Just another WordPress.com site

Posts tagged ‘gay’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advertisements

Let’s get serious about anal health! (But not too serious)

So I was down at the LGBTQXYZ health clinic the other day, getting some of the special LGBTQXYZ medications I take for special LGBTQXYZ diseases that I’ve contracted from bathhouse sex over the years, when I stumbled upon a great article in Positively Aware Magazine.

For those of you who aren’t familiar with the publication, Positively Aware is a free ‘zine available at health clinics that focuses on AIDS awareness. Oddly enough, the magazine has an unmistakeably gay bent, which is really inappropriate and downright ignorant. If I’ve learned anything from AIDS educators it’s that AIDS is definitely NOT a gay disease. It has nothing to do with homosexuality, it has to do with lack of federal funding for research. Butt sex isn’t the cause of AIDS, Ronald Ray-gun is. Thankfully, the magazine skips over references to butt pirates by referring to them as MSM–men who have sex with men. That’s a totally different category from cock smugglers.

PA Magazine, November/December 2011

While I was waiting patiently for the doctor to fill my ‘scrip for antibiotics (I have the clap, y’know) I found a wonderful article by Dr. Gary Bucher, MD, an  anal dysplasia and anal cancer prevention specialist from Chicago. It was called “Getting to the Bottom of It: Be Proactive About Anal Health”. What an eye opener!

http://positivelyaware.com/2011/11_07/analHealth.shtml

The title of the article was, in itself, enough to tickle my funny bone. Get to the bottom of “it”? Get to the bottom of what, exactly? And then I saw the picture and it all became crystal clear to me. He’s talking about my asshole! Silly goose.  Why didn’t he just say so?

The cup in the picture above is a symbolic stand-in for arseholes. I suppose the publisher thought that a picture of a dixie cup with a spoon in it was enough to get the point across without actually printing a picture of someone’s sphincter. But the message came through loud and clear for me. That’s about how wide my asshole is, and yes, sometimes I shove a spoon up there just cause it feels good. I’m kind of loosey-goosey in my anal region, due to years of using my asshole as the vagina I never had. Sometimes when I walk, it kind of wiggles and jiggles like one of those old Jell-O commercials with Bill Cosby. You get the picture, right?

Dr. Bucher explains that there are pro-active steps that a person can take to catch anal health problems before they get out of hand. Prevention is the key.

I also ask the patient if they have performed an anal self-exam by using their finger to feel around for any lumps or bumps inside their anus.

Well no, that’s not something I usually do. But if the doctor wants to do it for me, that would be great.

The good doctor also recommends yearly anal pap smears for “high risk groups”. I think I might be one of the high risk groups considering the fact that my sexual proclivities tend to make me high risk for just about everything. But how can I be sure?

Individuals at increased risk for developing anal cancer include HIV-positive men and women; HIV-negative men who have sex with men (MSM); women with a history of cervical, vaginal, or vulvar cancer or cervical dysplasia; chronically immunosuppressed organ transplant patients; men and women with a history of anal warts; and people who smoke tobacco.

Oh! Well, I don’t have AIDS. At least I don’t think I do. Maybe I should wait for the test results. But I’ve had anal warts before. I think there was a mean case of that stuff circulating in the West Village when I was there in the late 80s. I am also an “MSM”. So that means that I fall into two high risk groups.

I don’t smoke however; at least not tobacco. I prefer pole. Because tobacco is just gross. Smokers should be shunned and forced to pay eight dollars a pack just in taxes on their fifty cent box of coffin nails. Smoking is so unhealthy, and as we have seen, it obviously leads to cancer in all parts of the body, including the asshole. People shouldn’t smoke because it’s unhealthy.

Sodomy, on the other hand, is completely safe. And if any doctor ever told me that it wasn’t, I would storm off in a snit and contact the state to see if I couldn’t get his license pulled.

Okay, so I have a story to share about medical malpractice. It happened to me in the bad old days, about 1982, when fear and ignorance were the normative climate that surrounded all things HIV. I went to the doctor to get tested because half of my ex-boyfriends were coming down with it. He gave me a full exam and then sat me down for a little doctor/patient chat. He informed me that I had the gay “triple crown”–gonorrhea, anal warts, and protozoal infections– but thankfully not HIV. Back in those days, they referred the bundled package of STD’s infecting the poop chute region as “gay bowel  syndrome”, which is such an obscene term. Thankfully, doctors don’t talk like that anymore because the term itself makes me want to kill myself. He told me that the best thing to do for my anal health was to quit sticking things up my anus.

I broke down and cried right there in the office. He wasn’t even supportive. In fact, he told me to quit being a sniveling bitch. He didn’t understand that I really enjoy sticking things up my asshole–particularly other men’s penises. And I have no choice at all whether I will continue to do it. I couldn’t stop even if I wanted to because homosexuality is NOT A CHOICE.

Then I asked him if he thought, in his expert opinion, that the bruising and bleeding around my asshole was a result of my favorite pastime, sodomy. He told me that it was pretty obvious that blunt trauma was to blame and that if I ever wanted my pooper to recover, I should quit violently abusing it for pleasure.

That’s how bad it was in those days. Seriously. Doctors actually recommended that gay men stop doing the things that put them at elevated risk of contracting every disease known to man. It would almost be like telling a smoker that if he wants to avoid lung cancer he should quit smoking. Or telling a boozer that if he wants to avoid cirrhosis of the liver he should give up drinking.It’s just backwards, ignorant thinking.

Wait, it’s not like that at all. Because no one–NO ONE–has the right to make me feel bad about my sex life. I do what I want and everyone has to affirm me, even my doctor.

I sure am glad that Dr. Bucher isn’t such a neanderthal. Nowhere in the article does he recommend discontinuing sodomy as a means of preventing anal cancer. I think that’s because the good doctor is himself a homosexual. He takes it in the ass just like me. So his expert advice tends to be pretty straightforward.

Just keep engaging in high risk behavior and then get checked, m’kay?

Thank goodness he’s not so backwards as to assert that people shouldn’t use their assholes as a two way street if they don’t want to get icky diseases and stuff. He wants you to be serious about anal health, but NOT TOO SERIOUS!

“Take charge of your anal health. Ask for your DARE exam and your anal Pap smear!

Yup. And by all means, continue to take it up the ass, if that’s what floats your boat. Just make sure you make an appointment with Dr. Bucher once a year so he can stick his finger up there and probe around for pre-cancerous lesions.

