Monday, November 26, 2012
Dan Savage: Bully-in-Chief and Anti-Christian Bigot
From LifeSiteNews:
A leading pro-family group has released a telling exposé charging that Dan Savage, the founder of the massively popular ‘It Gets Better’ homosexual anti-bullying campaign, is himself the country’s “bully-in-chief.”
Savage writes the syndicated sex column Savage Love, where, in his own words, he “traffics the skeeziest sex practices known to man.” He is famous for his campaign defaming Republican presidential candidate Sen. Rick Santorum by using a technique known as “Google-bombing” to associate his name on the search engine with a grotesque aspect of sodomy.
In the ‘It Gets Better’ campaign, Savage encouraged people to produce their own short video message to homosexual teens, and won support from celebrities and politicians, including President Obama. By endorsing the campaign, said Savage, Obama was telling “queer kids” that “there’s something wrong with your parents, there’s something wrong with your preachers, … and f—- those people.”
The short video, by the Family Research Council, compiles examples of Savage’s vicious and obscene attacks on Christians and conservatives, including teens.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
His real name? Damned Smudge, as in what is found on the wall of a bathroom stall after a session of tea room sex.
This man and that tattooed freak who compared voting for Obama to losing her virginity are the future of America.
The Progressive Long March is almost complete.
Dan who ?
An anti-gay group of bigots calls out Savage for being a bigot.
Shocked I say!
I have never heard of this guy and thankful I haven't. I would love to have a long talk with this very angry, hate-filled, misguided man and let him realize that we are not his enemies, but he is an enemy to himself and the man he loves in office is the true enemy of all people. They have only to wait to see what their precious one is going to do to our nation.
Constitutional Insurgent,
So you believe that people must be anti-gay bigots if they are against gay "marriage"? You believe in allowing people to pervert the meaning of marriage. I and many others believe in keeping the definition of marriage in its true form.
Do you believe that you can hate the disease while loving the person? As in if the person is an alcoholic?
Love his new name Silverfiddle.
Progressivism is detrimental to peoples health.
I give you kudos Leticia for wanting to have a long talk with him to set this misguided man straight. I would be hesitant to talk with him because he isn't open minded and is a very angry man. He's what I would call a hostile atheist.
Odie,
Dan, a man I wish I could forget. Damned Smudge!
Theresa - The flaw in your analogy is that advocacy groups, politicians and their surrogates are not working to deny the ability to legally pursue life, liberty and happiness to those with alcoholism.
Additionally, your marriage will continue to comprise the same meaning to you and your husband, regardless of whether gays are allowed the same social privilege that you enjoy. If it does not, then there are far larger problems at play than the existence of fellow citizens born with the biological attraction to the same gender.
Actually it won't. The gay radical agenda has already been forced upon us and has infringed upon our constitutional rights to believe certain religious beliefs. Homosexuality is an attack on the family unit.
* minor edit for clarity
What I find intriguing is that you write your personal, emotional reactions as if they were universal truths. That is what I find disagreement with; I respect your personal beliefs, as I would hope that you respect mine.
But if gays being allowed to enjoy the same social privileges that the you enjoy....affects your marriage or family, then to be blunt, it's your fault. If homosexuality is an attack on YOUR family unit...you allowed that to occur.
There is no tangible injury to your person; and there certainly can't reasonably be an emotional effect that severs or strains the bond between you and your husband.
The issue no more affects your life, liberty or pursuit of happiness than encountering people I find to be stupid on a daily basis, does to me.
Finally, where is your right to not be offended? I haven't seen that codified anywhere....and you most certainly haven't lost any Constitutionally sanctioned rights, or you would have specified them.
Belief is physiological. Not only is personal belief outside the bounds of rights, natural or man-made, but you haven't [nor will] ever lose the ability to form them as you please. Not until you draw your last breath anyway.
Being offended is not the point. Sadly, you missed my point. It was about religious liberty. The state recognizing homosexual marriages does have an impact on me and the rest in our society. How you are unable to recognize this is beyond me. Do you think religious institutions should be forced to violate their beliefs just so homosexuals are able to adopt, when there are other options - places - they can go to adopt? In Illinois and other places in the U.S. this is what is happening. It is about people not respecting our belief that marriage is between a man and woman and that the it is detrimental to the health of the child (psychologically) to be adopted by homosexuals. It is about natural law not being violated.
What you think to be "opinion" is pure fact. Just do a little research and see how homosexual activism has affected the family. The signs so far show that homosexuals can't give the same level of care, especially psychologically, to their children.
"The state recognizing homosexual marriages does have an impact on me and the rest in our society."
Then specify what that impact is. Please don't simply recycle a fear that you won't be able to 'believe' what you want to....what tangible impact does gay marriage have on you or your marriage?
"It is about natural law not being violated."
Yet homosexuals are a product of nature...one might add - created by god.
Please don't just assume that I haven't engaged in research, I didn't accuse you of the same. But research on this subject runs the array of bias and conflicting assessments, from both sides of the argument. I would also add that I don't think a home with two loving parents is going to be any worse than a single parent household, yet there is no prohibition against that paradigm.
This is a prime case where religious liberty conflicts with liberty writ large, but it does so needlessly. There is no serious effort on anybody's behalf to compel churches to perform gay marriages against their will and doctrine; in fact there are several state bills proffered by advocates of gay marriage to explicitly exempt religious organizations from having to do so...even though there is no fear of that occurring.
A more logical course of action [and one that I would support] would be to exclude all civil marriages from utilizing the term 'marriage', defining it solely as a religious ceremony....making all other contracts 'unions'...or some such.
