Life & Otherwise . . .: American "Family" Association

Showing posts with label American "Family" Association. Show all posts

Monday, April 19, 2010

How Tony Perkins Has it Wrong...
The Story of Harold and Clay...

Have you heard the story? Russ has a great post on this story as well which you should check out, but for what it's worth, here's my two cents... It's a simple, tragic tale, one that puts to rest the tired arguments of the right-wing Americans who claim that all we need to do ("we" being same-sex partners) is fill out the legal paperwork, spend the hundreds of dollars to ensure our wills and our estates are made out to one another, jump through the hoops and be good little gays and stay away from that word of "marriage" because that's "sacred" and only for straight couples...

So that's what Harold and Clay did:

Clay and his partner of 20 years, Harold, lived in California. Clay and Harold made diligent efforts to protect their legal rights, and had their legal paperwork in place--wills, powers of attorney, and medical directives, all naming each other. Harold was 88 years old and in frail medical condition, but still living at home with Clay, 77, who was in good health.

You see, they lived together in California--you remember the fiasco that happened in California, do you not, dear reader? Prop 8? Ring a bell? Prop 8 repealed the right of same-sex couples to get married in the state of California under the guise of "majority rule" (i.e. Mob rule). The Mormon church, Tony Perkins of the "Family Research Council," and a whole host of other right-wing lobbyists spent billions of dollars to make sure their right to marriage remained special and separate, and repeated, quite often, that the gays just needed to do their paperwork and leave that word alone, and we'd all be just hunky-dory. In fact, just a few days ago, Tony sent out an email which said the following:

Let me be clear--I agree that patients should be free to authorize anyone they want to visit them in the hospital and make decisions for them if they are unable to. In fact, they can already do so--through advance directives, such as a health care proxy or power of attorney. These are private contractual arrangements that do not require redefining "family" or "marriage." And they don't require the President of the United States to make himself "hospital-administrator-in-chief."

(Well, Tony, you're full of SHIT.) You see, Harold and Clay had done all of those things, but in the state of California, which just rescinded the rights of gay couples to have a marriage license... Well, this is what occurred next:

One evening, Harold fell down the front steps of their home and was taken to the hospital. Based on their medical directives alone, Clay should have been consulted in Harold's care from the first moment. Tragically, county and health care workers instead refused to allow Clay to see Harold in the hospital. The county then ultimately went one step further by isolating the couple from each other, placing the men in separate nursing homes.

Ignoring Clay's significant role in Harold's life, the county continued to treat Harold like he had no family and went to court seeking the power to make financial decisions on his behalf. Outrageously, the county represented to the judge that Clay was merely Harold's "roommate." The court denied their efforts, but did grant the county limited access to one of Harold's bank accounts to pay for his care.

Oh, it doesn't stop there, dear reader. Oh no, what happened next was beyond the pale. The fact that this can happen in America today, that this very well could have been Rich and I just a few short weeks ago--it terrifies me. The legal paperwork is only as good as the government issuing it, and if the government stance is "Gay relationships are nowhere near as special and important as straight marriage", well, this is what happens:

Without authority, without determining the value of Clay and Harold's possessions accumulated over the course of their 20 years together or making any effort to determine which items belonged to whom, the county took everything Harold and Clay owned and auctioned off all of their belongings. Adding further insult to grave injury, the county removed Clay from his home and confined him to a nursing home against his will. The county workers then terminated Clay and Harold's lease and surrendered the home they had shared for many years to the landlord.

Three months after he was hospitalized, Harold died in the nursing home. Because of the county's actions, Clay missed the final months he should have had with his partner of 20 years. Compounding this tragedy, Clay has literally nothing left of the home he had shared with Harold or the life he was living up until the day that Harold fell, because he has been unable to recover any of his property. The only memento Clay has is a photo album that Harold painstakingly put together for Clay during the last three months of his life.

Their possessions--sold. They were separated against their will, both physical and legal paperwork notwithstanding. Harold died alone. All Clay has left to remember his partner, his lover, his HUSBAND, is a book of pictures. Pictures. A 20-year life together auctioned off like junk, two men torn apart because, according to the "law," they were just "roommates." ROOMMATES?!

I lay this at your feet, Tony. You and the Mormon church and the rest of your ilk. Harold died alone because their relationship wasn't "worthy" of a marriage license, because all they had to do was "fill out the paperwork." All Clay has left from the last 20 years of his life, of their lives, is a photo album. Of course, maybe you don't care, and that is your right. But imagine if it were you, and your loved one, your partner, the last twenty years of your life. Knowing you were barred from seeing them? That they died alone? You weren't there to say that last good-bye, for that last kiss, that last whispered "I love you" gently into the ear that lay by your side for the last twenty years. And all you had left to show for those twenty years--is a photo album. Not the house you both shared, or the yard you both tended, or that special something you both fell in love with at that yard sale... Nothing.

I hope Clay makes them pay through the nose. Even though money can't bring back his husband, I hope he makes them pay until it hurts, until those people responsible feel just a little bit of the pain they inflicted on these two, the pain they inflicted on Harold in the last moments of his life, and the pain and suffering Clay still goes through having been robbed of what should have been their final moments together...

This terrifies me, that this can and apparently does happen. And, dear reader? If it doesn't scare the shit out of you? Then you haven't actually thought about it...

Thanks to the Bilerico Project for bringing this story to light, when even the local papers weren't covering this tragic piece of news.

Tuesday, February 2, 2010

How Gay Would That Be?

Tony Perkins of the "Family Research Council" claimed in a mass email on Thursday, 1/28, that "[Obama] is turning the military into a homosexual playground," among other things. Something tells me he's watched Saving Ryan's Privates too many times (only, of course, so he can let others know how bad gay porn is for American families...). Never minding that we always have been and always will be proud members of the military (as we are, in Tony's words, "militant homosexuals"...), serving with honor and distinction to the highest ranks of the military all the while keeping our personal lives separate and secret, Tony also wants everyone to "sign our new petition and remind Capitol Hill that the military isn't a laboratory for political correctness." As if the military were a democracy... Ha! What's truly hilarious is all the arguments Tony and his ilk are whipping out to "support" their position are the exact same arguments that were used to try to prevent blacks from serving alongside whites in the military. My friend Russ has an excellent post about this here. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Discrimination against homosexuals isn't the same as what African Americans went through (and in many instances still experience), but there are too many similarities to not draw a comparison.

In a semi-related incident, the "American Family Association" has come up with an even more brilliant idea to handle "the homosexuality problem." As they are apparently unaware that this isn't a theocracy (a mistake a lot of fundamentalists make), on the radio the other day one of their people advocated imprisoning us all and putting us through "reparative therapy"! (EVEN THOUGH IT DOESN'T WORK!) As Russ once again posted about, American Family Association radio host Bryan Fischer stated on the air:

If you believe that what drug abusers need is to go into an effective detox program, then we should likewise put active homosexuals through an effective reparative therapy program. Secondly, I'm afraid you're simply wrong about the Bible's perspective on the law and homosexuality. Paul lists quite explicitly in 1 Timothy 1:8-11 the actions and behaviors that are the proper concern of the law:
Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine...
The bottom line here is that, biblically, those "who practice homosexuality" should come under the purview of the law just as much as those who take people captive in order to sell them into slavery. You express a belief in the Scriptures, and I trust your confidence in Scripture is not selective. If you believe all Scripture is inspired, then you are compelled to accept that legal sanctions may appropriately be applied to those who engage in homosexual behavior.

So not only do you want to round up all the men who have sex with men and lock them up together (rope no longer needed for soap!), but even more unbelievable is this man actually thinks secular laws should be based on the bible! Now, let me think, let me think... Who was it that also advocated rounding people up, jailing them, and, when possible, brain washing them? Oh, that's right: The Nazi's! Again, not exactly the same, but enough similarities to draw a pretty accurate comparison... After all, both the AFA and the FRC support Israel and all Jews, just as long as they aren't gay Jews, secular Jews, or unwilling to fight for the Holy Land Jews...

And, in regards to "Paul's list" in which "homosexuality" is included? As Russ pointed out, and as I've mentioned various times here on this blog and in other forums, the word homosexual didn't even exist back when Paul was writing his letters, and most of today's English translations are very crude paraphrases of the original Greek and Hebrew... See here for my own wonderful expose on Paul's letter to the Romans... (Sorry, Bryan Fischer, but bad paraphrasing of an ancient language can by no means be construed as "quite explicit"...)

As a former soldier in the United States Army (and current homosexual), and knowing many homosexuals who are still in the military, as well as many former military members, I find it shocking that a former Marine (of all people!) DOESN'T realize he had served among many fine and upstanding gay and lesbian soldiers! (Of course, given the climate created under DADT [that's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" for you acronym-challenged folks] and how out-spoken Tony is about his intolerance and fear of all things gay, one can only assume they were smart enough not to let him on the fact...)

Perhaps Tony's biggest fear (other than the fact that a homosexual might have seen his pee-pee in the communal showers during basic training) is the fact that if gay marriage does become recognized throughout the country, Jesus will pop down from heaven and ask for Tony's hand in marriage... Just to prove that he does, indeed, love Jesus that much. How gay would that be?

Thursday, November 12, 2009

The Capitol and the Catholics...

