On this map you can actually learn who the bigots were – the nasty neighbors – who donated to ban marriage in the Proposition 8 battle. It is astounding that people would have so much hate in their hearts to give huge sums of money to take away the rights of other people. How empty one’s soul must be to ignore the cry of hungry and sick orphans – and instead use scarce resources to attack other families. How depraved the human mind, warped by fanaticism, to make hurting others a top priority?
Think of all the good that could have been done with this wasted money and weep for humanity. “Lovism” – bigotry based upon who one loves – truly is an illness.
Related posts
36 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
I wish I had given so that I could be on this Map of Righteousness.
Comment by daniel — January 17, 2009 @ 5:13 pm
lolz @ daniel the troll
Comment by Emily K — January 18, 2009 @ 11:52 am
Why is everyone who disagrees with you a troll? Seriously, I would take such a slam on my voting as a badge of honor. I DO think that heterosexual monogamy should be protected as the standard for healthy family units. I DO think that gays, polygamists, or just plain heteros shacking up and sleeping around, or any other alternate type of ‘marriage’ should not be officially recognized.
If people want to live that way, as long as they don’t break any other laws, I say let em. But I truly believe the argument that further abandoning the healthy hetero family is a social mistake.
Comment by danielg — January 18, 2009 @ 2:43 pm
How does recognizing a committed gay or lesbian relationship mean abandoning the “healthy hetero family”? It doesn’t.
Comment by William — January 18, 2009 @ 5:03 pm
First, it results in the mandate to teach homosexuality as normal and healthy to our children, opening the door to a demonstrably unhealthy self-concept (that is, in terms of increased morbidity, mortality, and mental illness).
Second, when we normalize many of us still consider a developmental disorder, not a normal variant, we increase the likelihood that more members of our society will go down that road of unwellness.
Comment by daniel — January 18, 2009 @ 6:18 pm
Earth to Daniel:
coming to a site like this & expressing
support for Prop 8 constitutes trolling.
I tip my hat to Emily for calling a troll a troll.
Comment by David Alex Nahmod — January 18, 2009 @ 6:19 pm
Wayne, from the day Prop 8 passed until now, Ive been thinking of all the things Mormons & Christians could have done
with the millions of dollars they spent trying to take people’s rights away.
At a time of economic hardship, with tens of thousands of people losing their homes & jobs, the behavior of “Christians” is even more appalling than usual.
Comment by David Alex Nahmod — January 18, 2009 @ 6:22 pm
yeah, it’s not that he’s a troll for “disagreeing,” it’s that he’s coming to a gay activism site that fights the anti-gay/ex-gay industry to express his anti-gay/ex-gay views.
seriously, do trolls like that think they’re going to change hearts and minds? What is the point? a lot of those trolls end up being angry closet cases anyway. I used to be angry like that and do pointless things like that on the internet. But then I graduated from high school.
Oh man, I can’t believe people still trot out the ol’ “mortality rate/diseased/unhealthy” defense. Lesbian sex is the safest sex of all. WSW transmission of HIV is virtually nonexistent.
Comment by Emily K — January 18, 2009 @ 6:29 pm
OH and i almost forgot, don’t feed the troll. if you pretend he isn’t there maybe he’ll leave us alone. ;¬)
Comment by Emily K — January 18, 2009 @ 6:31 pm
Never ignore a troll, they have been shown to display the same behavior patterns as cockroaches. When the light of knowledge is turned on they scurry to find a safe dark hiding place so their ignorance wont be discovered and they gather with others of their like.
Both science and the religious communities have shown that exposure to the light (knowledge) will cause them to both enjoy enlightenment and rejoin the human race. Or those unable to bear the brightness will continue to distrust their god to judge and they will sanctimoniously do it for him.
Comment by Dahl — January 18, 2009 @ 7:38 pm
Emily – isn’t it easier to simply ask daniel and other kooks to provide evidence for their assertions? By evidence of course, I mean data from articles published in peer reviewed scientific journals, and with quality / reference ratings of those articles and journals from organisations like SciSearch [ http://www.stn-international.de/stndatabases/databases/scisearc.html ]
Daniel claims to have better information on the subject of homosexuality, than all the medical, psychological and zoological institutions and experts in the Western world. I want to know a. why he thinks he knows better than all those qualified on the matter; and b. why he is keen to make his theory known here, and not to directly to media such as e.g. The Lancet, Scientific American, the APA, and so on?
Of course, if an unsatisfactory answer be given in either case, then either delete or preferably ridicule them, and give them the pleasure of martyr status as prophesised in matthew 10:22.
