Happy New Year everybody! When Fox’s “comedy” show is making fun of anti-gay wingnuts, it can only mean one thing: 2011′s gonna be a good year.
[h/t Alvin]
And Then Fox News Made Fun of Porno Pete, FRC, CWA…
87About the Author
Related Posts
Delicious!
That was supposed to be funny? Did that guy totally not get the Billy Joel reference…the only thing that was really funny in there? Nice to see a more fair representation of most conservatives, the kind who don’t give a damn, but oh god was that not comedy at all.
You know your in deep when fox news is taking shots are you. :-P
Oh, no, Lofn, conservatives fall flat with comedy even when they’re coming down on a halfway decent side of an issue. They just don’t “Do Funny.”
I guess I really haven’t seen “comedy” from the right before, not much anyway. I also have the flu really bad, so the whole video was pretty surreal for me. Penguins…um, Billy Joel reference…um…what?
“Their meetings are shirtless…” LOL
What’s porno Pete’s reaction?
I loved it. If the stuff these people were saying appeared on a liberal blog or newsprogram, you can bet the ‘phobes would be all over it as an atack on Christianity.
And maybe it is just me, but i think at least three of those guys were ‘mo’s.
All I got out of this was something about penguins.
Even Alan Colmes agrees that Porno Pete is a total nutcase. See for yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4COZPftK6s
[...] knew this was going to be fun, after the Fox News “comedy” show Red Eye made fun of Peter LaBarbera and all the other wingnuts crying about CPAC letting the gay conservatives at GOProud have a [...]
What most people seem to completely miss is that homosexual rights organizations such as GoProud are ANTI-FREEDOM. They are would-be destroyers of freedom of association, religion and speech for people who believe in traditional sexual morality. Just ask Crystal Dixon, Elaine and Jon Huguenin and David Stockton…
CPAC inviting GoProud to a seat at the table embracing is the symbolic equivalent of inviting someone in to saw off one leg of the stool you are sitting on.
Teri, next time try to say something true.
Your “freedom” stops the second it infringes upon my Constitutional rights, and no, you don’t have the “right” to never be offended, or the “right” to never have to be confronted with the fact that millions of people exist who, by their very being, disprove your worldview.
It is sad that you live that way, but yew can change if you pray hard enuff.
Oh, and Elaine Huguenin is a whiner with a victim complex. If she doesn’t want to abide by the laws of running a business in New Mexico, perhaps she shouldn’t attempt to take on the responsibility of such a grown-up job.
Teri and those like her are ticked off because they are losing the unjust privileges that have been accorded ‘merkin kristchuns for centuries. All things come to an end, Teri! get used to it and get educated and move on.
Teri– you need to understand something here. Elaine Photography did not get attacked by the “gay rights lobby”.
New Mexico has a law forbidding discirmination on the basis of sexual orientation. They also have a law forbidding discrimination on the basis of religious belief. The government and businesses may not discriminate. These laws protect both gay people, religious people, and other people (race, sex, marital status, national origin) and so forth from discrimination.
Like elaine, I am a wedding photographer. There are all sorts of people whose weddings I don’t wish to do for whatever reason I may have. I would be very foolish to tell them why. Rather, I just refer them on to someone else. that’s the sound business way to behave, the grown up way.
Elaine chose to tell a lesbian couple that she did not wish to shoot there not-even-a-wedding. no problem there. then she told them that based upon her religious beliefs, she was not going to shoot their not-even-a-wedding commitment ceremony.
Big problem. She is a business, and whether she likes it or not, she is subject to the laws of her state. There is no religious exception.
Had she told them she doesn’t do Jewish or buddhist weddings because they do not conform with her religious beliefs, she would have been in exactly the same difficulty. Had she said she doesn’t do weddings for black people, same problem.
I agree with Ben, the problem really wasn’t that she wouldn’t do the wedding, but the reason she gave. During my wedding, I had transgender and LGBT people in my party, and it was an atheist/pagan ceremony in a Unitarian church. I had several photographers turn me down saying they didn’t think they could capture my wedding the way I would want to. This was a completely true statement, designed to inform and not designed to offend, as a professional should always act. There was no reason for Elaine to bring religion into it, all she needed to say was “I’m not the right photographer for your event”, or even “I’m sorry, but I’m not interested in this job” . These are completely legal, professional, respectful, honest, effective and do not violate religious beliefs that one should not approve in any way of homosexual unions.
