The Radical Gay Agenda

Now that the Hall of Fame posts are up to date, I want to post some stuff about LGBT Rights, some of the recent victories, some of the disgusting backlash, and some other semi-related stuff that I've come accross that I want to share.

First of all, HOO-RAY for the Supreme Court Striking down DOMA! And hoo-ray for their deft handling of the Prop 8 case. Of course, it would have been nice for them to have struck it down outright as well, but doing it the way they did prevents establishing the precedent of CITIZENS defending unconstitutional laws, and really, makes it so that NO ONE can say that the court 'over-reached.' In fact, they dealt only with precisely the issue in front of them, staying well within the bounds or Constitutional Law and Precedent, and reached precisely the correct conclusion - in both cases - with precisely the right reasoning. (Leaving the door WAAAY open to strike down State Prohibitions in a later case, using Justice Kennedy's same reasoning.)

The wierd thing is? Had the State of California actually decide intially to DEFEND Prop 8? And then APPEAL the Lower Court's decision to overturn it? Then the Supreme Court WOULD have had the standing to strike it down, thus invalidating ALL OF THE OTHER State's homophobic marriage statutes! Isn't that amazaing? Because California did the RIGHT THING in NOT defending this abomination of a law... OTHER State's still get to discriminate!

THAT'S what you call "unintended consequences." Funny how things sometimes work out, especially considering the backlash the Godlen State would have gotten if they not only DEFENDED the law, but then APPEALED the decision to strike it down! And yet... If they did? Well, shoot, we might have Gay Marriage in all 50 States Rigth Now!

Which leads me to another milestone in the fight for gay and transgendered equality...

Did you realize that in 29 States it remaines perfectly legal to fire someone for no other reason that being Gay? Add another 5 where it's legal to fire someone for being Transgenered. Now Congress is attempting to do something about that with EDNA. And in respose to pointing out all of the media's misinformation about EDNA, MMFA poster santovicente had this to say:

And so it begins. Getting married ain't nearly good enough. Now, we gotta put up with all sorts of laws making it illegal to not like queers.

Now... I put up his post, because I would like to share my response, which I'm rather proud of, before MMFA decides to take it down. (And they really should! LOL)

You're a right royal prick, aren't you?

No, "getting married" AIN'T enough, you festering boil!

"ENOUGH" is being treaty EQUALLY. Not be DISCRIMINATED against. To have ALL THE SAME INALIENABLE HUMAN RIGHTS as ALL HUMAN BEINGS have and are entitled to, you bucket of sweltering pig's vomit!

Personally, I wonder what would be enough for YOU? Concentration Camps and re-education centers? Maybe YOU'LL be satisfied when you'll be able to go through your day without ever having to deal with anyone who's the slightest bit different that you are, you pimply pustule.

THEY are human beings. YOU would be little more than an APE, IF I wasn't such a wildlife enthusiast.

Now... Putting aside the well deserved rant and artistic vitirol, there is a serious point to make here.

In MY VISION of a perfect world, all people get to enjoy the great opportunity and quality of life that this great coutry offers, and get to participate in the great democratic political process REGARDLESS of whether they are Black, White, Red, Brown or Yellow, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Atheist, Gay, Strait, Bi-, Pan-, Cis-, Trans-, Able-Bodied, Handicapped, Autistic, Blind, Deaf, Mute or Fluently English Speaking. In MY perfect world, ALL PEOPLE enjoy all of the great things that Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness have to offer.

Um...

What does THIS ASSHOLE'S perfect world look like, I wonder? What is so terrible about MY vision, MY ideals, MY 'perfect world' (OURS, really, but you get what I'm saying) that causes scumbags like him to recoil and lash out with hate and venom every time we take one small step closer to it? Seriously!

What are they offering that is so wonderful? What... We all get to enjoy life so long as we do everything just like them?

This isn't chariceture, and it's NOT rhetorical. I want to know what these fuck-nuts on the Right, these Religious Funny-Mentalists have against the idea that ALL human life - ACTUAL human life - is sacrosant, and that no one person's rights are greater than another's, and thus no one has the right to take anything away from another. What the fuck is so WRONG with that? What the fuck is wrong with them? Becuase I cannot even understand, let alone abide, the way these people "think!"

