Category: gays

Not that this argument held any merit, for anyone, even for a few days

This is a hot one.

SB 1062 opponents are putting Arizona at risk
Advocates: Bill offers necessary protections, clarification
By Joseph La Rue and Kerri Kupec

Phoenix’s newspaper the Arizona Republic takes a novel editorial stance. In my life, at least, it’s brand new. It goes something like this: If you get angry at Arizona then you will damage it. Governor Brewer might propose a new motto for the capital building’s frieze: ‘The Glass Menagerie State.’

Opponents of the proposed amendment to Arizona’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act are putting the people of Arizona in a high-risk disaster zone when it comes to their First Amendment freedoms.

In America, we live by the basic principle that you don’t forfeit your religious freedom just because you step outside the four walls of your home.

Two paragraphs in and no mention of what SB 1062 says. Maybe we’re too precious as well? If La Rue and Kupec tell us what the bill does we might faint?

Congress passed the federal RFRA, the legislation after which the Arizona RFRA is modeled, for that very purpose.

But the federal RFRA only applies to the federal government, and thus, a number of states, including Arizona, enacted their own versions to ensure this religious protection for their citizens.

Paragraphs three and four there, and done. Arizona’s SB passed 1062 after the federal RFRA fell short of what the states’ claimed were its RRs. So you can’t really blame them, KWIM?

So, what happens in states that don’t have a clear RFRA? Elane Photography in New Mexico is a perfect illustration.

Elaine Huguenin, the Christian owner of Elane Photography, declined to photograph what two women called their “commitment ceremony”…but the couple sued Elaine’s business anyway, alleging that it had violated a law banning sexual-orientation discrimination.

No Arizonan should be forced to choose between making a living and living free. An amended bill that provides a safeguard from laws that violate our First Amendment freedoms — while still letting government enact laws necessary to the common good — is a sensible one.

No court in Arizona should be able to tell you that a violation of those freedoms is just the “price of citizenship.”

Right. Code words and acronyms and philostophy to beat the band, but there’s also something missing. The word ‘Gay.’ Also ‘Homosexual.’ There’s no mention of anybody being targeted. Nothing about how some people will become second class citizens after the bill passes. Gays. And homosexuals. If Arizona is so aggrieved by the marauding hippies they should just make their case. Like: We have every right to discriminate against our fags without comment from you.


The Hypocrisy of Chris Broussard

13-year NBA veteran Jason Collins came out of the closet yesterday. In an article for Sports Illustrated, he wrote “I’m a 34-year-old NBA center. I’m black. And I’m gay.” Jason is the first male athlete in the four major American sports leagues to admit to being homosexual while still playing professionally.

Good for him.

It remains to be seen how he’ll be received by his future teammates and by the league in general. His former team the Washington Wizards reacted positively:

“We are extremely proud of Jason and support his decision to live his life proudly and openly. He has been a leader on and off the court and an outstanding teammate throughout his NBA career. Those qualities will continue to serve him both as a player and as a positive role model for others of all sexual orientation.”

Laker superstar Kobe Bryant was supportive as well. He took to Twitter: “Proud of @jasoncollins34. Don’t suffocate who u r because of the ignorance of others”

Not everyone was so accepting. ESPN sportscaster and basketball pundit Chris Broussard, for example. He was asked about Collins’ homosexuality on the network’s Outside The Lines.

Personally, I don’t believe that you can live an openly homosexual lifestyle or an openly, like, premarital sex between heterosexuals. If you’re openly living that type of lifestyle, then the Bible says you know them by their fruits. It says that, you know, that’s a sin. If you’re openly living in unrepentant sin, whatever it may be, not just homosexuality, whatever it maybe, I believe that’s walking in open rebellion to God and to Jesus Christ. So I would not characterize that person as a Christian because I don’t think the bible would characterize them as a Christian.

Interesting. It would be one thing for Broussard to be homophobic, which he is. But it’s another for him to use the Bible to justify a personal attack. As if he just today found the text of the good book in the back of The Sporting News. That’s particularly cowardly. If we’re all going to use the media now to air our personal beliefs about sports figures, how about this one: Chris Broussard is a hypocrite.