The problem was not her refusal to perform the wedding she reserves the right to refuse service to anyone. The problem lies in her stated reason, which was in fact a discriminatory statement. These statements were unnecessary and served no other purpose than to make someone feel bad.
This is laughable — but not funny. Oh right, gays are just minding their own business making sure 5-year-olds read about Tommy having two mommies and universities expel counseling students who don’t think just like them. Please. BTW… with conservatives like this, who needs liberals!
Not sure what you’re trying to say, Julie, because it didn’t make sense.
Oh, and the universities expelling counseling students are doing so because they’re NOT QUALIFIED.
Christian Scientists aren’t qualified to be medical doctors, obviously, and apparently there are some jobs that certain Fundamentalist Christians aren’t qualified for either, because of their piggish refusal to understand that yes, darling, the rules apply to you too.
How DARE we teach children that different people exist which might potentially include the parents of their classmates and friends. >:C
No, both Julea Ward and Jennifer Keaton were expelled from their counseling programs because they have moral objections to homosexual behavior. Both had excellent grades.
Julie,
What you seem to miss regardless of their grades is that counselors also take professional oaths that they will treat patients regardless of race, religion, age, sex, and sexual orientation. If you are unwilling to abide by these professional oaths then you are not qualified to be a counselor plain and simple. They would be denied the degree if they refused to counsel African-Americans, or anyone over 50, or men.
Julie, there is also an understanding that someone in a program of study relating to medicine/health issues CAN DO THE JOB. The earlier example given of a Christian Scientist ( a group that do not believe in mose medical procedures beyond the setting of bones in a cast) not being allowed to enter or complete medical school (if a person converted to Christian Science…which is as the old joke goes both bad Christianity and bad science) is an apt one. These women were, due to personal beliefs, rendered unable to do the jobs the were training for properly, and thus, they cannot do them. It is as simple as that.
They can always change their opinions, find better quality churches to attend that are not homophobic, etc. But the long and short of it is that their bigotry, based in their religious understanding, made them unable to fulfill the BASIC REQUIREMENTS of their chosen fields, just as someone choosing to be a Christian Scientist would preclude themselves from becomming an MD.
Dont’t blame other people for the shortcomings of Jennifer Keaton and Julea Ward. It is unjust to do so.
What I don’t understand is why those college students didn’t engage in their constitutional right to seek a college that aligns with their views, like Liberty or Regent. We have a free market of colleges for people to choose from – why are they so opposed to the free market that they feel the need to clog the justice system with court cases?
NewsBusters: FOX News Mocks Religious Right as So Gay
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2011/01/04/fox-news-mocks-religious-right-so-gay
Okay Julie, just for your information, Tommy didn’t have two mommies, Heather had two mommies. just sayin’…
Just to add to what Gene said here:
“They can always change their opinions, find better quality churches to attend that are not homophobic, etc. But the long and short of it is that their bigotry, based in their religious understanding, made them unable to fulfill the BASIC REQUIREMENTS of their chosen fields, just as someone choosing to be a Christian Scientist would preclude themselves from becomming an MD.”
The women in question are also free to grow up and realize that the world doesn’t revolve around their religious beliefs, and that the fields into which they desire entry have standards and practices. If they can grow up and realize this, then ta-da, their excellent grades matter again and they probably can do their jobs! If not, they’re declaring that they’ll commit malpractice before they’re even certified.
[...] was surprisingly evident last week on the FOX News Channel show Red Eye, which lampooned leading anti-gay organizations for vowing to skip this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) because a gay [...]
Oh, and Stewart, that link is hilarious. Thx.
