The Hatewatch blog is managed by the staff of the Intelligence Project of the Southern Poverty Law Center, an Alabama-based civil rights organization.

Gay-Bashing American Family Association Thick With Crazies

By Mark Potok on July 31, 2012 - 1:20 pm, Posted in Anti-Black, Anti-LGBT, Anti-Muslim, Anti-Semitic, Christian Right

We used to think the $20 million-a-year American Family Association (AFA) acted as crazy as it does mainly because it allowed mostly free rein to its best-known spokesman, the truly nutty Bryan Fischer. Fischer, after all, spends his days raving about how gay people were behind the Holocaust, how black people on welfare “rut like animals,” how the cure for promiscuity is to kill the promiscuous, even the idea, completely contradicted by science, that the HIV virus doesn’t cause AIDS.

Sure, there was wacky old Don Wildmon, who founded the Tupelo, Miss.-based group back in 1977 and was given to an occasional anti-Semitic diatribe about how Jews control the media and hate Christians. But that was mostly forgotten years ago, and Wildmon and his son generally sound a little calmer these days.

But the extremist bench at the AFA turns out to be deeper than that.

Meet Buster Wilson, general manager of the AFA’s radio network and host of the program “AFA Today.” Buster’s got some real competition — Fischer, who has a show on the same network, is given to statements like “Homosexuality gave us Adolph Hitler, and homosexuals in the military gave us the Brown Shirts, the Nazi War machine and six million dead Jews” — but he’s a determined man.

Earlier this month, Wilson, reacting to reports that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had been buying large quantities of ammunition, suggested that the DHS was apparently considering some kind of war against American civilians. He then went on to make the claim, which ultimately originated on the farthest fringes of the conspiracy-minded radical right, that President Obama’s reauthorization and updating of an executive order for dealing with national emergencies, was actually authorizing “the president’s version of the Brownshirts,” which he described as “Hitler’s own personal, private civilian army.” The executive order, he continued, gives Obama and his administration the power “to take over businesses, take over communities, take over law enforcement, apparently, the way this is written, anything they want. Go read it, and then tell me how crazy I am.”

Very crazy, as it turns out. Even Fox News, which jumps at every chance to sully the president, quoted numerous legal experts saying the act did no such thing. It was merely an update of earlier orders, and gives the secretary of DHS authority to give other department heads guidance in setting up groups of experts who could join the federal government in executive positions in the event of a national emergency.

But now Buster’s back, as first pointed out by Right Wing Watch, claiming that a story detailing how DHS is replenishing its supply of riot gear in advance of the presidential conventions gives credence to his earlier nutty claims. “It’s so nice,” he chortles, after a long rant about Right Wing Watch, “to be proven right.”

But the AFA is fundamentally an anti-gay organization, and so bashing LGBT people is, in the end, more important to it than divining massive conspiracies against the American people by our first black president. And Buster Wilson, even though faced with hot competition from the voluble Bryan Fischer, does not disappoint.

Enraged over criticism of Chick-fil-A, whose president recently attacked same-sex marriage, Wilson could hardly contain himself, writing of his “shock and disgust that ANYONE would find fault with ChickFilA [sic], especially the vile, foul mouthed, gay activists who prance around in their bikini underwear.” These are people, he wrote, who “are trying to morph America into an idyllic homosexual utopia,” “dark hearted activists.” The restaurant, Wilson concludes, is “completely UNWORTHY of the vicious, spitting, raving craziness of Big Gay.”

Which is something that Wilson clearly knows all about.