He began a career covering basketball in his hometown of Cleveland, and he rode the success of LeBron James to get where he is. Chris has a well-earned reputation for being a James sycophant – someone who used his access to the superstar, and a habit of glorying the athlete, to court the spotlight. He is to this league’s greatest player what Ahmad Rashad was to Michael Jordan. And don’t you believe ESPN didn’t know it when they hired him. His frequent partner in debate, Skip Bayless, is well aware:

You sold your journalistic soul to get close to LeBron.

As are the NBA’s many fans.

. . my point being the Cleveland sports-guy used LeBron to garner fame and fortune. Now that we’re aware what a judgmental and righteous Christian Chris Broussard is, this brings up a question. Why hasn’t the great LeBron’s fornicating been a topic of conversation by now?

He had his first child out of wedlock when he was nineteen years old, his second when he was twenty-two. There’s no indication James’ penchant for unholy union has ever abated, right up to this day. Media guy should have written a raft of columns on James’ un-Christian, if not Satanic, off-court behavior when it first became apparent, back when James started playing big-league ball in Ohio.

By contrast, Jason Collins we – and Broussard – really don’t know much about. We don’t know if he engaged in any un-Biblical sex acts, homosexual or heterosexual, outside of marriage. For all the world, the man might be a virgin and deserve every courtesy of not being judged. Lest we suffer the same fate, of course.

But rather than getting bogged down in the mysteries of Collins’ sex life, let’s assess what little we’re actually aware of. We now know that there is a concrete Chris Broussard standard, and nothing could be easier to understand:

. . I don’t believe that you can live an openly homosexual lifestyle or an openly, like, premarital sex between heterosexuals. If you’re openly living that type of lifestyle . . I believe that’s walking in open rebellion to God and to Jesus Christ. So I would not characterize that person as a Christian . .

Which leaves us conflicted. When it’s revealed that Jason Collins may, or may not, be living “an openly homosexual lifestyle,” Broussard finds it so personally disturbing that he pronounces Collins to be a non-Christian. But though LeBron James is still engaged in a “premarital sex between heterosexuals” lifestyle, Broussard has yet to condemn the superstar for rebelling against God and Christ. How very hypocritical.

The contrast is stark. And maybe that’s because Broussard knows better than to press his convictions too far. No one wants to lose a cushy job, after all. The ESPN gig turns on his hobnobbing with NBA stars, LeBron being one of many who probably fornicate more frequently than receive free shoes. Those folks might stop returning Chris’ phone calls were he to make a point of pronouncing them enemies of Christ. They wouldn’t be too pleased if Broussard did to them what he’s just done to Jason Collins.


Tell her the sausage factory is closed

Average therefore normal awesome America becomes apparently unhappy when a Boy Scout gets kissed on the mouth. This is a bad deal. Even though the Scout is a horny chick and the kisser is handsome Anderson Cooper, today’s Rock Hudson plus mountain fresh bleach. Unacceptable. Traditional America is wantin’ to give up stabbin’ sticks and wandrin’ dark tick-filled forests with child molesters if this keeps up. What with the boys kissing rich girls with big gazongas.

Anderson Cooper kisses “Boy Scout” to offend traditional America
Cliff Kincaid | Renew America

The headline says it all: “Anderson Cooper Kissed Madonna, Dressed In Boy Scout Uniform, at GLAAD Media Awards” . .

This was a deliberate effort to mock the Scouts for standing for traditional values and instructing young men to be “morally straight.” Anderson Cooper went along with the gag by “kissing” the faux Scout. It was supposed to be cute.

It was not. Cliff vomited in his mouth. And if he’d swallowed his corn-dog and beans lunch, a second time, he would have demonstrated the minimal talent necessary to earn himself the “Legal Proceedings Badge.” This a Scout gets for 1.) Poring over BSA civil court transcripts where they allege thirteen year-olds raped by their Scout leaders are not victims, but boyfriends, of said leaders, and 2.) Not cannon-hurling on a distant galaxy.

And should we take this Scouting revelation seriously, which followed the swearing of an oath, which my gosh they take seriously, we’d have to accept that Scouting routinely features thirtysomethings making tent pretzels of their newly pubescent [rrawf] boyfriends. So why does Cliff Kincaid care about this? So what if Anderson wants to steal a kiss from some soft-skinned Scout, with her curvaceous hips and heaving jugs?