The Catholic church of Washington, D.C., has issued the city an ultimatum:

The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington said Wednesday that it will be unable to continue the social service programs it runs for the District if the city doesn't change a proposed same-sex marriage law...

Because feeding and sheltering the homeless isn't nearly as important as gay couples getting married, right? Making sure orphaned children are adopted by loving parents isn't nearly as important as making sure lesbians don't tie the knot! It says it right there in the Bible!:

Deu 15:11 For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land.

Er... wait... Wrong verse... But you know it as well as I do, dear Christian! The gays can not, MUST NOT be allowed to get married! Jesus commanded it! Remember when he said:

Luke 18:22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.

Um... not there, but I'm sure he said something about it! He must have! I mean, homosexuality was rampant back in his day--the Romans and the Greeks! He was surrounded by those perverted homos!

And then Paul--you know, the guy most Christians worship?--HE was very adamant that the poor weren't nearly as important as the gays! He went into great detail saying about how the law of the land was the utmost of importance when it came to Christian/Government relations, like when we wrote:

1 Cor 13:3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed [the poor], and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

Oh... Well, I'm sure he said something about it...

And Jesus' brother, James? If one man was to know what Jesus and god thought of all this gay wedding nonsense, it was he! He wrote:

James 1:27 Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, [and] to keep oneself unspotted from the world.

Well, regardless of what the bible actually says, you as Christians MUST remember that your religious freedoms which are not affected by the gay marriage bills in the United States are MORE IMPORTANT than helping out your fellow man. Your religious freedoms are MORE IMPORTANT than being a stand-up guy for your Jesus. What you believe, what your opinion is on civil matters is MORE IMPORTANT than anything else! Even though the D.C. bill explicitly states that "religious organizations would not be required to perform or make space available for same-sex weddings," what the Catholics really fear from this bill (and if you were to ask Jesus, rightly so!) is that "they could be forced, among other things, to extend employee benefits to same-sex married couples."

God. Forbid. If Jesus were in a grave (and because the Bible says he rose, he isn't!), he'd roll over! Twice!

What is this world coming to, when the equal treatment of human beings trumps religious belief and opinion? I'm sure when the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock to escape the religious persecution in England only to start religiously persecuting everyone else that also came here, they never envisioned this! Why, the nerve of our nation's capitol! The unmitigated gall!

Well, not to worry--just like when god threw Massachusetts into the ocean, Vermont was swallowed by a gaping sink hole, and in Iowa everyone was turned into a pillar of salt, Washington, D.C., will have its day of judgment to... I'm sure of it!

Just as soon as god becomes real and takes an interest in the overwhelming persecution of the United States Christian... (even if Christian beliefs and actions stemming from those aren't affected by the law, and even if homeless persons will go hungry and die...)

Amen.

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

A Fellow American...

Where to begin? As it has been said, it is best, I suppose, to start at the beginning...

There is a reason we won't go back in the closet. As with any other human being on this planet, we are human beings, first and foremost. We have hopes and dreams, fears and failings, desires, ambitions, happy thoughts and sad, and we have lives.

We are brothers and sisters; we are mothers and fathers; we are sons and daughters; we are grandsons and granddaughters; we love and are loved. We eat, drink, laugh, cry, love and hate; we sing in the shower, yell at people who cut us off on the freeway, scream at the television when something pisses us off...

And we do get pissed off. Much like anyone would be when their lives are up for "popular vote."

We are not a nameless mass huddled in a dark corner ashamed to exist, although there are some who would like to make us feel that way. We do not have horns and forked tales and carry pitchforks trying to "recruit" people into the homosexual "lifestyle." As Harvey Milk once said, "I was born of heterosexual parents, taught by heterosexual teachers... If it were true that children mimicked their teachers, there'd be a hell of a lot more nuns running around." Much like red hair, left-handedness, even a white child born to African American parents, we just happen. We are not of the devil, we are not because we were molested as children, we are not some degenerate throw-backs--we are PEOPLE. We come in all colors, exist in all nations, adhere to a plurality of religious backgrounds and traditions, as well as a plurality of orientations. We are born of you, raised by you, loved and hated by you, work with you, shop with you, employ and are employed by you--but we are not a virus, a plague, nor are we lesser than you, my fellow American.

We are gay, lesbian, bisexual, and yes, we are transgendered and transsexual. We are male and female and somewhere between, and we are all human beings with the same inalienable rights. You know us, whether you like to admit it or not. We exist, whether or not you'd prefer to acknowledge it. You are entitled to your opinion, and on most days, any American would be happy to respect it...

But not today.

Today I am angry. If you would have put women's suffrage up for a "popular vote"? It would have lost, and you would have heard that women should just be grateful that God provided them with husbands and children that needed cared for. It was their "proper place," being in the home, without right to land, money, or even a vote to voice an opinion. Civil rights for African Americans? Wouldn't have had a prayer. Children's labor laws? Perish the thought! The Civil War? You know, the one where we fought tooth and nail just for the right to exist as a new nation, to not suffer under horrible taxation laws, no right to trial, presumed guilty unless by some miracle proven innocent? Two thirds of the people living in America at the time of the American Civil War were AGAINST the war!

Because people, ultimately first and foremost, fear what they do not know, cringe from change, find comfort in the status quo. When Kennedy was running for president, the largest fear was that the Pope would run American politics. It took years and years of Catholics running for office before Kennedy even had a prayer of winning! Change comes slowly when people fear the unknown, and I suppose I find small comfort in the fact.

Very small comfort.

But when you know someone who is gay? It's much harder for you to put up their lives for a "popular vote." That's also just another simple fact, do with it what you will. For the longest time, it was thought that homosexuals were the principle perpetrators of child molestation when in fact it is 95% of men who identify as straight and are usually related to the child who commit these vile acts. It was thought that gays were "demon infested"--sadly, something still thought of as true not only in small pockets of the United States, but in countries the world over as well. It was thought to have been "caused" by having been molested, or having a "distant" father or "overbearing mother," none of which is even remotely true. Ask us, we'll tell you. We'll set the record straight, if you'll pardon the pun.

There's a reason we won't just be "happy" to live quiet lives so you can remain ignorant, so you can raise more gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered and transsexual children, ignorantly telling them their entire lives that they are wrong, that they are sick, that they are perverts! YOUR CHILDREN! Ignorance is not an excuse. Naivete is no longer an option. That's who were are! That's who we will always be. Your children. And when you pulled that lever to say "We don't want gays marrying!" guess whose happiness and dreams you've just put up for a vote? It wasn't some nameless mass of "gays" four states away and a world apart. It was people you see every day. It was your fellow American. It was your children.

When I woke up this morning and saw the news that Maine voters had overturned same-sex marriage in their state, I was not shocked. "Saddened," perhaps. "Angry" most certainly! But shocked? I hadn't even dared to hope.

But there's a reason I do now. There's a reason I hope once more.

You see, back in the 1970s there was a state-by-state banning of gay civil rights, started by Anita Bryant. State by state she helped states repeal or ban ordinances that protected homosexuals from being fired or denied housing just for being gay. Not based on job performance, mind you, or credit scores, or anything else even remotely objective--back in the 1970s, you could be fired or evicted just for being a gay human being. But, of course, it was the "morally correct" action to make sure these homosexuals didn't have basic human rights (as if denying someone the right to earn a living and live in a decent home could even be remotely spun as a moral thing to do!) And state by state, the moral majority was mostly successful! Just shy of forty years ago, California was the first state to take a stand and say, "We will protect all of our citizens!" and did not bow to the immorality of the moral majority. It became illegal, in 1978, when I was two years old, to discriminate against an individual because of their sexual orientation in the state of California...

Now 30 states protect persons from such discrimination, and by years' end, it should be federally illegal to do so (thus mandatory in all 50 states...) And while I am sad to say, my state covers sexual orientation and gender identity only if you actually happen to work for the state (i.e., it is not one of the thirty states), thirty states is more than the one state almost forty years ago...

Indeed, change comes slowly, but it does come. And as angry as I am right now, I do have that hope that, perhaps in forty more years, it won't just be five states that allow people to share their love and joy through marriage (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, and New Hampshire), but all fifty states. In forty more years, I hope that you, America, will recognize what a dumb bachagaloop you've been--putting human rights up for a vote?!

Once you have said it is okay to do to one minority group, others aren't far behind. Hitler, too, had a shopping list. And considered himself quite a good Christian.

Offended by that analogy? Offended enough to rethink your approach to human rights?

After all, I, too, am an American. It's just that I happen to be gay as well. Is that really a reason to tell me I cannot marry the man I love? Is it?

In forty years, look back on this moment, dear voters in Maine. Look back at what you voted on.

You voted to deny a fellow American the right to marriage.

A fellow American.

I hope you feel proud.

Thursday, July 23, 2009

You Got to Have Faith-ah-Faith-ah-Faith-Ah!

Now, dear reader, we've spoken of faith before: What is Faith?, Things That Make You Go Hmm..., Knowing is Half the Battle, A Proof of Faith, If You Don't Believe in Flying Pigs, and Creationism, Faith, and Proof, just to name a few!

