Your Completely overloaded blogger is back with another edition. It seems that whenever I am able to consistently blog...nothing happens. Its the same old hurry up and wait stories about the HRC, Maggie Galagher popped up somewhere to say she's not anti-gay while simultaneously pushing a bans on gay rights, and/or someone stonewalling Don't Ask Don't Tell...blah blah blah...second verse, same as the first. Then...I take a day or two out and the poodoo hits the proverbial ventilation device. Case in point: We have been going through our transition with taking in our nieces and nephews and have been quite up to our eyeballs with kidstuff....so of course all the bats take that opportunity to escape the bellfry and cause anti-gay havoc.
Queerty article that he is gay....as if he didn't care we knew all along. He also says that his voting record is a reflection of his constituency and that he completely stands by it....heh....and if you buy that line of bologna I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd love to sell you.
Next up is every gay bloggers constant companion...Maggie Gallagher, but this time she not in the news because of her actions. Mrs. Gallagher has long stumped the campaign trail in support of "traditional marriage" and has been seen at many support marriage events....alone. In fact her husband seems to be the nations best kept secret. According to Queerty who apparently did a little research on the issue...they were able to come up with his name and some rumors about his occupation but little else.....and in time when Senators can't keep their secret doings a secret, how has this man eluded having even one photo taken of him....or more importantly shown up to support his wife and the their "traditional marriage" at rallies and events supporting the superiority of hetersexual unions? Questions like these have prompted people like Fred Karger of Californians Against Hate to write a Huffington Post article questioning whether he really exists.
So either the man that she claims to have been married to for seventeen years, is better at hiding than Osama Bin Laden or something else is occuring that would put a serious crimp in Maggie's "traditional marriage" campaign. The idea occurs to me that it's equally possible that he doesn't support...or care about the issue that has taken his wife on the campaign trail. Either way, its an interesting development...keep your eyes peeled.
Which brings us to the "Concerned Women For America", who always cause concern whenever they pop up with statements like these on their website...this one found via Good As You and written by the CWA's Janice Shaw Crouse:
Let’s begin with the basic argument that people are “born gay.” Apparently, activists are operating under the assumption that if they say this long enough, people will believe it. Yet the science is not there to substantiate their oft-stated premise that homosexuality is genetic and is immutable. The studies that purport to support the idea have not been replicated; instead, they have been repudiated or considered inconclusive. The generally accepted theory is that some people may be predisposed to emotional vulnerabilities that can be exacerbated by external factors, such as parental approval, social acceptance, and gender affirmation. Indeed, a growing number of individuals have chosen to reject the homosexual lifestyle. In addition, there is an acknowledgement, even among homosexuals, that persons can “choose” their sexuality
Dear Ms. Crouse...I say with due respect...please put down whatever you are smoking because it is serieously affecting your judgement. To make the claim that there is no science to back up claims that homosexuality has a genetic component...even if its not fully understood...is a lie and irresponsible. To make that claim flies denies the exhaustive and peer backed studies done by our nations most respected medical establishments and instead offering reparative therapy as your response...even when that same therapy has been proven to be unreliable and in most cases harmfull....and as any gay person will tell you, complete B.S.
The argument that “what I do is my business and doesn’t hurt anybody but me” is an old argument that has been refuted in numerous ways. The institution of marriage has existed throughout history in almost every culture to protect women and children.
Well...not exactly...which is why dowry's were enacted. Marriage for most of our history was about the transfer of property. Our concept of marriage being about "love" first and foremost is a pretty recent change to the institution. One need only look at the historical prevalence of arranged marriages and their use today to find evidence of this.
The fact that we make love such a large component of our unions is a sign of the advancement of civilization, in my opinion...but lets not lose sight of the fact that for most of our history, love was a bonus to most married couples..not the block around which their union was founded.
Activists argue that same-sex “marriage” is like the civil rights issue of racial equality, that homosexuals “deserve” the right to “marry” and have the same benefits and protections of marriage that heterosexuals enjoy. Any denial of that “right,” they say, violates their “equal rights.” The reality is that the same-sex “marriage” effort is more about getting society’s approval for behavior; it is not about benefits or protections.
I have nothing I need ad to your comment Ms. Shaw. Most readers can smell your B.S. from here. This was nothing more than a condescending attack on the dignity that all gay people are entitled to.
Conveying marital status to any group of people gives them societal affirmation and establishes them as an essential element of society when the research indicates they are not capable of performing those functions.
