Just another WordPress.com site

Posts tagged ‘sodomites’

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.

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

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

The organization’s mission statement is as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tag Cloud