I find it remarkable that people actually exist who make comments such as this:

The movement to normalize shitfuck unions is predominantly a white phenomenon — therefore with the inevitable loss of white power in America, assbugger/bulldyke “marriage” will become more absurd.   awamoriwhiskey

Perhaps what is unknown to the writer of the above comment (in spite of being 45 years old) is that the white power movement (for which the “Christian Identity Movement” was a large part) is also anti-homosexual. The “white phenomenon” is a stretch of the authors imagination in his effort to establish a white conspiracy to ensure other minorities do not join in the quest for equal CIVIL rights for homosexuals.  It is another fear inspiring tactic of the bigots to elude that they are the “righteous”.

Further, the movement to prohobit anti-marriage persons from allowing same-sex marriage recognition is not an effort to “normalize” the unions at all.  Normalizing the unions implies several things, the primary being that homosexuals are attempting to make gay marriage the standard.  In spite of religious rheteuric, gay people are not actively recruiting.  Christians of all creeds (particularly Mormons and Jehovah’s witnesses) have cornered the recruitment market and appear often on my doorstep attempting to recruit me.  I have never, nor do I currently have plans to ever, knock on sopeone’s door and ask them to be a homosexual. The sell would be too hard because homosexuality doesn’t have many great selling points at this moment in time.   After knocking on the door to recruit, we would only be able to provide comments such as: people will hate you, you will be treated poorly, you may get beaten or murdered, you’ll never get government benefits even though you are paying for them, etc.

This episode is dedicated to conservative hate monger Paul Weyrich, President and CEO of “Free Congress Foundation”, who died this morning at age 66.  Mr. Weyrich was held by some as a “patriot” and “conservative institution.”  However, those that were the target of his hate will forever remember him as a bigot and hate monger.  His death will hopefully be the beginning of the end of an era of hate, misinformation and inhumanity against homosexuals.  One of the many stupid things Mr. Weyrich said about gays was:

Homosexuals tend to be preoccupied with sex.

Mr. Weyrich could not have been more off the mark.  I am of the opinion that Mr. Weyrich was obviously more preoccupied with homosexual sex than homosexuals - which is the case with many hate groups who often protest with signs showing stick figures having anal intercourse.  Such preoccupation with sex on the part of conservative hate groups presents the illusion that it is the homosexual who is preoccupied with sex as we are often having to defend ourselves from such attacks on our sexual practices, unlike our heterosexual counterparts.

In fact, just this morning when I rolled out of bed, headed to the shower and ultimately got ready for work, sex didn’t cross my mind at all.  Instead I was concerned about the inclement weather and the accidents on the highway which would likely result.  I talked with my mother, not about sex but about plans for the holiday and which relatives would be at her house and when they would arrive.  I called the office to let them know I was delayed due to the accidents on the highway.  Not once did I think about sex.

I didn’t think about sex at all this morning until I read of Mr. Weyrich’s death and ultimately, many of the stupid things he has said about homosexuals over the course of his lifetime - it was Mr. Weyrich that was preoccupied with homosexual sex in his battle against the homosexual, and his preoccupation with it was the only reason I thought of sex at all this morning.

A lot has been happening lately and I haven’t released a new Stupid Things People Say About Gays in a while, so without further ado, I provide this quote from Matt Barber of the ironically named “Liberty Council”.

A number of homosexuals and homosexual activists are actually calling for violence, calling for churches to be burned to the ground — churches that supported these amendments.

Mr. Barber goes on to note that these calls for violence aren’t merely homosexuals “blowing of steam” and that such violence would constitute a “hate crime” under the definition.

On one point I could almost agree with Mr. Barber - that violence against a “Christian” simply for being a “Christian” would constitute a hate crime under some state laws.  However, when the action is against someone verbally assaulting you, hate crime law is negated as you are not attacking them solely on their religion.

Now before you pull out the email and start to send me a message about my support of violence against “Christians,”  I should note that I do not believe in violence of any sort - but while you are getting riled up about the potential for violence against “Christians” and thinking you must intervene, ask yourself this question:

How many gay people have murdered Christians just for being Christian?

