I'll make this easy...

Some people think they know more than the experts. More than people who have spent their lives studying something, collecting data, making observations, and drawing connections that are supported not only by their own evidence, but by that gathered by their peers as well. And who have spent their careers reconciling the differences between each others work, that we may collective reach a greater and more complete understanding of some phenomenon.  See... that's how science WORKS.   But some people don't think that the opinion of someone who's spent a career learning everything there is to know about something, and collaborating with others who do the same, is the slightest bit more
valuable than that of a talk-show host with a high-school diploma, or a bought-and-paid-for politician, or that most absurd of scientific references: the Bible, or the ideology that they have chosen to follow.

In general, these people call themselves "Conservatives."

Now I have always claimed to be a man of science - by both philosophy and by profession. I have also claimed that I never let ideology do my thinking for me.  If I identify with a certain group on a given issue (or on most issues) it is because their position matches the evidence. And because it matches my own. Which must first match the evidence, regardless of the ideological implications of this. So let's be clear, here: Liberals are not right because they agree with me. Nor am I because I agree with them. (When we DO actually agree, that is.)  And of infinitely more importance, Scientist and Academics are not right because they agree with Liberals, or because they agree with me. 

WE are right because we agree with THEM.

And you can take almost any Scientific and/or Economic issue and see this quite clearly, if you bother to actually LOOK and actually care about BEING RIGHT, rather than being Liberal or Conservative.  And, yes, to be fair, Liberals ARE guilty of pseudo-science too: witness the lawsuits brought against Dow Chemical over their perfectly harmless silicone breast implants, back in the late '80's, and early '90's, for example. But as Liberals have come to embrace science more and more over the past decade or two, Conservatives have reactively pulled away from it.  One recent Conservative commenter on this blog said it best, I think: "We're Conservative because we don't want to be Liberal." 

(And apparently they don't care a lick about being RIGHT, it seems.)

So anyway... I'm on Wikipedia today, just putzing around. Now I didn't used to consider Wikipedia to be a credible reference. I once told someone, "Don't quote me Wikipedia! ANYONE can edit Wikipedia! Shoot, even I'VE edited Wikipedia!" But I will say that in past year or two, I notice that they've gotten really good about requiring CITATIONS for the facual statements being made. (It's probably also helped that I've limited my own input to the one subject that I actually DO know more about than anyone else: Baseball. LOL) Anyhow, one particularly well-cited article that I read recently was the one on HOMOSEXUALITY.

Very interesting read.  Here are a few of the statements I found to be particular relevant to some of the more spirited discussions we've had recently...

Scientific and medical understanding is that sexual orientation is not a choice, but rather a complex interplay of biological and environmental factors.

Supported by two citations!

While some religious organizations hold the view that homosexual activity is unnatural or dysfunctional, research shows that homosexuality is an example of normal variation in human sexuality and is not in and of itself a source of negative psychological effects.

One citation.

Homosexual behavior is also widely observed in animals.

That statement was supported by no less than FIVE citations!

[Homosexual] relationships are equivalent to heterosexual relationships in essential psychological respects.

One citation.

People with a homosexual orientation can express their sexuality in a variety of ways, and may or may not express it in their behaviors.

One citation.

The longstanding consensus of research and clinical literature demonstrates that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality.

One citation.

There is now a large body of research evidence that indicates that being gay, lesbian or bisexual is compatible with normal mental health and social adjustment.

One citation.

The American Psychological Association says that "most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."

One citation.

No major mental health professional organization has sanctioned efforts to change sexual orientation and virtually all of them have adopted policy statements cautioning the profession and the public about treatments that purport to change sexual orientation. These include the American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American Counseling Association, National Association of Social Workers in the USA, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and the Australian Psychological Society. The American Psychological Association and the Royal College of Psychiatrists expressed concerns that the positions espoused by NARTH are not supported by the science and create an environment in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish.

FIVE Citations spread throughout that paragraph.

Scientific research has been consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents...

Three Citations

[And] ...According to scientific literature reviews, there is no evidence to the contrary.

FIVE Citations

Here are some particularly important ones:

Stigma, prejudice, and discrimination stemming from negative societal attitudes toward homosexuality lead to a higher prevalence of mental health disorders among lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals compared to their heterosexual peers.

One citation.

Evidence indicates that the liberalization of these attitudes over the past few decades is associated with a decrease in such mental health risks among younger LGBT people.

One citation.

Sexual orientation does not affect the likelihood that people will abuse children.

Three citations.

Claims that there is scientific evidence to support an association between being gay and being a pedophile are based on misuses of those terms and misrepresentation of the actual evidence.

One Citation.

Now... Admittedly, some of those citations are from the same source. But, all and all, this is a ~11,000 word article, in which I didn't find a single line in that doesn't fit perfectly well into my views on the matter, and it is supported by a total of 211 different sources.

TWO. HUNDRED. and ELEVEN. 

See... Being Liberal doesn't make me right.

Being RIGHT makes me right.

And they day the Conservatives decide to start being right, and the Liberals decide to abandon all reason, knowledge and wisdom? I'll happily identify as a Conservative. Until then? I don't require an ideology to do my thinking for me, nor will I labor under the delusion that I can do to do a little bit of five-minute crack research and think that somehow I know something that the world's collective, foremost experts don't.  I'm content to let those with the inclination to spend their lives researching and studying something to figure it out. Because if you're capable of recognizing who is and is not a credible source, and the data supports the position you are accepting?

Well, shoot... I'll always be right.

Teh Gay! Teh Gay! Oh, PraY teh gay AWAY!

Note this was earlier in the week, but I've had like NO TIME to proofread (and, yes, I DO!) edit, etc... and get it posted. I also haven't had the chance to get to any of the comments yet. Sorry about that. I DID read Classic's filibuster reply over on LeftHook, and I will respond to it, but it's just been so crazy around here that I haven't had the chance yet.  Speaking of which...

I LOVE how lively it's been lately!  Everyone's commenting, and debating... And yes, most of the time they're just piling on William, but I've got to admit: It's been a lot more fun and a lot more active lately since he's started commenting! So, William: sincerely and with no sarcasm or irony: THANK YOU for sharing your opinions here. As much as I like preaching to the choir, vigorous and spirited debate (and even the occasionally mean-spirited debate) is what I LIVE for! It's why I do this. So I'm more than happy to have a Conservative who comes in here and lowers the property values speaks his mind.  THANK YOU.

(Plus my ad revenue is over $100.00 now, so unless Google finds a way to weasel out of it, I should be getting a check next month.  It's like I said: I get paid whether there's any merit in what you post or not. So THANK YOU for that as well!) ;)

Now... ON TO THE TOPIC.  I read a piece on MMFA yesterday that really made me angry.  In terms of the media, it dealt with how often representatives of the "Family Research Center" have been interviewed and given a chance to spew their anti-gay rhetoric on not only Fox, but CNN and MSNBC as well! Now it's important to note that  The Family Research Council has been designated as a Hate Group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.  And I'm sure I don't have to tell anyone here (besides William) that whenever a Right Wing Think Talk puts the word "Family" in their names, this is almost always a front for a Funny-Mentalist hate group to force their radical and unconstitutional religious agenda down our throats.  In this case, I'm not even sure which word their doing a greater Orwellian disservice to, "family," or "research."

In addition to the mere number of times these inbreeds have appeared on the various cable news networks, it is noteworthy that only TWICE have the networks mentioned that they represent a group that has been branded a hate group by the SPLC! And one of those mentions was on FOX! Imagine that: FOX does a better job than CNN disclosing the Right-wing leanings of their guests! Behold: YOUR LIBERAL MEDIA!

OTOH, considering Fox’s audience, their mention of this probably does more to denigrate the SPLC than to undermine the credibility of the FRC.
SPLC's position on the FRC is summarized as follows:

The FRC often makes false claims about the LGBT community based on discredited research and junk science. The intention is to denigrate LGBT people in its battles against same-sex marriage, hate crimes laws and anti-bullying programs.
The FRC also strongly promotes the “ex-gay” movement as a way to combat LGBT civil rights measures, though professional organizations have repeatedly called so-called “reparative therapy” (which seeks to turn gays and lesbians into heterosexuals) into question and issued statements that don’t support it. [...]
Part of the FRC’s recent strategy is to pound home the false claim that gays and lesbians are more likely to sexually abuse children. This is false. The American Psychological Association, among others, has concluded that “homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are.

And while I have no disagreement with that assessment – and I don’t see how any objective person COULD – MMFA goes on to to include some brilliant statement made by the three most prominent (media-wise) members of the FLC, Tony Perkins, Peter Sprigg and Ken Blackwell. It was their personal comments that really pissed me off, especially considering that those "great bastions of Liberalism," CNN and MSNBC were turning to these hate-mongers for political commentary! So what follows will, in it totality, amount to what I think of as one of my better rants. Like all good rants, there's obscenity (so don’t be pussy), but I do still hope to make at least a few of you laugh (those that are capable) and a few of you think (again, those that are capable.) And if do I end up merely preaching the choir? Meh. I still found it personally rewarding to write it.