As an Eagle Scout and father of three boys who also had some fun in Scouting, I don’t think it is right to mock this worthwhile program.

Ah, and maybe this is the point. Anderson and Madonna are legally permitted to commit whatever crimes against Jesus they like — unwed kissing between boys and girls, for example. But they shouldn’t do it in public just to mock the Boy Scouts. Closeted sexual experimentation (and pedophilia) is a traditional, worthwhile pursuit. Keep it naive. Keep it private. And keep it strictly same-sex, the Boy Scout way. Now that’s ‘some fun.’

Do most boys experiment with sex at Boy Scout camp?
Yahoo!Answers | Resolved Question | 4 years ago

When I was 12, I joined Boy Scouts. Since then I have attended summer camp every year. It has always been the same. Before going the first time, jacking off was something guys used to joke about and do in private. Not at camp! There, guys are doing it right in front of each other in the tents, woods and showers. Once, the first year, one of the counselors came into the shower after troop swim. Several of the guys were showing their erections to each other. The Counselor just said “Hurry up, other guys want to use the shower. You can do this stuff in the tents after lights out”. It was no big deal!

After saying “no” three times, I finally went into the woods with some other guys for a circle jerk. It was awesome! Everybody was squirting all over. Sometimes you could go hiking and find some guys doing more than jacking off.

My question is….are all scout summer camps like this??? . .

Dave S
Best Answer – Chosen by Voters

Yeah, that stuff went on at night at the scout camp I went to also. Mostly just jerking off with each other in the tents at night, but sometimes there would be a circle jerk in the woods.

Sometimes some guys would go further too! That’s where I first learned to give head.

You see Cliff’s point. Get Madonna out of there, at least.


This week in Indiana vs. The Homos

It’s good to catch up with your neighbors. Let’s check in on how our heartland friends have been coming to terms with The Gay. For the latest in that news we go to Terre Haute, Indiana, who, if I’m not mistaken, were just about to get a public library.

A tip of the cap to WTWO for their coverage of citizens sounding off on a big controversy. It seems that local gay students will be going to their high school prom. My oh my. What say you, archetypal Christian scold?

“We don’t agree with it and it’s offensive to us,” said Diana Medley.

Of course, Mrs. Bitch oozes of maternal paternalism, and also a certain MILF-y quality that can penetrate even the best in nineties-era video technology. Can you really blame Diana, rrowr, for that bad attitude? After all look what she’s been doing for a living, acting as the euthanasia coordinator for the…

Diana Medley is a special education teacher in town. She doesn’t believe anyone is born gay.

“I believe that it was life circumstances and they chose to be that way; God created everyone equal,” said Medley.

. . the life hector for The Pick It Up Yourself Center for creative living. The Down Syndromes need strong motivation. But hold on there, you lib-snoots. You should know that Diana is more than only a bigot. She can speak, yuck, to these people too:

“Homosexual students come to me with their problems, and I don’t agree with them, but I care about them. It’s the same thing with my special needs kids, I think God puts everyone in our lives for a reason,” said Medley.

See? There’s a reason why every one of you are living, in her life. And if you just give her a minute, and some mental spectacles, she’ll tell you what it is. Hmm let’s see purpose vs. category, appearance, table manners and hygiene . .

So the same goes for gays? Do you think they have a purpose in life?

“No I honestly don’t. Sorry, but I don’t. I don’t understand it. A gay person isn’t going to come up and make some change unless it’s to realize that it was a choice and they’re choosing God,” said Medley.

OK the gays have no Earthly purpose. Nor does Diana like them, clearly. Probably because they keep gaying no matter how often Diana corrects them. As well they never stop falling down — wait, those are the other jerks. Well anyway you gather the gist. Terre Haute has some way to go before The Gay becomes The Boring (sorry folks).

But before we’re done, just in case any you thought I’d ignore the charm of the other yokels, let it not be said that WTWO isn’t capable of some big city journalism:

Several local pastors support the separate prom movement.

“Christians have always been prepared for a fight. Jesus gave us armor for the front, not the back; we’re not running anymore,” said Bill Phegley with Carlisle Church.