Another MMFA Piece, was this Washingtom Times Piece from Elaine "Shrieking Harpy" Donnelly, saying (among other things) that "Mr. Obama has used the armed forces to deliver on political promises to his homosexual base, and traditional military families are about to pay the bill." This is part of a larger column arguing (falsely) that extending marriage benefits to same-sex couples is somehow going to harm "traditional" military families. Basically that these good old, hard-working Christians are going to have to foot the bill (negligible though it may be) for treating Gays like human beings.

And again, I bring it up, because I would like to share my response:

Um... SO FUCKING WHAT?

The abolition of slavery came with a cost too.

We don't treat our fellow human beings with equality because it's cost effective, we do it because IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO, YOU HORRIBLE BITCH!

(What can I say... I was in a ranting mood today!)

But seriously, again: What the fuck is wrong with these fucking people? What they hell is wrong with treating HUMAN FUCKING BEINGS like HUMAN FUCKING BEINGS?! What part of "ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL" do these genetically defective mental midgets not fucking understand?!

There were others, but I'm all ranted out now. I hope you enjoyed reading that, and if I've offended your sense of Christian Morals, please feel free to go fuck yourself. Anytime.

I'll leave you with this EXCELLENT video. I almost wish that Anonymous had the intitive (and the balls) to set up some manner of account so he could keep postiong, becuase this directly debunks a lot of what we we used to argue about - the idea of CHOICE and whether or not one is "born that way." As I've said before: Science WOKRS. Yay SCIENCE. (Sadly, I am not planning to re-instate anonymous posting any time soon unless Blogger fixes their spam filter, BIG TIME. There was just too much crap getting through.)

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!)

"Belief" in FREEDOM as opposed to RELIGION

This post is meant as a kind of an in-depth answer to some of the questions poster Duta raised in her comments to my last post. One of the great things about having a regular poster [like Duta] who thinks about things completely differently from you and who comes from a totally different school of thought, is that they will inevitably frame things in a way, or pose a question that, from your point of view, comes from so far out in Left Field that you hadn't ever remotely considered it.  In my experience conservatives don't really appreciate those kinds of points (or people) so I feel like I owe it to both myself and her to try and address these points in greater detail.

The first question, and the easier of the two, was:

What about the muslims in Europe and other places of the western world, making a minimal effort to respect and to adapt themselves to the norms existing in the hosting countries?

It's a pretty common talking point in the United States as well, and it applies not only to Muslims, but spills over into the broader immigration issue as well.  (Applied to Mexican migrant who don't speak english, for example.)  The word most commonly used in the American Right Wing talking point is "assimilation."  IOW: "Why should we accomodate people who aren't making an effort to assimilate?"

In the first place, personally, I don’t see any INHERENT good in assimilation. Don’t get me wrong, when I go to a foreign country, I try to learn some of the language, eat the local food, participate in the customs, etc… I mean, yeah, that’s the whole POINT. But I DO NOT believe that anyone should have to forego something as important to them as their religious practice, or for that matter be forced to participate in another’s religious practice (a sin in most religions) because of it. If you were to visit Iran, for exmple, just I as I feel it would be bullshit for you to be REQUIRED to wear the head covering (etc...) and participate in their prayers and rituals, I think it is equally bullshit to expect them to leave all that behind when they leave their country. Even though most DO... usually as soon as the airplane is outside of their country's airspace and the laws no longer apply. But if they don’t wish to? They shouldn’t HAVE to. That's just how I feel about it. “Assimilation” is just another word for “conformity.” And I’ve never seen any inherent good in conformity. Learn the language. Fine. Try the food. (Unless it is specifically taboo.) But ALWAYS be true to yourself.

And the other side of this is that "American" culture formed by assimilatring aspects of cultures from all over the world.  Primarily Europe, yes, as we are a majority of European descent.  But there is no longer any denying the influence of Asian, African, Latin American and increasingly Middle Eastern cultures as more immigrants for those regions come here.  Is that GOOD? Is that BAD? It's neither, really. Or rather it depends on your point of view.  The fact is that NO immigrant group completely left their culture behind when they came here.  At one point in this country's history, violence between the Irish and the Italians was far worse that any anti-muslim or muslim instigated violence is today.  (Putting aside 9/11, I'm talking day-to-day here.)  My point is that America will absorb some of any new culture.  And in doing so it will only grow stronger. 