Gems from Tony Perkins:

“It Gets Better” Project Tries To “Recruit” Kids Into A “Lifestyle” Of “Perversion.”

- Yes! Long live discrimination, the fear of violence and the love of Jesus!

“Research Is Overwhelming” That Gay Men Are More Likely To Molest Children.

- Sure… Except that in fact the exact OPPOSITE is true.

Gay Teens Commit Suicide Because They Know Being Gay Is “Abnormal.”

- …And I’m sure that constantly having genetic defectives like you constantly hammering them with that opinion has nothing at all to do with it.

Anti-Bullying Programs Promote “Indoctrination Into Homosexuality.”

- Note: Violence against children is OK, as long as the kid is a little faggot. Gotcha.

Gay Activists Are Intolerant, Hateful, Spiteful Pawns Of The Devil.

- Question: (1) Intolerant of WHO, exactly? (2) Hateful, Spiteful… in what way, exactly? (3) How exactly would what the Devil… well, I suppose you WOULD know, never mind!

Senators Who Vote For DADT Repeal Will Have “The Blood Of Innocent Soldiers On Their Hands.”

- Wait... Which soldiers?  Mybe the GAY ONES who would face violence and possibly death at the hands of those bigots in our military who happen to think as you do.  But in that case the blood is on their hands and yours. The blod of victims will alwyas, only, be on the hand of those who perpetrate it and enable it.

"Kids Do Worse In These Same-Sex Households. They’re More Susceptible To Violence.”

- Well, yeah, I suppose they are ‘more susceptible to violence,’ seeing as how you lot are so keen to perpetrate violence upon them!

"Gays Are Trying To “Spread Fear And Intimidation So That They Can Disrupt And Destabilize"

- LMFAO. I’ve had friends and co-workers who've been gay. Great folks, all. And, save for one, pretty much the least intimidating people I’ve even met. Seriously? You’re ‘intimidated’ by gays? Seriously? How can someone believe every stereotype about gays and still find them the LEAST BIT intimidating? That’s hilarious! OTOH… Who was it that was perpetrating bigotry and rationalizing violence again? Oh yeah… IT WAS YOU ASSHOLES!!! So… WHO is it that’s trying to intimidate people again? Oh yeah: IT’S YOU ASSHOLES!!! And, uh… what’s so “destabilizing” about two people settling down and building a life together? If that’s destabilizing, I have to ask: WHY DO YOU HATE MARRIAGE?!

Gems from Peter Sprigg:

Anti-Bullying Programs Indoctrinate “Impressionable School Children.”

- TO REITERATE: Violence against children is OK, as long as there a bunch of little faggots.

Transgender People Should “Stop Pretending To BE The Opposite Of Your Real Sex.”

- Um… they’re TRYING TO, douchebag!

Harvey Milk May Have Been A Pedophile, Faked A Hate Crime.

- Oh! Oh! Let me try! Peter Sprigg MAY like to suck donkey dicks! Tony Perkins MAY enjoy watching scat porn! Ken Blackwell MAY like to fuck three men at the same time! Boy, isn’t this fun!

It Is Better To “Export Homosexuals From The United States Than To Import Them Into The United States.”

- Well, yeah, in general it would be nice to close our trade deficit, but… somehow I don’t think that human trafficking is the way to do it, you Nazi scumbag.

Gems for Ken Blackwell:

“Homosexuality is A Compulsion That Can Be Contained, Repressed, Or Changed.”

- I would say the same of bigotry and ignorance and have the benefit of actually being RIGHT. (I’d be inclined to include RELIGION in that as well, but then some might find that offensive.)

“Homosexuality Is A Lifestyle, It’s A Choice, And That Lifestyle Can be Changed.”

- Homosexuality is a PREFERENCE. That is NOT something that can be changed. (Let me tell you: My life would have been a LOT easier if I didn’t prefer Red-Heads; but more on that later.) Following the lifestyle maybe be a choice, but it’s a choice between accepting who you are, and living a happy, fulfilled life and one where you live in repression and denial. But hey: I see what path YOU’VE chosen, so more power to you!

Same-Sex Marriage “Defies Barnyard Logic... The Barnyard Knows Better.”

- That’s interesting. Because the FACT is that homosexuality has been observed in nature in just about every species of animal on earth. But hey: Don’t let the facts get in the way of your fanciful daydreams about barnyard animals. Also… Why should I (or a donkey) give two shits what a pig or a sheep thinks about my (or the donkey’s) choice of a mate?
(see what I did there?)

President Obama Shows Same Respect For Marriage That He Did For Osama Bin Laden’s Body.

- I'm confused. WHAT, exactly, are you saying here? I must be missing something, because Bin Laden’s body was prepared according to his religions sacred rituals and the released at sea to protect his privacy and avoid a spectacle being made and/or it being desecrated. So… You’re saying that President Obama believes that marriage is a sacred and private affair deserving the utmost respect and should not be made into a spectacle? I mean… I’m OK with that and all, but you say it like it’s a BAD THING. Oh, but then you are the people who want to go around telling everybody else who they can and can’t marry, so… I guess that makes sense.

- Unless your suggesting that he somehow desecrated Bin Laden’s body? But then… do you really expect me to believe that you have a fuck to give about what happened to Bin Laden’s body?

So, to recap: The FRC advocates violence against children in and of and minority groups, the deportation of Citizens, the forcing of Religious beliefs upon the populace, and compares said minority groups to barnyard animals. At this point, I would offer that is it neither hyperbole nor a violation of Godwin’s Law that the FRC are bunch of FUCKING NAZI’S.

Now I’m going to say my piece. First of all, let me be clear: I do not research these things. Which is precisely which I defer to the people who do! I can, however, say that, unlike the jack-booted fascists over at the FRC, the conclusions of the research being done are not in contrast to my own observations in day-to-day life, going back as far back as childhood. Take for example the issue of CHOICE.
William tried to make a point about this in one of his recent comments. Something about how he might choose to walk fast, but that shouldn’t give him civil rights as a ‘fast walker.’ Well… I had a friend in college who was six-foot-seven. REALLY tall fucker. LOVED having him on my Basketball team, HATED trying to play against him. (Trying to shoot against a guy who’s 6’7” is like standing in the shade under a fucking tree!) And you know what? Fucker was BORN a fast-walker. And really? And anyone who would complain about the fact that this dude’s gate was about double that of a “normal” man’s stride? IS pretty much just being a dick. Now… Maybe some people are just born dicks, and maybe some people CHOOSE to be dicks. And you know what? It is ABSOLUTELY your civil right to be as BIG A DICK as you’d like too be, either way! Just like... du-da-dahhhh... it IS, in fact, your CIVIL RIGHT to walk fast (especially if your legs go up to my shoulders.) Come on Will, really? Have you ever seen a law passed that says you can’t walk above a certain speed? Or marry someone who does?

Your example is either completely irrelevant or precisely proves my point. I’m not sure which, but try not to throw it right down the middle next time, OK?
Now… returning once again to the real world: Choice. Or… Does one choose to be homosexual? See… there’s a semantic argument, a trap really, at play here. Because the answer is, “It depends.” It depends entirely on what you mean when you say “be homosexual.” Do you me someone who PURSUES and/or HAS a sexual relationship with a member of the same gender? Well, yeah: That’s a choice. But that’s a BEHAVIOR, not an ORIENTATION. To me (and every thinking person who has the slightest clue and more than two brain cells to bounce together) homosexuality is not a behavior, it’s an orientation… a PREFERENCE, if you will . And you don’t get to choose what you prefer.
(Pay attention now, while I show you how analogies are done…)
I didn’t choose to hate bananas. But I hate them with a burning passion and so I choose not to eat them. And honestly? I wish I liked them! I really do. I wish that I could tolerate the taste, smell and texture of this highly nutritious food – one of the best sources of potassium on the market – and I'm sure I would be in much better health if I could. But I can’t. I didn’t CHOSE this. I just hate bananas. And life is too short already to spend it choking down anything I hate that much. So I don’t. See how that works? I also didn’t choose to prefer Red-Heads. But I do: Carrot-topped, Auburn Haired, Ginger, Freckle-Faced, fire-crotches… (dude, really?) I love them all, I can't help it! And as any Red-Head, and any lover of Red-Heads, can tell you: This preference comes with many a life-threatening hazard. I’m not going into details, because if you don’t already know you wouldn’t believe me, but it suffices to say that my life would be a hell of a lot easier, not to mention LONGER, were it not for this dratted preference of mine. Sure… I could have CHOSEN not to have married one… but I had no choice about having such a strong attraction to them.
The CHOICE is not between homo- and hetero-. It is between self-acceptance and self-denial. Fulfillment in your relationships or indifference. Satisfaction in life or dismay. Gratification or needless sacrifice. Happiness or emptiness. It is a choice between following your own instincts and leading the life you want to lead, or wasting the only life you’ll have living to satisfy everyone else around you, none of whom can even claim to give a shit about your happiness or well-being.
Some fucking choice.

