philomedy philomedy

AFA, Falwell Revisited

AFA, Falwell Revisited

Losin' it and losin' it and losin' it well

Alright, so we know Jerry Falwell, he of the raving lunacy? Good. We know the American Family Association, it of non-spongebob fame? Good. They've both lost it.

Falwell I won't really elaborate on because he's pretty much lost all credibility with me after "Spongebob is gay", but long story short he wants you to boycott Kraft for sponsoring the Gay Games. I'm sure the AFA wants you to do the same, although they aren't being so upfront. But anyways, let me hit y'all with a couple of numbers:

1) $12 million donated in conjunction with Coca-Cola and The Boys and Girls Clubs of American to fund a Youth Health and Wellness Initiative
2) $250,000 donated to food banks around the US and Canada
3)Partnership with Save the Children outlining a four year plan to build schools and donate money to education initiatives in underdeveloped nations.
4)Partnership with the Rainforest Alliance to preserve the environment while still supporting their independent coffee growers.
5)Ongoing association with the American Red Cross (and other organizations) to donate food, money and supplies to disaster areas.
6)The release of a new product whose proceeds will go towards childhood cancer research in association with Alex's Lemonade Stand.
7)ALL, I repeat, ALL IRRELEVANT BECAUSE THEY ALSO SUPPORT THE GAY GAMES.

To quote the esteemed Mr. Falwell "I don't think moral-minded Americans understand the potential power that we wield...I urge everyone to take a stand for decency by participating in this national effort..." and it goes on from there. This from the same man who says gay rights' activists whine about him being stuffed with hate like an overblown turkey, simply because they disagree with him. Of course, he then turns around and whines that everyone who doesn't support him is immoral and indecent, simply for disagreeing with him. Neither is perfect, but I'd rather be hate-filled than immoral and indecent, wouldn't you?

Alright, on to the AFA. They're throwing their fit about the Gay Games organizing parties at clubs for the athletes and participants to attend during the night. They also link to pictures of what goes on in gay night clubs. (As a side note, does it seem ironic to anyone that the AFA links to more images of softcore gay porn than any lewd pop-up ad that I've ever received? Just a thought...) So anyways, after perusing the "offensive" 3 photo spread that the AFA website displays after lots of rather serious looking red capital letters, I've established this: The photographs depict the exact same things that go on in every other night club anywhere. Shirtless men, dry humping, lots of rubbing and grinding...yawn. Go to a straight club. Go on spring break. Watch MTV. (By the way, another side note: the AFA doesn't seem to find lesbian pictures offensive...odd...)

So anyways, to recap: Apparantly the problem is not the gay games, its what goes on at gay night clubs. So, then, forgetting the fact that the same stuff happens at straight clubs and its okay, the problem has now gone from gay's "hoisting their lifestyle" onto people with PDA's to gay people convening in ENCLOSED, OFTEN FLAMBOYANTLY MARKED night clubs that it is everyone's option to avoid. Wow. Why don't we just bury them in underground pits where they won't bother anyone? Or better yet, tall towers. Did anyone see The Man in the Iron Mask?

But as balanced as the AFA is, I suppose we'll soon see their boycott of the Olympic games (which also seeks to foster an active social nightlife for the participants) and the World Cup (for which Germany is actually erecting a "sex village", a town of small huts where prostitutes can stock up on free condoms and food). I eagerly await the AFA's assault on the corporate sponsors of these events, as I doubt premarital simulated sex (homosexual or otherwise) and government sponsored prostitution falls in line with the AFA's "traditional values."




13,897 views 91 replies
Reply #51 Top
P.S. Not to be overly harsh, but the gay marriage issue IS NOT LIBERAL VS CONSERVATIVE.

All you have to do is go look at the states that had a referendum on it during the last election. You'll find that the margins there were waaaaay too wide to be the way you are posing it. By your description, the gay marriage bans should have come in with similar results as the Presidential vote.

Even states where Kerry won, though, a sizable majority voted for gay marriage bans. You can't pretend that it is Democrat/Republican or even Liberal/COnservative. People obviously see this as a separate issue, and one more complex than you are giving them credit for.

You realize there were gay people intereviewed during the whole San Fransisco Mayor thing that opposed gay marriage. Are they what you imagine when you say "conservatives"?
Reply #52 Top
How typical. You can't answer the question so you dance around it and make fun of it and the person asking.


I'm just curious drmiler...what did you contribute to this before other than jumping on zinkadoodle?
Reply #53 Top
No, since they need their own events to play on a level field. Homosexuals aren't challenged in any special way, are they?


Actually, with certain new prosthetics, the field is pretty level nowadays. I was reading in Sports Illustrated that the reigning paralympic champion in the 200 meters could very well try his hand at the olympic games in 2008, if they let him.