But one of the recurring things that come up in any discussion with a rabid fundamentalist is something along the lines of, "I don't care what science says, I have faith in god and that settles it!" or "I don't care what you say or what the evidence is, god said it, I believe it, and that settles it!" You get the gist: Despite evidence and reason to the contrary, if they can think of a verse that "contradicts" the evidence (as if man's written word from 2000+ years ago could be considered "relevant" and "up-to-date" when it comes to man's wealth of knowledge), it must be the bible that is true (as it does claim to be the truly inspired word of god [actually, that statement refers only to the first five books of the OT, but most fundies overlook that bit of literalism...] and how could we argue with such circularity?).

But what about this verse?

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Take a moment, digest it, think about where I might be going...

Let's highlight the most important portion there: faith is [...] the evidence of things not seen. One of the more wonderful and intelligent Christians I know put it this way: "[I]t should not be taken as justification for claiming what we see doesn't exist." He goes on to reiterate, "it may make room for Christians to affirm an afterlife, for instance, but it doesn't justify denying evolution."

To rephrase, faith is a wonderful thing for people to have (in fact, as stated in older posts, we utilize faith on a daily basis!) as long as that faith is based on something reasonable, logical, and based on experience and knowledge! The problem with fundamentalist faith, with baseless faith, is clearly seen in such silly arguments as "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it!" In fact, such a statement settles nothing at all and flies in the face of all things based on reality as we know it, not to mention it even seems to fly a little bit in the face of Paul (but that's another argument altogether...).

As our growing body of knowledge increases exponentially every day with breakthroughs in medicine and technology in science labs across the planet, one would certainly not be remiss in pointing out that the amount of things "unseen" gets relatively smaller and smaller (although our understanding of the laws of physics continues to add more and more questions which we then set about trying to answer as well), so it is no surprise that the God of All Things in Times Past has become the God of Small Things in Times Present (and the foreseeable future!)...

Of course, the most jolting thing at the beginning of this century has been the rise of not only radical fundamentalism in Islamic circles, but the rise of ideological fundamentalism here in the land with brought light to the enlightened! ("G.E.: We Bring Good Things to Light!!") When our last president fully embraced the ignorance of his religion (exclaiming that "creationism" should be taught alongside the laws of evolution, for instance), people's whose brains had much better things to do suddenly had to put on the brakes and figure out who misplaced the Enlightenment, and once found, how to bring it back to the masses so that humanity could continue its course on finding The Answer. That it happened at all in this day and age is a bit embarrassing--after all, who expected humanity to suddenly prefer religious ignorance to the sound logic, realistic knowledge of the new century? (The enlightened certainly didn't!)

Regardless of whether or not this resurgent fundamentalism is a backlash against globalization or simply a matter of poor educational institutions putting up with too much riff raff, the question remains: How does society go about bringing everyone back up to speed on the current body of knowledge, and then keep them there? It may be all well and good to claim an afterlife--but what is the underlying motive behind preaching a seven-day creationism? In what way do such arguments hinder or help humanity? Even Paul, a favorite among evangelicals everywhere, preached that the only thing one needed to believe was that Jesus was the son of god, and that he had died and risen again--where does a belief in the seven-day creation period have anything to do with that message? And for that matter, what does being "pro-life" or "pro-choice" have to do with that? Never mind that the evangelical movement has lost its "mission from god" in a dramatic and dangerous fashion (one only need look at the recent murder of late-term abortion provider Dr. Tiller to see the consequences of unchecked radical fundamentalism), but it seems to me they've lost their sense of decency. After all, in what way could all this mobilized effort against health care reform and "protecting the unborn" be used more productively than in providing care for the widows and orphans, as was one of Jesus' main concerns? What would happen if Focus on the Family and the American Family Association, instead of trying to prevent gay marriage, used all that time, money, and propaganda to instead feed the homeless? Provide prescriptions for the elderly? Shelter the orphans?

It doesn't take a Christian to see where fundamentalist Christians have it all wrong, and in more ways than just the false science of creationism... They've become the followers of the God of Small Details That Ultimately Mean Nothing, something considerably worse than just being the followers of the God of Small Things... It may only take baseless, unseen faith to become a Christian, but it takes a special kind of on-purpose blindness to be a fundamentalist evangelical Christian... I am glad that I do know so many good people, Christians and non-Christians, who do take the time to say a kind word to a stranger, who hand the homeless guy a fiver, who offer the stranger a jacket or sweatshirt... These are the people who Get It, who realize that our common humanity is much more than ignoring the seen things. Indeed, these are the people who seek out the unseen in the hopes of making things better for all!

Faith is NOT a good reason for blindness to the human condition, and more often than not it is used as an excuse. Today's fundamentalists in religious circles (Islamic, Christian, Jewish, what-have-you) is nothing more than well-disguised political movement using god as a weapon and faith as a bludgeon against anything remotely "unbiblically based," even when (and sometimes seemingly especially when) the matters being discussed have no bearing whatsoever in the religious spheres and circles... I think that, if we are to drag humanity back past the Enlightenment (with probably a lot of the kicking and screaming we're experiencing today), we must once again focus on the basics of what it means to be a decent human being...

And have a little faith in one another... Not in the unseen sky daddies of the past...

Wednesday, April 8, 2009

A Turning of the Tide? or
The Calm Before the Storm?

In just the last two weeks, the number of states with legal same-sex marriage has doubled. (I'm still not sure if that's sad or amazing.) The first was Iowa which, just last week, ruled that denying marriage to same-sex couples was unconstitutional. I think I speak for most East Coasters when I say I almost fell off my chair... Iowa? Seriously? A mid-west state has just legalized same-sex marriage? Let's face it, the mid-west bread-basket portion of our country gets the short end of the stick when it comes to social policy. Not only has the so-called "Family Research Council" been in over-drive, slamming my in-box full of emails exhorting me to "speak up" for marriage since it's "in the cross hairs" (because everyone knows you ruin more marriages with gays than guns...). But even after I got up off the floor and back into my office chair, it seemed just moments later when the legislators of Vermont voted to override their governor's veto and pass a bill for same-sex marriage (I'm sure we all feel bad for Tony Perkin's not being able to use the "activist judges" phrase in this case...)

When I pried my head out from the ceiling tiles and dropped back down to the floor, it hit me fully: Two states in less than seven days! Then another email came in: Washington D.C. had voted to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states...

The nation's capitol city... Will recognize same-sex marriages...

I do believe I passed out...

There are now four states in which same sex marriage is currently legal (five states in which same-sex marriages have been performed--I think at this point California can suck it!): Connecticut, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Iowa. There are now four more states considering bills to legalize same-sex marriage: New Hampshire, Maine, New York and New Jersey. There are even more states (and districts [D.C.]) that will recognize those relationships even if they won't perform those marriages: Rhode Island, New York, and New Mexico!

I'm still flabbergasted that the East Coast is demolishing the West Coast in terms of equality--not to mention Iowa representing for the bread basket! (What is UP with THAT?!) And when you look at the world view? Sweden just became the fifth European nation to allow same-sex marriage, following the Netherlands, Norway, Belgium and Spain! And who could forget our neighbor to the north Canada! Add South Africa and Nepal--the tide does seem to be turning indeed!

But then I read Ryan's Blog where he talked about gays in Iraq. After some research I found the following map (clicking on map will open it in a larger window...):

Homosexuality legal

██ Same-sex marriage recognized

██ Other type of partnership (or unregistered cohabitation) recognized

██ No recognition of same-sex couples

██ Foreign same-sex marriages recognized

Homosexuality illegal

██ Minimal penalty

██ Large penalty

██ Life in prison

██ Death penalty

Does anyone notice anything disturbing? Places where religion have a stronghold on a nation's laws and policies have a very disturbing record when it comes to equal rights for same-sex couples... Conservative Christians in the United States, Fundamentalist Muslims in the Middle East, the combination of both in various parts of Africa, not to mention the socialist and communist areas of the map--more and more the "defenders" of "traditional marriage" are seen side-by-side with very strange bed fellows! Russia, China, Islamic countries, and the conservative Christians of the United States united together in preventing same-sex couples from entering into life-long, committed relationships so that they can care for one another in the same way heterosexual couples take for granted--truly a "godly plan" if I ever saw one... It's quite scary that the only difference between the fundies over here and the fundies over there is that I can no longer be put to death simply for existing... Sparse comfort, but comfort nonetheless I suppose...

But I remain hopeful (if only because the "depths of despair" isn't nearly as cozy as the highs of anticipation...). I can't help but to believe in my fellow human beings, for I truly believe that everyone, even when they make the greatest mistakes and commit the most awful atrocities, are almost always sincerely trying to do the right thing, no matter how misguided or mistaken.I can't help but think that the ignorant fear and misguided "defenders" will realize the ~~error~~ ~~futility~~ mistakes they are making with their current decision-making processes. As if what two consenting adults do with one another is more important than the millions starving around the world. As if two penis's in one bedroom were more important than thousands dying from inadequate health care.

I can't help but to believe that, in the end, before I breathe my last breath, before I leave this Earth for eternity, I will be able to declare my love in front of my friends and loved ones, to be able to care for him as he grows older, to not have to worry that our dying days will be filled with angst and worry over money instead of spending our last days sharing in one another's company, cherishing our time, sharing our love...

Dear America--dear world!--I have faith that eventually, you will all realize what a mistake you have made in fighting against equality. That you will come to terms with your irrational fears and conquer them with the reason you possess. That you will finally recognize your fellow man and woman for the individuals they are--just like you, with the same hopes and dreams you have, with the same expectations from life, family, and friends you have. To be loved, accepted, deserving of respect, and treated equally in the eyes of the law and in the depths of the heart.