Comment by adrianT — January 18, 2009 @ 8:02 pm
The following peer reviewed articles are just a few that challenge many of the tenets held by gay proponents. I challenge you to debate the evidence rather than the conclusions or sources.
What Has Been Concluded From 1000 Recent Articles On Homosexuality?
Cochran, B. N & Cauce, A. M (March, 2006). Characteristics of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals entering substance abuse treatment. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 30, 135-146.
Byne, W. & Parsons, B. (1993). Human sexual orientation: The biologic theories reappraised. Archives of General Psychiatry, 50, 228-239.
Satinover, J. (1996). The gay gene? The Journal of Human Sexuality, 1, 3-10.
Bailey, J., Pillard, R., Neale, M., Agyei, Y. (1993). Heritable factors influence sexual orientation in women. Archive of General Psychiatry, 50, 217-223, p. 222.
Bailey, J., Dunne, M., Martin, N. (2000). Genetic and environmental influences on sexual orientation and its correlates in an Australian twin sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(3), 524-535, p. 534.
Yarhouse, M. (1998). When clients seek treatment for same-sex attraction: Ethical issues in the right to chose debate. Psychotherapy, 35(2), 248-259.
Diamond, L. (2000). Sexual identity, attractions, and behavior among young sexual minority women over a 2-year period. Developmental Psychology, 36(2), 241-250.
Zucker, K. (2003). The politics and science of reparative therapy. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32(5), 399-402.
Balsam, K.F., Rothblum, E.D. & Beauchaine, T.P. (2005). Victimization over the life span: A comparison of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and heterosexual siblings. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73(3), 477-487.
Hughes, T.L., Haas, A.P., Razzano, L., Cassidy, R., & Matthews. A. (2000). Comparing lesbians and heterosexual women’s mental health: Results from a multi-site women’s health survey. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services, 11 (1), 57-76
Peters, D. & Cantrell, P. (1991). Factors distinguishing samples of lesbian and heterosexual women. Journal of Homosexuality, 21, 1-15.
Comment by danielg — January 18, 2009 @ 10:58 pm
First, Daniel, have you bothered to read these sources yourself, or did you just cut-and-paste a NARTH bibliography?
Second, what specific tenets does each individual source challenge?
Third, please discuss this on a post that’s relevant to the topic. Prop 8 is a question involving freedoms, not the science of sexual orientation.
Comment by Michael Airhart — January 18, 2009 @ 11:37 pm
I think that Proposition 8 has more to do with hate than “love”.
And Daniel, ALL your sources are from pseudo-science. They have absolutely NO valid empirical support.
Comment by James — January 18, 2009 @ 11:44 pm
Daniel:
Lisa Diamond, who you quote was in a Truth Wins Out video condemning those who distort her research. Please do your homework before you come onto this site.
http://www.truthwinsout.org/pressreleases/utah-professor-says-ex-gay-therapy-group-deliberately-misrepresented-her-research/
Comment by Wayne Besen — January 19, 2009 @ 12:25 am
LOL! he posted *NARTH* sources?? I think this guy deserves our pity more than anything. He’s obviously new to this.
Comment by Emily K — January 19, 2009 @ 1:20 am
A case of QED.
My apologies, I think Emily’s suggestion was right in the first place. But for added amusement, do take a look at Daniel’s ridiculous website, especially the Creationism section, in which he claims to have evidence ‘God’ created HIV, and that Noahs Flood was a real event. How old, daniel, do you imagine the Universe to be?
Daniel – Since you claim that Science is on your side, it’s probably more appropriate you debate this argument on e.g. the forum of richarddawkins.net , rather than here. As your ill-informed comments on evolution show, we clearly need to have a conversation about what ‘evidence’ and ’science’ is first, and this will just waste a lot of other peoples’ time on here.
Comment by adrianT — January 19, 2009 @ 9:03 am
adrianT, what *I* don’t get is why those trolls come to sites like this. I mean it seems they just want to be argumentative and make trouble. Seriously, nobody is going to “convert” here. And you DEFINITELY can’t win arguments OR friends over here or really any other place that supports gays and/or good science by quoting NARTH.
Comment by Emily K — January 19, 2009 @ 12:41 pm
“adrianT, what *I* don’t get is why those trolls come to sites like this. I mean it seems they just want to be argumentative and make trouble. Seriously, nobody is going to “convert” here. And you DEFINITELY can’t win arguments OR friends over here or really any other place that supports gays and/or good science by quoting NARTH.”
Yes Emily, that is EXACTLY why they come here. Why else?
Comment by James — January 19, 2009 @ 1:14 pm
Dan, you speak of homosexuality as being (metaphorically) a road that people go down. It isn’t. It’s just the way that a minority of people develop, just as the majority of people develop heterosexually. People aren’t confronted with a fork in the road where they have to decide “Which way now? The heterosexual or the homosexual direction?”
