National Organization For Marriage As Pathetic As Perez Hilton

Well, it was just a matter of time.  Miss California will soon start in a new $1.5 million ad campaign that is funded by the National Organization for Marriage. → source

According to the group, the ad will call “gay marriage advocates to account for their unwillingness to debate the real issue: gay marriage has consequences.”

OK, let’s get real. I’m calling BS on this.

First, I have nothing but respect for Prejean for answering her Miss USA’s question exactly as she saw it. She didn’t pretend or bend the truth. Good for her.

Second, everyone – including most gay activists – knows that Perez Hilton is a pathetic low-life stupid loser jerk and an irrelevant prick. Enough said.

Third, National Organization for Marriage is just as pathetic as Perez Hilton, albeit an even bigger loser than him because it’s an organization with more influence.

National Organization for Marriage

Think about it: National Organization for Marriage (NOM). What should such a name connotate? To me, the name resonates the idea that this organization is established to address all things related to marriage. What are some of the most pressing issues with marriage? Google has the answer:

1. Infidelity
2. divorce rate of over 50%

If NOM wants to include gay marriage on their agenda, that’s perfectly fine. However, go to NOM’s website and look around a little just so that you can prove to yourself that I’m correct in the following assertion. There is not one mention of divorce and how to avoid it – not even under the heading of ‘why marriage matters’. There’s not one article about adultery and how to prevent it – not even under the heading of ‘the threat to marriage’. You’ll find no links to resources for marriage counseling. No where will you find anything on maintaining a long-term healthy marriage. 

You will, however, find information on which California businesses to boycott, learn about their religious liberty ad campaign, and how to donate money so that they can lobby Congress against gay marriage.

National Organization for Marriage: just as pathetic as Perez Hilton, but bigger.

Ms. California: 1, Perez Hilton: -100, Gay Rights: 0

“We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite. And you know what, I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised.” — At the 2009 Miss USA Pageant, Ms. California’s response to a question from Perez Hilton about her thoughts on gay marriage 

In my opinion, that was a great answer. Perez Hilton did not see it that way. He believes that “Miss USA should be all-inclusive.”

Inclusive? There’s nothing inclusive about any aspect of the Miss USA Contest. These ladies are among the most beautiful women in a land of 310 million inhabitants. Many have talents (swim suit competition doesn’t count, that’s not talent) that have been developed over many years.  Most of them have lived privileged lives, and their families are well-off. They are well-educated. They are well-cared for. They have trained for years for this competition – even as little girls. They are definitely not a representation or a a slice of real America. There’s nothing inclusive here Perez. Open your eyes.

I’m all for gay rights and equality. But what’s really gay (pun intended) about this whole thing is that Perez Hilton is now idolized as a brave and public gay-rights activist. Rather, he should be despised as a pathetic jerkwad douche-bag that he really is.

‘And Tango Makes Three’: The Most Banned Book In 2008

A school district in Charlotte, N.C. has pulled a children’s book off the shelves because some parents have deemed it inappropriate. This same book tops the American Library Association’s most banned books in 2008 → source

And Tango Makes Three

The book, ‘And Tango Makes Three’, is a children’s book based on a true story of Roy and Silo, two male penguins in New York’s Central Park Zoo who for six years formed a couple. The book follows part of this time in the penguins’ lives. The pair were observed trying to hatch a rock that resembled an egg. When zookeepers realized that Roy and Silo were both male, it occurred to them to give them the second egg of a mixed-sex penguin couple, a couple which had previously been unable to successfully hatch two eggs at once. Roy and Silo hatched and raised the healthy young chick, a female named “Tango” by keepers, together as a family. → source

The book has won several literary and library awards for story-telling and illustration.

Before you utter the words ‘Godless New York liberal animals’, hear me out. The reason this book is banned is obvious. Some parents believe this book makes homosexuality sound normal. 

First, how and why is book-banning even acceptable in the US? Isn’t that, in a way, fascism? What is the worst thing a book can advocate?

• Death to America? It’s old news already.
• America is moving toward fascism? Fox News tells me that daily.
• God doesn’t exit? Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter tell me that he does, and that’s good enough for me.
• Kill the Jews? Nice try, but it’s been done before.