What stops something like radical islam from comign in ataking over? Simple: FREEDOM.  Our Constitution.  OUR culture of TOLERANCE.  And the guarenteed Freedom of Religion that comes from the seperation of the church and the state.  In time any group will "assimilate" here, because that which is different becomes part of what "America" means.  That happens becuase America is an entire country of immigrants.  Ironically it is the native American culture that arguably has the least infuence of American culture.  In European countries it is harder to adapt like this, because the idigineous population is homogenius and has a more singularly established culture.  Likewise, those elements in America who fear change, and fear anything that's different, and fear anything they don't immediately understand also have a hard time accepting this.  But the greatest law of nature is that a species that can't adapt will die off.  The world around us is constantly changing, and no amount of conservatism will ever change that.  America thus has an advantage that Europe doesn't have: Since nothing "American" (other than Jazz and Rock & Roll) doesn't come from somewhere else, adaptation is what we do best.  So we'll take the best easpect of middle eastern culutre, and the worst aspects of it will, as in many other cases, be addressed and will eventually die off.  Their "assimilation" will involved both their own felxibility as well as ours.  And, just as in many other cases, it can take a few generations to accomplish this.  But it can happen.  My parent's marriage (Irish to an Italian) would have been unheard of in their parent's youth.  The growth in inter-racial marriage that we're seeing now was unheard off in their day, and actually still ILLEGAL in many states.  In another generation or two?  You won't see the muslims as all that different.  Well... YOU will... but your kids or grandkids won't.  That's just how it goes. 

*phew* I spent a lot longer on that than I'd intended! Sorry, about that!

The other point you made, the one I thougt was more prfound, though which I might end up haveing less to say about was:

You claim you're not religious and yet you seem very reigious about certain words such as Freedom.

Interesting.  So, I'm forced to ask myself if I have a “religious” belief in freedom. It’s an interesting use of the word, "belief.". The problem is that “belief” can have tow different meanings, both of which can be applied to both religion and freedom.  But I tend to mean one with Religion and the other with Freedom.

When I say that I DON’T “believe in Religion” this means two things. First of all there is the value judgment: I don’t believe in the inherent goodness of religion. Second, there is an existential question. To me, “Being religious” means that you believe that by participating in certain rituals (mass, prayer, fasting, worship, drum circles, etc…) you bring about a change that you can’t percieve or meausre, in an object (your soul) that you can’t percieve, measuire or  even prove exists, brought about by the will of a being… that you can’t percieve, measure, adequately define, or prove exists. Well… as I don’t believe in God or Souls (or Heaven and Hell,) as you’d likely define them, in the existential sense. So I REALLY don’t believe that I’m invoking any magical change in the universe by participating in these rituals. If YOU DO? And YOU get something that you feel is tangible out of it? Fine, go right ahead. Not only will I not try to stop you, I’ll fight for your right to do so. Because…


I believe in FREEDOM.

Now, the funny thing is, I don’t believe in freedom in the existential sense either! Actually, I’m positive that the kind of freedom I talk about, as I define it, doesn’t exist ANYWHERE. So when I say that I “believe” in it (religiously, as you put) it is only form the pointof view of a value judgment. I DO believe in the inherent goodness of the freedom of all mankind. I believe, as I’ve defined in the doctrine of choice, that pretty much all moral issues can be resolved almost trivially by respecting individual freedom (choice.) If religion make you happy? Practice it. If you, as I do, believe that THIS LIFE is all you get? Better enjoy it. Better make the most of it. Better do whatever you can to pursue the most happiness you possibly can! And there is only one limitation that I think should ever be put on that: Your happiness is not more important than anyone else’s. So you cannot pursue your happiness at the expense of another’s. As I said before: If religion make you happy? Practice it. But respect the fact that not everyone feels as you do. And if not everyone feels as I do? Fine. You don’t HAVE to be free. You can voluntarily give up as much of your own freedom as you wish. (Like I said: Practice Religion, for example.) But I will stop short of allowing anyone to compel other to do the same. To me the inherent goodness of this is self evident. And I haven’t really be challenged in a way that has ever shaken my belief in this. 

