Tag Archives: Homosexuality

Outbreak of Wikis is a Homo Plot


Posted by Omnipotent Poobah
Don't Steal the Pic-i-nic Baskets

RUN YOGI! RUN BOO BOO! - You guys seem a little light in the pic-i-nic baskets, so run. Bryan Fischer wants you for a rug in the He-Man Homo-Haters Clubhouse.

Everyone knows The Gays are the root of all evil because the Bible tells us so. God compels Westboro Baptist Church to picket funerals that have nothing to do with gayosity. In California, God commanded a DMV clerk to access private records to mail anti-gay literature to a transgendered citizen. And Bryan Fischer, the American Family Association’s head of issues analysis ties Bradley Manning – the soldier who may be responsible for the world’s largest leak of wikis – to smite-worthy gaydom.

Of course Fischer’s take is nothing unusual. In the past, he’s equated gay sex with domestic terrorism (apparently foreign terrorists are only heathen Muslims, but never gay ones), called for the euthanization of grizzly bears, and advocated criminalization of homo sex with mandatory reparative therapy and if that fails, execution.

Way to hate the sin, love the sinner there Bry.

It’s not that it’s scary this ass cake says such loathsome and offensive things, it’s that many people actually side with the nut. It’s not that conservative politicians sometimes support him, but that their Prop. 8 marriages of convenience tie them to the crackpot thereby forcing independents and more liberal Republicans to either desert the party or go along for the sake of the party and enable a swing farther toward the lunatic fringe and away from common sense conservative ideals.

It’s tempting to say Christians who think he’s a crapweasel denounce him, just as Christians think Muslims should denounce their crackpots too.  Just writing off the addle-brained ninny is tempting too. After all, he calls enough attention to his bigotry without any help, regularly reminding the rest of the public just what a  jughead he is. But, it is tempting to hunt the bastard and his ilk down and give them a taste of their own savage medicine.

However, the rest of us are sentient beings who’d never dream of doing unto others what Fischer does to them.

Related articles

Enhanced by Zemanta

Values Voters: Hating Sin, Loving Sinners Only Applies to Their Own Group


Posted by Omnipotent Poobah

When will politicians learn that running on personal values is a non-starter, particularly since most voters don’t care? But more importantly, how is it that the most sanctimonious pricks are usually the ones who turn up in compromising positions with those they hate on?

I don’t care what a person does behind doors. Really, I don’t. Plushies, fisting, or sex with park benches, it’s all good with me. By the same token, if you don’t like something, I’m OK with that too as long as you don’t try to force others to embrace your kookie, holier than the holiest of holies blather. But when a lout like Carl Palidino screams about the evils of the “homosexual life style” and is then caught emailing “awesome lesbian porn” (BTW Carl, lesbians are homosexuals) it’s rank, “large H” hypocrisy.

However, I expect a some “little H” hypocrisy, even though it too is wrong. There are a variety of reasons for candidates to change positions – from legitimate conversions of opinion to taking a slightly different spin on an issue to placate a particularly important constituency. But, there is something different about ignoring what you preach, particularly when you scream it at the top of your sinning-assed lungs.

And, here’s the difference.

When a candidate changes position on, for example, whether the Department of Education should be abolished, most voters – if they notice at all – forget about it within days. Most wouldn’t vote based on that single issue anyway.

But when a sanctimonious ass cake preaches the evils of homosexuality and is then found in bed with hookers or shipping porn spam around like a Nigerian Viagra dealer, values voters never seem angry about the breach of faith. In fact, they often scapegoat others, from the media to some innocent party, to protect the “sinner”. Values voters are much more likely to care less that a soldier who was never asked and never told was discharged than the sin of the anti-gay, red-handed jackwad pulling his pud over lesbian porn.

And values voters do often vote purely on values issues. They seem to have an attitude of hating the sin but loving the sinner only when the sinner is one of their own – even if the sinner has compounded their original sin with the sin of lying about it – repeatedly.

It’s also different in another important way.

If someone is elected and succeeds in abolishing, say, the Department of Education, the Republic may suffer from a stupid decision, but it’s unlikely to perish. However, if values voters continue to ignore and defend the transparent imbeciles like Palidino and nibble away at constitutional protections because someone is gay or Muslim or black or just different in some way, the Republic will perish.

If you think the worst thing that can happen is the repeal of DADT or gay marriage, you ain’t seen nothing like a country turned into group-belief theocracy.

Especially if you’re not a member of the theocratic elite.

Related articles

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Time for Asking is Past, the Time for Telling is Now


Posted by Omnipotent Poobah
Dead is Dead Regardless of Sexual Preference

THE TOMB OF THE UNKNOWN GAY - If a gay soldier is shot down in the forest and no one is around to ask if he's gay, does he die straight?