The recognition of gay and lesbian relationships won’t “increase the likelihood that more members of our society will go down that road” because, you see, the majority of members of our society are naturally attracted to people of the other sex, just as a minority are naturally attracted to people of the same sex. That’s why same-sex relationships pose no threat whatsoever to opposite-sex relationships.
As for homosexuality being a “developmental disorder”, medical and psychiatric officialdom would once have supported you in this view, but it no longer does so – not even in the People’s Republic of China. Things have long moved on, and we are now living in a more enlightened era. It comes as no surprise to me to learn that you’re a creationist. You’re not by any chance also a Ptolemaicist (as opposed to a Copernican), are you?
Comment by William — January 19, 2009 @ 3:18 pm
You would be surprised how many folks have Daniel’s mindset. I know of a young man online who posts studies that supposedly prove that “homosexuality is dangerous.” Of course those studies are from NARTH.
Then on another webpage, he said that he did not understand all of the negatives he has read about Paul Cameron. He said he did not understand why Cameron gets such a bad reputation.
I guess its easy to laugh at someone like that but it sad when some people are willing to be deceived.
Comment by a. mcewen — January 19, 2009 @ 4:57 pm
Well Mr McEwan, I’m more dismayed than surprised…
We are dealing with people whose minds have been completely hijacked (the analogy with the ant, whose brain is infected with the lancet fluke is a good one), and this talk gives a very plausible explanation of how the fundamentalist mind thinks:
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/dan_dennett_on_dangerous_memes.html
When an idea, a worldview, is so central to your life, you’ll do anything to protect it. All the evidence, reason and logic makes no difference – as the ghoulish Michael Glatze said on a comment a month or two back ‘I’m not afraid of your reason’ – of course not, he’d rather throw out all the scientific knowledge we have accumulated, in favour of Proverbs 3:5, written by bronze-age peasants, for whom the wheelbarrow would have been cutting edge technology.
To protect their faith, reason and science (they call it ‘Big Science’) itself become the enemy, and with it the necessity to skew, undermine or lie about the evidence (and repeatedly; it’s no surprise religious PR campaigns are second-to-none).
It makes it difficult to know how to debate such people, and maybe Emily is wrong: Reason is under attack and it must be defended with vigilance. Even if it’s a time wasting nuisance. It’s the only way to expose the nonsense, the fraud, the flaws. And vigilance applies to the basic premise too: what is morality? If someone backs their argument with sacred texts – their job is to say how they know this text to be true; or claims to be on intimate terms with the ‘mind of God’ – well, provide the proof, or be eliminated from the argument on the very first round. (Bear that in mind, next time fanatics in a school near you hold a Day of Truth).
Comment by adrianT — January 20, 2009 @ 6:59 am
“Satinover, J. (1996). The gay gene? The Journal of Human Sexuality, 1, 3-10”
Jeffrey Satinover, from “What the Bleep Do We Know!?”
How often do you get your anti-gay advice from new-agers who believe in “oneness,” danielg?
For that matter, how often does NARTH?
Comment by Emproph — January 20, 2009 @ 9:11 am
Address the science, not the people. You can exercise your own caution based on the people doing the research, but in the end, the question is, what does the science say and not say, and was it done well?
Comment by danielg — January 20, 2009 @ 4:47 pm
>> ADRIAN: When an idea, a worldview, is so central to your life, you’ll do anything to protect it. All the evidence, reason and logic makes no difference
True, whether you believe in evolution or creationism, global warming, or the morality and epidemiology of homosexuality.
Comment by danielg — January 20, 2009 @ 4:48 pm
Dan,
Please use the comment feature properly. You shouldn’t use it to attack other people or distribute your brand of “science”.
You should only comment if the comment has something to do with the article.
Oh, by the way I think that people who donated for Prop 8 really did do it out of hate (I used the comment feature properly there, see?)
Comment by James — January 20, 2009 @ 6:24 pm
Daniel: but one world view is based on reason, evidence, logic. The other is based on nothing but superstition, and thus is so off the scale, it’s not worth considering.
Scientific theories explain the facts. They make testable, quantifiable, precise predictions. We know evolution is fact, not because of a book written 150 years ago, but because of the overwhelming evidence from the fossil record, the DNA record (in particular, junk DNA), anthropology, the geological record. Why not speak to people who have the facts, like paleontologists, instead of fanatics like AiG, whose aim is simply to shore up your beliefs? Or visit a museum. If a more plausible explanation for the origins of life and the cosmos comes along, I will accept it. Would you?