My faith in the Bible, OTOH, was shaken when I was FIVE YEARS OLD. That’s how long it took. Two weeks in Sunday school when the Nun couldn’t reconcile the existence of Dinosaurs with the “true” story of Genesis in a manner that was satisfactory to a five-year-old. From that point on I pretty much knew it was almost all bullshit. And the more I learned about OTHER religions as I matured? The more I learned that every claim to fame of Christianity (virgin birth, resurrection of the dead, divined incarnates, miracle, eternal life, etc…) had been made just about every OTHER religion on earth – IOW every Religion I had either already rejected or was being encouraged by Christianity to reject? I realized that there was not reason NOT to reject the claims of Christianity (or ANY religion) as well.

And what's more, there is nothing of inherent value in any religion that isn’t already part of the secular humanist philosophy or my own doctrine of choice. You don't need religion to tell you that we shouldn’t killing each other, or lying to each other, or stealing from each other or having wars. And considering how many wars have been fought and killing has been done BECAUSE OF religion… I am forced to see it as no more than unnecessary at it’s best, and a destructive force at it’s most common.

But the more I learn about freedom, the more I THINK about freedom, and the more times I’ve seen that philosophical doctrine WORK when it comes to resolving societal problems… the more I come to believe it.  Because it has failed me in only ONE instance: abortion. That’s the only issue it can’t resolve, and then only because it hinges upon when we consider life beginning, when the rights of one entity finally overide the rigths of another.  Outside of that one issue, I've seen no issues that this doesn't satisfactorally resolve.

At least... In my humble opinion.

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

And BTW... "Freedom" is NOT "the jungle." Freedom, "as [I] see it" is NOT found in the jungle.  Not at ALL.  In "the jungle" might makes right.  "The jungle" only the strongest have their rights protected, and the weak get exploited.  What I advocate for is practically the opposite of the jungle: It is a society that guarentess the protection of the rights and liberty of ALL it's citizens, limiting them only enough to prevent demonstrable harm (the taking of a choice) from another.  Protecting an unpopular minority is as far from the jungle as you can get.  So you're just flat out WRONG there, though the failure may have been a lack of clarity lately on my part,

The Atheism / Religion Argument

"I contend we are both atheists - I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you reject all other gods, you will understand why I reject yours as well."
~Stephen F. Roberts

I saw [the above quote] posted by TBONE today on http://mediamatters.org/columns/201001050042




Before I go any further, let me say that I am not a “true” atheist. I'm solidly agnostic. God might or might not exist. I don’t know, and can’t know, therefore it would be reckless of me to CONCLUDE anything. What I DO know is that the most learned theologian in the world today, knows no more about God(s) than I do. All they have over me is a vast repertoire of knowledge regarding what man has believed about God(s) over the centuries. And seeing how much it’s changed? Why on earth should I believe in merely the most recent one to come along? If 500 years from now, Scientology becomes the dominant religion in the world, I hope that the atheist of that day are able to read this: I WAS AROUND WHEN THEY WERE NOTHING BUT A BUNCH OF KOOKS AND CULTISTS AND I CAN ASSURE YOU, IT’S ALL BULLSHIT.

And in reality, it really is ALL bullshit. Every religion ever concieved asks you to believe something that's either impossible or at a minimum something that there is no evidence, at all, to support.

But the opening quote is arguably the best way to debate atheism with a religious person. Or, if they’re not buying it, try this:

1) Ask them if they believe in ZEUS, RA or ODIN. Not worship now, but do they believe in the existence of these deities as actual, living entities?

2) Once you both agree that the idea of ZUEA/RA/ODIN being REAL is absurd, ask them WHY, and remind them that their reason should not be one that could be applied equally to God/Allah/Yahweh/Jehovah /etc…

3) Flip it: Ask them for an argument supporting the exsistance of God (etc…) that could not be used equally to support the exsistance of Zeus (etc…)

It logically can’t be done. To argue for the exsistance of something without evidence is to accept the theoretical exsistance of ANYTHING... without evidence!

Believe in Angels? What about Demons? Why those and not Goblins, Unicorns or Leprechauns?

Well... I know why. Because that would be absurd, right?

(See three step process above)

Now... in truth? I don't care what YOU believe. I really don't. Believe whatever you want. I won't mock; in fact you'll find I'll be very respectful of it, just as long as you don't try to call science, or history and for God's sake don't try to use the government (or the schools) to force me (or my children) to go along with it.

That's all we ask. If denying you the right to wage war on our non-belief constitutes us waging war on your belief, then so be it. I'll just list that among the millions of absurd things religion asks that you believe.