Apparently Daniel Radcliffe is a bit annoyed by homophobia. Apparently the “Catch The Fire” people are a bit annoyed by Daniel Radcliffe.
The magazine quotes Radcliffe continuing his tirade against pro-family parents saying: “I just loathe homophobia. It’s just disgusting and animal and stupid and it’s just thick people who can’t get their heads around it and are just scared.”
Hang on – I think I see where they’ve got confused. They want to be “pro-family”, but they’ve inadvertently defined that as meaning “being ANTI-family if the family has gay people in it”. And they’ve accidentally convinced themselves that being “pro” all families – including gay ones – is somehow “anti-family”. They mean well, they’ve just got the whole thing backwards!
Please be gentle in pointing this out to them. I’m sure they’ll be very embarrassed.
ELSEWHERE: That’s if you can get hold of them. I understand that they’re busy fighting demonic powers:
I believe God has given us a strategic spiritual warfare assignment to take back the high places in our nation. As I have been prayerfully seeking the Lord, the Spirit of God has been revealing to me that the whole nation is under a curse because the witchcraft covens from Mount Ainsley in Canberra are cursing the Federal Parliament, which is the heartbeat of Australia where decisions are being made that effect the whole nation.
On Saturday 17th October 2009 we are calling on all Christians to mount an offensive spiritual warfare attack on the demonic strongholds over the nation.
With that kind of responsibility weighing on their minds, you can see how they might have been distracted on the “pro-family” stuff.
ELSEWHERE #2: Via Confessions, a Washington Post puff-piece for a man the US bigots are using to try to find “arguments” to make their bigotry seem palatable:
["National Organisation for Marriage" head] Brown is confident that if people hear his message, they will believe it. “People already believe it,” he says, “but the issue is so deep-seated that they’ve never had to create an argument for it. Now we have to give people the language to do that.” Create talking points. Help them see.
I doubt he meant that to be as revealing as it is.
I like that CtF are referring to the interview as being in a “homosexual magazine.” Who would have thought that magazines shag each other?
Radcliffe also recently made a donation to a charity for gay youth (The Trevor Project). Made massive headlines throughout the gay media.
Pingback: It’s everyone else who’s crazy, not Glenn « An Onymous Lefty
It’s interesting the way Christian sites load their words to change the meaning:
At the Catchfire article linked above:
“parents who oppose education about homosexual sex in the classroom”
which in a non-biased way would probably read
“parents who oppose education about homosexuality in the classroom”
which is quite different.
Full marks to Radcliffe.
pro-family parents
I’m loving how the religious totalitarians can coin new exclusivist phrases at the drop of a hat. Because of course only heteros do *family*.
This is also relevant:
So there you have it: the bigots know that their side has all the irrational illogical wackaloonery, so they go and get someone to shape that into something more reasoned, “logical-sounding”. In other words: SPIN!
These people really do hate people, don’t they?
Yeah like the gay community don’t love coining new phrases and adjectives…
LGBT
lifestyle
Gender identity
Genderqueer
Heterosexism
Internalised transphobia
polygendered
gay marriage
…. and the list goes on.
while I’ve not heard of half those terms, if they are true, you could never accuse the gay lobby of being exlusivist, which kind of reinforces my point, Turtle. Thank you for that.
Good link, confessions.
Amusing to see Turtle on this thread after running away from the last one.
Yeah great link confessions. Well balanced piece of journalism by an unbiased journo.
So masculine too. He has a tatt!
http://bigheaddc.com/2007/09/11/wonkette-tries-to-make-chest-look-less-pasty-by-adding-a-giant-ridiclously-ugly-griffin-tattoo/
And sure ‘you could never accuse the gay lobby of being exlusivist’ with members like Outrage, Bashback, GayShame and the Man Boy Love Association.
Once the lobby gets this whole marriage thingo worked out more energy will be able to be expended on abolishing that pesky age of consent norm.
Did you read the Washington Post piece it was responding to, now an update to this post? No, obviously not. Nice irrelevant ad hominem attack on the author of the Gawker one – the tattoo is somehow relevant to this discussion! Somehow!