  • Wendell Witten

    Hatred and intolerance are fueled by the fear of an even playing field; it is a fear that runs deep in those who currently have the advantage of being the righteous majority in America. I used to buy into what the Extreme Right calls the “myth” of “White Privilege:” Since the ratification of the United States Constitution 1787, African Americans waited another 78 years before being allowed to vote as more than 3/5 of a human-being, regardless of their history of forced servitude with the passage of the 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution. Ironically, back then they didn’t have to present a government issued ID. Women had to wait 133 years to have their voices heard in the voting booth with the passage of the 19th amendment to the Constitution. African Americans had to wait 177 years for the passage of the Civil Rights Act. Now the White Right powers that be and have been since 1787 want to amend the Constitution to define marriage as being exclusively between a man and a woman. What in the world are these extreme right, bible thumpers so afraid of? What gives them the right to tell same-sex couples that genuinely love each other they don’t deserve the same considerations and rights that married heterosexual couples enjoy. We’ve lost a great many precious American lives fighting some folks in Afghanistan that are firmly convinced they know the mind of their God. Our denial of marriage rights for homosexuals smacks of the same arrogant assumption. Stop reading the Bible like a five year old. Discern whatever themes your God’s Holy Books convey. Grace is sufficient to all human beings. Whether one believes there is a God or not, one sure as heck ought to realize he or she ain’t IT. Nothing in the world calms the storms of fear so much as tolerance, acceptance and unconditional concern for those you may disagree with.

  • sandra vick

    I am shocked! I have been reading several of these blogs and I can’t believe the amount of hatred and intolerance that is written in the article and comments that are made. Surely you all can see your negative comments are not loving towards those who do not share your hatred. Smh

  • aadila

    Withhold not good from them to whom it is due, when it is in the power of your hand to do it.
    Proverbs 3:27

  • Reynardine

    Aadila, the sin of Onan was that he undertook a levirate marriage with his brother’s widow, with the corresponding duty to beget a child who would carry his brother’s name and lineage. Instead, he “spilled his seed on the ground”, thus defrauding both the dead man and the living widow. That was, in the tribal mores of the time, counted a great sin. It was likely not “onanism” as we think of it but coitus interruptus that he practiced, and if he had not violated the terms of the levirate, it would not have been counted a sin at all.

  • aadila

    Excuse my ignorance, folks but is it a greater sin to practice onanism or sodomy?

  • Erika

    Joseph, what I find really revealing regarding screwy Louie is that he didn’t say it was unatural to put something up a person’s rectum. That makes me suspect that like funformenonlyinsnow he’s a frequent visitor to Onancock while watching porn since by inference he apparently thinks its natural to stick objects in a woman’s rectum.

  • aadila

    Well Louie,

    Did you read THIS article from Journal of Sex Research?

    Three studies conducted with students at six different universities revealed a consistent tendency for heterosexual males to express more hostile attitudes than heterosexual females, especially toward gay men. The same social psychological variables appear to underlie both males’ and females’ attitudes toward both gay men and lesbians: religiosity, adherence to traditional ideologies of family and gender, perception of friends’ agreement with one’s own attitudes, and past interactions with lesbians and gay men.

    In other words dear, you are a textbook case of bigotry.

  • Reynardine

    The crimes of Sodom were indeed rape and the threat of rape against men and women alike. Gomorrah you don’t hear much about any more, because they can cure it with antibiotics.

  • Louis Stouch

    There. We all agreed on 2 things.


  • Joseph

    Louis: Okay. I get it. You’re good with “it”.

    “Leave it to the homosexuals” is a generalization usually used in the context of “the blacks”.

    Anything after “the” usually denotes a disgust with what’s coming after “the”.

    You’re basically saying they are not in the same category as you.

    Just admit you’re homophobic and I’ll admit I don’t like people who hate others, based on color, race, creed, culture, religion, or sexual orientation.

    You admit that, and I won’t breakdown the bible for you again, since you were the one who wants to bring up Christian beliefs.

    “The Homosexuals” Man please. Don’t try to clean it up now.

    You said: “look, we all know that this isnt about rights and its not about marriage. the majority of homosexual “marriages” are anything but monogomous. its about normalizing the behavior in the public sphere.”

    No we all don’t know that. I seriously doubt you know any homosexual couples. The couple I work with is very monogomous. But I’ve heard that spewed before, from my father. It’s profiling. Are you cop? Cops are good at profiling.

