Showing posts with label homosexual. Show all posts
Showing posts with label homosexual. Show all posts

Monday, August 24, 2009

Bigotry Homosexuals And Capital Punishment

I am not one to advocate violence but Steven L. Anderson, pastor of Faithful Word Baptist Church, needs to be hit up-side the head with his own bible. Here is a taste of this bigod's hate and stupidity:
"You want to know who the biggest hypocrite in the world is? The biggest hypocrite in the world is the person who believes in the death penalty for murderers and not for homosexuals. Hypocrite. The same God who instituted the death penalty for murderers is the same God who instituted the death penalty for rapists and for homosexuals - sodomites, queers! That's what it was instituted for, okay? That's God, he hasn't changed. Oh, God doesn't feel that way in the New Testament ... God never "felt" anything about it, he commanded it and said they should be taken out and killed."
I'm more "Christian" than this man and I am not even religious.

An example of his wife's Christianity from her blog:
"With any luck, this guy will get killed in a car accident while he is out trolling around in his squad car. It might save a Mom's life. Shame on his mother for raising such a worthless excuse for a human being. Yes, I did just say all that. And let me remind you that if you do not enjoy reading my blog, you never need to visit here again, and you will not be missed."
Sphere: Related Content

Sunday, August 23, 2009

Old People Don't Think They Know Someone Gay

Interesting research from Columbia University of attitudes on gay marriage. It is odd that the percentage of people reporting knowing someone gay is so low. I would think that people between 20 and 40 years old would report knowing at least one homosexual. The older folks don't realize they know homosexuals.
Sphere: Related Content

Friday, August 14, 2009

Health Care Plan Will Force the Hiring Of Homosexual Administrators, Are You Serious?

If the crazy christian people weren't so dangerous their craziness would be funny. A christian right group called Pray In The Name Of Jesus Project had a petition opposing the health care reform proposal. They have many petitions, mostly funny, but very dangerous. The health care petition says:
"Your tax-dollars will pay for preferential hiring of homosexual hospital administrators, who distribute $50,000 grants to gender-confused activists for unneeded elective surgery to mutilate their own genitals, (and force Christian doctors to perform it.)
On August 4 Politifact released its research and the truth regarding this stupid christian claim. Politifact writes:
"On Aug. 4, a news release to that effect went out under the name of Matt Barber, who is director of cultural affairs with Liberty Counsel, a conservative legal group, and the associate dean of Liberty University School of Law, which was founded by the late televangelist Jerry Falwell. It was quickly spread by blogs on the left and the right.

Titled, 'ObamaCare Likely to Mandate Free ‘Sex Change’ Surgeries,' the release asserted that 'the weight of the evidence indicates that cosmetic ‘gender reassignment’ surgeries for both U.S. citizens and illegal immigrants who suffer from [the American Psychiatric Association-] recognized ‘Gender Identity Disorder’ (GID) may also be provided – free of charge – courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer. The current price tag for such a procedure can exceed $50,000.'

To confirm Barber’s authorship and learn more about his reasoning, we tried to reach him through the phone number and e-mail address listed on the release, as well as through a call to a different number at Liberty Counsel. But he did not respond. Because we couldn't confirm his authorship, we're attributing this item to our generic category 'bloggers,' since they have spread it so widely.

Before we delve into our findings in detail, here's an overview of why we found the claim was False: The news release tries to stitch together a patchwork of unrelated items to back up the sex-change claim, but the health care bills as they appear today simply don't do what the release alleges. There is no mandate for sex-change coverage.

The news release offers three pieces of evidence:

* An exchange between Sens. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., about the legislation covering treatments that would be 'medically necessary.'

* Language in the House version of the health care bill that provides for 'standards, as appropriate, for the collection of accurate data on health and health care' based on 'sex, sexual orientation [and] gender identity.'

* And language in a draft Senate bill that requires the Department of Health and Human Services to ‘develop standards for the measurement of gender’ (i.e., officially recognize subjectively self-determined "transgender" or "transsexual" gender identities). It further mandates ‘participation in the institutions’ programs of individuals and groups from ... different genders and sexual orientations.'

Let’s take these assertions one by one.

Go to politifact for the rest of the story.
Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

"No Homo" Update

Alyssa Rosenberg responds to Jonah Weiner with, "As long as we feel the need to clearly delineate between straightness and gayness, we're relying on separation for our own comfort."

Nick Catucci at New York Mag
responds to Weiner, "The idea that this phrase represents the glimmers of a new awakening in hip-hop certainly makes sense when you consider that for gays to be considered equals, they must first, in some primordial stage of social understanding, be understood to even exist." Sphere: Related Content

Monday, August 10, 2009

Are Gays Into God More Than Straights?

