regard to marriage equality is that it will eventually become reality in all 50 states despite the vocal opposition. One need only wait.

        • S_O_T_A

          “Proposition 8 had no purpose but to treat a segment of the population with disfavor”

          Absolutely untrue. It defined marriage and everybody who is a male or female qualifies. Who do you know who isn’t a male or female?

          “Mr Eich was no longer effective”

          How? Could he no longer do his job in respect of the actual work? What does acquiesence to some perverted sexual agenda have to do with a web browser?

          As for what you’re waiting for, you cannot win, even if you pass every law you can think of and shoot all opposition. Agendas based on tyranny and lies never do, because eventually they destroy themselves. One need only wait. :-)

          • Progressive Patriot

            We shall see. As for shooting the opposition, that is more of a right wing persecution fantasy than anything else. Co-existence and equality are the goals, nothing more.

            So tragic that one’s pure hatred of “the other” blinds to the facts on the ground. Certainly does not contribute positively to the pluralism that is sought. Seems more like theocratic hegemony masquerading as tyranny.

            For those who cannot accept co-existence and pluralism, what exactly is the distinction from Islam and establishment of a different type of caliphate where freedom once stood ?

            One thought blue laws were an annoying and unconstitutional imposition on the citizenry — it pales in comparison to what the religionists have planned for this nation.

          • S_O_T_A

            PP, I don’t need to wait. This is just history repeating. From a broad historical perspective, you simply CANNOT win. A culture of death cannot do anything but destroy itself, and homosexuality is certainly that since it cannot create life – so a society that thinks it is equal to heterosexuality is doomed.

            My point is any victory you think is round the corner will be pyrrhic within 50 to 100 years. Categorically guaranteed. Too bad for the generations to come though – they will not thank people like you who placed sexual attraction above the most obvious common sense about sex.

            Finally, I notice you failed (as all activists do) to answer direct questions and bluster and bamboozle with big words to mask the emptiness of your argument. So, here are the questions again:

            Prop 8 clarified the definition of marriage and everybody who is a male or female qualifies. How can anyone possibly argue that any individual is denied the same opportunity? Who do you know who isn’t a male or female?

            On Eich: How could he not be able to do his job based on a modest donation 6 years ago that is easily eclipsed by major donations from others to the opposite cause? Have those people been targeted for undermining marriage? Of course not! Could Eich no longer do his job in respect of the actual work? What does acquiesence to some perverted sexual agenda have to do with a web browser?

            I don’t expect any answers because I already know how blind you are. You think homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality! It’s absurd!

            So you are blind to the fact the very thing you are accusing others of doing, you are doing yourself! If you dare disagree even to the slightest degree with your ilk, you can forget about work in anything significant because you will get hounded down and persecuted. I’ve experienced it myself – so please stop trying to deny it, ok? Even your continued presence here proves it.

  • http://emelyes-kitchen.blogspot.com/ Emelye Waldherr

    It seems Dr Lively is so consumed by his antipathy of LGTB Americans that he has never, in my reading anyway, said *anything* positive about them. This total and complete rejection of same sex attracted people seems almost pathological to me, although I’m far from being a professional and could conceivably be mistaken. Has Dr Lively ever written anything positive about LGBT people? If so, could someone point me to it?

    • thisoldspouse

      Is there anything positive to say about the “behavior” of sodomy? Really?

      Doctor Lively took a homosexual man dying from AIDS into his home, to live out the rest of his life with his family. It’s doubtful that he hates homosexuals for themselves. In fact, he probably hates homosexuality all the more because he has seen firsthand was it does to people.

      • http://emelyes-kitchen.blogspot.com/ Emelye Waldherr

        Nice story. I commend Dr Lively for his compassion. Is there any credible proof of this anywhere?

        AIDS is not a product of same sex attraction, HIV/AIDS is a product of reckless promiscuity, something some heterosexual people also engage in. I’ve never read of Dr Lively engaging in a war against promiscuity, either here or abroad. It’s always about the evils of same sex attraction.

        I suspect Dr Lively’s perception is far too colored by his bias.

        • thisoldspouse

          Hopeful, Mr. Lively is reading these comments and can elaborate. I just remember reading this years ago and it struck me. But what proof would convince you? I doubt that there are records to prove this, other than Mr. Lively’s word.

        • Matthew T. Mason

          He probably doesn’t talk about it because it really isn’t anyone’s business in the first place.

          And as far as “speaking positively about LGBT people,” I ask in what context?

          Mark Bingham was one of the brave souls who stood up to terrorists who had hijacked United Flight 93 on September 11, 2001. People saw him as a hero before someone found out he was a homosexual and decided that was more important than what he did on that horrible day.

