Robertson: 'We Are Not Anti-Gay' Since Gays Are Just Confused Straight People

Pat Robertson is disturbed that people, for whatever reason, might believe that he is somehow anti-gay. After all, how could blaming gays for 9/11, warning that gay rights will destroy Americausing anti-gay slurs, linking homosexuality to pedophilia and disease and saying that Facebook should create a ‘vomit’ button specifically for pictures of gay couples possibly make someone seem anti-gay?

Well, following a story on the Exodus International head Alan Chambers’ decision to shut down the ex-gay ministry, Robertson insisted that “we are not anti-gay.”

“I am very pleased that we have many, many, many homosexuals watching this program and many of them are looking for love and acceptance and help,” Robertson said, “and I’m glad to report that we have thousands of these people who are saying, ‘yes we want to follow Jesus, we’re not happy with the lifestyle we’re in and we want to have a better way,’ I think it’s wonderful that that’s happening.”

He claimed that people are gay “because they have forsaken God, it’s not something that is natural and when people reunite with the Lord, the Lord will get their priorities the way it is supposed to be…. You work through it and if you meet the Lord it should be, it can be instant.”

The televangelist has frequently endorsed ex-gay therapy, so Robertson’s criticism of Chambers’ apology came as no surprise.

He argued that many gay people are simply straight but are confused due to child abuse: “A lot of people are into this homosexual thing because they’ve been abused by a parent, abused by a coach, abused by a sibling, abused by a friend, they’re little boys and little girls and they don’t know any better and then they somehow think, ‘well I must be gay,’ they aren’t they are heterosexual and they just need to come out of that.”

Robertson maintained it may be possible the some gay people “maybe got some chromosomal damage that’s different from heterosexuals,” and concluded by calling for another ex-gay ministry to emerge “to help people who want out.”

Phil Burress Doesn't Understand What 'Bisexual' Means

Ohio anti-gay activist Phil Burress, head of Citizens for Community Values, is gearing up to fight a proposed ballot measure to make same-sex marriage legal in his state, and he’s not letting the facts get in his way.

Burress tells the Canton Repository that polls showing increasing support for marriage equality are just plain wrong:

“On no other issue in America is the polling data is so wrong,” he said. “The real polls are when people go to the polls and vote.”

He then warns of the “slippery slope” created by marriage equality. “What are you going to do for bisexuals?" he asks. "They have to have a man and a woman to make them happy.”

“Ask the question, how do you prohibit polygamy?” Burress said. “Or anything? You’ve gotta give them anything they want. When you start using words like ‘equal protection,’ or when you can say there’s discrimination, what are you going to do for bisexuals? They have to have a man and a woman to make them happy.”

Erik Rush: Obama Is Murdering Everyone And I Don't Need Evidence To Prove It

Erik Rush says he is positive that President Obama and his minions are murdering people, and he doesn’t need any proof to back up his charges because requiring evidence is just a “ruse” of the “political left.” He previously wrote a column alleging that the Obama administration had a hand in the murder of a gun enthusiast, while admitting he had “no proof” besides an “inclination.”

Now, much like the debunked Clinton Body Count claims of old, the WorldNetDaily columnist asserts that Obama killed his gay lovers and drowned a woman who may have “come by information on the night of the [Aurora] shooting that wound up being detrimental to her health.” According to Rush, Obama also killed journalist Michael Hastings, an identity theft criminal, his dog trainer, Ambassador Christopher Stevens and Andrew Breitbart (of course).

Rush insists that he is simply asking questions! This is the age of FEMA camps, Rush writes, after all.

I know it’s typical for those on the political left to demand peer-reviewed studies, videotape and signed affidavits proving the assertions some of us make concerning the machinations of the Obama administration and socialist encroachment at large, but we all are aware by now that this is a diversion. It’s also a good indicator that we’re correct in said assertions. Like the left’s tendency for projection, wherein they accuse the opposition of that in which they are themselves engaged, it’s a fairly transparent ruse.



For example: On June 11, Lord Monckton reported in WND that a U.S. congressman told him the birth certificate for the president released by the White House was “unquestionably a forgery,” and “We all know that.” The congressman went on to cite fear of political retribution as the rationale for most cases of Obama’s political opponents eschewing the subject.

Rather risk-averse when compared to those who founded this nation, and cowardly considering the stakes, but we’ll move on.

There are things that go beyond the pale even of political intrigue and scandal, and there is ample evidence the president has been involved in some of these also. Once again, you’re not going to get peer-reviewed studies, videotape, or signed affidavits here. But the coincidences or confluence of events tend to dispel the idea that these are wild accusations.