David Gibson writes about the level and reasons of gay participation in the church. Gibson writes:
"Moreover, the process of coming out as a homosexual is often seen as analogous to the Christian pilgrimage of self-discovery and acceptance. "I have a theory that once you discern one call -- that God has created you to be gay -- that you are more adept at understanding God's call in other ways, as into ministry," said Kansfield."
How will this idea be received by the church? Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, August 8, 2009

Is Hip Hop Getting Too Hard On Gay Men, No Homo

Slate has an interesting story on the ever rising homophobia in Hip Hop. The incessant defense against homosexuality doesn't sound like homophobia, but more like autoimahomophobia (not really a word). Favorite passages:
"No homo, to those unfamiliar with the term, is a phrase added to statements in order to rid them of possible homosexual double-entendre. ('You've got beautiful balls,' you tell your friend at the bocce game—'no homo.')"

"I once asked Method Man whether he thought we'd ever see an openly gay gangsta rapper. He grew visibly agitated. 'You can't be fuckin' people in the ass and say you're gangsta,' he responded. As Kanye West has observed, gay and hip-hop have traditionally functioned as mutually exclusive terms, Venn diagrams that don't touch (and get really testy at the suggestion that they might, you know, want to). In 1989, Big Daddy Kane summed up the reigning attitude: 'The Big Daddy law is anti-faggot.' When DMX insulted rivals 10 years later by rapping, 'Y'all niggas remind me of a strip club/ 'Cause every time you come around it's like I just gotta get my dick sucked," hip-hop was still so aggressively understood as hetero-centric that it was inconceivable to DMX that there might be anything the least bit gay about his fantasy of a roomful of men fellating him."


Do they protest too much? Sphere: Related Content

Monday, July 20, 2009

“OKLAHOMA WHERE THE HYPOCRISY COMES SWEEPING DOWN THE PLAINS.”







David Boies’s essay in Wall Street Journal today lead my mind to think about how the courts are going to approach arguments on gay marriage. It seems appropriate to question this through what I heard all week during the hearing on the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor.

After the grandstanding this past week about the role of judges applying the law not their personal bias I hope judges in courts soon to hear gay marriage cases follow this senatorial dictum.

I agree with the intent of Judge Sotomayor’s statements that our experiences are integral to how we interpret and understand. Experience by definition is “the fact or state of having been affected by or gained knowledge through direct observation or participation.” It is a filter through which we process all stimuli. No one can escape this pure human function.

Some Senators disagree.

Unfortunately, after purporting that judges leave aside bias, prejudice and personal feelings some senators are hoping to overturn gay marriage rulings in Iowa, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont. They also want to stop California’s Prop 8 from being reversed. Ultimately as U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker predicted, "I am reasonably sure that, given the personalities in this courtroom, this case is only touching down in this court and it will have a life after this court," Walker said. "What happens here is in many ways a prelude to what happens later." Supreme Court here we come.

It certainly seems that those hoping to protect “traditional marriage” are dependent upon relying on bias, prejudice and personal feelings of Christian judges. Religion is probably the most fundamental form of bias, prejudice or personal feelings. Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) wants “to be absolutely certain that [judges] will faithfully interpret the law and the Constitution without bias or prejudice.” Is it hypocritical to demand fairness in the abstract but hope for bias in the specific of gay marriage? Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) pronounced, I don’t think he was being ironic, “that's why Lady Justice is always depicted blind and why Aristotle defined law as ‘reason free from passion.’”

Other countries are better at separating religiosity from deciding of legal rights. David Boies writes today in the Wall Street Journal,

"Countries as Catholic as Spain, as different as Sweden and South Africa, and as near as Canada have embraced gay and lesbian marriage without any noticeable effect -- except the increase in human happiness and social stability that comes from permitting people to marry for love."
In the hearings for John Roberts nomination to the high court Sen Coburn said, “"If you have somebody first of all who has that connection with their personal faith and their allegiance to the law, you don't get into the Roe v. Wade situation," Coburn said, according to the Associated Press. "I am looking for somebody who is not going to make that mistake again in any other area of life." Let sing a song for Senator Coburn, “OKLAHOMA WHERE THE HYPOCRISY COMES SWEEPING DOWN THE PLAINS.”

Boies also writes,

"There are those who sincerely believe that homosexuality is inconsistent with their religion -- and the First Amendment guarantees their freedom of belief. However, the same First Amendment, as well as the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses, preclude the enshrinement of their religious-based disapproval in state law."

Why can’t we agree that religious dogma has no place in our courts and the discussion of our rights. And neither does hypocrisy.

Sphere: Related Content
Add to Technorati Favorites