    The only thing that keeps me from getting pulled over are my disabled veteran license plates.

    Your stereotypes are classical and can be downloaded anywhere, from the local men’s watering hole to the grafitti on the stall walls in your neighborhood truck stop.

    Stop being so insecure about your own manhood and leave those people alone.

    Or – consequently, you can just come out of the closet and make your neighbors happy.

    FYI – You also said “rectum”. Now that was funny. Have a good weekend.

  • CoralSea

    Reynardine —

    What do I get for my regulatory prowess? (Although I guess I didn’t really demonstrate any this week).

  • Reynardine

    Erika, I think you’ll be in line for another Sharkie. Polish your charm bracelet.

  • Reynardine

    Listen, there’s nothing wrong with five hundred or a thousand encounters of the close kind, as one dedicated, enthusiastic couple can knock those off in three years. That many *partners*, now…let’s just say lack of taste, at a minimum.

  • Erika

    CoralSea, Scalia definitely believes that actual innocence is no reason to overturn a verdict. But I learned to not take anything Scalia says seriously after reading his admission in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Commission that he just makes stuff up (seriously, he has a footnote saying something to effect that while its true at time of the founding fathers that there was no concept of a regulatory taking, he is confident that had they known about the explosion of regulations that they would agree with him). So, pretty much, Scalia – while he can be very entertaining (although he’s no Judge Posner) – and even right sometimes (primarily on the few token issues which don’t really matter to the political right and big business so he can actually follow the Constitution for a change rather than just giving lip service – a few criminal law cases (believe it or not) like Crawford v. Washington and he did cast the deciding vote to hold laws banning flag burning unconstitutional). For the most part, I really do not take Scalia that seriously and neither should anyone else – all you have to do is take a look at how mallable his supposedly “dead” constitution which must follow original intent (beware of anyone who says he follows original intent because the founding fathers had major disagreements over what the Constitution should say and what it means) one can see that he’s completely result oriented

  • Reynardine

    Louie, nobody here is going to make you have sex with another man. Forcing you to have sex with anyone at all would be criminal.

  • CoralSea

    Louis — Scalia is quite the “spotted dog” as far as I am concerned. I believe that it was he (or possibly Alito, but I think Scalia) who came up with the gem about how mere innocence wasn’t sufficient grounds to grand someone a new trial if there hadn’t been some other, reversible, procedural error. (I’m sure that our resident attorney, Erika, as opposed to our resident regulatory expert (me), will tell me if I am wrong in this).

    I can’t think of a more horrifyingly “legalistic” conclusion someone could reach — that finding evidence that someone was indeed innocent wasn’t, in and of itself, sufficient to get them out of jail.

    Also, the flaming loonie attempted to gut the Wetlands protection regulations in some places because he didn’t understand hydrogeology, but thought that he did.

    As for your disgust — hey, it’s yours, and I believe you that you are disgusted by the idea of 500 sex partners (it wouldn’t be my choice, either), and you can certainly say so. I’m sure that there are a lot of people who agree with you (and they had nice chicken sandwiches to show their solidarity with Mr. Cathy). However, most of us who have weighed in on this threat don’t agree with you.

    As for your statements on organized religion — I agree with you, as, I believe, others who contribute to this thread probably do, too.

  • aadila

    “personally, I’ll stick with the female form in all its beauty.”

    A lot of gals would agree with you….;)

  • CoralSea

    Jeremy — depending on the industry, some privately owned companies do disclose their advocacy. And where they donate their money is considered a big deal in the case of “hot button” issues, such as Climate Change, a woman’s right to choose, or, as we’ve seen, Gay Rights. Obviously, companies that do business with the public are more vulnerable to pressure from groups that learn of advocacy they find objectionable.

    You mentioned environmental performance and S.C. Johnson. As a chemical manufacturer (among other things), Johnson Wax does make information on their environmental performance available to the public (beyond simply the Toxics Release Inventory figures that EPA releases each year). In addition, companies like S.C. Johnson, which are very sensitive about their images as “clean” companies, also make available information on the “social” effects of off-shore operations.