Now, I realize that anecdotal evidence does not trump actual research (just don’t tell the FRC!) but I still think it is worth pointing out that my own life’s experiences pretty much jive with what the research has concluded: That people are BORN homosexual. Whenever I’ve discussed the topic, or overheard it being discuss, with friends or co-workers their answer has always been the same. “How long have you known?” “Always.” (Usually with a dismissive hand waving and/or shoulder shrugging.) And even before being fully aware of their sexual orientation, they were aware that something about them was different. And oftentimes, so did everyone around them. A few years back a co-worker of mine came out of the closet. I hadn’t known him that long, or that well, prior to this but upon hearing the news, my reaction was, “I hadn’t realized he was actually IN the closet!” Another coworker has lamented the fate of his family name as he is gay and regarding his only male cousin… “I can already tell.”
Finally I am reminded of this one boy who lived on my block growing up back in Connecticut. He never really fit in with us. We didn’t bully him or anything – at least I didn’t, nor did any of my close circle of friends that I am aware of – but we never hung out either. Sure, I invited him to a couple of my birthday parties, only because he would have been the only kid at the bus-stop or in the Cub-Scout Pack who wasn’t invited otherwise, but neither me nor any of my friends (or the other kids on the block) ever really befriended him. He was just… different. While the rest of us were playing baseball, or soccer, (or Dungeons and Dragons – hey: it was 1982!) he was usually hanging out with the girls in the neighborhood, playing house or tag or some such thing. (And his was in grade-school, mind you, so not a time in which hanging out with girls meant you were some kind of stud.) Well, I moved away and lost touch with him. But years later, in college, I found out that he had also moved away, and ended up graduating from the same high school that my college friends all attended; in the same town that my parents now lived. And upon hearing that I knew him as a child, they pointed out that he was gay, and asked me if I knew that from way back when.
Well… I didn’t. And while I hadn’t given him a though in ten years one way of the other at that point, thinking about it? I was like… “Yeah, pretty much.” I explained that, as children, we didn’t precisely know that he was homosexual. I mean… we were eight. It’s not like WE were into girls or our own sexuality yet either! But knowing this NOW explained a lot of what we observed as kids. It didn’t change anything - not ever having been a bully myself, or ever having harassed him, etc… it wasn’t like this revelation filled me with any regrets. We weren’t friends simply because we had nothing in common. But it did certainly go a long way towards filling in some of the blanks.

Anyway, enough of that. I’ll believe you’re not born gay as soon as an actual GAY PERSON comes forward and tells me so, giving me some time to press him or her to make sure that we’re agreed on the semantics of the question. Until then? Anyone who says otherwise is wrong. I say so, every homosexual I’ve ever encountered says so, and the research done by people who are far more qualified to make that statement than I am says so.
Period.

The next point in debate that I want to address is that of marriage. In the same recent comment William summed up what I’m sure the right considers to be a reasonable position, saying that he “[PP] supports civil unions but has a problem with it being called marriage.” Now I have to make a confession and a partial concession here. Personally? I think that getting hung up on what it’s CALLED is just utterly stupid. Yes, I think it’s stupid for the Williams’es of the world, but I also – for the longest time – would get furious with the GAYS for pressing this point! For the longest time, my feelings were that if they’re being given everything they’re asking for – or shoot, even 99% or even HALF of what they’re asking for – and they would get this if they just accept that it be CALLED something different? Holy fucking shit, just take whatever you can get, you stupid fuck-wads! It’s not like all progress is going to end with any ONE THING! Take what you can get and MOVE ON – to getting more and more and more every passing year and worry about stupid shit like the fucking NAME after all of the PRACTICAL and LEGAL matters are settled!
I felt that way for a really long time, and I’ll have to admit that some small part of me still might. But the other 99.9% of me? No longer does.
I’m not going to make some irrelevant speech about the dangers of “separate but equal.” No one is going to make those with civil unions use a different water fountain or sit at the back of the bus. And the attack dogs and firehouses (or in the modern context: hate crimes) won’t distinguish between the married homosexuals and single ones. Because we’re talking about marriage in the sole context of it being a LEGAL CONTRACT, that carries with it certain RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES and OBLIGATIONS, it would be an almost trivial exercise to create a TRUE “separate but equal” status here. Because let’s face it: The LAST TIME we heard “separate but equal,” it simply wasn’t equal. But it could be in this case. All it would take is a Federal Law stating that any mention of marriage in any Law at the Federal, State or Local Level shall be assumed to read “marriage or civil union,” and that this assumption shall be binding and applied retroactively. One simple, clear statement would settle the “separate but equals” concerns for all time.
There are just a few problems with that...

First of all: NO ONE IS OFFERING THAT! Show me where this is being offered, and I might be inclined to go back to saying, “TAKE IT, NIMRODS!” But there’s also a…
Second Problem: Laws get changed ALL THE TIME. If there was merely ONE LAW that guaranteed this equality? It would only take a change to ONE LAW to take some of it away. Only ONE LAW would have to be repealed to take ALL of it away! Call it marriage? And you’d have to change THOUSANDS OF LAWS if you wanted to take away their rights. And that’s really why it must be called “marriage.” Because that’s what our LAWS call it.
And the more I think about it: Other than a desire to eventually make these two things increasing NOT EQUAL over time, why other reason (beyond placating the bigots) could there possibly be to have two separate names for these things?!
Also… I’ve gotten the argument many times that this should be a STATE issue. That each state should be able to decide how they want to handle it. This is bullshit a complete non-starter. Because while any state may have anywhere form a few dozen to a few hundred laws regarding marriage – including the protection of property rights, work benefits, co-insurance, etc…? The federal laws involving marriage and the rights and privileges of married people number in the TENS OF THOUSANDS. It absolutely MUST be something that is dealt with at the federal level, because it is the federal government that provides the lion’s share of the legal protections, rights, benefits and obligations regarding marriage. Arguing otherwise reveals only one’s own ignorance and arouses suspicions in others of one’s own prejudices.
And really… regarding marriage, or *sigh* the INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE. Really… these arguments from TRADITION are just plain stupid. In my lifetime there were still states where it was illegal for Blacks and Whites to marry. That changed. There remain countries today where interfaith marriages are illegal. And if you go back to biblical times – and up through to about a century or so ago – marriage was little more than a property transfer, as poor families married off their daughters as best they could, and royalty used it as a tool for diplomacy. That’s changed. The institution of marriage is CONSTANTLY changing. And even if you ignore the numerous changes in the way various societies have viewed marriage over the years, you remain faced with countless assaults on the Institution of Marriage far greater than the idea of two men or two women happily sharing a life with one another. In fact, given the divorce rate, the increasing rate of domestic violence, the rampant adultery, the 72-hour celebrity marriages, the bachelor / bachelorette Reality Shows, etc…? I’d say that they thought of ANY two people settling down and loving each other and building a life together would do the institution of marriage rather a damned bit of GOOD, regardless of their gender.
And finally, before closing on the LEGAL issues, I have a challenge for anyone who’s not with me yet.
First of all, let’s realize that as far as our Government in concerned marriage is in fact no more than a LEGAL CONTRACT. Any talk of spiritual bonding, or any other romantic ideal, is completely immaterial to our government. That is the purview (at best) of the individual CHURCHES. And, in case you haven’t heard, we DO live in a SECULAR NATION and DO, in fact, have and recognize the SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. And this is one of those perfect cases that protects the CHURCH’S interests as much as the homosexual’s: Just as the Church (and their legions of brainwashed masses) do not have the authority to tell the government who they can and can’t marry, nor does the Government have any authority to tell any church that they marry, or indeed even recognize the marriage of, ANYONE they don’t wish to. (And the day the gays start ASKING for that, mark my words, I’ll be the first one to be arguing “separation of church and state” AGAINST them!) So you can put aside any mention of Jesus, God, Allah, Muhammad, Vishnu, Zeus, Odin or Ra, not to mention the Bible, the Torah, the Koran, the Iliad or the Odyssey. It doesn’t matter, and the First Amendment of our Constitution says as much in plain, simple English, so don’t waste your time or mine with any of that nonsense. Marriage, in any discussion involving the LAW, is no more than a legal contract.
So here’s the challenge: Give me an example of any other LEGAL CONTRACT that I can enter into with another person or persons where our genders become an issue. There isn’t any. Oh, there used to be. There used to be many examples, seeing as how at one point women weren’t allowed to own land, conduct business, vote, refuse the advances of their husbands, etc… But that’s all been done away with now. There exists now no other legal contract that requires a certain gender to be legally binding. And there’s simply no reason based in logic or legality to maintain gender discrimination in this case. And the “Why?” question that will inevitably rise from that statement leads into my final point:
IT DOES NO HARM.
It does no harm, and it brings great happiness to those people affected by these laws.
Who is harmed?
The parents? Puh-Lease. How long has it been, and in which backwards cultures do parents have any legal say in who you marry? My parents HATED my wife. Fuck ‘em. I loved her, and I remain married to her, and they just had to deal. Parents want grandkids? Hey: It’s only the action of ignorant bigots that prevents gay couples from marrying and adopting, so who’s REALLY doing all the harm there? Natural Grandkids you say? Well, first of all, my cousin, my sister and I are ALL adopted. So FUCK YOU. Secondly, does a naturally infertile couple victimize their parents or society? What’s that? They didn’t CHOOSE to be infertile? Well shoot… The other couple didn’t choose to be gay! What if I don’t marry at all? Isn't that my right? Am I harming my parents then? What if I become a Priest? Sure, not likely, but it’s still my choice, and not one my parents would prefer that I make. I still wouldn't be harming them! And BTW… I have two sons who are AUTISTIC. So if anyone thinks that I would have the slightest iota of sympathy for someone who’s crying over their child being gay or transgendered, my feeling on their "plight" can best summed up as: GROW THE FUCK UP, YOU WHINY LITTLE BITCHES! YOU THINK YOU’VE GOT PROBLEMS? YOU DON’T EVEN KNOW WHAT A PROBLEM IS! GROW UP, GET SOME FUCKING THERAPY, AND LOVE AND SUPPORT YOUR CHILD, YOU HEARTLESS FUCKS!
Parents always say that they “just want their children to be happy.” Well… time to man up and put your money where your mouth is regarding that otherwise principled ideal. Those who fail this simple test?
Head? Meet brick.
I once had one inbred jackass tells me that it spreads disease. One even told me that it CAUSES it. Ok… I PROBABLY don’t need to spell this out for MOST of my readers, but here’s a simple epidemiology lesson for the C-students out there. SEX spreads diseases. This is true with Heterosexuals, and this is true with Homosexuals. If two people who have no diseases have sex with each other, a MILLION TIMES, UNPROTECTED, guess what? They will NEVER get a sexually transmitted disease. (And, uh… tongue-in-cheek here, but homosexuality is also absent the risk of unwanted pregnancy.) (Just sayin’.) On the other hand… if one person is having unprotected sex with a person who HAS A SEXUALLY TRAMISSIBLE DISEASE… well, it’s really only a matter of time until they contract it. And again… This is true of heterosexuals and homosexuals. And the RATE of transmission is immaterial. That one practice may be slightly more risky than another is completely irrelevant because in each case it is a matter of inevitability.
Chance of my contracting a disease having sex with another man who has no diseases?
ZERO
Chance of my contracting a disease having sex with woman who does has a diseases?