I have faith in you, my fellow human being--can't you have the same in me?

Sources for this post:

Monday, May 19, 2008

Riddle Me This, Riddle Me That...
Who's Afraid of the Gay Wedding Bash?

Still waiting on one single, valid, non-theologically driven reason as to why homosexual persons shouldn't be allowed to marry...

Just one, well-thought, well-supported, well-researched reason to withhold marriage from homosexuals...

When you can't even get a Republican-controlled court to side with you--and please note that the court did it's job, there was no "activism" here--you may need to rethink your purpose in life...

That's assuming you have one, of course. I mean, there is something more to your life than preventing marriage equality, right? Right?

Let's see now... Massachusetts has had same-sex marriage for what--four years now? Yet tornadoes continue to hit the bible belt... Kittens are still cute... The fishing industry hasn't gone under... It hasn't rained blood... Hell, heterosexuals still get married there!

But don't worry... "Pro-family" organizations (which aren't) have promised to spend millions of dollars to prevent gay marriage in California instead of helping the poor and needy... After all, what good is food and shelter if gays can get married?!?! (I'd like to ask Dobson and Co. to show their zeal and unfailing support by going on a hunger strike... I won't believe you're committed to this until I see you as starving and as needy as many fellow Americans who could use that money for more life-affirming uses...) Please, please show me how committed you are... If a hunger strike isn't your thing, how about some purple fruit juice? Oh, I know, I know--"Listen to that evil homosexual who wants us good Christians to drop dead!" Since you fundies aren't doing me any favors (and why would you? I'm only your neighbor...), could you at least do god a favor, and stop embarrassing the hell out of him, and the many other decent, fair-minded Christians who could give two shits about your fight to keep rights special and exclusive?

The rest of us who live in the world would appreciate it...

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

I'm a Pro-Death Activist...

Oh, you didn't get the memo? I just received it from the Family Research Council... So check your in-box, I'm sure they'll let you know whether you're a "pro-death activist" or not...

The title of the e-mail, inappropriately named IMHO, is "Public Health Enemy Number One." And despite facts, truth, and a healthy dose of reality, it isn't cancer, AIDS, poverty, famine... No, apparently the biggest crisis facing the nation is the A word... From the article:

As a growing majority of Americans oppose abortion-on-demand, one has to wonder--where exactly is the "public" in this agenda for public health? The government has no business funding pro-death activists disguised as public health ambassadors, yet it persists in the face of rising outcry.

Of course, my main concern isn't that you make up these things in your head and live in a fairy tale world of demons, angels, monsters, sin and what-have-you... It's a free country, believe in pink unicorns with rabbit overlords for all I care... It's that you feel you can dictate other people's lives based on your fantastical reality... That you think women get pregnant for the sole purpose of having an abortion, that you think men have sex with other men for the sole purpose of not having sex with a woman...

What gets overlooked by the FRC--and most evangelical, fundamentalist fascists--is that the sole provider of abortions in the world is their very own god!

Don't believe me? I can tell by the way you just winced and considered telling me once more how I'm going to a hell I don't believe in (although I'm in good company...), think about these United States statistics:

There are about 4.4 million confirmed pregnancies in the U.S. every year.
900,000 to 1 million of those end in pregnancy losses EVERY year.
More than 500,000 pregnancies each year end in miscarriage (occurring during the first 20 weeks).
Approximately 26,000 end in stillbirth (considered stillbirth after 20 weeks)
Approximately 19,000 end in infant death during the first month.
Approximately 39,000 end in infant death during the first year.
Approximately 1 in 4 pregnancies end in miscarriage; some estimates are as high as 1 in 3. If you include loss that occurs before a positive pregnancy test, some estimate that 40% of all conceptions result in loss.
Approximately 75% of all miscarriages occur in the first trimester.
An estimated 80% of all miscarriages are single miscarriages.
An estimated 19% of the adult population has experienced the death of a child (this includes miscarriages through adult-aged children).

And these are just for the United States! Imagine these statistics with a world population of 7 billion people!

If you ask me, the evangelicals and fundies have it all wrong--it isn't the women who decide to end their pregnancies they should be worried about. Perhaps god is too busy keeping his eye on the sparrow. Perhaps he has a shortage of man-clay and man-ribs from which to make new vessels for souls--who knows?

But if you are going to worship a being that claims to be in control of everything, has a plan of which all of our "free will" decisions play a part, it isn't the abortions of women's choice that are the number one killer in society--in fact, based on miscarriages and still-births alone (not factoring in tsunami's, earthquakes, tornadoes, famine, pestilence, volcanic eruptions, asteroid collisions, and killer koalas...), god by far is the number one fan of death and destruction of fetal tissue...

You should be picketing your own churches. You should be more concerned with the fact that you worship a being who lets wanton death happen while he is in control.

I wonder how many people who actually claim to worship a higher being actually have taken the time to wonder if:

just because he's a higher being, it means his plans and purposes are actually a better choice
just because he says he's good doesn't mean he is good
just because he told you you are a wretched sinner doesn't mean you are...

Think this through. The only word you have to go on is your fellow man's, and a book he claims to have authored through man... It's almost as if you decided to take the candy from the proverbial stranger in the black van despite your mother's repeated warnings not to.

Don't you think if you are going to worship him, he should be held to a higher standard than just, "Oh, he said he has a plan"? Something better than such platitudes as "He told us he knows what's going on. He told us that this will all work out in the end okay for almost everyone"?

These facts on miscarriages alone should make you go "Hmmm...." But, of course, those are the abortions provided for under the YHWH health-care program... What about mere human-provided abortions?

These are human beings, after all--people with stories, lives, families, problems, laughter, memories, sadness... And you think I should be concerned with a clump of cells being discarded from a uterus simply because it could become a human life, and you think your idea of god cares? (The odds are only slightly in its favor of these cells becoming a human being...) Where is the outrage for the hundreds of thousands of fetus's discarded every year by fertility clinics? Where is the constitutional amendment to ban divorce? Where are the "action alert" emails about providing food and shelter for the homeless? The medicine for those who can't afford it? The intervention against the genocides?

And I'm supposed to worry about unborn children when the people who are already here aren't being taken care of? NEWSFLASH:Women don't get abortions for shits and giggles... Believe it or not, there isn't a club where you get three free DVDs when you abort two or more kids in a year...

Some more interesting facts for you to chew on about HUMAN-provided abortions:

The lowest abortion rate in the world in 2003 was for Western Europe (12 per 1,000 women aged 15–44), where contraceptive services and use are widespread and safe abortion is easily accessible and legal under broad grounds. The rate was 17 for Northern Europe and 21 for the Northern America region (Canada and the United States).
Africa, Asia and Latin America had the highest regional abortion rates, even though abortion is generally legally restricted and often unsafe in those regions. Abortion rates in Africa, Asia, and Latin America and the Caribbean have declined since 1995, but the estimated number of abortions has increased in Africa because of the increasing number of women of reproductive age and a possible underestimate of abortions in 1995. Because the world’s population is concentrated in Asia, most abortions occurred there—about 26 million yearly; China alone accounted for nine million procedures.
The study also found that an estimated 20 million unsafe abortions occurred in 2003, 97% of these in developing regions.
The prevalence of unsafe abortion remains high, with up to 39 unsafe abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 in Eastern Africa and 33 per 1,000 in South America. By contrast, developed regions, where almost all countries allow abortions with few restrictions, had an average unsafe abortion rate of two per 1,000. The consequences of unsafe abortion—death, serious injury, infertility and increased health care cost are largely born by poor women. The report concludes that reducing the incidence of unsafe abortion would result in an immediate and substantial reduction of maternal mortality and improve maternal health.
"Nearly half of all induced abortions are unsafe, putting the lives and health of women at major risk. Each year, about 70,000 women die due to unsafe abortion and an additional five million suffer permanent or temporary disability," notes Dr. Paul F.A. Van Look, director of WHO's Department of Reproductive Health and Research. "The widespread unmet need for contraception must be addressed if we are to see further decline in abortion rates, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa, where contraceptive use is low and unsafe abortion-related mortality is the high, compared with other regions"

When abortion is legal, less women die, less women become infertile, and less abortions occur. However, when abortion is illegal, and women are forced to abort in secrecy, in dark alleys with unschooled "doctors," or "sent to stay with a family member," as abortion is once again forced to be a "dark secret" instead of a choice by a woman--if you will, a choice between her and her god, whomever that happens to be--abortion is more prevalent, more women die, less children are born, more unwanted pregnancies, hence, more ruined lives--needlessly, I might add.

Of course, deciding the course of others' lives through "deity rule" is nothing more than prettily painted fascism. Instead of taking into account individuals, their lives, their stories, their circumstances, and making a blanket rule about something so personal and private, you not only do the human race a grace disservice, not to mention your god...

In a true case of irony, a recent article had this to say about abortions when categorized by religious preference:

[...] In recent years the rhetoric has escalated, with the pro-life movement becoming a flagship for Christian morality and ethics. The prevailing Christian doctrine--that abortion is murder--has polarized the issue, firmly placing the vast majority of Christians on the pro-life side of the debate.