As for abolishing the age of consent – get stuffed. There are more heterosexual pedophiles than homosexual ones, and yet they’ve had no luck getting the age of consent lowered despite heterosexual marriage being recognised by the state for years.
Meanwhile, if you expect the gay marriage lobby to take responsibility for nutters like NAMBLA, are you taking responsibility for the fringe anti-gay groups who advocate bashing and killing gay people? No? Then stop trying to pull that shit on the other side.
Seriously, your trolling gets worse and worse.
“Once the lobby gets this whole marriage thingo worked out more energy will be able to be expended on abolishing that pesky age of consent norm”
Now now Turtle, the only people I ever see suggesting such things are people such as you using the “slippery slope” argument, never from any mainstream lobby advocating any such thing.
You can hardly count fringe groups such as the “Man Boy Love Association” which I have never heard of myself as indicative of wider homosexual sentiment. It would be like lumping all Christians into the same category of these nutcases in CtF, the Exclusive Bretheren or some lunatic association like Fred Phelps Westboro Baptist Church.
“As for abolishing the age of consent – get stuffed. There are more heterosexual pedophiles than homosexual ones, and yet they’ve had no luck getting the age of consent lowered despite heterosexual marriage being recognised by the state for years.”
Oh yeah? Name one group who identify as representing hetrosexuals who have been arguing for lowering the age of consent.
http://www.petertatchell.net/age%20of%20consent/consent%20at%2014.htm
What the hell does that prove? There ARE plenty of heterosexual paedophiles, and more of them. You, as a heterosexual woman, don’t think they speak for you. Nor do gay people think the “gay” paedophiles speak for them.
I’m trying to figure out if you’re really that stupid or just teasing us.
You really are desperate, aren’t you? Anything, ANYTHING other than talking about the topic at hand. Don’t like my lame arguments against marriage equality? How about the death penalty! Paedophiles! Scary words!
Idiot.
I still fail to see your point Turtle. Fringe groups of a particular movement don’t represent the mainstream of that movement.
Turtle: the debate is about removing discrimination from Australia’s marriage laws, not lowering the age of consent. Something you know very well, but for some strange reason persist with these totally off-topic claims.
confessions I was responding to your statement… “you could never accuse the gay lobby of being exlusivist”
Oh but really we are exlusivist’s – we don’t like the murkier pink bits of our movement.
He was responding to the idea of you bigots that only your type of “family” counts – hence “pro-family” being anti gay families.
Nice bit of twisting.
At no point did anyone arguing for marriage equality say that they were agreeing with any unrelated matter that some fringe nutter might like to try to attach to the issue.
Turtle, do you take responsibility for what Fred Phelps’ God Hates Fags dickheads do?
No Turtle, you said this:
Once the lobby gets this whole marriage thingo worked out more energy will be able to be expended on abolishing that pesky age of consent norm.
That didn’t come from anywhere except the dark recesses of your own prejudice. Why don’t you just own your prejudice instead of trying to make excuses for it?
Really, it would be far more honest if you just admitted you don’t want same sex marriage to be recognised in law because you don’t think same sex couples should be treated the same way as you or I.
She has admitted it.
(Turtle, if you’re not a “she”, mind giving us your gender so we don’t have to play the pronoun game?)
“Oh but really we are exlusivist’s – we don’t like the murkier pink bits of our movement.”
Every movement has “murkier bits”, in fact, the entire Human Race has “murkier bits”, evidenced by all the horrific things that have occured throughout human history at the hands of humans.
But would you tarnish the entire human race with its “murkier bits”, or instead focus on all the acheivments things we have made?
Christianity has “murkier bits”, but most Christians do not agree with those views. Environmentalism has “murkier bits”, but most environmentalists do not agree with those views. Feminism has “murkier bits” but most women do not agree with those views. Homosexuality and Gay Rights activism has “murkier bits”, but most Gays, and indeed most humans, do not agree with those views.
