Just another WordPress.com site

Posts tagged ‘Christianity’

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!

Advertisements

I might have to rethink this “wall of separation” now that it inconveniences me.

Raging homophobe Mike Adams is at it again. This time he’s taking aim at the University of North Carolina for publishing a list of pro-LGBTQXYZ churches.

Adams, a criminology professor and Christian turned atheist, turned Christian again, took issue with a list of approved churches distributed by the university’s  LGBTQIA Office. That’s Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning, Intersexed, and Allied, for those of you who are not in the know.

Professor Mike Adams of UNC-Wilmington. It's just too bad that these homophobes have to be so handsome. He opposes the official state endorsement of churches based on their gay friendliness. Is there any way we can fire this man?

Adams viciously attacked the church-endorsement program, saying:

“…they investigate and then endorse churches based on their stance on homosexuality. And they print lists of approved gay-friendly churches using official university letter-head. Then they circulate their approved church list on state-owned computers to other state employees who then recommend the approved churches to their students.”

Uh..yeah. So? Isn’t that what a state-run, tax-payer funded university is supposed to be doing?

Now, don’t get me wrong. I am not a believer in that ancient religion of cannibalism. I don’t think that this guy named Jesus became a zombie and walked out of his tomb. Or that a guy named Jonah was swallowed by a fish and lived to tell the tale. I also don’t believe in talking serpents, or exorcising demons. And I certainly don’t believe in this concept called “sin”, or that I need to be saved from my sins. So please don’t think that I’m suddenly getting hip to Christianity.

Typical service at Christian churches across America. Not here in Provincetown, of course. The churches here fly the rainbow flag out front, so you know that they are filled with normal people who have completely abandoned the Bible and all of the weird/dangerous things that it teaches. This picture is from one of those gay-hating churches found in other parts of the country that I've never actually visited. I'm talking about the Catholic, Evangelical, and Mormon churches in places like Oklahoma and Nebraska.

I might be able to join this religion called Christianity if I weren’t required to believe all of those things listed above. Like the resurrection, for example. I would really like to drop the concept of sin from any version of Christianity I might choose to join. Also, I think all people should be able to go to heaven, regardless of whether they accept Christ or not. Buddhists and Jews go to heaven. Heck, even atheists go to heaven, despite the fact that we don’t believe in it. The only ones who aren’t going to heaven are these judgmental Christian fanatics who actually believe what the Bible tells them.

Isn’t that right, Queer Christian?

I haven’t found God, or anything like that.  But I do think that pro-gay churches play an important role in our community–namely, they serve to confuse people about what scripture actually teaches. Which is a very good thing. The Bible is pretty clear about homosexuality, in both the Old and New Testaments. There is essentially no ambiguity. But that shouldn’t stop queer activists from infiltrating churches, changing doctrine, reforming attitudes, and generally placing the targets of their aggression on an un-Biblical path for years to come.

The primary purpose of gay-friendly churches is to drive home the point that Christianity itself has nothing to say about the morality of sexual behaviors. Yes, some denominations have a lot to say on the subject. Those are the hateful, evil, intolerant denominations. Those denominations are filled with child molesters and crypto-Nazis. They care only about what you do with your private parts.

But other denominations think it’s all fine. Since some denominations think it’s okay for a man to sodomize another man, that means that Christianity has no agreed-upon teaching. Some individual churches do, but those are on the fringe. Christianity itself is silent–even supportive–of homosexuality. Or whatever your particular bag may be.

Of course, only an illiterate person who can’t read the Bible would believe this, but that’s okay. I’ve heard that the members of the pro-gay congregations haven’t cracked their Bibles in quite some time. Kudos to them for that. The Bible is hate speech and should be avoided.

And if the LGBTQIA office of UNC-Wilmington wants to further that goal, I’m all for it. Please endorse gay-friendly churches.

The University of North Carolina at Wilmington celebrates perversity. I mean, diversity.

Professor Adams disagrees.

“If I were to stand up and start recommending churches in the classroom, that would be a serious problem.”