Incendiary comments by some of the more outspoken Christian figureheads have sought to portray abortion as an "evil" perpetrated by the non-Christian left. In response to this, The Center For Reason, a private research group, undertook a study to test the premise: "Christians have fewer abortions than non-Christians." The results disproved the premise.

The study, available as a downloadable report, reveals that Christians have just as many abortions as non-Christians. Data analyzed for all fifty states show that the rate of abortion is the same in the most-Christian segments of the population as it is in the least-Christian. The most-Catholic segments, on the other hand, showed significantly higher abortion rates.

Looks like the Pope has his work cut out for him. Not to mention the god they all worship...

I also have to wonder why, if all life is "sacred" (which I don't believe...), and "all men are created in the image of god" (which I think should go without saying I also don't subscribe to...), why are the same people who are so against abortion also the people who are so pro-death penalty, pro-gun, and pro-war?

Sources:

Friday, July 13, 2007

Having a Ball...

Did you know that when a gay man sings, it's like the siren call for all children to grow up and be fags?

At least, that seems what the FRC (READ: Funny Religious Cronies... You may know them better as the "Family Research Council...) seems to think in a recent email it sent out to all of it's subscribers. The email read as such:

This past Sunday, at the San Diego Padres baseball game, what was advertised as a "Free Floppy Hat Night" for kids under 14 turned out to be a double play. While the Padres management was enticing families with the giveaway for kids, it was also promoting the evening as a Gay Pride night at the ballpark. Children who received free hats were treated to the Gay Man's Chorus of San Diego singing the national anthem prior to what one homosexual group billed as "Out at the Park with the San Diego Padres."

The San Diego Padres organization should be ashamed that they would promote such an event on a night they specifically designed for the family. On this curveball of an evening, the Padres struck out.

Oh no! You mean, kids heard gay men... GASP!... sing?!

Believe it or not, gay men do not have anal intercourse, give oral pleasure, or even rub each other up and down hoping for a "wardrobe malfunction" while singing the national anthem at a baseball game. Even the high notes don't require one man grabbing another by the balls to squeak out a high C.

As a double bonus, the FRC should be happy they were handing out hats--parents could just grab it by the brim and yank it down over their poor innocent eyeballs! Apparently not having all their gray matter in working order, none of them seemed to think of that...

The email continued with a Call to Action:

Click the link below to contact the San Diego Padres and tell them that baseball is a family game that shouldn't be used as an exhibition of homosexual lifestyles. The national pastime is just that: an opportunity for fans of the sport to enjoy a game and take respite from the daily grind. It's not place for politics - or political correctness.

Excuse me--but aren't they the ones having a cow because of a singing group? Who's trying to inject politics into the game?

I know this may be hard for some to fathom, but there are plenty of gay people--both men and women--who are huge fans of sports. While I may not be counted among their number, I have plenty of friends who are, so it only makes sense for baseball (which, despite being dubbed "America's Favorite Pastime" is having a hard time keeping fans...) to reach out to as many people as possible. That includes families, gays, women, blacks, Hispanics--all of whom have children who could grow up to be the next Sammy Sosa.

Unless, of course, the FRC also thinks only Christians have children... I wouldn't put it past them...

And they call themselves a "research council." Ha!

Tuesday, June 5, 2007

You Only Have Rights If You've Suffered...

Did you know it's okay to discriminate as long as those discriminated against haven't suffered enough? Seriously, this is the position the "Family Research Council" is taking in regards to the "civil unions" and same-sex marriage debate that is sweeping the country. From an email they think they are sending to a right-wing moron"

Homosexuals have experienced disapproval, but they have not endured centuries of violence, abuse, segregation, and slavery.

One wonders if they want us to apologize for having closets to hide in...

Yes, it's a bunch of crap, but let's face it: Reasoning has never been a strong suit of conservative Christians, has it? But then they take it one step further: They claim that since coming out of the closet is a choice (as if lying were suddenly a viable alternative to homosexuality itself...) and having black skin is not a choice, it's also an argument toward allowing unequal rights to exist:

Unlike ethnicity, homosexual behavior is a choice. A person can choose to either participate in homosexual behavior or not to participate. An African-American cannot choose to participate in having black skin; they are born with it.

And thus, the myth of "choosing" continues (although not one straight person has yet to tell me when they chose to be straight). The ultimate irony comes in the form of their religion: It is also a choice to be Christian, Muslim, Hindu... But because they have chosen "correctly" (in the only twisted reality they have created...), everyone must suddenly live by their standards of "right" and "wrong."

They try to clarify said position next:

Lynch's suggestion that homosexuals who want to marry are oppressed or victims of discrimination is simply outrageous. No person is being denied the right to marry. They are simply asked to meet the core requirement (since civilization began) that both genders be present.

Notice something interesting here: Never mind that one of those genders (HINT: Women...) were discriminated against in marriage. Let's conveniently forget that the "institution" of marriage changes with every generation in our free society in how it's viewed, used, and practiced. Women had no say in who they would marry, how old they would be when they were sold to the highest bidder, how many rugrats they would have to produce for their owner--and, based on the argument presented here, that marriage shouldn't change with society, women should have no say in their husbands, family planning, ownership of property... But, of course, that wouldn't bother a patriarch-centric religious belief, would it? How silly!

But, knowing the shoddy footing they stand on with their "arguments," they try one last rally cry: Same-sex marriage statistics. They cite that, since same-sex marriage was made legal in Massachusetts, numbers of same-sex couples tying the know have slowed down--i.e., not as many are marrying as when it first became legal. Now, I know I have to spell this out for some of our "slower" readers, so here we go: The reasons why this is not only a silly argument, but a stupid argument.

1. When something is new, more people rush out to get it. Of course the numbers are declining! The people who were together for years and wanted it badly all rushed to the courts at the same time to GET married! Now the people who are just starting to get serious in their commitments are turning to it.
2. Most states won't recognize the marriage. Add in the fact that most out-of-state couples can't get married as their home state won't recognize said marriage, you have reason #2 for why marriage between same-sex couples is declining--most couples can't get married.
3. Just because not many use it doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. If we followed this rule, there wouldn't be a law for people in wheelchairs. The number of walking people far outweigh the number of people in wheelchairs, so why should we make society change for them? See how stupid that logic is? Look at the Loving V. Virginia case: African Americans only make up about 12% of the U.S. population, but now they can freely marry anyone of any color they wish. Should we now deny them that since they are such a "small percentage" of the population? I don't think so either...
4. The statistics they cite are also only half-baked:
Only three years after same-sex "marriage" became legal in the Bay State, the number of same-sex "marriages" has dramatically declined. The state Department of Public Health notes that 6,121 same-sex couples married in the seven months following the court ruling. In 2006, 1,427 couples married. As of April 26 of this year, only 87 homosexual couples have wed.

Not only is this year not over, add up those numbers: That's 7,635 couples who now have all the same rights and protections as straight couples in Massachusetts. 15,270 sons, daughters, siblings, friends, mothers, and fathers now don't have to worry about their loved ones when they pass on; when they become disabled; when they come down with a sickness. 15,270 American citizens now can care for their loved ones on a state-wide level in one (1) state. And we want to prevent those people from living free lived based on some other people who choose to obey the (ambivalent) teachings of a book written over 2,000 years ago? Really?

The clincher of the email is even weaker:

This makes it clear that homosexuals don't want to marry; they want the official governmental and social affirmation of homosexual relationships that comes with being able to marry.

See that? 15,270 people didn't want to get married. Perish the thought! Of course, if the only reason these people wanted to get married was "official social and government sanction," why are the "number" of marriages declining? (Aside, of course, from the logical reasons I presented...) I mean, it's not about making a commitment to the one you love, right? Who came up with that silly idea?

Let me make myself very very clear here: I could give two flying fucks what "society" thinks about myself and my husband. I DO give a flying fuck that I DON'T have the same access as other people in love to continue to make sure my loved ones are cared for in the event of something horrible happening to myself. Do I pay taxes? Didn't I serve my country? Do I not work for a living for the things Rich and I have? But my social security benefits won't go to Rich because he has a fucking penis?! Society can drive off a cliff in the name of family values (which we all know are bunk...) for all I care. As long as I know that Rich can keep the house, pay the bills, and continue to live a happy, FREE life when I'm gone, and not have to worry about someone coming in and saying our love wasn't as "important" or "clean" as the love held between two people who have differing types of natural plumbing... THAT'S what I give a fuck about. Not what others think, but that the ones I love will be provided for.

And, seriously, this is a threat to society?

I'm wondering why they don't make like the Amish and just remove themselves from the society which they claim is so "wrong" and "morally corrupt." I mean, who the hell is stopping them? I don't mind if they stay, don't get me wrong: as long as they learn that

Not everyone lives in the past
Not everyone speaks to imaginary deities
Not everyone shares their throw-back value system of the stone age (which they think never existed...)
Not everyone must live by their "moral code" (which, in doing so, is a very immoral position...)

There now, fundies--is that so hard to do? I don't try to tell you whom you should marry; how you should worship (or not worship); who you should sleep with; if you can or can't serve in the military; if you can or can't care for the ones you love whether well or ill...

Why can't you, dear fundie, live and let live? Why is that so hard?

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

The "Special Rights" Fallacy of HR 254...

