Just another WordPress.com site

Archive for October, 2011

Banning Christianity: The British Model

Boy, I sure do love the United Kingdom! Those British chaps over there have all the fun. Besides the great gay scene in Brighton, they also have tea, crumpets, and the Georges–George Michael and Boy George. It’s real Cool Britannia.

Cool Britannia: Where Christianity is being incrementally outlawed. Cheers, mate!

The best part about the UK has to be all of the censorship and anti-Christian repression. Now that’s an import we could use over here in America. Seriously. Freedom has gotten out of control. When people are free to speak their minds and  practice their religions, gay people tend to kill themselves. So we need to tighten down on all of this “freedom” crap to protect the very delicate feelings of homosexuals.

For a comprehensive picture of the justified marginalization of Christians, check out this report. (Warning: The report is from the Christian crybaby perspective. In other words, the underlying assumption is that the anti-Christian trend in Britain is a bad thing. Ridiculous.)

http://www.christian.org.uk/wp-content/downloads/marginchristians.pdf

As you may have heard, a “Christian” cafe owner in Blackpool England was recently visited by the local constabulary who warned him that he should cease and desist with a television screen that runs the text of New Testament in a continuous loop in his cafe.

I put “Christian” in derisive quotation marks because anyone who actually follows what the Bible says about homosexuality is not really a Christian at all. Real Christians affirm sinfulness. It’s the only Christian thing to do. Because when you tell someone that their behavior is wrong, no matter how mildly you phrase it, you hurt their feelings. When you hurt someone’s feelings, that’s the opposite of loving. And loving is what all Christians should aspire to. There is no such thing as loving the sinner and hating the sin. In order to love the sinner, you MUST love the sin too. If you disagree with this interpretation I will blow my brains out, so don’t push me!

This is what happens every time I hear anyone disapprove of homosexuality. In order to prevent me from doing this, all dissenting opinions must be outlawed. Wouldn't it be easier for the state to just police everyone else's thoughts than for me to just get some damned counseling?

Okay, so this rule isn’t absolute. It’s still okay to tell adulterers that adultery is wrong, just as long as the adulterer in question is a Republican elected official. So if you want to tell Newt Gingrich that he’s an awful person because he cheats on his wife, go ahead. And stealing is wrong too, I suppose. I’ll still permit you little Christofascist bigots to speak that out loud. Drunkenness, sloth, cheating, and lying are all bad too. Okay, so I admit it–this rule I have about not judging others really only applies to people who commit my own pet sin. It’s okay to say that theft is wrong, just not to say one boy bending another boy over is wrong. If you say that, you are extremely un-Christian. Christians are still free to speak out against all the other  sins, just not my favorite sin. Because it makes me cry, that’s why.

So let’s examine what happened. Some time last month, Jamie Murray, the owner of the Salt and Light Cafe in Blackpool, was visited by police. The bobbies informed him that they had received a complaint from an anonymous woman who claimed that the cafe was displaying messages on a television screen that were “insulting” and “homophobic”. So far, so good. That’s the purpose the of police, isn’t it? To tell people what they can and can’t say?

As it turns out, the messages being displayed on the television screen were Bible passages. The Salt and Light cafe is a Christofascist coffeehouse and the owner plays a set of DVD’s on the screen that contain the New Testament in its entirety. Apparently, some of the verses caused offense.The police questioned him for an hour and then warned him to stop displaying the New Testament because he was committing a crime.

The Watchword Bible on DVD. This is the offending material. Unfortunately, the police failed to confiscate this contraband before leaving. That's my only complaint. Other than that, the bobbies did everything just perfectly.

Professional Christian crybaby Jamie Murray had this to say about the confrontation with the heroic police:

“I couldn’t believe the police were saying I can’t display the Bible. The officers were not very polite, in fact they were quite aggressive. It felt like an interrogation. I said ‘surely it isn’t a crime to show the Bible?’ But they said they had checked with their sergeant and insulting words are a breach of Section 5 of the Public Order Act. I was shocked.”

Oh, quit your bellyaching, you insolent little bitch. You know what these Christians’ problem is? They think the law doesn’t apply to them. The Public Order Act of 1986 is very clear. No one is allowed to display material that is “threatening, abusive, or insulting”. And I find the Bible to be all three of these, and therefore they can’t display it. No threat to free speech there. Never you worry, your freedoms are still completely intact.

But these Christians think they are above the law and cite “religious freedom” every time a cop threatens to arrest them for the crime of showing Bible verses on the screen. Religious freedom does not mean that you can break the law. So any time I feel like restricting your religion (which is all of the time) I can just pass a law making the exercise of your religion illegal. See how this works? Guarantees of religious freedom are essentially meaningless once we make the free exercise of your religion a crime. Because religion is not an excuse for breaking the law!

We are not a threat to your freedom. Never have been, never will be. If you think that we are, you must be a Christiofascist bully. And we will punish you. Understand?

Mike Judge of the Christofascist “Christian Institute” came to Murray’s defense.

“Yes, the Bible speaks about morality, of course it does. But the Bible isn’t hate speech. Disagreement isn’t hatred. If a café customer dislikes parts of the Bible, the right response is to take their custom elsewhere – not dial 999.”

Disagreement isn’t hatred? Yes it is! That’s the entire foundation of my argument. If you tell me that my behavior is wrong, THAT MEANS THAT YOU HATE ME. Because I’m just born this way. I have no free will, I just have to do what my dick tells me to do.

The logic of my conclusion is inescapable. Disapproval of another person’s sexual behavior is hatred, case closed.  No, I will not walk out of your Christian cafe and have my coffee elsewhere. I will ring the cops just as fast as possible and they will threaten you with arrest.