    You might remember back a few years ago during the flap over much-debated Cap-and-Trade legislation to address Global Climate Change. A number of companies (mostly publicly owned, but some private, as well) bolted very publicly from their memberships with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce over its stance on Global Climate Change (they supported the deniers) because the companies (former members) found the chamber’s advocacy to be incompatible with their own stand on climate change and their efforts to reduce greenhouse gases.

    You may also remember the scandal involving a flurry of letters that were sent to various legislators, also regarding Cap-and-Trade, that were supposedly from–for example–a local NAACP chapter, a Latino Chamber of Commerce and Jobs, residents of nursing homes (who either didn’t exist or who had no knowledge of the letters), and others. These letters were all bogus, and an investigation revealed that a PR firm working for the Clean Coal Association hired another PR firm (for plausible deniability), which did the deed. Clean Coal took it on the chin for that (as well they should).

    Although willingness — or an obligation — to make disclosures to the public about environmental and social responsibility performance, including advocacy, varies among sectors (e.g., companies engaging in manufacturing, particularly chemical manufacturing, and waste management have been under fire for enough decades, particularly regarding environmental performance, that many of them have been making proactive disclosures for years), what I have seen, particularly after Citizens United (a very, very bad decision), is that the public has become a lot more sensitive about where the money they spend is ultimately going.

    Personally, I would prefer that my power company not lobby (particularly in a covert fashion using front groups and the like) against reasonable environmental legislation. And in some cases, people may make choices regarding companies from which they buy consumer goods, foods, or services based on what they know about whether its owner/management embraces certain activities. I have never gone to Chik-Fil-A, in part because I am concerned about “factory farmed” meat, but also because I was aware of their anti-choice stance against abortion. I never demonstrated outside their store in my town, but I certainly wasn’t going to add money to their coffers. Ditto the workout studio, Curves, whose owner also supports anti-choice politicians.

    I believe that you are going to be seeing more interest in/concern for business organizations’ advocacy activities in the future, both because of Citizens United here in the U.S., and also because of the rapid adoption (at this point, outside the U.S.) of the International Organization of Standards (ISO) standard 26000, which addresses Social Responsibility, which includes an examination of organizations’ advocacy.

    This standard is only two years old at this point, and U.S. companies have thus far shied away, in part, because we come up woefully short in regard to the availability of healthcare for everyone in communities. Although there is no certification for ISO 26000, in the case of other ISO standards (ISO 14000, environmental, 9000-9100, quality) it has become necessary for businesses to adhere to them and become certified under them if they expect to sell their products to manufacturers in other parts of the world.

    I’m sure that purveyors of consumer products and services, such as Chik-Fil-A and Curves, will be able to continue their advocacy — certainly, there are people who support them, and if there are enough that do, or don’t care, then they can plod along anyway they like. (BTW — I don’t think that cities or their mayors should be making noises about “keeping them out” because of their advocacy — that really would be a violation of free speech.) But you certainly aren’t going to see multinational, publicly held manufacturers, such as Dow Chemical, coming out (tee-hee- a pun) as agressively anti-gay. I am quite sure that this would lose them business in Europe, where governments often own stakes in a lot of the larger manufacturers and the public isn’t anywhere near as priggish or weird about sex and sexuality as people are here in the U.S.

    So yes — there are a lot of private companies who, depending on their industrial sector, are pretty much compelled to make disclosures, including, increasingly, in the area of Social Responsibility and Responsible Advocacy. And you can expect to see more of it when people see the degree to which corporate interests will be “buying” elections in November.

  • Reynardine

    Hey, ten toes up and ten toes down doesn’t matter. All that counts is twenty toes curly.

  • Louis Stouch

    Joseph: But let’s have a good debate. Don’t throw the Old Testament around as if it’s good testament because it’s not.

    Quote me one “word in red” where Christ states that two people of the same sex cannot love each other?

