Obama's "new vision of ... bizarre values, completely alien to our moral fiber"

[Mornac]

• Tweet

Backlash Begins Against Obama's LGBT agenda
1/19/2012

By Wendy Wright

The citizens of several countries are pushing back against President Obama's lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender foreign policy imperative. Leaders in El Salvador launched a website on "Obama's Corrupting Foreign Policy" and are asking the U.S. Senate to reject Obama's nominee for ambassador to their country.

President Obama announced in December that the promotion of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) behavior is a top foreign policy priority, even for the U.S. military oversees. At the same time, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave a high-profile speech at the UN equating LGBT status with religion. The State Department told ambassadors worldwide to recognize "gay pride month," and it released a list of "accomplishments" including the fact that a U.S. ambassador had published an OpEd promoting the LGBT agenda on behalf of the United States .

Mari Carmen Aponte, a temporary ambassador to El Salvador, published an essay conflating disapproval of homosexuality with "brutal hostility" and "aggression" by "those who promote hatred." It is Salvadorans' "responsibility" to become advocates for LGBT issues and "to inform our neighbors and friends about what it means to be lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender," she wrote. The OpEd ran in a major Salvadoran newspaper in June, igniting a firestorm by offended citizens.

More than three-dozen leaders in Latin American countries rebuked the ambassador. In a declaration in a Salvadoran newspaper, they accused the U.S. representative of "disregarding our profound Christian values, rooted in natural law," by trying to "impose . . . a new vision of foreign and bizarre values, completely alien to our moral fiber, intending to disguise this as 'human rights'" with "an air of superiority." The only thing they agreed with, they stated, is that violence should be repudiated "just the same as against skinny, fat, tall or short" people.

The leaders also sent a letter to U.S. Senators protesting Aponte's appointment. At a congressional hearing in December, Senator Jim DeMint read their complaint and criticized Aponte's "presuming to represent the views of all Americans" in her OpEd. "I would like to apologize to the Salvadoran people on behalf of the United States and reassure them that most Americans share their values," DeMint said.

Salvadorans perceived that the assault extended beyond Aponte and launched a website this week exposing "Obama's Corrupting Foreign Policies." It chronicles the campaign by US officials to promote homosexuality, and the counter-campaign by Latin Americans.

The Washington Times, a major Washington, DC newspaper, published a letter from Latin American leaders warning that the aggressive promotion of homosexual rights constitutes a "war on religion." The Obama administration has placed people in other countries "on the front lines," the letter said, and is "demeaning our culture and insulting our values." The leaders wrote, "We support the legitimate human rights of all our citizens. We do not support made up 'homosexual rights'. We do not appreciate the ambassador from another country coming in and preaching to us. We intend to defend our moral values and preserve our families."

In Pakistan, the US embassy hosted an LGBT "pride celebration" in June which provoked protests in several cities. A leader of one of the rallies said, "America has unleashed a storm of immoral values" and "we'll resist at all costs." The U.S. ambassador to Serbia promoted a homosexual rights march in that country last October which led to riots with an explicitly anti-Western tone.

http://www.catholiccitizens.org/views/contentview.asp?c=53578

[DougRich]

One should always be suspicious when a writer "quotes" someone else with just a word or brief phrase - appearing and presuming to put those words into their proper context (i.e. what the original writer was thinking and actually saying), but, instead, creating a picture of what the critic wants the writer to have meant and said, rather than quoting the entire passage.

Mari Carmen Aponte, a temporary ambassador to El Salvador, published an essay conflating disapproval of homosexuality with "brutal hostility" and "aggression" by "those who promote hatred." It is Salvadorans' "responsibility" to become advocates for LGBT issues and "to inform our neighbors and friends about what it means to be lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender," she wrote.

The op-ed in question was aimed at congratulating El Salvador's government at their signing of a U.N. declaration for the elimination of violence against gays and lesbians. In it she wrote, "No one should be subjected to aggression because of who he is or who he loves. Homophobia and brutal hostility are often based on lack of understanding about what it truly means to be gay or transgender. To avoid negative perceptions, we must work together with education and support for those facing those who promote hatred."

