Jump to content

Home

Focus on the Family wants Intolerance rather than "tolerance."


SkinWalker
 Share

Recommended Posts

I realize that there is already a very similar thread in the Swamp, but I thought I'd start a serious one here about the recent announcement by conservative Christian, James C. Dobson, the popular radio commentator and founder of the conservative Christian group, Focus on the Family.

 

Dobson addressed members of Congress at the "Values Victory Dinner" in Washington, D.C., Tuesday night and brought up the idea that non-profit We Are Family organization has a distinct homosexual agenda. One wonders if he preceded the speach by tapping his champagne glass and announcing, "Fag alert!"

 

Here's a quote:

Dobson went onto decry a toon-town remake of the 1979 Sister Sledge disco hit, "We Are Family," in which the frolicsome Bikini Bottom dweller appears alongside Barney, Big Bird, Clifford and other fictional stars of children's TV.

 

The music video, produced by the non-profit We Are Family Foundation, is to be distributed on DVD to 61,000 public and private elementary schools on March 11. Its stated aim is to promote diversity; its stated agenda is to have future March 11s declared National We Are Family Day.

From E! Online

 

"Dobson based his charge on a "tolerance pledge" found on the We Are Family Foundation Website. The two-paragraph statement seeks "respect for people whose abilities, beliefs, culture, race, sexual identity or other characteristics are different from my own."

 

"...Their inclusion of the reference to 'sexual identity' within their 'tolerance pledge' is not only unnecessary, but it crosses a moral line," a statement from Focus on the Family says."

 

This is just as bigotted and ignorant as Jerry Falwell claiming that the Tele Tubbies were "gay" because one of them happened to be the same shade of purple as is present on the gay pride flag.

 

It does seem to me, however, that religious nutters are overly hung up on sexuality. Perhaps they base their perceptions of the rest of the world on their own twisted sexual fantasies and habits, since I've yet to see an episode of Spongebob that included any overt or innuendic sex. In fact, I've watched many of the cartoon characters that Dobson accused (I *do* have a three-year old), and none of them exhibit anything but pure family values that I want my daughter to see.

 

The one thing I believe that Dobson truly has a problem with: each of these characters are secular. They make a distinct effort to avoid religious nonsense while at the same time teaching family values. This is what really bothers that nutjob, Dobson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by SkinWalker

The one thing I believe that Dobson truly has a problem with: each of these characters are secular. They make a distinct effort to avoid religious nonsense while at the same time teaching family values. This is what really bothers that nutjob, Dobson.

Couldn't have said it better.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by SkinWalker

The one thing I believe that Dobson truly has a problem with: each of these characters are secular. They make a distinct effort to avoid religious nonsense while at the same time teaching family values. This is what really bothers that nutjob, Dobson.

 

Eye... I concur.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by SkinWalker

This is just as bigotted and ignorant as Jerry Falwell claiming that the Tele Tubbies were "gay" because one of them happened to be the same shade of purple as is present on the gay pride flag

 

The tele tubbie in question does also carry a handbag...

 

But even If all the tele tubbies are gay it dosn't really mater, no children would notice/understand any homosexual reference in the program anyway as the audiance is far to young. And anyway doesn't thechristian religion teach tolerance of others?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by jon_hill987

The tele tubbie in question does also carry a handbag...

 

But even If all the tele tubbies are gay it dosn't really mater, no children would notice/understand any homosexual reference in the program anyway as the audiance is far to young. And anyway doesn't thechristian religion teach tolerance of others?

 

It does teach thus, but it appears to be hypocritical in the fact that they completely abhor homosexuality. No offense to any Christians reading this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. Let's criticize square sponges for holding hands with chubby pink starfishes.

 

For Christ's sake (the irony :p), THEY'RE CARTOONS.

 

EDIT:

 

INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE OF SPONGEBOB/PATRICK'S HOMOSEXUALITY.

Straight from the show

 

"You know Patrick, since this scallop doesn't have parents, we should raise it ourselves!"

"Yeah, at least until it's old enough to be on its own! Oh, I wanna be the mom!"

"I don't think you can be the mom Patrick because you never wear a shirt!"

"You're right. If I was a mom, this would be kinda weird. JUST CALL ME DADDY!"

 

Oh. and the Spongebob Valentine's Day Special? Pure homosexuality. What kind of friend gives a valentine to another friend? THEY MUST BE GAY!

 

MORE evidence.

 

ladysuit0dk.jpg

 

Spongebob's a drag queen too! When will this reign of terror on Christian beliefs end?

 

:dozey:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is disturbing to me that the religius nutters want to nit pick every thing to make entertainment look bad.