In Teri’s and Julie’s minds any impediment to their efforts to oppress LGBTs is an infringement on their religious freedom. Newsflash Teri and Julie – you don’t have absolute freedom to abuse gays however you choose. In a just and fair society we all have to curtail our desires to some degree to accomodate equal levels of freedom for all. You wouldn’t support me if I claimed I had an unconditional and absolute right to oppress christians, so don’t foolishly expect any rational person is going to believe you have an unconditional right to abuse LGBTs.
Referring a counseling client is abuse? Really? What, then, is expelling students for their religious beliefs? This is so hypocritical. And, the Christian Science analogy hardly applies. Christian Science adherents don’t even believe illness exists. Many Christian counselors — even those who hold an orthodox view of homosexuality — run very successful counseling practices.
The problem with these counseling students, Julie, is that they acted unprofessionally by making a big deal of their [incorrect] beliefs and then crying “persecution!”
That being said, “Christian counseling” is different from actual, scientifically recognized counseling. I’ve had experiences with both. Indeed, in high school, I went to what was considered the most reputable Christian Counselor in my town, and I still look back and laugh at the fact that that moron was given a degree. It’s fine for “Christian Counselors” to exist and serve people who aren’t seeking real treatment. They do not deserve to be considered/accredited in the same category as real therapists, and that’s what at issue here. The women you speak of have a choice to make: either respect and abide by the standards of the actual counseling profession, or find jobs in churches where the standards are lower.
Right, right. Christians are all idiots. I knew a Christian counselor who was a moron; hence, they’re all morons. That’s stellar reasoning, my friend. BTW, the standards of which you speak are the result of political pressure, not scientific study.
Aaaaand here comes the crux of all people arguing against the conclusion that gays are not mentally ill – that there was a Gay Mafia Conspiracy in 1974 to politically manipulate the APA into believing something false.
Except that gays aren’t mentally ill. And time and again it’s been demonstrated that “reparative therapy” doesn’t work. Nor is it necessary. The only difference between straights and non-straights is that..wait for it..non-straights do not have a heterosexual orientation. People point to “well look at how often they commit suicide!” But honey I’m here to tell you, if you tell ANY human being that a part of themselves is intrinsically evil and broken, yes, they will want to kill themselves.
It’s perfectly fine to say to a Christian gay man, “ok, you don’t believe acting on same-sex attraction is moral. Then be celibate.” What is NOT ok is telling the same man that he can “change” if he wants to – implying that his orientation will change and/or his “temptations” (homosexual attractions) will go away, and after that fails him, to berate him for not praying earnestly enough.
“The standards of which you speak are the result of political pressure, not scientific study.”
LOL! You really have all the defense mechanisms in place, don’t you? The bright light of reality shining on your worldview exists basically to tell you that your worldview is wrong, but you convince yourself that reality is the problem.
It’s cute. I just hope you wake up before you’ve wasted too much of your life.
And my example of a Christian counselor was simply that: an example. But it is a fact that the standards are much, much lower for Christian Counseling that doesn’t abide by the standards and practices of the Actual Counseling Profession.
Julie– you should read less rightwing blogs and more history. Let’s backtrack to the APA in 1973 in Honolulu. I was there. Were you?
The reason the APA dropped homosexuality from its list of mental disorders was that there was absolutely no evidence that being gay is a mental disorder, though there was plenty of evidence that a lot of people didn’t like it, and confused their dislike with sincere medical belief.They had a definition of mental disorder, but to make it stick for gay people they had to ignore their own definition, and say that “Of course. Gay people are mentally disordered BY definition. Just not the definition we apply to everyone else.” It could not hold up to any kind of scientific scrutiny, not that much of psychiatry can. The whole procedure underlined that prejudice was really the defining issue, not homosexuality, as is often the case on issues around sexuality in our deeply puritanical culture.
(On a side note, I used to have a boyfriend who didn’t want to shave his stuff because he thought that it put too much attention there. People might think he was gay and thought ‘too much’ about sex, and you shouldn’t– well, you know. When I pointed out that he is gay, he DID think a lot about it, and liked lots of attention there, he got over himself. but I digress. It’s just an illustration of the twisty ways of sex). Anyway…
Not surprisingly, religious reactions to gay people are very similar. First, a whole category of people is defined as mentally ill (or particularly sinful) with no scientific or experiential (or biblical) reason to do so, only a cultural and religious prejudice. They they have a vote, and presto-change-o, a whole category of people are “cured” overnight. Then, the people who whose livelihood depend on the the “mental illness” issue try to make another vote to make all of those people “sick” again. Sounds just like the Episcopal Church. Clearly, not a matter of good science or good medicine– or good theology– just good prejudice.