Dr. Gary Bucher. He

Dr. Bucher’s website (http://www.analdysplasiaclinic.com/) breaks down the cold, hard facts on the subject. here they are:

135 out of every 100,000 HIV+ MSM will develop anal cancer

The risk in the general population is 0.9 per 100,000

Ah ha! So the risk of anal cancer among HIV+ MSM is one hundred and seventy-two times higher than the rate for the general population. And the general population includes other HIV+ MSM, other MSM, and women who also take it in the poopchute. It kind of makes me wonder what the risk is in comparison to people who don’t use their assholes for sexual pleasure. Probably pretty high.

But, please–by all means, keep on keeping on! Don’t let a little thing like anal health get in the way of your anal health. I mean, don’t let it get in the way of your pleasure.

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?

Fwank blazed trails for LGBTQXYZ members of Congress

Sad news swept the lavender side of the blogosphere this week after Bawney Fwank–America’s only left-handed, gay, Jewish congressman–announced that he will not seek reelection. After sixteen terms, the affable representative from Newton is calling it quits, citing drastic geographical changes to his district as the reason.

Bawney playing grab ass on the campaign trail. Hot!

Fwank was one of the nation’s first openly gay congressmen, and as such he spent most of his career under siege by the forces of intolerance.  I chronicled some of his “scandals” in a previous post, so I’ll just briefly summarize them here. Let’s just say that his boyfriends keep getting him in trouble.

https://twogaybullies.wordpress.com/2011/07/19/this-day-in-lgbtqxyz-history-july-20th/

1.  Rep. Fwank sought out male prostitute Steven Gobie in the pages of DC’s most famous gay newspaper, The Washington Blade. He paid the male prostitute eighty dollars for sex, then had Gobie move in with him because he felt a lot of sympathy for the troubled gigolo, and certainly not because he wanted a younger man with a “hot bottom” to service him after long days on Capitol Hill.  As it turns out, Gobie continued to run his prostitution ring out of Bawney’s apartment, completely unbeknownst to Mr. Fwank! He was blindsided when he learned that his apartment was being used as a homosexual brothel. The lying, ungrateful Steven Gobie insists that Bawney knew everything, which is just silly.

“He knew exactly what I was doing.  It was pretty obvious.  If he had to come home early [from work], he would call home to be sure the coast was clear . . . . He was living vicariously through me. He said it was kind of a thrill, and if he had been 20 years younger he might be doing the same thing.”

2. Congressman Fwank later wrote letters on Gobie’s behalf to the help him get out of a slew of parking tickets. He used his official letterhead to testify to Gobie’s good character. He also wrote to the Virginia probation authorities, asking them to take it easy on his boyfriend. Gobie had been found guilty of possession of cocaine, oral sodomy in public, and production of obscene material involving a minor. Big whoop. So he snorts coke, sucks cock in public places, and makes kiddie porn as a hobby. That describes half the gay men I know.

3. And besides all of that, Fwank oversaw the Fannie and Freddie crisis, which was all George Bush’s fault. And Tom DeLay’s. Besides the fact that he had appointed his boyfriend, Herb Moses, to oversee the corporation and then blocked any effort to investigate the clusterfuck of epic proportions, Fwank got to write the financial reform bill that fixed the situation. Everything’s fixed now, m’kay? You can thank him later.

By my count, there have been twelve openly gay members of Congress. Some of them only became open about it when they were caught piddling the pages or whatever, but hey I’m just glad that they’re out. I know what it’s like to live a lie. No one should have to do it. Let’s take a look at some prominent cock-smugglers on Capitol Hill.

Rep. Robert Bauman (R-Maryland)

Robert Bauman

Bob Bauman was a conservative Republican who was caught soliciting sex from a sixteen year old male prostitute in 1980. Shame on him! Not for soliciting sex from a sixteen year old male prostitute, of course. Who hasn’t done that? Shame on him for being a conservative Republican. He’s a HYPOCRITE and that’s the worst thing you can possibly be.  There is nothing wrong with soliciting sex from sixteen year old male prostitutes. There’s something wrong with speaking out against “immorality”.

He later copped to being an alcoholic and went to court-ordered treatment for his addiction. So apparently he  checked into rehab just to get out of trouble, which everybody seems to be doing these days. After he completed his course on alcoholism, he was let go without any punishment but unfortunately lost the 1980 election. Oddly enough, the homophobic voters of his district didn’t like a peter puffer representing them in congress, or at least not a peter puffer who paid children for sex.

Robert Bauman letter wrote a non-fiction book, “The Gentleman from Maryland: The Conscience of a Gay Conservative”.

Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho)

Larry Craig

Craig denies to this day that he’s a cum guzzler but no one in their right mind believes him. As you may remember, Craig was arrested in men’s bathroom at the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport by an undercover vice detective, Sgt. Dave Karsnia, who had no idea at the time that the guy who fell into his trap was a US Senator. The spot was well known for cruising–that is, homosexual men knew that this was the place to go for some anonymous sex in the stall. The detective had only been sitting in the stall for thirteen minutes when along came Craig who, according to Karsnia, started creeping around, attempting to gaze into the crack of the door. He then chose the stall to the detective’s left. The detective’s police report describes the incident:

“At 1216 hours, Craig tapped his right foot. I recognized this as a signal used by persons wishing to engage in lewd conduct. Craig tapped his toes several times and moves his foot closer to my foot. … The presence of others did not seem to deter Craig as he moved his right foot so that it touched the side of my left foot which was within my stall area. Craig then proceeded to swipe his left hand under the stall divider several times, with the palm of his hand facing upward.”

Ha! He knows all the signals. Sounds like he’s done this before. I know a few spots on the Cape where Mr. Craig would have a ball.

So then the cop flashed his badge under the stall. He ordered Craig out of the men’s room and had him arrested. Craig initially declined to cooperate, asking again to see the detective’s badge. After his arrest, Craig presented the detective with a business card identifying himself as a US Senator as some kind of get out of jail free card. Craig said that he was worried about missing his flight.

Of course, Senator Craig has vehemently denied that he’s gay or that he cruises for sexual trysts in the bathrooms of airports. He’s not into that, supposedly. Unfortunately for the senator, other men keep coming forward and confessing to sexual encounters with him. One man recalls giving Craig a hummer in a bathroom stall at Washington’s Union Station. Another man claims that Craig tried the old waving-the-hand-under-the-stall trick with him at the Denver airport.