Now don’t go accusing me of “intolerance”. I’m a very broad minded person and I have no problem tolerating other people’s religious beliefs, so long as I never see them or hear them. They should be hidden at all times. And if I happen to walk into a Christian cafe, I expect to be able to sip my coffee without being assaulted–I said assaulted!–with anything that wreaks of Christianity. Don’t you force that Christian stuff on me!

Did you know that some passages of the New Testament preach that sodomites don’t go to heaven? That’s so ridiculous. From First Corinthians 6: 9-10:

“Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”

Hate speech! That’s hate speech against homosexuals like me. I suppose it’s also hate speech against thieves, adulterers and drunkards. But they aren’t organized like we homos are. Upon further consideration, it only makes sense that they should be protected too. Some thief might take offense at the idea that he’s not going to heaven. Or a drunkard. And I then he would feel bad about himself, and we can’t have that. We could have anti-thief bullying in our schools, or a rash of suicides in the drunkard community.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I don’t believe in heaven. It’s an imaginary place made up by uneducated people who think that some guy named Jesus came back from the dead and performed miracles and other such hogwash. From time to time, I like to pretend that I believe in this Jesus fellow, but only as a means of undermining the people who actually believe in him.

But I’m a Christian too, and my church teaches me that sodomy is just fine! We’ve evolved past the Bible over here in my church. So we’re better Christians than you!

But still, it hurts my feelings when people tell me that I’m not going to a place I don’t believe in, just because I open my anus to other men. I bet they even believe that I’m going to that other place that I don’t believe in. The hot one that smells of sulfur.

It’s important to be very sneaky about our efforts to criminalize their religion. If people have the foresight to see where our little censorship campaign is headed, they tend not to allow even small steps in that direction. So we employ stealth, moving little by little toward a society that is completely intolerant of Christian belief. Er, I mean “Christian” belief. I forgot the derisive scare quotes there. And if anyone ever sees clearly enough to discern our ultimate goal, we scream at them to quit making up ridiculous excuses to justify their bigotry.

There go the Christofascists again, fearmongering the way they always do. Next thing you know they’re going to be telling people we want to ban the Bible, which is just so absurd.

But of course we DO want to ban the Bible.  Because it’s hate and hate cannot be tolerated. You’re going to love the new hate free society. Everyone is forced to be nice to each other and no one has any freedom. Well, let’s not be extreme about this. No one will be forced to be nice to Christians. We will still treat them like dogshit the way we do now.

A few years ago, the Arkansas GOP sent out this ridiculous mailing to its mindless followers enjoining them to vote for conservatives because the liberals have a very radical agenda. I’ll just let you read it yourself.

Unfortunately for us, the flyer correctly lists the points of the liberal agenda. Notice the Bible on the side with the word "banned" stamped on it.

Oh for crying out loud, have you ever seen such hyper-paranoid scare tactics? I bet you they ate this up down there in the Bible belt. You’re aware that they all go to church and they’re boinking their sisters, right?

So the inbred voting bloc thinks that we want to remove the words “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance, which is just stupid. I want to ban the Pledge of Allegiance in its entirety, not one stinkin’ phrase. Allowing teenagers to get abortions without parental consent? I suppose, although I’d prefer if all of their sexual relationships were homosexual in nature. Then they wouldn’t need to kill their unborn children. Overturning the ban on partial birth abortion? Ditto.  Allowing same sex marriages? You betcha!

So only one of the above is actually correct, and the other three are partially correct from a certain point of view. I suppose you could say that “liberals” want all of the above. Not me personally, but liberals generally. It’s not really a secret.

Take note of the Bible on the right side stamped with the word “banned”. Damn it, they’re on to us! They see where this tolerance train is heading and they want to get off RIGHT NOW! At the time, I said that the flyer was absolute bullshit. No one wants to ban the Bible. No one except the secular progressives of Europe and Canada who are now intimidating Christian cafe owners like common criminals. Because, according to British law, they are common criminals. And as we’ve already established, religion is no excuse for breaking the law.

"Open up, guv'na! This is the tolerance police! We'd better not find any Bible reading going on in there!"

Don’t doubt for a minute that I emulate these countries and that I want to bring their Stalinist repression here. So long as it’s always and everywhere employed against Christians, I’m all for this kind of censorship and intimidation.

I’m going to have to make a visit to Albion in the near future. I wonder if they’ll let me be “queen” for a day. I would really like that! Cheerio!

Gay marriage: Yes, it really is all about pissing you off.

Rosie O’Donnell is back in the news in recent weeks, this time explaining in an interview with USA Today that she married her girlfriend Kelli Carpenter just because she wanted to give the president the old “up yours!”

Rosie heard what Dubya said about that "traditional" marriage stuff...and she's PISSED!

Rosie explains:

“There’s something about marrying someone in a commitment with all your friends and family around you. … Kelli and I got married (in San Francisco in 2004) in some ways as an act of civil disobedience as much as anything. We didn’t have our family there, we didn’t have our children there. George Bush held a press conference in the middle of the war and says, ‘You know what the problem in this country is — those gay people in San Francisco.’ And I was so furious. I said, ‘Let’s go.'”

Yeah, there certainly is something about making a commitment to another person. Her commitment to her previous wife was so strong that it lasted three whole years!

