Monday, November 24, 2008

The homosexual hate movement shows its true colors

"It's very clear that the homosexual activists do not consider reason, discourse, and general citizenship to play any part in their game plan. It's all about anger, emotion, and doing whatever it takes to get their way." - From Mass Resistance, responding to the hatred and anger displayed by radical homosexual activists.

I've said it before, the same radical homosexual activists who continually cry for more "tolerance" are anything but tolerant. This is a spiritual war. The homosexual movement is not a civil rights movement. It is an attempt at moral revolution. An attempt to change people's view of homosexuality.

Writing in the Chicago Free Press, even homosexual activist Paul Varnell admitted this. He wrote, "The fundamental controverted issue about homosexuality is not discrimination, hate crimes or domestic partnerships, but the morality of homosexuality. Even if gays obtain non-discrimination laws, hate crimes law and domestic partnership benefits, those can do little to counter the underlying moral condemnation which will continue to fester beneath the law and generate hostility, fuel hate crimes, support conversion therapies, encourage gay youth suicide and inhibit the full social acceptance that is our goal. On the other hand, if we convince people that homosexuality is fully moral, then all their inclination to discriminate, engage in gay-bashing or oppose gay marriage disappears. Gay youths and adults could readily accept themselves. So the gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality." (Paul Varnell, "Defending Our Morality," Chicago Free Press, Aug 16, 2000,

In a previous post, I mentioned how Professor James Hitchcock, in his excellent work entitled "Catholicism and Modernity" (New York: Seabury Press, 1979, p. 86), explains the role of the media in this entire process:"The media's alleged commitment to 'pluralism' is at base a kind of hoax. The banner of pluralism is raised in order to win toleration for new ideas as yet unacceptable to the majority. Once toleration has been achieved, public opinion is systematically manipulated first to enforce a status of equality between the old and the new, then to assert the superiority of the new over the old. A final stage is often the total discrediting, even sometimes the banning, of what had previously been orthodox."

Because MassResistance (and other pro-family individuals and groups) have been so successful at exposing the real agenda of the homosexual hate movement, and because many voters haven't bought into homosexual agitprop, the movement has started to become openly violent. Click on the title to this Blog post to see just how violent these "tolerant" people can be.

One Christian, in a statement which may be found here, described how violent homosexual activists became in San Francisco's Castro district:

After just singing and worshiping God for a while, Roger decided that we should all hold hands in a circle and continue singing. So we did...

Someone (Actually a person who came up and hugged and kissed some of us who he knew from the past) convinced some people that we were there to protest against the no on 8 campaign.
Then some guy who was dressed up like one of the sisters (The sisters of perpetual indulgence is a group of men who dress up like nuns and call themselves the spiritual authority of the Castro.) took a curtain-type thing (Which I think they use to curse people) and wrapped it around us.

Then a crowd started gathering. We began to sing “Amazing Grace”, and basically sang that song the whole night. (At some points we also sang “Nothing but the Blood of Jesus” and “Oh the Blood of Jesus”.) At first, they just shouted at us, using crude, rude, and foul language and calling us names like “haters” and “bigots”. Since it was a long night, I can’t even begin to remember all of the things that were shouted and/or chanted at us. Then, they started throwing hot coffee, soda and alcohol on us and spitting (and maybe even peeing) on us.

Then, a group of guys surrounded us with whistles, and blasted them inches away from our ears continually. Then, they started getting violent and started shoving us. At one point a man tried to steal one of our Bibles. Chrisdene noticed, so she walked up to him and said “Hey, that’s not yours, can you please give it back?”. He responded by hitting her on the head with the Bible, shoving her to the ground, and kicking her. I called the cops, and when they got there, they pulled her out of the circle and asked her if she wanted to press charges. She said “No, tell him I forgive him.”

Afterwards, she didn’t rejoin us in the circle, but she made friends with one of the people in the crowd, and really connected heart to heart. Roger got death threats. As the leader of our group, people looked him in the eyes and said “I am going to kill you.”, and they were serious. A cop heard one of them, and confronted him. (This part is kinda graphic, so you should skip the paragraph if you don’t want to be offended.) It wasn’t long before the violence turned to perversion. They were touching and grabbing me, and trying to shove things in my butt, and even trying to take off my pants - basically trying to molest me. I used one hand to hold my pants up, while I used the other arm to hold one of the girls. The guys huddled around all the girls, and protected them."

Mass Resistance has posted a video which is most revealing. I challenge the Southern Poverty Law Center (which has done much good in the past exposing various hate groups such as Stormfront and the Saint Benedict Center in Richmond, New Hampshire) to examine this video and other documentary evidence and to ask themselves this question: which is the real hate group: Mass Resistance or the homosexual movement in Massachusetts? Christian and Mormon Churches across the United States or the homosexual movement?

I'm confident that, with a modicum of objectivity, the SPLC will arrive at the correct answer. Even if they don't publically acknowledge it.