Eight gay men later came forward and claimed to have had sex with Craig or been propositioned by Craig. One of them, Mike Jones, was a male prostitute–the same male prostitute who got Ted Haggard in so much trouble. Mr. Jones claims that Senator Craig paid him for his services. Another was a College Republican at a gathering of Republicans in Coeur D’Alene when he met Craig in 1981. He says that Craig propositioned him.

Oddly enough, Senator Craig was also a congressman when the Congressional page scandal broke in 1982. Although no one had accused Craig of any monkey business with the pages, his office issued a denial. Kind of like a guilty conscience.

It wasn’t me! I didn’t do it!

Rep. Mark Foley (R-Florida)

Mark Foley

We first learned of Foley’s sexual orientation after it was discovered that he was writing illicit emails and instant messages to congressional pages. Oddly enough, he resigned over the whole scandal, then came out of the closet.

I must say, I was perplexed about the whole thing for days. My own congressman, Rep. Gerry Studds was caught plying the male pages with booze and then buttfucking them and he didn’t step down. Hell no. He stuck it out for another six terms! The people of our district resoundingly voted for him time and time again. So why would a congressman resign over such a small peccadillo as dirty IM’s to sixteen year old boys?

And then it came to me–he’s a Republican! I was immediately up in arms over the whole thing. This Foley character is a sick-o! Now, granted Foley wasn’t the most conservative of all Republicans. He was pro-choice, he voted against an amendment that would have narrowly defined marriage as between one man and one woman, he voted for gay adoptions in Washington, DC, and he was endorsed by the Log Cabin Republicans. But he still had an “R” after his name.

In one message, Foley asked the page how long his penis was. When he said it was seven and a half inches, Foley responded:

“Get a ruler and measure it for me.”

After resigning, he returned to Florida, divorced his wife, and took a male lover. Again, I’m perplexed. This guy can’t really be gay because he’s a pedophile and pedophiles are definitely not gay. But then I realized that he only sent dirty IM’s to children while he was in the District of Columbia, and the age of consent in DC is sixteen, which makes the pages fair game for anal sex and propositions thereto. In Florida, he never touches the boys because the age of consent in Florida is eighteen, not sixteen. He never even feels attracted to sixteen year old boys when he’s in Florida, only when he’s in DC. So he’s a gay man there too. Heaven knows that gay men never sink their schlongs into anything under the legal age. If they did, they’re automatically kicked out of the gay club.

Rep. Jon Hinson (R-Mississippi)

Jon Hinson

Jon Hinson was first arrested before he was a congressman at Arlington National Cemetery for committing an obscene act. The whole thing was much ado about nothing. All he did was flash an undercover cop at the Iwo Jima Memorial.  He’s a dickwaiver, so what? Obviously, he was just being himself. I bet he was just born that way. After all, if being a dickwaver was a choice, who in their right mind would choose it? No one. Exactly. So it’s not a choice. When he pulled out his dick at a sacred memorial and waved it at an undercover police officer he was being true to himself. He later blamed it on alcoholism, which seems to be the catch-all excuse for all sorts of perversions. Good for him.

Hinson managed to keep his arrest a secret while running for office in Mississippi, which as we all know, is a very backwards state so steeped in Christian intolerance that it would never elect a sexual deviant to Congress.  Being a dickwaiver is perilous enough, but being a homosexual dickwaiver is even worse. It must be hard living in such a restrictive environment.

Congressman Hinson’s political career came crashing down in 1981 when he was caught in the men’s room with a male librarian from the Library of Congress. Yeah, he was gargling balls. Well, I can’t say for sure who was gargling whose balls, but it sounds like a lot of fun. Hook-ups in the men’s bathrooms are pretty common in the gay subculture. Just take a ride around Provincetown and drop by the public men’s washrooms. I guarantee you’ll find glory holes in half the stalls! I should know, I drilled a good number of them. Seriously though, visit any gay website and you’ll find message boards that post details of when and where to go if you’d like some anonymous bathroom stall blowjobs. Hinson just happened to very knowledgeable  about the bathroom stall scene on capitol hill.

Hinson later became a gay rights warrior, fighting for homos in the military. We know how much he respects and honors the military. That’s why he chose a veterans’ memorial to expose himself. I’m glad Hinson was on our side because he’s exactly the type of guy we need in the movement–a dick-waiving former congressman who resigned after hooking up with another dude in a Capitol Hill men’s room.

Oh yeah, and he died of AIDS. I wonder how he contracted that?

Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Arizona)

Jim Kolbe

Kolbe’s only crime is copious concern for the youngsters on the House floor. Yes, Congressman Kolby adores congressional pages, the male ones in particular. And for that, he was shamed into retirement.

The Arizona congressman is known to have taken a personal interest in the pages, mentoring them, and even throwing parties for them at his Washington home. Supervisors of the page program described Rep. Kolbe as a “problem member” because he spent an inordinate amount of time with pages, taking them to dinner and sporting events during their off time. Another “problem member” was Kolbe’s friend, Mark Foley. Kolbe also extended to some of the pages a standing invitation to stay overnight in his home if they were ever in the Washington area. He really cares about kids, okay?

A former page who spoke on condition of anonymity complained to the House ethics committee that he was “uncomfortable with a particular social encounter” that happened while they were alone and involved physical contact. Kolbe denied wrongdoing.

Kolbe may best be remembered for his camping trips he took with his staff and pages. On one such trip down the Grand Canyon in 1996, Kolbe appeared to be showering one seventeen year old former page with attention. One participant said he was “creeped out by it” [Foley’s attention to the former page]. He also said that there was  “fawning, petting and touching” on the teenager’s arms, shoulders and back by Kolbe.

But don’t worry! The lucky kid in question–the object of the congressman’s petting–said that he had “a blast” on the trip. I would have had a blast too! I can only imagine how exciting it must be for a young man to spend a whole week in the wilderness with an older gay man who keeps touching him. I bet Kolbe even visited the boy in his tent. Just innocent fun, of course. The page in question didn’t elaborate much on that.

“I don’t want to get into the details. I just don’t want to get into this… because I might possibly be considered for a job in the administration.”

I know Kolbe didn’t do anything inappropriate while he was on a camping trip because Kolbe is gay. But if this guy Kolbe was piddling a seventeen year old on a camping trip in Arizona, that would be child molesting because Arizonans are a bunch of prudes and they set their age of consent at eighteen. Considering the fact that Kolbe is gay, and certainly not a child molester, it would be a physical impossibility for him to get off on boning a seventeen year old. At least in Arizona.