          Neil Patrick Harris is a funny multi-talented entertainer. The same guy whose first big break was kid doctor Doogie Howser, growing up to a hilarious parody of himself in Harold & Kumar Go To White Castle.

          It was a homosexual blogger that decided to make Neil’s private life public by announcing to the world Neil was a homosexual.

          So is it in that context, or in reference to the behavior itself? What positive things could you say about someone who engages in self-destructive behavior?

          “Oh, the incredulous beauty of seeing Jim Morrison stick a needle in his arm. Yum!”

          “You know, when Amy Winehouse drank, you just knew you were hanging around a genius.”

          Does either of those sentences sound just a tad it nonsensical to you? Now you know why it just isn’t possible to sing the praises of watching someone play a metaphorical Russian roulette with their lives.

          • http://emelyes-kitchen.blogspot.com/ Emelye Waldherr

            What is so self destructive about same sex attractions that is not equally self destructive in heterosexual relations?

        • Daniel Martinovich

          Uh yeah, all of us Christian conservatives are against reckless promiscuity. It’s just that we are also quite aware that homosexuality is such a horrendous vice to most who practice it that it leads them right down that rode to reckless promiscuity. Not that it matters in light of the first fact but….. Scientifically you are incorrect that aids spreads equally amongst heterosexuals as it does homosexuals. If it did where is was our aids holocaust in the USA and other western nations as predicted. It didn’t occur.

          • http://emelyes-kitchen.blogspot.com/ Emelye Waldherr

            I can’t see how a monogamous same sex couple living their lives is a vice. Your “scientific” knowledge is bogus and self serving. Since you limit your comment to the US and western nations while ignoring the huge HIV/AIDS crisis in Africa which is comprised of mostly heterosexual people I think you’re just ignoring facts that contradict your belief.

            Dr Lively’s complete concentration on same sex attracted people seems to point toward an aversion and animus that borders on obsessive. I note that his rhetoric, along with other anti-gay thought leaders, is getting more and more strident as LGBT people gain political victories and social acceptance. I suspect his newly revised book will show the same trend.

          • Daniel Martinovich

            Emelye,
            Homosexuality amongst men is 95% about sex and nothing else. They for the most part do not have “monogamous relationships.” The married ones, the same thing. Their “marriages” are open. Woman a bit different. You are either young and uniformed or you are one of those homosexuals who are just out spreading the Madison Avenue advertising propaganda campaign of a political movement. Just ignoring the whole nature of homosexuality and trying to cover it up doesn’t help people but only helps the few who are using this to gain power over others.
            Secondly what you said about developing countries has no bearing on what happened and is still happening is western countries. None at all. It did not spread into the heterosexual community to cause the holocaust as predicted in western countries.
            What happened in developing countries can be traced to two things. Number one: Aggravating circumstances like 90% of the people do not have indoor plumbing and malnourishment issues. The other fact is this: Homosexuality is a far greater problem in developing countries than it is in western countries. In other words more homosexuals per capita and more toleration for aberrant sexual practices, homosexual or other. That is just a fact of the ancient world and the nations that have not had a great deal of influence yet through the Gospel and the Word of God. I mean in a huge chunk of the world that has had little to no real influence from the Bible- Male on male rape is not even considered homosexuality but an expression of dominance over others. This is just the way it is and will remain until the Gospel really affects those cultures.
            Your just part of the cabal that will destroy little children lives by bringing the dysfunction and death of radical homosexuality into the public school system for the political empowerment of the wicked. Or your just one of Stalin’s useful idiots. Dysfunction, chaos, tumult and crises favors evil people coming to political power. Whether you know it or not that is what you are part of.
            Do you want to see the dysfunction of the MSM community? Not that allot of them are engaged in this. It does give an example about the self destructive tendencies of this vice that those who practice even in the most gay friendly counties still have an average life span twenty years less than the general population. Look up bug catching HIV.

          • http://emelyes-kitchen.blogspot.com/ Emelye Waldherr

            When you write, “They (Gay men) for the most part do not have ‘monogamous relationships.’ The married ones, the same thing. Their ‘marriages’ are open” – aren’t you defining promiscuity and not same sex attraction? I still maintain that promiscuity and unsafe sex is behind HIV/AIDS, not being attracted to a same sex partner.

            The rest of you post sounds rather incredible. Could you please show me links to where these statistics and statements are proven? I ask because all that I’ve read and seen first hand seems to contradict your assertions.