She also pointed out that El Salvador President Mauricio Funes had signed a decree in May 2010 prohibiting discrimination by the government based on sexual orientation.

If some religious Conservatives in that country are unhappy about her views, or the policies of the U.S. government, that's unfortunate...but we have ambassadors in countries all over the world where large numbers, sometimes even a majority, of the population don't approve of anything the U.S. government does.

Aponte has done a superb job for the U.S. in El Salvadore. She was instrumental in getting the government to send Salvadoran troops to Afghanistan to fight Al-Qaida. Oh, and, relax, Republicans - she isn't even Gay.

[Mornac]

One should always be suspicious when a writer "quotes" someone else with just a word or brief phrase - appearing and presuming to put those words into their proper context (i.e. what the original writer was thinking and actually saying), but, instead, creating a picture of what the critic wants the writer to have meant and said, rather than quoting the entire passage.

--I agree but I’m wondering why you’re taking this opportunity to state that. Has someone around here done something like that? Where?

The op-ed in question was aimed at congratulating El Salvador's government at their signing of a U.N. declaration for the elimination of violence against gays and lesbians.

--Yes we know. That’s what “ignite(ed) a firestorm by offended citizens”. The larger question here is, what exactly is a “declaration for the elimination of violence against gays and lesbians”? Is that a declaration that such violence has been eliminated? Perhaps it’s a declaration that some sort of campaign to eliminate it is underway. If so, what does that campaign consist of? It’s this sort of sloppy language that idiot clubs like the UN use to manipulate ordinary citizens into doing things that they are not predisposed to do. (Of course these words may be those of DougRich and not the UN in which case I offer my apologies to the UN in this one instance.)

In it she wrote, "No one should be subjected to aggression because of who he is or who he loves.”

--Really? What if one is a pedophile and loves eight year old boys? I know there are liberals out there who are okay with it, but is it okay if normal people are not?

Homophobia and brutal hostility are often based on lack of understanding about what it truly means to be gay or transgender.

--Great! It seems there is finally someone who is prepared to clear up my apparent misunderstanding of what it means to be “gay” as evidenced by the numerous times I’ve asked people to define "gay" here and elsewhere - all for naught. I notice though that Miss Aponte doesn’t offer a definition with her plea for understanding. Curious. I wonder Doug, if you could be so kind as to wring one out of her. Barring that, perhaps you could offer one of your own. And while you’re at it, could you give us a definition of “homophobia”? that’s another one that causes nothing but trouble because those who use it refuse to define it.

“To avoid negative perceptions, we must work together with education and support for those facing those who promote hatred."

--So whaddya think she plans to do about these guys?

She also pointed out that El Salvador President Mauricio Funes had signed a decree in May 2010 prohibiting discrimination by the government based on sexual orientation.

--I wasn’t aware that the government of El Salvador made their citizens report their sexual orientation. That alone is a bit weird. Maybe if they stopped doing that then they wouldn’t have to worry about the rest.

If some religious Conservatives in that country are unhappy about her views, or the policies of the U.S. government, that's unfortunate

--You find it unfortunate that people express unhappiness about something their government does? You must be very unhappy living in the U.S.

...but we have ambassadors in countries all over the world where large numbers, sometimes even a majority, of the population don't approve of anything the U.S. government does.

--So? Frankly I’m offended by the fact that we have ambassadors in countries all over the world.

Aponte has done a superb job for the U.S. in El Salvadore. She was instrumental in getting the government to send Salvadoran troops to Afghanistan to fight Al-Qaida.

--I’m sure that the families of dead Salvadoran soldiers have her picture hangin on their walls.

Oh, and, relax, Republicans - she isn't even Gay.

--Not quite sure what that's supposed to mean but I'm sure it will become clearer just as soon as I see your definition of "Gay".

**EDITED to add the word "okay"

[DougRich]

--I agree but I’m wondering why you’re taking this opportunity to state that. Has someone around here done something like that? Where?

You might try reading the quoted passage from the article that immediately followed my statement.