Well, yeah. But that’s because he’s a Christian. A Christian who believes the Bible. And those types of Christians should not be endorsing churches in their capacities as state employees. In fact, they shouldn’t be state employees. Or employees anywhere.

Under normal circumstances, I am a strong supporter of the separation of church and state. In fact, I often insist that it’s a constitutional principle, despite its absence in the constitution. Let’s just say that it’s written in invisible ink, readable only to the wise judges of the Supreme Court. If I had to admit that the separation of church and state was not actually in the constitution, I might then be forced to admit that most of the things progressives believe to be part of the constitution are actually not there at all. For example, there is no right to privacy, no right to safe space, no right to birth control, no right to abortion, no right to a court-appointed defense attorney, no right to marriage, no right to serve in the military, no right not to have my feelings hurt by the mean things that right-wingers say. There are no sexual rights listed in the constitution at all.

And that’s highly problematic for me. So let’s play along for a while and pretend that the separation of church and state is actually there…somewhere in the penumbras.

And it took Justice Hugo Black to find it!  Justice Black was an Old South segregationist appointed to the court by President Franklin Roosevelt. He is perhaps best known for writing the majority opinion in Korematsu v. United States, in which he upheld the constitutionality of Japanese internment camps. (Justice Black always endorsed the policies of the man who appointed him. He was essentially a rubber stamp for the executive branch.)

Black was a former member of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, and a rabid anti-Catholic. He hated Catholics almost as much as I do. He once worked as defense counsel to a KKK member accused of murdering a Catholic priest. The KKK member was acquitted, thank goodness!

Hugo Black. He was a mixed bag. Although he supported segregation and the internment of Japanese-Americans, it appears that he also hated Catholics. And so do I. Without him, the phrase "separation of church and state" might never have entered case law, and we might have to actually refer to the first amendment of the constitution for guidance rather than to a letter written by a guy who wasn't at the constitutional convention. And that would be shitty because I prefer to believe that the separation of church and state exists.

The term “separation of church and state” first became case law when Justice Black cited it in Everson v. Board of Education (1947). The case involved a school district that used its buses to help transport children to Catholic schools. Keep in mind that Black was a Catholic-hater of the first degree, although that certainly had no bearing on his judgment at all. Black interpreted the constitution with an eye toward Thomas Jefferson’s “Letter to the Danbury Baptists”. He plucked the phrase “separation of church and state” from Jefferson’s letter, albeit wildly out of context. Which is really odd, because Thomas Jefferson was not the author of the constitution. In fact, he had nothing to do with its text as he was serving as the US Ambassador to France at the time. But I don’t care. I like Black’s conclusion and I don’t care how he came to it.

In the majority opinion, Black wrote:

“The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion… No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion.”

For years, the doctrine established in Everson v. Board of Education has been used as a weapon against people of faith, and that’s great. That’s what it’s supposed to used for. But now it appears that it’s being turned around against us. Dr. Adams seems to be suggesting that his university, UNC-Wilmington, is endorsing particular churches just because they’ve issued a list of endorsed churches. And he’s saying that, according to supreme court precedent, the university can’t do that.

That just doesn’t sit right by me. It’s okay for governmental institutions to endorse churches, to prefer one religion over another, to influence a person to go to a certain church, and to spend taxpayer money in support of certain churches, as long as they are churches that I like. If they happen to be churches I don’t like–churches that haven’t abandoned the Bible, for example–then they should be shunned.

So let’s just put it this way. These aren’t normal circumstances. We’re not talking about a state-run university endorsing churches that preach hate. We’re talking about a state-run university that’s endorsing good churches; ie, churches that make gay people feel all warm inside. And so the endorsement of such churches is fine. Perhaps the university can do its part to grow the pro-sodomy churches and to perpetuate the belief that homosexuality is compatible with Christianity. That would be a great service to the community.

In other words, pay Justice Black’s “separation” no mind. That concept has outlived its usefulness now that it can’t be used as a weapon against people I hate.

