Tuesday, March 9, 2010

Four False Faces...and one Heroine..

Hello Everyone,

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.

Senator Roy Ashburn has been a near constant figure in the blogs who now publically claims a reported a 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...


  1. Just thought I would at least say glad see you are doing OK, I hope that came out right I really am not sure if what I'm saying at the moment makes any since/is coming out in the right order so if it is not/did not please excuse me.(having a don't know what you would call it but definitely not all there moment)

  2. then please matthew...I hope you are seeing a doctor because now you have me concerned.

  3. I loved the zj film, it was genuinely entertaining.

    The bible verse is why Jake goes out with me by the way.

  4. "The institution of marriage has existed throughout history in almost every culture to protect women and children."

    I hate this argument. Inequality and wars have existed even longer throughout history and are still going strong now. Just because something is historical doesn't make it best. And of course you've already smacked down the "marriage's been around forever and in all cultures!" argument

    "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."

    You know what's not performing important societal functions? Stupid and ignorant bitches like Mrs. Shaw being allowed to breed and infecting future generations with human values like entitlement and discrimination against other people.

    Sorry I know not a nice thing to say and I'd at least hope Mrs. Shaw is making an innocent mistake based just on misinformation, lack of education, and bias. That's my knee jerk reaction to her selective logic based solely around her implication that reproduction being the only important function of marriage and thus a basis for excluding non-procreants (except heterosexuals of course).

  5. "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."

    Okay this is where life gets super tough and complicated. At the end of the day as much as we can be like, "Let everybody believe what they want to believe" inevitably people's beliefs start imposing on other people's beliefs. So what do you do?

    This is where I have a personal problem with religion. Now if religion affected me in no way, then I wouldn't care what people wanted to believe. Unfortunately, what people believe and religions as institutions shape and affect the world and our lives in a myriad of complicated ways. Some good. Some bad. My issue with religion is that it's often used as a political vehicle to mobilize the masses--and often times for purposes of discrimination or conflict. If religion were limited to spirituality, socializing, and morality, then I'd obviously have no problem with it.

    Too often it gives people a sureness and intellectual arrogance and conviction in ideas and principles based on things said in an ancient book from an entirely different time and context. And even more often people just believe whatever their pastor or a respected individual in their life has told them the truth is. Then there are those who believe selective parts of religion and then make up their own. I don't want to just pick on religion, because obviously bias, closed-mindedness, being an uncritical thinking follower, etc. aren't just limited to the religious. However, in our case, as a generality (certainly not all), I would have to say the religion has hurt teh gays more than helped us.

    They key dynamics which hurt us are:

    1. The person fears or loves God, and believes God doesn't like gay acts, thus discrimination against gayness is appropriate. Love the sinner, hate the sin they say.

    In this way these people actually believe that they aren't being bigoted or hateful of gay people, but they still want to stop gay behaviors.

    2. "Freedom of religion" makes it difficult to combat some of its discriminatory tenants. Ultimately none of us can say with absolute certainty how everything works, and we are left with a metaphysical stalemate. Which is alright since I'm all for diversity.

    But what ends up happening is that the tolerance of multiple strains of thought does allow for the most popular and powerful institutions to dominate culture and thus politics. And in our nation that's Christianity. The problem for teh gays is the more discriminatory permutations of Christian sects.

    Since it involves belief, arguments generally won't work. Proof is easily dismissed or reinterpreted in a self-fulfilling perspective by bias and rigid belief. Appeals to morality or justice don't do anything, since the person is following a "higher power" or what they believe to be moral (which you can't argue with without abolishing their entire religion/belief). You can't attack their religion, because then you're not being tolerant of their beliefs and not allowing freedom of religion. It's like an impossible situation

    So ultimately this comes with 2 different major groups in disagreement over belief. Teh gays and their allies who are basing things on social equality, and those whose beliefs (not limited to Christians) will not allow gayness. Both groups are imposing their view on the other. So then the battle becomes political instead of ideological, and ultimately the winner is decided by politics as opposed to exploring the biases/beliefs/facts/evidence/etc. And that's what sucks, since we're a minority and have less power at least in terms of pure numbers.

  6. "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."

    There is that whole evolutionary argument about 1 of the reasons why homosexuality has remained genetically viable despite our inability to reproduce (well--generally) of "gay uncles". How gays are capable of helping out and provide for their kin groups' families, since they don't have their own.

    Personally I thought that was kind of a weak reason myself for why the potential "gay gene" has been allowed to get passed down for so long. But you guys are like the first real life example that I know of that sort of supports the "gay uncle" theory. Except in your case, you're taking care of your kin's children ON TOP of having children of your own.

    1 of the other reasons why I think homosexuality thrives is that I'd imagine bisexuality is a strong evolutionary trait. I assume that somebody who has an attraction to both males and females gains a social advantage (like how armies in the past might be extra strong when they could bond in sexual ways with their fellow warriors). Then homosexuality is inevitable with bisexual genes being prevalent and selected for naturally.

    Of course I'm not sure if homosexuality is even genetic or determined by something else biological (or even environmental). I am convinced that even if it's caused by NURTURE versus NATURE that it can't be helped after a certain point. So that's where the arguments of changing one's sexuality are problematic. Even if homosexuality isn't caused by biology that still doesn't mean it's mutable or changeable.

    And of course even if you could change homosexuality, that still doesn't prove that there's a problem with it and that it should change

  7. I liked your statement about "getting out and meeting some gay people." That is the problem. She already knows gay people!!! We are everywhere. Seriously..closeted gay people are the biggest obstacle we have in getting rights. If people would just be honest then society would realize that we are neighbors, brothers, cousins, coworkers, sisters, uncles..the list goes on.
    I am not saying you should walk up to someone and say.."Hi..my name is Jim and I am gay..." But..at least for sure with your family and coworkers and neighbors and friends..be honest.
    My niece and nephews have grown up with me and my partner. OMG!!!! What a difference! They will definitely get "in your face" if they hear a gay slur.
    Times are changing..but I wish they would just change a little faster.

  8. Concerned Women For America needs to be bombed. That's where you should be Al Qaeda!

  9. Why is ZJ holding a reference to Ezekial 23:20? That verse has nothing to do with gays or sexual morality. It's a prophecy concerning the corruption of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah by symbolizing them as adulterous sisters. I'm not sure what message she's trying to send by holding that sign. Also, I'm not really a fan of hers. I like that she and other atheists are all big on the gay rights, but I generally have a hard time stomaching anti-religious rhetoric. It's why I don't watch Bill Maher anymore even though I agree with most of his politics. No offense to any atheists that read this.