Kolbe was later accused of knowing all about his good friend Mark Foley’s indecent instant messaging as far back as 2000. Kolbe claims that he reported the messages and then left it alone, satisfied that it had been resolved. And I believe him. Sadly, he resigned at the same time as Foley.

Rep. Gerry Studds (D-Massachusetts)

Gerry Studds

I am pleased to say that this gentleman was my congressman for many years. I voted for him every time I saw his name on the ballot and I displayed his campaign sign on my lawn proudly. I think I may have had a hook-up with him in the sand dunes down by the beach, although it may have been a guy who just happened to look a lot like Studds. I look back fondly on that memory, hoping against hope that it really was Studds.

Gerry Studds is best known for being a gay rights warrior. But besides that, he’s best known for bringing male congressional pages back to his home, getting them drunk on vodka and cranberry juice, and then buttfucking them until his heart’s content. But don’t worry–it was all totally consensual. You see, the age of consent in DC–as well as in Massachusetts–is sixteen. The pages he was bending over were all at least sixteen, so everything’s okay. The fact that he was an authority figure in their lives has no relevance, nor does the fact that he purposely clouded their judgement with alcohol. The boys all said they had a great time with Uncle Gerry and everything was consensual.

As I always say–what two consenting adults do in their bedroom is their business. Or, you know, a consenting adult and a minor who happens to be over sixteen and also happens to be drunk in the presence of an adult authority figure. It’s all cool.

Studds never faced any penalty for his activities with the pages, other than censure by the House of Representatives. At the time that his censure was being read aloud in the house chamber, Studds turned his back on the proceedings in a symbolic gesture. The message was clear–this whole thing is a kangaroo court.

And it was! All he did was have sex with some of the male pages. Big deal. And then these right-wing Christianofascist homophobes had to go make a federal case about it. Geez. Can the man have some privacy or what?

Studds ended up coming out of this whole thing smelling like a rose. Not only did he refuse to resign, he continued his career in politics. Studds was reelected six times after the revelation that he was a child predator! That’s right, we don’t care about stuff like that here in P-Town. Feel free to boff the pages if you want, just as long as you vote for marriage equality and gays in the military and stuff like that.

There is now a marine sanctuary named after Gerry Studds off the coast of Massachusetts. I sometimes look out at that stretch of water and think nostalgically about ol’ Gerry and his fondness for boys. I think about my missed opportunity to be a page on his staff. Oh what fun it would have been! We miss you, Gerry.

As you can see, Bawney Fwank really paved the way for homos in congress. And there’s so much to be proud of too-dick-waiving, sex acts in public restrooms, underage sex, gay prostitution. It’s all there! We owe you a debt of gratitude, Mr. Fwank.

Just to clear things up: Jerry Sandusky is NOT gay!!!

The world of college sports was rocked in recent weeks by the revelation that a former assistant coach for the Penn State Nittany Lions, Jerry Sandusky,  allegedly sexually abused at least ten boys. Sandusky has been arrested and a number of university officials have been fired as a result of the scandal, up to and including the legendary head coach Joe Paterno and the university president, Graham Spanier.

Jerry Sandusky getting cuffed and stuffed.

Much to everyone’s surprise, Sandusky consented to an interview with Bob Costas of NBC News. I must say, Costas’ questions were entirely inappropriate. One in particular really ticked me off.

“Are you sexually attracted to young boys, to underage boys?”

Excuse me?! Pedophiles are not “attracted” to their victims. Everyone knows this. Pedophiles are rapists, and like all rapists, they commit their acts of perversion because of the sense of power and domination it gives them, not because they are sexually attracted to their victims. Atrraction has nothing to do with it.

Because if we were forced to admit that guys like Sandusky like little boys, we would be tactily admitting that he has same-sex attractions. And people with same sex attractions are…gay? Well, yeah. And then we would have to admit that all the child molesting priests are also gay and all the scoutmasters who prey on the scouts are gay too.  That simply can’t happen.

And we know that Sandusky is not gay. He’s a married man with six children, for crying out loud! So he’s not gay. Of course, I’ve had flings with married men before. We like to laugh at those guys in the LGBTQXYZ community. Yes, there are “straight” men who stray from their marital vows and somehow end up in the dunes down at the beach, waiting for someone to come by and sodomize them in a most anonymous fashion. These “heteros” are basically in deep denial, sometimes even unwilling to admit to themselves that they love the cock. And so we laugh at them. “Straight” men who sleep with other men are obviously not straight, or not exclusively so. In gay parlance, they’re “on the down low”.

But straight men who sleep with underaged boys are straight. And not at at all gay. We know this because we know that pedophiles are not really attracted to their victims.

The reason why some “straight” men who are married with children sometimes end up in the bed with other men is because they are deeply embarrassed by their sexual attractions. So they pretend that they don’t have these attractions. But there’s nothing embarrassing about being attracted to little boys, so obviously there are no straight men out there who are hiding their attractions to little boys. They’re up front about it. Wait a second, what I mean to say is that no one is attracted to little boys. They rape little boys because of the sense of power it provides, not sexual attraction.

Which kind of raises another question–if men who have sex with young boys are not really gay, does that mean that men who have sex with young girls are not really straight? Let’s say for example that we set up one of those Dateline NBC traps with the underage girl at home alone, and the men come in through the garage with their clothes off and then they get busted by Chris Hansen and try to make a run for it before being tased by the cops and shoved into the back of a cop car.  Obviously, since these men are engaging in rape, and since rape has nothing to do with attraction, you’d think that such a trap would net at least a few gay men. Except that doesn’t happen. Surprisingly, gay men aren’t lured into the trap when the bait is female. Strange.

So men who have sex with little girls do it because they like little girls. But men who have sex with little boys do it because of power relationships. Heterosexual pedophiles do it because they’re heterosexual. Homosexual pedophiles do it because…wait, there’s no such thing as a homosexual pedophile. They simply don’t exist. Because the sex between men and boys–which might seem to be homosexual to anyone with two brain cells to rub together–isn’t really homosexuality, and therefore its practitioners aren’t really homosexual pedophiles. They’re just pedophiles with no discernible sexual orientation.

Don’t take my word for it. It’s just what the experts say, m’kay? The EXPERTS! And if you don’t believe me, you’re obviously a science hater and I’m getting so sick of you right-wing science haters.

Science hater on display somewhere in middle America. I bet she even believes that Jerry Sandusky is gay.

Of course, the evidence bears me out. When Costas asked Sandusky if he was attracted to boys, Sandusky said no. And I believe him. He wouldn’t lie about this.

“Sexually attracted? You know, I enjoy young people. I love to be around them. But no, I’m not sexually attracted to young boys.”

See? The truth is always a serious impediment to you silly homophobes out there. We know that Sandusky is not attracted to young boys because he said so. Boo-yah! Sure, he showered with the boys, snapped towels at their tight little buns, and he may have allowed his genitals to accidentally come in contact with them. Sure, he touched them on their beautiful, adolescent legs. But he’s not attracted to them. And sure, he’s alleged to have given and received oral sex with young boys. He’s even accused of buttfucking them in the showers. But he’s not attracted to them. We know that because he says so.

Unfortunately, the American Psychiatric Association DSM-IV hasn’t been updated yet. They’re still filling people with the misinformation that pedophiles pop a chubby at the idea of having sex with children. Nonsense.They define pedophilia as:

“Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges or behaviors involving sexual activity with a pre-pubescent child or children (generally age 13 or younger)”

Sexually arousing fantasies? Sexual urges? That’s nonsense. It’s all about power. There’s no sexual attraction there. We’re going to have to educate the experts. Maybe we’ll just crash their next convention and throw a hissy fit until they change their manual to something that doesn’t make us cry.

Because if Jerry Sandusky is attracted to young boys, that would mean that he has same sex attractions. That would make him a gay pedophile, which is a subsect of the gay population. And we don’t want him. We don’t even want the word “gay” to appear in close proximity to the word pedophile. It’s imperative that we pretend that this obviously repressed homosexual is actually straight as an arrow. He’s completely hetero, it’s just that he inexplicably seeks out boys so that he can slip them the cock in the shower after football practice. It’s one of the great mysteries of the universe.

Interestingly, there was a time when the gay rights movement was confused on this point as well. If you recall my previous entry about the Revere Sex Ring ( https://twogaybullies.wordpress.com/2011/08/05/kiddie-porn-ring-busted-glad-theyll-have-good-lawyers/ ), there was quite the moral panic sweeping Boston in the late 1970’s. The district attorney, alarmed by the sordid sex dungeon uncovered in Revere that involved adult men having sex with underaged boys, set up a hotline that people could call to report pedophiles. The LGBTQXYZ community went nuts. They took the DA to court and a judge ordered the hotline be nixed.

The local gay magazine, Fag Rag, spoke out against the hotline:

“And we wanted to work to guarantee that the legal rights of the accused were observed in the midst of this panic. … It has always been the Fag Rag position that an attack on any part of the gay community (particularly one of its ‘fringes’) is an attack on all gay people.

Uh…what? Wait a second. Child molesters are now “part of the gay community”? But they aren’t gay. Odd how a gay magazine would be so concerned about the plight of child molesters.

Fag Rag: Boston's best lavender newspaper. I have stacks of this in my attic. Anyway, they came out strongly for the child molesters of Revere. So odd when you consider that they aren't gay.

The Boston/Boise Committee was formed to fight this witchhunt. When I say ‘witchhunt”, I mean a hotline that people could call to alert the police to children being raped in their neighborhood. They came out with some great material.

http://www.lib.neu.edu/archives/voices/gl_sexual2.htm

Under the heading “The Gay Community Fights Back”:

“Gay people have not been silent… The Boston/Boise Committee was formed to coordinate the attack on the witchhunt…It stopped the viscious hotline by threatening court action…It established a study group on the reform of sex laws. It sponsors the involvement of the National Jury Project to poll public opinion and assist jury selection. It fosters the discussion of the moral and legal issues involved in sexuality among gay men and adolescent boys.

Wait just a darn minute here. Gay man don’t have sex with adolescent boys. Because gay men who have sex with adolescent boys aren’t really gay at all. They’re child rapists. And child rapists have no sexual orientation.

Confusion abounds on this point. I’ve even been to some gay bookstores that carry pedophilia literature. Obviously, the owner of the bookstore is confused. Pedophilia literature doesn’t belong in a gay bookstore because pedophiles are not gay. It’s as completely unrelated to gayness as a book about architecture or the Sanskrit. Kind of weird how a gay bookstore owner, presumably gay himself, would stock his shelves with pedophilia literature. It’s as if he doesn’t know.

It doesn’t help that child molesters keep telling people that they’re gay men. The North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), for example, really wants to march in our Pride parades. Thirty years ago, we used to allow them, but not any more. Churchy people used to point to the child molesting faction of our Pride parades and falsely accuse us of tolerating the perverts in our midst. They clung to the silly belief that men who have sex with boys and then march in gay pride parades are gay. It became an embarrassment and a political liabilty to keep hosting NAMBLA so we had to sever the relationship.

In fact, NAMBLA was the first American LGBTQXYZ organization to join the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA). Er, wait a second, they’re not LGBTQXYZ, they’re a bunch of child rapists. Slip of the tongue, sorry. NAMBLA was later expelled when right wing Senator Jesse Helms threatened to withhold UN dues unless ILGA expelled NAMBLA. Weird how the other clubs let them join, considering the fact that they’re not gay.

NAMBLA. Even though they say they're gay, don't believe them. Because love between a man and boy is not homosexual in nature.

NAMBLA keeps spreading the viscious lie that their fondness for butt sex with adolescent boys has something to do with homosexuality. After being scorned by the Human Rights Commission as being not genuinely gay, NAMBLA responded:

“man/boy lovers are part of the gay movement and central to gay history and culture…”

Which is basically true, although we don’t want to admit that.

This is how we rationalize it to ourselves. Men who have sex with other males who are over the age of eighteen (or sixteen, depending on your jurisdiction) are gay. But men who have sex with males under the age of eighteen (or sixteen, depending on your jurisdiction) are sick, perverted pedophiles. They are definitely not gay and we can categorically say that none of them are motivated by sexual attraction.

The act of buttfucking someone who is above the age of consent is not at all comparable to  the act of buttfucking someone below the age of consent. They are completely unrelated phenomena. It’s not apples and oranges, it’s more like apples and rocket ships. The former is kind of like having black skin. It’s comparable to things like race and eye color. You’re just born that way. It’s not related to other deviant sexual acts. But the latter is sick. It’s raping kids, and so it’s comparable to all sorts of other sick sexual acts.

It kind of makes me wonder. Let’s say I was hooking up with one of my students at the local high school. This is just a hypothetical, okay? It’s not like I’ve done it. At least not on more than half a dozen times. The age of consent here in Massachusetts is sixteen, so I can have my pick of the sophmores and above. Freshmen are off limits. So if I’m boinking one of them, I’m a gay man just like Gerry Studds and his sixteen year old boy toy. But if I take my young lover to one of my favorite gay retreats in Key West, I’m suddenly a child molester. Because the age of consent in Florida is eighteen. Obviously, if I were in Florida, I wouldn’t even be able to get it up. Because I’m a gay man and not a pedophile.

So obviously, Jerry Sandusky doesn’t feel any attraction toward his victims. He’s not gay, okay? He’s straight. One hundred percent straight, even when he’s giving a youngster a hummer in the shower. Because he doesn’t even get off on it when he does it. It’s all about power relationships. There’s nothing queer about him.

Brain damage makes you gay. Three cheers for brain damage.

If ever there was a story of something good coming out of something deeply tragic, this is it. Meet Chris Birch of Ystrad Mynach, South Wales. He’s gay. I mean, really, really gay. He’s a hairdresser for crying out loud. Chris lives with his nineteen year old boyfriend in an apartment above the salon. They have lots of gay sex. Did I mention that he’s gay?

But here’s the thing about Chris Birch. He’s only recently become gay. Not that long ago, he was definitely a hetero–he worked in a bank, played rugby, and drank beer with the boys. He was also engaged to marry his girlfriend.

Chris Birch. He's gone all the way gay. I mean, seriously. He's not holding anything back. I've seen straighter guys on the Tony Awards.

And then something amazing happened. While playing “footie” at the park, he decided that he could really impress his pals with a killer backflip. His attempt fell flat. He didn’t pull off the stunt but he did manage to break his neck and trigger a stroke. The amateur acrobat was racked with excruciating pain, blacked out, and was rushed to the hospital.

And then he woke up gay.

Sounds strange, I know. But there really was a whole new Chris.

“When I was finally let out of the hospital I moved back in with Mum and started physio. I had to learn to walk, eat, even speak again and all my family were supporting me, hoping they would see the old Chris come back ­soon enough. I had physio for five months and was ­really focused but every now and then I would notice my family shooting me a funny look or saying I was different.”

Yes. different. And what gay man hasn’t felt a little different? Not like the other boys. The old Chris Birch–the beer drinking rugby player who worked at the bank and dated women–was gone. Suddenly all that hetero masculine stuff just wasn’t interesting. He was a femme queer.

“My old friends would come round and visit me but the conversation would dry up straightaway. I wasn’t interested in the rugby scores, going down the pub to watch football or anything else I used ­to do.”

It didn’t take long before Chris realized that he didn’t care so much for the taco anymore. He was a fan of the sausage.

“I was watching TV one day when a really handsome guy came on. I felt my stomach flutter and the same feelings I used to have for pretty girls came across me. I had never felt like that about a man before but I knew immediately what the ­feeling was. I fancied him.”

His first crush on a boy. How cute.

Now, I have mixed feelings about this whole thing. On the one hand, I’m always glad to have one more person on our side. Making the whole world gay sounds just fine by me. Welcome to the club, Chris.

But on the other hand…this is very threatening to our theory that people are just “born that way”. Wait, did I say theory? It’s not a theory. It’s science. And if you don’t believe me, you must be a science hater. And you don’t want to be a science hater…do you?

Born this way. It's our motto, our creed, our rallying cry. I'm not even sure I believe it, but the entire basis of our political movement is that sexual activities are genetic and therefore comparable to sex, race, or ethnicity. We couldn't change even if we wanted to.

The entire foundation of our movement is that our sexual activities are preprogrammed at birth and therefore not really our fault. Without this concept, we’re just another group of people defined by our behaviors, just like cigarette smokers, vegetarians, swingers, bungee jumpers and pet owners. No one would think we’re being “discriminated against” if, for example, an apartment complex didn’t permit smokers.

So we had to come up with something else. And this is what we decided: Gay is the new black. It’s a rather far-fetched concept that was initially laughed at and mocked when the political gays rolled it out three decades ago.

Butt sex is kind of like having black skin? You’ve got to be shitting me.

The worst part is that the blacks themselves were the least likely to accept that my taking it in the poopchute was somehow equivalent to the color of their skin. They laughed at us, and from time to time, kicked our asses for making such a stupid and insulting comparison. Believe me, I once caught a serious beating.

So we had to start firing the blacks from their jobs for failing to see the comparison. Just ask Crystal Dixon. She was fired from her job at Toledo University because she wrote a letter to the editor expressing her belief that someone else’s sexuality was not the same as the color of her skin. Yeah, what the hell would she know about being black? We had the bitch fired. In the future, the blacks will be careful not to question the analogy.

We pressed on, repeating the lie so many times that it started to ring true. We got ourselves into the schools and we taught it to an entire generation of kids who, by the time they graduated, had heard it so many times that it didn’t seem the least bit ridiculous anymore. It was probably the most successful propaganda campaign in the history of the world.

We were doing so well and then along came Chris from Wales. A stroke changed him from hetero sports fan slob caveman into a queerboy. Now, I’ve heard of strokes having an effect on personality. I’ve heard of people waking up from strokes with odd foreign accents and with newly discovered artistic skills. But I’ve never heard of a stroke altering a person’s DNA. And since gayness is predetermined at birth by genetic code, this whole story just does not compute.

Gayness is a just a genetically determined trait like any other–say, having red hair and freckles, height, eye color, or skin color.  Unfortunately, there are no known instances of any of those genetically determined traits changing because of a stroke.

For example, my mother had a stroke a few years back, and she still woke up a Caucasian woman with blond hair and blue yes. The stroke happened right after I came out to her, if I remember correctly. She had an aneurism and collapsed right there in front of me. Nothing much changed after the stroke except that she now drools out of one side of her mouth and she spends most of her time crying because her son is a homo. Now, if she had woken up as a black person, as a man, or as a red head,  that would have been a really neat trick. If she had woken up as a Lakota Sioux chieftain that would have been pretty cool too. Or if she had woken up with a new eye color. Unfortunately, she can’t wake up as any of those things because her DNA won’t allow it.

But if a person can wake up gay, that must mean that DNA is not the culprit. No wonder we can’t find a gay gene despite the fact that we’ve been searching since before Chris Birch was born.  All we’ve done is asked the government for more grant money and assured the public that such a gene exists and we’re going to find it…someday. Until we find the evidence, just keep believing in the theory, m’kay?

That’s how science works, right guys? First I come up with a theory then I demand that you take it on faith while I find the evidence to support it, no matter how long it takes. I have this theory that there’s a magic space dragon who lives on the opposite side of the sun from the planet earth. We can never see him because–duh!–he’s hiding behind the burning ball of gas in the sky. But don’t worry, we’re looking for him. We’re sure he exists and we’ll just need a little more time and lot more money to find him. In the meantime, you’d better shut your mouth with all of that doubt. This is science and you don’t question science.

The Stroke Association of Great Britain was asked to weigh in on the astounding revelation that strokes can turn people queer. According to spokesman Joe Korner:

“In a stroke, blood supply to the brain is cut off and in the areas starved of oxygen, brain cells die and brain damage can occur. But the brain is amazingly adaptable and during recovery it can make new neural connections, finding different pathways to achieve the same thing. So it’s possible those new neural connections can trigger connections to things people weren’t aware of such as an accent, language, or different sexuality.”

Geez, that’s strange. Accents and languages are not genetic. But gayness is. I know that it is.

It’s almost as if he’s saying that homosexuality is the result of brain damage. If your brain is cut off from oxygen for a while, parts of it begin to die, and then you wake up with the insatiable urge to slurp cock. That goes a long way in explaining why so many of the men I’ve dated over the years have been batshit crazy. Sorry, Michael.

Even so, I don’t like this brain damage theory. If people thought that being gay was a mental disorder–as it was classified by the APA until 1973–they still wouldn’t understand us to be a persecuted minority. They’d say, ‘Hey they need some help, but they’re still crazy like schizos’. No one would change marriage laws to accommodate the mental patient community. So it has to be genetic. It just has to be.

Still, there appears to be something to the brain damage theory. Last year, a study was conducted in Sri Lanka concerning the effect of mercury on male ibises. Shockingly, the study determined that the birds were significantly more likely to engage in same-sex pairings after being fed mercury in their rations than ibises that had not been exposed to the heavy metal.

Boy ibises tend to like other boy ibises after suffering heavy metal poisoning. So don’t tell me it’s “unnatural”.

I was initially thrilled with this news because I love to read about homosexuality in the animal kingdom. Whenever anyone says that two guys sodomizing each other is not natural, I point out that animals do it. And heaven knows that humans should not hold themselves to any higher standard than animals. If it’s so unnatural, how come it occurs in nature?

But then someone pointed out to me that a human pollutant was added in this instance. The point of the study on ibises is that mercury poisoning makes you gay. So when I say that being gay is natural, I mean that you might begin to exhibit homosexual tendencies after sucking out the contents of one of those new curly-q lightbulbs. That kind of natural.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19784-mercury-poisoning-makes-male-birds-homosexual.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news

Even so, it’s kind of hard to attribute the homosexual behavior of the ibises to their genes when it appears that mercury poisoning is to blame. Mercury may have a lot of nasty effects, but it doesn’t alter your DNA. So I think we should just ignore this study because it doesn’t fit my preconceived notions.

Hmmm…I just had a thought. There was that time when I was a kid when I found a broken thermometer on the floor and started playing with that fun silvery metal that was seeping out of it. It was so much fun to watch it roll across my skin in beads. I put it in my hair, in my mouth, up my butt. Might that have something to do with why I like boys?

If it is, I’ll just say that it’s better this way. I sure am glad I poisoned my brain because now I have my husband and we’re happy and fulfilled. At least that’s what we try to convince ourselves.

Chris Birch is happy too. He likes the new Chris.

“I think I’m happier than ever, so I don’t regret the accident.”

Good for you Chris. Take it from me–brain damage can be a wonderful thing. It can lead to rich and deep relationships with other men and eternal happiness.

Thomas Sowell is one of those fascists who loves free speech

Sorry, I haven’t been updating lately. The Nor’Easter that hit Massachusetts knocked out my internet for a while. I blame global warming for the surprise October snowstorm. Unfortunately, I was completely cut off from my favorite gay porn sites. After a few days, I was in quite the foul mood, as you can imagine.

When I finally got back online, I was incensed to read Thomas Sowell’s latest column,” The Media and ‘Bullying'”.

http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2011/10/25/the_media_and_bullying

In short, he argues that homosexuals are “special” victims of bullying. When they are bullied, the media pay attention while ignoring other types of bullying. The result is to create a special kind of victim class.

Thomas Sowell, Stanford economist and known homophobe. Somebody ought to tell him that butt sex is kind of like black skin.

I don’t want any special victim status for gays. I just want the same equal treatment that blacks get. You know–separate gay proms just like blacks have separate black proms. Separate gay dorm floors just the same way blacks get separate black dorm floors.  I want to be treated with kiddy gloves, to be able to break the rules with impunity. I want standards to be lowered so that I can get my dream job without actually possessing the qualifications. I want my sexual escapades to be considered when applying for a job, just so long as they work in my favor. The same way we do for the blacks. Gay is the new black.

And I think we’re owed as much, Dr. Sowell. I’ve spent years toiling in the trenches, fighting for the civil rights of black people not to be held to the same standards as white people. I understand that as a conservative, you don’t want lowered standards for your particular group. But I have fought for those lowered standards nonetheless. The least you could do is return the favor.

Okay, Dr. Sowell, if you are reading this, let me spell it out for you. Two men sodomizing each other is the equivalent of having black skin. Behavior is the same as identity so long as you really, really want to engage in the behavior. Oddly enough though, I don’t usually engage in behavior that I don’t want to engage in. In any case, the desire to engage in behavior (sodomy, in this case) is genetically programmed and therefore comparable to skin color. It’s still my choice whether I will act on the impulse, but that’s not really relevant. When your dick tells you to do something, there’s just no sense in resisting.

Sowell’s column really starts to tick me off here:

The current media and political crusade against “bullying” in schools seems likewise to be based on what groups are in vogue at the moment. For years, there have been local newspaper stories about black kids in schools in New York and Philadelphia beating up Asian classmates, some beaten so badly as to require medical treatment. But the national media hear no evil, see no evil and speak no evil. Asian Americans are not in vogue today, just as blacks were not in vogue in the 1920s.

First off, he puts “bullying” into quote marks, just the same way that I put terms such as “Christian”, “family values” and “traditional marriage”. He’s mocking the term bullying. It’s almost as if he’s saying that “bullying” is a term so vague that it’s become almost meaningless, which it’s certainly not. The meaning of the term bullying is crystal clear. You are guilty of bullying if you hurt the delicate feelings of butt pirates like me.

But then he starts comparing gay kids to…Asians? That’s so ridiculous. A bunch of Asian kids got beat up. Uh, so? The guys who did it were punished, right? Of course they were. Just the same way that any student should be punished for beating up any other student–gay, straight, Asian, black, Latino, white, Christian, Jewish, handicapped, whatever. So beating people up is already against the rules. It kind of makes you wonder why the explosion of special bullying laws have become absolutely necessary in recent years if they only punish things that were already prohibited.

I think the point that he’s trying to make is that the media didn’t jump into action after the Asian kids got beat up. They didn’t work overtime to create a media-driven hysteria about anti-Asian bullying. Despite the fact that the Asians in question were hospitalized, reporters didn’t think that the story was newsworthy. Just another brainy Asian kid being beat up by blacks. Unless the Asian kid liked giving blowjobs on the side, I don’t see how this can be considered news. So let’s not talk about it.

Reporters don’t have time to waste on Asian kids in the hospital. Not when there’s real bullying going on!There’s a kid in Texas named Dakota Ary who said “I think being a homosexual is wrong.” Now that’s bullying!

Sowell’s main point seems to be that the relative importance of an incident of bullying depends more on the identity of the victim and possibly the aggressor, and less on the severity of the incident. Hence, words directed at sodomites are just as bad as barbaric acts of violence directed at Asian kids. Wait a second, did I say “just as bad”? No, it’s infinitely worse to disapprove of homosexuality than it is beat up Asian kids.

Sowell:

Most of the stories about the bullying of gays in schools are about words directed against them, not about their suffering the violence that has long been directed against Asian youngsters or about the failure of the authorities to do anything serious to stop black kids from beating up Asian kids.

Well, duh! That’s because we’re trying to criminalize dissent. Everyone already agrees that physical violence is terrible and shouldn’t be tolerated. In fact, there isn’t a single school in the whole country in which it’s permitted. Our obsession with bullying is really an obsession with gagging our opponents.

If you think it’s wrong for people to sleep with persons of the same sex, you are a monster. You are a bully. And we have a zero tolerance policy for bullying in our school. Ergo, you may not express your opinion in our school. What do you think this is–America?

Unfortunately, most Americans are raised with a healthy respect for freedom. They think that speech is a protected right. They think that people have a right to disagree with each other and with authorities, and to express that disagreement. We had to think of a new way to frame our censorious, thought-stopping, speech-gagging policy in such a way that people would be so filled with shame that they would never stoop to the old “freedom” arguments to oppose us.

And this is what we came up with. We exploit the deaths of gay children. Sometimes we even exploit the deaths of children who aren’t gay.

Sure, we will all still enjoy free speech in America. But you can’t say that! Our constitutional rights must be curtailed or some gay kid might kill himself! When gay people are exposed to shame, they tend to blow their brains out. Interestingly, shame is the primary weapon that we use against those Christofascists.

Sowell continues:

“But there is still a difference between words and deeds — and it is a difference we do not need to let ourselves be stampeded into ignoring. The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees freedom of speech — and, like any other freedom, it can be abused. If we are going to take away every Constitutional right that has been abused by somebody, we are going to end up with no Constitutional rights.”

Uh, excuse me? There’s a “difference” between words and deeds? No, there isn’t. Violence is the same as words. Because if you say the wrong words to me, I might commit violence against myself and it would be your fault, not mine. So now that we’ve established that words are equivalent to violence, we can now get to work gang-raping the free speech rights of people I don’t want to hear–Christofascists, for example. And that’s how we will circumvent your silly argument about the First Amendment “protecting” speech. We will just say that your speech is killing poor, abused gay teenagers.

This woman is a genius! See? When you say things I don't want to hear, it's the equivalent of murder. And murder is illegal, so why shouldn't speech be illegal too?

More idiocy from Sowell:

“Already, on too many college campuses, there are vaguely worded speech codes that can punish students for words that may hurt somebody’s feelings — but only the feelings of groups that are in vogue.”

So what? I’m on that list of “in vogue” groups and so the censorship codes are never exercised against me and always against my enemies. And Sowell thinks that makes me a “special class” of victims! Ha! Aren’t all groups of people entitled to live their lives without ever hearing an idea that hurts their feelings? I’m all for campus speech codes, so long as they continue to used as weapons against those I disagree with. Try again, Tom.

“Women can say anything they want to men, or blacks to whites, with impunity. But strong words in the other direction can bring down on students the wrath of the campus thought police — as well as punishments that can extend to suspension or expulsion. Is this what we want in our public schools?”

Yes! With one important addition–homosexuals can say whatever they want to Christofascist H8ers, but not the reverse. That’s a perfectly acceptable policy to me.

The tiresome Sowell blathers on:

Meanwhile, a law has been passed in California that mandates teaching about the achievements of gays in the public schools. Whether this will do anything to stop either verbal or physical abuse of gay kids is very doubtful. But it will advance the agenda of homosexual organizations and can turn homosexuality into yet another of the subjects on which words on only one side are permitted.

There he goes again with that “gay agenda”. When is he going to learn that our only “agenda” is equality? And when I say equality, I mean outlawing the religious beliefs of hateful religions.

But he’s right about one thing. Teaching about the achievements of homosexuals in schools probably won’t have the effect of reducing bullying. We wouldn’t want that because we need our martyrs. It’s about sending the message that homosexuality is good.

And yes, we do want words on only one side to be permitted. OUR SIDE. That’s the American way. If you disagree with me, that’s like saying that slavery should be permitted. Opposition to homosexuality is kind of like slavery. That’s the catch-all excuse I use, anyway. You can borrow that if you’d like. What I mean to say is that this issue is beyond discussion. Opposing viewpoints are not allowed. If you attempt to voice them, we will discipline you.

And to think that Sowell and his band of wailing hysterical conservatives think that we want CENSORSHIP! Isn’t that ridiculous? We don’t want censorship. We just want to make your beliefs unspeakable under penalty of law, that’s all.

Tag Cloud