Just another WordPress.com site

Posts tagged ‘homosexuality’

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.

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.

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.

Banning Christianity: The British Model

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gay marriage: Yes, it really is all about pissing you off.

Rosie O’Donnell is back in the news in recent weeks, this time explaining in an interview with USA Today that she married her girlfriend Kelli Carpenter just because she wanted to give the president the old “up yours!”

Rosie heard what Dubya said about that "traditional" marriage stuff...and she's PISSED!

Rosie explains:

“There’s something about marrying someone in a commitment with all your friends and family around you. … Kelli and I got married (in San Francisco in 2004) in some ways as an act of civil disobedience as much as anything. We didn’t have our family there, we didn’t have our children there. George Bush held a press conference in the middle of the war and says, ‘You know what the problem in this country is — those gay people in San Francisco.’ And I was so furious. I said, ‘Let’s go.'”

Yeah, there certainly is something about making a commitment to another person. Her commitment to her previous wife was so strong that it lasted three whole years!

But seriously, it wasn’t about the commitment. You can have that without the seal of approval from the state. Rosie and her new girlfriend can have whatever ceremony they want in any state, and they can commit themselves to each other until their hearts are content. That’s not what she wants. And neither do I. I want the power of the state to force other people to recognize my relationship as every bit as worthwhile as other relationships that don’t involve sodomy. And I want to force people to call Michael my “husband”. I want the heavy hand of the state to force people to do things against their will.

Getting married to piss of George W. Bush is really a pretty good reason to get married. I mean it. I’m just so surprised that a marriage based in spite toward another person didn’t last that long.

Rosie O'Donnell got hitched just to piss off this guy. And I think it really hurt his feelings. I'm sure it was part of his intelligence briefing the next day.

As it turns out, Rosie admitted more than a year ago that her marriage to Kelli was based more in hate than in love. Let’s listen to her words of wisdom:

What happened is, one state–California–Gavin Newsome, decided that it was unconstitutional to prevent gay people from getting married, and so, he started marrying people there in the state of California and the city of San Francisco. And that’s when Kelli mommy and I went and flew there and got married.

Okay, just to clear a few things up here. When Rosie says that “one state–California” decided that “it was was unconstitutional to prevent gay people from getting married”, she didn’t really mean California. California decided no such thing. She meant Gavin Newsome, who was, at the time, the mayor of San Francisco. And he decided, on his own whim, that it was unconstitutional and started issuing marriage licenses in defiance of state law. Which is really awesome. Now, if the mayor of one particular city in my state of Massachusetts decided that he was the arbiter of the state constitution, and that it was unconstitutional to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, then I would be all up in arms. And I certainly wouldn’t say that “one state–Massachusetts” decided that marriage equality was unconstitutional. I would say that one fascist, law-breaking, rogue mayor had decided as much, but who really cares what the hell he thinks because it’s not his job to determine the constitutionality of jack squat. But I digress.

Rosie continues:

George Bush, in the middle of a war, had an all-station news conference to announce how horrible it was for the safety of America that gay people were getting married in San Francisco, which pissed me off enough to get on a plane and go get married.

Yeah, and he did this IN THE MIDDLE OF A WAR! During wartime, we aren’t allowed to talk about anything else except the war. Well, I tell that to people who oppose marriage equality, not those who support it. So basically, during wartime, those evil conservatives have to punt all the other issues to us. They must concentrate only on the war, which we on the other side are actively trying to lose.

Come to think of it, I kind of like this war thing. The one in Afghanistan has been going on for more than a decade, and no one knows how long it will take. Let’s stretch it out for a while. So long as there is a war going on, everybody has to shut up about the social issues. Everybody except the people on my side. And then, if we ever get out of this Afghanistan thing, I’ll say that conservatives have a lot of gall to oppose my agenda in the middle of this awful economy. The point is that I will always find a reason why we just shouldn’t talk about these things, and then I will apply those reasons only to people I don’t like.

I’m going to have to take it on faith that Dubya called an “all stations news conference” to talk about the grave security threat that marriage equality poses to the American way of life. That’s what Rosie said, and I believe her. I don’t remember that particular news conference but I’m sure it happened and he said exactly those things.

Tim Graham over at NewsBusters does not take Rosie at her word. The son-of-a-bitch fact checked her, which is really a mean trick. No fair going back and trying to find confirmation that Rosie’s version of events really happened. Her side of the story is an emotionally driven piece of propaganda, just like everything we fags say.  This is what Graham came up with:

“Okay, first of all, on February 24, 2004 , President Bush didn’t call ‘an all-station news conference.’ He made a rather routine statement (not a press conference) in the Roosevelt Room of the White House. And he didn’t say it was ‘horrible for the safety of America’ that gays would marry. He did say the people had voted to endorse the traditional definition of marriage, and some activist judges in Massachusetts and city officials in San Francisco were overturning the will of the people of California.”