          • Daniel Martinovich

            The very things that lead to homosexual behavior are the very same things that lead to promiscuity Emelye. Sorry you don’t know that. This has been known by observation and experience since time began. People who engage in homosexual conduct will be engaging in promiscuity as a general rule and that will never change. The reason this generation doesn’t know that is because there is a political agenda hiding it. Those who think they are doing something right by siding with the agenda are being lied to and used.
            Now generally it is different with woman who do not pursue the same things with the vigor men do or for the same reasons. It is the men that are the really big problem here anyway.
            As far as me spending all kinds of time providing you data for the things I pointed out. Not going to happen. I have done my homework. Far more actually than is incumbent upon me. The burden lies with you, meaning: This is the information age. You have access to almost any info you need at your fingertips. On this subject I maintain that you and those who are like minded are going to cause death and misery to millions who would not have experienced it had you not ignorantly joined this political agenda. Further that it would be the height of injustice for God to not punish those who caused what you are working towards causing. So that is why it is incumbent on you to study and not let evil people lead you around for their own nefarious purposes. Better start searching, it’s your rear end at risk.

          • http://emelyes-kitchen.blogspot.com/ Emelye Waldherr

            If what you write were true then why is it that there are so many promiscuous heterosexual people in the world? Are the things that lead to heterosexual behavior the very same things that lead to promiscuity?

            I’ve read a good deal about this subject and I also rely on personal experience. I can’t agree that gay men are more promiscuous than heterosexuals. I can’t agree that HIV/AIDS has some kind of affinity for same sex couples over heterosexual couples, the evidence just isn’t there for that kind of conclusion when taken as a whole.

            The trope about gay men living 20 years less than heterosexual people is untrue as well. That canard was produced via biased sampling and even more egregiously flawed reasoning by Paul Cameron, a disgraced and disavowed psychologist and sociologist who has been proven over and over again to use lies and distortions to make LTBG people look bad.

            You still haven’t convinced me that a monogamous, married, same sex couple living out productive lives are inherently dangerous. I think the stereotype of gay men being overly promiscuous is a distortion based on bias and animosity. In my experience, gay men are no more promiscuous than straight men. I believe that promiscuous people, be they straight or gay, are the real problem and I think the concentration of propaganda from people like Drs Lively and Cameron and their ilk against gay people actually allows promiscuity to continue unchallenged and thus endanger our world a great deal more than a same sex couple does.

          • Daniel Martinovich

            Emelye,
            Your so full of it. Every study that has come down the pike before and after aids comes up with the same scenario. We are talking going back to the 50’s. The last one that made the news was made by gay activists. Plus you just ignore the holocaust aids was to gays in the western world and all the dire warnings of the super STD’s now incubating in the gay community.
            I could say on many subjects we could just agree to disagree but we will be fighting because of the consequences your propaganda will result in. Ever been to a gay pride parade. Ever read Gay websites? Ever been in a community that is 75% gay? Ever been to a gay gathering in a city? Get real. It goes way beyond cultural rot and the young people you are foisting this on are someday going to realize the garbage you are selling by what it does to them. They are gonna be pissed I might add.

          • Daniel Martinovich

            So Emelye lets look at the math that doesn’t lie and compare it to people like yourself that do.
            CDC: New HIV infections USA 2010:
            Approx. 41000 new infections.
            Of those 28,500 MSM
            Then 7800 heterosexual woman.
            2700 heterosexual men (all black)
            The rest drug users.
            So lets see. 2% of the population accounts for 78% of the new HIV cases.
            Heterosexual woman account for approx. 19% of the new infections. Woman having sex with BI men and prostitutes more than likely.
            Heterosexual men that can be as promiscuous as all get out account for ONLY 6% of all new infections. None of these white men? I wonder why?
            So lets break this down. lets say there are 200 million adults in the USA having sex. 2% x that equals 4 mil gay men. Leaving 196 mil heterosexuals having sex. That’s .007 of MSM got HIV verses .0000535 of heterosexuals. Making it if I added it all up right MSM got HIV at a rate of 130 times the rest of the population. Just for fun lets take out the woman who are getting infected through contact with bisexual men and what do we end up with. In the USA, almost an exclusively gay men’s disease.

            Plus like I said this has been known through the ages. Even back in Bible times they knew this when they said: Romans 1:27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error… That is a direct reference to the horrendous diseases everyone could observe as endemic to the msm “community”
            So girl, your not just a little bit wrong, you are 10000% wrong.

          • http://emelyes-kitchen.blogspot.com/ Emelye Waldherr

            You keep ignoring HIV/AIDS in other countries, first of all. Why is that? A lack of decent plumbing has nothing to do with catching HIV, by the way.

            I never claimed that a portion of the gay male population is too promiscuous. I claim that targeting their orientation rather than their promiscuity is a problem. Targeting efforts against orientation also unfairly targets lesbian women who are among the least likely to be infected with HIV/AIDS. Your statistics are arguing against something I never wrote.

