Monday, February 14, 2005

Mission: Impossible

I've been reading a lot lately about the "gay agenda" and the sanctity of marriage and the dangers posed by cartoon characters and frankly wondering what the big deal is. I think I finally understand. Americans, looking to old Outer Limits episodes for sociological guidance, see gays as an invading alien race who, unable themselves to reproduce, can assure their continued existence and eventual takeover of the planet only by recruiting innocent children.

Let me put your mind at ease, America: the gays suck at recruitment. If they failed to win me over then they have no chance at all with your corn syrup-fed, god-fearing youngsters.

As a teenager I lived on the corner of (I am not making this up) Christopher Street and Gay Street, in the gayest neighborhood East of the Castro, in arguably the gayest period in the history of New York. In 1976, I was a 15 year-old, tall, slender, blonde, blue-eyed virgin, surrounded — and I mean literally surrounded — by gay men, gay culture. I had every possible characteristic the alien recruiters could hope for. I was morbidly sensitive, had a father who was sometimes absent and always weak, an adoring mother. I was interested in literature and the arts, was soft-spoken and had close, platonic friendships with girls. I even saw A Chorus Line on Broadway. Twice, actually. I admired my gay great-uncle for the way he could be loving towards his family and yet maintain a sanity-preserving distance, as well as for his collection of jazz 78s and the way he could rock a satin smoking jacket. I listened willingly to Barbara Streisand and Bette Midler and Leo Sayer on my gay babysitter's 8-track.

The advantages to becoming a gay man were not lost on me. They went to all the best parties, had all the best drugs, and seemed to be unburdened by the middle-class mores that left their straight contemporaries tired and defeated by forty. Gay men were on the wrong side of the punk/disco battles, as far as I was concerned, but détente was reached at Danceteria, if not already at the Mudd Club.

So I perused the brochures sent to me by the nice people at Gay Agenda and was particularly impressed by how these guys who worked in fashion and the arts and entertainment got to hang around with the very hottest girls. But then, deal-breaker: it turned out that if I were to sign-up I wouldn't get to have sex with these girls. And as much as I liked the clothes and the parties and the drugs and the idea of not having to hitch my Dockers up around my expanding waist at the company bar-b-cue, I just couldn't give up that dream of maybe one day having sex with a real live girl. I couldn't help this any more than I could help the boner that popped every time Miss Kearns appeared in class wearing her sky-blue mini-dress and canary-yellow tights, or than I could help those Emma Peel dreams that necessitated doing laundry on the sly.

Of course I couldn't. What could be more primary, more deeply-held, more resistant to manipulation than one's sexuality? Think about it. What could anyone have done to you at any point that could have changed your desire-nature? What image or idea could have overriden all of the crazy, gripping, insistent biology of your adolesence? If you had seen a cartoon rabbit visiting a lesbian couple, how would it have changed your physiological reaction to seeing Baywatch for the first time? Do you think that the daughter of a Republican senator and Secretary of Defense growing up in Wyoming saw Billie Jean King on TV and thought, oh ... ?

It doesn't work that way and you know it doesn't work that way. No one is genuinely fearful that the gays are going to "get" their children. There's no way. We all know how utterly impossible that is. We've all felt the profound inevitability of our sexuality. What some of us find frightening isn't that our children might not choose to be like us, or choose not to be what some 2,000 year-old compendium of writings by nomadic desert peoples says that they ought to be, but that, in this regard, they may not get to choose at all, that who they are, sexually, is determined by who they are biologically.

The fear then isn't fear of behavior, but fear of being, of body, of being a particular kind of embodied being in the world. But we are just like this, creatures like this, and being like this is our very deepest particularity. And if you believe in a god, what could be more blasphemous than to insist that its creation not express its deepest, truest nature?

37 Comments:

Blogger Meg said...

I'd like to write something thoughful and insightful, but I'm going to just go with straight praise. I liked this post a lot.. Maybe I'll come up with more later.