Now ask yourself this one:

How many “Christians” have murdered gay people just for being gay?

So before anyone else preaches at the gay community for their violent behavior, let’s remember who instigated the violence in the first place.

Finding a good opening line for the Stupid Things People Say About Gays series isn’t always easy.  Particularly, because I get angry sometimes while wading through the pile of crap people consider to be legitimate arguments.  I want to start off with vicious words - sometimes even profane, but instead - take a look at this common and stupid misconception about gay civil marriage:

But I do not think that they should be allowed to redefine the definition of an act [marriage] that is sacred to millions of people. - BabyJoel

Again there is confusion over civil marriage and ecclesiastical marriage.  But because I like to make points, let’s assume for a moment that I would agree that marriage, because it is “sacred” to millions of people, should never be redefined.  I would then need to define marriage very specifically, as throughout history it has changed over and over again - to the point where the original purpose of marriage (which was property rights not breeding rights) has become unrecognizable.  Depending on your locale and what time frame you lived in, some more sacred traditions of marriage might have been as follows:

• You would not have met your husband/wife until your wedding day, and if you did it would have been brief.
• Your parents would have negotiated your marriage, planned your wedding, and your wedding guests would escort you and your new spouse to bed for consummation.
• Too much affection in the marriage would be considered “sinful”.
• Too be married, no formal ceremony, ecclesiastical or otherwise, would have been required - simply move-in together.
• You couldn’t marry someone outside of your race.
• A blood test would be required before you could get married.
• Your marriage would be based upon financial gain and power for your family, not on your attractions or emotions.
• The bridegroom would be 30 something and the bride a teenager.
• Should your husband decide to, he could sell your children [which were actually his children as he was the "man of the house" and had dominion over it and all things within it].
• Your husband could have numerous wives (possibly even 700 of them like Solomon).
• Your wedding ring would be a symbol of a successful “bride sell”.
• If you were part of the Oneida colony (1948) every woman and every man would be married to each other and your breeding would be “scientific.”
• Instead of the husband divorcing the wife, he would kill her.  The wife wouldn’t have either option without severe legal repercussions or, more likely, death.
• Marriage impediments were so strict that many could not marry because of a families affinity for another (the parents of one family being close friends with the uncle of another would be enough to keep two people from marrying).
• Your children would be “necessary labor power”.
• Marriage would be a relationship founded on sexual inequality - man’s dominance over woman.
• The Full Faith and Credit clause would not have applied to divorces and remarriages.  [Note:  This occurred in the 1940's and, had it not, could have resulted in someone being legally married in one state to someone and legally divorced in another state to the same person - thus potentially resulting in bigamy in one state and full legal compliance in another].
• Marriage and divorce would be civil, private matters not under the influence of the church (by the way, this was by U.S. law and was later “redefined”).
• Under 17th Century Puritan Law, your marriage would be “no sacrament” and purely secular (again, U.S. law which was later “redefined”).

To further illustrate some more technical points regarding the history of marriage from a historian who has, well, “been there done that”, I refer you to the very smart, Hendrik Hartog, who wrote:

Fifteen years ago there was a significant literature of critiques of marriage and rejections of argument for gay marriage, from within the gay and particularly within the lesbian communities. Those critiques were shaped by statements of the form: Why would we want to buy into this historically unequal, oppressive institution designed for the subordination of women? I may be wrong, but it is my impression that such critiques have disappeared in the last few years. There are many possible explanations for that disappearance, but I suspect that one reason for the disappearance of the critique is the change in the meaning of marriage, as the egalitarian changes of the past generation have become normative and predictable parts of the legal landscape.

What Gay Marriage Teaches About the History of Marriage.

This morning I woke up, sat straight up in bed and began hovering in mid-air; my head spun completely around several times just before I projectile vomited pea soup onto the floor in front of me.  The pea soup vomit burned a hole in the floor which opened a gateway to hell - out popped Satan and demanded that henceforth I be his lover.  Other than the burn marks around my lips, the “being Satan’s lover” thing isn’t so terribly bad.  It comes with many perks.  With a little Aloe Vera cream, it’s actually very tolerable.