>ZERO
Or…
=f(how many times we have sex)

So again… this is just stupid.
And in closing, because I can already hear someone *cough* probably William *cough* accusing me of trying to “impose my values onto another person” or some such nonsense…
SHUT THE FUCK UP, NO I’M NOT.
Allowing someone to have a choice, and to make that choice without taking away any of the rights, freedoms and protections that the rest of society takes for granted is NOT how you “impose your values” on someone. I am not taking anything away from anyone, and nor does Gay Marriage. As usual, I am arguing for, and defending, freedom. And freedom is not something you can IMPOSE upon someone. Even if I “force” you to live free… What you do next, remains, by definition, your choice. That’s what freedom MEANS. I may not LIKE your choice, but as I leave it your choice to make, regarding your own life and taking nothing from anyone else? Well, I remain solidly on the side of freedom.
The only people who are “imposing their values on someone else” are the religious funny-mentalists that make up the opposition to Homosexual equality. Those people who would say, “NO, you MAY NOT do this thing!” Apply that test to ANY ISSUE, and you’ll see who’s on the side of freedom – those who would protect your choices – and those who are against it – those who would take those choices away.
God bless America and our freedom and the people that he decided to make gay and transgendered.
(And a big ‘FUUUUUCK YOOOOOOU!’ to anyone who’s not with me on that!)

The Worst Penn State Column I've read so far...

Hoo-boy. What a doozy on MMFA today.

Hosted by Fox (who else) and in his column for the World Nut Net Daily, Joseph Farah attempts to blame the systematic train-wreck at Penn State on...

(wait for it)

Society's tolerance of homosexuality!

You can (and should) read MMFA take, as well as the comments section, and you can read the entire roll of toilet paper here. (And if you do, leave a comment there. I did. We'll see what it brings in.) But here's my take, based on some of the "highlights":

We may not fully understand the details of what Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky did or didn't do to young boys in locker rooms and showers, though he does admit inappropriate behavior. But the real question is how he did it for so long without consequences.

Good start: "We may not fully understand the details,” but hey, don't let that get in the way of your diatribe!

But now that being accused of homophobia is considered an offense, while practicing homosexuality is considered a virtue, should it really surprise anyone that such behavior would go unreported or unchallenged for so long?

“Being accused of homophobia is considered an offense.” I’m not even sure what that means. BEING ACCUSED isn’t the offense, asshat. BEING HOMOPHOBIC is the offense. But whatever.

Also… “practicing homosexuality is considered a virtue.” Really? By who, exactly, other than another homosexual who’s looking for a mate or some action? (Between another consenting adult, and which does not harm to anyone, I hasten to add.) Who actually considers homosexuality a "virtue?"

Does he mean a virtue, like... honestly, for example? Or integrity? Intellingnce? Wisdom? And, if so, HOW THE HELL WOULD THIS GUY KNOW?!

In an age when government schools are actually teaching children how to perform homosexual acts and that there is nothing wrong with them, it would seem that an environment conducive for predators of children is being created under the watchful eye of the state and the media.

“In an age when government schools are actually teaching children how to perform homosexual acts?!” Jesus Tapdancing Christ, man! Where the hell are your children going to school?! A Catholic School?! (Sorry, could resist.)

Remember also that Penn State is a public university. There is probably no institution more conscious of the new "sin" of homophobia than the American college campus. There are few imaginable offenses more grievous than homophobia in that environment. One pays a price for exhibiting any symptoms of this dread disease - especially in academia.

Wow. That’s the first thing he’s gotten right. I can’t disagree with a thing he’s said here. Of course, I’d say it PROUDLY, as opposed to with the righteous indignation that HE'D likely say it with, but whatever.

Although on the other hand... "Academia," huh? Please, refresh my memory: Which academic subject did Sandusky teach, exactly? For that matter which subject did Patrerno teach? And who decided to cover this up for "academic" reasons? Puh-lease. If there's a culture problem here, it's our worship of Football, and the glorification of Football players and Football coaches. The Religioun of Football was far more to blame here (which is to say, almost entirely) than any "indoctrination" regarding tolerance.

What happened at Penn State is a tragedy. Worse, it's likely a series of tragedies that will impact the lives of people for years to come.

Yes, it will. And it is. As is (and will) the continued bigotry against those who want to live in peace with their life partner, but can’t because people like you continue to insist on slandering and harassing them.

Let's stop acting like idiots by addressing symptoms of a much deeper problem when most everyone knows why we're seeing an explosion of predatory sexual acts on innocent children everywhere - in churches, in schools and in academia.

"Let's stop acting like idiots." You first.

Besides… We KNOW why it happened in Churches. Because The Church covered it up! (That, and the most Religious and Pious members of our society usually also tend to be the most hypocritical. Just sayin'.) Asd for SCHOOLS? (Which is realtly the same as aying "Academia?") Yes, Homosexuallity is TOLERATED. That means we no longer ostracize people for being who they are. But the last time I checked PEDOPHILIA is NOT. (Nor is Sexual Harassment – you know: that Liberal pox on the Conservative Corporatists and Herman Cain's of the world?)
Question for you: If Sandusky had been found raping little girls, would that change anything? Would HETEROSEXUALITY suddenly come under scrutiny? It very simple:

HOMO – means “same”

PEDO – means “child” or “young”

See… NOT THE SAME THING.

Sure… Male Pedophiles do tend to show a preference for boys. But not all of them. How do you explain the others? How despicable is it that this man is willing to disappear any number of FEMALE victims of molestion. And I know they're out there! Hey: I know one or two PERSONALLY! How about female pedophiles? They ALSO tend to prefer boys. Some prefer girls, sure, but the trend goes against you here. And many of either gender? Don’t care. Because it’s not about GENDER, it’s about AGE. (And those thing that go along with it.)

And those male pedophiles who molest only boys? They show no greater preference for same-sex relationships with other ADULTS than the general population does. So… Are they still homosexual? What’s more, homosexuals (meaning ADULTS in same sex relationships with OTHER ADULTS of the same gender) show no greater predilection for Pedophilia than the general population. There isn;'t even a corelation between the two unless you start out with absrud assumption that the two are the same and go from there, never bothering to justify, explain or test that assumption!

The REAL reason that this tragedy went unpunished for so long, is very simple. It’s not our tolerance of HOMOSEXUALITY. It is our very unfortunate tolerance of sexual indiscretion. (Combined with our irrational love of Football.) Whether it's politicians who cheat on their wives, bosses who sexually harass their subordinates or people who molest children, for too long the gut reaction is to doubt the victim. Failing that? BLAME the victim. And finally, MAKE IT ALL GO AWAY. Whether that means re-assigning a Priest to a different parish, or telling a retired coach that he and his charity for underprivileged boys (*shudder*) is no longer welcome on campus, we are more eager to bury it under the rug that deal with it.