And if he were to compete, sportscasters would be quick to praise his courage, which is one word that you would not hear if you tried if this was a gay athlete who had chosen to come out.
Reply #54 Top
As for the question, there's nothing to answer. You were just, for whatever reason, I dunno...... you hate me because I'm a liberal ........, not happy with my reply to Gideon, so you made this rather meager attempt to challenge and denigrate me. And, as is so pathetically typical of you, you have absolutely nothing to say on the topic at hand. All you do is insult people.

I have some questions for you, drmiler ...... Why don't you tell JU your thoughts on Philomedy's original topic? Do you have any thoughts on the topic? Are you actually capable of putting coherent thoughts together? Because, until you do, you have absolutely no business coming in here and berating those who actually have made a point, whether you like the point or not. How about actually debating a point? Wow! There's a novel concept.......

I'm sorry Philo, to go so off topic, but this boy is getting way out of hand. May be closing in on needing to banish him to his own blog for a while, until he sobers up.


See that's the whole point. You never answered Gid's question all you did was berate him. See below.


I defy you to show me ONE homosexual athlete in this era who has been excluded from their sport because of their sexuality. There's NOT one.


And, how would you really know that? I bet they are beaten out of the games at very young ages and in schools by their fellow age mates, who are just parrotting their parents' bigotry, so they never make it to the majors in the first place. Tell me, have you ever done any kind of research into this issue? Likely not, so your defy-ance is rather meaningless.


And as far as me getting confined to my blog? Doubtful, as I have not yet violated the TOS. And just an FYI... I'd lay off the personal attacks if I were you.
Reply #55 Top
And back on topic. Falwell lost it and his credibility a long time ago. Only the extremeists pay any attention to him any more. After re-reading the article I would have to agree...the AFA seems to have lost it also.
Reply #56 Top
After re-reading the article I would have to agree


while checking to see if the ambient temperature in hell was currently at 0° c, i was suddenly possessed with an irresistable compulsion to adapt a line from the film version of agatha christie's 'death on the nile': (sounding suprised to the point of bewilderment..and spoken with a cheesy indian accent) 'this is something i have never seen...a drmiler in a first-class cabin...i mean a cobra reversing its position. oh, for the love of shiva, i am so overwhelmed i don't know what i mean.'
Reply #57 Top
Why can't conservatives just live and let live?


Because they believe that 'giving in' to the 'gay agenda' will undermine the family and the 'free society' of which the family is the most important civil unit.


Chak,

Do not confuse a conservative with the religious right. They are different sects even if they vote for the same candidate most of the time.

WHat you describe is the RR, not conservatives.
Reply #58 Top
WHat you describe is the RR, not conservatives.


Both the religious right and conservatives want to shove their agendas up our asses. To me, it's a distinction without a difference.
Reply #59 Top
WHat you describe is the RR, not conservatives.


Both the religious right and conservatives want to shove their agendas up our asses. To me, it's a distinction without a difference.


Then bend over and smile.
Reply #60 Top
"Both the religious right and conservatives want to shove their agendas up our asses. To me, it's a distinction without a difference."


Which basically means that Atheists can shove any moral agenda they like up your ass, but people who function based upon their religious ideals are disqualified from persuing an agenda. You can take part in your nations government until you are blue in the face if you are a feminist, lesbian, pro-abortion Liberal activist, but pro-life Christians need not apply.

If the only permitted expression is secular expression, then they need to write that into the Constitution. Otherwise we need to stick to what we have, which permits people to do as they like as long as government doesn't compel people to a particular belief system.

When you start dealing with people of faith as though they are a threat, you are starting down the road China has paved, 're-educating' the Christians and rubber-hosing Falun Gong members to death.
Reply #61 Top
which permits people to do as they like as long as government doesn't compel people to a particular belief system.


Exactly! Which is why I do feel somewhat threatened when the RR and the conservatives try to legislate what they believe based on what is their concept of morality and bible thumping. Frankly, I really don't care if you're Christian. And, I could care less if you pray till your socks fall off in a public square. But, I do care when symbols of religion, be they Christian, Jewish, Muslim, whatever, get plastered on public buildings. This rallying cry that liberals are anti-christian is really such bullshit, as to be an absolute lie. It's just pandering nonsense perpetrated by the RR, and to which the conservatives bought into. That's why I say, religious right or conservative is a distinction without a difference.
Reply #62 Top
which permits people to do as they like as long as government doesn't compel people to a particular belief system.


