Just another WordPress.com site

Archive for January, 2012

Why do we honor this Christian Talibani with a holiday?

Oh, puke. It’s January again and that means that it’s time to pay homage to Martin Luther King, Jr. It’s his birthday, and now we all have to prostrate ourselves and pretend like we honor his legacy.

I get so sick of doing this every year. Martin Luther King is not a hero of mine. He was one of the churchy blacks and he made it very clear that the Bible–“God’s law”–was the basis of his beliefs. Furthermore, he thought it should be the basis of our laws, which is just un-American, and frankly, scary. I think it’s safe to say that MLK was one of those wild-eyed Christian fundamentalist wackjobs. He was a member of the Christian Taliban, long before anyone knew what that was.

Now, please don’t get me wrong. I think that the attempt of homosexuals to hijack MLK Day and turn it into a gay thing is commendable. We really ought to step it up. When you think about it, our struggle for equality is the same as theirs. Gay people in contemporary society are treated the same way blacks used to be. For example, I have to ride in the back of the bus. When a straight person comes, I have to give up my seat even if I’m tired and my feet hurt. Well, I don’t actually ride a bus because my husband drives me around in his Lexus. He’s a lawyer. But if I did ride the bus, I’m sure I would be forced to sit in the back. And I’m not allowed to stay in a hotel south of the Mason-Dixon line either.  And who can forget the legions of homosexuals who were sold into slavery? Sodomites today are kind of like slaves. Sure, I buy that.

Okay, so the comparison doesn’t quite fit. But the point is this–our struggle is like theirs. They were enslaved and segregated because of the color of their skin. People disapprove of me opening my asscheeks to other men to sodomize me. The similarities are eerie. They have no choice in being black, I have no choice in my who I sleep with.  And because buttfucking is equivalent to having black sin, there is a legitimate comparison to be made.

Unfortunately, MLK himself left something to be desired. It’s pretty clear from his own writings that he supported a theocracy. I refer you to his famous “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”, in which he explained to his fellow clergy why he found it necessarily to take action against segregation.

King begins by comparing himself to the Biblical Paul who.

“…just as the Apostle Paul left his village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of the Greco Roman world, so am I compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my own home town.”

Anyone who would appeal to that old batshit lunatic must have a pretty weak argument. Paul was a committed homophobe whose condemnations of homosexuality now come down to us as the indisputable “word of God.” They should be recognized as what they are–the word of a first century bigot. And in case Martin Luther King needs another reason to discount Paul, he also supported slavery. As Paul wrote in Titus 2: 9-10:

Slaves are to be under control of their masters in all respects, giving them satisfaction, not talking back to them or stealing from them, but exhibiting complete good faith, so as to adorn the doctrine of God our savior in every way.”

Did you hear that, Martin? Don’t talk back to your master. That’s what Paul would tell you.

If that weren’t enough, King argues that our code of civil law must live up to “God’s law”. That’s hooey. In a secular democracy such as ours, religion has no place in the law books. Some people–like me for example–don’t believe in God and we don’t want to be ruled over in a manner described in some old dusty book of fairy tales. We cannot concern ourselves what “God” would say about the affairs of men. We are rational creatures. But not Martin Luther King. He argues in favor of theocracy in America:

“One may well ask: ‘How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?’ The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that ‘an unjust law is no law at all.’ Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.

Oh, so he just picks and chooses which laws he wants to follow. Typical Christian. There are even some Christians who think that they shouldn’t be forced to place children in gay couples’ homes because it “violates their religion”. I’m so sick of this argument that one’s religion exempts one from obeying the law. We have one law in this country–it is civil, it is secular, and it applies to everyone.

He says that “unjust laws” must be disobeyed. We know that a law is “unjust” if it goes against “God’s law” or “moral law”. So he’s a moralist who draws his “morality” from his “God” and thinks that his definition should be the foundation of our law. If man’s law fails to live up to God’s law, man’s law must be disobeyed. He’s an advocate for theocracy and breaking whichever laws he doesn’t like.