            Paul’s admonitions against the sexual rituals of Roman pagan cults has nothing to do with this particular discussion. Unsafe sex causes STD’s no matter who you are in bed with. When you target your “logic” with bias behind it you will never come up with a rational argument.

  • Pb2Au

    I love this web site. It is just like “The Onion,” with a focus on mocking conservatives through use of extreme hyperbole. The assertions made by Mr. Lively are so ludicrous and contrary to well-established research that the only way any reasonable person could interpret his writings is as satire. There is about as much evidence to support the assertion that the Nazis were primarily homosexual as there is for the idea that the Founding Fathers were all drag queens. A note to Mr. Lively: Saying something over and over doesn’t make it true, and it gets less amusing each time.

    • Matthew T. Mason

      “The assertions made by Mr. Lively are so ludicrous and contrary to well-established research…”

      Specific examples, please.

      • Pb2Au

        You want examples? Go to Wikipedia, There are links to plenty of articles which expose this for the hogwash that it is. Not that it would matter to you, of course, because you already believe this stuff and nothing would convince you otherwise.

        • Matthew T. Mason

          Uh, no.

          Debate 101: If you are going to make an allegation or statement you assert to be factual, it is your responsibility to back it up.

        • thisoldspouse

          Because Wikipedia is a wealth of confirmed wisdom and facts.

          Really? Anyone can post there, most notably venomous homosexual activists.

        • Jeanette Victoria

          Spoken like someone who has never read Pastor Lively book nor looked at his extensive footnotes and references.

  • Progressive Patriot

    One could more accurately say that there are some who espouse such a goal. Claiming that the position of “all” is merely an extrapolation of a few is intellectually lazy and dishonest. Could one similarly extrapolate that “all” Christians feel the same as the Westboro Baptist crowd and their recently deceased founder ?

    Overly broad generalizations hardly move the debate forward and frequently serve as incendiary attempts to insult or wound the other side.

    There is plenty of animus from both camps and reasonable people can see that neither is going away any time soon and some degree of measured co-existence is the only rational path forward. Clearly not all who support the LGBT community seek to abolish marriage and clearly not all who claim religious faith seek to marginalize or wound the LGBT community and their supporters. Perhaps it is time to find some common ground.

    • Dannyboy

      It is true that not all homosexual leaders believe the same thing, but enough of them do, and drive the movement from the top. I have found that rank and file homosexuals often simply don’t read their own literature.

      At first, homosexuals just wanted laws against discrimination, then they wanted to be able to adopt, and from there we know that they put sexually explicit homosexual material in schools such as the Little Black Book. Their aims are progressive but they won’t tell you that.

      Teachers have been caught telling small children in a classroom that they can be a girl or boy or any gender they want. Problem is, you can give homosexuals direct evidence of this, and they simply do not respond, because, in their heart, they know that this material is out there and they not only do not care, but in the end they approve of it.

      Ever heard of a homosexual leaders objecting to fisting being taught in schools? No, because they favor it. The people who are “intellectually lazy” are those who simply brush away clear evidence.

      Homosexuals cannot even explain how someone can be “born gay” if they are married for 20 years, has sex with their wife, have biological children and then “decide” they are really “gay.” And then, at some point may switch back to having sex with women. This is “born gay”? It is laughable.

      • Progressive Patriot

        Well, it might be a bit of over-reach to say that the LGBT community and their allies do not cringe a bit when crazy episodes like the ones mentioned above come to light. What is laughable is the assertion that the entire pro-marriage equality crowd “approves” of such things.

        As for the ‘born gay’ meme, the jury is still out on that one and neither side can do the victory lap. Sexual attraction is a complex entity and may contain components of both nature and nurture. Hard to say. No gay gene has yet been found, but neither has it been conclusively disproven yet either.

        Behavior and innate desire are entirely different quantities. A person who is a native left-hander can be taught or can succumb to social pressures to behave and act as a right-hander with fluency. Suppressing one’s innate drive is hardly a difficult task.

        Perhaps the most accurate description could be that sexual orientation, for some people, is in a state of fluidity or flux and not as easily hard-wired as in others. They are, in fact, “born that way” and absent any outside cues will eventually discover themselves. Seems reasonable.

        • Dannyboy

          Progressive Patriot, you say that the jury is still out on the “born gay” matter, and you state that sexual identity can change. Homosexuals do NOT agree.