4:07 PM  
Blogger N said...

A very well reasoned essay. You and I, and the great majority out there, of course were shaped by our sexual identities from an early age.

However, the Christan Right can never acknowledge this obvious truth. Why? Because in *their* formative years, they did the shaping, rather than being shaped. To a man, the members of the Christian Right *did* in fact choose their sexuality. They all sat through those sex education classes, burning with mortifying lust for the same-sex jock two seats down. But, crushed with shame due to their upbringing, they made a grand effort and chose the heterosexual route. They closed their eyes, thought of Jesus, and produced kids with a suitable woman. Grown now, they believe that everyone chooses his or her sexuality, as they did.

It's the only explanation.

8:20 PM  
Blogger Kender said...

Last saturday I went to poker night at a friends house. This friend is gay, and his boyfriend lives there also, and they are in that inner circle of mine, numbered among that very closeknit group of friends that know it all and keep quiet about it.

I know..."poker night at a gay mans house" sounds like either trouble or a good time, depending on your particular slant, and this was a good time, although since PC is tossed out the window over there it could have been trouble if some of what got said was published.

I brought over a CD by Rodney Carrington that has, among many other outright funny and donwright worng songs on it a tune called "Gay Factory Worker".

Now, one of these guys smokes a pipe, and has found a convention of pipe and cigar afficianados that are also gay that he wants to go to. He was telling us that when he finally checked out the website it looked like a bunch of biker. Of course that got us on the train to "Gay Biker Gang Goes to a Yuppie Bar" and the comments flew fast and furious, finally ending with:

Bartender: "You guys are scaring my regular customers and I may have to ask you to leave."

Biggest Hairiest Biker Guy: (standing up ominously and saying in a growl) "If you don't go back behind that bar" (switching to flaming gay falsetto and striking classic gay pose of hip to one side and hands flung into the air) "we're gonna redecorate!!!

Gays are nothing to fear and homosexuality is NOT a choice. After hanging around gays ALOT for 10 years and still having no sexual feeling for them I can tell you that.

Besides, if gay were a choice, more men would be gay, because when one guy makes another guy mad the mad one can punch him in the nose, and you can't hit women!!!

3:37 PM  
Blogger Trey Desolay said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

6:01 PM  
Blogger Trey Desolay said...

Alan Keyes' daughter comes out

6:05 PM  
Blogger Pretzel, freedom fighter cookie said...

I hope the Talibans ruling american are kicked out soon. Keep struggling for your rights

3:40 PM  
Blogger birdwoman said...

"I even saw A Chorus Line on Broadway. Twice, actually."

and where I come from, this is as damning as the bottled water was in Heathers...

(*)>

8:58 AM  
Blogger uscu2 said...

I think you have it all wrong. I don't think American's are afraid of gays because they're afraid they'll recruit everyone including our children (a paraphrase) but rather that it's morally corrupt. Marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman, not a man and a man or a woman and a woman. I think that people are afraid that if we begin legalizing and allowing gay "marriage" then what next? We'll begin loosely interpreting everything in the constitution or life in general and this will lead to the downfall of America as we know it.

These are the fears of American people, losing the country they fought so hard to create to homosexuals from the inner cities. If you look at voter break down of America, mostly blue areas are large cities that carry a lot of electoral votes: New York, any city in California, Boston. These people from the cities have just become complacent with their values and loosely interpret everything now under the spirt of tolerance. Well this American is tired of being labeled as someone who's just "afraid of homosexuals." I'm standing for my rights, I think marriage has been clearly defined and for the health of children, families, and America should stay that way. I'm afraid of losing our country not a friend who has been "recruited."

11:50 AM  
Blogger Donkey Patrol said...

Ok,

A couple of things here:

1) While I may not agree with the content of the post, you did draw a lot of comments. Maybe I should start making posts about 'controversial' stuff and people will flock to my blog too! Hmmmm...