The inspiration for this issue of Stupid Things People Say About Gays:

God did not make gay people, that is a deception of Satan. Being gay is an oppression of the mind, will and emotions caused by a very strong demonic spirit. When the victim gives in to it’s compelling powers the battle’s almost won. He wins when the victim dies in this sin. Your argument is moot.

Homosexuality is no more a deception of the mind than Christianity.  The euphoria produced by prayer and “the feeling of God” is actually an increase in endorphins, just like the euphoria from sex - be it gay or straight sex.  The difference between the two is tangible, literally.

It is regrettable, that in human history, we have been told that Santa is a fiction, the Tooth Fairy doesn’t exist, and that there is no such thing as leprechauns or unicorns - yet somewhere in history someone forgot to say, “Oh, and Satan, he’s fake too.  Just like God.”  Take a look at ancient religions as an example, we are now taught Greek Mythology wherein, during the Greek times, they were taught it as religion and absolute truth.

In Richard Dawkins book, “The God Delusion”, Mr. Dawkins tells the story of being the speaker at a convention and when asked by a participant what his feelings toward the [then] recent molestations by Catholic Priests of children, he quipped, “I don’t think it is any worse than raising your children Catholic.”

His story goes on to advise that he later received a letter from a woman who stated: she was raised Catholic; that when she was six years old, two major events happened in her life (1) her best friend, a protestant, passed away, and (2) her priest molested her.  The woman goes on to explain that the church and her relatives claimed that because the best friend was not a Catholic, she would “burn in hell” for all eternity.  She further explains that because of the image of someone she loved deeply burning in hell, she had nightmares and required therapy in her adult life; however, the molestation by the priest required no adult therapy.  She proclaimed that being raised Catholic was worse than having been molested, a shocking revelation considering Mr. Dawkins was making a “joke.”

I don’t relay Mr. Dawkins story as a claim that raising your children with religious belief and principal is “bad” - After all, I was raised with “God” in my life and, although beaten, I remain undestroyed by it.  The story is relayed to caution religious zealots against doing harm by way of their purported beliefs, because, as the Proverb goes, “The road to hell is paved in good intentions.”

Sometimes, comments aren’t “stupid” in the realm of homophobia, but outright hateful and unfathomable.  What reaction should a gay man have to comments such as this one?

oh and by the way another couple of gays killed in my neighbourhood for being gay, that is music to my ears.  from a proud homophobic. —k.ltwills.r495@googlemail.com

Outrage? Fear? Anxiety? Hate?

Oddly, I read that comment and had this momentary inner peace.  My insides went silent.  I closed my eyes, laid my head back against my shoulders and breathed deeply.   I realized that because of the hate that I have dealt with in my life and because of the hate that those I know have dealt with, that I am ready to do anything it takes to stop that hate.  But how do you stop a freight train with tax shelters [the church] funding their every move?  Do we sit back and become martyrs or do we “bash back“?  Well, by posting the email address to my blog, I’m excited to know that numerous spam bot engines will sweep it up and start sending all those wonderful “enlarge your manhood” emails to k.ltwills.r495@googlemail.com.  That is my bashing back for the time being as I continue my internal debate about the philosophy of bashing back.

Statistically speaking, hate crimes dropped last year to 7,726 hate crimes overall; however, hatecrimes against lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender persons increased by 5 1/2 %.  Due to the current political environment, that number is expected to rise markedly this year.

But what about hate crimes committed by gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered persons against other classes of persons?  Bash Back is a group of persons devoted to the theory of “gays bash back”.  They have received a lot of criticism from all categories, including other gays and lesbians.  Most of their antics/protests have been demonstrative rather than truly violent.  I consider the group to be radical members of the gay community, a Malcolm X type of initiative.  For decades the gay community has had it’s share of “Martin Luther King, Jr.’s”, perhaps it is time for us to become “Malcolm X”.  But then we would be committing the very crimes we worked so hard to enter into the legislature.  We would be committing “hate crimes” and although the result may be that we achieve the ultimate goal of civil equality, we risk loosing our own dignity.