Related article here.


Anonymous said...

The "gays" in these pictures and videos look anything but happy. Instead, they look angry, bitter and utterly violent. The true face of this hate movement revealed. Thank you Paul and thank you Mass Resistance.

Anonymous said...

Obama administration reveals plans to advance gay agenda

President-elect Barack ObamaWashington DC, Nov 23, 2008 / 07:48 pm (CNA).-

Citing what they call America’s “promise of equality,” the Obama administration plans to push for homosexual rights by including protections of sexual orientation, “gender identity” and “gender expression” as civil rights. His office proposes expanding hate crimes statues and the adoption rights of homosexuals while supporting full civil unions for “LGBT couples” to give them “legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples.”

The proposals are announced under the Civil Rights section of their agenda presented at, the web site of the Obama campaign’s self-described “Office of the President-elect.”

A section titled “Support for the LGBT Community” outlines the agenda for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered activists and quotes remarks Obama made on June 1, 2007.

“While we have come a long way since the Stonewall riots in 1969, we still have a lot of work to do,” Obama said, referring to riots which followed a police raid on a New York City gay bar.

“Too often, the issue of LGBT rights is exploited by those seeking to divide us. But at its core, this issue is about who we are as Americans. It's about whether this nation is going to live up to its founding promise of equality by treating all its citizens with dignity and respect."

According to the web site, President-elect Obama and vice-president-elect Joe Biden will support expand crimes legislation such as the Matthew Shepard Act. They also back the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which they claim will “prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity or expression.”

“While an increasing number of employers have extended benefits to their employees' domestic partners, discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace occurs with no federal legal remedy,” the web site states, referring to similar legislation sponsored by Obama in the Illinois state legislature.

Regarding civil unions and same-sex marriage, the site says “Barack Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples.”

Advocating the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, the agenda plans to “enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions.”

The site also references Obama’s Senate vote against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006 which, in the site’s words, “would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman and prevented judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples.”

On the subject of adoption rights, the web site states: “Barack Obama believes that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation. He thinks that a child will benefit from a healthy and loving home, whether the parents are gay or not.”

The Obama agenda further advocates the repeal of the military’s “Don’t Ask-Don’t Tell” policy barring open homosexuals from serving in the military.

Its AIDS prevention policies also pledge to enact a “comprehensive” national strategy including contraceptive sex education and “combating infection within our prison population through education and contraception.”

Anonymous said...

Those of you who are Catholic and voted for Obama have betrayed your vocation as a Christian. You have also betrayed Christ and His Church. You have chosen to side with the spirit of Antichrist.

Anonymous said...

Obama would be foolish to waste any political capitol on the radical homosexual agenda. He has already alienated Catholics and other Christians who are committed to the life issues.

Already his radical agenda is dividing this country. Pat Buchanan was right, there will be a backlash due to his election.

Anonymous said...

Not only did "Bishop" Gene Robinson conduct a secret retreat with certain Catholic priests from the Manchester Diocese, but he has met on various occasions with Barack Obama:

Barack Obama Consulted Repeatedly with Homosexual Anglican Bishop

By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

LONDON, November 24, 2008 ( -

"During his presidential campaign Barack Obama consulted repeatedly with Gene Robinson, a practicing homosexual whose appointment as an Anglican bishop has divided the worldwide Anglican Communion.

According to an interview published by the Times Online, a division of London's Times newspaper, Obama's campaign actively sought out Robinson, and Obama met on three separate occasions with the controversial bishop.

Robinson told the Times that Obama compared his own groundbreaking candidacy as the first black nominee of a major political party to Robinson's appointment as the first Anglican bishop who lives openly with his same-sex lover.

"One of the things Barack and I did talk about when we were together was just the experience of being first and the danger of that and we talked about being demonized by one side and, I don't know if the word is anglicized, by the other," said Robinson.

"Expectations are laid on you both negative and positive and neither are true. And the importance of remaining centered and grounded in the middle of that so that you don't begin to believe either your negative press or your positive press."

Robinson also told the Times that Obama assured him of "his broad and deep support for the full civil rights for gay and lesbian people" and said that Obama agrees with him that religious values should not be "imposed" on the government.

"The thing that I liked about him and what he said on this issue is that he and I would agree about the rightful place of religion vis-a-vis the secular state. That is to say, we don't impose our religious values on the secular state because God said so," said Robinson, who added that he believes that people cannot argue in favor of their political positions based on their religious beliefs.

"And I think the Bush administration got very very close to the line if not going over the line in terms of offering support to religious-based groups who were using their social service arms to proselytize and evangelize which I would say is inappropriate," added Robinson.

As a result of Robinson’s appointment as the Anglican Bishop of New Hampshire in 2003 as well as other changes in Anglican teaching and practice, large sections of the Anglican communion in Africa, Asia, and North America have threatened to break away from the global Anglican Communion."

Site Meter