    Josepg, I could care less about the Bible. Organized religion was developed as a means of control. Read Leon Uris “Trinity” to get a good feel for that in Ireland. You were a heretic if you said the earth was round.

    No, my opinion is strictly personal. You do your thing, I do mine. Just dont tell me I have to accept something I dont agree with.

    Its really very simple.

  • Reynardine

    And then there was the one about the Brazilian doctor who looked out into his waiting room at the end of a busy day and saw one longboned, lugubrious man, pale as a noodle but quite muscular, who said, “Doctor, I want a complete physical”. The doctor performed the physical and said, “You appear perfectly healthy.”

    The patient said, “Yes, but will I live to be a hundred?”

    “That depends,” said the doctor. “Do you smoke?”

    “Oh, never. What a filthy habit!”

    “Do you consume alcohol?”

    “Of course not! It’s bad for the liver!”

    “How is your diet?”

    “All organic, strict vegan, and two meals a day.”


    “I run a mile every morning. With sunscreen on, of course- UV rays are so harmful.”

    “Then you never go to the beach?”

    “Oh, no, the sun and the microorganisms are so harmful!”

    “Well, and how often do you have sex, and with whom?”

    “Never!” the patient shuddered.

    “One more question,” the doctor said.


    “WHY do you want to live to be a hundred?”

  • Karen, a tired old lesbian

    In Louisville in the1990s when the Fairness Ordinance, outlawing discrimination on account of sexual orientation in employment housing and public accommodation, was under consideration, the AFA emerged out of the woodwork, looking much like Fred Phelps. Every time there was a vote on the ordinance, they would whip out their “God Hates Fags” signs and picket City Hall. The local person behind the AFA is an allergist named Frank Simon. He showed up at these demonstrations wearing a stethoscope, but I never saw him take a single person’s blood pressure, tho he raised the blood pressure of many. I studied him extensively, since he was the front for several related local hate groups. The Fairness ordinance finally passed in 1999.

  • Louis Stouch

    and as for the other comments, I have no problem whatsoever with homosexuality. consenting adults can do what they wish.

    but do not tell me I HAVE to accept it. do not cram it down my throat. wont happen. ever.

    look, we all know that this isnt about rights and its not about marriage. the majority of homosexual “marriages” are anything but monogomous. its about normalizing the behavior in the public sphere.

    when I read in the journal of sex research that 50% of adult homosexuals have had more than 500 sexual “encounters”, and 25% more than 1000, you know, public restrooms at parks and such, well is it any wonder the Boy Scouts want nothing to do with them?

    I’ll be happy to provide the Journal of Sex Research excerpt. If you can stomach it.

  • Louis Stouch

    always leave it to the homosexuals to equate disgust with a secret desire to indulge in the activity.

    if that makes you feel better about yourself, so be it.

    personally, I’ll stick with the female form in all its beauty.

  • aadila

    Well you know the old joke. There was a longevity contest and some pretty ancient looking guys stood up and explained their secrets to such a long life: plenty of exercise, healthy foods, no stress and so on. Then one guy gets up and he looks REALLY ancient, at least twice as old as the next oldest guy in the contest. He says his secret was having as much sex as possible all his adult life. The moderator said: “That’s really impressive. You’re going to win for sure! Tell us, how old are you?” The reply: “Twenty seven.”

  • Joseph

    Aadila – Well done. I like it. :)

  • Aron


    Yes, orgasms really do require laws. And that laws states we should all have them. But probably not all the time.

    Because then nothing would get done. And the men would probably be tired all the time.

    Sure would be fun, though.

  • aadila


    I think we’d all like to know who the corporations (or should I call them “people” because that is how SCOTUS views them) give money to for political reasons.

    Unfortunately the Republicans in particular don’t want any rules on that because they argue it might harm their businesses if citizens actually knew which corporations were backing which candidates.

    As far as I am concered, I prefer Chick-fil-A’s open bigotry than all the closted bigots who never have to face any public scrutiny.