--Yes we know. That’s what “ignite(ed) a firestorm by offended citizens”. The larger question here is, what exactly is a “declaration for the elimination of violence against gays and lesbians”? Is that a declaration that such violence has been eliminated? Perhaps it’s a declaration that some sort of campaign to eliminate it is underway. If so, what does that campaign consist of? It’s this sort of sloppy language that idiot clubs like the UN use to manipulate ordinary citizens into doing things that they are not predisposed to do. (Of course these words may be those of DougRich and not the UN in which case I offer my apologies to the UN in this one instance.)

Why don't you read it and find out.

--Really? What if one is a pedophile and loves eight year old boys? I know there are liberals out there who are okay with it, but is it if normal people are not?

Apparently there are Conservatives "out there" who feel the same way, if various news items of recent years are any indication. Your "what if", however, is silly and childish, and well beyond any semblence of what a reasonable person would interpret the original statement to be. Not to be sacrilegous, but when you read (as I assume you have) the words of Christ, "Suffer the little children to come unto me", are you suspicious because he doesn't qualify that statement to clarify that He doesn't intend to molest them? Grow up - at least in terms of your rhetoric.

--Great! It seems there is finally someone who is prepared to clear up my apparent misunderstanding of what it means to be “gay” as evidenced by the numerous times I’ve asked people to define "gay" here and elsewhere - all for naught. I notice though that Miss Aponte doesn’t offer a definition with her plea for understanding. Curious. I wonder Doug, if you could be so kind as to wring one out of her. Barring that, perhaps you could offer one of your own. And while you’re at it, could you give us a definition of “homophobia”? that’s another one that causes nothing but trouble because those who use it refuse to define it.

I hadn't really given it a lot of thought, since I'm not in the habit of using that word, myself...but I guess an impromptu definition, from my personal perspective, and subject to amendment, would go something like, "An unreasonable fear, hatred or distrust of Gay people that results in antisocial actions or the support of policies that cause public discrimination against Gay people." Something like that.

Permit me to say, also, that I have never faulted or criticized anyone strictly for holding views that condemn same-sex attraction that are based on religious doctrine or belief; those views, in my opinion, are not synonymous with "homophobia". My problem with those folks who want to project those beliefs onto the realm of civil law, and base public policy on them, is exactly the same problem that I have with those who want to force everyone to bow to Mecca five times a day, outlaw the selling of pork, or close down all the liquor stores on Sunday.
 

--So whaddya think she plans to do about these guys?

You're going to have to copy and paste something from whatever that is to the board, if you want my comment. I've recently decided that clicking on random links, especially when posted by certain individuals, is not a safe or prudent policy.

--I wasn’t aware that the government of El Salvador made their citizens report their sexual orientation. That alone is a bit weird. Maybe if they stopped doing that then they wouldn’t have to worry about the rest.

Do you ever read something that you've just typed, and then think, "Nah, that's stupid!", and start over? I didn't think so.

Anti-discrimination laws exist in the U.S., too, though perhaps not where you live, and yet, in most situations, no "reporting" requirement exists here, either.
 

-You find it unfortunate that people express unhappiness about something their government does? You must be very unhappy living in the U.S.

You've obviously commented - sort of - on what I wrote without really reading either it or the original article that you, yourself, posted. The citizens in question are unhappy with what the U.S. ambassador wrote, and, apparently, by the U.S. non-discrimination policy that prompted the op-ed in the first place - not by "something their government does". I'm sure that many of the same people who are ticked at the Ambassador, the U.S. State Department, etc, are also upset by recent moves by their own government, regarding non-discrimination against Gays, but that's clearly not what I was referring to.

Your speculations on the state of my happiness "living in the U.S." - I'm going to have to put that, too, in the non sequitur category.

--So? Frankly I’m offended by the fact that we have ambassadors in countries all over the world.

Really!

--I’m sure that the families of dead Salvadoran soldiers have her picture hangin on their walls.

That's such an odd comment that I'm not really sure how to respond.
 

--Not quite sure what that's supposed to mean but I'm sure it will become clearer just as soon as I see your definition of "Gay".