But seriously, it wasn’t about the commitment. You can have that without the seal of approval from the state. Rosie and her new girlfriend can have whatever ceremony they want in any state, and they can commit themselves to each other until their hearts are content. That’s not what she wants. And neither do I. I want the power of the state to force other people to recognize my relationship as every bit as worthwhile as other relationships that don’t involve sodomy. And I want to force people to call Michael my “husband”. I want the heavy hand of the state to force people to do things against their will.

Getting married to piss of George W. Bush is really a pretty good reason to get married. I mean it. I’m just so surprised that a marriage based in spite toward another person didn’t last that long.

Rosie O'Donnell got hitched just to piss off this guy. And I think it really hurt his feelings. I'm sure it was part of his intelligence briefing the next day.

As it turns out, Rosie admitted more than a year ago that her marriage to Kelli was based more in hate than in love. Let’s listen to her words of wisdom:

What happened is, one state–California–Gavin Newsome, decided that it was unconstitutional to prevent gay people from getting married, and so, he started marrying people there in the state of California and the city of San Francisco. And that’s when Kelli mommy and I went and flew there and got married.

Okay, just to clear a few things up here. When Rosie says that “one state–California” decided that “it was was unconstitutional to prevent gay people from getting married”, she didn’t really mean California. California decided no such thing. She meant Gavin Newsome, who was, at the time, the mayor of San Francisco. And he decided, on his own whim, that it was unconstitutional and started issuing marriage licenses in defiance of state law. Which is really awesome. Now, if the mayor of one particular city in my state of Massachusetts decided that he was the arbiter of the state constitution, and that it was unconstitutional to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, then I would be all up in arms. And I certainly wouldn’t say that “one state–Massachusetts” decided that marriage equality was unconstitutional. I would say that one fascist, law-breaking, rogue mayor had decided as much, but who really cares what the hell he thinks because it’s not his job to determine the constitutionality of jack squat. But I digress.

Rosie continues:

George Bush, in the middle of a war, had an all-station news conference to announce how horrible it was for the safety of America that gay people were getting married in San Francisco, which pissed me off enough to get on a plane and go get married.

Yeah, and he did this IN THE MIDDLE OF A WAR! During wartime, we aren’t allowed to talk about anything else except the war. Well, I tell that to people who oppose marriage equality, not those who support it. So basically, during wartime, those evil conservatives have to punt all the other issues to us. They must concentrate only on the war, which we on the other side are actively trying to lose.

Come to think of it, I kind of like this war thing. The one in Afghanistan has been going on for more than a decade, and no one knows how long it will take. Let’s stretch it out for a while. So long as there is a war going on, everybody has to shut up about the social issues. Everybody except the people on my side. And then, if we ever get out of this Afghanistan thing, I’ll say that conservatives have a lot of gall to oppose my agenda in the middle of this awful economy. The point is that I will always find a reason why we just shouldn’t talk about these things, and then I will apply those reasons only to people I don’t like.

I’m going to have to take it on faith that Dubya called an “all stations news conference” to talk about the grave security threat that marriage equality poses to the American way of life. That’s what Rosie said, and I believe her. I don’t remember that particular news conference but I’m sure it happened and he said exactly those things.

Tim Graham over at NewsBusters does not take Rosie at her word. The son-of-a-bitch fact checked her, which is really a mean trick. No fair going back and trying to find confirmation that Rosie’s version of events really happened. Her side of the story is an emotionally driven piece of propaganda, just like everything we fags say.  This is what Graham came up with:

“Okay, first of all, on February 24, 2004 , President Bush didn’t call ‘an all-station news conference.’ He made a rather routine statement (not a press conference) in the Roosevelt Room of the White House. And he didn’t say it was ‘horrible for the safety of America’ that gays would marry. He did say the people had voted to endorse the traditional definition of marriage, and some activist judges in Massachusetts and city officials in San Francisco were overturning the will of the people of California.”

You mean there wasn’t a single reference in the entire speech to the safety of America? Damn it, if this guy Graham keeps dragging in those things called “facts”, we might not be able to lie and rewrite history.

Graham actually provided a link to a news story about the speech. Bush went as far as to say:

“We should also conduct this difficult debate in a matter worthy of our country, without bitterness or anger. In all that lies ahead, let us match strong convictions with kindness and good will and decency.”

That’s hate speech! Good will and decency? Well, fuck him. I don’t want a civilized debate on this issue. I want what I want, and I want it NOW! Not only do I reject the idea of civilized debate, I reject the idea of ANY debate. This is not a topic that we will discuss and work out our differences. My policy preference will become law and if you stand in my way, I will hunt you down and punish you. I do not want dialogue, and I do not want dissenting opinions. Those things are downright un-American.

And really, I don’t care if the people of California voted twice to define marriage as between a man and a woman. That’s why I run to a homosexual judge every time I lose in a fair election and ask him to impose our personal agenda and overturn the will of the majority. You’ve got millions of Californians on your side? Tough shit! I’ve got a cock-sucking judge and he wins every time. No bias there. Just because he’s a homosexual doesn’t mean that his rulings are a foregone conclusion.

Besides, the mayor of the fourth largest city in California decided that the people of the entire state were wrong. And then he unilaterally decided to usurp authority that was not his. But Newsome was the mayor of San Francisco, and it’s his job to determine the constitutionality of the state’s marriage laws. And if he finds that they’re not up to muster, he can just defy them.

Gavin Newsome, Lt. Governor of California and former mayor of San Francisco.

Gavin Newsome is a hero! He doesn’t believe in any of that “sanctity of marriage” crap! We know that because he got caught stepping out on his wife. Yeah, he’s an adulterer. I tend to get pissy whenever anyone who opposes marriage equality gets caught cheating, but that’s because they’re HYPOCRITES. Go ahead and be a two-timing dirtbag if you want to, just as long as you don’t talk about marriage being “sacred” or anything like that. Don’t pretend to have any morals and we won’t blame you at all for moral failures.