Of course I say, "we," but lets face it: that's being generous. These people aren't LIBERALS. This guy invokes "Academia," becuase that's a code-word for Liberal. But again: What subject did Sandusky and Parterno TEACH? They're not ACADEMICS, they're FUCKING FOOTBALL COACHES. And Penn State Football? If anything? That's CONSERVATIVE. Backwoods towns, where everyone related to everyone else? (Which more and mor eappears to be the case here?) Outside of Vermont? Those also tend to be CONSERVATIVE. There was no liberal cover-up here. This was not the result of a discussion about the tolerance of homosexuality amongst the Liberal, academic elites. And it's a blatant lie to charectarize it as such. Now I'm not suggesting for aminute that this Sandusky was a pedophile because he was Conservative, or even that he WAS conservative. (Nor Paterno, nor anyone else involved for that matter.) I'm just using it to illustrate the fact that if we're going to start throwing around baseless acusations, I can do it too, and make a far better case for it!

And besides, as far as I know? SANDUSKY IS NOT GAY. And if he is? May if lived in a more tolerant area, he'd have found a more fullfilling relationship with someone his own age, and this never would have happened. I can't proove that, obviously, but if homosexuality plays ANY factor here, tolerance remians on the side of RIGHT!

And is some ways we - as a SOCIETY - are getting better about some aspects of this. Pedophilia generally sets off more alarms, which is what makes the Penn State story so disturbing. But in Rapecases? Blame the victim. Smear the victim. Put the victim on trial. Sexual Harassment? Hoo-boy. Even when they WIN, the victims’ careers are still effectively OVER. Who wants to hire someone who is such a lawsuit liability? (See what happens when "I sued my last employer" is on your resume!) Not to mention that by the time they have won (assuming they ever get to court, let alone win) they’ve endured any and all manner of retaliation, slander, libel, personal attack and invasion of privacy. So they get victimized, then victimized again, and again, only to WIN and have “go find a new career” and a red-letter on there chests to show for it. Meanwhile? Their ex-boss? Well, shoot… Even if he’s NOT rehired - assuming he was even fired - he’s still got his wealth to live on. Much more so than the poor subordinate whose career he was SUPPOSED to be helping BUILD anyway.

If you want to tie Penn State to another social issue? Tie it to Sexual Harassment. Tie it to Rape. Because the issue with Pedophilia is not one of GENDER... It is one of CONSENT.

Asshole.

-------------------------
Best comment in the entire story.
(There are only two people who rocked it better: John Holmes and Freddy Mercury, and they both died of AIDS!)

Texas? This is why!

Apparently, the last time the State of Texas tried to legalize and legislate bigotry and stand in the way of social progress, there was a loophole that spared at least one group.  Well, seeing as how Texas has never been a State to allow a minority group to go unpunnished, it is now a top priority for them to fix this oversight.

Texas? This is why the rest of America hates you. Seriously.

And Conservatives? This is why you suck. Seriously.

All people are created equal, huh?  One vote, one voice, huh?  Freedom and small government, huh? (That's the BIGGEST joke with the RW fools!)  I just have one thing to say to all these flag-wavers on the Right who continuously wipe their collective, ignorant, backwards, back-sides with our Constitution:

GO FUCK YOURSELVES, YOU HYPOCRITICAL, SELF-RIGHTEOUS, UN-AMERICAN SCUMBAGS!

And... that's all I have to say!

Some people just make me sick...

I wrote something on Friday, posted it, and then took it down a few minutes later. I’m going to repost it here, as it was originally written, but I want to talk about some of the things that were driving it, other than me just being in a foul, pissed-off mood. Which I was, but… there’s more to it. And remember that all this came, at the time, on the heels of that fucking Phelps piece that I wrote, that I ‘m over NOW (mainly because of what I had writtenTHIS, even though I took it down), but which I was still bitter about come Friday morning when I woke up to THIS, on the radio.

“Petrol Bombs.” Sweet Jumpin’ Jesus Christ! I realize that these are the same people who started WWI and were so vicious in WWII that even the Nazi’s had to tell them to take it easy (not to oversimplify or generalize, mind you, LOL) but come fucking on! If your manhood is so threatened by homosexuality that you feel the need to throw flaming gasoline at people, then either you have some serious problems, or you’re gay yourself and well aware that your "FRIENDS" have some serious problems.

And that was followed up by a story about the same neanderthalism going on in New York. And later that day I caught wind of the remarks made by Carl Paladino, the closest thing we have to an outright thug in politics, now that Kwame Kilpatrick’s no longer in office. And the final tipping point, for me anyway, came when he had the audacity to suggest that someone owed HIM an apology over the remarks!

(I got your apology right here, Carl. And just to show you what a decent guy I am, I’ll let you know: It’ll be coming in high, from the right.)

Oh. My. God. We owe HIM an apology. Apparently because the folks at the church suggested he make the remarks. (1) I doubt that. If they DID suggest anything, I’m sure that what he SAID was not the precise wording they had in mind. (2) Even if they DID, does he repeat EVERYTHING some idiot suggests you do? That would certainly explain a lot, but it doesn’t strike me as being in his character. And I am completely fed up with the Conservative lie that teaching children TOLERANCE somehow serves to “brainwash” them or (infinitely more absurd) “recruit” them. Especially coming from an asshole that just got finished saying “I have nothing against homosexuals.” Yeah… except that you can’t abide spreading a message of TOLERANCE. Which means that you’re just fine continuing to let the LGBT community suffer ostracism, isolation, discrimination, abuse and outright violence. It's very simple folks: We’re all HUMAN. The LGBT community asks nothing more than to be treated LIKE HUMAN BEINGS. (At this point, I might remind them how utterly shitty most human beings actually treat each other; and that they may want to aim a BIT higher…) But a refusal to teach tolerance, and refusal to actually DO something to reverse the trends of abuse and violence, is an indication of nothing more than your feelings that these people are somehow LESS THAN human.  "Governor for all people." That's eay when you consider some people to be less than that.

You know who I think are sub-human? People who think that way.

So while the original post was just inspired by this one asshole, it seems like each passing day I’d get another reminder just how shitty we really do treat each other.
So with that in mind, I’ve decided to repost what I did in Friday. Here it is, as it was:

-----------------------------------------------------------------
You know, some people just make me sick. But go ahead and sign it, for all the good it'll do.



I usually get a pretty good response to my "Person A , Person B" / "Liberal vs. Conservative Resoning" analogies, so here's a pretty blunt one for you:


Person A is homosexual, or does not live their life according to the gender they were assigned at birth.


Person B feels threatened by this person's mere existance in some way and kicks the ever-loving shit out of them over it.


The Conservative sees this reaction as evidence that something therefore must be wrong with person A.


The Liberal sees this reaction as proof that there is something seriously wrong with person B.




Now... If you're Conservative, and you have a problem with this analogy? Look around you. Becuase the anti-LGBT discrimination, biggotry and violence sure as hell ain't coming from Liberals! Those white-trash, fire-and-brimstone, charlatanical pious frauds and the thousands of fainting sheep they're brainwahsing? That's your voting block. If you don't like that reality? Then CHANGE it. (Yeah, only problem is... CHANGE really isn't in a Conservative's nature, is it?)


And if you're Conservative and you DON'T have a problem with this analogy? Then my friend, YOU have some some serious problems.


.
.
.

(exhale)

There. I've used my powers for good and have made ammends for that hideous Phelps piece from the other day.

This house...
...is clean.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 
LOL. A little bit over the top at the end, but what can I say? At the time it felt cathartic. LOL
But there it is. And should any of the regular Conservative commenters take issue with this (okie, I’m thinking of you), the sad fact is that THIS is why “Conservatism” has become. This is what it means now. I didn’t DO THAT, and nobody asked your opinon about it either, but THAT’S the reality as I see it. One Political School of Thought seeks to move us out of the darkness, out of the jungle. The other? The only other one that has a voice at the moment? Seeks to move us back in. 

(But... I’m going to use that email of yours in a future post, so we debate the details then, if you’d like to.)

Either way. ;)

A Test of our Principles

The worst part about being an atheist might be knowing that some people will, in fact, not have hell to look forward to.

The most despised man in America is getting his day in court.

The Right Scumbag Reverend Fred Phelps is arguing before the Supreme Court that his protesting at Military Funerals, waving signs saying “Gods Hates Fags” and so forth, is in fact Constitutionally Protected Free Speech, and that he should not legally or civilly penalized for this (at issue is a $5 Million Dollar suit against the Westboro Baptist Church) and that he cannot be other wise prevented from doing so.

You have absolutely no idea how hard it is for me to write this, so please bear that in mind as you read this and respond, but…

I hope he wins.

My hands were almost shaking and it made me feel ill to type that just now.