Earlier, I made a preliminary attempt to offer a definition of "homophobia". I must have missed your asking me to define "Gay" for you, too, and I wouldn't presume to guess what the Ambassador was thinking. Tell you what - since I seem to have already done most of the heavy lifting in this thread, why don't you put on your thinking cap and tell me what you think the defininion of "Gay" should be? (And, please, don't insult anyone's intelligence by claiming that you haven't got one.) Then I'll no doubt either agree with you, or explain why I think you're wrong.

[Mornac]

You might try reading the quoted passage from the article that immediately followed my statement.

--Okay, I think I see what you’re getting at, but I don’t see where the creative quoting by the author altered the intent of the writer. Clearly Miss Aponte disapproves of those who don’t take her view of the matter.

Why don't you read it and find out.

--Got a link?

Apparently there are Conservatives "out there" who feel the same way, if various news items of recent years are any indication.

--“Conservative” is a relative term. I wouldn’t use it to describe a pro-pedophilia pedophile.

Your "what if", however, is silly and childish, and well beyond any semblence of what a reasonable person would interpret the original statement to be.

--No, it’s just a reasonable response that has you a bit embarrassed.

Not to be sacrilegous, but when you read (as I assume you have) the words of Christ, "Suffer the little children to come unto me", are you suspicious because he doesn't qualify that statement to clarify that He doesn't intend to molest them?

--Of course not. But then again I am not a sola scripturist who is free to interpret scripture according to his whim.

Grow up - at least in terms of your rhetoric.

--Such a childish reaction.

I hadn't really given it a lot of thought, since I'm not in the habit of using that word, myself...but I guess an impromptu definition, from my personal perspective, and subject to amendment, would go something like, "An unreasonable fear, hatred or distrust of Gay people that results in antisocial actions or the support of policies that cause public discrimination against Gay people." Something like that.

--That will do fine. I’m not looking for a textbook definition because the crowd that uses the term can’t seem to agree on one. However, as long as you have a definition of your own, then I am content to apply it to the term whenever you use it personally. Congratulations. You’re the first person to actually step up to the plate on this one. (I think BaGua tried once but he soon negated his own definition rendering it useless.) There remains one problem though. You use the word “Gay” within your definition even though it is another word that the heterophobe bunch uses without defining it. If you could be so kind as to give it the same treatment as you did “homophobia” I think we may be able to get somewhere.

Permit me to say, also, that I have never faulted or criticized anyone strictly for holding views that condemn same-sex attraction that are based on religious doctrine or belief; those views, in my opinion, are not synonymous with "homophobia".

--Comment withheld pending the clarification of your definition of “homophobia” by way of your definition of “Gay”.

My problem with those folks who want to project those beliefs onto the realm of civil law, and base public policy on them, is exactly the same problem that I have with those who want to force everyone to bow to Mecca five times a day, outlaw the selling of pork, or close down all the liquor stores on Sunday.

--What a coincidence! My problem with the pro-same sex attraction perversion folks  who want to project those beliefs onto the realm of civil law, and base public policy on them, is exactly the same problem that I have with those who want to force everyone to bow to Mecca five times a day, outlaw the selling of pork, or close down all the liquor stores on Sunday.

You're going to have to copy and paste something from whatever that is to the board, if you want my comment. I've recently decided that clicking on random links, especially when posted by certain individuals, is not a safe or prudent policy.

-- “The Catholic Church has long taught men and women to loathe their bodies and to fear their sexual natures. This particular vision of good and evil continues to bring suffering and even death. By holding medicine hostage to Catholic morality and withholding information which allows people to protect themselves and each other from acquiring the Human Immunodeficiency Virus, the Church seeks to punish all who do not share in its peculiar version of human experience and makes clear its preference for living saints and dead sinners. It is immoral to practice bad medicine. It is bad medicine to deny people information that can help end the AIDS crisis. Condoms and clean needles save lives as surely as the earth revolves around the sun. AIDS is caused by a virus and a virus has no morals.”

Do you ever read something that you've just typed, and then think, "Nah, that's stupid!", and start over?

--All the time. That’s how I always arrive at saying exactly what I mean.

I didn't think so.

--You didn’t think so what? Do you ever read something that you've just typed, and then think, "Nah, that's stupid!", and start over?