I’m thinking more and more that Turtle is in fact a brilliant, Colbertesque satire of homophobes. The refusal to actually answer a question, the ad hominins, the ludicrous arguments (first there was ‘it just IS!’ and now there is ‘there’s a tiny group of nutters out there who represent the entire gay community despite my not being able to find any evidence of such a claim’)…it really is so over the top I doubt it’s Turtle’s actual views.
Either that, or s/he’s Glenn Beck’s internet persona.
“Either that, or s/he’s Glenn Beck’s internet persona.”
LOL Pvt. Tom!
“Once the lobby gets this whole marriage thingo worked out more energy will be able to be expended on abolishing that pesky age of consent norm.
That didn’t come from anywhere except the dark recesses of your own prejudice. Why don’t you just own your prejudice instead of trying to make excuses for it? ”
Well then what is the Homosexual Agenda after we have gay marriage available?
The lobby are just going t pack up and live happily out in the suburbs.
Methinks not.
Turtle, do you think you could-just to shake things up-provide some evidence to support your ridiculous claims?
Well then what is the Homosexual Agenda after we have gay marriage available?
The lobby are just going t pack up and live happily out in the suburbs.
Methinks not.
Well Turtle, that is really little more than suspicion on your behalf isn’t it.
a well founded suspicion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_&_King
A children’s book is involves a prince finding another prince…and this relates to pedophilia just HOW exactly?
It has nothing to do with pedophilia.
It has everything to do with indoctrination.
It has got nothing to do with pedophilia.
“Well then what is the Homosexual Agenda after we have gay marriage available?”
Fair crack of the whip, mate. We haven’t finished with the ’98 agenda yet.
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28970
Turtle, then why were you so strongly implying that gays are closet pedophiles, and when I asked for evidence, you cited ‘King & King’?
“Well founded suspicion”??
The story is about some gays who get married.
So? What does your tortured mind ‘suspect’ they do then? Where is the evidence from the wiki entry you link to upon which to found that suspicion?
CONSENT AT 14 -
OutRage! advocates an age of consent of 14 for everyone, both gay and straight. PETER TATCHELL argues that young people have a right to make their own sexual choices without being victimised by the law.
It’s all very well for the lesbian and gay community to call for an equal age of consent of 16, but what about the sexual rights of those who are younger?
Where was that on the wiki link?
PS That Onion link is bloody hilarious!
Turtle, I disagree with Peter’s proposal, but to say that it enables pedophilia is disingenuous. A part of the proposed law is that the partners involved have an age difference of less than three years. Hence, a 20 year old having sex with a 14 or 15 year old is still breaking the law.
Nice try, though.
PTB to say that I am claiming Outrage’s proposal enables pedophilia is what’s disingenuous.
I have not even used the term pedophilia in any of my posts prior to this one.
“Once the lobby gets this whole marriage thingo worked out more energy will be able to be expended on abolishing that pesky age of consent norm.”
Your words, Turtle. Not mine.
“OutRage! advocates an age of consent of 14 for everyone, both gay and straight.”
Gay rights activist, Peter Thathell’s words. Not mine.
That’s enough trolling, Turtle. OutRage represents marriage equality campaigners no more than “God Hates Fags” represents opponents like you.
I mean, it’s very revealing that lame, desperate references to other issues, anything other than what we’re actually talking about, is all you’ve got left – but there is a limit.
Further attempts to drag the thread off-topic will be deleted.
Sorry, Jeremy. I know the thread was off topic, but watching Turtle trying to justify his bigotry was too much fun to resist.
So anyway, back to the topic: anybody else see that the Potter post is labeled as ‘Satanism’? Heck, anybody else entirely surprised?
Is a family gay because it has one gay person in it?
I’m a little bit astonished by the Turtle’s knowledge of gay culture … it seems to be far in excess of your average young gay person’s.
Are you sure you’re not protesting just a bit too much, Turtle?
Not abut to come screaming out of the closet yourself, are you?
*irrelevant complaint about Lynda’s comment instead of responding to the questions and responses put to her/him*
-Edited by siteowner
Turtle, you ignore questions put to you and respond only to minor retorts. You are not participating genuinely in the discussion. No more trolling. Address the subject or go away.