Next he appeals to St. Thomas Aquinas, another homophobe, this time from Dark Ages. Aquinas argues that human law should be in harmony with “natural law”.

St. Thomas Aquinas. He can take that book and shove it up his ass. This Bible-thumping religious zealot is the guy MLK thinks should have the last word on our laws.

All you gay boys out there should beware anyone who makes their argument on the basis of “natural law”. That’s a code word for oppressing cock gobblers. “Natural law” was invoked to support California’ Proposition H8. Check out this article by a Los Angeles-based Catholic priest. His “natural law” argument sounds suspiciously like MLK’s. He’s a modern day St. Thomas Aquinas, and his thinking hasn’t evolved a bit since the thirteenth century!

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/is_there_a_natural_right_to_same_sex_marriage

This is "natural law". Watch out for the "natural law" bigots.

Again, King makes it clear that he thinks people can simply choose which laws they follow according to their religion. That’s ludicrous. What if a Christian said that it violated his conscience to have his child in the pro-homosexual indoctrination courses taught in public schools? What if a Christian said that it violated a “higher law” to force him to make cupcakes for a Coming Out Day? Could he just disobey those laws? Considering the fact that I know that state power is firmly on my side, I am completely in favor of using that power against my enemies to force them to do my will. I never worry that the same power can be used against me.

“Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience… It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire.”

The Christians in Rome were just troublemakers. Everywhere the early Christians went, they told people how to live their lives. They stuck their noses in other people’s business–no false idols, no sodomy, no bedding young boys, no human sacrifice, no killing unwanted infants. They pushed their arbitrary code of “morals” on everyone they could.

“If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country’s antireligious laws.

Oh, more whining from the Christians. They are “suppressed”. I don’t see how Christians are oppressed in a communist country, or here for that matter. They can still worship in the manner the government prescribes. They can believe to the degree that the government allows. What they CANNOT do is establish a separate law of their own.

King goes on to explain that the church should play a role in forming the mores of society:

“There was a time when the church was very powerful–in the time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society.

They sure did. Prior to the Christianization of the Roman World, man-on-man sex was commonplace and nobody had a problem with it. So was man-on-boy sex. And then came the judgmental Christians with their sexual hang-ups. Darkness fell over Europe. It appears that King is applauding the role of the Christians, as if to say that Christian “morality” should transform the mores of society.That’s absurd.

Whenever the early Christians entered a town, the people in power became disturbed and immediately sought to convict the Christians for being “disturbers of the peace” and “outside agitators.”‘ But the Christians pressed on, in the conviction that they were “a colony of heaven,” called to obey God rather than man.

Sounds no different than the Christofascists of today. They’re on a mission from God. They’re crazy beyond your wildest dreams. Think Michele Bachmann or George W. Bush. That kind of crazy.

It’s unfortunate that MLK also subscribes to this ruse that we’re a “Judaeo-Christian” nation. That’s the type of hogwash you usually hear out of the mouth of James Dobson. Everyone knows that the Judeo-Christian myth is historical revisionism. Christianity had nothing to do with the founding of our nation. The founding fathers were deists and atheists and they wanted to ensure that religion played no role in the government. Somebody tell that to MLK.

One day the South will know that when these disinherited children of God sat down at lunch counters, they were in reality standing up for what is best in the American dream and for the most sacred values in our Judaeo Christian heritage, thereby bringing our nation back to those great wells of democracy which were dug deep by the founding fathers in their formulation of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence? Both were written by slave holders, dummy. In any case, the Constitution doesn’t talk about God at all. The Declaration of Independence does talk about “certain inalienable rights” being “endowed by a creator”, which is really strange because Jefferson didn’t believe in that crap. Neither do I. My rights don’t come from a fictitious man in the sky. They come from the government. The government gives them and the government can take them away.

Whatever the Jews and the Christians believe, that’s their business. They can follow their own morals all they want, but they can’t force them on me. It’s not part of our “heritage”. Whenever you hear anyone making such an argument, run the other direction as fast as you can. He’s a huckster. He wants to impose Christian Sharia here in America.

