Just another WordPress.com site

Posts tagged ‘John Cummins’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You’re. that. fucking. crazy.

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

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

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

Suck my dick, John.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who’s up for hate-fucking some Republicans?

The fallout continues over Marcus and Michele Bachmann’s wacky, zany, “pray away the gay” therapy clinic. I think you’ll all agree with me that the blowback has been delicious.

So I was watching Real Time with Bill Maher the other night just because I heard that one of his panelists was going to be Dan Savage, my favorite gay sex columnist and an all around sick puppy. Of course, Bill brought up the topic of the Bachmanns and their clinic. It didn’t take more than a few seconds before someone threw out the old “Marcus Bachmann is obviously a repressed homosexual” line, and the fun began. Let’s just say that the banter that followed was hilarious.

Surprisingly, it wasn’t Maher or Savage who really got it started. It was comedian Marc Maron.

“I don’t want to be crass, but I just hope that Marcus Bachmann takes all that, ya know, that rage that comes from repression and denial and brings it into the bedroom with [Michelle]. I hope he fucks her angrily, because that’s how I would. And I’ve thought about it.”

Is that funny or what? Certainly not “crass”. He’s daydreamed about giving it to Michele Bachmann…with malice! Ha Ha! The audience lapped it up, laughing and hooting. Everyone knows that Bill Maher has one of the hippest, savviest, coolest audiences in all of television. I know that I was laughing so hard I nearly spilled my Zima all over myself. I was just whooping and slapping my knees. Ha! Ha! Rape jokes are funny!

Bill Maher and Marc Maron chat about raping a congresswoman. HBO represents the best in television.

Now, I know that may sound like he was admitting to rape fantasies. I mean, it’s hard to imagine a woman consenting to being “fucked angrily”. Consensual hate-fucking seems like a contradiction in terms. Here you go bitch. I’m going to manhandle you. Lay still while pound you. Squeal for me bitch! Squeal for me! And for this guy to have fantasies about it, well…it sounds like he’s got some issues with misogyny that he needs to deal with.

Normally, I would be against that kind of thing. Rape, I mean. Or even just misogynistic fantasies. But this is Michele Bachmann we’re talking about. She’s a right-wing Christian and basically less than human. And so it’s really funny. That’s why the audience roared. No one was laughing harder than me. I’d fuck her angrily myself if it weren’t for the fact that I don’t like women.

It appears that Dan Savage detected the subtle misogyny in Marc Maron’s jokes, so he immediately leapt into action, providing cover for Marc’s comments.

“Just so you don’t get charges of sexism, because only Michele Bachmann was involved. I sometimes think about fucking the shit out of Rick Santorum. Just ’cause I think he needs it. It’s not just women we are talking about fucking. It’s like, ‘let’s bone that Santorum boy.’”
Nice save, Savage! See, so if you balance a disgusting, hateful, violent joke about raping a congresswoman, with another joke in which you joke about “boning that Santorum boy”, it makes everything okay. The “sexism” (or misogyny) of the first joke is negated by the sheer perversion of the second. The fact that they were made by two different people doesn’t matter. Savage’s fantasies of boning Santorum (with malice, I would presume) redeem Maron’s jokes about raping Michele Bachmann. See? No harm, no foul.

Heroic Dan Savage. He wants to sodomize a former US Senator who really "needs it". I love this guy. He says everything I've been thinking but have never had the words to express. Sodomy with Rick Santorum is something I've always dreamt of. Notice the shirt: "Google Santorum".

