Just another WordPress.com site

Posts tagged ‘civil rights’

Even a broken clock like Rick Santorum is right twice a day. Senate greenlights bestiality.

If you missed this week’s press conference at the White House, you probably haven’t heard about the ridiculous question World Nut Daily reporter  Lester Kinsolving posed to press secretary Jay Carney. He actually asked what the president’s position is on bestiality! Oh for crying out loud, what a doofus. I can’t believe World Nut Daily reporters even get press credentials at the White House.

But alas, they do. Kinsolving was referring to the recent vote in the US Senate to abolish Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The article prohibits sodomy in the military, as well as sexual relations with animals. Presumably, repealing the whole article would have the effect of legalizing both behaviors in the US military.

“(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.

(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall by punished as a court-martial may direct.”

To Carney’s credit, he refused to entertain the ridiculous question, preferring to dismiss it off the cuff. Of course the commander-in-chief opposes bestiality in the armed forces. That’s why he plans on signing the bill just as soon as it hits his desk.

Okay, okay–so the Senate just voted 93-7 to abolish the article. But that doesn’t mean it would be legal to boff your poodle. That would still be punishable under other articles. Presumably, however, my favorite activity–sodomy–will not continue to be punishable under other articles. By abolishing the article that specifically prohibits sodomy in the armed forces, we are legalizing butt sex in the barracks. But by abolishing the article that specifically prohibits barnyard play, we are not legalizing it. Not sure why, we just aren’t.

Ho hum. Okay, so that explanation doesn’t work. How about this? I’m sure that the Congress will fix it at a later date. This whole thing is a mistake that will be straightened out eventually. Kind of like how two persons who are closely related by blood can get married in my state, just as long as the marriage is homosexual. Seven years after gay marriage came to the Bay State and brother/brother marriage remains legal. They’re still getting around to fixing it. State legislators are very busy people, you know.

Every time I watch this video, I imagine that horrible bigot Rick Santorum sitting at home, rubbing his hands together in glee. I bet he thinks he was right about the whole “man-dog” thing, which is just silly. As he famously remarked in 2003:

“In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. “

Can you believe that? It’s one of those ridiculous slippery slope arguments. If we redefine marriage, there will no end to it. Next thing you know, we’ll have man-on-dog sex in the barracks! Ha! So stupid. Well, I mean it would be stupid if it weren’t for the fact that the US Senate just voted to legalize it. But I’m sure it won’t pass the House, and if it does, I’m sure the president will veto it. Even so, Santorum was technically wrong–sex with animals will now be permitted, but the full benefits of marriage are still an elusive dream from soldiers who love their house pets. I guess that’s tomorrow’s civil rights battle.

Yeah, I bet he smuggles cock on the side. They're all repressed homos. It would help though if the vandal would learn how to spell simple five letter words, such as "needs".

I remember the infamous Santorum “man/dog” interview. I was so offended that he would compare loving sodomy with my husband Michael (and a few score other casual partners) to something as repulsive as bestiality. There’s a HUGE difference between the two. In the case of homosexuality, the sex is consensual. It’s just two consenting adults gettin’ it on in the privacy of their home. But an animal can’t consent, and so it’s actually a form of rape.

Wait a second, did I just say that homosexuality involves consent? I slipped up there. There’s nothing consensual about two men sodomizing each other, because if there were, that would mean that there’s a choice involved. And as we all know, homosexuality is NOT a choice. If it were a choice, who would choose it? Nobody. So let’s just abandon the silly notion that we choose our sexual practices and partners. I know that I sure don’t.

And while I acknowledge that animals don’t consent to sex with humans, it’s also true that they don’t consent to being killed and stuck on our dinner plates either.  They probably don’t consent to having sex with each other, considering the fact that most non-human forms of life don’t possess the faculties to make rational decisions. They act on instinct.