Because I hate Fred Phelps. I hate him and his entire band of inbred mutants at the WBO with a venomous passion that I can taste in my balls. There is almost no way in which this disgusting little boil on the ass of humanity doesn’t inspire a nigh murderous rage in me. I’m sure by now, that I don’t need to burnish my credibility in terms of gay rights issues. To put it plainly: I fully support every single aspect of the “radical gay agenda” that has ever actually been presented to me. (Most of the RW nightmarish fantasies about the homosexual community are just that: Fantasy.) To me, there is nothing at all radical about wanting to be treated just like every other human being; nor about asking that society stay the hell out of their way as you pursue happiness on their own terms, especially as nothing but tolerance is asked of anyone else as they do so. On transgender issues, I’ll admit that I have been less certain about my position in the past, but the more I’ve read and the more I’ve come to understand, the more I’ve come to realize that they don’t ask any more than the gay community or any other persecuted group of people does: They simply want to be allowed to be who they are, and live their lives without being punished for being who they are by a society that they ask nothing of but tolerance. I fully understand that now, and am shamed for ever having doubted that. And, if it were even possible, the more I’ve come to hate Fred Phelps.

It is also self-evident that his brand of Religion - aside from being no more that a near transparent veil for his raw, naked hatred of his fellow man - embodies every one of the all of the worst aspects of Religion in general. Because he doesn’t just hate homosexuals (and anyone else he feels he can brand as a “sodomite”) but has every bit as much hatred for those who don’t SHARE his hatred for them. “Sodomite enablers,” as he calls them, are every bit as bad as the Sodomites. Worse, apparently, because the Military funerals these pieces of white trash picket are no for gay soldiers! He pickets the Military simply because, as I’ve stated previously, America stands for tolerance, not bigotry; for religious freedom, not Christian theocracy; for equality, not discrimination; and for freedom and liberty, not the Government climbing into your bedroom.

And he can’t stand that!

He can’t stand any disagreement with his radical doctrine of hatred. He is not merely intolerant, but intolerant of tolerance. Intolerant of that almost uniquely, all-American value: dissent. Basically he is intolerant of anyone who is not Fred Phelps.

Quite frankly, I can think of no more despicable American than this man. There are arguably more dangerous Americans in the public forum: Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck come to mind, not to mention Rupert Murdoch and the entire brand of merry GOP Propagandists on his payroll. But there is no more despicable American that Phelps. None. Jack Chick is so distant a second that Phelps appears to occupy the entire “bottom ten” (or twenty) all on his own. To find another HUMAN BEING more despicable, you have to leave the country, and find some member of the Taliban, or Al-Shabaab, or Al-Qaeda... IOW: the Middle-Eastern, Muslim version of Fred Phelps and the WBC. And those guys are only “worse” because, as far as I am aware, no one from the WBC has ever actually killed someone.

So… why the fuck am I ROOTING for this ass-pit?

Well, I’m not really… I’m rooting for freedom.

It may seem trite, but how many times have you said, or heard a free speech advocate say, something like, “I believe in free speech. I’ll even defend the rights of the Ku Klux Klan to march, protest, etc...” (Or some such thing.) The POINT being that we are willing to defend the right to speak, even for those with whom we disagree. Or, as Voltaire put it:

“I disagree with what you say but I will defend to death your right to say it."

And we use groups like the Ku Klux Klan, Neo-Nazi’s, etc… as examples because:

1) They’re groups that pretty much EVERYONE disagrees with. So we reveal very little about our own personal politics and thus risk very little in using them.

2) They’re groups that don’t have much of a presence anymore, politically, and don’t pose much of a threat to our sense of well being. They’re kind of a cartoony caricature; a phantom example that we can use without any fear that our statement will ever REALLY be put to the test. They’re insignificant CLICHES that no one really takes all that seriously.

So we risk even less (nothing really) in using them as examples. And one could also argue that since most of us (in America, and in its media) are white and are likely having these discussions with other whites and these are groups that mainly hate minorities, there is a racial element as well that even further reduces our risk of using these examples. Two white people talking about the Klan? That’s hardly a test of their 1st Amendment principles, since neither is likely to ever be targeted by the Klan, even where it not basically a joke. They will never have to experience the Klan in their lives.

But Fred Phelps has managed to go beyond that safe, cartoon villain mold and become not only a significant public figure, but one that’s venomously despised by, everyone: Liberals, for his general message of hate; Conservatives for his Unpatriotic, Anti-Military rhetoric and tactics. (That… and there’s little that pisses of a Christian Conservative more than a serious allegation of being either a “fag” or a “fag enabler.”) So he hates - and pisses off - Gays and Straits, regardless of race, religion, political orientation, etc… There is no one in this country who is not a relevant target of his venom because this man, quite literally, hates America.

You may recall that George W. Bush – no great defender of free speech, IMHO – actually passed a law banning protests within a certain distance of military funerals. He may as well have called it the “Fred Phelps is an Asshole Law.” Most of my liberal and moderate friends applauded it at the time, concluding it would never effect more than the activities of Fred Phelps himself. Then I asked them: What it, many years from now, what if George W. Bush if granted a State Funeral by some future Republican President? This law could be used to prevent them from quietly standing along the route, holding a perfectly respectful sign expressing your personal regret that our nation went to war in Iraq, for example. Because that could also, very reasonably, be interpreted as “protesting at a funeral.” One can argue that it’s not a “Military Funeral,” but why exactly would an official State Funeral for the former Commander in Chief of the U.S Military, be excluded? I certainly don’t think it would. This DID get them to see the law in a different light, but I am afraid that with most of them, their hatred of Phelps continued to cloud their judgment on this most basic of freedoms.

If the protesters were protesting against the war - as opposed to against our national status as 'fag-enablers?' While many of them would still agree that this kind of protest takes things way too far, the ISSUE at hand would have been more relevant to them, and I’m pretty sure this might have changed some of their judgments about the law. But you’ll be hard pressed to find many people willing to defend Phelps that aren’t being paid to do so and in a purely legal capacity. So Phelps gave Bush an apparently reasonable way to close off a potential venue of Anti-War protests. So no one batted an eye, mainly because most Liberals are generally more decent than that by nature and wouldn’t consider picketing a funeral, as a family buries their child, anyway. But it was still a curtailing of our freedoms. A curtailing of dissent, even as that message came in the most offensive, possible form.

Certainly no man has ever wanted to express a more hateful message. Certainly no man has ever found a more despicable way of expressing that inherently hateful message. In short, no man has even gone farther to TEST THE LIMITS of his freedom of speech.

But that is exactly what makes this the perfect, if not the only really valid test of our principles. If we say that we support freedom, but not freedom for those who would abuse it, or use it irresponsibly? Then we don’t support freedom.

Pure and simple.

If we start getting into the business of deciding where people can speak, and what messages might be “too harmful…”

Then we don’t believe in free speech.

The fact that this diseased little toad have made every effort to break every single boundary of human decency makes him the perfect test case; maybe the ONLY real test case. Because if we say that “decency” can used as a limit on our speech? Then we don’t have free speech. If speech must “respect the feelings of others?” The we don’t have free speech. If certain kind of speech can be limited in certain places by our Government, or if Civil Penalties can be levied because to the (perfectly legitimate) mental duress that someone’s speech has caused?

Then we don’t have free speech.

Because concepts like “Offensive” “Decency” and “Respect” have been used, without a scrap of extremism or logical reaching whatsoever, to limit all manner of freedoms since the dawn of mankind. And American history, especially within the last Century, is replete with examples of this. As soon as you want to authorize judgment of the message, or it’s method of delivery, you allow the government to limit speech. Period. There’s simply no way around (or off) that slippery slope.

We needn’t be tolerant of intolerance in our personal lives, but we MUST stop short of allowing – and in some case encouraging – the Government to take away our freedom. Because right of someone to live their lives as a homosexual or a transgendered person is the same right that Phelps has to live his life as an asshole. And the way to protect freedom is to do just that: PROTECT FREEDOM.

I really am sick over this. I really am.  And win or lose, I will likely shed a tear about it either way. Either for there being one more nail in the coffin of our personal liberty, or for the necessary victory of such a vile, hateful, thoroughly despicable little man in order to protect that liberty. But that’s what it means to have principles. You must hold true to them, even when it pains you to do so. And my support of free speech absolutely goes that far, even as it makes my sick to say it.

And for putting me in the position of have to defend something so vile that it almost makes me nauseous to do so; and for possibly having to do so to against my friends; people with whom I am otherwise allied with, socially, politically, and philosophically and for whom I hold is such high regard and with the utmost respect? In the words of John Hammond, “I really hate that man.”

All the same…

I hope he wins.

And I sincerely ask for your forgiveness for this.



(I'm going to go wash my hands now and try not to vomit.)