I LOVErmont: The Green Mountain State keeps up the heat on religious bigots

Bigots will find no shelter in the state of Vermont. Nor Roman Catholics, although that’s sort of synonymous with bigots.

The first state in the union to legalize civil unions–due to the legislation of then Governor Dean’s faith–and the first state to pass marriage equality without the judiciary’s gun to its head, Vermont will also become the first state to force Christians against their will to rent out their private property for gay weddings. Vermont is super-progressive and that’s why we like it so much.

The Vermont chapter of the ACLU is now suing a rural Vermont inn on behalf of a lesbian couple that wished to hold its wedding reception there. The lesbian couple nearly committed suicide after finding out that these private citizens did not want to allow their their private property to be used in a celebration of their homosexual relationship.

And you wouldn’t want them to commit suicide…would you?

Of course, the bigots played the religion card, as if religion is offered some kind of special protection in the Constitution or something. John and Mary O’Reilly, owners of the Wildflower Inn in Lyndonville, Vermont explained:

 “We do not, however, feel that we can offer our personal services wholeheartedly to celebrate the marriage between same-sex couples because it goes against everything that we as Catholics believe in.”

When are these people going to learn that free exercise of religion does not mean that you can break the law when it violates your conscience? For example, the government can draft Quakers into the armed forces. Also, Jehovah’s Witnesses are forced to stand and say the pledge of allegiance in schools. It’s permissible to force Orthodox Jews to open their businesses on the (Jewish) Sabbath. Wait…we don’t do any of those things? Well, we should be able to.

When the Constitution says that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, it didn’t mean religions that piss me off. It meant warm, mushy, cotton candy religions that tell homosexuals that God made them just the way they are and God don’t make no mistakes. You know, fake religions.

The Wildflower Inn in Lyndonville, Vermont. Nice place. Hate to see anything bad happen to it.

The idea that these two innkeepers can just decide to pick and choose which customers they take on–as if it were their business!–really makes my blood boil. The entire purpose of marriage equality laws is to force people like the O’Reilly’s to do things against their will. That’s why we need the state to recognize our relationships. Without state sanction, we can’t call on the power of the state to force other people to recognize our relationships and, when we feel like it, to take part in our ceremonies.

You’ll never find us making the libertarian argument that government should have no role in marriage because that would mean that the government can’t shove our morals down other people’s throats. Absolutely we want the government involved in marriage. We want the heavy hand of the state involved at all levels, and we want it to bully people on our behalf. We want our morals enshrined in law.

And let’s be clear–we do want to shove our morals down other people’s throats. John and Mary O’Reilly think that gay marriage is morally wrong. I think their exclusionary policy is morally wrong. John and Mary O’Reilly may not force their morality upon me through the force of law, though I may still force my morality on them.

That’s why it’s okay for former Governor Howard Dean to tell the voters of Iowa that it was his faith that motivated him to sign civil unions into law. But it would not be acceptable for an actual Christian governor–as opposed to Dean, who’s only a Christian when he’s running for president–to veto such a law because of his faith.

See how this works? We legislate our morality, and you just keep yours to your fucking self. I don’t want to see your morality, hear your morality, or even know that it exists. If you don’t like gay marriage then don’t get gay married! And just as long as you participate in my wedding against your will, everything will be fine. I won’t have to call the authorities, who are pretty entirely in the tank for me.

Nice message. It’s important to perpetuate the myth that other people are meddling in our lives, preventing us from loving each other, and getting in our business.

Now, I’m not advising any of my readers to go blabbing about all of this all around town. Yes, the whole purpose of gay marriage is to force people to recognize our relationships who don’t want to. But as always, stealth and deception are necessary. It’s important to keep up the illusion that people are meddling in our lives, telling us whom to love and whom we may sleep with. The emotional weight of that argument is enormous.

It’s bullshit, of course. But that shouldn’t stop us from making the emotional appeal that we really, really love each other. So who are you to stand in the way of our love? Who are you to police my sex life? I loved my husband even before we were married and I slept with him as well. Even if every gay marriage in the whole country was nullified by some federal marriage amendment, I’d still love him and still have sex with him. So it really has nothing to do with love or with bedroom behavior. It has to do with forcing people to do things our way.