The truth is that we consistently treat animals as lower forms of life. Humans do what we please with them, even without their “consent”. That’s why we find it acceptable to kill animals for food or sport, to do grotesque experiments on them for the advancement of medical research, to skin them and use their hides to make wallets and belts, as well as to place wagers on them and watch them race around tracks. We employ them to serve as guides for the blind, and to entertain us at the circus and SeaWorld. We do all of these things to animals without their consent, and we don’t give a shit. Because they’re friggin’ animals, that’s why.  No one cares about the consent of animals.

Except we don’t usually have sex with them. Because that’s gross.

Even so, just being “gross” isn’t reason enough to ban a person’s behavior. Some people think that it’s gross when I open my asscheeks to other men. Some might say it’s gross when all of that ‘Santorum” comes dripping out after the fact. For those of you not “in the know”, Santorum is a mix of fecal matter, lube, and jizz that sometimes seeps from a person’s asshole after anal sex. Kind of a little bit gross, I suppose.

The dilemma I face here is that I have to think of a reason why bestiality is wrong on a rational basis. I can’t just say that it’s wrong because it’s disgusting, immoral, unnatural, or against some religious doctrine of mine. Because then I wouldn’t be able to dismiss those arguments against me as mere prejudice. I need to think of a reason why my objection to man/dog sex is based in reason, while the homophobes’ objection is simply overbearing religiosity. What we came up with is the old “animals can’t consent” canard, which really isn’t all that believable.

The more I think about it, the more I see that this prohibition against bestiality has got to go. With a few simple questions, I can determine whether or not bestiality enthusiasts “choose” their lifestyle or not. I’m leaning towards no.

First of all, if bestiality were a choice, who in their right mind would choose it, knowing that society would shun and hate them? Does someone reach a certain age and just decide ‘Hey, I want to be known as the neighborhood animal fucker?’ Who would choose it knowing that their old, religious, intolerant mother would cry herself to sleep every night knowing that her child is a perv? Who would choose to be at the bottom of the social stratum, denied equal protection under the law? Any takers? I thought not. So it can’t be a choice.

Second, if sexual attraction to another species is a choice, it naturally follows that sexual attraction to the same species is a choice. I ask myself, when did I choose to be attracted to homo sapiens? Hmmm? Well, I didn’t. It’s just part of my DNA code, the same way sodomy is part of the code. (I’ll find the gene later, m’kay?) So zoophilia (attraction to animals) is obviously not a choice, since androphilia (attraction to human beings) isn’t either. It’s science! There’s no way you can argue with that.

Third, I must say that I would fail Dan Savage’s “choicer” challenge. The pushy, annoying fag coined the term “choicer” in an obvious allusion to “birther” and “truther”. Because if you think that homosexuality is a choice, that means you’re as crazy as the people who think Obama was born in Kenya or that the Moussad pulled off 9/11.

You’re. that. fucking. crazy.

If you think I "choose" to open my asscheeks to other men, you're as crazy as this guy. For reals. There is no choice involved in my consensual behavior.

Dan Savage was a little perturbed when Canadian MP John Cummins mentioned on the radio that homosexuality is a “choice”. Enraged as always, Dan devised the ultimate test that would determine whether or not guzzling cum is a choice.  He threw the gauntlet down at Cummins’ feet.

But what if the choicers are right? What if being gay is something people consciously choose? Gee, if only there were a way for choicers to prove that they’re right and everyone else is wrong… actually, there is a way for choicers to prove that they’re right! I hereby publicly invite—I publicly challenge—John Cummins to prove that being gay is a choice by choosing it himself.

Suck my dick, John.

I’m completely serious about this, John. You’re not my type—you’re about as far from my type as a human being without a vagina gets—but I have just as much interest as you do in seeing this gay-is-a-choice argument resolved once and for all. You name the time and the place, John, and I’ll show up with my dick and a camera crew. Then you can show the world how it’s done. You can demonstrate how this “conscious choice” is made. You can flip the switch, John, make the choice, then sink to your bony old knees and suck my dick. And after you’ve swallowed my load, John, we’ll upload the video to the internet and you’ll be a hero to other choicers everywhere. It’s time to put your mouth where your mouth is, John. If being gay is a choice, choose it. Show us how it’s done. Suck my dick.

