Just another WordPress.com site

Posts tagged ‘Rick Santorum’

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.

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.

CNN’s new gay evangelist off to a great start. No pretense of objectivity with H8er Santorum

This time last month, I was on the edge of my seat watching CNN’s Don Lemon “coming out” before the whole world on the Joy Behar Show. I was moved to tears. Tears of joy, of course.

And then he had to go ruin it all by telling everyone that:

I don’t think just because I’m gay that it makes, it takes my brain away…or it makes me not be objective. I’ve been doing this job for a long time. And I’ve been objective and I think I’ve been fair.”
Uh…come again? Don intends to remain objective in his reporting? This, while gay kids are killing themselves? This is not time for neutrality. Here I was hoping that he would be CNN’s in-house crusader for the mainstreaming of homosexuality.
Don’t get me wrong. In most cases, I’m all for journalistic objectivity. For example, when the US military is engaged in a pitched battle with Islamic barbarians, I think it’s vital that the media not take sides. It’s not a reporter’s job to be a cheerleader for US military victories. In the war between Americans and eleventh century Islamic hordes, it’s best not to take sides. But when it comes to gays, journalists are OBLIGATED to take sides.
So, let’s recap. American soldiers engaged in a shooting war with the people who murdered 3,000 people on 9/11, journalists should not take sides. Gays are engaged in a culture war with homophobes, journalists should come out strongly for our side.  Got it?
How relieved I was to read in the (ultra-gay) Washington Blade that Don had changed his mind and decided to ditch that neutrality stuff.
“I work for a very credible and influential news organization. And there, frankly, aren’t many people like me ‘out’ in general, and when you break it down into subcategories like African American or whatever, then there really aren’t any people. So do I think I can change minds? Absolutely, and that’s why I’m doing it. I hope to change minds.
So brave of him!  I’m glad he spilled the beans about “changing minds” through a gay publication. First, he tells the whole world on Joy Behar’s show that he plans to be just as neutral as ever, but then he uses the Washington Blade to tell his LGBTQXYZ viewers something very different. Wink, wink. Nod, nod. It’s almost as  if he knows that his credible and influential news organization wouldn’t be so credible or influential if people caught on to the extent of its bias.

CNN's Don Lemon. I'm so glad he's gay because he's such a dashing gentleman. Is it true what they say about black guys and their...? Anyway, he had me worried back when he first came out of the closet, talking about all of this journalistic objectivity bullshit. Nice to know he's ditched that.

Before the Blade interview, I was concerned that he was going to be remiss in his gay duties. It’s the obligation of all homos to propagandize from whatever pulpit they have, gay reporters especially. There may still be a few people living in the far reaches of backwoods America who aren’t yet bombarded by homosexual propaganda. And it’s Don’s job to make sure that those old bigots get an attitude adjustment. It’s not a reporter’s job to deliver the who, what, when, where, and how. Not a GAY reporter’s job, anyway. It’s his job to be as in-your-face as possible, to slant the news in our favor, to make homosexuals look virtuous and kind, and to harass anyone who might have moral objections to homosexuality.
Luckily, Don got right to work after his coming out. In an interview with known homophobe Rick Santorum, Lemon pounced. Here’s some of that unbiased reporting:
“[S]ome people have been saying that [Santorum] is homophobic because he wants to change the Constitution in support of what he calls ‘traditional marriage.”
Boo-yah! Did you see how he hid his own personal opinions by attributing them to other people? “Some people” are saying that Santorum is a homophobe. Not Don Lemon, just “some people”. That was slick, Don. I like how you did that. He even used the intonation of his voice to mock and deride the term ‘traditional marriage’. Very snarky. And of course, Don Lemon portrays marriage between a man and woman not as traditional marriage per se, but simply Rick Santorum’s own conception of what marriage has traditionally been. And we all know how wacky Santorum is.

Rick Santorum, Pennsylvania's most high profile bigot. Nice shotgun in the picture, dickwad. Anyway, I really like what someone did to this billboard. Everyone knows that people who have moral objectives to homosexuality are all just repressed homosexuals themselves. Hundred percent of them. Well, if Rick really is a pickle smoocher (and I suspect he is), then I'd suggest that he do what a lot of homosexuals do and blow his damned brains out with that gun. Now there's one gay person I wouldn't mind seeing commit suicide. I would, however, suggest the vandal in question learn how to spell basic words like "needs". It's only five letters. But other than that, great job!

Don Lemon then asked if Rick Santorum has any gays friends. Because it’s mandatory that everyone have gay friends. Who DOESN’T pal around with sodomites? I mean, seriously…I would have to be a little suspicious of anyone who didn’t have a single homosexual within his close circle of compatriots. I know that when I look for friends, I seek out people men who guzzle cum and women who munch carpet. It’s a very important to me.

Don summarized Santorum’s statements as follows:
“And he went on to say, you know, at least he talks about it with his [gay] friends. They respect his opinion. But he doesn’t feel that they should have the same rights, he said. And he said he wants to preserve what he calls, he says, he said special rights for traditional marriage. Those were his words.”
Yep. Those were his words. Santorum said that. He said, “Gay people shouldn’t have the same rights,” and also “There should be special rights for traditional marriage”. Okay, so Rick Santorum didn’t say that. But I forgive Don Lemon for putting those words in his mouth. That’s what a gay reporter is supposed to do. What the hell would be the point of having a gay reporter on staff if he missed this golden opportunity to make Santorum look like an ass?
Anyway, welcome out, Don! I’m so glad you’ve decided to quit living a lie. Now that you’re out, you can be even more biased than you were back in the dark days of living in the closet. We need you now more than ever. Please continue to put advocacy of your own personal lifestyle above journalistic objectivity. It’s not your job to report the news, it’s your job to make people like us!

Tag Cloud