You mean there wasn’t a single reference in the entire speech to the safety of America? Damn it, if this guy Graham keeps dragging in those things called “facts”, we might not be able to lie and rewrite history.

Graham actually provided a link to a news story about the speech. Bush went as far as to say:

“We should also conduct this difficult debate in a matter worthy of our country, without bitterness or anger. In all that lies ahead, let us match strong convictions with kindness and good will and decency.”

That’s hate speech! Good will and decency? Well, fuck him. I don’t want a civilized debate on this issue. I want what I want, and I want it NOW! Not only do I reject the idea of civilized debate, I reject the idea of ANY debate. This is not a topic that we will discuss and work out our differences. My policy preference will become law and if you stand in my way, I will hunt you down and punish you. I do not want dialogue, and I do not want dissenting opinions. Those things are downright un-American.

And really, I don’t care if the people of California voted twice to define marriage as between a man and a woman. That’s why I run to a homosexual judge every time I lose in a fair election and ask him to impose our personal agenda and overturn the will of the majority. You’ve got millions of Californians on your side? Tough shit! I’ve got a cock-sucking judge and he wins every time. No bias there. Just because he’s a homosexual doesn’t mean that his rulings are a foregone conclusion.

Besides, the mayor of the fourth largest city in California decided that the people of the entire state were wrong. And then he unilaterally decided to usurp authority that was not his. But Newsome was the mayor of San Francisco, and it’s his job to determine the constitutionality of the state’s marriage laws. And if he finds that they’re not up to muster, he can just defy them.

Gavin Newsome, Lt. Governor of California and former mayor of San Francisco.

Gavin Newsome is a hero! He doesn’t believe in any of that “sanctity of marriage” crap! We know that because he got caught stepping out on his wife. Yeah, he’s an adulterer. I tend to get pissy whenever anyone who opposes marriage equality gets caught cheating, but that’s because they’re HYPOCRITES. Go ahead and be a two-timing dirtbag if you want to, just as long as you don’t talk about marriage being “sacred” or anything like that. Don’t pretend to have any morals and we won’t blame you at all for moral failures.

Back to Rosie. So she got herself all in a huff back in 2004 over some imaginary remarks made at an imaginary news conference and then she ran off to San Francisco and got one of those illegitimate marriage licenses that the rogue mayor was handing out. Funny thing is, the marriage didn’t last and now they’re splitsville. I was shocked. It’s amazing the brash things that people will do when they react to things that exist only in their fevered imaginations.

As I listen to Rosie, I’m reminded of Julie and Hillary Goodridge, the two lesbians who sued the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for marriage rights and won. (They were represented by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders–GLAD–an organization that was born in the man-boy love movement. For more on that, see previous post: https://twogaybullies.wordpress.com/2011/08/05/kiddie-porn-ring-busted-glad-theyll-have-good-lawyers/ ) When arguing their case, the Goodridges pointed out that they had been together for more than twenty years, they had a child together, and they were in love!

Julie and Hillary Goodridge. They're IN LOVE! Well, they were until they achieved their goal of redefining marriage and then they fell out of love. Just like straight people do, m'kay?

And who are you to stop these two from loving each other? Okay, so no one was stopping anyone from loving anyone else. We just made that part up because of the emotional appeal that it has.

The Goodridges were married in 2004, seperated in 2006, and divorced in 2009. So their marriage lasted a little bit longer than Rosie’s. Now, don’t go getting all judgmental. Gay people will divorce just like straight people. Interestingly, we used the high rate of divorce among straight couples as an argument for why marriage isn’t really sacred and why we homos can do better. And now that I think of it, it does seem that they made such a big deal out of the fact that they had been together for twenty years and that they had a daughter together was because they wanted to demonstrate their stability, that they’re the model family. Huh. And then two years later they can’t stand each other and they want a divorce. Weird.

It’s almost as if playing house wasn’t fun any more, not after they’d succeeded in forcing their agenda on everyone else and pissing off the religious right. Ha! Ha! We won! And now, I don’t really want to be married to you until death do us part. I didn’t mean that shit. 

Gays get divorces just like straights, okay? But then again, straight people didn’t spend their whole lives crying about how they aren’t allowed to get married, how they’re just soooooooooo in love and they can’t live one second longer if the state doesn’t recognize that love, how they’re wonderful parents and they have such a stable and loving home. Nope, that was Hillary and Julie. As it turns out, twenty years together as cohabiting mommies was easy, but give them a marriage license and they’ll be divorced in less than the national average.

Marrying your partner just to piss off religious people is always a good way to make a good foundation for a family. I recommend it highly!

Tag Cloud