That’s a lovely effort at main-streaming the media or elevating the narrative. But that is certainly not a quote of Pastor Bill’s. This is what he said:

“Christians is always been prepared for a fight. But Jesus Christ give us armor for the front, not the back. We don’t runnin’ no more.”

Homophobes, poorly educated? Bizarre.


If anything, it’s the Boy Scouts who are depraved

Matt Barber is one nasty piece of work. A cultural warrior from Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University law school, he sees his particular battle as homosexuality. Lately, in the war, he’s been employing a new tactic. Anything that’s pro-gay, he calls it “Sandusky,” as in the child rapist serving 30 to 60 years in Greene State prison. It’s Barber’s way of claiming that homosexuals and molesters are the same.

For example, in a December piece on the banning of homosexual conversion therapy (‘pray the gay away’), he called such legal injunctions “Sandusky laws.” Because they protect the future Jerry Sanduskys of the world, see? Barber is a man without a conscience.

In coming days the Boy Scouts of America will decide whether to violate – eliminate, really – its own mission statement, oath and law by changing its policy to allow, within its ranks, Scouts and Scoutmasters who are open practitioners of the homosexual lifestyle . .

Still, under immense socio-political – indeed spiritual pressure, the Boy Scouts appear poised to play a very dangerous, self-deluded game of “the Scoutmaster wears no clothes.” They’re flirting with the queer idea of an about turn – of betraying both absolute truth and the very boys they serve.

Did any of you catch that foreshadowing?

But it’s much worse than all that. We mustn’t ignore the pink elephant in the room; the Penn State factor. Should the BSA cave beneath the weight of sexual anarchist intimidation, Scoutmaster Sandusky joins the jamboree.

Jerry could never have joined the Scouts otherwise? Please. You see how Barber is no tactical genius, obviously. We already know how the Boy Scouts would have welcomed Jerry Sandusky with open arms given their real-life “Sanduskys,” and I mean actual child molesters. Scout pedophiles were rarely ejected from or exposed within the organization, though there were thousands. And when their crimes were finally made public, the Boy Scouts reacted more with vengeance than compassion:

In 2002, Jerrold Schwartz, a 42-year-old former scoutmaster in New York, admitted abusing a boy in his troop in the 1990s. After being secretly recorded saying he “did something very, very wrong” and apologizing to the boy, Schwartz pleaded guilty to four counts of sodomy and was sent to prison.

Despite the conviction and the victim’s testimony that Schwartz “raped me and forced me to perform oral sex on him,” the Scouts, in a motion to dismiss a subsequent lawsuit, contended that the sex was consensual, records show.

“To argue that an adult scoutmaster in his 30s can have consensual sex with a 13-year-old in his Scout troop is something dreamt up in pedophile heaven,” attorney Michael Dowd told the New York Law Journal in 2006 after a judge rejected the Scouts’ motion.

This has been a BSA tactic. They merely say they had no idea how dangerously “gay” the Scoutmaster was. Which makes for a convenient reason to be angry with his 13 year-old boyfriend, too.

It’s the same with Barber, et. al. The Catholic Church, the Boy Scouts, they only are ideals and Godly and to be shielded at all costs. But once they’re exposed for being secured dens of depravity and child rape, the Sandusky gays get all the blame. Because these organizations couldn’t be more simply wholesome, patriotic and pure. It’s the liberal culture to blame, never the institution. Ad absurdum:

For example, a New York scoutmaster was accused by a former scout of sexually assaulting him dozens of times in different locations, including campouts and overnight trips. The allegations were made in a $50 million lawsuit against the scoutmaster, Jerrold Schwartz, who led Troop 666 at the prestigious St. Bartholomew’s Church. The investigation produced four tape recordings in which Schwartz admitted sexual contact with the Boy Scout. The sexual assaults occurred in Manhattan and on trips to Philadelphia, Washington and Vermont. Schwartz even attacked the boy on the night before Schwartz’s 1997 wedding. The best cover for a gay predator is a bogus marriage, which makes his straight wife yet another victim of gay duplicity.