Back to Rosie. So she got herself all in a huff back in 2004 over some imaginary remarks made at an imaginary news conference and then she ran off to San Francisco and got one of those illegitimate marriage licenses that the rogue mayor was handing out. Funny thing is, the marriage didn’t last and now they’re splitsville. I was shocked. It’s amazing the brash things that people will do when they react to things that exist only in their fevered imaginations.

As I listen to Rosie, I’m reminded of Julie and Hillary Goodridge, the two lesbians who sued the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for marriage rights and won. (They were represented by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders–GLAD–an organization that was born in the man-boy love movement. For more on that, see previous post: https://twogaybullies.wordpress.com/2011/08/05/kiddie-porn-ring-busted-glad-theyll-have-good-lawyers/ ) When arguing their case, the Goodridges pointed out that they had been together for more than twenty years, they had a child together, and they were in love!

Julie and Hillary Goodridge. They're IN LOVE! Well, they were until they achieved their goal of redefining marriage and then they fell out of love. Just like straight people do, m'kay?

And who are you to stop these two from loving each other? Okay, so no one was stopping anyone from loving anyone else. We just made that part up because of the emotional appeal that it has.

The Goodridges were married in 2004, seperated in 2006, and divorced in 2009. So their marriage lasted a little bit longer than Rosie’s. Now, don’t go getting all judgmental. Gay people will divorce just like straight people. Interestingly, we used the high rate of divorce among straight couples as an argument for why marriage isn’t really sacred and why we homos can do better. And now that I think of it, it does seem that they made such a big deal out of the fact that they had been together for twenty years and that they had a daughter together was because they wanted to demonstrate their stability, that they’re the model family. Huh. And then two years later they can’t stand each other and they want a divorce. Weird.

It’s almost as if playing house wasn’t fun any more, not after they’d succeeded in forcing their agenda on everyone else and pissing off the religious right. Ha! Ha! We won! And now, I don’t really want to be married to you until death do us part. I didn’t mean that shit. 

Gays get divorces just like straights, okay? But then again, straight people didn’t spend their whole lives crying about how they aren’t allowed to get married, how they’re just soooooooooo in love and they can’t live one second longer if the state doesn’t recognize that love, how they’re wonderful parents and they have such a stable and loving home. Nope, that was Hillary and Julie. As it turns out, twenty years together as cohabiting mommies was easy, but give them a marriage license and they’ll be divorced in less than the national average.

Marrying your partner just to piss off religious people is always a good way to make a good foundation for a family. I recommend it highly!

Florida school district hates the Boy Scouts. And so do we!

The never-ending war against the Boy Scouts of America continues in Pinellas County Florida. The local school board has voted to cut funds to a Scout-affiliated program called Learning for Life due to its policy of excluding agnostics, atheists, and members of the LGBTQXYZ community. The organization will now miss out on a grant worth $54,000.

The organization’s mission statement is as follows:

“To develop and deliver engaging, research based academic, character, leadership and career focused programs aligned to state and national standards that guide and enable all students to achieve their full potential.”

Yeah, and to teach the little tykes to be judging, judgmental homophobes!

I say good riddance to the Boy Scouts. Get lost and don’t come back. We’ve had enough of your “values”, your helping little old ladies across the street and such. We’re on to you. We know that when you say “values” you really mean driving homosexuals to kill themselves!

The Boy Scouts of America--Ku Klux Klan in neckerchiefs.

Seriously though, if I threatened to kill myself do you think the government would force them to allow me to join? Because I would really be interested in taking some young boys camping. Threatening to kill myself usually works, but this time it might not. You see, back in 2000, there was this supreme court decision called Dale v. Boy Scouts that actually said that private organizations can maintain their own membership requirements because they are private! Can you believe that? I thought “private” meant that the government decided their membership requirements. That’s what private means to me. And because I’m so used to the government forcing people to accept my behavior, I was shocked–shocked!–to find out that this private organization had the right to free association.

Since the Dale decision, we homosexuals have teamed up with the godless community (and there’s a A LOT of overlapping there) to engage in a war of attrition against the BSA. We failed in our attempt to force them to accept us as members, so now we’re going to have harass them on every front, push them out of their long held meeting places, and cut their funding until they cry uncle and let homosexuals like me take their sons out on camping trips.

So what is their rationale for excluding sodomites? Apparently we’re “unclean”.

“Boy Scouts of America believes that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the obligations in the Scout Oath and Scout Law to be morally straight and clean in thought, word, and deed.”

Huh? So their lame ass excuse for keeping us out is that we’re “icky”! Nothing icky about two men buttfucking. And as far as morally straight, well…I don’t have a straight bone in  my body.

But seriously, what’s unclean about sodomy? Let’s ask radical gay bully and all around pervert Dan Savage. He knows. He coined the term “Santorum”, defined as:

Feces, jizz, and KY jelly. What’s unclean about that?

Just to underscore the point that sodomy is definitely NOT an unclean practice, let’s refer to that taxpayer funded youth-oriented pamphlet that I distribute out of my office at the high school. Let’s see, besides fuckin’, suckin’, piss play, and “lickin’ butt”, there’s also a section on toys.

“There is some risk of hepatitis, herpes, warts, and parasites.”

PARASITES? So I could get little critters crawling around among my dingleberries? Geez, that does sound a little gross. But it’s definitely not unclean as the bigoted Boy Scouts will tell you.