Ha! Ha! Savage sure showed him. Of course, the cowardly Cummins chose not to take him up on the offer, thus proving that sucking Dan’s dick never really was a choice. See how that works? If you choose not to engage in a behavior, you inadvertently prove that the behavior is not a choice.

Savage later offered the same choicer challenge to Herman Cain. Cain too declined to suck Savage’s cock, thus failing the choicer challenge. Bitch.

The legendary Dan Savage. He's a genius. I love his choicer challenge.

Now, let’s say a bestiality enthusiast devised a similar “choicer” challenge. You know, he could bring in his prized thoroughbred horse and part-time lover, then offer me the opportunity to get down on my knees and suck it. If I failed to go through with it, that would be proof enough that sucking horsecock isn’t really a choice at all. If it were, I could choose it.

I can say with 99% certainty that I would fail a bestiality “choicer” challenge. I say “99%” because there’s always that lingering doubt in the back of my head that I might be able to get hip to it. But I probably wouldn’t, because sex with animals is not really a choice at all.

The more I think about it, the more I see that zoophiles are kind of like gay people. And gay people are, as we’ve already proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, kind of like black people, left-handed people, and redheads. Yeah. Makes sense to me!

So let’s not let the H8ers write the laws in this country. I’m glad Article 125 is being abolished, most of all because I am a sodomy enthusiast, but also because I can see that it unfairly targeted animal lovers. They have civil rights too, you know.

I’d bet that silly World Nut Daily reporter even harbors a secret love for the animal kingdom. He and all the other uptight anti-bestiality people are all a bunch of closet cases. The ones who scream the loudest always end up getting caught later on sneaking around with an Irish setter. Seriously, who spend their time worrying about this stuff other than a repressed animal lover?

She-male in a women’s jail is actually a prisoner in his/her own body.

A transwoman in Philadelphia was recently victimized by the city’s prison system by being transferred to a men’s prison after it was discovered that she is actually a he, biologically speaking. Four whiny female inmates are suing the prison for housing a female prisoner (who happens t have a cock and balls) in their same facility, thus exposing them to unwanted sexual advances.

It’s all very confusing, I know. Whenever you wade into the waters of transgenderism, things get murky pretty fast.

Transgender rights are human rights. Chicks with dicks are people too, m'kay?

The prisoner in question, Jovanie Saldana, is a transwoman. If you don’t know what that means, I’ll do my best to explain. A transwoman is a man. Well, no. A transwoman is a woman, who happens to be biologically male. A biologically male woman. Make sense?

No? Well, I think that’s because you’re a bigot. You see, biology has very little to do with what sex you are. A biologically male person can be a woman and a biologically female person can be a man, if that person believes that he/she really is. And because that person believes himself/herself to be something else, then the rest of society should be forced to play along with the silly charade.

It’s called celebrating diversity. Diversity of skin color, diversity of sexual behaviors, diversity of delusional identity issues. Don’t tell me that you don’t honor diversity? We might have to find out where you work and get you fired from your job.

Transgendered people should have the same rights as anyone else. And when I say the “same” rights, I mean the right to choose which prison they will be housed in. Doesn’t everyone have a choice? I know that if I were sent to prison, I would want to be in there with the boys. I hear they get all sweaty when they work out and there’s a great sex scene after lights out. But if a transwoman wants to be in with the chicks, that’s her decision.

Jovanie Saldana, who was born with a dick and still has a dick, is actually a woman because Jovanie Saldana says so. It’s her “gender identity” that matters.