I just can’t wait until this orgy of obsequious ass-kissing is over. There’s something seriously wrong with a man who draws his inspiration from St. Paul, Thomas Aquinas, or the “Judeo-Christian heritage” of our nation. When you hear that kind of talk, you should understand that the person speaking is a nut.

If you want to live in a country like that, fine. Move to some Middle Eastern shithole. Or just join the fucking Taliban. I heard they’re looking for soldiers of God. Here in America, religion plays no role in the government. If you happen to have religious sentiments, that’s fine as long as you hide your belief and and vote the opposite when you go to the polls. That’s what the constitution says you have to do.

Sadly, people like Martin Luther King only encourage them.

Ron Paul arguably more homophobic than fellow GOP bigots…if that’s possible.

I for one am glad that the Iowa Caucuses are over. The whole thing kind of reminded me of Halloween in January with all of the lunatics and crazies out. All of the back-slapping and sucking up to Ethanol farmers is over and now we can move on to other states and eventually to President Obama’s inevitable victory.

The results were disheartening but not surprising. It appears the God’s Own Party (the GOP, get it?) is as flagrantly anti-gay as ever. On top, we had Mitt Romney of the magic underwear cult who tried to block gay people’s happy day when he was governor of the Gay State. He’s such a judegmental, judging hatemonger bigot just like all Mormons. For more on that particular church see my anti-Mormon hate site on the right, “Stop the Mormons”. Then there was Michele “Pray Away the Gay” Bachmann who finished dismally, thank goodness. Her husband’s obviously a repressed homosexual; did you know that? Toward the bottom of the heap was Rick “I’m Not Ashamed to be a Christian” Perry. If he’s going to be a Christian, can’t he at least have the decency to be ashamed? Rick “Man-Dog Sex” Santorum was the surprise of the night, proving that you can still be a contender in the Republican Party and hold Roman Catholic beliefs, something that I think our Constitution prohibits.

I was really supporting the Texan Ron Paul until I found out that he doesn’t think that government should be in the marriage business. That really upset me. If I can’t get the government to recognize my marriage, that means I can’t force others to recognize it under penalty of law. I like to tell people that I just want the government out of my life, out of my bedroom, and out of my relationships. But that’s just another one of those lies that keeps dribbling out of my mouth like Michael’s spooge on a Saturday night. If that’s all I wanted,  I already had that before marriage equality came to my state. In fact, homos can have that in every state, even Mississippi. Nope, we want the government more involved in our personal lives, not less.  We want our relationships to be formalized and contractual. So when we say that we just want the government out of our lives, we actually mean exactly the opposite.

With Ron Paul, we wouldn’t be able to do that. No one would be forced to recognize my marriage, which defeats the purpose.

You can imagine how disappointed I was to learn that Ron Paul is in fact no different than the others. He likes to tell people that he’s a “defender of the Constitution” but then he turns around and denies the separation of church and state. Everyone knows that those words in the Constitution–right there in the first amendement. Well, I can’t find them, but I’m sure they’re there. If you don’t believe that, you’re probably a member of the Christian Taliban. Here’s what Paul actually said about the separation of church and state:

“In case after case, the supreme Court has used the infamous ‘separation of church and state’ metaphor to uphold court decisions that allow the federal government to intrude upon and deprive citizens of their religious liberty. “

That’s the PURPOSE of the first amendment, you dolt! It isn’t to defend people of faith from the government. It’s to defend me from people of faith. They’re scary and the government needs to restrain them. The Constitution guarantees my right to never see or hear anything that might involve God, and it mandates the religious loons check their values outside the voting booth or else forfeit their right to vote.

Yeah, next thing we know he’s going to want to stone people for adultery. He continues:

“This ‘separation’ doctrine is based upon a phrase taken out of context from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802.”

Jefferson was a deist. That’s what I heard anyway. And even though he wasn’t involved in the drafting of the Constitution because he was the ambassador to France at the time, I’ll look to his words, taken out of context, for guidance. Only because he said what I want to hear. After all, he’s the expert. Jefferson’s words trump the actual text of the Constitution.