          They are getting terrible laws passed that prohibit minors from getting “reparative” treatment for those who genuinely wish to try to change unwanted homosexual feelings. So, you see that the homosexuals do not allow the possibility that sexual identity can change. This is how unreasonable they are. They claim that people who do such therapy always use torture or drugs. Nonsense. They also claim that medical groups disclaim these therapies. That is a lie. They simply say that we don’t know yet if they work.

          So you see, homosexual leaders are radicals who wish to deprive minors of the chance to change. Homosexuals are not pro-choice. You give homosexuals too much credit for open-mindedness.

          • Progressive Patriot

            Well, I will have to disagree with you on this one. “Reparative” therapy sounds creepy and dystopian. The name itself suggests that the person is “broken” and in need of “correction.” Hardly affirming or positive in any sense of the word.

            As for the claims of torture, deprivation, physical and psychological harm, these have been made by many, MANY patients. Some could be exaggeration or outright lies, but to suggest that ALL such claims are fabricated is the height of hubris. Tales of soaking in tubs of ice or being subjected to sleep deprivation and other such cannot ALL, in every single case, be the workings of someone’s over-wrought imagination.

            Given that such reparative organizations would never, in a million years, agree to voluntary state oversight, it seems appropriate to ban them in order to protect the patients. First, do no harm.

          • Dannyboy

            No psychological therapies, out of hundreds, are banned in the US except outright torture or grossly improper techniques, such as coercion.

          • Progressive Patriot

            That may be true, but, in the interest of patient safety, it would seem prudent to prohibit such therapies until more information is known. If sexuality is later shown to be more fluid than hard-wired in some people, then not allowing them to explore that aspect of their being could seem to rise to the level of personal torture.

            Again, I go back to the analogy of handedness. A century ago, students were struck repeatedly if they attempted to write using the left hand. Certainly the teachers, nuns, etc. thought they were acting in the best interests of the child in a practice that now seems patently barbaric.

            “Reparative” therapy could ultimately be branded with a similar stigma as we learn more about human development. Since the mantra is to “first, do no harm” the more prudent course of action would be to ban the treatment rather than risk harm. There are many, MANY cases of patient suicide following attempts at “reparative” correction.

            Dunno. Reparative therapy seems objectively a harm until proven otherwise.

          • Dannyboy

            Again, we don’t ban psychological therapies. Homosexuals want to introduce one unique type of ban because they want to make a political point, namely that all homosexuals are born that way. Suppose a minor is molested or drugged into homosexual behavior, becomes addicted or confused and wants to try changing, with his parents’ consent. The homosexuals’ law would prohibit such therapy.
            They don’t care. The homosexuals care only about making a political point. They are intruding into the field of psychology.

          • Progressive Patriot

            Well, we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Not sure that the motives are not something more noble such as “first, do no harm,” but certainly some could make the argument that there is nefarious political posturing afoot.

            We do not ban psychological therapies, but we ban harm. Parents are not allowed to starve their children to prove a point, nor to chain them in the basement for not honoring their mother or father. There are societal limits as to what is permissible.

            Given that we KNOW some former patients of “reparative” therapy go on to suicide, often citing the psychological harm of such treatments, would it not make more sense to hold them in abeyance for the time being ? We require less oversight for parents to idiotically withhold vaccinations from their children based on far less scientific proof, putting them at tremendous risk of death or injury. The whole “resurgence of measles outbreaks in religionist communities” is a testament to parental choice gone wrong.

            Again, all the reparative stuff seems like quackery to begin with. Not sure the risk/benefit curve comes out on the side of benefit.

          • Dannyboy

            Sorry, but you are wrong. We don’t ban psychological treatments. Even psychologists do not want to ban them. Heard of any banning? No. That means it is not done. Legislators do not ban them either. Neither do boards of health. Neither does Congress.

            The only proposal to ban one treatment and one treatment only is from the political homosexual lobby.

            Notice that transgender surgery in which one’s penis is cut off, breasts are grown with hormones, etc is perfectly legal and the homosexuals that you claim are so concerned with “do no harm” want to keep it legal on even young people. Seen Chaz Bono lately?

            So the homosexuals approve changing one’s body into a different body with surgery, drugs, and psychology – with all the attendant risks – but if a minor and his parents want a sit down with a psychologist to try to reverse unwanted homosexual feelings, the homosexuals want to ban that.

            Notice the discrepancy. This is because of the hypocrisy of the homosexuals.

          • Progressive Patriot

            Yeah, not with you on this one. “Reparative” therapy seems harmful and should wait until the patient is fully an adult.

            As for the transgender stuff, it is not approved in minors and, in adults, requires a long, multi-year process in conjunction with multiple specialized therapists. Not quite the fly-by-night, spur of the moment sort of thing.