Let’s examine her story. Saldana has been living and dressing as a woman since she was twelve years old. She is now twenty-three. In 2010, she was accused of pimping and armed robbery and was sent to Riverside Correctional Facility, Philadelphia’s only women’s prison because–duh!–she’s a woman. That’s how she identifies and therefore that’s what she is. I bet some of you narrow-minded people out there think that she’s a man who suffers from mental illness, but that’s because you’re full of H8 and probably a Christofascist loser. She doesn’t have a mental illness, you do! The prison failed to conduct the mandatory strip search and cavity check, which would have revealed her to have a big black cock. Not sure why they didn’t check, but they didn’t.

Jovanie Saldana, transwoman who was housed with women until she was so unjustly removed and sent to live with a bunch of dudes.

While at Riverside, Saldana was forced to perform oral sex on a guard.  The guard assumed, like everyone else, that Saldana is a woman. Which she is, I guess. A transwoman. Ha! So the guard had no idea that the person giving him a BJ was a man. Er, I mean, a woman who happens to be biologically male.

Saldana was later overheard discussing her gender identity with her mother on the telephone. Her mother encouraged her to come clean with the prison authorities and admit that she’s a man. Which is really weird, because she’s not a man. She’s a woman because she says so. Gender is so much more complicated than outward manifestations (such as having a penis) and her transphobic mother should understand that. Her mother believes that Saldana was transferred out of Riverside because of the complaint she lodged against the prison guard rapist, and not  because she’s actually a dude.

She’s not a dude, by the way.

Other prisoners suspected that Saldana might have a secret in her drawers. They claim that she hid herself while using the toilet and showered with underwear on. Apparently, no one saw the bulge in her underwear. They felt uncomfortable around her. Jabreena Barnett, cellmate at Riverside:

“There was definitely something off – she had big calves, broad shoulders, no butt – but she had a lot of feminine ways.”

Not that big calves and broad shoulders have anything to do with gender. Nor does genitalia. It’s all about what you believe in your mind.

According to the Philadelphia Inquirer,

“Barnett accused Saldana of grabbing her breasts to express admiration for them, a claim her attorney said demonstrates sexual harassment and unwanted touching.

Oh, quit yer bitchin’! It’s almost as if she’s suggesting that putting a man into a women’s prison exposed the female inmates to the risk of sexual assault. That’s just the transphobia talking. We shouldn’t care at all about the safety of the other women in prison with Saldana. They’re not important. What’s important is Saldana and her well-being. When I say I care about her well-being, I mean that it’s important that no one break it to her that people with penises are not women, they’re men. That type of emotional abuse would really crush her spirits, so let’s play along with her little game no matter how many female inmates are put in danger by her presence in a women’s facility.

And now she’s been transferred to a men’s prison, which is clearly a hazardous place to house a man who happens to believe that she’s a woman. Okay, so Saldana is being housed separately from the general prison in her new men’s prison. But that’s still not where she belongs. She belongs in Riverside, with the other chicks. Because that’s what she is–a chick, who happens to have a dick. She should be showering with the other chicks, sleeping with them, perhaps getting in prison brawls with them.

Did I mention that Jovanie Saldana got into some scuffles while at Riverside? Yeah. I heard she won all of them too. It’s amazing how easy it is for a man to kick a woman’s ass when the man has big calves and broad shoulders and a secret penis. Wait, did I say a man? She’s a woman, I keep forgetting. Saldana identifies as a woman.

During her time at Riverside, Saldana had four cellmates–Yazmin Gonzales, Katiria Chamorro, Maria Cachola, and Jabrina T. Barnett. Again, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer, all four cellmates reported that Saldana “touched or groped them, subjected them to daily sexual harassment, and leered at them as they bathed or used the toilet.” They are suing the prison for $150,000, citing loss of rights, mental anguish and serious risk to their mental and emotional well-being.

Get over it bitches! That’s just life in prison. I bet there’s a bull dyke in the same cell block who does all of those same things. Next thing you know they’re going to be telling prison lesbos that they can’t have their way with the women. This could be seriously detrimental to the prison sex scene. It’s almost as if the point of gender segregation is to prevent such things from occurring in the first place, but…no matter. If we were to start down the “men and women are different” slippery slope, there’s no telling where that might end.