Paul doesn’t have such a great track record with teh gheys. He even opposed Lawrence v. Texas on the grounds that the Constitution doesn’t actually guarantee a right to sodomy! Can you believe that? I did a quick google search and determined that the word “sodomy” appears nowhere in the Constitution, much less a right thereto. But in 2003, a bunch of justices said that it did. And I agree with them because I like sodomy. I’m sure it’s emanating somewhere in the penumbras.

Batty ol’ Ron Paul disagrees. As he wrote in an essay found at Lewrockwell.com :

“Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states’ rights — rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards. But rather than applying the real Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a properly state matter, the Court decided to apply the imaginary Constitution and impose its vision on the people of Texas.

I get it. He wants the federal government out of our bedrooms. But the fifty state governments are still okay.

Ron Paul: He's a rock star to the youth voters. To me, he's just another Republican BIGOT.

It’s almost as if he’s saying that there are no sexual rights in the Constitution, and thus the issues are for the states to decide. But I’d like it much better if there were sexual rights in the Constitution. And because I want them there, that means that I support any judge who imagines them to be there and rules accordingly. It’s so much easier to just have a judge strike down all of the laws I don’t like than it would be to do the hard work of changing minds and laws in all fifty states. Less messy, too.

It doesn’t matter at all to me whether there’s a “right to privacy” in the Constitution. Those words aren’t there, but neither are “right to sodomy” or “separation of church and state”. If we were to go down that road of only accepting words contained in the Constitution as legitimately constitutional, we’d be in a world of trouble. I prefer a living, breathing document–it says what I want it to say.

Ron Paul even advocates the bizarre theory that homosexuals get AIDS from their sexual behaviors. That’s not true. We get AIDS from Ronald Reagan and the Catholic Church. Everyone knows that. As he wrote in his January 1990 newsletter:

‘The ACT-UP slogan on stickers plastered all over Manhattan is ‘Silence=Death.’ But shouldn’t it be Sodomy = Death’?

That is just ABSURD! He’s  insinuating that the best way to avoid getting AIDS is to stop taking it up the ass! That’s just irresponsible, especially coming from a medical doctor. He’s blaming the victim. It’s like telling someone that the best way to avoid lung cancer is to quit smoking, or the best way to avoid obesity is to watch their diet. Actions do not have consequences and I loathe people who tell me that they do. Science is very clear on this: there is no known connection between butt sex and AIDS. They are two completely unrelated concepts. He needs to go back to med school.

His newsletters are a treasure trove of homophobic delusions. Oh, here’s another one from September 1994. Watch out for malicious gays!

“those who don’t commit sodomy, who don’t get blood a transfusion, and who don’t swap needles, are virtually assured of not getting AIDS unless they are deliberately infected by a malicious gay.”

Hey, I do know a few malicious gays who do stuff like that, but only to other willing partners. Fully knowledeable that they are HIV positive, they head on down to the bathhouse and engage in group sex with lots of other guys. Bu those other guys being infected already fall under the first category: those who commit sodomy. Not that sodomy has anything to do with AIDS.

The supposedly libertarian congressman also wants to keeps us queers from eating in restaurants. Well, not queers, but AIDS patients. He bases this on the “fact” that “AIDS can be transmitted by saliva”. That’s a lie. AIDS cannot be transmitted by saliva. Or sodomy, for that matter. AIDS is transmitted by lack of federal funding for research and by homophobia.

Oh, what a disappointment he turned out to be. I thought he was the face of a new, sodomy-friendly GOP. And it turns out that he’s the worst of the bunch! If it were between him and Santorum, and I absolutely had to choose one or the other, I think I might have to choose ol’ Man-Dog sex. At least he looks handsome in a sweater vest. (Okay, so I fantasize about him, just like Dan Savage does). Ron Paul just looks like a wrinkled old prune.

I took this picture of Ron Paul two winters ago while he was chopping ice. I was trying to catch a glimpse of his cock, but it was kind of shriveled in the cold water.

Tag Cloud