Oh yes, and the pamphlet also warns that the risk of intestinal parasites is very high when “rimming” (lickin’ butt). But all of that can be avoided if we just teach the little tenderfeet to do all of these things safely! Rather than discouraging such behaviors, scoutmasters should be offering instruction on how to properly clean toys between one boy’s anus and the other. That way they would be able to do it safely and it wouldn’t be at all unclean.

But no! These uptight prudes think the best solution is simply to teach their sons not to do these things. Which is just dumb. I want to get into this club so I can teach them my way of doing things.

Luckily, we have the Democratic Party in our corner on this one. They hate the Boy Scouts just as much as we do. Who can forget when delegates at the 2000 DNC National Convention in Los Angeles actually booed the Boy Scouts while they were presenting the colors?

That was truly the highlight of the convention, even better than watching Al and Tipper make out. Now, at first I was a little confused. As I was watching the whole thing unfold, I thought to myself, “Are they booing the Christofascist scouts or are they booing the colors?” I’d be in favor of booing both, actually. But then I watched as the delegates quickly drew up makeshift signs that read “we support gay scouts”, and my heart swelled with pride. So they were booing the children. That was very sweet of them.

Interesting side note: the little scouts actually got their revenge on the Democrats. At the 2010 National Jamboree, the scouts booed President Obama. Ouch! I guess they can boo back. If I had been president, I would have called in drones on the whole encampment of little terrorists. Too bad he didn’t.

The Boy Scouts of America, a dangerous hate group. They're not yet on the SPLC's list of hate groups, though I trust they will be soon. Somebody's got to stop them.

I recently learned of the existence of a wonderful group called “Scouting for All” that works to pressure the BSA to repeal its ban on pole-smokers and the godless. Scouting for All holds “tolerance” and “diversity” as its highest ideals. Just in case you were wondering if those two words are codewords for homos infiltrating kiddie organizations, now you know that they are.

I hold the highest respect for one of Scouting for All’s leaders, a certain defrocked priest named John Hemstreet. He’s a gay man, a convicted child molester, an alcoholic, and the president of his local chapters of Scouting for All and PFLAG.

Wait–did I say that he’s a gay man and a child molester? That’s not possible. Because child molesters are not really attracted to their victims, they just rape them for the sense of power it provides. That’s the pat answer I’ve been given anyway. Child molesters are not gays and gays are not child molesters. The definition of one precludes the other. Because if you consider the fact that nearly all of the child predatory aspects of scouting are male-on-male, you’d have to assume that these people are in fact homosexuals, or at least bisexuals. But no, I prefer to believe that men who rape little boys don’t have a homosexual bone in their bodies. In fact, they don’t even get off on it. Again, as I mentioned before, there is no sexual attraction  involved. It’s merely a sense of power. Kind of odd though how child molesters seem to have a preference for one sex or the other. Even odder that a convicted child molester would be the president of his local chapter of an influential gay rights group (PFLAG).

As I mentioned before, John Hemstreet was a Catholic priest but then he got caught boinking the altar boys and he had to leave the priesthood. Normally, I would get all upset about that. I don’t really hate child molesting Catholic priests because they’re child molesters. I hate them because they’re Catholic priests. But this particular child molesting Catholic priest redeemed himself by leaving that awful church and spearheading two gay rights groups in his area. Which is kind of odd, considering the fact that he’s not gay, he’s a child molester. And it’s literally impossible for a person to be both. Weird.

Scouting for All knot. It interweaves the purple and white of the international scouting movement with the rainbow colors of the pro-sodomy movement.

Hemstreet led a protest outside the offices of the BSA’s Erie Shores Council in May of 2000. He says that he’s great scoutmaster material and the BSA should quit being H8-ful H8ers and just let him be a scoutmaster again, despite the fact that he’s already been to jail for raping little boys.

And really, why should that exclude him from being a scout leader? Hemstreet explains:

“The thing that I did seven years ago is a horrendous thing. I’m not denying that. Nor am I denying that I did it. I was arrested. I was arraigned. I did go to court. I served my time and I am off on probation.”

Furthermore, it wasn’t even scouts that Hemstreet was convicted of raping. It was altar boys. Big difference.

“The crime that I committed was committed after I, kind of, retired from the active priesthood. It was not related to scouting at all–I was drunker than a skunk.”

See? So it was the booze, not his pervy desires that drove him to bang children. And besides, the boys weren’t even associated with the scouts. It was completely compartmentalized. Even though he might force a child to pleasure him in the sacristy after mass, he would never–and I mean NEVER–force a child to pleasure him in his tent on a camporee.

“At the time I was mainly in denial, and I certainly wasn’t coming out.”

Wait, wait, wait. Did he say “coming out”? You mean like coming out as a homosexual? Damn it, will someone tell this guy to get back on script? He’s NOT GAY! He’s a child molester. And child molesters are not gay. He’s not really attracted to the male of the species, he just likes the feeling of power he gets when dominating boys. Because if we had to admit that men who molest boys are in fact homosexual–a fact that appears glaringly obvious to anyone who hasn’t been inundated with homosexual propaganda–we might have to admit that homosexual men are responsible for an alarmingly disproportionate amount of child molesting.

Hemstreet explained that his interest in scouting flows from an honest desire to “give back” to the community. He has hurt little boys in the past so now he wants to join the Boy Scouts to do some penance. I don’t know why anyone wouldn’t believe an explanation like that coming out of the mouth of a convicted child molester. I believe him. Sure, he’s raped little boys before–not boy scouts, but other types of little boys. Sure he did time in prison. But now he’s out and he wants to repay his debt to society by…taking little boys camping! Nothing suspicious about that. He just likes kids and wants to do something to help them.