Riverside Correctional Facility, Philly's own women's prison.

I’m a little confused, though. If Jovanie Saldana is actually biologically male, who has been transitioning since the age of twelve, why does she still like women? She obviously still has some sexual feeling for them. After all, her cellmates accuse her of grabbing their breasts and leering at them in various states of undress. So she’s biologically male, but she identifies as a woman. She’s a woman trapped in a man’s body, who happens to still have sexual attractions for members of the opposite sex. I mean, members of the same sex.

I got it! She’s a lesbian trapped in a man’s body. She’s a man who likes women who feels like a woman herself.

If you’re confused, don’t worry about it. I’m confused too. What’s important is that you always defer to the deranged mental patient and try to understand them on their own terms. If Jovanie says she’s a woman, that means she’s a woman. If Jovanie admires women’s breasts, that means she’s a woman who likes women. She’s a lesbian. Under no circumstances are we to force our archaic beliefs about the biological determination of gender onto Jovanie or any other member of the transgender community.

Some of you really backward Midwesterners out there might think that sex is biologically determined at birth, kind of like species and race. That’s hogwash. We can choose our gender. If our minds don’t match the bodies we have, that means that there’s something wrong with our bodies and we need to fix them by mutilating our genitals and stuffing our system full of hormones. Insurance companies should have to pay for it too. It’s so much better to do that than to just get some damned counseling.

That’s because it’s important to just be yourself. If there’s anything that I’ve learned from years in the gay rights movement, that’s it. Be yourself. For me, being myself means guzzling cum and hooking up with anonymous men in the bathroom stalls at the bus station. If anyone thinks that there’s something wrong with that, they obviously want me to live a lie. And I won’t live a lie.

For the transgendered community, being yourself means…being someone else? Well, yes. It means men being women and women being men. And everyone else should have to pretend right along with you, or they’re transphobic bigots.

Unfortunately, the mental health community has not yet progressed to the point of accepting transgendereds. They consider transgendered behavior to be abnormal. But we’ve learned two things from the gay rights movement–(1) thatbehavior is not really behavior it’s identity, and (2) that there’s no such thing as “normal” and therefore no such thing as “abnormal” either.

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) still contends that transgendered persons suffer from a mental illness called Gender Identity Disorder (GID). Normally, I like to refer to the APA because they’re the experts and they tell people that there’s nothing wrong with homosexuality. They used to tell people that men who sodomize other men are sick in the head, but then we crashed their conventions and threw temper tantrums until they changed their manual to protect our delicate feelings. We’ve basically completely co-opted the mental health community since then, and they say whatever we tell them to say.

Except when it comes to transgenderism. Their Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) still lists gender identity disorder (GID) as an illness. We’re going to have to fix that because it’s clearly stigmatizing. People have a right not to feel social stigma. Except for Christians, I mean. It does irreparable harm to abnormal people when you tell them that they’re abnormal. So let’s not tell them. Let’s just change the definition of abnormal so that chicks with dicks feel better about themselves.

Luckily, trannies have put the APA’s conventions under seige until they change it. I’ll even participate just to show my solidarity.They crashed the APA’s 2009 convention in San Fransicko just like we homos did back in the 1970’s. No shit!

http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/display/article/10168/1415037

So when you think about it, Jovanie Soldana is basically asking the City of Philadelphia to accommodate her mental illness. She thinks she’s a woman, and therefore the city should treat her as one. Makes sense to me. I want all of society to accommodate me in what was considered a mental illness up until the 1970’s. When you think about it, Soldana and I are both batshit crazy but it would harm us emotionally if anyone spoke those words out loud, so no one should be allowed to. Everyone should pretend that we’re just fine the way that we are.