This edition of Stupid Things People Say About Gays gave me great pause.  I couldn’t decide if I could categorize it as “stupid” or if it was just a “different way of thinking.”  My fortune cookie at lunch today did say, “Your perception will switch.”  Interesting that it didn’t say change, but “switch.”  I was momentarily reminded of the song by Fem 2 Fem from the 90’s.  “Switch, I finally tried it, feels good…”  The article I pull this quote from appeared in Christianity Today.

One gay rights slogan goes: “We’re here, we’re queer, get used to it!” National Review columnist John Derbyshire returns the challenge: “We’re here, we’re mildly and tolerantly homophobic, get used to it!” It’s false, he says, to label everyone who resists affirming homosexuality as a dangerous lunatic. We just want to be permitted to live by our convictions.

The article as a whole was very gentle and wasn’t hateful or spiteful at all.  It was written by Frederica Mathewes-Green, author of The Illuminated Heart.  As a non-christian who tries to be tolerant of Christianity, I found myself thinking - How would I feel if a Christian were to tell me “We’re Here, We’re Jesus Freaks, Get used to it.”  Well, truth of the matter is I would likely roll my eyes and tell them that at some point they need to let go of their imaginary friends and grow up.  But that would make me intolerant of a majority that is quickly becoming a minority, and as someone who believes in civil rights for all, I have to consider who is “all.”

John Derbyshire, by way of the aforementioned article, suggests that Christians “… just want to be permitted to live by their convictions.”  I almost fell for it while reading the article, but the truth is they [Christians generally] want everyone to live by their convictions.  Unlike Gay people, Christians actively recruit, which, I suppose, is part of their conviction.

Now, we can agree on something.  As Christian’s want to live by their convictions, so do homosexuals.  Up until recently, the gay agenda was a myth and homosexuals did not actively protest at churches or other religious institutions.  However, after being told to live by the Christian’s convictions or be substandard in the eyes of the Law (not the Lord), gays have had enough.  Thus, your convictions have become to mean as little to me as my convictions mean to you.  After all, I believe it was your god that said, “Do unto others” and “An eye for an eye” and “Happy is he who taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.”

Note:  Recently, a very dear friend of mine who believes herself to be a ‘Christian” became very upset with me for my use of the word.  Apparently, when making claims like “Christians don’t believe in gay marriage,” I was over generalizing.  Well, as I like to say, if the glass slipper fits… However, out of respect for my friend that believes herself to be a “Christian” and having a personal rule to never question someone’s faith, I make note here that my use of the term “Christian” applies solely to those that believe that Jesus Christ is our savior, the Bible is the verbatim word of God and that gay people are going to burn in hell.

I have focused heavily on the religious right in my arguments about gay marriage and have neglected the non-secular arguments.  Today’s quote is in reference to a purported non-secular argument and reads as follows:

Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met.  — Adam Kolasinski

The most harsh point in his argument is where he places the burden of proof.  In law, burden of proof is everything, almost.  In his example, he argues that because “homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society… there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage…“  However, there is no burden of proof in marriage law on heterosexual couples to prove their relationship will benefit the states interest.  Let’s look at due process and equal protection under the law.

LOVING ET UX. v. VIRGINIA, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) was a historic case in the battle for civil marriage rights for whites to marry blacks (or blacks to marry whites).  Loving states:

These statutes [statutes banning interracial marriage] also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. [emphasis added]

I make note, albeit somewhat sarcastically, that Loving does not say “pursuit of happiness between a man and a woman.”

Loving goes on to affirm that:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Civil Marriage is law.  To deny any person the equal protection of the law, without due process abridges “the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”  In order for the law to deny such civil right, the State holds the burden of proof to show that such relationships would detriment society.  Mr. Kolasinski’s efforts to shift the burden of proof on those denied such liberties is false, misleading and improper under the 14th Amendment, Loving and good common sense.

Mr. Kolasinski is a Doctoral Student of Financial Economics.

Recently, a group of “Christians” were run out of San Francisco’s Castro District by a “Gay Mob”.  I love the elevation this story has received in calling it a “gay mob.”  Video footage of the incident shows a group of people being escorted by police while a group of homosexuals (and/or those supporting homosexual rights) are chanting things such as “stay out of our neighborhoods if you don’t like us.”  Christian right-wing organizations are appalled and outraged that they were not allowed by this mob to express their religious freedom.  Well, there’s a taste of your own medicine for you.  This incident has inspired this issue of “Stupid Things People Say About Gays”.