Anti-discrimination laws exist in the U.S., too, though perhaps not where you live, and yet, in most situations, no "reporting" requirement exists here, either.

--Right. So how’s the government supposed to be guilty of discriminating against something they don’t know about?

You've obviously commented - sort of - on what I wrote without really reading either it or the original article that you, yourself, posted.

--No, it’s just that you don’t always articulate very clearly.

The citizens in question are unhappy with what the U.S. ambassador wrote, and, apparently, by the U.S. non-discrimination policy that prompted the op-ed in the first place - not by "something their government does".

--You said earlier that “(t)he op-ed in question was aimed at congratulating El Salvador's government at their signing of a U.N. declaration for the elimination of violence against gays and lesbians.” True, you still haven’t explained the nature of the “declaration for the elimination of violence against gays and lesbians” but I definitely got the idea that it was something that the same Salvadoran citizens were unhappy about given their reaction to Aponte’s op-ed piece. If that is not the case and the Salvadorans are delighted with the declaration itself but simply unhappy with Aponte’s opinion of it, then by all means please just say so and I’ll stand corrected.

I'm sure that many of the same people who are ticked at the Ambassador, the U.S. State Department, etc, are also upset by recent moves by their own government, regarding non-discrimination against Gays, but that's clearly not what I was referring to.

--Yes, “clearly” seems to be a problem for you.

Your speculations on the state of my happiness "living in the U.S." - I'm going to have to put that, too, in the non sequitur category.

--Put it wherever it feels good for you.

Really!

--Yes.

That's such an odd comment that I'm not really sure how to respond.

--Well standing there agape certainly isn’t doing much for anyone.

Earlier, I made a preliminary attempt to offer a definition of "homophobia".

--Noted.

I must have missed your asking me to define "Gay" for you, too, and I wouldn't presume to guess what the Ambassador was thinking.

--Not quite sure what that has to do with her being or not being “Gay”.

Tell you what - since I seem to have already done most of the heavy lifting in this thread, why don't you put on your thinking cap and tell me what you think the defininion of "Gay" should be?

--No. Telling anyone what the definition of a word “should be” is a liberal stunt. I won’t do it.

(And, please, don't insult anyone's intelligence by claiming that you haven't got one.) Then I'll no doubt either agree with you, or explain why I think you're wrong.

--Okay, I’ll tell you what I will do. I’ll give a definition that appears to me to be how the mainstream uses the term. I do not propose that it is what the definition “should be”.  I only offer it as my own personal observation along with the addendum that people often use the word in ways that don’t exactly coincide with it:

It seems that people usually (at least often) use the word “gay” to describe a male person who suffers from same sex attraction and acts out on it sexually with a sense of pride.

Feel free to edit the above to make it match your own perception.

[Case_Closed]

Popcorn anyone?   

[Mornac]

Ya got the kind with the coffee flavored caramel?

[Case_Closed]

Ya got the kind with the coffee flavored caramel?

Wow!  You're in luck!!

Got it!!

[Case_Closed]

Go Newton!!

[DougRich]

It seems that people usually (at least often) use the word “gay” to describe a male person who suffers from same sex attraction and acts out on it sexually with a sense of pride.

Do you believe that definition to be accurate?

[Mornac]

--Absolutely not. If I believed any definition to be accurate, I wouldn’t be here asking for one. The one I offered is just a half-assed perception but it’s the best I can come up with given the liberal ploy of obfuscating in order to have any definition they want according to their needs. So you tell me: Is there a definition for the word? Or are we supposed to base laws on whatever a liberal feels the word means in a given situation. 

[DougRich]

--Absolutely not. If I believed any definition to be accurate, I wouldn’t be here asking for one.

Continuing on, just as though we knew what that meant...

The one I offered is just a half-assed perception but it’s the best I can come up with

Ah! A rare moment of clarity.

given the liberal ploy of obfuscating in order to have any definition they want according to their needs.

Oh, you mean like when people keep re-defining words like "torture"? Yeah, I hate when "Liberals" do things like that.  