When we portray opponents of marriage equality as moral busybodies, we win. They’re running around telling everyone how to live their lives! Which is totally different than what the State of Vermont is doing to the O’Reilly’s, of course. But they’re just Christofascist losers, and they have no rights.
 
This whole ordeal in Vermont really reminds me of what happened to me and Michael when we were first married here on the Cape in 2004. We were one of the first gay couples in the state–in the nation!–to be married legally. We contacted a woman photographer to do our photos, and she told us that she was a Christofascist and that she wasn’t planning on doing any gay weddings because of her “faith”. She referred us to other photographers.
 
Now, there are dozens of good wedding photographers on the Cape, but it didn’t seem right that this woman could just pick and choose her clients. So we told her that she’d better get her ass to the wedding or we’d sue the shit out of her. You see, I wanted to force her to do something against her will. I wanted to make her an unwilling participant in our ceremony, forcing her to look at us through that camera lens of hers, shoving cake in each other’s mouths, kissing at the altar, etc. I know that there were other photographers who would have been glad to have had our business, but I really wanted to knuckle this bitch under. I wanted to make her choose between her Christian faith and her livelihood. I certainly didn’t want a photographer who wanted to be there.
 
In the end, she did the pictures. So much for her “faith” in some wacky “God”. Apparently, paying her bills was more important. 
 
Now, some of you may believe in “live and let live”. I don’t. I believe in live and destroy other people’s livelihoods. If other people have beliefs that conflict with mine, I like to force them to abandon their beliefs or become unemployed. (See previous post of Dr. Frank Turek)
 
I heard that ours was her last wedding ever. It’s too bad because she had had a thriving business before gay marriage became the law in Massachusetts. Last time I saw her, she was a sandwich artist at Subway in Hyannisport. Hope that bitch likes making minimum wage! I bet she’ll remember next time that “this doesn’t affect you”.   
 
 Update: The Wildflower Inn is no longer doing weddings and special events, according to its website. I consider this a partial victory. Can the State of Vermont force them to continue doing so? That would be sweet.

Michele and Marcus Bachmann are homophobic. I am ex-homophobic.

The gay-hating Bachmann duo is at it again. ABC World News Tonight led off Monday’s broadcast with a piece on Congresswoman Michele Bachmann and her husband Dr. Marcus Bachmann, who appear to be involved in some kind of reparative therapy “pray away the gay” scheme at their counseling and treatment clinic in Lake Elmo, Minnesota. Yes, this was the most important news story in the entire world this past Monday. That’s why ABC World News Tonight led off with it. Not a damned thing more important, anywhere in the world.

Marcus and Michele Bachmann, known homophobes. She's the darling of the teabagger movement, he's a shrink who "cures" homosexuality. I'd bet he's a repressed homosexual himself. Perhaps wishful thinking on my part, but there's a good possibility. Anti-gay males tend to be gay males. Sounds stupid, but it's true. Actually, it's just a comeback I heard once in high school and I've repeated it a zillion times ever since.

Here’s what happened: Andrew Ramirez was “sent” to the Bachmann clinic in 2004 after coming out to his parents. The article doesn’t make it clear whether his parents were forcing him, just that he was “sent”. Ramirez describes the gut-wrenching experience:

From the outset, Ramirez says, his therapist—one of roughly twenty employed at the Lake Elmo clinic—made it clear that renouncing his sexual orientation was the only moral choice. “He basically said being gay was not an acceptable lifestyle in God’s eyes,” Ramirez recalls. According to Ramirez, his therapist then set about trying to “cure” him. Among other things, he urged Ramirez to pray and read the Bible, particularly verses that cast homosexuality as an abomination, and referred him to a local church for people who had given up the “gay lifestyle.” He even offered to set Ramirez up with an ex-lesbian mentor.