Exactly! Which is why I do feel somewhat threatened when the RR and the conservatives try to legislate what they believe based on what is their concept of morality and bible thumping. Frankly, I really don't care if you're Christian. And, I could care less if you pray till your socks fall off in a public square. But, I do care when symbols of religion, be they Christian, Jewish, Muslim, whatever, get plastered on public buildings. This rallying cry that liberals are anti-christian is really such bullshit, as to be an absolute lie. It's just pandering nonsense perpetrated by the RR, and to which the conservatives bought into. That's why I say, religious right or conservative is a distinction without a difference.


And I believe the left has no morals.
Reply #63 Top
"That's why I say, religious right or conservative is a distinction without a difference."


You realize that you can be an Atheist and a Conservative, right? Would you consider Ben Stein or Henry Kissenger or William F. Buckley to be part of the religious right?

I think that's why you come off as spewing blind hate. I think you are blind regarding who you are at odds with.
Reply #64 Top
Well, let's talk about blind hate, OK. You jingo righties seem to have these patriotic blinders on. Doesn't matter what moronic thing our stupid president says; doesn't matter what destructive game our president gets our country into; doesn't matter that he's repealing all environmental laws he can wrap his twisted little brain around; doesn't matter that he's skimming bucks off your backs to give to his rich and beholdin' buddies. You guys will just love him, no matter what.

But, along comes some liberal thinkers, and you all are so full of blind hatred that you refuse to accept, in any way, shape or form, that maybe a liberal may have a valid point. doesn't matter that liberals want our environment free of pollutants so our kids don't get cancers; doesn't matter that we just want a system of health care that maybe, maybe will include everyone; doesn't matter that we question the motives of a president that maybe, just maybe took this country to war for no good reason; doesn't matter that our soldiers are dying for lies along with the citizens. You rightie neocon junkies are so full of hate, you just hate anyone and everyone who doesn't think lock-step like you do. Well, we have no interest in marching with you in your own shit.
Reply #65 Top
Well, let's talk about blind hate, OK. You jingo righties seem to have these patriotic blinders on. Doesn't matter what moronic thing our stupid president says; doesn't matter what destructive game our president gets our country into; doesn't matter that he's repealing all environmental laws he can wrap his twisted little brain around; doesn't matter that he's skimming bucks off your backs to give to his rich and beholdin' buddies. You guys will just love him, no matter what.

But, along comes some liberal thinkers, and you all are so full of blind hatred that you refuse to accept, in any way, shape or form, that maybe a liberal may have a valid point. doesn't matter that liberals want our environment free of pollutants so our kids don't get cancers; doesn't matter that we just want a system of health care that maybe, maybe will include everyone; doesn't matter that we question the motives of a president that maybe, just maybe took this country to war for no good reason; doesn't matter that our soldiers are dying for lies along with the citizens. You rightie neocon junkies are so full of hate, you just hate anyone and everyone who doesn't think lock-step like you do. Well, we have no interest in marching with you in your own shit.


Liberalism is a mental disorder! Go see a shrink.
Reply #66 Top
What the hell happened??? I leave for one day and it this turns into right vs. left with any actual points having been shot and buried around what appears to be a couple of months ago. That's fantastic. Thanks for the points and all, but damn...go fight on your own blogs.

You jingo righties seem to have these patriotic blinders on


iberalism is a mental disorder!


Pot, I believe you know kettle.
Reply #67 Top
Dance all you like, Zink, but when you say there is no difference between the religious right and conservatives, you're completely wrong.

Brad, for instance, is conservative. Is he part of the religious right? John Galt who writes here is conservative and rants against religion constantly.

If you want to turn it around on me, fine. If you can find where I have posed the idea that all Liberals are Atheists, I'd be more than happy to revise.
Reply #68 Top
You realize that you can be an Atheist and a Conservative, right?


Yes, indeed. Just as you can be a christian socialist. Unlike many European countries, where the socialist tradition has sprung largely from marxist and anti-clerical soil, the socialist movement in Britain has strong christian roots. The Labour Party was largely founded by Non-Conformists (i.e. non-Episcopalian Protestants), whereas the Tory Party used to be called "The Church of England [Episcopalians] at prayer". The Labour Party also traditionally gets the majority of the Catholic vote in Britain. An influential organisation called the Christian Socialist Movement is affiliated to the Labour Party and its members include Tony Blair.

What I think some of the writers on this thread are alluding to is the unusual situation in the US where the Religious Right is extremely well organised and currently seems to have a stranglehold on the Republican Party. From what I understand, this is a cause of regret for some secular Republicans and some religious moderates. So, it's not so much a case that there is no difference between conservatives and the religious right, rather that they are in the same party "voting for the same candidate' [Dr. Guy] with the RR calling the shots.

This is a view from outside filtered through the US media. Would you say that it is a fair analysis?
Reply #69 Top
You realize that you can be an Atheist and a Conservative, right?