So the AFA, those wonderful fear-mongers who feel it is their duty to scare the dutiful, doleful masses who worship the sky god into action, have sent out an "Action Alert"--a more appropriate name would be a "Keep Ourselves Special" alert--in the hopes of getting said sheep to email their senators en mass. Here is the email they sent out:

House of Representatives set to vote on 'hate crimes' giving homosexuals special rights

Okay, I'm already pissed. But I'll try to hold the rest of my thoughts...

Contact Your Representative In Opposition to HR 254 Today!

Dear Jason,

The U.S. House of Representatives will soon vote on HR 254, which establishes "hate crime" legislation. HR 254 will create new special rights for homosexuals under the guise of enhancing law enforcement. It would make "sexual orientation" a protected class alongside race, religion and gender.

The only way this bill can be defeated is with a real grassroots uprising by those who care about the future of their children, families and marriages!

Excuse me? Suddenly making it illegal to commit a crime against someone because of their sexual orientation is a threat to marriage and children? Exactly how?

The intent of this law is to force the acceptance and approval of homosexuality on every American, regardless of their religious views. Here is a short summary of HR 254.

So, making sure people get punished for when they beat up someone of "race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or disability of any person" forces views on Americans? Perhaps, but that "view" is that you can't beat up someone, or deny someone something, simply because of who they are. What does this really boil down to? "Religion" (an alternative lifestyle if I've ever heard of one) can be a "protected class" but "sexual orientation" cannot? Are you kidding me?

For a more in-depth review of where we are headed, click here.

Unless you feel the desperate need for laughing at stupidity, you needn't click there.

Here is a partial list of what homosexual activists are trying to force on every American. While HR 254 will not, in and of itself, accomplish these goals, it will open the door to such regulations. Once the elephant gets its trunk under the tent, the way is open for the elephant to move inside and do whatever he wants.

Note the bold, italic phrase: the bill will not cause these things, but this is what they're afraid "will happen" if suddenly you aren't allowed to beat someone up for being, or perceiving they are, gay:

Preaching that homosexuality is a sin from the pulpit will result in the preacher being charged with "hate speech."
Churches will have their tax-exempt status revoked if they oppose homosexuality.
Homosexual marriage will be legalized and recognized in all states.
Polygamy will be legalized.
Landlords will be forced to rent to homosexuals.
Scouts, and all non-profit organizations, will be required to hire homosexuals as leaders.
Biblical language used to define homosexuality will be considered "hate speech." City officials have already had a billboard removed in Long Island, NY, because it was classified as "hate speech." The billboard read: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination." (Leviticus 20:13)
Employees will not be allowed to say anything negative about homosexuality in their workplaces.
Classes promoting the homosexual lifestyle will be included in school curricula beginning with the lower grades.
Employers will be forced to hire homosexuals.
Adoption by homosexuals will be legalized in every state.

Now, I could be a real ass here and say I see no issue with any of that happening, but then where are we? Fundies need to understand why these things are either

Not a big deal, or
won't happen anyway.

Let's start with the first issue: Preaching that homosexuality is a sin from the pulpit will result in the preacher being charged with "hate speech."
Not true, and if it were to happen, it would quickly get shot down for two Constitutional reasons, and a lot more reasons dealing in common sense; of course, I shouldn't assume anyone who takes these "Action Alerts" seriously has common sense. "Freedom of Speech" and "Freedom of Religion" both cover big-assed, hate-group leaders from preaching this all they want in their churches, synagogues, mosques, New York street corners--wherever. These two tenants of the Constitution won't be overturned simply because fundies can be punished for beating up a black dude, or a nerdy-looking guy, or a person in a wheelchair. All this bill does is says "You can be punished even more for beating someone up if your sole reason has been because they are _______" (black, Buddhist, disabled, female, gay) And unlike what the Fundies want to believe, it isn't rocket science to find out that, if no money was stolen, the reason they beat you up was because ______, especially if when they were committing this crime against you they said things like "filthy nigger" or "AIDs-ridden faggot" or even "god-loving baptist scum". These would all be hate crimes, and hence, punishment would flow accordingly. Disagreeing isn't hate speech. Fundies can preach all they want about how "immoral" it is, or how much they "hate the sin." But since they seem so convinced the sky is crumbling even as we speak, let's move on to the other fears of the fear-mongers.

Churches will have their tax-exempt status revoked if they oppose homosexuality.
Stupid much? Actually, their tax-exempt status should be revoked, but for entirely different reasons. When the churches of the south all opposed equality for black Americans, did they lose tax-exempt status then? No? Hmm, then I wonder what they're using as their basis of fear? I know, they want to keep their special rights of tax-exempt (among other things). Funny how the people with the special rights are accusing others of reaching for what the fundies already have--it couldn't be because they fear everyone being treated equally, is it?

Homosexual marriage will be legalized and recognized in all states.
And? Oh, that's right--they want to keep straight, god-fearing people special. My bad that I didn't get that at first. Cause I thought they said we, the homosexuals, were the ones asking to be special... when it turns out they just want to stay special. Sorry, dudes, but it's coming and there's nothing you can do to stop it. And I personally don't see how it affects any of them on an individual level. Perhaps they're scared to find the Rapture isn't coming after all? I mean, Massachusetts, Canada, the Netherlands--god didn't wipe them out when they "strayed" from the path of the "special," did he? Is he still recovering from smiting all the evil-doers with the tsunami? Or Hurricane Katrina? Some all-powerful sky god they got there...

Of course, perhaps we gays are just so powerful, there's nothing sky god can do? Are our Penile Death Rays that strong? It's amazing how what I do in my bedroom prevents them from having a successful marriage, isn't it? Either I'm so damn good in bed I rock everybody's world, or they are way too interested in what other people do in their bedrooms (which kind of makes me think most of the fundies are the pervs... I mean, really, who spends this much time thinking about what other people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms?)

Polygamy will be legalized.
While I personally wouldn't want to have more than one spouse, why do they care if someone else does? If they are all consenting adults--what's the big deal? Their King David did it--so did Solomon. In fact, most of their patriarchs practiced this! Oh, but then--wait... No, see, I don't see sky falling here either, but that could be because their special fat-asses are blocking everyone else from seeing equality...

Landlords will be forced to rent to homosexuals.
You mean, you can't force us to be homeless anymore!! Gasp! They are making gays special, aren't they? Dumb asses...

Scouts, and all non-profit organizations, will be required to hire homosexuals as leaders.
Did they learn nothing? Obviously not. If they want to discriminate, they can. They just can't use government money to do so. End of story. As long as they say "only special people can join," they get no money from the government. So if the scouts want to stay a special organization, they can. But just like now, they get no government money for being bigots, pure and simple. Get a clue, you brainless worms...

Biblical language used to define homosexuality will be considered "hate speech." City officials have already had a billboard removed in Long Island, NY, because it was classified as "hate speech." The billboard read: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination." (Leviticus 20:13)
My first thought is, what was your billboard supposed to accomplish? Drive millions of homosexuals in Pastor Ted Haggards waiting arms? (Eww--nasty visual!!) To show the "compassion of Christ"? Also a no. So, really, it was just to piss people off, wouldn't you say? I think they know that's true, but god forbid they admit it--that would be like admitting sky god had pedophile sex with a 12 year old virgin to get his jollies off under the guise of "saving the world." You know, sky god's and Mary's "special secret."

Secondly, that's something the church that put up the billboard should fight in court--because it does infringe on their constitutional rights to sound like an ass in the name of religion. Don't bitch about it--send out an "Action Alert" or something! Oh, wait, they did--but they missed the point, as they so usually do. Go figure...

Employees will not be allowed to say anything negative about homosexuality in their workplaces.
Are you getting paid to say nasty things about homosexuals in the workplace? No? You must not work for a church, then. I don't say nasty things about Christians at work, even though I would sometimes like to... Why? It's not very professional, but it's also not why you're at work, stupid dillholes. Your paid to do a job, not make the work environment a place of hate-mongering. Would you want me to have the right to bash Christians or Muslims at work? I didn't think so.

Classes promoting the homosexual lifestyle will be included in school curricula beginning with the lower grades.
Umm, that's been included. It's called "sex education." Abstinence may be the only guarantee that you won't get any nasty diseases, but it also ensures that when most of the teens in the world do have sex, they'll get those nasty diseases you so wanted to prevent. You have a right to keep you kid home that day--get involved, find out what they're teaching when, and leave your children willfully ignorant so that when they do get a job in the real world, they can get fired for not doing their job and instead spent all day preaching against homosexuality in the workplace! It would make your sky god so proud, I'm sure! Much like when he berated the whore at the well, right?

Employers will be forced to hire homosexuals.
You mean, that's on the application you filled out? "Are you a homosexual"? Employers don't care!! At least, the ones who have a lick of common sense and only worry about how their business works. Of course, if spreading the word of the gospel means keeping homosexuals jobless and homeless, then I'd say they're on the right track. That's exactly what Jesus would do!