  • aadila

    Good points, Joseph. Thanks for some level headed views.

    My limited understanding of Christian theology is that ALL people are sinners, without exception, i.e., “original sin”, and that includes our dear friend Louis. The only redemption from sin is not ten-toes-up ten-toes-down sex with a lawfully-wedded opposite-sex spouse, but indeed the price paid by Christ on the cross.

    Secondly, if you want to go to ancient hebrew scriptures, let’s not parse them out to suit your present day political agenda. If the old testament condemed homosexuality per se (which as Joseph points out, it arguably did not), it also encouraged polygamy, arranged marriages, the obligation of marrying your sister in law in case her husband died, and relatively easy divorce (if you were male). Sex wasn’t really part of the marriage equation except for procreation, and people didn’t as a rule get married because they were sexually attracted.

    Many of the criticisms of sexual morality in the New Testament on the other hand go back to Paul. Given that Paul was living in Roman lands and faced with increasing mistrust due to secretive rites and the ancient Jewish tradition of kissing to greet, even between men. Romans were notoriously lenient about physical intimacy behind doors but even married citizens did not display intimacy in public life, so it is pretty clear that Paul’s message was a pragmatic one: don’t do anything to piss off the really very conservative Romans and get us all killed.

    In my faith sex and marriage are up to every person and don’t require a lot of religious thought. Our only precept (the equivalent of a commandment) on sexual morality is to be loving and responsible, regardless of gender or marital status. Only monks vow to refrain from sex, and just like so many Christian pastors and priests, we all know how often those vows don’t pan out. But I guess my point is why should Christian views prevail when I have the same guarantee of religious freedom as a buddhist?

    Maybe we should just abolish the civil institution of marriage altogether. Half of American marriages end in divorce anyway. What’s the point of adhering to a failed institution? Religious marriage could still take place, but without civil legal ramifications.

    Does an orgasm really require laws?

  • Jeremy

    I am going to make this short and sweet. I’m watching this whole thing go down and trying to educate myself on both sides of this chick-fil-a/anti-gay argument. here are two articles from the “defense”
    The second article definitely questions the credibility of splc but if you can look past that, and get to the point: Chick-fil-a has donated to companies, such as AFA, that, honestly, I’m not too crazy about. But that’s their choice. A private company has used revenue that they brought in selling chicken to customers to people regardless of race/gender/sexual orientation has decided to support whatever Associations they desire. I’m not saying it’s right, I’m just saying that they have as much right to spend the money they EARN as you do.

    As a last comment: when is the last time any of you have gone through the top privately owned companies in the US and looked at their expenditures(I know I never have)? Can anyone tell me how Privately owned companies (larger than chick-fil-a) such as Publix, Toys R Us and SC Johnson and Son spend their money? What associations are they supporting? Are these private companies supporting associations with bad track records? Are they supporting associations with terrible Environmental standards? How should I know?

    All I’m saying is that if your going to open a can of worms on what privately owned companies REALLY spend their money on, then you have to look at the whole can. NOT just take out the little worm that spent money on programs that just happen to be “anti-gay”

  • CoralSea

    Erika —

    I think that is an excellent idea. They both seem to think that freedom of speech means that speech can’t be criticized and they both seem to think that it’s up to them to police the behavior of other people.

  • Erika

    perhaps Louis and funformenonlyinsnow can get togeteher and then they can talk about their mutual disgust of homosexuals together and then . . .

  • Joseph

    Louis – All jokes aside. You can be sick and repulsed, that is certainly your right to buy bottles of pepto in all of it’s entirety.

    But let’s have a good debate. Don’t throw the Old Testament around as if it’s good testament because it’s not.

    Quote me one “word in red” where Christ states that two people of the same sex cannot love each other?

    The Church, the prophets, and the bible all speak out against two people of the same sex bedding each other, but it also speaks out against un-natural sex acts in general, and sex for the sake of sex with married couples.