The horror! They urged him to PRAY and READ THE BIBLE! They also told him that homosexuality is immoral. I’m surprised the poor thing didn’t kill himself. I found myself on the suicide hotline just reading about it.

Okay, so the truth is that ex-gays scare the crap out of me, and that’s why I have to tear them down. If you’ve heard of homophobes, then you can just call me an ex-homophobe. That doesn’t mean that I used to be homophobic and now I’m not. It means that I hate ex-homosexuals. I think they should be shamed into returning to our side of the rainbow. In this sense, we’re kind of like a cult. Once you’re in, you can NEVER leave.

The Bachmann clinic received a visit at a later date from perpetually aggrieved homosexual activist John Becker of the group Truth Wins Out. Becker smuggled a camera into the clinic to record the goings-on, posing as a gay man in search of a cure to his homosexual affliction. Becker describes his experience at Truth Wins Out:

…I was advised to find a heterosexual “accountability buddy” as I struggled to increase my attraction to women and decrease my attraction to men. I was to confide in, pray with, and be held accountable to this person. Bachmann & Associates sells a book written by Twin Cities minister and self-proclaimed “ex-lesbian” Janet Boynes. This book chronicles her supposed journey “out of the lesbian lifestyle.” Next to the stack of books was a prominently-displayed, typewritten note that read, “Janet is a friend. I recommend this book as she speaks to the heart of the matter and gives practical insights of truth to set people free. – Marcus Bachmann, PhD.”

I like Truth Wins Out because they belittle ex-gays and accuse of them of secretly continuing their homosexuality on the down low. They put derisive quotations marks around “ex-gay” and “ex-lesbian”. They do not allow people to define their own sexuality, but rather assign them labels which they do not accept. For example, they refer to author Janet Boynes as “self-proclaimed” “ex-lesbian” Janet Boynes. See, so she’s not really an ex-lesbian. She’s just telling people that. We’ll decide for her whether she’s a lesbian or not. Don’t let her fool you with her self-proclamations. She’s still muff-diving on the side, we’re sure of it. She may tell you that she’s completed a journey out of the “lesbian lifestyle”, but don’t believe it. It’s a “supposed journey”, not a journey.

Boynes has her own website, by the way. And it’s not girl-on-girl porn. Read this crap and tell me if you don’t think she’s batshit crazy:

http://janetboynesministries.com/

Janet Boynes, so-called "ex-lesbian" who will help you understand your sexuality via her supposed "journey" out of lesbianism. And in case you haven't noticed, she's black. One of the churchy blacks. My loyal readers know what I think about them. If they care so much about traditional values, maybe they'd like to be enslaved again. Hmmm? Try that one on for size Bishop Jackson, Star Parker, and Alan Keyes.

Before you go seeking therapy from the Bachmann clinic or similar reparative therapy outlets, be forewarned that a number of ex-gays have relapsed. These failed attempts to change sexual behavior prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that homosexuality is immutable. So don’t even try. Really. Similarly, you shouldn’t try to quit smoking because you’ll probably fail just like everyone else. Without drugs or other types of help, the success rate of any given attempt to quit is about four to seven percent. So most smokers relapse. Diets are even worse. Ninety-five percent of dieters who lose a significant amount of weight will gain it all back and then some within three years. Alcoholics and prescription painkiller addicts have an even lower success rates. Change is hopeless. You are who you are.

Some people are just hard headed in this regard. Just the other day, an old friend called me from San Francisco, telling me that he was finally planning on getting clean. He was going to quit drinking, popping pills, and smoking cigarettes. And I advised him to stop wasting his time because the chances of his success are much, much lower than the chances that he’ll be able to give up butt sex. Because some have failed in the past, NO ONE should try. He took my advice and decided to continue killing himself with drugs and sodomy.

This whole concept of “curing” gays is pseudo-scientific at its root. If you want sound science, stick with us homos and our fleeting “gay gene”. Look, homosexuality is genetic in nature. You’re either born that way or you aren’t. Scientists have been searching for this gay gene since before I was born but they haven’t found it yet. So what? I take it on faith and so should you. Just believe the theory and let the scientists find the supporting evidence in the meantime. This could take years, so be patient and bear with us. Let’s put it this way–we’ll find that gene before your silly “Messiah” comes back.