The Dems are scrambling this week to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) before the electorate shows them the door. It’s a sad commentary that they should even need to rush to afford citizens the rights to which they are clearly entitled under the Constitution. It’s sadder still that the most useless piece of legislative garbage to ever come out of Congress was enacted to begin with and that it’s repeal hangs by a thread now.

Over the years homosexuality has been blamed for all manner of things without a grain of truth rooted in reality. First, there was the “all homos are pedophiles” argument. Then, there was the, “they’ll reduce the military to a bunch of sniveling, whining, fear-crazed Jello molds who fear being ogled in the showers” argument. Over at the WestBigot Baptist Church – a place so loopy even Ann Coulter thinks they’re crazy – they don’t even bother with justifications, just “smite them because God tells me so” – but apparently not the same God the Constitution alludes to:

Rights Are Endowed by Your Creator Dammit!
“We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness…”

Now comes the drivel from the Family Research Council (FRC), that allowing gays to serve in the military is going to cause a wave of rape to sweep through the ranks. Fine upstanding heterosexual men might be fellated while they sleep or have their backsides tenderly probed while standing in line at the mess hall.

Dear God! Can the End Times be far off?!

THE MEANING OF DADT - "Shut up and pretend to be straight for your country."

The FRC certainly seems to be right on top of this whole “gay thing”, probably because many of them are gay, afraid of becoming gay, in the process of being “cured” of being gay, or bi-confused about the whole thing. Just ask George “Rentboy” Rekers. As a group they appear to be as straight as a dog’s hind leg – and just as wet from pissing themselves.

Remove the Penises From Your Ears
So for those who still need to have the penises cleared from their ears, hear this:

  1. There is zero evidence that gays and the military are incompatible. Nearly every industrialized country on the planet has gays in the military and operate quite well, thankyewvurymuch.
  2. You are as free to hate gays as they are entitled to their Constitutionally-defined, God given right to serve in the military. Their doing so, in no way, interferes with your right to practice a religion or anything else for that matter.
  3. Despite Rick Santorum‘s protests to the contrary, being gay doesn’t infect you with an unquenchable desire to fellate puppies.
  4. The troops of the US military are brave professionals. To suggest they will somehow run away from homosexuals like little girls on a playground is not only ludicrous, but quite frankly insulting – you might even say unpatriotic. If the repeal of DADT causes the military to fall apart, we’ve been spending a lot of money on a military that is so ineffective as to be not much more than a gang of well-armed thugs – not unlike the Afghan military come to think of it.

But finally, there is this. Gays have been in the military since man first raised armies to kill each other. They are there today. So if you believe gays are such a clear and present danger, please answer this:

Is a soldier any less gay because you didn’t ask and he didn’t offer to tell you?

Related articles by Zemanta

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

The Place Where Your Rights End is Where My Rights Begin


Posted by Omnipotent Poobah

I’m an atheist, or as I like to think – a “friendly” atheist. I know about religion’s dark side. The many, many wars over whose holy is holier than thou’s. The hypocrisy rampantly on display on C-Span, in St. Peter’s Square, and before various ethics groups and committees. Religion used as a bludgeon to pummel other beliefs into – if not in compliance – vapor. Yet, I still see a place for religion in the public square.

Life is a dark ride. Anything that helps people get through the night is a good thing. Heck, sometimes I even envy believers’ ability to say a few words and be instantly comforted. But, that isn’t how I’m wired. I don’t believe in God so any strength I need to summon comes from within. I view it as a nearly pure form of self-reliance and responsibility. It’s a stance that’s worked well for me and I see no reason to change.

I believe that someone else’s rights end at the place where they impinge upon mine. If religious groups insist on placing “In God We Trust” on money, I’m cool. The money spends the same as it always has. I’m not being deprived of anything.

However, I understand the argument that every display of religion be removed from the public square so the country doesn’t slide down the slippery slope to theocracy. But in exchange for this live and let live pragmatism, I expect a little respect in turn.

For example, formalized prayer in school impinges on the freedom to NOT practice a religion. Some schools endorse it in such a way as to cause kids embarrassment, something that isn’t good for the kid, me, or society. I’ll trade the “In God We Trusts” for praying to oneself any time they want – even in the classroom – as long as you do it privately.