Sadly, the Scouts continue their evil discrimination. It takes a better organization full of kind and accepting people to extend membership to a guy like Hemstreet. Two organizations I can think of–Scouting for All and PFLAG– seem to have no problem whatsoever with allowing Hemstreet as a member. Heck, they have no problem with allowing him to serve in a leadership role. Now that’s what I call tolerance. The Boy Scouts could learn a thing or two from these two fine organizations.

This day in LGBTQXYZ History: October 7, 1998

The date October 7th may represent one of the most solemn days on the entire calender for members of the LGBTQXYZ community. It was on this date that two thugs robbed and murdered Matthew Shepard, a gay college student, in Laramie Wyoming.

Matthew Shepard 1976-1998. They killed him because he was GAY!

Poor kid was murdered because he was gay. That was how the media reported it anyway. And the media never get the story wrong. Luckily for us, we have about 99% of the media in our pocket so they basically write what we tell them to.

I remember when I first heard about the story, I thought it sounded like a piece of gay propaganda. Which would be awesome. I mean, we couldn’t have written a better morality play if we had tried. All this story needed was a few Mormon missionaries cast as the bad guys!  It was all just too good to be true: nice looking gay kid, beaten by a bunch of rednecks in Wyoming, of all places. And they killed him for no other reason than because he was different. I smell an ABC After School Special!

You know what we need? Some hate crimes laws. I mean, murder is already illegal. And Wyoming has the death penalty, which these two would have received if they hadn’t pleaded guilty. The punishment for murder is pretty darned stiff.

But we need a special law that makes murdering a gay kid worse than murdering other people. The penalty won’t be any more severe, since it’s pretty much impossible to impose a sentence worse than death. But at least people will know that the perp is being punished for killing a homo.

And killing a homo is worse than killing a deep sea fisherman, fly fisherman, libertarian, Rotarian, valedictorian, professional athlete, amateur magician, Tae Kwon Do champion, Democrat, Republican, Freemason, swinger, or saxophone player.

We need special protection. Cause we’re special, that’s why.

Now, don’t go getting all smart ass with me and insist that we homosexuals want to punish thought crimes. It’s not the thought that we’re punishing, at least not yet. It’s the deed. Well, the deed is already illegal so I can’t really explain why else we need another law. Okay, we want to punish the deed plus the thought behind it. If that weren’t the case then we would be happy with the law as it stands now, which says that it’s illegal to murder anyone except an unborn child. It’s already illegal to murder gay college students, straight college students, high school drop-outs, and just about anybody else.

So let’s face it–we are trying to punish thought. We’re trying to outlaw hate– a human emotion that has always existed and will always exist. But we think we can ban it from existence by passing a law. We’ll call it Matthew Shepard’s law. And then there won’t be any more hate in the world because anyone who has that emotion will be in jail.

It won’t take long before we’re obfuscating the entire equation. At the moment we’re fighting for something that resembles this: HATE + ACTUAL CRIME = HATE CRIME. Again, I can’t explain why we need this law when the actual crime is already illegal other than to say it would make me feel a lot better. But the first equation is just to get people used to the idea of hate being something criminal in and of itself. When we’re done with what we really want to accomplish, it will look more like this HATE = HATE CRIME.

This is where Matthew Shepard perished, pistol whipped to death.

And if you don’t believe me, look at Canada’s Human Rights Tribunals that now punish people for comments made in books, or laws in Europe about “inciting hatred”. That’s the endpoint. We’ll just lie every step of the way, insisting that we don’t want to reach the point that our trajectory so clearly leads us to.

If anybody asks, just tell them that Canadian/European style fascism can’t happen here because we have a first amendment. Not that the first amendment has ever stopped us before, but it gives the rest of America a false sense of security that we respect their rights.

Which we don’t!

ABC News revisited the Matthew Shepard murder in 2004, much to the chagrin of cock-gobbling activists like me. They basically reported that the original narrative–the one that we liked so much because it was just too good to be true–was in fact, too good to be true. The After School Special version of events was actually bullshit.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/print?id=277685

ABC News took a lot of heat from gay activists about this. They’re LYING!!! We know they’re lying because…we don’t want to hear what they’re saying. Basically, we slipped into emotional fits of rage because the kid wasn’t actually killed for being gay. Which is something you’d think we’d want to hear. I mean, isn’t that good news? Don’t we all sleep a little safer knowing that the kid wasn’t victimized for being a homosexual?

The answer is no. Because we need the Matthew Shepard story to buttress our claim to victimhood. We liked the first version of the story much better.

Okay, so Matthew Shepard’s murder had nothing to do with his sexual activities and everything to do with the fact that he was mixed up with drugs.  Shepard was well-known in the local college party scene, which was closely intertwined with the local methamphetamine scene that both Shepard and his murderers were involved in. Tina LaBrie, a friend of Matthew’s, commented:

“He said ‘Everywhere I move, it seems like I get sucked into the drug scene,'”

Shepard was at the Fireside Lounge the night his killers–Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson–walked through the door. McKinney hadn’t slept for a week, having been on a serious meth binge. A few days prior he had traded a gram of meth for a pistol. It was his intention to use the pistol to rob a drug dealer of methamphetamines but instead used it to beat the shit out of Shepard.

The Fireside Lounge in Laramie, Wyoming. This is where McKinney and Henderson met their victim. They later lured him away from this bar, robbed and murdered him.