In the meantime, let’s put the heat on the City of Philadelphia so that Jovanie Saldana can be returned to the women’s prison. That’s where she belongs. I’ve heard she really likes groping and ogling the other women and that she gets into fistfights with them. Clearly, Riverside if a home away from home for this transgendered lesbian with a penis that will soon be removed.

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.

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.

Gay military members to discuss deeply personal matter with entire world

As we approach the final demise of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy, there is much reason to celebrate. Personally, I wish the policy hadn’t existed when I was a young chap because I was truly compelled out of a strong sense of patriotism to enlist in the United States Navy. Also, I heard about the se(a)men they have and about the pants that zip in the back. But the mean military people wouldn’t let me.

With boys like this, who wouldn't want to join the military? Seriously, though...is it too late?

Well, that’s not exactly true. Actually, I could have joined the military if I had been prepared to simply keep my mouth shut about my sexual activity, but I wasn’t willing to do that. I really wanted to be an “out and proud” in-your-face activist working within the military to further my own personal agenda rather than the mission.  I liked to think of myself as a patriot, but the truth was I wasn’t patriotic enough to do my duty if it meant that I couldn’t also be a “change agent” at the same time. Turned out I was a lot more gay than I was patriotic. After I told my recruiter about my dilemma and complimented him a few times on how his ass looked in that uniform, he told me to get lost.

It was really a sad day for equal rights.

Fortunately, the policy has since been reversed. DADT will officially bite the dust this September 20th. From that day forward, homosexuals can be just as gay as they want to be and nobody better say a word about it or they will be disciplined.

It’s called mutual respect. You know–just the same way we show respect to people of faith when we harass, intimidate, and blacklist them, when we joke about their “magic underwear”, when we tell them that their God hates them and they’re going to hell for being bigots, when we misrepresent their beliefs, when we accuse them of all being a bunch of child molesters, KKK members, and Nazis. Now that’s respect.

I fully expect de facto and de jure special treatment to follow the repeal. It’s only fair–women and minorities get it, and so should pillow-biters. We’re oppressed, and now you owe us.

A new military-themed LGBTQXYZ magazine will appear on PX shelves starting on the very day of the repeal. It’s called “OutServe”. It’s been in existence for several months now, though the military has declined to sell it on base. I bought a copy of it because I want to keep abreast of the challenges that gay military personnel face on a daily basis. Just kidding! I was looking for thinly veiled male prostitute advertisements tucked away in the “personals” section. You know how I like my military boys. (Unfortunately, I didn’t find any.)

OutServe: the new magazine for the LGBTQXYZ military community to sound off about their sexuality as loudly as possible.

The first issue to hit the PX shelves will list the names of over a hundred LGBTQXYZ active duty military members. Rumor has it that ninety-nine of them are  Navy boys and one is a military intelligence analyst who is currently sitting in the brig for betraying his country to a creepy lo0king Australian after having a spat with his drag queen boyfriend.

I’m really glad that gays and lesbians can now be “out”. Because “outness” is what we really wanted. Now, don’t get me wrong–my sexuality is still a very private matter, and that’s what I tell anyone who disapproves of my sodomy.

Mind your own damned business, will you? What does it matter to you what I do in the privacy of my bedroom?

And when you think about it, it makes perfect sense that a personal, private matter like sexuality should be shared with the entire world on the glossy pages of a magazine. I do much the same thing with other private matters.

For example, I had some bad hemorrhoids a few weeks back. Kind of embarassing, certainly a private matter. And the first thing I did was send out a press release to my local newspaper. LOCAL GAY MAN SUFFERS FROM A REALLY BAD CASE OF ‘RHOIDS. Everyone knows that personal matters are always declared as loudly and boldly as possible, preferably in print. After that, I went out and marched in a hemorrhoid pride parade. Yep, they really exist. Even though my hemorrhoids were a private matter, I really felt like walking down Main Street and shouting to everyone I saw that I have hemorrhoids. Then I went out and slapped a bumper sticker on my car that said, ‘I have hemorrhoids and I VOTE’. I delved into the hemorrhoid positive side of the blogosphere.  I have since joined a professional organization for hemorrhoid sufferers. I’m a guidance counselor, so I joined the National Organization of Guidance Counselors Suffering from Hemorrhoids (NOGCSFH).