            The best course of action would be to support more gay-straight alliances (GSAs) at more and more high schools across North America to give the students a safe space to discuss and explore. Organizations like GLSEN and PFLAG and others are good resources for questioning youth. Same with the Trevor Project and It Gets Better on YouTube.

            Those are staffed with nonjudgmental professionals who are supportive, even if the youth ends up not being part of the LGBT community. Much better approach than reparative which assumes a priori that being LGBT is a bad thing, load with shame and negative connotations.

  • portertx

    Dear Scott Lively – you and I well know that you are responsible for hate legislation for the LGBT community in Uganda. May their blood, pain and suffering and lost life be on your soul as you are responsible for the abuse and actions that you incited with your “so-called” Christian love.

    • Matthew T. Mason

      Dear portertx:

      You and I both know the allegations against Mr. Lively are both untrue and irrelevant. Please stop.

      • portertx

        I am sorry I saw his videos – I disagree,

        He told Signorile he wanted Uganda “to offer reparative therapy” to gay people, but if they didn’t want it, then they would have to “take whatever the other alternative is, which was probably going to jail.”

        Sounds very much like the crusades …convert or die

        • Matthew T. Mason

          *gasp!*

          You’re right! He wants ALL homosexuals dead! Scott Lively should be punished! Put him in a deep, dark hole for the rest of his life so he can never harm a hair of another homosexual!

          Now, I am being sarcastic, but I am also being representative of those who feel the same way you do. With absolutely nothing in evidence.

          I don’t care if you disagree. Again, it is untrue and irrelevant.

          • portertx

            I never said he wanted homosexuals dead – however he doesn’t seem to care about what his actions have incited. He had/has a specific agenda as and it goes way beyond..

            “I support the right to privacy and think people should keep their sexual lifestyles and behaviors to themselves if they’re outside of the mainstream,” only to say minutes later that he supports sodomy laws because “it’s important to have laws regulating harmful sexual conduct, but I don’t believe it’s necessary to enforce them — unless there in a problem with them.”-Scott Lively….

            I am sorry this smacks of the Nazi tactics in the early stages …that he loves to label the LGBT community with.

            The first wave of legislation, from 1933 to 1934, focused largely on limiting the participation of Jews in German public life….a kin to the gay Russian propaganda laws.

          • Matthew T. Mason

            I do not know if Scott Lively actually said that. But if he did, in what context was it? It sounds like you are making references to two different things he allegedly said, quite probably not at the same time.

            But for the last, final time, none of that is relevant.

            “The first wave of legislation, from 1933 to 1934, focused largely on limiting the participation of Jews in German public life….a kin (sic) to the gay Russian propaganda laws.”

            Wow. Did you really just compare Russia’s want to keep homosexual propaganda from minor children to the persecution of Jews by the Nazis?

          • portertx

            In what context? — it was the context of his most recent bid for running for Governor of Massachusetts. There is no ” allegedly”….he said it — just like he called Obama the Anti-Christs and tried to deny it — the man is a lair with an agenda.

            If you cannot see the parallels between his tactic and the Nazis – that is your choice….but for a man whom keeps calling the LGBT community Nazis….It is time for him to take a hard look in the mirror.

          • Matthew T. Mason

            So I see you have no answer to my question. Or maybe you just overlooked it. I’ll ask it again:

            Did you compare Russia’s want to keep homosexual propaganda from minor children to the persecution of Jews by the Nazis?

          • portertx

            If you read what I originally wrote it was quite clear….removing gay people from the public life. Do you really believe that LGBT people recruit using propaganda?

          • Matthew T. Mason

            It’s a yes or no question, Portertx. Are you going to get around to answering it soon?
            As to your own question, absolutely. There’s never been any doubt.

          • portertx

            Actually it is not as you modified what I stated. I clearly stated that the initial legislation during that time frame is akin to the Russian laws….you to took it to the final level of persecution. …I said this was just the beginning.

          • partiZancritic

            I hope you get banned from these pages. The crud you’re spewing is just foul. You’re obviously intent on one thing only: to spread as much misinformation as possible.
            Can more people report these activists please?

          • Matthew T. Mason

            The way the Jews were treated at that time WAS persecution, pal. You just don’t know your history.

            And you still didn’t answer my question. But I’ll say this: For you to place the persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany on any kind of par with laws making it difficult for homosexuals to chase little kids in Russia is nothing short of despicable.

            You should be ashamed of yourself.

          • portertx

            You fail to realize that homosexuals also died in those camps at the hands of the Nazi…..you may not see what is apparent in scott lively double speak but I do. And where did you ever get the impression that gays are chasing little kids in Russia….but again that plays into your belief that Lgbt people recruit … which is commical.