Yes, indeed. Just as you can be a christian socialist. Unlike many European countries, where the socialist tradition has sprung largely from marxist and anti-clerical soil, the socialist movement in Britain has strong christian roots. The Labour Party was largely founded by Non-Conformists (i.e. non-Episcopalian Protestants), whereas the Tory Party used to be called "The Church of England [Episcopalians] at prayer". The Labour Party also traditionally gets the majority of the Catholic vote in Britain. An influential organisation called the Christian Socialist Movement is affiliated to the Labour Party and its members include Tony Blair.

What I think some of the writers on this thread are alluding to is the unusual situation in the US where the Religious Right is extremely well organised and currently seems to have a stranglehold on the Republican Party. From what I understand, this is a cause of regret for some secular Republicans and some religious moderates. So, it's not so much a case that there is no difference between conservatives and the religious right, rather that they are in the same party "voting for the same candidate' [Dr. Guy] with the RR calling the shots.

This is a view from outside filtered through the US media. Would you say that it is a fair analysis?
Reply #70 Top
And if he were to compete, sportscasters would be quick to praise his courage, which is one word that you would not hear if you tried if this was a gay athlete who had chosen to come out.


Nor should they. One's sexual orientation is completely irrelevant to one's athletic ability.

You know, if you were pressing the cause of a gay athlete who was excluded because of their sexuality, I would join you in protesting it. But I'm simply NOT going to join in a "dogpile" on AFA, especially when I agree with their issues.
Reply #71 Top
So, it's not so much a case that there is no difference between conservatives and the religious right, rather that they are in the same party "voting for the same candidate' [Dr. Guy] with the RR calling the shots.


That's exactly right. Same way most athiests belong to the democratic side. And, the distinction I mean, and I do know I am generalizing, is that democrats, be they liberals or athiests or born-again Christians, for example, seem to live more by the notion of live and let live than conservatives, who happen to be predominantly, and I am generalizing again, made up of the religious right.

Now, these rightie folks wail about less government, but want to ban gay civil unions, and/or marriages, ban abortions, ban federally financed stem cell research, dictate the right to plaster their religions in school and court houses, etc. etc. etc. Less government to them means less taxes for themselves, even if it is at the expense of society at large; it means less restrictions on corporations to pollute us out of existence as long as they get their nickel today;

The leftie folks wail about the righties' contention that less government means less regulations on health and safety issues, corporations and the environment, etc., while at the same time when it comes to morality, they say if you don't believe in abortion, then don't have one. But don't tell me that that woman over there cannot. Don't believe in stem cell research? Then don't benefit from it? Want to pray till the cows come home? Fine. Just don't institutionalize your religion, or any religions. Don't like gays? So what? Doesn't mean that we have to ban the lifestyle.

Wow! I kind of went on a bit. But, I do stand by my contention. It's really very much a philosophy for living, and the righties seem to want to stomp on civil rights, and dictate a morality that the lefties refuse to buy into. To me, that's very much the gist of this original post, AFA and Falwell, and their ban as a demonstration of hate against homosexuals.
Reply #72 Top
Again, you ignore the basic definitions. You are so brainwashed by your own propaganda that you don't even know what party you belong to. The vast majority of government waste, regulation and imposition comes from the Left. They are the definitive party of regulation and imposition. They have prided themselves on it and banked on it every election.

Somehow you are against big government by wanting to define, regulate and tax everything? Oh, wait, but that's big government "for the good of society". I see. It's all clear to me now....

Don't talk to me about banning stem cell research when the Democratic party has made it's name banning and restricting in order to make the world "safe". The Democratic morality has been pressed on the US like a big thumbprint for the last 40 years basically unhindered.

Your problem is that you are blind to the fact that the Left has their morality as well, a morality that they can impose at will. You can fight for storefront abortion with ease, but to oppose you is to "institutionalize religion".

You are espousing the most regulating, controlling, morally imposing side in a conflict and trying to win by redefining the word imposition, redefining "values" to only mean those that are based upon religion.

You have biased values and ideals spewing out of your ears. You can't swaddle yourself in the Constitution and think you can offhandedly disqualify this many people from making their mark on their own nation.
Reply #73 Top
Bakerstreet, is is quite clear that we will never ever agree on anything. You tell me I'm "wrong"; I don't know what I'm talking about; big government this and that. I tell you I don't buy your side of the story. That simple. I guess we'll just leave it at that. You can preach all you want. I will never buy it. I can preach all I want. You will never buy it. It's different philosophies for living. End of discussion.
Reply #74 Top
One more thing. I do NOT ignore anything. I just see it differently. Now, end of discussion.
Reply #75 Top

One more thing. I do NOT ignore anything. I just see it differently. Now, end of discussion.


Your ignorance of the subject at hand is extremely FUNNY! And just an FYI...since it's not your blog the discussion is NOT ended unless Phil says it is.