 

They attack Harry Potter, violent video games, nudity pictures you name it.

 

I don't think it is about religeon, it is about control.

 

originaly posted by Druid Bremen

It does teach thus, but it appears to be hypocritical in the fact that they completely abhor homosexuality. No offense to any Christians reading this.

 

None taken.;) I beleive it is becuase they believe god created men and women to be together (Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve ) and there are versus in the bible aginst homosexuality, and the fact that homosexuality and other "immoral" activity was the problem in Sodam and Gamorah.

 

I believe sexuality is designed to make sure our genes get passed on, and since homosexuality can't produce offspring and complete the biological circle if life, it can't be natural.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do for you now, my impression of over-zealous religious idiot.

 

OH NO3Z!!11 TEH H0M0Z R TEH HARB1NG3rZ oOFf T3H AP0CAlyP53!!!!1111111oneonehundredbillioneleventybilliondollarsandone11!!! GAYZ R TEH SANTASATANSTANMARSH1111

 

Or in otherwords: We're a buncha homophobes whos life revolves around a 2000 year old piece of fiction that says gays are bad...though its a sheer impossibility that that little phrase could have been altered in the 2000 years since its inception and its not like it hasn't been altered before.

 

My brain hurts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by kipperthefrog

I believe sexuality is designed to make sure our genes get passed on, and since homosexuality can't produce offspring and complete the biological circle if life, it can't be natural.

 

If it's not natural then why are there gay animals?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by kipperthefrog

I believe sexuality is designed to make sure our genes get passed on, and since homosexuality can't produce offspring and complete the biological circle if life, it can't be natural.

 

Homosexuality doesn't equate to sterility. There are many instances in nature (btw, wouldn't that be the root word of "natural?") where an otherwise homosexual member of the population mates to produce offspring, but returns to the homosexual relationship.

 

In fact, your assumption of homosexuality interfering with the viability of the population discounts the possibility of it being an alternative kinship mechanism for abandoned or orphaned offspring. It also discounts the possibility of kinship diversity within a society or population that can create specialized roles that benefit the society other than reproduction.

 

The incidence of homosexual behavior within a population would have to be extraordinarly high, much higher than it currently is, to be deliterious to the population's reproductive ability.

 

With 6.5 billion people in the world, we should be so lucky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by kipperthefrog

It is disturbing to me that the religius nutters want to nit pick every thing to make entertainment look bad.

 

They attack Harry Potter, violent video games, nudity pictures you name it.

 

I don't think it is about religeon, it is about control.

 

 

 

None taken.;) I beleive it is becuase they believe god created men and women to be together (Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve ) and there are versus in the bible aginst homosexuality, and the fact that homosexuality and other "immoral" activity was the problem in Sodam and Gamorah.

 

I believe sexuality is designed to make sure our genes get passed on, and since homosexuality can't produce offspring and complete the biological circle if life, it can't be natural.

 

Abhorring homosexuality has no use, to tell the truth. According to my humble opinion, itt only leaves the real homosexuals unable to express themselves. They are unable to add to the gene pool. But so what? Its as unnatural for the homosexuals to have sex with the opposite gender as it is for any normal human to do so with the same gender. They're unable to change themselves. For example, if people ban normality and want everyone to be homosexuals (just an analogy, don't get overexcited ;) ), would you be able to do that with another of the same sex? I'm sure I know the answer to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by kipperthefrog

I don't think it is about religeon, it is about control.

 

you think?

 

Christians back Hollywood on file sharing

 

FUNDAMENTALIST Christians have joined in the court room battle against file sharing.

 

According to Cnet, the Christian Coalition, the Concerned Women for America, and Morality in Media have called for the Supreme Court to crack down on file sharing because it could lead to a "proliferation of anonymous, decentralized [sic], unfiltered, and untraceable peer-to-peer networks that facilitate crimes against children and that frustrate law enforcement efforts to detect and investigate these crimes."

 

But then again, organised religion has always been more about control than faith...

 

I think everyone is agreed this guy is a bigotted idiot for attacking a statement that doesnt even back homosexuality, just asks you to respect people who are different. Even those who aren't pro homosexuality must see the idiocy in that.

 

I've rewritten it in a more acceptable form:

respect for people whose abilities, beliefs, culture, race or other characteristics (except sexual preference) are different from my own. Except fags.

 

I'm also now kind of worried that blowjobs are immoral as they don't lead to reproduction. As well as sex after 50ish. My retirement is gonna be dull... :(

 

You know, maybe homosexuality is nature/god's solution to the abortion problem. With that many couples who can't have their own children, just think how many unwanted babies could be adopted. No anti-abortionist could be against them!

 

God works in mysterious ways i guess...