Taking Filibustering to a Whole New Level

I can’t believe I ever liked, or respected, John McCain. (What can I say? It’s been a long decade!) The latest atrocity committed by this senile, old bigot is his filibustering of the “repeal” of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. Now a politician can filibuster whatever he wants. For better of worse, that’s part of the job. I’d still disagree with his position, but there are some key facts here that motivate to seriously (and venomously) call “bullshit,” “liar,” and “hypocrite” on the Senator’s position now:

1) The policy does not, in fact, repeal DADT. All it does is authorize the Pentagon to do so, upon completion of a study on how this can be implemented without affecting readiness or morale.

2) McCain is filibustering because he wants the Pentagon to finish it’s study to determine if it’s even a good idea. Problem is? That was never the point of the study. The study is a question of HOW, not IF. So it’s McCain that’s out of step with the military here, not the President as he’s claimed.

3) What John McCain is doing is not even a true filibuster. A filibuster is used to prevent the ENDING of debate on the matter. And that’s fine. Although I need not point out how this practice has been absurdly abused by Republicans, we can all agree that a healthy and robust debate on any matter is necessary for a healthy robust democracy. The problem is, what Senator McCain is blocking here is the BEGINNING of the debate! He filibustering bringing the bill up FOR DEBATE. Blocking to end debate is one thing, but blocking to START the debate is profoundly un-American.

So right off the bat, Senator McCain is a liar, a hypocrite (for having criticize Democrats in the past over their proper use of the filibuster, and an traitorous obstructionist for putting his own political interests above (1) the American values of equality and non-descimination, (2) the American value of the separation of church and state (because the radical Christian funny-mentalist agenda is what’s at the heart of all anti-gay issues) and (3) – this is the big one: MILITARY READINESS IN A TIME OF WAR!!!

There. I’ve just “swift-boated” John McCain. The only difference being, unlike the swift-boat veterans, I’M TELLING THE TRUTH.

Now before we take a look at the policy that the Republican crypt-keeper is selling out his country’s values and military interests to protect, I suppose I should disclose some of my own personal positions on the matter. DADT? Its repeal is a no-brainer. Gay-Marriage? Allowing that is a no-brainer. Workplace discrimination against Gays? Again, prohibition of this is a no-brainer. And hate-crime legislation, classifying gays as a potential target group? Um…. DUH! In short, I have yet to hear any part of the so-called “radical gay agenda” that I don’t support. Of course, most of the actual, ‘radical’ stuff exists only in the wet-dream nightmares of the Religious Right. Everything that they gay community has actually asked for is very much in line with everything that America stands for… at least for those who have any idea what that really is! (Namely tolerance, equality, liberty, freedom… basically everything the radical Christian funny-mentalist and there Republican meat-puppets are against.) So obviously I have little patience for these un-American Christian whack-jobs and their anti-gay Jack-Chick propaganda. In any case, beyond what should be painfully obvious to any REAL American, here are some key facts that go beyond the opinions who’s validity I hold to be self-evident:

It’s expensive and has impaired readiness.

It has resulted in blackmail, harassment and rape of female service members.

So there you go. The dishonorable Senator from Arizona is doing everything he can to PREVENT DEBATE (the opposite of ‘prevent its closure’) on a bill that would allow the Pentagon to do exactly what he says they need to do in the first place, in order to protect unnecessary, wasteful spending; key positions in the military from being staffed; sexual harassment and blackmail coerced rape.

Senator McCain? You are a bigot, a liar, a hypocrite, a disgrace to your country and to the uniform you wore, and you a traitor to American values and Military interests.


--------------------------
Note: I do realize that Mitch McConnell has also been really outspoken about this, and also mis-represented to the public exactly what the Pentagon is studying here - also claiming that it's about IF as opposed to HOW.  But I left him out because I've never liked Mitch McConnell.  At one point in my misguided youth, I'd have expected better of John McCain.

In defense of pedophilia... (How's THAT for a lead?)

I know, I know: ENERGY! Dude, WTF? I’ll get to energy next. I promise. I just could not let THIS pass...


Last week, Bill Donohue – that great defender of Catholicism that the Vatican goes out of their way to disassociate themselves with – comes out and blames the preponderance of pedophile priests on “liberals” who let “gays” in to the church.

That’s the ROMAN CATHOLIC church, now. That great bastion of liberalism that doesn’t allow women to lead mass, that doesn’t allow even contraception, let alone abortion, that doesn’t marry gays, that says they will all go to hell… THAT Roman Catholic Church. The very idea that these guys, as an organization, are liberal AT ALL is laughable on its face to anyone not already brainwashed by the ultra-loony 1930’s era Tent-Revivalism, or Evangelical Funny-Mentalism as I call it, that's infected so much of America over the past 30 years.

Second, it is patently absurd to call a male pedophile “gay” simply because he molests boys. Would this then be a heterosexual issue if he molested girls? Because many did you know! As I understand it, there’s about an 80-20 split. So if there are thousands of male victims, that leaves hundreds of female ones! Pedophilia is pedophilia and homosexuality is homosexuality. Is is no more than religiously motivated superstition and/or politically motivated bigotry to even attempt to link them. A homosexual man is no more likely to like boys than a heterosexual man and a pedophile is no more likely to be homosexual than the general population is. Period. That’s a FACT and you can look it up in any work NOT written by a right-wing bigot under the guise of religious conservatism.

Bill? The problem is neither gays, nor liberals. It's the CURCH and the CLERGY and (now, so it appears) the POPE. It’s their problem, pure and simple. It’s been going on since blacks and white still couldn’t marry and same-sex marriage wasn’t even on anyone’s wildest possible political radar. They had their chance to do the right thing, and instead they did the Right thing. And if you’re still covering for them, then you’re as guilty as they are!

...

Which brings me to THIS PIECE by Rush Limbaugh, who thinks that the Left is trying to take down the church, as they want to tear down “all institutions that aren’t for big government.” First of all? The church doesn’t give a shit about the size of the government. Why should they? They don’t pay taxes! They lean Republican for two reason: Gays and Abortion. Or really one reason: The Republicans shamelessly pander to them, despite the Constitution’s prohibition of them doing so.

It does make me wonder though, why Rush is picking THIS ISSUE to politicize. I mean… am I going MAD, or is he literally DEFENDING pedophiles here?! Can anyone think of a LESS sympathetic group of people to give the benefit of the doubt to, to sympathize with, and defend against that cruel “left-wing media” than fucking PEDOPHILES?! Pedophiles, BTW, who won’t marry you if you cohabitate – learned THAT the hard way – and who will condemn you if you have sex outside of marriage! Maybe he ADMIRES their hypocrisy? I mean like attracts like. (Not that I’m suggesting that the thrice-divorced guy who brought illegal Viagra on a trip to a Dominican Boys tour is a Pedophile or anything…) But these guys have to be down in “Muslims on 9/12/2001” territory!

So let me use this idiot’s “logic” and turn it around. He thinks the left just wants to tear down the church. (“Any institution that not for big government.”) Personally? I’ve always believed that the Church needed be at least taken down at least a peg or two, and that’s from LONG before this story started to break, all those years ago. But I think that what’s more clear here is this:

There is no amount of EXCESS that the Right won’t TOLERATE or EXCUSE, so long as it’s committed by a Religious person or institution or by a Corporation. As long as it’s in the name of God or Profit, no sin, including PEDO-FUCKING-PHILIA is too great for the Right to forgive...

...So just don’t try to hold the Church or Corporate America ACCOUNTABLE for their sins. That’s leftist! That’s Liberal! That’s EVIL apparently.

You know what? By now it should be clear that I’m hardly a religious man, but every Priest who molested a child or otherwise broke their “holy” vow should go to hell. Every Bishop and every Pope that covered for them should go to hell. And I’m sure there a special fire in hell, being stoked by Satan himself with his DICK, for the likes of Bill Donohue and Rush Limbaugh.

Lesbo Monkeys!

Over the holiday, we took the kids to the zoo in Naples Florida. Not a GREAT Zoo, but they do have some interesting exhibits and they let you get pretty close to the animals with some of their enclosures. (I was within a foot of the leopard, separated by just a few inches of Plexiglas. That was pretty cool.) They also have a boat tour where they visit all of the little islands on this man-made lake where they keep their monkey’s, lemurs and other lesser apes. On the first island, there were only two, a male and a female, and the tour guide told us that they were so territorial that they wouldn’t welcome any other monkey’s on their island. On the next island were two females of the same species. The tour guide described them as, “the best of friends” and that “they had been together for 13 years, and were ‘peer-bonded.’” He went on to describe that they were also very territorial and would also not welcome any new monkeys on their island, including any males.

At that point I leaned over to my wife and said “Peer-bonded. That’s the politically correct term for ‘lesbo monkeys!’”

Now… OK, I don’t know if this "peer-bonded" same-sex couple was sexually active, but it sure blows to hell the idea that same-sex couples never occur in nature. (Or who knows... maybe they were corrupted by watching Olbermann of something.)