As a Christian, you no doubt see the virtue in being humble. Yet, you not only claim to know there is a mind at work in the universe, you know exactly who is responsible – who has ‘designed’ the HIV virus. How incredibly arrogant. (I suggest you look at this incidentally: http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com/2007/11/hello-again-michael-behe.html ). If you’re going to claim intelligent design for HIV, well let’s claim it for ebola, or river blindness, caused by worms that can only survive by eating away the human eye; or the digger wasp whose larvae eat their paralysed prey alive from the inside.
As for the gay issue – well, it’s your job to prove it’s a moral issue, and best of luck to you, because the evidence is that gay people are just as likely to be morally upstanding as straight people. You post links to third-rate research, mostly from hard-line religious people – and let’s face it, that’s what NARTH are; all they have done is show that changing sexuality is very improbable, and most importantly, undesirable.
You’re wrong about the age of the earth (by a factor of nearly a million)- why can’t you be adult and admit you are equally clueless about sexuality, especially when all scientific opinion is against you? Do you have a reason for any of your beliefs, or is it just based on what you were brought up to believe?
Comment by adrianT — January 20, 2009 @ 7:44 pm
I don’t get it. Isn’t having the commenters on his OWN blog patting him on the back enough?? He has to troll over to the pro-equality blogs and try to rile up “teh gheys?” His comment might as well have been “Mathew Shepard brought it on himself by being flirtacious” (if the topic was about him.) Seriously, why do these Christians find such satisfaction in doing this? Where exactly does this fit in a biblical worldview?
Comment by Emily K — January 20, 2009 @ 7:52 pm
Seriously, why do these Christians find such satisfaction in doing this?
Apparently, only people who enjoy saying “I told you so” get into heaven.
Comment by Emproph — January 20, 2009 @ 8:31 pm
Danielg has ignored requests to:
1) keep his comments on-topic
2) stop distorting his cited sources
3) document in detail how those sources substantiate his claims
This trolling is unacceptable, and I’m conditionally banning Danielg until he demonstrates an ability to behave.
Comment by Michael Airhart — January 20, 2009 @ 9:23 pm
“Seriously, why do these Christians find such satisfaction in doing this?”
Because they’re lunatics?
Oh, and it’s “christians”, NOT “Christians”. Using a capital “C” is like giving them some special title of authority.
They ARE special, but like Corky from “Life Goes On”.
Comment by Scott — January 20, 2009 @ 10:39 pm
I am here because I googled “hate map.” The owners of this site should be proud. Do you go protest in the streets and harass those that believe in the truth as they know it? Do you seriously demand tolerance? You are the intolerant in all this! You demand equality, but you already have it. You like any other American can legally marry a person of the opposite sex. We do not discriminate, it is you that is attempting to redefine marraige. Allowing these marriages is a form of discrimination against a majority of citizens that find homosexual, polygamous, or incestuous relationships to be immoral and illegal.
True love is that of a commitment, made despite situation and despite circumstance. The institution of marriage is not the legal contact that enables people to commit to one another. When we love another person we will do whatever it takes to maintain a relationship with them, despite all obstacles, any criticism, and with or without the support of others. Love itself is the contract that enables a commitment that holds firm through ups and downs, keeps us close in sickness and in health, and forsakes all others until death do us part. Love, when pure, does not need a legal contract or entitlements to flourish.
Comment by Ralph — February 4, 2009 @ 5:37 pm
“Allowing these marriages is a form of discrimination against a majority of citizens that find homosexual, polygamous, or incestuous relationships to be immoral and illegal.”
That’s a highly illogical point. I don’t see how gay marriage can affect you or discriminate against you unless you are forced to be in one – much like forcing a gay man to be in a marriage with a woman, something that you seem to be advocating.
Comment by a. mcewen — February 4, 2009 @ 6:42 pm
“Allowing these marriages is a form of discrimination against a majority of citizens that find homosexual, polygamous, or incestuous relationships to be immoral and illegal.”
This is also a very ignorant statement. Many atheists would argue that christianity is immoral. Many people would argue that smoking and drinking is immoral, yet that is legal.
Years ago, it was believed that black people were unclean. They were given rights even though the vast majority of people were not for black’s rights. Minorities are to be protected from the majority. Gay marriage does not affect anyone but same sex couples. This can be seen in all countries where gay marriage has already been legal, such as Canada. If you don’t like gay marriage, then don’t get one. Simple as that.
Comment by James — February 4, 2009 @ 7:12 pm
Ralph, for a logical and well-thought out answer to your ridiculous “reasoning,” troll on over to this blog.
Comment by Emily K — February 4, 2009 @ 9:56 pm
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/01/26/8387
Comment by Emily K — February 4, 2009 @ 9:56 pm