So amazing the lengths a homosexual will go to. Jerry Sandusky married his wife Dottie back in 1966. They adopted 6 children. Sandusky later molested his son, Matt. And this is why gay teens don’t belong in the Boy Scouts.


I heart Bill Donohue

I see Catholic League president Bill Donohue as a dinosaur. He’s the fist-swinging boyo taking it to the uppity WASPs who don’t want the Irish around their establishments. There’s heroism in being a nasty asshole, Donohue-wise.

Nowadays, we Micks can eat and sleep anywhere we like. The tony halls of the Supreme Court are as familiar to Catholics as they are to the preppies. No one is more boring and establishment than a dick like Bill O’Reilly. Somebody might wanna let Donohue know that the only bigot left in the room is himself.

. . this week in Tennessee a dog was rescued from being euthanized (one news outlet said he was being spared “the Gas Chamber”) because the condition driving the dog’s death was his alleged homosexuality (the owner was ticked when he saw his Fido hunch another male dog).

We now know what Bill’s been doing with his Saturday nights. Having a ‘hunch’ with the Missus.

Not, however, in Elton’s [the dog’s] case: the shelter has no stomach for putting dogs down on the basis of sexual orientation. It must be said, though, that the shelter is not exactly inclusive in its policies. To wit: Had poor Elton not been identified as a homosexual, his heterosexuality would not have been enough to save his hide.

His heterosexuality would not have put him there in the first place.

The moral of the story is: Being gay is not only a bonus for humans these days, it is a definite plus for dogs as well. As for straights, the lonely and the disabled, that’s another story altogether.

We gas the shut-ins and the handicapped? I don’t think so. Why Catholics don’t demand Bill shut his black hole, I don’t know. You wonder if they’re not afraid of him.


This game is almost over

It’s crunch time for gender-segregated marriage. There are two down in the bottom of the fourth quarter, and the chukker’s got a busted knee. Given the pouring rain, the tenth frame looks just as bad. The manager makes a call to the penalty box: free kick. Out trots the prom queen . . swinging a dildo? As if united in desperation, the fans cry out: Where is the National Review?

On Friday afternoon, the Supreme Court announced that it will hear arguments in two cases that are at the center of the same-sex-marriage controversy.


At issue in both cases is whether courts should even be hearing them, because there are knotty questions of standing (and also of what should happen to lower-court rulings if the Court rules that parties did not have standing). If the Court does reach the merits in these cases, it should find its way toward a defense of the right of republican self-government.

States’ rights? Good! Let’s go with that. It should be up to the states to decide. Then we can pretend that the Defense of Marriage Act had nothing to do with us trying to strangle same-sex marriage from Washington D.C. Unchain the states! That’s what conservatism is all about. More:

Of the various arguments advanced for a constitutional “right” of same-sex marriage, none withstands even momentary scrutiny by accepted standards.

Please wait until the arguments have come to a complete thud before exiting the post. And thank you for flying with National Review. Hum buh-bye. Buh-bye. Buh-bye. Buh-bye.

Are gays and lesbians a powerless and oppressed minority?

Wait! How can gays possibly have this constitutional “right” . .

One can hardly say that after the November elections, in which the cause of same-sex marriage was victorious in four states, in a year when it was also embraced by the president of the United States and enshrined in the platform of the larger of our major parties.

. . when they’re not black Southerners in the sixties? If I remember correctly, it was only after the Supreme Court ruled “The powerless and battered Citizens of Montgomery ipso facto have the constitutional right to whine” that *poof* black people first appeared before the rest of us. That’s when they joined the Democratic Party, and everybody was like “WHO THE HELL ARE YOU PEOPLE?”

Is it rationally indefensible to reserve the institution of marriage to the only kind of union — one man and one woman — that is capable of procreation, and to the kind of union that is proven to be the best general setting for the rearing of children?

That last argument is particularly dumb. But to the previous one — ‘procreation’ — gay marriage itself has blown that out of the water. The gay marrieds don’t and technically can’t procreate but there they are. As married as anyone else.

My sister and her boyfriend got hitched and they adopted two children. They are not fake-way ‘gay’ married. They’re married. Even the National Review agrees. Must we list all the reasons people do this?