In fact, they’re not accusations at all; they’re theories.

There is an entire true crime novel in the case of the Trinity United Church murders, two gay men known to Obama who were killed execution-style in 2007 at a time when charges of homosexuality and drug use were being leveled at the candidate. Years later, as reported in WND, an entire network of closeted professional gay black men at the Chicago church was exposed.

Ancillary to the question of Obama’s eligibility, there was the case of Leiutenant Quarles Harris Jr. (not a military officer; he just had a weird name), a hustler who was also killed execution-style on April 18, 2008, during an investigation into the theft of the passport records of candidate Obama, Sen. John McCain and Sen. Hillary Clinton. John Brennan, who became Obama’s counterterrorism adviser and later CIA chief, was also implicated in this case (of the passport records, not the murder).

On Aug. 6, 2012, Jennifer Gallagher, a 46-year-old nurse, drowned mysteriously while vacationing with her family in Iowa. Gallagher had been on the team that attended to victims of the July 20 Aurora, Colo., theater shooting. She was also among staffers who met with President Obama during his highly publicized visit of the shooting victims. Several inconsistencies came to light in the theater shooting accounts and aspects of the subsequent investigation; one can’t help but wonder if Gallagher came by information on the night of the shooting that wound up being detrimental to her health.

Then, of course, we have the off-the-chart suspicious death of journalist Michael Hastings on June 18 in a car wreck worthy of any action film. The circumstances surrounding the incident are right out of a political thriller and have all the hallmarks of a staged accident. Hastings was the individual whose reporting brought down the career of Gen. Stanley McChrystal; reportedly under government surveillance, he was also said to be working on a story involving domestic government spying at the time of his death.

So there we have it. There are more than a few other suspicious deaths that some attribute to Obama, from his dog trainer to Andrew Breitbart. I have asserted that the attack on the Libyan mission on Sept. 11, 2012, had its genesis in Obama’s need to “erase” either the administration’s illegal operations in Libya or Ambassador Christopher Stevens himself.

Whether or not the president had a hand in any or all of these may never be known for certain, even if his treason someday becomes common knowledge. What chills the blood in this time of domestic spying, drones, data mining centers and FEMA camps is the possibility that there are those working among us who might actually be willing to kill for this treacherous mobster.

Hagee: DOMA Ruling A Sign That 'The Rapture Of The Church Is About To Occur'

On a recent installment of the weekly "Hagee Hotline," Matthew Hagee responded to a question from a viewer wondering if the Rapture is about to occur by declaring that indeed it is.

Citing the statement from Jesus in Luke 17: 22-30 that "just as it was in the days of Noah [and] Lot ... so will it be on the day when the Son of Man is revealed," Hagee explained that today all of the same things are taking place as occurred during the days of Noah, such as men being wicked and atheistic, and during the days of Lot when "men had given up the natural affections for women and were lying with other men."

Hagee then pointed specifically to the Supreme Court's recent DOMA decision, saying "that's something that would have been applauded in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah.  So when you see these things similar to the days of Noah and similar to the days of Lot, it's very easy to know that the rapture of the church is about to occur":

Right Wing Round-Up - 7/10/13

Right Wing Leftovers - 7/10/13

  • Are we really supposed to believe that Sarah Palin, who couldn't even manage to finish her one term as governor, is going to seek a six-year term in the Senate?
  • So, all the anti-gay activists who have left the Boy Scouts over its decision to allow gay scouts are forming a new scouting organization and it'll allow gay scouts so long as they don't "flaunt their sexual orientation."
  • OMG! Glenn Beck's "2123B" terrorist responsible for the Boston Marathon bombing was at the White House's Independence Day event!
  • Apparently, boycotting a film written by an anti-gay bigot is an attempt by gay activists to dictate what movies everyone can watch.
  • Finally, Ken Hutcherson, in his capacity as one of the leaders of Glenn's Beck "civil rights" movement, has produced a video for Beck's network telling Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson that they "have done more damage to the black race than any white man will ever accomplish."

Fischer: The Bible Mentions The Second Law Of Thermodynamics

Every once in a while, Bryan Fischer takes a break from attacking gays, and Muslims, and Mormons in order to impart a bit of biblically-sound scientific wisdom to his audience, like when he explained that only the Bible can provide accurate information regarding the age of the earth or how Jesus holds together the atomic nucleus.