Adoption by homosexuals will be legalized in every state.
Oh dear! You mean children would have more homes available to receive the love and care that their natural parents couldn't afford to give them? That there would be more homes to cloth, feed, and care for these kids who are overwhelming that state and federal governments? That more kids would be taken off the state welfare system as they've been placed in homes that meat state standards? I mean, it's not like the fundies are taking in all the children, are they? In fact, they want to first prevent women from having control over how many children they have by restricting abortion and not teaching about alternatives to abstinence, then they don't want the government to help when they can't care for these children, but they only want adopt the white ones because they buy into racial stereotypes, and then they get upset when "un"special segments of the population try to do their part to make life a little better for the ones who've been left behind... Look at the stats--it's white fundamentalists that are against sex education. They're the ones who adopt mostly white children--they're the ones who are against government programs for the poor (most likely because welfare checks don't come with a tract preaching the love of Jesus as he fires his gay employees and kicks them out of their homes...) Middle-class Bible-loving America doesn't adopt children of color, children with disabilities, or children who are older as a general rule--go on, I double-dog dare you to find a study from a reputable source that doesn't back me up on this...

Study after study by reputable, independent organizations have shown that kids do just as well with parents of the same or differing gender as long as they have the love, care, and support they need. End of story. Sky still not falling.

But they know all this is true--they just still want to keep their special privileges just for them instead of treating everyone as they should be treated under the law. Just like Jesus would do, right?

But then they continue this idiotic email with the following:

Let me say again: HR 254 will not, in and of itself, accomplish everything the homosexual activist’s desire. But it is the first step is to position their cause where they can achieve all their goals.

If they are successful with HR 254, rest assured they will pursue their next goal and will not stop until they achieve all their goals.

The sad part is, they admit they're pandering, they admit they are simply trying to scare you into action, and people are still buying into it without thinking it through. It boggles my mind....

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

In the Eye of the Beholder...

The so-called "American Family Association" is horrified--no, let me rephrase--they are "sickened" by a recent clip from a show called "Dirt" on the FX Channel. A few things pop into my head.

Why are they watching a show called "Dirt"? The title alone doesn't sound "family friendly" (whatever the hell that means)
I think by now we all know that non-broadcast channels show homosexual love scenes, as well as straight ones.

To view the actual scene they are "sickened" by, you can see it at YouTube here.

To the meat of the matter: Their real beef is with Ford, or as I think they sometimes refer to it, "The Automobile Maker of the Degenerates." We homosexuals, of course, refer to Ford by this lovely acronym:
F--Friendly
O--On
R--Relationship
D--Diversity

The AFA hates that an automaker here in the U.S. caters to us by heavily promoting Ford cars and trucks in gay publications, gay TV, gay movies, Gay Pride parades, and so on and so forth. And why shouldn't they? We have money (or, at least, that's what I've heard--if someone's found mine, please let me know!) They've claimed often enough that because we don't raise children (um, yeah we do!), don't get married (where we aren't allowed to), or other such nonsense that only makes sense in a twisted shade of reality that is nonexistent except in their heads (I would say "brains," but they may be too much credit, wouldn't you agree?), that we have oodles and oodles of money that we burn in the winter to heat our homes and use to buy sexual toys and sexual holidays and "Homo's On Ice" tickets in the winter... Of course, I often wonder why a group so anti-gay thinks they know more about what we do than we actually do! I mean, if I truly lived up to the imaginations of the AFA, my typical day would run something like this:

Wake up
Have sex with whatever I find lying around
Sleep some more
Have sex with something else when I wake up
Eat a breakfast of uncertain origin
Parade nude down the street
Rape a few male pedestrians, most of them underage, on the way to school
Watch (still nude) while little children play on the play ground at school
Rape some of them
Rape their teacher
Order out for lunch, and rape the delivery guy when he arrives
Spend the afternoon as a priest, raping altar boys
Eat dinner in a gay bar, getting drunk (if I wasn't already)
Parade home in the nude
After raping more people on the way home, I sign them up for "Gay Camp" so we can convert more
Wear women's clothing to go out that night and get drunk (again)
Stay up all night having sex with every single male I see, gay or not
Buy a Ford on the way home form the club, raping the car salesman
Sleep

Doesn't leave much time for shopping, work, spending time with friends and family...

The fact that they find two men getting it on as "sickening" is just icing on the cake, if you ask me. I suppose YHWH held a gun to their head so they would have to watch the scene, then tell the world how "sickened" they were. Sickened enough to post it on YouTube, sickened enough to e-mail the YouTube video as an attachment to a purported "3,464,481" members worldwide, sickened enough to tell everyone in their e-mail that "they should take their word" for it that it's "sickening," but here's the link to watch it anyway...

Oh, Freud, you would have a ball with these guys!

I guess after YHWH gives them back the remote for their TV, they'll learn that they don't have to watch shows they don't think they're going to agree with. I mean, if I were like them, I'd be bitching every Sunday about how there's nothing I can watch on TV that isn't some type of "god brainwashing," and that we should be e-mailing our senators and congressmen to get this god-garbage off my TV.

Apparently, YHWH doesn't much care what I'm watching. I wonder why that is? Perhaps he doesn't care about what anyone's watching or doing?

You know, he might not even exist!!!

Please, hold the gasps of astonishment. I know, I know, shocking, isn't it? Perhaps you should all get off your asses and e-mail your senators and congressmen, asking for a nonbinding resolution that all must believe that sky god finds the FX Channel "sickening." That way, you can all act like the good little Fascists you think YHWH would want you to be...

Wednesday, December 6, 2006

Bless My Soul!

Hi, Bea Dickson here. Have I mentioned how glad I am that the American Family Association is around to defend poor, defenseless Baby Jesus? Why just today, that upstanding bulwark of morality and goodness sent me a message stating that people are censoring Christmas! Can you believe it?It seems that the Gap and Old Navy, trying to appeal to everyone, has slapped Baby Jesus without so much as a "Hey! How are you?" by using the term holiday instead of Christmas--Sweet God in Heaven!

Never minding that Christmas is a holiday, but can you imagine? All you want to do is get Aunt Chloe that knitted pull-over sweater ($8.95), a few clothes for the kids to wear to school ($62.43), and a nice maroon scarf to go with that dynamite leather coat you got at Burlington Coat Factory ($14.00 and $98.00 respectively), and when you rip out your credit cards for purchasing, instead of hearing "Merry Christmas," you get a "Happy Holidays" (Priceless.) Luckily, in the grand tradition of the wiseman giving gold to a baby in a manger, MasterCard is there to get us through the "holiday blues" and back to the "Christmas joys." I tell you, if Jesus were still on earth, he'd be turning over on his cross!

In fact, just the other day, I was driving through the neighborhood, and one of those damned Jews had the nerve--the audacity!!--to put up a light-up "Happy Holidays" sign right where all the Christians could see it! What will my kids think when the school bus drives by? So after I noticed them leaving, probably for one of their dinner engagements that these Jews always seem to go to, I ripped the "Happy Holidays" sign from their garage door, praise be to Baby Jesus, cause he gave me the strength to do it! I then plastered up a large "Jesus is the reason for the season" billboard in its place! Hopefully these Jews will learn that Christians are the only ones who celebrate anything in America, especially this time of year!

As I heard Pastor Iman Azhole say it on Sunday, "We stole Christmas fair and square from the pagans 1,200 years ago, and by Lawd, we ain't givin' it back till the Rapture!" God bless Pastor Iman Azhol for speaking up against these horrible sinners, who just want to be nice to everyone and respect the beliefs and traditions of others--this is America, dammit! A Christian nation if I ever saw one!

Oh, dear, now look, you made me use a naughty word. Luckily, I'm so close to Jesus he hits the snooze button for me! I'm telling you heathens! Don't censor Christmas, or we'll-- Um, yeah we will... Hold that thought...

Bea: (ring-ring... ring-ring) Hello, Pastor Iman?
Pastor Iman: Why, hello, Mrs. Bea Dickson, how are you?
Bea: Well, Iman Azhole, I was just wondering--what do we do about the heathens using the phrase "happy holidays" instead of "merry Christmas"?
Pastor Iman: Well, yes, Bea, that is a problem, isn't it? Why, these folks have forgotten the reason for the season!
Bea: I couldn't agree more!
Pastor Iman: And we need to stand up and say, "I'm offended!"
Bea: Amen, Pastor!
Pastor Iman: We need to pray that the spirit of the LAWD comes down and WASHES away their respect for others!
Bea: Sing it, Pastor! LAWDY lawdy!
Pastor Iman: Go with God, sister!
Bea: Thank you, Pastor Iman Azhole, thank you! (tears streaming down Bea's face...)

Hello, heathens, still there! Well, I just spoke to my thinker-- I mean, my pastor, as he said-- Um...You are all going to hell for turning your back on Baby Jesus! I mean, he's just a baby! Baby's do not share birthdays anyhow! Especially Jesus's birthday!

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go to Neiman Marcus and get that lovely set of pearl earrings for mother. Hopefully I won't have to hear "happy holidays" while doing so. I just don't know what I'd do then!

--Bea Dickson,
so important to God he puts Falwell on hold...

Friday, December 1, 2006

Scratch a Homophobe, Find a Racist...

So since the thunder storms have knocked out the cable, I started going back through my old issues of Time and Advocate magazines, to read up and make sure I didn't miss anything...

I almost wish I didn't; and while I realize I'm a little late in sharing an opinion on this topic, as the statements were made in April 2005, that fact makes it no less important for people should speak out against such blatant racist sentiments and thought processes...