I am not going to continue to hold a conversation with someone who is unreasonable and doesn't even have the respect to answer my questions but obfuscates them by asking different questions, assuming stuff about me wrongly, and not really engaging in the conversation meaningfully while addressing my points.
You are the one who addressed my points with hostility and ignorance.
I'm be very eager for you to specify where I've been hostile.
Your house, your rules...if you don't want to have a discussion, that's fine, but please be civil and mature about it.
You explain to me how homosexual "marriage" doesn't violate the natural order or our natural beings as human beings and how this promotes the common good for our society, how it is good for the children, and not for reasons based on "equality" and then we can continue this conversation. The onus is on you to explain why a 2000 year old definition should be changed and that it won't have an impact on me in society one iota.
It would be nice if you acted like a mature adult Constitutional Insurgent.
Stop making insinuations about me or else I will ban you from my blog. Your the one who started insinuating, assuming, and spouted aspersions of bigotry and the likes. Your the one who refuses to answer my questions.
I've been waiting for answers, but I'll start with this one:
I'm be very eager for you to specify where I've been hostile.
Speaking as the one to whom Teresa is married, and therefore as someone with standing to speak about how it affects her marriage -
Same sex marriage dilutes the social and legal significance of ALL marriages, effectively evacuating the institution of its meaning. And logically, whatever affects ALL marriages affects mine, and therefore Teresa's.
Just to prove the point - if you think that the term marriage means the institution by which society, through the agency of the state, recognizes and accepts the domestic partnership of two individuals who declare romantic love for each other or at least wish to share expenses and declare to each other certain exclusive rights (inheritance, power of attorney, medical decisions, etc) generally associated with the closest family member or next of kin, then the evacuation of marriage of its significance is already complete. That is not what marriage traditionally meant. Marriage was always the institution by which society recognized and approved a couples plan to procreate, thereby possibly add to society. That was the only reason that the state was involved. There is no other reason to get its certificate of approval. Extending marriage to same sex couples means that society approves of their sexual behavior. That was what it always meant, and make no mistake - it still means that. That marriage license for Jimmy and Jeff extends my approval as a member of society for their sexual behavior as a married couple on the chance that offspring may result. When it does so, it not only declares an absurdity as a possible outcome requiring the prior consent of the community at large, it involves me as a member of that community in the official approval of that which is contrary to my conscience and does so against my will. That is an egregious violation of my rights. Civil unions would accomplish everything that gays as individuals have a right to (couples and groups are not bearers of rights, incidentally). By demanding more they reveal their true agenda - to use the coercive power of the state to compel the approval of those who would, if free to do so, withhold it. I would support civil unions if they would be enough, but since nothing is ever enough, I (and conservatives like myself) have no motive to compromise.
I appreciate the thoughtful response, and make no mistake, I genuinely desire to understand your point of view. I strive to challenge my positions whenever possible, because in only that way, can they become stronger. This is why I'm perplexed at charges of being hostile. With the current state of internet discourse, I think I've been exceedingly civil.
Speaking also as someone who is married, I do not share the culpability of my marriage with anyone else's, gay or straight.
I believe the bottom line in where I disagree with you, is that your position seems to be a construct of your own making. There is no compulsion, by the state, your peer groups, your friends and neighbors, etc.....of the extended approval that you claim. Whom besides you and your wife, who looks at your marriage as being less than what you believe it to be? Certainly not the law. Your marriage is not diluted or delegitimized to me, anymore than mine should be to you.
I can appreciate the procreation angle, as it is a bit less philosophical than merely resting on a preference for some portions of Levitical Law.
There are many examples of legislation and social norms that once were held as intrinsic to social and state survival, that no longer serve the same function today. You are quite correct in the origin of state interest in procreation. But we've already past the point where rational arguments exist to disfavor profligate procreation. There does not exist the previous compelling interest of the state, that there once was.
Adding to that, by logical extension, if homosexuals being allowed to marry dilutes your marriage, then so must married couples who refuse to procreate; not to mention climbing divorce rates and those who conceive out of wedlock....surely a larger problem to the institution of marriage in terms of sheer numbers, than homosexuals?
A violation of your rights must be tangible; it must be provably injurious to your person or property. To recall one of Teresa's statements, you have been able to....and will always be able to believe as you wish; a social norm or franchise of social and legal privilege, is not tantamount to a denial of rights.
Finally, I agree with the concept of civil unions, though I also proffered a theoretical solution to Teresa, without response. The problem lies in that civil unions are legislated by the individual states, and not all civil union laws carry near equal weight with marriage, in terms of legal protections. If it seems permissible to allow states to weigh differently on these protections, then I fail to appreciate intransigence on extending the social privilege and protection of marriage.
"But if gays being allowed to enjoy the same social privileges that the you enjoy....affects your marriage or family, then to be blunt, it's your fault. If homosexuality is an attack on YOUR family unit...you allowed that to occur."
This is the main thing I found to be hostile. It shows no respect for me as a human being or for the person you are having a discussion with, which happens to be me.
Homosexuals are persons and a product of God. Although, we could have a debate whether homosexuality as a lifestyle is a choice or a product of biology but the sexual act between two homosexuals isn't blessed by God or approved by God. The person is, not the act. That is where the analogy of the alcoholic does work.
"This is the main thing I found to be hostile. It shows no respect for me as a human being or for the person you are having a discussion with, which happens to be me."
Fair enough. I think I've ably proven that I have no hostile intent towards you...after all, why would I?
Fault may have seemed to be a strong term, but I'm ultimately left grasping for another word that conveys the idea....that if you are to claim emotional injury due to the unrelated actions of another, it's an intellectual stretch to lay blame anywhere other than the self.
Post a Comment