How to make ANY group appear sympathetic: Religious opposition

Let me start off by saying that I am unequivocally for gay rights, and what so many on the Right view with such revulsion, I am simply inclined to view with a feeling of supreme indifference. Although I am not gay myself there is simply nothing in there whole "insidious agenda" that would elicit more than a shoulder shrug from me. Marriage? Are we seriously still talking about this? LET 'EM MARRY ALREADY! That's a no-brainer. Hate Crimes Protection? DUH! They're VICTIMS of HATE CRIME, so again... ARE WE SERIOUSLY STILL TALKING ABOUT THIS? Protection form discrimination in jobs, education, child raising, etc... Seriously? WTF? Someone asking that they be treated like everybody else will simply never be viewed as a radical agenda by your truly. About the only issue I'd stop short on is that I'd still allow private adoption services (church based, or otherwise) to favor heterosexual couples in granting adoptions. And the ONLY REASON I even go that far has nothing at all to do with religion or with any 'damage' that would be done to the child; which has been shown to be bunk anyway! It's simply a question of fairness: The hetero couple generally had no idea that they are infertile when they got together. The homosexual couples OTOH DID know from the start that they could not conceive. SO, from that perspective, one is making an informed choice while the other is a victim of unknown circumstances. And again: I do support striking down the general prohibition of gays adopting children.

So... why am I tooting my horn about teh gay here? Well... I wanted to buff up my liberal cred a little before expressing some reservations about another sexual minority facing the same treatment, and basically asking for the same thing: TRANSGENDERED PEOPLE.

Now again, right off the bat, let me say unequivocally that I don't personally have any misgivings about this particular group. I've never known a transgendered person personally, but have had some online friends over the years who were. Why I differentiate my feelings between the two groups is two-fold. First off all: I can absolutely relate the the idea of homosexuality simply by recognizing that you just can't account for taste, or for who you fall in love with. Your only 'choice' in the matter is whether to embrace it or deny yourself. And while I've never had the difficult personal choice of whether or not to pursue a same-sex relationship, I CAN tell you that my life WOULD be a whole lot easier if I didn't have a thing for RED-HEADS. Nothin' but trouble those auburn dames! But whatever... as long as you're not in love with the same person as I am? I really couldn't care less WHO it is.

But it is infinitely harder form me to reconcile, within my own mind, the idea that I could only be happy if my gender were different. I DO recognize that there are many people who feel this way! But it's not a paradigm that I can really understand, from my own perspective. The closest I can come is to understanding this, is from the POV of rejecting traditional gender ROLES. Which both me and the red-haired tomboy I married both most definitely do. But that's a problematic and incomplete perspective to view this from, because transgenderism HAS to be about more that just the ROLE expected by a given gender, otherwise it wouldn't be just becoming a mainstream issue at a time in history when traditional gender roles are pretty much going by the wayside faster than ever before. No matter how I look at it, I know that there's something there that I just don't understand. And that makes it hard for me to really form an opinion or a position on these issues: When I try to put myself in each person's shoes, I can only really personally relate to (or understand) those standing in their way.

Some examples:

1) Dressing for work / the office. OK... YOU can tell me that, for example, "male" is not "your identity" and I'll believe you. But I can't accept employment law that compels an employer to let you come to work that way. THEY'RE JUST CLOTHES! I don't like wearing ties - that's definitely not my identity, a tie-wearing guy! But I still had to wear one (or quit) on each of my first two "real jobs" out of college! "Golfer" is about as far as you can from my identity as you can get while still remaining a white male, and yet I still have to dress like one to go to work. Or... I can quit. (Not in this job market!)

2) Non-Discrimination for Employment: (continued from above) Let's say I own a company. And I need to hire a salesman. Now, an otherwise qualified applicant that pings my admittedly weak 'gadar' a little, has no reason to expect this to be counted against them. Most people in this country have come to accept that gays are here, and no different form anyone else, and it is a precious few customers indeed that would walk away from a sale, simply because they were talking to a seemingly gay salesman. But... how can I have any idea how my customers will react to a man in a dress, or a woman who has gone beyond simply wearing a man's suit, but is trying to pass herself off as a man? I have to believe that most customers would be rather put of by that. (OK, maybe not if the illusion is perfect, but let's face it: it usually ain't!) And seeing as how my family, and my other employers depend on my company's revenue for their livelihoods how can I be reasonably expected to jeopardize that?

3) Identity: (continued from above) How you want to live on your own time is your own business. But EVERYONE is expected to behave a certain way at work. You are far from the only people that can't "be themselves." Do you think can be my liberal self, telling off all of my Hard-Right, Conservative, Republican bosses every time I hear them bitching about "Socialism," or whatever, under Obama? HELLS NO. Now I could win the argument - but I'd be sabotaging my career. That might not be right but it IS the world we ALL live in. Who I am at home, or online, is NOT who I am at work. At work, I'm a GOOD ENGINEER. Period. That is my identity AT WORK. It merely one aspect of who I am outside of work. (Those of you who know a few engineers probably already know that we never stop being engineers entirely!)

4) Bathrooms: I laugh a bit about this, because this is an issue that I could personally care less about. And lets face it: The controversey is not realy about Women going into the Mens room. Most men could care less. This is about MEN going into the LADIES room. Women are just all-around neurotic when it comes to the bathroom. I'm not judgin', BTW. I mean, whatever. Not really my place to say one way of the other, but this kind of thing FREAKS A LOT OF THEM OUT. And I'd love to say "just go in the men's room forfucksake!" Except that I know that in some places, they're at great risk of getting personally assaulted doing that. And I don't condone, or even understand, THAT kind of behavior at all, so I can sympathize with the TG's here, but I don't really have any good ideas to offer... At least none that come close to satisfying anyone.

Now... What I HOPE I conveying here is the impression that I am sympathetic to the individuals, but that it is an issue that I just have a lot of confusion and misunderstanding about. I don't think they're doing any harm at all, but at the same time, I think that the opposition from, say, employers or the other occupants of the ladies room, are also PERFECTLY REASONABLE, even if I don't necessarily share those same feelings myself. I may not agree wit them, but I do UNDERSTAND. And, as I said when I started, transgenderism is NOT something I truly understand.

There is one other thing... Homosexuality is no longer recognised as a mental disorder by any legitimate psychiatrist/psychologist, and hasn't been for ove 35 years now. "Gender Dismorphic Disorder" however (I believe that's the official term) IS still on the books. And the treatments prescribed are amazingly dichotic: Some advise "therapy to get the person to accept their natural/birth gender" while others focus on "therapy (and drugs, etc...) to help them embrace and transition to their chosen gender identity." Obviously either is about helping the person accept themselves, deal with depression, self-esteem, etc... but there's still an obvious split about WHICH 'self' it is the better one for them to accept. And yeah... that can depend on the individual, of course, but it could also depend, rightly or wrongly, on the political, religious or philosophical biases of the psych! So, I would say that I'm far from the only one who's 100% settled on homosexuality and yet still very much confused about transgenderism.

But when I come across stuff like THIS, or [the original article that inspired this that I now cannot find!] I am confronted with so much ignorance, hatred and bigotry (all tied to "traditional values" which is thinlky veiled code for "evangelical Christianity" and/or "Christian fundamentalism") that I am almost immediately inclined to give the transgendered community ANYTHING they want legislatively, just to stick it to those abominable bible-humpers.

As I said before: It is not an issue I understand very well. I'm man enough to admit that. (Pun intended.) But I know this for sure: These people are HUMAN BEINGS. And no human being deserves to be judged, or discriminated against on the basis of who they are, or how they appear. And I'm REALLY getting sick and tired of the argument that accepting homosexuality and/or transgenderism is somehow akin to condoning pedophilia. Remember: There's no crime without a victim. Pedophilia has a VICTIM - someone who has been denied their choice. But these people have never hurt anyone. And there is NEVER ANYTHING WRONG with teaching children not to hate or fear or (for Christ's sake) physically attack people that are not exactly like them or that the don't understand. That's called: COMMON SENSE, BASIC DECENCY AND THE ONLY ROAD TO PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE. So they can cram this "protect the children" bullshit. The only children being harmed here are the transgendered ones being attacked by schoolyard bullies who learned bigotry, fear and loathing from their parents as some kind of "family value."

Bottom line: The conservatives don't even want to understand this, either as a population of human beings or as a medical phenomenon. All they want to do is to justify their desperate clinging to medieval superstition. And THAT'S not an agenda I can EVER support.


-------------------------------------------------------------------

And for the record? You can add Chris Crocker to my list of 10 Liberals that I hate. (Give him Alan Colmes' spot!) Far from being a fitting spokesman for transgendered youth or the LGBT community, I find him to be an obnoxious, vulgar, drama-queen and little more than a whiny, publicity whore. In short, he makes the list for the same reason as anyone else on it: He does far more harm than good when it comes to fostering the public's understanding of these issues.

On a different note...
Here's a somewhat amusing web-comic with a largely transgendered cast. I'm not using it as a source of information or anything, but it IS an interesting story never-the-less.

Final thing: Should any transgendered people stumble accross this, and would be interested in educating a relatively open minded person, please contact me. My understanding may be lacking, but my desire to understand is genuine!