    A sin is a sin, don’t matter if it’s committed by homosexuals, or heterosexuals. Sex for the sake of sex is the same sin, and it cannot be categorized with love for the sake of love.

    Sodom and Gomorrah is not hate speech, it is however a fact that the city was destroyed due to FORCIBLE RAPE and gang rape, not due to consentual sex between two loving partners. Regardless of whether or not they’re of the same gender.

    Sodomite was not only used in the context as homosexual, but also as a RAPIST.

    The New Testament is revelation for Christians – REAL CHRISTIANS. And abstinence was preached. For heterosexuals as well.

    Sex was a bad thing in general until the renaissance (sic), the church didn’t even want married couples having sex due to LUST. So your teachings are skewed at best.

    And the church not only speaks against anal sex in the context of man on man. What about man on woman?

    Sodomy is also any un-natural sex act that is not meant specifically for pro-creation, and is a sin in the eyes of St. Paul and the Church.

    However, per St. Paul, in Corinthians, if one HAS TO HAVE SEX, one should have sex with one’s wife, and the wife should ‘SERVE’ the man IN ALL of his sexual desires. But it is highly recommended that one does not have sex at all because it takes one away from service to the LORD.

    In other words, SEX / LUST is not even recommended for married couples, because it is a distraction from GOD.

    You are twisting the truth to serve your needs and the needs of your fanatical congregation. This is not good Christianity, and it is not good canonical law.

    St. Paul does specifically state that men should not have sex with men, both in Corinthians and Timothy, but like I said, a sin is a sin.

    The bible also states that men can love each other. Did you know that? Since love is okay, in my mind, the issue is sex…which is nobody’s business really.

    So if sin is a sin, and we all commit it, then why can’t men who penetrate each other also ask for forgiveness? And why can’t you forgive them? The bible also states that we must forgive for us to be forgiven. So why judge??? That’s not forgiveness.

    This is typical of someone who want’s to point out the flaws in others in order to ignore their own.

    The bible does not say that two people of the same sex cannot love each other. In fact, it encourages it. It encourages all people to have “that type of love” for each other.

    It does say that sex in general should be avoided unless it is for pro-creation. So…how many times do you have sex and how many children has it produced???

    You little sinner you….

    Go ahead, read the bible again, but I’m sure your going to pull out of it what you want to. Or listen to your preacher. Because they’re all “good servants of the Lord” right???

  • aadila

    Louis I think you are forgetting that freedom of religion is a guarantee that you are entitled to practice as fits your conscience. That freedom does not entitle you to impose those beliefs upon other people, or deny the other rights guaranteed by our Constitution.

    Now then, regarding your last comment. Sure seem to think about this an awful lot. Sure are getting very emotional over it. Are you sure all this back and forth doesn’t, you know … loosen you?

  • Supersonic250

    Louis Stouch said: The male psyche is hard wired against homosexuality. Its not normal to place anything – even a thermometer – up the male rectum. The very idea sickens and repulses me.

    Uhh… Except for the fact that homosexuality isn’t a choice and therefore IS hardwired into the male psyche. As for the second part… SOMEONE must have had a bad experience at some point. You should talk to a therapist.

  • Louis Stouch

    The homosexual rights revolutionaries can no longer tolerate the public expression of beliefs, held since the time of Christ, about the immorality of homosexuality — beliefs still taught in Christian schools and preached in Christian churches. Those who profess or promulgate such beliefs are to be shunned and subjected to social and economic sanctions.

    What is astonishing is that we are not talking here about the expression of Nazi ideas, but of teachings about the spiritual and social consequences of homosexuality embedded in our country’s own Old-time Religion. In the more progressive precincts of America, the retelling of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the lessons therein, is apparently now a hate crime.

    Remarkable is the change in society we have witnessed. It was not 10 years ago that the Supreme Court declared that states could no longer outlaw private sexual behavior between consenting adults and tossed out the anti-sodomy laws of 17 states.

    In his dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that the court had “taken sides in the culture war” and “largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda.” This decision “effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation” and makes same-sex marriage a logical result, said the justice.