 

PS/ If i hear that stupid "adam & steve" comment once more i think i'm going to scream. It doesn't even mean anything!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by toms

But then again, organised religion has always been more about control than faith...

Very true ... but, on the other hand, they also provide an unwavering moral base. File sharing is, generally, about piracy, and tons of pron goes through those places ... including the stuff no reasonable person could support under any form of 'freedom of expression'.

 

But I always go back to the bumper sticker from the early 80's - "The Moral Majority is Neither"

 

Originally posted by toms

I think everyone is agreed this guy is a bigotted idiot for attacking a statement that doesnt even back homosexuality, just asks you to respect people who are different. Even those who aren't pro homosexuality must see the idiocy in that.

Unfortunately, what I've seen is not very even-handed coverage. It is entirely liberally skewed, as is the case here.

 

Let me give a few thoughts:

- On its' face, the 'We are Family' message is all about tolerance, which is what it *should* all be about. So the 'Focus on the Family' group is entirely wrong in doing this, and sends a very bad message which alienates others who might otherwise share their core beliefs.

- However, I don't think that there can be serious debate that teh fundamental purpose of the sex organs in mammals is procreation and survival of the species.

- Therefore those born without either mental or physical desires to forward the survival of the species are anomolies, much as someone born with two different colored eyes. It is harsh to call it (homosexuality, in this case) a 'birth defect', but it is a genetic trait that is contrary to one of the most base and fundamental drives of any mammal.

- And, it is only fairly recently that homosexuality has gained any recognition as anything other than base perversion, and we still have to educate people (I've been involved in this with many of my kids' activities) that most child molesters are not homosexuals.

- So-called 'Family Focus' groups have a fundamental concern that the moral base of the world is being eroded by these 'everything is equal, there is no right & wrong' messages that have been pervasive since the 'free & loose' days of the 60's.

- They believe that equating a same-sex family to a hetero couple is an affront to all that is right.

- I think some of them would rather see a kid in a home with two drunken parents where the dad is abusive, than in a loving, supportive same-sex house.

- And, while I believe that it is love and support and a strong moral base that *make* a family, not fitting some predefinied package, that is *their* opinion, and it is theirs to have. This is supposed to be the marketplace of ideas, where we live, learn and grow through debate - sometimes heated and fractuous, but debate nonetheless.

 

And I was listening to a couple of liberal commentators talking about the 'apparent homosexuality' of Spongebob & Patrick, and while I was thinking 'who cares?!?!, it did mess me up at the end of the Spongebob movie :D

 

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by txa1265

And I was listening to a couple of liberal commentators talking about the 'apparent homosexuality' of Spongebob & Patrick, and while I was thinking 'who cares?!?!, it did mess me up at the end of the Spongebob movie :D

 

Mike

 

Lies Mike. That heart of tears was COMPLETELY hetero.

 

:p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by InsaneSith

Am I the only one that remembers hearing about these Focus on Family type groups being against interracial marriage back in the days?

Which days were those? Apparently you've not heard people talk about it recently - which would show you that the so called 'family values' people have at least moved on, whereas there are many people who are older who still think the couple should be taken out and shot :rolleyes:

 

Interestingly, on MLK day, there was a feature on one of the news shows which talked about 'mixed' marriages, and talked about the large and vocal opposition by Black leaders and the Black community. They had on one guy who was doing a fair amount of backpedaling and rationalization. Most places that would have ended it - god forbid we do anything non-PC like make a minority accountable ;) - but this one pressed it to show that opposition to 'mixed' marriages was not restricted to whites, or even religious groups, but was widespread among the Black community as well.

 

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The timeframe of that thought was too large, so I used a rather vague phrase, pardon me.

 

And I never said it was only whites that were against it or anything of the like. I was just talking about how groups exactly like this were talking about how interracial marriage and relationships were deteorating America. Just saying it seems they've moved away from that and into the realm of anti-gay. Just mentioning a similairity to situations is all.

 

With people like this, if it's not one thing it's another, regardless of race or religion. I never intended my remarks to be towards only one group, but of many groups.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't taking any issue with what you said - I agree, actually ... I just kind of went on a tangent, as your comments got me thinking :D

 

Funny how these groups 'move on' ... like how many former Civil Rights leaders, who formerly railed for equal standards for all, for the removal of any 'different' treatments, are now perhaps the worst racists of all, and now work feverishly for unequal standards, for special and different treatments ...

 

Damn ... another tangent ;)

 

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It burns me up when the religious right equates tolerance to acceptance. The two are completely different.

 

Tolerance means giving someone the same respect that you woudl expect to receive yourself. You do not need to agree with someones lifestyle to give them basic respect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...