So you tell me: Is there a definition for the word? Or are we supposed to base laws on whatever a liberal feels the word means in a given situation.

In my experience and reading, most actual laws - as opposed to statements of support, declarations, and the like - that actually serve to protect certain rights of American citizens, do not, in fact, even use the word "Gay". Most refer to "sexual orientation" or "gender identification", or use similar inclusive phrases, without attempting to make any kind of comprehensive list. If you have and can cite an example of one that does, that might be helpful in trying to determine exactly what "Gay" does mean, in that context.

[Mornac]

Continuing on, just as though we knew what that meant...

--Let’s get this straight. I’m the one who asked you to define the word after explaining that there is no way I could figure out its meaning simply by observing the way liberals use it. Instead of trying to help, you decided to play liberal flim-flam and throw the question back at me reformulated so as to sound like it was being asked over a bran muffin in a Greenwich Village coffee house after yoga class:

“why don't you put on your thinking cap and tell me what you think the defininion of "Gay" should be?”

I've already admitted that I have no more idea what the hell liberals mean by it then they do. If you can’t define it then join the club. Maybe we can work at the problem together and see if we can’t force someone to admit that it’s just a sham to manipulate society and lawmakers.

Ah! A rare moment of clarity.

--See above.

Oh, you mean like when people keep re-defining words like "torture"?

--I wouldn’t know.

Yeah, I hate when "Liberals" do things like that.

--You're entitled to your opinion.

So you tell me: Is there a definition for the word? Or are we supposed to base laws on whatever a liberal feels the word means in a given situation.
In my experience and reading, most actual laws - as opposed to statements of support, declarations, and the like - that actually serve to protect certain rights of American citizens, do not, in fact, even use the word "Gay".

--No. They reserve its use for influencing public perception and its resulting behavior.

Most refer to "sexual orientation" or "gender identification", or use similar inclusive phrases, without attempting to make any kind of comprehensive list.

--What we’re trying to discern here is the meaning of the word “Gay”.

If you have and can cite an example of one that does, that might be helpful in trying to determine exactly what "Gay" does mean, in that context.

--In what context? The word either has a definite meaning or it doesn’t. Either you know that meaning or you don’t. (Or you just like to be part of the liberal scam artists who make the word mean whatever they want, whenever they want).

[DougRich]

--In what context? The word either has a definite meaning or it doesn’t. Either you know that meaning or you don’t. (Or you just like to be part of the liberal scam artists who make the word mean whatever they want, whenever they want).

Please focus for just a few seconds, and try to respond to what I'm actually writing, as opposed to what you'd like me to have written, or would like to pretend that I've written, or would like any third parties bored enough to be reading this to believe that I've written.   

I'm making the statement - again - that, in matters of law, and in the context of laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation - which, if I recall correctly, is what got you so "het up" to begin with - the word "Gay" is very seldom used. My point is that it makes absolutely no sense to demand - from me, from the courts, or from anyone else - a strict, absolute and unchanging definition of "Gay" or any other word, if that word is not even used in the laws that you're so upset about.

Laws normally go to great lengths to define the terms used in them; laws that do not do so frequently are overturned for being "unenforceably vague".

Is there a single, universally accepted definition of "Gay"? Of course not...because in common usage, as opposed to a court of law, the need for a strict definition does not exist.

Now, would you like to continue this silly side discussion about a tiny, only marginally relevant element of the conversation, or permit the thread to resume in some semblence of a serious, grownup way?

[Mornac]

Laws are made on the basis of what people in a society want or don’t want. If the issue at hand is say “Gay marriage”, your average Joe on the street recognizes that after his own perception – even if it differs from the perception of his neighbor! In the court of public opinion (where lawmakers draw up their agenda) the only legal term is “gay”. Activists refer to the phenomenon as “Gay marriage”, the media refer to it as “Gay marriage”, and pollsters refer to it as “Gay Marriage”. The only term used by the public when influencing lawmakers to act is “Gay”.  And therein lies the liberal “now-you-see-it-now you don’t”. They use a do-it-yourself term for public consumption to pull off something in the courts that the public may not buy if they actually knew all of the particulars. 

Consider yourself exposed.