2) Gayness is a choice. Honest to goodness. Before you sling your gay gene theories and inherent gayness arguments at me, hear me out. Name a study linking genetics to homosexuality. I see the crowd is silent. And it would behoove you to maintain your silence because there is no statistically valid argument or research that supports the idea of homosexuality being an inherited trait. Call me conservative and bigoted if you must, but you can't call me wrong here, folks.

3) I'm glad N knows every Christian who was ever born and also knows their undisclosed thought processes. You have to let me know how you got those powers because I've got a free weekend and need to find out which Christian lady has a burning desire to get in my pants.

4) Going back to the inheritance of gayness. I know you're not going to like this idea, but I think homosexuality is a sin. Call me crazy. But I think seeing homosexuality as a sin, offensive as it may be to some people, offers an explanation for the 'inherant' feelings of same sex attraction. Let me use my dearly departed alcoholic grandmother here for a sec. Grandma loved the bottle. She even drank herself to death. Depressing as that may sound, grandma stuggled with the sin of 1) no self control and 2) abusing her body with foreign substances. Was she predisposed to drink herself to death? No, that was a choice. Was she predisposed with an affinity for self destruction? Sure, we all are. It's called sin. Seeing homosexuality as a sin allows for one to have a tendency towards struggling with homosexuality, but does not give room for you to use that tendency as your rationalization or excuse for the life you lead. I may want to bang every single girl that I meet, but I'm going to exercise discretion and self respect enough so that I don't ruin my life, and other people's lives, in that pursuit of banging. Make sense? So homosexuality as a sin: what do you all think?

1:25 PM  
Blogger Lillet Langtry said...

Hey you last two-

You are conservative, bigoted, AND wrong! how about that! There is homosexuality in the animal kingdom, as well genetic studies in existence, regarding possible differences in brain structure.

But also, if you've spent any time with real, life, gay people, it's pretty obvious, especially with men, that it's NOT a choice. That idea is just plain ignorant.

Also, marriage has NOT been defined for all time as between a man and a woman. In many cultures, back in the day, men could have as many wives as they wanted. If the husband died his wives immediately belonged to his brother. Are you down with that? Also, in other Christian societies, marriages were totally arranged and people used to get married at 14 and stuff.

This "sin" stuff is bullshit when it comes to being gay -- it's about how you treat people. Do you two actually KNOW anyone who is gay? I bet you don't.

4:05 PM  
Blogger Trey Desolay said...

I bet they do, honey.

4:44 PM  
Blogger Trey Desolay said...

Donkey Patrol, perhaps you can tell us in more detail how it is you came to choose heterosexuality. Was it a difficult decision?

uscu2, what's next, indeed. Wait until you see what we ghetto dwellers have planned for you. Once we have Myra Breckinridge added to the Jr. High required reading list we will implement all sorts of dastardly reality-based schemes. For example, we're going to make you turn off the TV for ten minutes and attend a basic critical reasoning class until you can identify slippery slope fallacies.

5:05 PM  
Blogger Lillet Langtry said...

uscu2,

If you are concerned with the integrity of the Constitution, you're in major trouble with W in the White House. Just a heads-up there.

Enlighten me -- what exactly is immoral about homosexuality? Seriously. Can you explain it to me? I'd really like to know.

5:09 PM  
Blogger uscu2 said...

If you really would like me to try and outline what is wrong with homosexuality I will do so. I will do it in my blog here sometime this weekend. So keep an eye out for it. I do it with two basic criteria though.

1.) I will not dwell on the subject for too long. I have entered this debate with those who disagree many times before and it winds up being a circular argument producing nothing but rage.

2.) The majority of my statements will be Biblically based. This may be external criticism for you, so there is a chance that you will just flat out disagree. I'm not going to argue from some nebulous stand point like, "It's gross." I'm going to use the standards given to us by God in the Bible. If you are unable to accept those as evidence in an argument, don't even bother to read. So keep an eye out for it this weekend. I may do it Saturday or Sunday.