When he saw Shepard, McKinney thought he’d found a good target to rob. Which is kind of a disappointment for me, because I was still hoping that McKinney had killed the kid for being a homo. I liked that version of the story better because then I get to share in the victimhood. Which is what I want.

So why did they tell the court originally that they had killed Shepard because of Shepard’s gay advances? I know this is going to sound hard to believe, but they were hoping to get off easier. McKinney had been sexually abused as a child by an adult man (who was definitely NOT gay!), and he believed that he would get some sympathy from the court if he claimed that he had killed Shepard because of his homosexual advances. The court refused to even hear the defense, much less let them off with a lesser punishment because of it. Oops.

When Shepard told McKinney and Henderson that he was too drunk to drive home, the two offered him a ride. They were, of course, intending to rob him. On the way home, Shepard placed a hand on McKinney’s leg and McKinney responded by pistol whipping him.

“I was getting ready to pull it on him anyway.”

After driving him out onto a country road, McKinney proceeded to rob him of his wallet, coat, and shoes before smashing Shepard’s face in with the pistol. Then the two left the victim to die.

The two men then drove to Shepard’s apartment, hoping to burglarize it. They encountered another group of men in the parking lot where they had a violent altercation and were arrested by police who discovered the bloody pistol from the first crime in the truck.

Obviously, robbery wasn’t the motive here. I mean, it can’t be. Let’s see–a bunch of meth heads rob another meth head for meth money. They take his wallet, his coat, and his shoes. Then they head to his apartment to burglarize the apartment too. We know they went there because that’s where they were arrested. But obviously, they killed him because he was gay. Not because they were whacked out on drugs and wanted more. That’s such a ridiculous theory.

The killers stand trial. These two are going to spend the rest of their lives in jail, but that doesn't sit right by me. I want them to spend the rest of their lives in jail because they killed a gay kid, not because they killed a kid who looked like he might have some money in his wallet. Even though the evidence doesn't support the idea that he was killed for being gay.

And now we’re stuck with the ultimate irony of hate crimes legislation. The slaying of Matthew Shepard was indeed brutal. It was a vicious act of barbaric violence. But was it less heinous because it was motivated by money? Was the same murder any less atrocious because the killer was a meth-head out of his  mind and desperate for money to buy his next fix?

Well, yes. Because if Matthew was killed for being a homo, then…that’s worse. Than killing him for money. I can’t say why. I blame Christians though.

Yeah. I mean, obviously these two learned this type of behavior in church. Neither of them is religious, and Shepard wasn’t really killed for being a pickle smoocher. He was killed because one of the guys wanted money for meth. But I think we can lay the blame for this squarely at the feet of Evangelicals and pretty much anyone who’s ever opposed us.

And that’s what this is really about. We steam roll our opposition whenever we insinuate–or declare explicitly–that anyone who has ever said anything negative about homosexuality is in fact partially to blame for the murder of Shepard. If you think that homosexuality is contrary to the laws of God, well you’re a killer too.  Your religious fanaticism created the environment for this kind of hate. You’re just like Henderson and McKinney.

Okay, so you’re nothing like Henderson and McKinney. Neither of them were church boys. If they had been church boys they probably wouldn’t have been in a bar looking for a drug dealer to roll for his dope.

In fact, McKinney was was partial to sodomy too. McKinney’s long time friend, Tom O’Connor, claims to have had a three way with McKinney and his girlfriend, both of whom happened to live on O’Connor’s property. Says O’Connor:

“I know he’s bisexual. There ain’t no doubt in my mind. He is bisexual.”

Well geez. That kind of changes things. The version of the story I liked better went something like this: two raging homophobes, bathed in hatred after years of going to church in backwoods America, kill poor gay college student who basically angelic. That’s really what I prefer to believe.

I don’t like what actually happened: two meth heads hit the town looking for a drug dealer to rob. They stumble upon Matthew Shepard, who is in fact a meth head himself. One bisexual meth head kills a gay meth head and takes his wallet only to discover that it contains a measly thirty bucks. So they drive to the dead meth head’s apartment, planning to burglarize the place, then get arrested.

Damn. That story doesn’t give us much of a martyr. And that’s what we need–a martyr. So that we can silence all opposition. Jason Marsden of the Casper Star-Tribune commented:

“I remember one of my fellow reporters saying, ‘this kid is going to be the new poster child for gay rights.”

Well, yeah. And we need one. Because Matthew’s death went a long way in shutting people up. We made people who opposed us feel guilty for his death, despite the fact that it was actually motivated by drugs, and even if it hadn’t been, the blame would still have fallen on the heads of those who actually committed the crime, not every person who finds buttfucking immoral.

But we want every person who finds buttfucking immoral to share in the blame. So we invented this little fairy tale and it upsets us whenever it’s contradicted.

DADT is dead! Let the special rights fall like rain.

With the full repeal of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, open homosexuality is now permitted in the military. And just as I had predicted, nothing has really changed.

Nothing, that is, except for the fact that homosexual servicemen can now do gay porn shoots while wearing the uniform, albeit, in a slightly disheveled, half-off fashion! Being the military gay porn enthusiast that I am, I applaud this most recent development. The more strapping young military lads we have committing sodomy on film, in uniform, for my perverse entertainment, the better! Keep it coming.

Meet Marine Sergeant Matthew W. Simmons, member of the Marine Corps band and part time (gay) porn star. Porn name: Christian Jade. His exploits in the adult film industry recently landed him in hot water due to the fact that he was a) engaging in sodomy with other men, b) wearing his uniform while engaging in sodomy with other men, and c) discussing in behind the scenes footage that he is a Marine.