That’s how science works, right guys? Come up with the theory first and search for the evidence later? That’s how I learned the scientific method when I was in school. Either you agree with me or you hate science. It’s that simple. Don’t let me find out that any of you are science haters!

Homosexuality MUST be an inborn trait. It’s the cornerstone of my belief system and I cannot accept any idea that contradicts it. It is my dogma, my unshakeable belief. Otherwise I would have to accept that I am in control of my own penis, which sounds like personal responsibility. There’s nothing I hate more than personal responsibility.

So let’s get one thing straight. (Woops, did I say straight?) I do not choose who I sleep with. Sexual intercourse is not a volitional act. My penis has a mind of its own. I do not control it, it controls me. Just the other day I woke up next to a drag queen named Wilma Ballsdrop in a seedy motel room near the beach. I have no idea how I got there or who put those cigarette burns on my doughy asscheeks. I don’t even know if I enjoyed it.  As I was leaving, I noticed this mysterious photo of me and the drag queen stored in my cell phone:

I really don't know where this picture was taken but it looks like we were having a great time together. I know who the person on the right is. That's me. The tranny on the left is a mystery. I just know s/he goes by the name Wilma Ballsdrop. That whole night is a blur. May our paths cross again.

So please don’t tell me that I “choose” to be gay. We know that no one chooses to be gay. To say that a person chooses homosexuality is like saying that a person chooses to be shunned, hated, and rejected by society. That’s right, despite the overwhelming support of corporate America, the news media, the entertainment industry, the public schools, academia, some of the churches, the federal government, the state governments, the cultural elite and the fabulously rich, I am still trying to peddle the ridiculous canard that society stigmatizes homosexuality. Even though all of the aforementioned institutions are engaged in a full court press in support of our advocacy efforts, I’m still going to be a little bitch and tell everyone how oppressed I am as a gay man.

Just the other day, a guy was fired from Cisco Systems for writing a book in support of marriage equality! Oh wait, that didn’t happen.

Someone ought to pass the message along to Congresswoman and Dr. Bachmann: You cannot pray away the gay! God put those instincts in me because he wants me to act on them. If it says otherwise in that silly book of yours, then just do what my LGBTQXYZ  friends do and cross it out with a black marker. God wants his children to be happy and butt sex makes me very happy. Because sexual instincts are inborn, acting upon them becomes a right and even a duty. God wants all of us to do whatever our wee-wees and vajayjays tell us to do. Otherwise he wouldn’t have put the urge there in the first place. (For more on that, see previous post “Straight People Are Pretty Gross, but I Won’t Judge…”:  https://twogaybullies.wordpress.com/2011/06/22/straight-people-are-pretty-gross-but-i-wont-judge/ )

If other people have found that butt sex doesn’t make them happy, and voluntarily choose to seek help, they should be denied. I mean, normally I think the consenting adults should be allowed to do what they wish, at least as far as bedroom behavior goes. But if a consenting gay adult seeks help from a consenting therapist adult, I think it’s time for me to shove my nose into their business. If the consenting gay adult asks for help in resisting his gay urges, then someone has to take action to stop the consenting therapist adult from giving the homosexual the guidance he’s asked for. Especially if it involves prayer, which is something that gives me the heebeejeebies. Consensual or non-consensual, this type of “therapy” should not be allowed even if both parties agree to it.

I’m really worried that this therapy might prove to be successful, thus shaking the pillar of my homosexual faith–the myth of inborn homosexuality. And it might also cut down on the number of guys I can sleep with. The survival of the gay race–ha! ha!–depends on squelching this kind of therapy before it goes mainstream. 

Also, I think it’s about time we destroyed the bitch from Minnesota before she gets anywhere near the White House. Kudos to ABC News for getting the ball rolling on that.

Tag Cloud