As for W in the White House, I'm a HUGE FAN of W. I know it's hard for anyone in the blue hole that is New York to understand this, but I think he's done a fabulous job in a difficult time. He's in line with the thought process of the majority of Americans, has kept our country unbelievably safe, and stood firmly in the face of the liberal media reporting EVERY SINGLE HORRIBLE FACT about the war. You never hear the good side. One negative I will say is he spends way to much money, and hopefully that doesn't continue as much. But as for preserving human life, abolishing gay marriage (as defined in our society not the society of cultures long ago), and keeping me from dumping money into a program that undoubtedly will be gone when I retire, I agree whole heartedly with W. I don't know how you can say that he interprets the constitution anything but strictly. Do you even understand the Republican party or have you been eating too much tofu with the other city rats?

8:53 PM  
Blogger uscu2 said...

One last thought for Lillet and Trey ... especially Lillet. Lillet you mentioned earlier that the reason someone such as myself "is afraid of homosexuals is my fear that they'll recruit my children or me" It was something like that frankly I'm too lazy to go back and look for the wording. Then you also say that it's a genetic issue. You briefly site such credible arguments as the animal kingdom, since I'm sure you think we all came from monkeys.

If it's genetic, then homosexuals can't recruit anyone. So your whole blog was pointless. "The gays suck at recruitment." There is no recruiting to be done if you're right, we're all born either genetically gay or not. Which if that's the case I don't know how you explain someone who is gay and then becomes straight or the opposite. But you contradict yourself in your own blog and comments. If it's genetics then there needs to be no recruiting and your blog is pointless. Just thought I'd point out a glaring weakness in your argument.

8:58 PM  
Blogger N said...

I hear your sarcasm, donkey patrol, but... accept it or not. it's true, and I know it. Every single person who *chose* their orientation is a closet homosexual.

And as for "which Christian lady has a burning desire to get in my pants," none do. Sorry. They can tell that you were born gay, and made a conscious decision to turn hetero.

10:27 PM  
Blogger Kender said...

There is no help from me on teh Ass, but I can help with USCU2s' point of what is next.

A simple little law saying that mnarriage is between two homosapiens of consenting legal age and related far enough apart (i.e., no bro/bro, bro/sis, sis/sis, 1stcousin/anything, you get the idea) and in one fell swoop I have solved ALL of the arguments that the far right scream about while reminding them that they have no right to toss their religion out there as a reason to make a law and I become a heroic icon to the gay community and my gay friends have bragging rights that they knew the savior (can I use that word here?) of gay marriage and we can all live happily ever after sleeping with whoever we love.

Good? I think so.

OK, USCU2, Assman? Your turn.

3:20 AM  
Blogger Kender said...

Donkey Patrol.

Just a note, a blog called "Kieth and Andrew Fight Back sounds soooooooooooooo GAY!!!!!!!


Fling open that closet mister, and come out SINGING!!!!!!!!

3:22 AM  
Blogger Donkey Patrol said...

Ok people, who wants a heaping dose of knowledge? I know that none of you probably do, but I'm shoveling it your way in hopes that maybe you'll be able to open your ears enough to hear anything beyond the din of your circular, insular comments. POW!

FIRST! No, Lillet, no study proves gayness in the brain. The only study that has remote statistical validity about gayness being in you brain is a study by Brian Mustanski from University if Illinois at Chicago. His studies show that no one region in the brain is tied to sexual orientation, and that the myth of the 'gay gene' is just that...a myth. While you stare gapjawed at reality, check this out too... (some of us have to type our blogs in secret at work, so I'll be back hold on)

8:20 AM  
Blogger Donkey Patrol said...

Ok back for more are you? Get this:

Dr. UIC's study showed that there was no one gene that contributes to homosexual orientation. His study does suggest that regions of the brain may be responsible for this predisposition for homosexuality. But before you break out your rainbow flags and celebrate in the streets, the finding is totally bogus. Check out the March edition of the academic journal of Human Genetics (Sorry I couldn't find any New Yorker articles, kids) and you'll find out that 1) no statistically significant data solidly supports the notion of brain regions impacting sexual orientation, except those regions that are 2) the most maleable, and are most impacted by the external environment. Oops. Seriously check it out.

And again with the sweeping generalizations! For all your talk about tolerance and acceptance and equality, you sure is a bigoted lot! Assuming I don't know any gay people because I'm a conservative Christian? People, I grew up in Miami Florida. Miami! People in my high school were gay, my neighbors were gay, the organist at my church who cheated on his wife with another man was gay, and I could go on. Chances are I know more gay people than you do. I think what you've tried to do is associate my comments with hostility towards homosexuals. I've known some pretty sweet gay guys and gals in my lifetime. Nothing in my experience in interacting on platonic levels with gay people suggests to me that their lifestyle is a pre-planned, dare I say predestined, lifestyle.

So that's what I have to say about that. You people don't really have a planned defense for your position other than "I know some gay people and I don't think they choose to be gay". That's a great argument if you're going to give a GLAAD talk to a bunch of 5th graders in a New York City elementary school. However as a person seeking truth beyond the veil of sarcasm and substance beyond self-promoting circular arguments, I challenge you to defend your point of view more. And when I say defend, I mean make cogent appeals to the rational mind not to the cult of liberalism that spews aspersions on those who attack it's soft, bleeding heart.

Ok vitriol aside.

1) Keith and Andrew Fight Back is such a sweet title! Admit it, you love coming back to the blog to see who has posted on our pithy arguments and rants. And personally, I love seeing you guys post there too. Stimulates intellectual discourse it does.

2) Sometimes I drink too much coffee and get all jumpy when I'm typing. So if I make a ton of typos, that's whie.

3) Sometimes I like to make big words and sound artsy and pretentious using Microsoft Word. Go try it. Type a word, like "insult" and then right click on it. Then go to the thesaurus option and see what other big words it gives you. If you are having trouble beefing up your vocab, don't worry! You don't have to have complete mastery of the Enlgish language to sound like a douchebag (careful before you jump on that one...)

9:21 AM  
Blogger Donkey Patrol said...

I know, I know I spelled 'English' wrong at a very crucial moment. Crap

9:25 AM  
Blogger Donkey Patrol said...

Anthropomorphism. Say it out loud with me. An-thro-po-mor-phi-sm. Saying that animals can be gay is projecting a human characteristic onto an animal who is not human. To say that an animal is a homosexual intimates that it makes a choice to be gay. And taking you all's position on gayness, that implies that an animal has a manifested love for another animal of it's own sex. Animals loving each other? The only loving animals I've seen are Care Bears and they are not real. Zoologist I am not; I learned in my college level science classes (which stressed empirical research and the scientific method for research and data collecion) that animals had instincts and to suppose that animals have anything akin to love, emotion, etc. is shaky conjecture at best. And why am I, the Bible thumping creationist the only one using science as a rationalization for my arguments?

But I digress. To imply an animal loves another animal of its own sex, and makes a willful choice to make love to it is the most preposterous thing I've ever heard of. Yeah, I've watched my dog hump other guy dogs, and I've even made hysterical comments about how Charlie is gay. I know full well, though, that what I am witnessing is my dog, driven by instinct, trying to procreate. He sees a hole and he goes for it. That's instinct. I am leaving and will not comment anymore today I PROMISE!

10:29 AM  
Blogger Lillet Langtry said...

uscu2-- WTF? the whole post's point was that PEOPLE DO NOT CHOOSE THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATION, so the whole "gays recruit or influence straight people to be gay" argument is wrong.

Donkey Boy -- Props on knowing gay people. I assumed anyone with your retrograde views on morality and sexuality just didn't have the opportunity to know any better.

Save the Bible reasoning on me, unless you also eschew cotton-poly blends.

2:22 PM  
Blogger uscu2 said...

Lillet you misunderstand my comment. I'm not even going to exert the sufficient mental effort to correct you. I'm merely saying you said, "Gays suck at recruiting." In that statement you left open the possibility of choice. You did this in your grand post which was supporting homosexuality as genetics. Your blog contradicted itself. That's my point. Just remember to read my post this weekend or Monday at www.keithandandrew.blogspot.com If you don't like Biblical reasoning, don't even bother I mentioned this before. I do in fact eschew cotton-poly blends, but whatever humor you were shooting for there was lost on me. Either it was a lame statement or I totally missed the boat.
In closing I would like to say that I too know gay people. I went to high school where a good friend of mine was gay, as well as others I knew. There is also an pretty good shot that my brother who will be in college next year is gay. He has just not declared this fact yet, but it's only a matter of time. So keep that in mind as you just label me as someone who does not know any gay people. Just a thought for ya. Well, I propose that everyone quits thinking tonight and instead plays Ninja Gaiden for Xbox. It's such a sweet game, plus you get to kill lots of ninjas. Give it a try.

2:42 PM  
Blogger Lillet Langtry said...

If you read Leviticus it expressly orders you to not wear clothing of mixed fibers. Leviticus 19:19.

Anyone who takes the Bible literally is insane. Sorry. Had to say it.

2:53 PM  
Blogger Trey Desolay said...

Just a little mental exertion goes along way. Had you, for example, read to the end of the article you would know that Lillet didn't write it. I did. That's why it says "Posted by Trey Desolay" at the bottom. Another clue to the article's authorship is that a woman rarely writes in the first person about deciding whether or not to become a gay man, let alone about popping boners.

We're glad to know that you read at least one sentence of the article. Maybe once you've learned those basics of critical reasoning we discussed yesterday you can move on to simple literary devices, like this one.

I can only wonder what wonders you work with biblical exegesis.

2:58 PM  
Blogger uscu2 said...

Really brief:

1.) I take the Bible literally. I also understand the difference between the law of O.T. and the N.T. after Christ came. So I don't see the need to avoid fibers, that is gone.

2.) Trey I misread your article. That would explain why it had me a bit confused. I could swear that when I looked Lillet wrote it. I even looked like 2 or 3 times. I must have scrolled to far to the next one or something. Doesn't give me a ton of credibility that I can't tell who authors a blog, but hey, I'm new to this stuff, so I'm learning on the fly. The article makes quite a bit more sense now. You can understand how I was confused thinking Lillet wrote it. I was reading in circles and confused. As for it being genetic, you're just gonna have to wait to hear my point, but I disagree it is. How do you explain people who go from gay to straight or the opposite?

3:42 PM  
Blogger Donkey Patrol said...

Hey,

I think you all need to chill out. Was the point of USCU2's post to slam the author, or the author's premise for the article? I think you would both agree with the latter statement. In that sense it doesn't matter who wrote the dumb article, all that matters is that it's a dumb article worth attacking. I think we could all agree on that point too.


And by the way, Levitical prohibitions on homosexuality are only one instance in the Bible against said 'sin' (I put that in quotes so as to not offend anyone...I'm so considerate. Isn't being considerate nice? It sure is!Let's all try it for once). However I was impressed that you pulled that out. Having a decent knowledge of the religion that predominates your country, and which you loathe, is pat of being a well rounded scholar.

Hey are you guys going to read our blog at all? I am totally giving you all a shout out so you all get more traffic. I'm jealous of how many posts you get...not going to lie here.

4:02 PM  
Blogger Trey Desolay said...

No, Keith, I can't understand how you could have thought that Lillet wrote that article.

What undermines your credibility isn't that you failed to noticed who posted the article, but that your reading is so careless and your comprehension so poor that you could read an article about a teenage boy coming to understand his sexual identity and believe over a period of several days that it was written by a woman.

The other thing that undermines your credibility is your blatant hypocrisy. Here, you complain about urban culture and how it "will lead to the downfall of America as we know it," while on your own blog you wonder who is to be preferred amongst murdered rappers.

I'll save you the click. Keith says that "Biggie was so money [...] So stinking money."

I guess that urban culture is okay as long as it is expressing misogynistic and homophobic ideas.

4:08 PM  
Blogger uscu2 said...

Trey ... on occasion I due enjoy discussing light hearted matters. Such matters include: pop culture icons, video games, television, sports, random miscellaneous facts. I don't support Biggie's lifestyle in any way shape or form. I didn't say in my blog, "You know I wish I could live a life like Notorious BIG and get shot since I offended so many people." I merely posed an interesting question for people to ponder. I make a point to not always post blogs that offend nearly 60% of the people that could read it. This means sometimes you have to post about light hearted matters such as Biggie and Tupac. Next time I'll make sure I only post controversial things that offend and degrade others. I bet I'll sleep better at night if I do that. Do you?

4:29 PM  
Blogger Donkey Patrol said...

Hey Tray,

I've got some Valium hidden in my desk at work...if you need to relax I'll send you a few pills in the mail. Stop being a douche bag and stop taking yourself so seriously.

Here's a light hearted question that maybe you all will be better able to relate to: Who would it be sweeter to be? Neitzche, Stalin, or a princess?

4:37 PM  
Blogger N said...

This whole "choice / genetic" thing is window dressing, just distractions to keep the left and evangelicals (notice i said evangelicals, not christians; christians [like me] believe in withholding judgement and loving their neighbors; evangelicals are the money-grubbing old-testament quoting hard right) fighting while big government goes to bed with big money and rakes in the dough off the backs of the working man. who gives a shit if it's a choice or not? adultery's a choice too, and while christ said not one word in the gospels regarding homosexuality (yes, paul, the original right winger, did mention it, but i'm talking about the gospels), christ did have a word or two to say about adultery. hell, He even said that there can be no divorce; and that if you so much as look at a woman with lust, you've committed adultery (and am I a sinner). yet you don't see evangelicals getting all worked up about adultery, which is a vile sin WAYYYY more common than homosexuality.

why do you suppose that is? either they're all closet self-loathing queers, or could it be that they don't want to alienate their constituency with some REAL family values, knowing as they do that even "god-fearin"" middle americans cheat, lie and lust? hmmmm???

8:06 PM  
Blogger N said...

yeah, and anyone who believes the Old Testament is literally true is no better than the fucking Taliban. People, read the damn thing: it's tribal nonsense, all rape and war and hideously draconian punishments.

8:08 PM  
Blogger Kender said...

The gay agenda? I have seen it. It pretty much sounds like my wifes day at the spa but with men and alot of dancing afterwards followed by a (ahem)walk in the park.

4:34 AM  
Blogger Donkey Patrol said...

N,

Great point about adultery. It's wrong and people should get more pissed about it than they do. But to say that Christians don't care about adultery in favor of seething over homosexuality isn't a fair statement. I've heard more vitriolic sermons in my day addressing adultery. Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever been to church (a habit I try to make constant in my life) and heard a hell-fire-and-judgment sermon on homosexuality.

The Taliban? Way to make a large majority of Christians and Jews into terrorists. I always did need a new refreshing way to look at myself in the mirror. You might have to explain that one a little more. In the meantime though, I'm going out to oppress women and kill people who look at me cross...peace!

7:40 AM  
Blogger jeff said...

I'm gay and been since I was in the second grade. I wonder what I did wrong. I've never had sex with a man but have had it with a few women. What did I do wrong? I'm gay and been that way since I was a young boy. I've chosen to act as a heterosexual but I know I'm gay. What did I do wrong? Nothing, I was born that way but I act contrary to my nature because it is socially unacceptable. When will the concentration camps start up again?

10:24 PM  
Blogger Tom Naka said...

Hey, you have a great blog here! I'm definitely going to bookmark you! I have a england health spa
site/blog. It pretty much covers england health spa
related stuff.

10:56 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home