Second, what is the point of protesting this book? Are you afraid that nature, perhaps even God, has created two penguines that are not necessarily interested in the opposite sex? Do you really believe that if you just sweep it under the rug, it’s as though it never happened? Does that really serve your child well in understanding all the possibilities and combinations that nature can produce or that God can create? Does your God want you to ignore his creations?

Third, how is banning this book, which is based on a true story, acceptable while books for young adults contain all types of questionable heterosexual encounters containing sex? Aren’t you worried that such books portray casual, unwed sex as normal for teenagers?

Mark Twain might have summed it up best. When Huckleberry Finn was banned by the Library Committee of Concord, Massachusetts for its coarse language. he wrote a friend that the banning was worth the sale of 25,000 copies just by the free publicity alone. → source

Gay Elephant In Poland – Obviously A Godless Liberal Animal

A ten year-old elephant acquired by a zoo in Poland is demonstrating a total lack of interest in female elephants. Ninio the elephant appears to be, dare I say, gay. → source

Some Polish lawmakers are not happy about this. Michal Grzes, a conservative politician angered over what he sees as a wasted investment, has said:

“We didn’t pay 37 million zlotys (7.6 million pounds) for the largest elephant house in Europe to have a gay elephant live there.”
“We were supposed to have a herd, but as Ninio prefers male friends over females how will he produce offspring?”

And I though being gay was a choice invented by sinful humans. Huh, go figure! Clearly, this elephant is a liberal flunky who has not learned to live with his disability. Eternal flames are awaiting him.

On a positive note, he will redecorate the zoo so nicely that all other animals in Poland would want to come and live in his zoo.

The zoo’s director has come to Ninio’s defense by arguing that at ten years-old, Ninio may be too young to decide his sexual orientation just yet.

In a related story, it appears that zoos in Iowa and Vermont have expressed interest in acquiring Ninio.

“Campaign for Children and Families” – An Organization With No Credible Morals And With Questionable Values

The “Campaign for Children and Families” is a California conservative organization that, according to it’s own website, is an innovative nonprofit, nonpartisan pro-family organization serving children and families in California and America.” It advocates homeschooling children (which I see a  lot of value in), and now it has taken issue with the California Supreme Court’s ruling that overturned limiting marriage to one man and one woman.

Randy Thomasson, the leader of CCF, demonstrated his displeasure of this decision by pulling the oldest political trick: If you don’t agree with our view, you must be a Nazi. It’s Godwin’s law for those of you who are familiar with it. CCF’s website displayed the following quote a few days ago:

“Ask your county clerk if they were a Nazi officer during WWII and had been ordered to gas the Jews, would they? At the Nuremberg trials, they would have been convicted of murder for following this immoral order.”

CCF has since replaced the above text on their website, but Google cached pages tell a different story. That quote is very fascinating though. If county clarks were indeed Nazis, they would actually despise gays and lesbians, and Mr. Thomasson’s argument would be null and thus quite lame.

I will not debate whether gay marriage should be permitted or if it’s the right and moral thing to do. That is completely irrelevant to my argument. A 5 minute Google research yields the following results. Out of an estimated 73 million children in the US:

1. Up to 10 million children are being raised in a gay and lesbian households → source
2. 28.4 million children live in low-income families → source
3. 12.8 million children live in poor families → source
4. 9 million children are completely uninsured → source
5. 11.5 million children end up without medical care for part of the year → source

In addition, it is estimated that 200 million children world-wide don’t get basic health care → source

Each of the statistics I have cited above is from entities with passionate motives to inflate their numbers without purposeful deception. In other words, the numbers are collectively as accurate as they come. Here’s my argument to CCF and its members.

For you and your charter to be sincerely credible (nonprofit, nonpartisan pro-family organization serving children and families), you must corroborate it with action. Look at the numbers above. Has anyone in your organization ever bothered to do any research?

The conservative vision is much more grand, sound and encompassing than the Republican agenda of late. For you to be nonpartisan, your history must demonstrate that other issues such as health care are also on your radar scope. I can find no such evidence – on your website or anywhere else. For you to be pro-family, you must have taken genuine and indisputable steps toward supporting children in low-income and poor families. There is nothing on your website that substantiates that. And for you to be serving children and families, you must pay as much attention to pain and suffering as you do to moral issues. Don’t even get me started on your nonprofit status that is nothing but a joke.

Until then, you are merely a political mouth piece; nothing more. Have you considered that you will eventually have to answer for your lack of meaningful action in front of God? Think about it.