You want to claim it’s politics, the All Powerful Gay Mafia (In 1973, no less!!!!) forcing a national professional organization to do its will or…else? Honey, it’s not only ignorant, it’s just silly.
You might well call it politics– the politics, or the theology– of diagnosis.
Julie is probably a brick wall, Ben.
Ten bucks says she believes that there is a sincere argument among scientists over whether evolution happened. Yes, it’s patently insane, and intellectually bereft, but they never believe Just One Stupid Thing.
I think it is always worthwhile to inform them of the error of their ways, just like they do to us. With one exception, of course. We are fact based, they are based in something otherthan fact.
Also, that way, they can’t say they’ve never been told. and you never know, it might take.
Julie asked “Referring a counseling client is abuse?”.
Absolutely. Anytime you tell someone they’re a wrongdoer when they aren’t hurting anyone you’re abusing them. Refusing to counsel an LGBT person sends the message that they are wrongdoers. That’s abusive to them and abusive to society.
Julie asked “Really? What, then, is expelling students for their religious beliefs?”.
They weren’t expelled for their religious beliefs, they were welcome to whatever insane religious beliefs they wanted to have, but they’re not welcome to ignore the standards of the profession they wish to join. The professional bodies set the standards, not the unqualified people seeking to join them.
Julie doesn’t understand because, like many Christians, she likely is more than willing to call OTHER religious beliefs absurd, but is unable to see that hers are no more nor any less absurd than those she casts judgment upon.
The Christian Scientist wanting to be a medical doctor was an exact parallel to a Fundamentalist Christian unable to check her beliefs about sexuality at the door in order to provide good care to her counseling patients.
But Priya, just because I believe in a flat earth, and have the theology to prove it, doesn’t mean that I can’t join the Royal Geographic Society as a cartographer.
True Ben, as long as you abide by the standards of the Royal Geographic Society.
BUT WHAT ABOUT MY RELIGIOUS BELIEFS? THE GODDAM EARTH IS FLat!!!
*hurls anathemas at priya*
Yikes, I’m outta here.
Wow. Whole books have been written on the issues raised here, so I won’t attempt to tackle them all. But, I do want to address:
“But honey I’m here to tell you, if you tell ANY human being that a part of themselves is intrinsically evil and broken, yes, they will want to kill themselves.”
Actually, one of the most fundamental tenets of Christianity is that mankind is fallen and totally depraved apart from the regeneration available in Christ. We all — whether hetero- or homosexual — are “intrinsically evil and broken.” However, the Bible also teaches that our brokenness doesn’t have to define us.
“Actually, one of the most fundamental tenets of Christianity is that mankind is fallen and totally depraved apart from the regeneration available in Christ. We all — whether hetero- or homosexual — are “intrinsically evil and broken.” However, the Bible also teaches that our brokenness doesn’t have to define us.”
Yeah, it’s part of the Guilt Thing, in order to control fundamentalist Christians and keep the business running. Without the guilt, you have no religious organization, etc.
It’s actually a cruel and unusual belief, especially as it’s imparted to children, and it scars people for life.
Julie said “Actually, one of the most fundamental tenets of Christianity is that mankind is fallen and totally depraved apart from the regeneration available in Christ.”.
That’s also one of the most incredibly stupid tenets of any religion – people inheriting the guilt of their ancient ancestors and the punishment of an innocent person somehow absolving the guilty of wrongdoing. Absolutely crazy.
So if you are so broken and depraved, how can we trust ANYHTHING you have to say, you ol’ tool o’ the devil, you?
Are you planning on responding to what i had to say?
Right on, Ben.
I suppose, then, that none of you have ever done anything wrong? Truth is, all of us — if we’re honest — have broken our own moral code, let alone God’s.