The same is true for Christians’ seemingly unquenchable desire to nail the Ten Commandments to every flat surface on Earth. Don’t get me wrong. I think the 10 Commandments are as good any ethical checklist you’re likely to find anywhere. But, I don’t think it’s necessary to post it in so many places that you can’t swing a bottle of holy water without hitting one. If you must be reminded to be good every 10 minutes you aren’t paying enough attention to your religion anyway. And if you must be reminded, keep a copy in your wallet and pull it out each time you’re feeling compelled to worship no God before Him.

I’m always dismayed that we spend so much time on these relatively minor points. Simply-speaking, none of these things mean a hill of communion wafers in the end.

But there are important issues. For example, same-sex marriage or gays in the military. Treating homosexuals different from the majority-religion is wrong, constitutionally and morally. In my mind, that’s where a religion’s insistence on forcing gay people to be someone they aren’t is where religion’s rights should end.

I’ve yet to see an example of homosexuals having their rights denied based on any substantial evidence. Gay sex doesn’t affect a religion’s rights to practice what they preach. Same-sex marriage doesn’t devalue the sanctity of marriage any more than divorce does. It doesn’t cause anyone to turn gay. It doesn’t even force you to accept it. You can continue to hate gay people. It’s your right to associate or love anyone you wish, just as it is a gay person’s.

When I ask these questions of anti-gay religious groups I’ve gotten only one of two answers. The sound of crickets chirping and “because the Bible tells me so”.

If one chooses to not believe the Bible, it holds no more water than Creationism or Intelligent Design.

Any democracy worth its salt understands and respects different beliefs. Just because Christianity is the predominate religion doesn’t mean that all other expressions of faith (or no faith) be verboten. It doesn’t mean that Christians shouldn’t have the right to practice their faith either. But to get along, we all have to understand the rights and responsibilities of who we are.

And that’s no different than any other part of the human existence.

Related articles

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Curse You Father for You Have Sinned


Posted by Omnipotent Poobah
It's All Your Fault

THE SEXY LITTLE SCAMP DID IT! - The Vatican and it's apologists are doing everything possible to blame someone else for rampant sex abuse by priests. What's next, blame the victim?

Catholic League President and Vatican apologist, Bill Donohue, has stepped into the church’s molestation scandal to make things worse, as if they weren’t bad enough already. With the Pope’s mitre caught in the wringer, Donohue took a page from the Karl Rove political playbook – blame everyone except yourself. Catholicism has officially become a “no fault” religion.

Donohue’s “logic” about responsibility for the crisis is tortured at best. He starts the finger pointing with the New York Times (why is it always the media’s fault) for calling the mess a “pedophilia” crisis. His implied logic is that most of the victims were post-pubescent. Does he believe it’s somehow less of a sin to molest someone who shaves regularly than to play grab ass with a kid who’s still in elementary school? I’m sure all those victims, including the post-pubescent kids and adults who were molested, will be greatly relieved to find out they weren’t “abused” after all.

“Oops, our bad Mr. Pope sir,” they’ll surely say. “Now that Mr. Donohue has explained it, I guess it wasn’t molestation at all. Father Damian just took off my clothes and read me Bible stories. The sodomy afterwards was just his way of saying AMEN.”

But the New York Times and post-pubescent kids aren’t the only bad guys. As with many things in society, the gays are also at fault. “While homosexuality does not cause predatory behavior, and most gay priests are not molesters, most of the molesters have been gay,” he said.

Huh?

So, if being gay isn’t a sign of predatory behavior, why is it important that most of the molesters – or predators as he calls them – have been gay? I’m not seeing the fine distinction between a run of the mill “molester” and a “molester” who “preys” upon victims.

Priests Gone Wild

The only thing missing are the Mardi Gras beads.

Furthermore, the Catholic Church considers homosexuality a sin. If priests – supposedly good role models for the people they minister – are committing sins, why would Ratzie continue to let them represent the church? If a priest denounced the Pope as an ugly, dangerous crapweasel with flamboyant fashion sense, I’m guessing there would be, pardon me, hell to pay…although, I would reward him for his honesty.

In fact, why is the Catholic Church investigating itself at all? Child molestation – or rape for the over-puberty set – is against the law. Why are the molesters being protected and aren’t those protectors guilty of conspiracy? If secular police aren’t going to enforce these crimes, are they going to ignore someone who kills a parishioner during morning mass?

Donohue’s explanations are about as logical as Creationism. If anyone is guilty of a sin, Donohue, the Pope, and his personal ring-kissers are right up there with the molesters. So riddle me this, if homosexuals aren’t predators, but can be molesters, couldn’t grown men dressed in white muumuus, dripping gaudy jewelry, and wearing funny red hats be called homosexuals – especially when they show all the self-loathing homophobia common in closeted homosexuals?

“Curse you Father for you have sinned.”

Related articles by Zemanta

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]