Has anyone ever heard of The National Association for Research and Therapy for Homosexuals (NARTH)? Basically its a bunch of right-wingers trying to brain-wash homosexuals into thinking there's something wrong with them, that they most likely could use a dose of "Cherry-Flavored Jebus Syrup," and that are they are all-around shameful people that society needs protected from... And the "Dr." Gerald Schoenewolf is an "adviser" to this group of self-perpetuating hate-mongers.

In April of 2005, Schoenewolf published an article on NARTH's Web site, stating:

With all due respect, there is another way, or other ways, to look at the race issue in America. It could be pointed out, for example, that Africa at the time of slavery was still primarily a jungle, as yet uncivilized or industrialized. Life there was savage, as savage as the jungle for most people, and that it was the Africans themselves who first enslaved their own people. They sold their own people to other countries, and those brought to Europe, South America, America, and other countries, were in many ways better off than they had been in Africa. But if one even begins to say these things one is quickly shouted down as though one were a complete madman.

Hmm... you say that Africans were "better off" as slaves than "in the jungles of Africa," and you wonder why people would call you a madman? Seriously?

Lets' cover this idiotic statement point-by-point, shall we? First off, to call Europe "civilized" in the 1600-1800s is a laugh. I'm also sure that in the year 2500, they'll laugh at the idea that we were civilized, but that's a horse of a different color... Life is what it is. We are all born into differing parts of the world and try to make the best of what we have. Just because you are born in Africa (or were born in Africa pre-industrialized...) doesn't necessarily mean you have a bad life. What's the standard? What are we using to measure the "jungles of Africa" against? A medieval hold-over of class-based social systems in Europe at the time (and that perists to verying degrees to this day)? The fact that a lot of scientists in that day and age in Europe were involved in the practice of trying to make gold from common elements hardly counts as a standard for what consitutes a "civilized nation," wouldn't you say?

Secondly, the whole "Africans were selling their own into slavery." Ever heard of supply and demand? If there hadn't been a demand for slavery, perhaps there may not have been round-ups to sell these poor people into such a degrading existence! Add to the fact that many were "selling" people in order to keep themselves from getting rounded up, it's doubly evil! They created two classes of victims! The ones they threatened to get them slaves, and the slaves themselves!! And I dare say, the so-called "jungles of Africa" were probably a lot less savage when Europeans weren't forcing them to sell their own people to them!

Third: How could you possibly, even remotely, consider that they "were better off" having lost all freedom to be themselves? To grow up in their homeland? To do whatever they wanted? Do you even realize how many died on the voyage alone? The appalling conditions? Horses and dogs were given better quarters than slaves on ships (if the term "quarters" could even be entertained as a fair representation of dark, damp, sickly, human-fecal stained bottoms of a ship!!)! Then, the ones "lucky" enough to survive the voyage in chains, darkness, and surrounded by death and sickness, were beaten bloody, watched their families torn apart, given hard labor and endless hours on little or no provisions for themselves or what little family they were able to have! And you think they may have been "better off"? Of course you are going to be called a mad man!!!

If all this ignorance isn't bad enough, the good "doctor" tries to "explain" his statements as having been misconstrued and misunderstood.

Slavery is always a great moral evil. It is one of the worst evils in our nation's history. [...] How can we have an intelligent social debate when so-called liberals are so quick to shut other ideas down? For example, must we believe that the American founders--most of whom held slaves (and who knew the practice was morally indefensible)--were simply "bad guys" in every way, with no redeeming moral qualities?

No person is better off enslaved, obviously. What I tried to say, before my words were twisted by that reporter, is that despite the clear and obvious evil of that practice, we tend to forget that many of the enslaved people had been first been sold into bondage by their fellow countrymen; so coming to America did bring about some eventual good. No social issue has all the "good guys" lined up on one side and "bad guys" on the other.

These so-called "liberal" groups are driving social conservatives and libertarians out of the debate with their misuse of their comments. In terms of the flow of accurate and unbiased information, these are very dangerous times.

Never minding that his last paragraph makes him a hypocrite in comparison to his sentence in the paragraph immediately preceeding, he does start off with a sage truth: "Slavery is morally reprehensible." Duh. Thank you for such a great insight, doctor! My, how many years of schooling did that take to come to that conclusion!

He then states that America's founders "knew the practice was morally indefensible." Is that why so many not only bought, sold, and kept slaves, but used the bible to actually justify having slaves?!?! Not only are you trying to downplay the horribleness of slavery and its continuing, lasting effects upon not only this nation but many others, you are trying to rewrite history and hold up the founding fathers of our nation as some type of god of the late 1700s! (HINT if they knew it was wrong, why weren't they freed right off the bat? Hello!) They were human and they owned slaves, and most of them didn't have any issue with it. That's the way things were, as reprehensible as that is. First he downplays the evil of slavery, and then he tries to give an out to the founding fathers an old excuse: "Well, they knew..." Puh-leeze!

Continuing in his diatribe of a mentally incapacitated individual, the good "doctor" then goes on to play the victim, saying his words had been misconstrued by an evil, liberal reporter. If NARTH hadn't been so quick to pull the article from their Web site when all the hoopla started, you'd be able to see that his words weren't misconstrued, he just hated being caught at being a homophobe and a racist. (Why would NARTH remove the article if Schoenewolf was simply misunderstood and not a racist? Did you know my real name is Dolly Parton?) Get off the cross, Gerald... Someone else needs the wood...

After a brief foray again into trying to blame the Africans themselves for the existence of the slave trade (that whole "blame the victim" mentality really cheeses me off!), he states: "so coming to America did bring about some eventual good." That "good" is still in the "eventual" stages, if you ask me. Racial inequality still runs rampant in this country! Have we made some in-roads? Certainly. Is the past unchangeable? Unfortunately. Can we do better? I would give a resounding "Most certainly!" Will we ever get it right? Probably not, but that shouldn't stop us from trying. But to say it had some "eventual good"? I think you would find it interesting to note that this same doctor, "Dr." Gerald Schoenewolf, has stated about civil rights activists:

First came the Civil Rights Movement, which began in the 1850s and was one of the causes of the Civil War. In this case, European-Americans (Caucasians) became the oppressors and African-Americans became the oppressed (because they weren't? what does this guy smoke??); European-Americans were demonized, and African-Americans were idealized; European-Americans who had practiced slavery or segregation were viewed as all-bad and African-Americans were seen as all-good. (Hmm, generalize much?)

African-Americans were urged by various leaders to unify and rebel against European-Americans and to demand special privileges as compensation for their suffering at the hands of the latter. (Suddenly "freedom" is a special privilege... go figure! Sounds like the same arguments they use to argue against same-sex marriage...) Civil rights leaders, like Marx and Engels before them, believed that their way, and only their way, was the valid way to look at the issue."

Yeah, the italics are mine, just in case you didn't catch that. So not only did "slavery cause an eventual good," according to the doctor, it wasn't because of the Civil Rights Movement, those evil bastards! The very movement that tried to start to make right the evil actions perpetuated against African Americans! He not only says it isn't because of them, but he again makes sweeping judgments to give an excuse to the white slave owners while blaming the African Americans for the ills of America. It's not only a little sad, but entirely disgusting! Further, when preparing himself for an interview later in the year 2005, he stated:

[...] Schoenewolf stood by his comments on the intellectual inferiority of civil rights movement supporters. "The civil rights movement has from the beginning and today seen itself as good and others are evil, like slaveowners are evil," he said.

During the interview, Schoenewolf lambasted civil rights, women's rights, and gay rights. "All such movements are destructive," he said. He also claimed the American Psychological Association, of which he is a member, "has been taken over by extremist gays."

Is it any surprise that later that same year, the American Family Association invited him to speak at one of their conferences? Homophobes and racists like to run in the same circles, but holy cow! That the AFA would invite a racist to speak for them about "family values"? Who knew that values are only for white, conservative Christains?

I just find it hard to believe that so many people believe this crap... and not only believe it, but then to endorse him! Do any of you "members" of the AFA know what your so-called "family-values" group endorses and stands for?

One last point about NARTH, the group of which the good "doctor" is an "adviser": Even though NARTH

...boasts membership of 1,000 professionals. Although this is only a tiny fraction of the 185,000 combined membership of the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association, even this number may be grossly inflated. As Wayne Besen points out on his blogsite, NARTH was only able to muster 75 signatures on a petition expressing support for conversion therapy. And, further, research has revealed that of this paltry showing of names, at least one-third of signatories are NARTH members, staff, Board members or conference presenters.

They can't even get their own "members" to sign their mission statements about "conversion therapy"! (FYI: "Conversion Therapy" relates to the "therapy" to maker people "ex-gay.")

And people wonder why I have such an issue with "conservatives"...

Monday, April 19, 2010

Tuesday, February 2, 2010

Thursday, November 12, 2009

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

Thursday, July 23, 2009

Wednesday, April 8, 2009

Monday, May 19, 2008

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Friday, July 13, 2007

Tuesday, June 5, 2007

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

Wednesday, December 6, 2006

Friday, December 1, 2006

Disqus for Life & Otherwise...

Subscribe

Recent Comments

FeedJit

Directories & Feeds

Labels

Posts of the Past...

About Me

Other Places I'm Found

Near The Beginning Archives

Pretty Cool Cats

Political Blogs

Philosophical Blogs

Science-Minded Blogs & Sites