Huh?...Like where not here performing those functions already...puhleeze...
This is one of the more insidious myths related to “same-sex marriage.” There is no way to ignore the fact that same-sex “marriage” violates the deeply-held beliefs of millions of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim citizens whose opposition to same-sex “marriage” is founded on central tenets of their faith. Knowing this, the homosexual activists are working through indoctrination programs for the nation’s children.
Bingo!...and we get to the "Protect The Children!" argument which we all knew was coming at some point.
To make the claims that there are those who's faith does not accept us is a fact. To make the claim that their beliefs have any bearing on American civil law, which is supposed to protect all peoples...including religions....is just plain wrong. If we follow your argument out to its logical conclusion, eventuall faith communities would get to the point were they felt that their beliefs and their tenets are the only ones to have sway in government...oh wait...where already there....
This last myth is probably the one furthest from the truth. In actuality, homosexual unions have a very short lifespan; many of the same-sex “marriages” in Massachusetts are already being dissolved. Further, the health risks associated with homosexual practice are very real and very much in evidence in the emergency rooms of hospitals. There is no denying: Homosexual sex is dangerous and destructive to the human body. Both HIV and HPV are epidemic among homosexual men. Domestic violence is a common problem — twice as prevalent among homosexual couples as in heterosexual ones. Indeed, legally creating a union does not enable two men or two women to become “one flesh,” nor does a legal ceremony give the union sanctity. Instead, the ceremony creates a sham that will devalue all marriages. The government establishes “standards” for measurement and value; to declare a sham union equal to marriage would devalue the “standard” and render all unions worthless and irrelevant. If the U.S. government establishes same-sex “marriages” under law, it will be redefining marriage — completely and irrevocably. Such a powerful statement will contradict the prevailing social science research: There is a big difference between 1) a family created and sanctioned by society when a man and a woman commit to each other and thus form a cohesive unit, and 2) a couple or group of people who live together to form a household in defiance of the prevailing moral codes to render meaningless an institution that has been the bulwark of the family and society throughout history.
As a Gay man who has been with his husband 14 years... and who is now taking care of his unmarried heterosexual nieces children...I think you really need to get out and meet some gay people first hand...and without the preconcieved attitude that we are villians and beneath contempt, this may inform your opinion in a way that brings about more love in a world that sorely needs it.
Her closing argument begins with the statement, "The bottom line is that this social issue is a defining moment for mankind, not just this nation." That is about the only thing we agree on...
Next on our list of verbal attacks on the gay community come from a woman who feels that gays are so bad that all the people on this page are "sell outs" in her opinion.....yikes.
Via Box Turtle Bulletin comes the story of Linda Harvey...an uber conservative who has issued an attack on other conservative who she feels are too soft of the gays. On her list of those she feels are too kind to us are:
■CPAC, for allowing GOPride to be there
■“Bill O’Reilly and his feebly-informed culture warrior, Margaret Hoover” because they ” endorse repealing the ban on homosexuality in the military”
■Charles Krauthammer, who thinks that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is discriminatory
■Dick Cheney, for “listening to a self-declared ‘born-that-way’ homosexual relative”
■“Cindy McCain and her silly daughter” for backing same-sex unions
■Mitt Romney, because ” in 2004, ordered reluctant clerks to issue marriage licenses to Party A and Party B. A genuine conservative might have held off until forced.”
■Ted Olson, for the obvious
■Stand for Marriage Maine, for saying “we want to be tolerant of gays”
■Maggie Gallagher, because she can’t be depended on to “always articulate clear objections to homosexual behavior. Sometimes, she bows the knee to the vaunted ‘identity’”
■The Catholic Church, because it says that it “respects and accepts gays
Wow!....Get out the torture racks because the Spanish Inquisition is back in town! If these guys are too soft on gays, in her opinion, then I don't want to know what she would have in mind for the gay community...However, I have a feeling it wouldn't be as kind as that boat to our own island.
Which brings us to the heroine of our story...
Thats right...Youtubes singular sensation and uber smart ...Zinnia Jones! ...More commonly known as "Zj", recently sighted at the University of Illinois in Chicago. Photo found on Queerty. Now...did doing this add more fuel to Westboro Baptist Church's already insane fire?...probably. Does it give them more press than they deserve....for sure. But you gotta admit, it took moxie to do it and thats why I include it as the close to this post. Good job ZJ....you have more courage than I do.
Oh and do not look up that Bible verse....it is guaranteed to make you spit up your lunch....don't say I didn't warn you...