Dan continued in the same vein, adding, “I’d be up for whipping up some Santorum in Santorum.” The crowd went wild for that one too. For those of you who don’t keep abreast of LGBTQXYZ slang, urbandictionary.com defines “Santorum” as follows:
“The sometimes frothy, usually slimy amalgam of lubricant, stray fecal matter, and ejaculate that leaks out of the receiving partner’s anus after a session of anal intercourse. Named, by popular demand and usage, by legislator Rick Santorum because of his homophobic political statements.”
Apparently, the inventor of that handy phrase was none other than…Dan Savage! Yes, Dan Savage invented the term for the substance I always find in my underwear after my husband (or someone else) sodomizes me. And to think that some people think that butt sex is gross. What’s gross about spooge, fecal matter and KY-Jelly? Savage calls it Santorum, which is pretty funny because we know that the name would bother the actual guy named Santorum. And that’s what we like to.
Dan Savage is always prepared to offer his own brand of incisive social commentary. Some of you may remember his recent throwing of the gauntlet to John Cummins of the British Columbia Conservative Party. After Cummins said that homosexuality is a “conscious choice”–but before he was dragged off to one of those Stalinist “hate speech” show trials they’re so fond of in Canada–Dan Savage offered him what he called the “Choicer Challenge”.
“What if being gay is something people consciously choose? Gee, if only there were a way for choicers to prove that they’re right and everyone else is wrong… actually, there is way for choicers to prove that they’re right! I hereby publicly invite—I publicly challenge—John Cummins to prove that being gay is a choice by choosing it himself.  Suck my dick, John. I’m completely serious about this, John. You’re not my type—you’re about as far from my type as a human being without a vagina gets—but I have just as much interest as you do in seeing this gay-is-a-choice argument resolved once and for all. You name the time and the place, John, and I’ll show up with my dick and a camera crew. Then you can show the world how it’s done. You can demonstrate how this “conscious choice” is made. You can flip the switch, John, make the choice, then sink to your bony old knees and suck my dick. And after you’ve swallowed my load, John, we’ll upload the video to the internet and you’ll be a hero to other choicers everywhere.”

Boo-yah! Score one for Savage! He offered the bigoted Canadian MP the opportunity to suck his dick, and because Cummins chose not to, that means that there’s no “choice” involved. Other than the choice Cummins exercised not to smoke Dan Savage’s pole. But that only proves my point.

Personally, I think Dan Savage was just trying to get a free blowjob out of the deal. All you have to do is ask, Dan! Leave me a comment. No need to go propositioning bigoted politicians north of the border.

You may also remember Dan Savage as “the doorknob licker”. No, that’s not some kind of new-fangled homophobic slur. He actually licks doorknobs. And staplers, and telephones. He brags of it, in fact. In 2000, Dan Savage visited Gary Bauer’s Presidential HQ in Iowa, where he snuck into the office and started licking objects in an attempt to spread his flu virus to staffers, and hopefully, to the candidate himself. Bauer is an ultra-right wing evangelical Christofascist loser. Just keep that in mind as you read Savage’s account of his germ warfare campaign:

I go around the room licking doorknobs. They are filthy, no doubt, but there isn’t time to find a rag to spit on. If for some reason I don’t manage to get a pen from my mouth to Gary’s hands at the conference, I want to seed his office with germs, get as many of his people sick as I can, and hopefully one of them will infect the candidate. I lick office doorknobs, bathroom doorknobs. When that’s done, I start on the staplers, phones, and computer keyboards. Then I stand in the kitchen and lick the rims of all the clean coffee cups drying in the rack. I grab my coat and head out.

It must have taken real courage to lick all of those “filthy” things. Icky. Well, I personally have no qualms with filth or with licking filthy things. I’ve never met a gay man who did. I kind of thought that it was a prerequisite for being a gay man that you actually liked filth and licking stuff. Anyway, read the whole thing here:

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=3092

Well known Christofascist Gary Bauer. I hope he caught the flu from Dan Savage. Or any other communicable disease that Dan Savage has. Which is probably a pretty long list. I think right-wing bigots like Bauer deserve viruses.

When Dan acts this way, he’s just being true to himself. He was born this way. If you think he’s a real sick individual, maybe you’re just a prude. Keep up the good, work Dan! And Bill, and Marc. You’re doing great work. Remember, hate-fucking Republicans is funny.

Tag Cloud