The So-Called Vampire Agenda

It is my firmly held belief that many Conservative-Christian have confused gays for vampires. I have come to this conclusion based on the following arguments made by actual people.

1. Gays are Turned Gay

  

On the December 12, 2012 episode of the show The 700 Club, Pat Robertson received a letter asking for his advice... why? Who the fuck knows why anyone would ask him about anything, but it happened.

Anyway, the question reads:

Growing up, I had a best friend. We parted ways after high school. Ten years later, we got back in touch. I am really glad to see her because I've always thought of her as my sister. But recently, I invited her to meet my children. She said yes – and asked if she could bring her 'partner.' I said, 'Okay.' I know that my friend's family has shunned her because of her lifestyle, and I don't want to be like that. I want to show love – but I don't want her to think I am okay with her ways. And I don't feel comfortable having her around my children. Should I keep this friendship?

Robertson answers:

You keep love, you loved her, you were close and your influence may have something significant to her, the idea is you don’t gain anything by shunning, but at the same you don’t want your children to grow up as lesbians…

Yep, more pedophilia recruitment bullshit. Instead of biting and infecting to recruit new members, we drive Subarus, drink white wines, and shop at Bed Bath & Beyond. Anyone who witnesses this behavior becomes gayified. 

Well if you can't get them to join, you can always get them with your Aids Ring, eh? 

Asshole.

To use the parlance created by the vampire mythos, nobody has sired me. And I have sired no gaylings. I have no attraction to straight men. In fact, straight guys kind of disgust me actually.

Secondly, notice how the Asker never states that she has a daughter; she says she has "children." If they're boy children, wouldn't they become the manliest, straight-men ever butched up, simply by hanging out with Auntie U-Haul?  You know wearing flannel, playing sports, eating pussy. It seems like Pat kind of assumed on this one. And come on Pat, you know what they say about what happens when you assume.

2. Gays are Demonically Possessed

On the May 18, 2012 David Pakman Show, Gordon Klingenshit Klingenschmitt had a few pearls of wisdom he wanted to share with the world:

Anyone who’s studied biology and Punnett squares and Mendelian genetics obviously has to agree with me that homosexuality cannot be genetic, because if, say, a blond haired man and a blonde haired woman have children there's a pretty good chance that their kid might have blonde hair… and let’s say that a homosexual man mates with another homosexual man, there’s a one hundred percent chance they won’t have children. So they have to recruit the children of heterosexuals, and that’s what this whole marketing scheme for the pro-homosexual movement is all about.

Yes, and anyone who has studied 8th grade biology knows that hair color is vastly more complicated than a simple 4 squared Punnett diagram. Also I may or may not have siblings, who may or may not pass a lot of shared genes to their children, who I am a responsible uncle for possibly. Those possible nieces and/or nephews would contain enough genetic similarities as to any possible children that I would produce.  (By Klingenschmitt's logic things like Tay-Sachs and Sickle Cell Anemia shouldn't exist either. Is he saying that those are demonic too...) Also there is this study from William R. Rice, Urban Friberg, and Sergey Gavrilets published in 2012 in the University of Chicago's Quarterly Review of Biology entitled "Homosexuality as a Consequence of Epigenetically Canalized Sexual Development" So if the research is correct, then yes in part gayness is not wholly genetic, but there are epigentic factors that are naturally deterministic. Moving on.

Pakman then asked Klingenschmitt about gay animals, also known as gaynimals and how they aren't exposed to marketing, because, well, they're animals:

It is entirely possible — we know from the Bible, for example, when Jesus cast the devil out of Legion, he went into a herd of pigs. So, it is possible for demons or the devil to inhabit or invade animals just the same way they invade humans, and that causes the sin of lust.

Legion wasn't one being; it wasn't the Devil; it comes from Latin meaning I am hundreds... When asked to clarify his point, Klingenschmitt stated:

Marketing is related to the demonic, because the devil wants to recruit people into sin.

So being gay means, demonic possession. I think this may have been the plot to season one of Buffy the Vampire Slayer; in which case I am so definitely Spike.

3. To Cure the Gays Simply Pray Away the Gay

I am not even going to waste my time by offering up any quotes as evidence that I am not trying to build a strawman for this one. 