          • Matthew T. Mason

            “You fail to realize that homosexuals also died in those camps at the hands of the Nazi…”

            Nope. I knew it. And that’s not even relevant to what you’ve said.

            “…..you may not see what is apparent in scott lively double speak but I do.”

            What. Are. You. Talking. About?

            “And where did you ever get the impression that gays are chasing little kids in Russia….but again that plays into your belief that Lgbt people recruit … which is commical (sic).”

            Oh, come on! How many times do I have to go over this? Heather Has Two Mommies. Daddy’s Roommate. King & King. It’s Perfectly Normal. It’s Elementary. These are just some of the books (and a film) specifically written/created to introduce children to homosexuality and the homosexual lifestyle. Why?

            But before you say anything, consider the fact homosexuals and the lamestream media kept referring to Russia’s anti-homosexual propaganda law as a “rights issue” without ever actually saying what the law was. Why would they be so deceptive?

            There can only be one answer: Homosexuals are upset someone had the nerve to build a barrier between them and kids.

            This deliberate deception alone says there’s an ulterior motive here, and it isn’t a nice, pretty one.

    • thisoldspouse

      That’s quite a power to have, to wield such influence over an entire nation. No wonder you sodomites are so afraid of him. He is truly super-human.

      • portertx

        Well religion is the opiate of the masses. Many have lead good people to harm and murder those whom are different in the name of religion

    • Doug Bristow

      Your are COMPLETELY IGNORANT of the facts.

      • portertx

        And what facts are those? Are you saying he didn’t travel to Uganda and Russia with a specific agenda in mind?

        “I support the right to privacy and think people should keep their sexual lifestyles and behaviors to themselves if they’re outside of the mainstream,” only to say minutes later that he supports sodomy laws because “it’s important to have laws regulating harmful sexual conduct, but I don’t believe it’s necessary to enforce them — unless there in a problem with them.”-Scott Lively….

        The above statement says a lot about his thought process.

  • portertx

    So anytime a Christian or Religious leader calls for the stoning, imprisonment, deportation etc,,, of LGBT….. they speak for all of you?

    • partiZancritic

      The difference, as is plain for all to see, is that the vast majority of your public figures and leaders say similar things, Gessen is one example. The difference is that your ideological literature says the same thing about marriage and heterosexuality, as does your philosophy – e.g. queer theory. People who advocate stoning of individuals are no Christians. Christianity has enabled western society, the fruits of which you enjoy (as the your photo/avatar indicates).

  • barbaro70

    good article, mr lively, but the only thing that is going to stop the homosexual/homosexualist push to reshape american institution is to repeat, at every opportunty, such as this one, that the homosexual whining for special rights and the follow-on attack on normal people who do not subscribe to the homosexual/homosexualist program, who do not express total admiration for homosexuality and homosexuals, is, as we say, to repeat that the homosexual problem originates with the STERILITY of homosexuality and homosexuals–that sterility simply does not allow normal people, 99% of the population, to be controlled by homosexuals, 1% of the population.

    the sterility conduces to homosexuals attempting to imitate normal people in their intimacy and perverts what in normal people is called sex, and results, unlike in normal people, life, but rather disease, despair, depression, and death

    every time someone as brave as phil robertson discusses the fundamental problem of homosexuality and homosexuals and are attacked, we respond by reminding everyone, especially the nice people who don´t want to hurt anyone´s feelings, that the foundation of homosexuality and homosexuals is their sterility–they produce nothing, nothing that is but disease, despair, depression, and death

    what is the point of mentioning what buddhism, taoism, christianity or any religion says about the evils of homosexuality when homosexualists and their lib/lefty, humanist, masters reject religion?

    at some point, and our work of exposing the fundamental problem of homosexuality and homosexuals is already having a noticeable effect, the homosexuals and homosexualists will return to their discretion and modesty and we will return to sanity

    • Pb2Au

      Wow. I didn’t know any one person could write so poorly. You’ve set the bar really low for the next guy.

      • barbaro70

        Yes, we write so poorly, but that is not the subject. We are writing about the STERILITY of homosexuality and homosexuals–they can produce absolutely nothing, much less life, in their pathetic attempt to imitate normal people in what in normal people is called sex.

        We write so poorly, but we do not allow our buddies´ to rip up our digestive tracts, colons, rectums, anuses nor do we attempt to rip up our buddies´ rear ends with our what-in-normal people are called penises.

        Now you know.

        Glad you asked.

    • barbaro70

      We just got very reliable information on certain CEOs with a program which asks certain cleverly designed questions which determine if an applicant for a job is a homosexual, and their reaction is why would we hire someone who is going to make trouble for our company with his whining for special rights? There is much more to that, but they do not intend to get caught, at least not with Tom Perez, Eric Holder, Valery Jarrett, and Barack Hussein Obama still around.