BTW — someday Science will learn how to manipulate a sperm sample so as to swap the donor’s chromosomes with a woman’s. Then Hunky Lesbo with an expensive strap-on will impregnate Lacy Lesbo and God Help Us All. They’ll have a baby girl. I’m not guessing about this, I’m a actual molecular biologist. Ha!


Matt Barber calls bans on gay conversion therapy ‘Jerry Sandusky laws’

Holy Matt Barber! What a tower of conservative thought in action. Cast your eyes upon these whopper credentials: Director of Cultural Affairs with both Liberty Counsel and Liberty Alliance Action and Associate Dean of Liberty University School of Law. Impressive, eh? You’d think such a big man would find it harder to hide behind Jerry Sandusky’s dick.

In recent months, “progressive” lawmakers, activist attorneys and militant homosexual pressure groups have launched a fierce campaign to ban therapeutic help for child victims of monsters like homosexual pedophile Jerry Sandusky. California has already passed such a law (SB 1172).

SB 1172 bans ‘gay reparative therapy’ from being used on minors. Since it’s a completely fraudulent idea and technique which frequently drives teens towards suicide, the legislation is long past overdue.

But Matt thinks he is foxier than facts, or death.

The connection between homosexual abuse and “gay identity” is undeniable.

Under Sandusky Laws, if children begin to experience sexual confusion — such as unwanted same-sex attractions stemming from sexual abuse, trauma or any other factor — these bans force, under penalty of law, parents and therapists to tell the children that they are now “gay” or “transgender” and must live with it — even if they don’t wish to live with it and are otherwise recovering from the abuse-caused sexual confusion.

Given the desire to cover your homophobia with bunk science, your politics with Sandusky’s sodomy, and your abuse of struggling teens with judicial asshattery, can I ask an utterly depraved man to fuck the fuck off? I can. Matt. Fuck. Off.


SPLC sues gay reparative hucksters JONAH

Dear Southern Poverty Law Center: Thank You.

This is the first time a “conversion therapy” practitioner has been directly sued for deceptive practices, SPLC officials said.

“JONAH profits off of shameful and dangerous attempts to fix something that isn’t broken,” said SPLC deputy legal director Christine P. Sun. “Despite the consensus of mainstream professional organizations that conversion therapy doesn’t work, this racket continues to scam vulnerable gay men and lesbians out of thousands of dollars and inflicts significant harm on them.”

Jews Offering New Alternatives for Healing deserves to be vigorously sued, please, right into a modern century. Go on and drag them to court by their pant loops. Litigate them to dust. Thanks.

As for you — clear out a forehead-sized spot on your solid desk. And then read one of JONAH’s testimonials from a ‘wife,’ if you can:

Now I’ll let you into a little secret…..I am not the type to suffer in silence! So, as I kept trying to work out what the problem was, I involved David in my quandary: “Dave, why don’t you like to get intimate?” “Dave, why don’t you try doing this?” “No, not like that!”…how about this?”………I just didn’t get it! And apparently, neither did he!

Eventually, he couldn’t take my constant (and yes, in hindsight incredibly insensitive) hounding. Things obviously weren’t going according to plan. I’m not exactly sure what the plan was. I do know that he had been advised to get married and everything would work out for the best! . . Well, approximately 8 weeks after we were wed, David told me that he’s gay.

. . and after throwing all their money away first on hypnotherapy and then sessions at JONAH, the problem was ‘solved.’ Or ‘paralyzed,’ with plenty of pain and confusion. How tragic.

Now on behalf of JONAH, American Thinker explains how sex really works:

The witch hunt against “ex-gay therapy” must be explained with some context. First, it makes sense to speak in terms of “ex-gays” only if you begin with the false assumption that bisexuality does not exist.

The wha?

Every respectable therapist I know acknowledges that sexuality exists on a spectrum, and people develop attractions to different kinds of people under different circumstances. Think of how few jokes we’d have about prison if it were impossible for people to redirect their sexual desire to a new object based on context.

Like when Bubba the Psycho suddenly falls in love with you in the shower. And then everybody, even the Aryan Brotherhood, tiptoes out so the two of you can honeymoon. That’s homosexuality.


Imaginary gay superhero defeats real-life homophobes

DC Comics has announced that the Green Lantern is gay.