Okay, so I can’t tell a lie this big with a straight face. The truth is that we homosexuals have never wanted to be left alone, we have never wanted our private lives to remain private. If that’s all we had wanted, we would have been totally satisfied with the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. After all, we wouldn’t want anyone to ask us about such a personal matter, and we certainly wouldn’t want to tell anyone about such a personal matter either.

Prior to the 1993 policy change, the military did ask and service members were expected to tell. Right there on the enlistment forms, all recruits were asked if they were homosexuals. I know a guy who joined the Marines prior to DADT and he tells me that when he arrived at Parris Island the D.I.’s asked him over and over again the same question in a hundred different ways–“Are you a peter-puffer? Do you suck dick?”

Gunnery Sergeant Hartmann (R. Lee Ermy): "Are you a peter-puffer? Do you suck dick?" "Sir! No, sir!" "Bullshit! I bet you could suck a golf ball through a garden hose!"

But after 1993, they stopped asking. And we still weren’t satisfied because keeping our sexuality private was NEVER our goal. To the contrary! Being a loud and proud queer is exactly what we wanted, and we wanted to do it within the United States military. For more on loud and proud queers, just type Lieutenant (sic) Dan Choi  into any search engine.

DADT was simply a stepping stone toward our actual goal. You see, some gay genius came up with a spectacular slogan that has worked like gangbusters to change public opinion on the topic of butt-stabbing. You may have heard it. It goes: “What two consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom is no one else’s business.”

It appealed to the libertarian side of the American center. It happened to be bullshit, but it was highly affective bullshit, so we ran with it. The slogan had the affect of portraying our opponents as the aggressors. We just want to be left alone in the privacy our own bedrooms, but these people want to break down our doors to find out what we’re doing in here.

Despite the fact that we were making aggressive thrusts into their sphere, we made it look as if the opposite were true. And then we repeated this slogan over and over again, whenever gayness was at issue. We cited the old “privacy of their bedroom” argument when talking about gay marriage, as if people get married in their bedrooms. No, a marriage contract is a public recognition of a relationship. We want an official marriage certificate from the state precisely because we want to get the government involved in our amorous relationships. If we wanted them to stay out of it, we’d never want to get married! We’d just shack up and go about our lives.

These two women just want people to butt out what they do as two consenting adults in the privacy of their own bedroom. That's why they're making out in the middle of the street while representing the Navy on their t-shirts. Why people have to pry into their sex lives, I don't know.

And now here we are in 2011. The private bedroom behavior of consenting (military) adults is no longer private. It’s proclaimed boldly in the pages of OutServe. Now that’s what I call progress!

Hey, did you hear that Sergeant Jones takes it in the poopchute? Yeah, I read it in this magazine. Shhh! I don’t think he wants anyone to know. He’s a very private person and besides, it doesn’t even matter.

And thus, it begins. Give it time, and we’ll have gay pride marches and gay bars on military bases, special services for gay veterans, special recruiting materials just to get gays to enlist. We’ll force military personnel to march in gay parades just the same way we’ve already forced firemen in San Diego and Providence to do the same thing. We’ll have gay affirmative action programs like we have here in the Massachusetts state government. We’ll require all of the services to have at least one LGBTQXYZ three star general/admiral by a certain date just the same way we did with women. And then we’ll require chaplains to perform gay marriages against their will. We’ll discipline soldiers of faith for holding opinions we don’t like.

Gayness will be ubiquitous kind of like it is on college campuses. Because anything less than ubiquitous homosexuality constitutes an intrusion into the private bedroom behavior of consenting adults.

We’re here, we’re queer, get used to it!

Tag Cloud