  • JBenning

    Poor Al-‘Gay’da and Lezbollah peeps. Get over yourself. Your chosen lifestyle will not be nice to you. Bug chasing is dangerous. Kinda like playing in 4 lanes of heavy traffic. Sooner or later someone will run over you. Your whole problem is you hate the truth.

    • Pb2Au

      The truth? Who’s truth? If you’re the guardian of truth then the world is one seriously messed-up place.

      • Doug Bristow

        I follow God’s Truth. How about you?

  • Pingback: Pink is the New Brown: Mozilla, Homofascism and The Pink Swastika | BarbWire.com | Victims of Gay Bullying()

  • http://love1st.wordpress.com/ Rev. Gerald Palmer

    Using the title “human rights consultant” for Scott Lively is like using the title “vegetarian” for the late Ugandan dictator Idi Amin.

    • Matthew T. Mason

      Relevance?

      • http://love1st.wordpress.com/ Rev. Gerald Palmer

        Both have ties to Uganda. Scott Lively brought his brand of religious based heterosexism to Uganda and after he left Uganda passed their most severe anti-gay legislation.

        • Matthew T. Mason

          But the actual topic at hand has nothing to do with either Scott Lively or Uganda. So, again, how is this relevant?

        • Doug Bristow

          And since he was invited there to give an opinion, the way their laws are written are his fault? Preposterous. Uganda feels the way they do because in their history is a case where many young men were rounded up to be sex slaves for other men and upon resisting they were murdered.

    • partiZancritic

      Ah! The all-tolerant ‘reverend’ has made an appearance. Reported for making the comparison. I do hope you’re banned permanently.

      • http://love1st.wordpress.com/ Rev. Gerald Palmer

        Well the comparison is the truth.

    • thisoldspouse

      Apparently, you love titles. The hallmark of an ego-maniacal loser.

      • http://love1st.wordpress.com/ Rev. Gerald Palmer

        I display the title Reverend to show others that not all religious leaders/ministers and Christians are anti-gay, anti-equality and etc.

        • Doug Bristow

          The only thing we are anti about is people going to hell and the sins that take them there.

        • Oscar

          You wear it to hide from everyone that you are a wolf in sheep’s clothing, enabling gays like yourself, and helping them be comfortable in their sin. You are a disgrace to your title, and have eternal souls in hell on your hands.

          • http://love1st.wordpress.com/ Rev. Gerald Palmer

            Well I guess I am not hiding well enough, you spotted this wolf lol. Darn it, the costume store said that this disguise would work.

          • Doug Bristow

            Laugh now while you can.

    • Oscar

      Or “Revered” referring to Gerald Palmer, the most irreverend pastor I know.

      • http://love1st.wordpress.com/ Rev. Gerald Palmer

        We don’t know each other.

  • Cilisi

    True

    • thisoldspouse

      “Call no man on earth father.”

      Try again, stupid.

    • Matthew T. Mason

      Biological and foster. Pathetic.

  • Pingback: MONDAYS UPDATES 4-7-14 | Mr. T's updates()

  • Daniel Martinovich

    Working against a political agenda to bring the dysfunction and death of the radical homosexualist movement into the lives of school children is not hateful. In fact I would say the use of the word hate to describe opposition to this movement it is a perfect demonstration of that dysfunction. Of course the inmates of the asylum think they are the normal ones as usual and cry, “what dysfunction and death?” Sorry folks. Most of us weren’t born on a carrot farm in North Dakota. We have been around homosexuality all of our lives. To wish that on little school children, to work to bring the madness and demons into their lives. Well…. well worth the fight to stop it. Well worth dying for if necessary but I already know we will win.

    That is the thing about the judgment of God and self destruction. The homosexuals themselves, those among them that are doing all of this will be their own undoing in the end. Once more the world will get back to a rational, truly scientific and real religious viewpoint on the matter. That homosexuality is wrong. It is vice. It is dangerous and therefor sinful. It brings great harm to those enslaved to it and the culture surrounding it. Therefore it aught to be discouraged in every rational, scientific, religious and public policy manner. After all, look what happened when homosexuals and leftists through coercion and rioting got public institutions and governments to begin to draw back on their opposition to that behavior? Aids and a hundred million dead. As we speak super STD’s that have no treatments whatsoever are being incubated in the homosexual community. Read about it all the time on government websites. Who are the haters when the “haters” seek to stop things like the holocaust of aids and the leftists and homofascists seek to stop all public opposition to the behavior that brings it?

EmailTitle2

Sign up for BarbWire alerts!