Skip to comments.NOM: ‘Silent Majority Is Rising Up’ Against ‘Homosexual Lobby’s’ ‘Gay Marriage Thugs’
Posted on 08/07/2012 5:51:35 PM PDT by scottjewell
Brian Brown, President of NOM, the National Organization For Marriage, today sent a fundraising email to supporters in which he claimed total credit for Chick-Fil-As multimillion dollar take last week, which Governor Mike Huckabee initiated and fostered.
Stating that the the silent majority is rising up and rejecting the gay marriage lobbys tactics, and calling gay people homosexual thugs and bullies, NOM has tossed away all claim to not hating gay people, and lost all right to proclaim animus has nothing to do with their opposition to same-sex marriage. This is truly an astounding development, and one I trust legal experts will capture and use in future trials. The question of anti-gay animus is one of several that convinced several federal courts to overturn Prop 8....Prediction: next time the Southern Poverty Law Center releases its updated list of active anti-gay hate groups, NOM, the National Organization For Marriage, will be on the list.
(Excerpt) Read more at thenewcivilrightsmovement.com ...
I’ve begun to address the homosexual lobby for what it is.
Whatever happened to, “We just want to be left alone so we can live our lives in peace and happiness?”
I’ll take a barrel full of that right now!
That was just a smoke-screen behind which their real agenda was lurking, waiting to be positioned to strike.
probably never see NPLC put a bunch of pedophiles on their hate lists.
And a long time ago, the homo lobby lost all right to proclaim equal rights was their motive for promoting gay marriage.
Why is it that the pro-marriage majority has to be spotless, while the homos can indulge in every kind of hate and smear imaginable, then pretend to be offended when they meet with an equal resistance? Sorry, but that hypocrisy won't fly any more.
Absolutely correct. The hypocrisy and double-standard are now blatant. In addition, it is most definitely NOT “anti-gay animus” which is driving Brian Brown and NOM, but rather, fed-upness with a militant gay agenda.
And yes, not equal rights, but the desire to replace us, drives the gay agenda.
I took a look at your graphic, and it does touch on some things that look pretty bad by today’s standards, but those people weren’t living in our society and things didn’t work the way they do today.
Some of those things that look bad, are not exactly what they seem. For instance if your brother died and left a wife, she would be destitute in no time, if you didn’t take her under your roof.
Some of the others are less defensible, but one must keep in mind what societies were like in those days.
The one concerning rape seemed really bad to me. A guy defiles you, and you have to go live with him. Sounds like some tag game we used to play as kids, only with a very evil twist.
If a guy defiled a virgin, it would seem he should be put to death.
How long will it be before you’re a hater (and unlawful) if you won’t have a homosexual relationship?
So how is that different from the leftist tactic on any other issue??? Hypocrisy and double standards are just normal for the left.
“Gay Manifesto” posted here. After this was made public, gays claimed it was ‘satire.’ Judge for yourself:
The poster fails to differentiate between the descriptive and the prescriptive.
“In those days, apparently a women would rather be married to a rottweiler than be single. So what the Torah is saying he has to marry her, and he is unable to divorce her. However, she his no obligation to remain with him if she does not want to.”
Some of those situations were done without God’s blessing. Just cause it happens in the bible doesn’t mean it was done with blessing. It is a book with good and bad stories designed to describe the way God wants us to behave and carry ourselves.
Persevero, I appreciate that point. I wasn’t aware the woman could opt out. In that age, men were the providers. Women needed to connect with one, and the more wealthy the better. Once she was deflowered, other men would have avoided her.
That’s why Joseph’s actions with Mary were considered to be so abnormal. Generally the marriage would have been called off.
He was approached by an Angel, and told what was going to take place. When it did, he stood by her.
Although not quite as bad as in the olden days, in some Middle-Eastern countries the customs seem to have held close to the way things were handled thousands of years ago.
I feel for the young women in those countries.
I agree with that. In the worst instances it was more of a best case scenario on how to deal with those situations. As you mentioned, this would cause others to try to avoid doing these things.
“NOM has tossed away all claim to not hating gay people, and lost all right to proclaim animus has nothing to do with their opposition to same-sex marriage.”
(Foot Stomp) “You’re so mean!”
My response- you want a time out or the wooden spoon?
Yes, guess that has always been their only modus operendi.
Yes, and it’s true one has to take into account the less enlightened society of which these were a part. Brown points out however that none of these marriages were between people of the same gender.
Would seem to be the logicl next step, wouldn’t it?
Thanks for the link, although the document is not showing. But I think I know the manifesto you are referring to, and it was not satire.
Until they needed it to be viewed as such. ;-)
DO, loved your post 13 and the description of Joseph and Mary’s situation.
The Savior’s earthly father was a man of great character, and this aspect of him is very rarely stated.
You say that like there's something wrong with being "anti-gay."
Personally, I consider homosexuality the same as any other sexual perversion; it just has the convenient attribute of occurring between consenting parties, for the most part.
But then again, so does "conspiracy."
Well, what I meant was that because many people do in fact see “anti-gay animus” as simply irrational bigotry ( I do not) it is at least important to note that NOM is actually acting on a rational fear of the growing militancy of the rainbow agenda.
Which is, of course, irrational chauvinism, and deserves to be met just as aggressively as it presents itself.
How could anyone even be irrational enough to believe this sentence?
"If you won't let us push you around, you hate us!"
The left uses the same tactic in the abortion fight.
If you are pro-life and against killing babies in the womb, you “hate women”.
They don’t really care. They hate God and His Law, and are trying to convince others that His Law is “immoral”.
Until they speak out and act against Muslims,
I’ll just assume that all their complaining, whining, and activism is simply what it is -
hatred of Christianity and the desire to criminalize it.
Thank you for giving voice to my irritation with that statement.
The biggest irony of this story is that NOM shills for Romney, helping diligently to cover up his real record re the radical homosexual agenda.
Exactly. That's why the Gay-stop-O usage of words like anti and hate should always be taken with a grain of salt.
To them, putting money in the collection plate a church is seen as 'donating to anti-gay hate groups'.
Yes, and what is unbelievable is that they get away with this tactic again and again.
That is bad.
Yes, it should not be bought by so many people; it’s obnoxious and hypocritical as hell.
I missed that part. Thanks for the mention.
Thank you Exit82. Hope things are going good for you.
Sure :-) Actually, Brown’s quote on gender differentiation wasn’t on the infographic, but thought I’d give it a mention, becasue he was (naturally) roundly rebuked for it by gay advocacy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.