One Million Moms, a division of Seething Homophobia (a Bryan Fischer LLC), tried to warn America. They were only doing their best, something of this sort I’m thinking:

“If comic book characters can be GAY, what’s next? People? ARRRGGHH . . ”

Lord! Anyway, the alarums and blitz bells sounded peculiarly like puppies tickling each others’ kitties’ titties, apparently. Everybody really couldn’t have been ha-ha happier:

Well. The One Million Moms would not take gootchy goo in the spirit it was offered. No. Instead, they were pretty angry:

Exclusive: One Million Moms Deletes ‘Green Lantern Is Gay’ Post After Flood Of Pro-Gay Comments

. . When I happened upon the posting, it seemed that there were more than 100 comments, but when I tried to access the post on it’s individual page, it came up with an error message: “The page you requested was not found.” (Original link here.)

I went back to the main One Million Moms Facebook page, noticed there were now only 83 comments, clicked to access the post’s individual page again, took a screen shot, but noticed there were only a few dozen comments.

I went back to the main One Million Moms Facebook page again, and noticed the post was gone . .


Breaking: One Million Moms Disappears From Facebook

The faux activist group One Million Moms has just disappeared from Facebook, by far its largest social media outlet. Earlier today administrators of the One Million Moms Facebook site posted a “warning” about Green Lantern being rebooted as gay, which they quickly pulled when over one hundred pro-gay comments flooded the post . .

Flash? This calls for a celebration, a foot massage. Massage them yourself, bitch.


That’s so GAY. Thanks, have a nice day.

Gawd love Think Progress. They do a terrific job. They stay right on top of crucial political issues, bringing us all the latest. I can’t imagine post-modern living without reading their pithy, fact-filled posts. They’re a combination of the New York Times and Cliff’s Notes, but for the internet left-wing. And bless them for that.

That doesn’t mean I won’t take issue with a writer. It’s a rare thing, but it happens. I wasn’t too impressed with this particular post:

New York Court Rules That ‘Gay’ Is Not Slander | A New York state appeals court has ruled that falsely calling someone gay or lesbian is no longer slander because society no longer sees being gay as a negative quality. The decision originated when a straight man sued a man for calling him gay, arguing that the insult hurt his relationship with his girlfriend.

Well, no, not that part (gimme a second). I can’t say I’m any legal expert on issues of homosexuality as they affect the law. But I’m perfectly happy to hear that a regular old court saw fit to put forth that gay isn’t so bad, and that society largely has come ’round to see that. Okay, now this part, the writer’s opinion:

While such claims are perhaps rightfully deemed frivolous, this ruling ignores the harm done in schools everyday with the demeaning phrase “that’s so gay.”

Now wait a minute. Saying “You’re gay” to someone is legally harmless? I think so, I would agree. But saying “That’s so gay” to someone is terribly destructive? Please. I’m not good with the double standard.

Yes, young gay kids hearing it in school will cringe. The intent of others will be clear, and the kids’ feelings will get hurt, I get it. But the gay community chose the word. They saw it as apt and positive, so let them stand behind it. Either that or let them choose something else. It’s a perfectly good word — it’s certainly not an epithet like “nigger.” The black community may choose to take or leave that one, so to speak. Many abhor hearing it ever being said, by anyone. And that I can understand.

But this is the homosexual community’s name and identity: gay. If others think the term is derisive somehow, then they abominate themselves. Don’t they? Or are they so wonderful that their behavior and language need be dictated by the writer, who’s even better? For who’s benefit? You can’t control people’s minds.

I’d say it’s your word now, gay folks. You defined it, stand by the definition. I can’t imagine what good it does to tell a gay kid “Don’t let anybody call you ‘gay.'”


A bad Christian model for homosexual development

The devoted Christian writers at Renew America are usually good for a few laughs. Fox-borne conspiracies, the omnipresent Satan, Thom Jefferson the fundie, and all types of apocalypse. Poor spelling. It’s a proud and pitiable site. They’ve been on an anti-Mormon tear for months, which surely must please Jesus.