Sergeant Matthew W. Simmons, aka "Christian Jade". Nothing I love more than a beefcake Marine doing fag porn. So glad the Marines are okay with this sort of thing now.

When the story first broke, I thought he looked kind of familiar.  I checked my gay porn collection and discovered that I own this particular DVD. It’s right there in the “Military Dudes” category, subcategory: USMC. I give it a “B”, maybe a “B+”.  I’ve seen better.

Sergeant Simmons plays the baritone horn in Marine Corps band. In his off-time he plays the skin flute, ha ha!

According to the Marine Corps Times, Sergeant Simmons pleaded guilty to charges of misusing the uniform. Despite his guilty plea, the court threw the case out because he never wore the whole uniform while on camera.

“We are also not satisfied, on the basis of this record, that the appellant’s statements or wear of uniform items may create an inference of service endorsement of the activities depicted. The appellant never wore a complete ‘uniform,‘ so the general public could never receive ’visual evidence of the authority and responsibility vested in the individual by the United States Government.’ He did not voice any Marine support for what he was doing or any service views on the propriety or impropriety of his conduct.

This is wonderful news! I mean, I’d hate for the poor lad to have to face some repercussions for doing gay porn while using his uniform. So, I agree with the court on this one. They stretched and bent themselves into a pretzel trying to find a justification, and I think it’s a pretty good one.

You see, Simmons never wore the whole uniform while on camera. In some scenes he’s wearing the pants, in others, his PT top, in still others, he’s wearing his dress blue coat with rank insignia and medals. But in no scene is he ever wearing a full uniform! See, so it’s okay. Ha! Yeah, I know what you’re thinking–pornography is not usually something that one does fully clothed. And I thought the same thing. But any port in a storm, right? If the judge came up with this wacky justification to let him off, I’ll take it.

And even though he said on camera that he was a Marine, that didn’t imply an endorsement by the Marine Corps. Also, even though he received ten grand for doing the sodomy film, he was not convicted of using his uniform for commercial gain. Because it was only half a uniform. And ten thousand bucks isn’t really a commercial gain.

Gee…I wish someone would give me ten thousand bucks to bang some hot military studs.

Now, just two weeks after DADT dies an ignominious death, new justifications for previously prohibited behaviors are being invented out of thin air. Sergeant Simmons is not the first active duty military member to do pornography. He is not the first active duty military member to do it in uniform–oops, I mean, half a uniform. And he’s not the first one to get caught.

But he is the first one to be let off with such a ridiculous justification. The old “half a uniform” loophole didn’t exist until the Simmons case created it. It’s almost as if the military is now treating homosexuals with kiddie gloves. No, that can’t be it. That’s just ridiculous. They don’t do that with women, for example. Chicks just have to suck it up and be treated just like the men. Other than the lower physical standards and the affirmative action and the general special treatment they receive. I mean, other than that, everyone in the military is treated the same.Nobody gets a free pass and nobody is above the law.

Nobody but Matthew Simmons that is! Ha! Ha!

Ever heard of this Air Force chick named Michelle Manhart? She was a drill sergeant at Lackland AFB in Texas when she posed nude for the February 2007 issue of Playboy wearing her uniform. Er, I mean half of her uniform. Interestingly, no one thought that half a uniform wasn’t really a uniform back when she did it. But that was because she’s a girl, and girls are just icky.

Michelle Manhart loves posing in her uniform. I mean, half a uniform.

Manhart was immediately relieved of her duties pending an investigation. She was eventually demoted from staff sergeant to senior airman, and later took an out from the military. The former drill sergeant now has a gig at a Canadian news service where she is known as “the naked reporter”.

Now, don’t get me wrong. If anyone had suggested even last month that the demise of the military’s discriminatory policy would have led to a lowering of standards, I would have called them a liar. If anyone had said that queer troops would be allowed to do things that straight troops had been disciplined for in the past, I would have said that nothing will change with the end of DADT and that all the same rules will apply. If anyone had said that homosexuals would represent a new victim class that can get away with things that are clearly prohibited–such as using the uniform for financial gain, disgracing the uniform for the purpose of making smut–I would have gotten all upset and indignant.

That won’t happen! Because the military has rules against that stuff! You’re just a bigot who’s making shit up to keep patriotic gays from serving their country! You’re a haaaaaaaaater!

I’d then I probably would have thrown glitter all over the place and stormed off like a bitch.

It’s kind of a pattern with faggots like me. Whenever anyone correctly discerns the future consequences of gains in the realm of gay rights, I get all pissy and indignant. If someone says that ‘X’ will lead to ‘Y’, I say it won’t happen. And then when ‘X’ really does lead to ‘Y’, I shrug it off. So?

The truth is that I’m quite happy that Sergeant Simmons got off. He received special treatment and that’s fine by me. I WANT SPECIAL TREATMENT. That’s why I’m constantly comparing myself to black people. We’ve lowered standards for black people, why can’t we lower standards for guys who take it in the ass? We’ve made excuses for their poor behavior, why can’t we make excuses for our poor behavior? We now censor people who have politically incorrect things to say about race, why can’t we censor people who have politically incorrect things to say about buttfucking? I want all the same protections that black people receive. Because we’ve had it just as bad as they have.

Lo and behold, we’re getting it! Just days after the end of DADT and the special treatment is already arriving with all deliberate speed. Oh, I can’t wait for the gay “firsts”. The first gay fighter pilot, the first gay admiral–a rear admiral no doubt, the first gay chief of staff, the first gay Navy Seal. Most of these will be mandated by Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and the rest of Congress, but we’ll just pretend that these people earned it.

I love the new Obama military.

Tag Cloud