On his broadcast today, Fischer once again put on his scientist cap to explain how the second law of thermodynamics, which he, for some reason, combined with the first law of thermodynamics and then proceeded to absurdly oversimplify, was first mentioned in the Bible; in Psalm 102, to be exact, which reads: 

In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands.

They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment.

Like clothing you will change them and they will be discarded.

But you remain the same, and your years will never end.

As Fischer said, scientists could have figured all of this out if they had simply read this passage from the Book of Psalms, written in 900 BCE, several thousand years before it was formulated:

Swanson: Colorado Becoming a Stoned, Gay, 'Worst Possible Hellhole on Planet Earth'

After blaming the recent Colorado wildfires on women wearing hats and pants and gay people kissing, Colorado pastors and Generations Radio hosts Kevin Swanson and Dave Buehner warned yesterday that things in Colorado are getting even worse.

Swanson said that Colorado is “more tyrannical than communist China and maybe even North Korea” as a result of new pro-choice and gay rights laws, and is even on its way to becoming “the worst possible hellhole on planet earth.” “Their vision for Colorado is a drugged-out, marijuana’d-out, homosexual culture where children are abused as much as possible,” Swanson claimed, “this is the vision of the Democrats.”

If it was evil, they loved it; if it was against God’s laws, they said go for it. Our legislature in Colorado stuck a finger in God’s eye every opportunity that they had in this last legislative season, it was amazing, they obliterated family freedoms at every step, they trashed gun rights, they embraced every moral abomination they could find, they undermined liberty at every single point.

Their vision for Colorado is a drugged-out, marijuana’d-out homosexual culture where children are abused as much as possible, because children in non-nuclear families are twenty times more likely to be abused than children in nuclear families, so children abused as much as possible.

This is the vision of the Democrats, get children abused, kill them in the womb as much as possible, be sure there are as many dysfunctional families as possible, as many homosexual families as possible and children abused as much as possible, so government can grow their child welfare services even more, so that they can kill more kids, so that more adults can commit adultery, so that more kids would be murdered, so that more kids would be abused, so more government would tax and regulate and tax and regulate to produce the worst possible hellhole on planet earth.

Swanson and Buehner later claimed that Karl Marx “was a Satanist” who has won adherents among “most of the world” and “most of the universities.”

“It’s interesting how the most evil people in the world who bring about the Marxist, Communist, pro-abortion, pro-homosexual agendas typically revert back to the worship of Satan,” Swanson said.

Buehner agreed that progressives are “turning towards Satan” and resisting God: “their vision is orgies in the street; their vision is where every man is his own god. They hear the words of the serpent, ‘you’ll be as gods knowing good and evil for yourselves,’ and they say, ‘yeah, bring it on, that’s what I’m all about baby, keep that guy off the throne so that we could be there.”

NOM: No More Brides and Grooms If Gay Marriage Becomes Legal

Jennifer Thieme of the National Organization for Marriage’s Ruth Institute is worried that marriage equality laws will mean that no one can be a bride or a groom ever again. According to Thieme, in states that recognize same-sex marriages, “no woman gets to be a bride and no man gets to be a groom,” which may come as a surprise to all of the couples who have been married there since marriage equality was approved.

And of course, big government will step in to pick up the pieces. “The state will not likely give up the increased power it gets over individuals, children, and the church as this change gains traction,” Thieme writes, urging libertarians not to back gay rights because “socialists support it.”

First, I do not think it is realistic to believe the government will actually get out of marriage, especially once the definition of marriage becomes sexless (genderless) as a widespread policy. Sexless marriage as a policy is what must happen in order to allow gay couples to marry. It wasn't fair that only straight women could be brides, and only straight men could be grooms. So now no woman gets to be a bride, and no man gets to be a groom in same sex marriage states. The state will not likely give up the increased power it gets over individuals, children, and the church as this change gains traction.



"How does gay marriage affect YOUR marriage?"

I've encountered honest, far-left leaning Democrats who admit that sexless marriage is the destruction of traditional marriage. They admit it, point blank. One even likened it to slavery. This is not how it gets marketed to voters. Voters are told that marriage is simply being expanded to include gay couples. Expanding marriage vs. eliminating traditional marriage are two very different things.

Furthermore, father of Marxist thought Friedrich Engels was against traditional marriage. It is not possible to know what sort of stand he would take on the sexless marriage issue. I think it's very fair to say that his modern day followers support it. It frustrates me that some prominent libertarians refuse to engage an important social policy that socialists support. Does it occur to them why socialists support it?