Cute how they tell us to “stay out of our neighbor hood if you don’t like us” My response, stay out of my country if you don’t like us! OUR country was Christian before it was filled with fags.
They are allowed to be disgusting in public, we are allowed to pray in public.

We have the last laugh in all of this, they’re the ones with no future. — genesis311311

First, I feel the need to say (although it may be considered a “bounces off me and sticks to you” sort of argument) that the welcoming of the “Christian” group into the Castro District was very similar to the welcoming bestowed upon homosexuals by “Christian” churches.  Everyone is welcome in the “Christian” church as long as you become an “ex-gay.”  The torment the “Christian” church berated on the homosexual is far more horrifying than “stay out” if you don’t like us.

Secondly, your comment stating “stay out of my country if you don’t like us” and using the argument that the United States was founded as a “Christian” nation obviously demonstrates that you have never been to a history class outside of “Christian” school (or just didn’t pay attention), never read a book not acceptable by the “Christian” teaching and have never had an independent thought which did not conform entirely to the way you are taught.  Examples of the founding of the United States not being on behalf of “Christianity” include:

• The Declaration of Independence begins, “”We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  I note that is says “they are endowed by their Creator” rather than they are endowed by my God.  Although it is unarguable that most of the founding fathers were “Christian”, it seems that they intended to leave God out of the letter of the law.
• The United States Constitution fails entirely to mention God.  It is an obvious omission and certainly was not an error.  Most historians and even theologians believe that the omission was intended to prevent a theocracy wherein the church would have more power than the President - as was the case with the Catholic church’s involvement in politics in Europe.
• “In God We Trust” was placed on currency in the U.S. during the Civil War, not upon the founding of our Nation.
• “Under God” was not in the Pledge of Allegiance until the McCarthy era [1954] when it was added.
• The Treaty of Tripoli, signed in 1797 (note: that was not long after the 1776 “founding” of our nation) by Pickering and then President John Adams  states, “As the Government of the United States…is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion–as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility of Musselmen–and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.” [emphasis added]
• In 1786, an Act for Establishing Religious Freedom (Jefferson again) was passed in the Assembly of Virginia.  It stated, in parts:

…that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions…

…that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world…

…that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles, on the supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency, will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own… [emphasis added]

…that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.

See: “The Writings of Thomas Jefferson Memorial Edition” (ME), Andrew A. Lipscomb and Albert Ellery Bergh, Editors, 20 Volumes., Washington, D.C., 1903-04. Volume II, Appendix, pp 300-303

I highly recommend those that feel the United States was founded as a religious nation to see Our Godless Constitution, by Brooke Allen and the countless books, articles and information available (and cited above).  I also refer them to the U.S. Constitution for more precedence regarding this issue.

Content PG13 (or R for the ultra conservative):  I warn in advance that the “f” word is used in this posting.  If you are afraid of seeing one of the “seven words you can’t say on t.v.” in print, then please consider reading other posts on this site.

Sifting through all the negative stereotypes and idiotic comments regarding gay people has sent me on a path of self discovery.  During my quest, I discovered that putting hand warmers in your underwear on a cold night feels really good, I also discovered that there are short winded homophobics in the world.

An example can be found in the following quote:

fuck all faggots period.
burn in hell motherfuckers!!!!!!!!!! Shadowhound (23 years old)

This is one of my personal favorites as it truly shows how enlightened people have become.  “Fuck all faggots period.”  I can’t decide which part of that is my absolute favorite, the “Fuck all faggots” or the “period”.  The reason this is so fantastic is because if Shadowhound were to actually fuck all faggots, he would be a “faggot”.  I’ve debated whether this was intentionally idiotic or if he really did not realize that the very thing he was arguing against would result from the proposed action to stop it.

So, to you Mr. Shadowhound (and as a response to “burn in hell motherfuckers”) I say, “Pray that you’ll stop believing in God.” – certainly as oxymoronic as your proposal.