Every once in a while a post shows up that’s different. This one by Catholic News Agency columnist Louie Verrecchio is such a thing. In it, he makes arguments that are notable for several reasons:
1.) They’re more cogent than most.
2.) They come out of the ‘intellectual’ Christian community.
3.) They address homosexuality.

Louie believes he knows of what he speaks, or he wouldn’t remind you that his opinion “has been endorsed by Cardinal George Pell of Sydney, Australia; Bishop Emeritus Patrick O’Donoghue of Lancaster, England, Bishop R. Walker Nickless of Sioux City, IA, USA and others.” We know we’re reading a top notch Christian editorialist.

This is his post: “Bullying: A pseudo crisis of convenience.” You’ll have to indulge me because the arc of his arguments gets a bit long, so I’ll skip to homosexuality. On that he writes:

As the [Dan] Savages of the world would have us believe, a large percentage of human beings have always been “born gay,” but it is only thanks to the good efforts of people in the LGBT community that increasingly more of these kids are now able to come out of the closet.

This would be our argument. Louie knocks it down by telling us what he and other Christian intellectuals already know:

Nonsense. The LGBT community has done nothing but yeoman’s work in making sure that sexually under-developed, confused adolescents who are wrestling with unnatural, disordered desires exist in spades.

Louie speaks of developing homo-sexuality. Some kids are only partially developed, and therefore confused. I’m trying to think of an apt analogy for this theory. It’s like when your two year-old puts a stick in his mouth, and his desire for food is confused. Once he gets older (more ‘developed’), he’ll know that his mouth is really meant for cake and pie. He’ll taste actual food and he’ll learn to love it.

From there, these champions of justice do everything they can to make sure that these unfortunate children are summarily deprived of the help they really need, because God forbid anyone acknowledge the underlying psychological and spiritual maladies that accompany homosexuality.

Chaos sets in. And that’s when gay activists tell the young child to eat even more sticks. And dance (yes!) to his heart’s content because he’s really a wood-gobbling fag. Oh no. You see the problem.

The reality is that people like Dan Savage and his “husband” are simply using these poor kids to further their own self-satisfying agenda.

As if the people like Dan could have a “husband” because that’s not “legal.” Anyway, that’s the story of homosexuality. In short: immaturity plus acceptance equals fake. Homosexuals just aren’t sexually real. They’re unedited miscues, preserved by enabling. Ebonics comes to my mind, as if that were “language.”

Now we draw back from these details, and we look at the whole post. Working backward from homo-sexuality . .

With K-thru-12 schoolyards from sea-to-shining-sea boasting a bumper crop of soft-bellied boys who have been raised to believe that every incident of normal youthful conflict is best resolved by mommy in a parent-teacher meeting, the time was apparently ripe for launching a corresponding ersatz crisis; namely, that dreaded social epidemic known as “bullying.”

. . we see that today’s typical American boy is a wussy. Holy smokes. That’s a difficult charge to level at millions of young people, but it sounds somewhat clever since it lacks evidence. I sense why bishops and cardinals like this ‘Louie’ guy (how again do you herd 20,000 species of beetle onto an ark?). Now we go all the way back, to the top:

. . liberal social engineers are hell bent and determined to see to it that society doesn’t allow a healthy sense of maleness (e.g., attributes like competitiveness, protectiveness and leadership) to take hold in the next generation of husbands and fathers; ergo their deliberate effort to discourage the development of authentic masculinity in male children from boyhood to adolescence.

. . we liberals are wiping the whole of masculinity off the map. Right. [And why, btw? Louie: ‘Because liberal guilt over the way Grampa treated women.’ Louie does not grasp how making all men gay might be even crueler to future grammas.]

Let’s be honest: this is raving madness. Where the hell could this lunacy have come from? You wonder, then it clicks. That fancy Christian model, again — each individual male is exactly like the next one. The fully-developed destination for each of us is effortless heterosexuality, remember? So something’s got to explain the huge number of queers. And here’s your fancy answer: we leftists have been decimating male identity. We figure we’d better stop the march of masculinity in its tracks before it fell upon macho. Hence, America has been cranking out shiny new limpwrists “in spades.”

So let’s just stop bullying the bullies, shall we? Before this country’s seen its last red-blooded kid crying before Matthew Shephard’s picture, or something worse.