    Scalia was right. Consider how far we have come since.

    While homosexual marriage has been rejected by voters in all 31 states where it has been on a ballot, it is being imposed by state legislatures and judges. Now we have the spectacle of a public caning of a private citizen for expressing religious beliefs held by perhaps 100 million American adults.

    What is behind the rage, other than a hatred of Cathy’s Christian beliefs and a determination to see them stamped out?

    Note to SPLC and homosexual potok: You may have won some battles. But you’ll never win the war.

    The male psyche is hard wired against homosexuality. Its not normal to place anything – even a thermometer – up the male rectum. The very idea sickens and repulses me.

  • CoralSea

    aadila — I think about the chickens. I am mostly–although not completely–vegetarian because I am alarmed at how most meat animals as “raised” in this country. I am fortunate enough to get meat raised free-range by a co-op the next county over, although since I signed on late, I only get chicken (I’ve never been a beef eater much) twice a month.

    There are many things wrong with our food supply in this country, although I’m not going to go into it here.

  • Erika

    On the news this morning was a story that advocates of same sex marriage are planning a “kiss in” at Chik-Fil-A today. It was also reported that due to the right wingers, Chik-Fil-A had their best news day ever.

    Essentially thanks to their intolerant owner they are getting millions of dollars worth of free advertising for their chicken sandwiches. And now eating a chicken sandwich has been made into a politcal statement by intolerant bigots. Which for a chain which thanks to their rapid expansion beyond their Southern base has marketedly declined in quality and has been coasting off of their reputation for years is priceless.

    Its almost as if the owner planned it :)

  • aadila

    @Dr James

    Could you please enlarge upon the underlying etiology of ignorant thoughts and beliefs?

    I am intrigued, but see no evidence that you have any clearer understanding than any of the commentators you find fault with.

    You may be surprised how open we are to good ideas if you indeed come up with one.

  • CoralSea

    Dr. James —

    Did you miss a word in your second sentence?

    “They are essentially NO different in quality or substance those I read from the right wing crazies.”

    Did you mean to insert a “than” in there, as in, “They are essentially NO different in quality or substance THAN those I read from the right wing crazies?” (This comment was comparing the comments from the, well, commenters, to the comments of the right wing crazies.)

    If you did forget the “than”, then I think you may well qualify for the “Hall Monitor Award,” which is made of cast lead. Reynardine — do we have such an award?

  • aadila

    We suffer here but we laaaaaugh, Linnea.

    By the way everybody has been talking about the Chik-fil-A schism from the point of view of same sex marriage rights.

    Has anyone looked at it from the point of view of the chickens?

  • CoralSea

    Reynardine — sorry to hear that you are a ruin. I hope that you are at least an interesting ruin — like Machu Pichu or Mesa Verde or the Parthenon if you are of a more classical bent.

  • http://None Dr. James

    I’m shocked and deeply disappointed in the quality of the responses I’m reading. They are essentially NO different in quality or substance those I read from the right wing crazies. Until more of us understand the underlying etiology of the profound ignorant thoughts and beliefs in the heads of people, I’ll remain pessimistic.

  • Reynardine

    Glad your body is a temple, Coral Sea. Given that I have an eye infection and my pet rooster crowed all night, mine seems more like a ruiin.

  • Erika

    Identity-H – Chik-Fil-A’s were historically only located in large shopping malls – so that doesn’t surprise me. They also tend to avoid locations within large cities perferring suburban and small city locations. In fact, while there are a ton of Chik-Fil-A locations in my area, including two where there are stand alone Chik-Fil-A’s literally located directly across the street from malls with Chik-Fil-A locations inside of them, I don’t believe they have a single central city location.

  • Linnea

    Between yesterday’s post and comments, and today’s, I’ve had one heck of a good laugh… a wonderful relief after a tough day at my new job (love the job, but I’m new to the field, and it’s not easy). Thanks, Mark and everyone else.