David Barton Doesn't Need Religion Or The Bible To Lie About Gay Marriage

When it comes to honesty and accuracy, we have learned not to expect much of either from David Barton, just as we have learned that he is not going to stop repeating something just because it is demonstrably false. And that trend continues as, on his radio program today, Barton misrepresented a ten year old study to prove that "homosexual marriage is not a good deal for a country":

I don't need religion or a Bible to prove that homosexual marriage is not a good deal for a country. We have now twelve nations who have adopted homosexual marriage; they have stats. 

Jesus did give us a good admonition in Matthew 7 that you can judge a tree by its fruits, so if I take the nations that have homosexual marriage and I look at them, I say okay in those nations where you have homosexuals allowed to marry, only two percent of homosexuals do marry. So even though they want homosexual marriage, 98% of homosexuals don't marry when they get it and the average homosexual marriage lasts eighteen months and involves eight extra-marital partners.

Now by what stretch of the imagination would you consider that to be a marriage?

Predictably, nothing Barton said was true. As Jim Burroway pointed out several years ago, this talking point about gay marriages lasting only a year and a half and including multiple partners has been cited incessantly by anti-gay activists despite the fact that the study they are supposedly citing said nothing of the sort.

In fact, the study focused on the transmission of HIV infections among gay men in Amsterdam and was completed years before gay marriage even became legal, so it literally has nothing to do with gay marriage whatsoever, as Burroway diligently explained:

Claim #1: The study was of homosexual relationships between married homosexual men.

This study was not about homosexual relationships. The authors are mostly doctors and epidemiologists – they study how diseases are passed along from one person to the next. Their research article presented a mathematical model that was intended to predict how HIV and AIDS would spread among gay men. If a couple is monogamous, then by definition they would not be contributing to the spread of HIV and AIDS. Monogamous couples were simply irrelevant to the study, which is why they were explicitly excluded.

Claim #2: Homosexual relationships last for an average of only one and a half years, making same-sex marriages short-lived.

The first problem we have here is that everyone over the age of thirty was excluded from the study. By keeping the age of the sample population artificially low, this artificially limits the length of time any of them could have been in a “steady relationship”. You’re certainly not going to find any twenty-nine-year-olds in thirty-year relationships — or even fifteen-year ones.

But that’s not the only problem. The study didn’t ask if any of the participants were married because they couldn’t marry. Marriage equality didn’t arrive in the Netherlands until April 2001, two years after the study ended. Instead the participants were simply asked if they had a “steady relationship” with no further guidance on what that means. People dating for a few weeks could consider themselves in a “steady relationship” – which would be a far cry from full-fledged marriage.

This is an important pont. If legally recognized marriage had been an option for these couples (and if the researchers had been interested in studying only married gay men), they would have had a consistent standard for excluding those couples who were merely dating, or even those who were living together but who didn’t want to get married. That would have been the only valid way to compared married gay couples to married straight ones. You would have weeded out those who don’t want to marry, or who weren’t at that stage in their relationships where they felt ready to be married. After all, not all straight couples in “serous relationships” are married. By including couples in short-term relationships as well as those who don’t want to be married, the average length of relationships is significantly lowered.

And of course, monogamous couples were excluded from the study altogether. I don’t think it is too much of a stretch to assume that non-monogamous relationships are less likely to be as stable as monogamous ones. By excluding monogamous couples, the average is likely reduced even more.

To make a valid comparison to straight couples, we would need to compare this group of gay men to married and unmarried urban straight couples – all under thirty and all non-monogamous. This didn’t happen.

Claim #3: Men in homosexual relationships on average have eight partners a year outside those relationships.

The authors quoted that average in their study, but they never tried to claim that it was true for gay men as a whole. Because the study excluded monogamous couples, the stated average would naturally be excessively high. What’s more, we don’t know how much this average was skewed because we don’t know how many monogamous couples were excluded.

The only thing we can conclude from this study is that when people decide to be non-monogamous, they decide to be really non-monogamous.

As we have seen, the “Dutch study” claims made by anti-gay activists are seriously distorted. Like most of their claims about gay men’s sexual behavior, anti-gay activists rely on studies that are not representative of the general population. What’s worse, they especially rely on studies culled from STD clinics for most of their claims. And by not telling you the nature of these studies or their participants, they are engaging in a deliberately deceptive practice. And they get by with it because they assume you won’t read these studies yourself, which is a safe assumption for most readers. After all, who has the time to go to a medical library to look up these studies in arcane professional journals?

This is the second time in recent weeks that we have heard Barton make these same phony claims and it presumably won't be the last, since Barton is not the sort who lets lack of truth stop him from spreading his propaganda.

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious