Just another WordPress.com site

Posts tagged ‘homophobes’

Banning Christianity: The British Model

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advertisements

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

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

The organization’s mission statement is as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This day in LGBTQXYZ History: October 7, 1998

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which we don’t!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Known H8 group rolls out H8-ful video aimed at the H8er community

As progressive as we Bay Staters are, some vestiges of the “pro-family” movement do exist here in Massachusetts. Exhibit “A” is the group MassResistance. They’re hateful because they keep following us around and showing people what we’re really up to. They should stop doing that.

The Southern Poverty Law Center lists MassResistance as a hate group. That means that they’re bad. The logic goes something like this–the SPLC has spent years battling the KKK and similar white supremacist groups. These days they’ve fixed their sites on MassResistance. That means that MassResistance is the equivalent of the KKK. See how that argumentation works?

I can’t believe that a known hate group like MassResistance is allowed to exist in my state. Once the SPLC declares it a hate group, we should be able to outlaw their existence. Right?

It just makes me so upset. Maybe if I threatened to kill myself, the government would take some action against them. I’ve noticed that every time gay people don’t get their way, they threaten to blow their brains out. It’s been shown to be highly effective.  Other people’s free speech rights are trumped by our emotional outbursts of self-loathing. I’m very delicate, and I might commit suicide at any moment. It’s easier to police the thoughts of everyone else than for me to just get some damned counseling. After all, if I got counseling, that might suggest that I’m batshit crazy, which I’m not. I’m just an emotional basketcase with same-sex attraction disorder. Many years ago, they used to call people like me “sick”–but those were the dark ages. Now we’re totally normal. The sick people are on the other side.

MassResistance has teamed up with another hate group, the Family Research Council, to make a short film on the “gay agenda”. Ha! Ha! As if we have some kind of agenda. Our only agenda is equality. And we have to brainwash your kids in order to do that.

I wouldn’t want to promote their film, but I’ll post here. I’d like to address some of the points that they make in the film.

The film features known hompophobe Brian Camenker, head of MassResistance. In case you were wondering, he’s one of those Jews we hate so much. Not that I have a problem with Jews, just as long as they don’t practice Judaism, which Camenker does. It’s okay to be Jewish, just so long as you submit a written proposal to me concerning your religious beliefs. I’ll decide what you may believe and what you may not. If I find your beliefs to be hateful, that means that I can hate your religion and it’s not really a form of bigotry.

Camenker starts in with the “Little Black Book” controversy, which is like, so old. In case you didn’t know, The Little Black Book was a homosexual safe sex publication paid for with taxpayer dollars. I keep a stack of them in my office at the high school here. Its full title is “Little Black Book V 2.0 Queer in the 21st Century”.

As you can see, it’s rather mild. It’s just telling gay teenagers to hang in there and not to hate themselves.

http://www.article8.org/docs/news_events/glsen_043005/black_book/black_book_inside.htm

Well, not really. It does offers advice on: “Fuckin'”, “Suckin'”, “Rimming? (Lickin’ Butt)”, “Water Sports (piss play)” as well as “Fisting”. I get upset whenever anyone suggests that gay men like to lick each others’ assholes. That’s so untrue. But just in case that’s your thing, here’s a little advice on how to do it, and how to do it safely. See? We’re not perverts, we just want to make sure no one gets hurt while eating another guy’s butthole. Any one who thinks that the best way to avoid the risks of butt-hole licking is to avoid the practice entirely is just out of touch and in denial about the realities of human sexuality.

I have to take issue with the section on fisting, however.

“What makes fisting risky when it comes to diseases is that the blood vessels in the rectum are close to the surface which means damage can occur easily and go unnoticed. Avoid too much alcohol or drugs when you fist or get fisted…Trauma can increase the risk of HIV when you get fucked, so you might want to do your fucking before fisting. Use lots of lubes, condoms, and latex gloves.”

The reason I object to it is because it points out that shoving objects up your ass tends to break blood vessels. It almost makes it sound as if sodomy is dangerous and unhealthy. I don’t want to hear stuff like that because I rather enjoy having objects shoved in my rectum. It’s not an essential body part needed for removing waste, it’s my personal play toy. I stick all sorts of things up there and I don’t want to hear about “trauma”.  Then again, that goes a long way in explaining why I have bruising and bleeding around my asshole.

I also object to another part of the pamphlet that says that it’s “a great time” to be gay.

Excuse me? Somebody better tell the writer of this pamphlet to get back on script. We’re enjoying “more visibility and acceptance”? I don’t think so. I mean, we’re actually overrepresented on TV and no one is allowed to say a disparaging word about us, but so what? We’re still an oppressed minority. It’s never “a great time to be gay” because society shuns us. We are hated for our love! There are still a few people left in society who don’t trip over themselves to tell us how great it is that we sleep with people of the same sex. And that means that millions of gay kids are at risk. Some of them might kill themselves. So STOP TELLING PEOPLE THAT IT’S A GREAT TIME TO BE GAY, otherwise people might stop feeling sorry for us. And then how would be get special treatment?

Okay, but other than those two minor peccadilloes, I think the pamphlet is great. And yes, we were handing it out to high school students. Heck, it was targeted to high school students. Why do you think we mentioned that Boston has “lots of services for queer youths”?

But here’s the thing…no one was supposed to find out that we were handing these out to their children! But MassResistance had to go poking its nose in our business. They found out we were bringing our homosexual promotional tour to Brookline High School and they crashed the event, undercover. They like to do that. They don’t reveal themselves as the homophobes that they are because then we might not reveal ourselves as the perverts that we are.

So we lied about it. In the video, Camenker explains GLSEN’s reaction to the Little Black Book.

“Immediately, they [GLSEN] put out a press release saying that we [MassResistance] had planted the book there. Then in about a day later, they said ‘No, we [MassResistance] didn’t really plant the book. It really was there, but there were only a few copies there.’ And then they finally admitted, ‘yeah there were a bunch of copies there’. But they were going to try to make sure that they were not there again. We’ve since seen this at other events.”

Ugh! Well, yeah…I mean, when we got caught, we tried to explain it away. Our final rationale was that the books were there by accident! That’s the memo that I got. Yes, those books were never intended for youths, despite the fact that it’s written right in it that Boston has great services for “queer youth”. When we said “queer youth”, we meant queer adults. And somehow these books, which were meant for adults, ended up in the hands of GLSEN, a youth-oriented homosexual organization. And then, if that were happenstance enough, the aforementioned organization accidentally distributed taxpayer funded, adult-themed materials at a youth event! It could have happened to anybody.

Brian Camenker, homophobe and head of MassResistance. His organization has a habit of following us around and exposing to the world the things that we do. And because we're embarassed by our activities, we don't want him to do that.

Camenker goes on to explain about his fight in the Massachusetts legislature concerning schools:

“And it’s always a battle. The homosexual activists do not want parents knowing what goes on. They do not want parents opting out their kids. They’ve testified on several occasions that parents being able to opt out their kids, they consider dangerous and intolerant.”   

And it is! Parents have no right to decide how their children are educated. They don’t even have a right to know what’s being taught, much less to object to the lessons and have their children removed. Because if they had that right, we might not be able to indoctrinate their children.

We will decide what everyone else’s children learn. And trust me, it won’t be reading, writing, history, civics, or science. Heaven knows that the public schools fail miserably to teach any of those subjects, as test results have confirmed. Nope, we’re in there to teach kids about “lickin’ butt” and where to find all the best gay bars in Beantown. For some reason, we do a great job of educating kids on that subject. Kids graduating from high school today may not be able to read their diplomas, but at least they know how to put on a condom!

Brian Camenker just doesn’t get it. I bet he’s secretly gay. Everyone knows that homophobes are themselves repressed homosexuals. Only a black-hearted, evil, hateful man could object to the materials we distribute. I mean seriously, what’s wrong with a little instruction on piss play? Why shouldn’t students be taught how to avoid “getting dookie on your noodle”? Is Brian Camenker pro-dookie on the noodle?

Anyway, I thought I’d share this dangerous H8 filled propaganda video with my audience. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to call the suicide hotline.

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

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

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

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

Adams viciously attacked the church-endorsement program, saying:

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

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

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

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

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

Isn’t that right, Queer Christian?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Professor Adams disagrees.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the majority opinion, Black wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Kiddie porn ring busted. GLAD they’ll have good lawyers.

Attorney General Eric Holder announced earlier this week the conclusion of Operation Delgado–the take-down of a  multinational, internet-based kiddie porn ring operating from servers in the US. The website, entitled “Dreamboard” was a virtual nightmare of abusive sexual exploitation. It had around six hundred members, all men, from various countries across the globe, including the US, Canada, Kenya, France, and Ecuador.

"We got 'em!" Holder fist-pumps the sting operation that brought down an international child pornography ring. Just kidding. This is a picture from his black power days. Well, that would imply that his black power days are located somewhere in the past, which clearly they aren't. He still hates whitey. Okay, so this is a picture from his ridiculous necklace days.

Kind of wish I’d known about Dreamboard before they took it down. Oops…did I say that out loud?

Attorney General Holder laid out of some of the more sordid details:

“In order to become part of the Dreamboard community, prospective members were required to upload pornography portraying children under 12 years of age or younger.”

“Under 12 years of age or younger”. Well said, Eric. I’m guessing you got into Columbia on the affirmative action program. Just a guess.

Apparently, there was some really sick shit on there.

“Some of the children featured in these images and videos were just infants and in many cases, the children being victimized were in obvious and also intentional pain, even in distress and crying, just as the rules for one area of the bulletin board mandated. They had to be in distress and crying.”

As I watched the story unfold on CNN, I found myself asking–is GLAD going to come to the men’s defense or what? Seriously, they’re going to need a good legal team with experience getting pedophiles off the hook.

When I speak of GLAD, I’m referring of course to Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, the Boston-based legal group that was formed for in 1978 for the specific purpose of defending adult men who had sex parties with teenage boys. (Not to be confused with GLAAD–Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation). The organization really should have called themselves PAD (Pedophile Advocates & Defenders), but that didn’t have quite the same ring to it. It was better for PR purposes to portray themselves as an organization dedicated to defending gay men. Which, I suppose they were. Gay men who organized drug-fueled sex parties with kids from the local junior high.

Equal Justice Under Law...except for victims of pedophiles.

It was the seventies…what can I say? Things were really taking off for the LGBTQXYZ community. It was nearly ten years after Stonewall and we were starting to see cracks in America’s anti-gay exterior. There were enclaves here and there–San Fransicko, Manhattan, Boston–where it was almost acceptable to be out and proud. Harvey Milk had just been elected America’s first openly gay politician and AIDS was yet to put a damper on our hyperactive sex lives.

Sexual emancipation was the buzz word of the day. Sure, pedophilia seemed like traversing some kind of boundary. But that’s what we were about! Traversing the sexual boundaries that had choked us for centuries. If there was anything we stood for, it was the destruction of sexual mores that mandated sex occur only between husband and wife, and then only in the missionary position, and only for the purposes of procreation. Adults having sex with children was a new frontier, but then again so was men having sex with men, and women having sex with women.  They called boy lovers “perverts”, but  they called us queerboys “perverts” too. Who were we to judge?

And then disaster struck. In June of 1977, police raided a home in Revere, Massachusetts, arresting its owner and eventually twenty-four other men. It appears that the house on Mountain Avenue was the hub of some kind of pornographic sex ring where adult men threw beer bashes for underage boys. The objective was, of course, to get the teenage boys drunk and high, then to sodomize them.

How come nobody told me about these parties? You guys are really letting me down.

The twenty-four men indicted were charged with raping boys ranging in age from eight to thirteen, which was such an exaggeration because it later turned out that they could only prove that the men were having sex with boy hustlers who were at least fifteen years old. Okay, and one of them was nine. And most of them liked it. So it’s all cool.

The men took a plea bargain deal and got off with fines and probation. Great work on the part of their lawyers.

Boston Magazine has a great story on the Revere sex ring, the Boston area pedophile/gay rights scene, and the two major organizations that arose from the flap–GLAD and the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). Read all about it:

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/articles/boy_crazy/

Enter the villain of this affair. No, not the ring of pervy sexual predetors with the sex dungeon in Revere. I’m talking about the District Attorney of Suffolk County, Garrett Byrne. DA Byrne surmised that there might be other such pedophilia houses in the county, which isn’t such a wild assumption considering the fact that the Boston public library and Revere Beach were pretty much the hottest spots for anonymous liaisons between men and sometimes boys.  Believe me, no one was checking ID’s. I certainly wasn’t, and I was there.

Mr. Byrne’s witchhunt began with a simple hotline. Anonymous tipsters could call in and report on anyone they thought was sexually abusing children. THE HORROR! Anonymous sex? Yes. Anonymous tip lines that notify law enforcement about possible sexual predators? That’s downright un-American!

I mean, someone could just dime out a person they didn’t like. Kind of the same way they could dime out a person they didn’t like for any crime just by calling the police station. People should not be able to report a crime because they might make a false report. So we musn’t allow reporting. Did you hear me? NO REPORTING!

Clearly, the hotline was unconstitutional. Because we didn’t like it. Anything we don’t like is unconstitutional.

The DA had declared war on Boston’s pedophile community and we homos would be his first casualties. I can’t understand why a gay man would be concerned about a pedophile hotline unless he was in fact a pedophile himself, but…we all know that “pedophile” is a code word. So law enforcement must never make any attempt to smoke the pervs out, because they’re really after adult men who have consensual sex with other adult men. As well as gay men who lure high school freshmen to their homes with pot and beer and then rape them up the ass.

Even though there’s no overlapping between the gay community and the pedophile community, we get a little nervous whenever anyone suggests that something should be done about child molesters. So, just to be safe, let’s not do anything about child molesters unless they happen to be Catholic priests.

The local gay community mounted an intense campaign to shut down the pedophile hotline, by judicial order if necessary. The courts always give us what we want and that’s why we love them. The effort was spearheaded by John Ward, Boston’s first openly gay male attorney and the founder of GLAD. He took the DA to court and the Byrne backed down, agreeing to “voluntarily” terminate the perv hotline.

Gay hero John Ward. He fought valiantly to shut down a hotline where people could tip off law enforcement to the existence of child rapists. Not that gay men do that sort of thing. Child rapists owe him a debt of gratitude. Though it's imposible to put a number on just how many child rapists were spared the shame of getting caught and going to jail, it's certainly a large number. Thanks, John.

That was 1978. Needless to say, most of Boston’s elected officials didn’t want to touch GLAD with a ten foot pole. Since then, the organization has gone completely mainstream. Every politician in the state kisses GLAD’s (diseased) asses. In 2003, they brought the case of two Northampton lesbians to the Massachusetts SJC. Maybe you’ve heard of it–it was called Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, and it brought marriage equality to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Yesterday’s pro-pedophile crusaders are today’s advocates for marriage equality! Who knows what lies ahead for GLAD? Heaven knows we’re never satisfied.

GLAD offers its annual “Spirit of Justice Award” to warriors who toil in the name of total equality for the LGBTQXYZ community. In 2008, that award was presented to…John Ward! It’s kind of cool that you get a lot of awards from an organization when you’re its founder. Anyway, the ceremony really brought a tear to my eye. Mr. Ward was given an introduction befitting his status as a civil rights hero:

The man giving John Ward’s introduction is GLAD legal director Gary Buseck. And as much as I respect Mr. Buseck, I have to correct a few mistakes he made in his introduction. All honest mistakes, I’m sure. Not some kind of attempt to justify a pedophilia ring involving gay men and underage boys.

“…and lo and behold in December of 1977, the DA broke the news of a ‘sex ring’ in nearby Revere, Massachusetts, indicting twenty-four people  on over a hundred felony counts involving older men allegedly having sex with younger men.” 

Well, no. They were accused of having sex with boys. Boys as young as eight. I guess if you consider an eight year old boy a “younger man”, then yes. That was the charge.

The DA called it ‘the tip of the iceberg’ and he set up a hotline asking the public for anonymous tips on homosexuals.

Okay, so that didn’t happen either. Garret Byrne set up a hotline asking for anonymous tips on pedophiles, not homosexuals. But I guess we all need our comforting fictions, our founding legends. So, even if the official GLAD version of what happened is bullshit, that’s fine by me. It’s just one of the many lies that we sodomites tell to advance our agenda. Kind of like Mathew Shepard, the gay gene, AIDS not “discriminating”, one in ten people being gay, and every thing else you hear coming out of our cocksucking mouths.

So let’s hope John Ward comes to the rescue for this generation’s Revere sex ring. The poor guys at Dreamboard need help and who better than GLAD to defend them?

I ♥ NY (The Jews? Not so much.)

As I’m sure you have all already heard, New York has become the sixth state in the union to pass marriage equality.  I was absolutely giddy to hear the news.  Finally, those guys from the Village People can start pairing off together!

Now that we have vanquished our bigoted foes, I think it’s about time we seek to personally destroy anyone who opposed us. Democracy works a lot better when we intimidate, blacklist, harass and persecute our opponents. Wait, did I say democracy? I usually don’t like democracy, not unless it yields the results I want, as it did last night in Albany. Minority rights must never be voted on, unless my side wins and then I get a tear in my eye and I celebrate with champagne. In the future, we must devise a form of democracy that ensures that my side wins every time.

I really like how the homosexuals of California handled their Prop H8 defeat. Blacklisting their (mostly Mormon and Catholic) opponents guarantees that anyone who disagrees with us will think twice in the future about voting, speaking, or donating money. Blacklisting used to be a bad thing, back when the Hollywood studios used it against the Stalinist Left for about fifteen minutes during the McCarthyite 1950’s. I know it was bad because I’ve seen about sixteen movies and four PBS documentaries about it. But those were just utopian visionaries who wanted to bring the oppressive Soviet system to America, so let’s not compare them to the moral monsters who object to redefining marriage.

That’s why I was thrilled to discover a website pop up after Prop H8 called stopthemormons.org. Click on the site on my blog roll. As the bloggers explain in their FAQ, “Stop the Mormons” is not a bigoted, anti-Mormon site because Mormons really do deserve all the hate they get. Personally, I’ve never met a Mormon, but I kind of agree. Hating people who deserve to be hated isn’t hate. Also, the bloggers filled their website with testimony from all sorts of token non-Mormon Mormons that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they don’t hate Mormons. They even have a picture of noted Mormon Harry Reid on their site. And everyone knows that Harry Reid is a super-devout Mormon. He just pretends that he isn’t in public.

Harry Reid, a devout Mormon. See? He's praying! Right there at the podium. Ha! Just kidding. Harry Reid doesn't believe any of that Mormon crap, and if he did we'd kneecap that motherfucker too. Still, it's nice to have guys like him around that provide us cover for our anti-Mormon hate.

As it turns out, there aren’t many Mormons in New York, so they weren’t as much of a force as they were in California.  I’m sure they were still hanging out in their caves in the desert, meddling in the affairs of New York from afar and marrying multiple underage brides.

But from what I saw, the main opponents of New York’s marriage equality bill were THE JEWS! So I immediately ran to my computer and tried to register the domain name “stopthejews.org”. But then I thought to myself, “Wait a second, Patrick. That sounds kind of anti-Semitic”.

But no, it isn’t true! I have lots of Jewish friends. None of them actually practice Judaism, but at least they’ve had their kosher franks circumcised. I know this because I’ve seen all of my friends’ dicks up close.  So I had a little debate with myself, right then and there. I asked myself, if someone had a website called “Stop the blacks” or “Stop the Mexicans”, would I consider that racist? Yes, I would.  If someone had a blog called “Stop the gays”, would I consider that homophobic? Yes, I certainly would. If someone had a blog called “Stop the Muslims”, would I consider that Islamophobic? Yes. And heaven knows that I’m deathly afraid of being called Islamaphobic.

But this is different! I would even go out of my way to find Jews who agree with me and lace the website with quotes from them, thus proving that a website about “stopping the Jews” is not really anti-Jewish. It’s kind of the same thing with the Mormons. I DO NOT hate Mormons. I just hate people who subscribe to the Mormon faith. If, for example, you are a Mormon who doesn’t actually believe any of that Mormon crap, then we’re cool. That way, you can provide cover for me against the charge that I am anti-Mormon. It’s the same with the Jews.

So let me clarify what I mean by “stop the Jews”. I am NOT against Jews. I love secular Hollywood Jews like Steven Spielberg. The well-known director and Eagle Scout even told the Boy Scouts of America to piss off over their no homosexual policy. Which is great, because I really think that the BSA should allow me to take little boys camping. It’s a travesty that they don’t. It’s good to know that when a wholesome youth organization dedicated to building character and helping little old ladies across the street is in a pitched battle with a group of foaming-at-the-mouth homosexuals, Steven Spielberg knows which side he’s on. I REALLY like the secular Hollywood Jews who happen to be gay–David Geffen and Joel Schumacher, for example. They make lots of great propaganda films.

And there are loads of good Jews in politics. Take, for example, Anthony’s Weiner, the recently deposed Congressman from New York. Now there was a nasty, arrogant, loud-mouth, in-your-face Jew that I could have really gotten along with. And since he’s never had the pretense of standing for “family values” (quote-unquote), then what he did was not hypocritical. And so it’s fine. There’s nothing wrong with being a dirtbag so long as you never pretended to have any moral standards in the first place. And really, you gotta like a Congressman who plays dress up in a bra and panties. My husband and I did that last weekend, so it’s kind of neat to know that a congressman does the same thing.

Anthony Weiner in his crazy college days. I thought he was just an arrogant prick. Who knew he had a softer side? He's a good Jew. We like this Jew.

No, the kind of Jews I hate are the ones with the hats and the beards and the lamb chops. Y’know–the churchy Jews. I guess you would call them synagogue-y Jews. Just last week, a group calling itself “Jews for Decency” descended upon the state house in Albany like locusts, doing their best to ambush senators and persuade them to vote “no” on marriage equality. Yeah right, more like “Jews for Fascism”. As I’ve found in the past, “decency” is basically a code word for fascism. Beware of anyone who uses it. Check out their website here:

http://www.jewsfordecency.org

Oh, the Jews and their “decency”. Don’t they know that religious organizations have no say whatsoever in governmental affairs? That’s what we patriotic Americans like to call the “seperation of church and state”. It’s been part of the American legal tradition ever since a KKK member named Justice Hugo Black inserted it into his majority opinion in order to deprive Catholics the use of public facilities. It’s not actually in the Constitution, but that’s good enough for me. Now, if some short, dumpy, bi-curious, genderqueer Methodist minister from some ultra-left wing church in a college town wants to come testify before the New York legislature, that’s okay. It’s okay because everyone knows (s)he doesn’t really believe in God, and thus the seperation of church and state no longer applies.

Rabbi Leiter of Jews for "Decency" walks and talks with Republican Senator James Alesi. Thankfully, Alesi told this Jew-boy to take a hike and voted YES on marriage equality. Good for him. And as for Rabbi Leiter--now I know why your people have been hated down through history. Don't you dare try to twist that as some kind of anti-Semitic remark.

I was thinking to myself that we should handle these Jews just the same way we handled the Mormons. For example, we should boycott Jewish-owned business, just like we boycotted Mormon-owned businesses. We should vandalize their houses of worship just the same way we did to Catholics and Mormons after Prop H8. But then a thought occurred to me–wait a second, if we treated Jews the same way we treated Mormons,  someone might draw a connection between our intimidation campaign and Kristallnacht. And then the Jews would be able to claim “victimhood”.

"Kauft nicht bei Juden!" (Don't buy from Jews!) I was thinking we could mount a campaign like this after last night's marriage equality vote. It seemed to work with the Mormons. But someone might see some historical parallels, so let's not do it. We're going to have to find another way to punish the Jews. I'm open to ideas, just leave a comment.

So let’s recap. I want to find a way to punish the Jews for participating in the democratic process on the other side of an issue about which I feel strongly. That does not mean that I am anti-Jewish, because I don’t hate all Jews. I only hate Jews who practice Judaism and believe that silly book they’ve been lugging around for like five thousand years. I’d like to treat them just like the we treated the Mormons after Proposition 8–unleash so much bile and discrimination against them that they’ll never even dream of opposing us in the future. Not that I’m anti-Mormon. Of course, if I treated the Jews the same way that I treated the Mormons, someone might see shades of Nazism in my actions. And I don’t want that.

Tag Cloud