Yep, so go on and hold up your crosses and your bibles at Gay Pride Parades. That will definitely protect you from the gay just like it does against vampires.

Garlic and holy-water too. And my reflexion can't be capture by a mirror or a camera. That's why my blogger photo is a drawing.

4. Gays are not Natural

Sweet so I guess that makes me supernatural. Fuck Yeah! I am going to go fight crime with the power of teh gayz. Ooo ooo.. I could be the Crimson Cock. Fighting crime with my rod of justice.

Oh, wait... Unfortunately it's still a criminal statute in Virginia. It is laid out in Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-361:

Crimes against nature; penalty.

A. If any person carnally knows in any manner any brute animal, or carnally knows any male or female person by the anus or by or with the mouth, or voluntarily submits to such carnal knowledge, he or she shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony, except as provided in subsection B.

Dear Legislative body of Virginia, fix your laws, you jackasses. Ken "the Cooch" Cuccinelli lost the gubernatorial race over his defense of this statute (the statute was struck down in Lawrence v. Texas. The Cooch claimed the statute was need to prosecute rapists... in which case he should have lobbied the Legislature when he was serving Vice Lieutenant Governor for a new and more legal version of the statute. But no, he instead was a complete fuck-head. So guess what, it's been more than a decade since the Court struck down the statute, and it is still in the Code and nothing has been done, when it easily, easily could pass the legislative process... for fuck sake what is wrong with these stupid bastards. Fix your goddamn laws you goddamn idiots. That's your fucking job, you fucking incompetent asses.)   Anyway, I've digressed enough.

I am unnatural, an aberration who casts no shadow. I mean that's the only explanation, because there's no such thing as gaynimals (well except those some 4,000 documented species.) I couldn't possible exist without magic or Satan or whatever you call it.

Secondly, before any asshole mumbles, "just because animals do it doesn't make it right. Some animals practice cannibalism blah blah blah," I just want to point out I am not saying that gay sex is moral. I am answering the claim "Gays are unnatural." The question of morality is a different subject that relies on notions such as consent, damages, harm, etc. After hours of reading articles on gaynimals, I have not come across an author making the claim that because it is natural it is moral. 

As a postlogue, I would just like to point out that the arguments present by the Christianists were relatively low-hanging fruit. A simple google search will show that they are not nearly alone in their views of gay people. They seem pretty prevalent to me.

This is every gay person I know in a nutshell

Count Orlok in a speedo... why not?

Liam '14

Last Year Today...

On March 27, 2013 the United States Supreme Court heard the oral arguments for United States v. Windsor which went on to strike down portions of the Defense of Marriage Act. So today, in honor of precedent I am celebrating (on a work day. Sacre tabarnak!) with a quick refresher of the details.

Ironically, Scalia provided the "so called Homosexual Agenda" (dun-duh dah!) a pathway for future judicial victories by writing dicta in his dissent:

In my opinion, however, the view that this Court will take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by today's opinion. As I have said, the real rationale of today's opinion, whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow, is that DOMA is motivated by "`bare ... desire to harm'" couples in same-sex marriages. Supra, at 2691. How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status. Consider how easy (inevitable) it is to make the following substitutions in a passage from today's opinion ante, at 2694

Thanks! I'm guessing Scalia popped an anger boner when he saw his quote magically appear in Kitchen v. Herbert:

The Constitution’s protection of the individual rights of gay and lesbian citizens is equally dispositive whether this protection requires a court to respect a state law, as in Windsor, or strike down a state law, as the Plaintiffs ask the court to do here. In his dissenting opinion, the Honorable Antonin Scalia recognized that this result was the logical outcome of the Court’s ruling in Windsor:

In my opinion, however, the view that this Court will take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by today’s opinion. As I have said, the real rationale of today’s opinion . . . is that DOMA is motivated by “bare . . . desire to harm” couples in same-sex marriages. How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same- sex couples marital status.

133 S. Ct. at 2709 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). The court agrees with Justice Scalia’s interpretation of Windsor and finds that the important federalism concerns at issue here are nevertheless insufficient to save a state-law prohibition that denies the Plaintiffs their rights to due process and equal protection under the law. 

Of course Utah wasn't the only jurisdiction to recognize marriage equality since last year.

Marriage After Windsor

I'm out of time. So just imagine that there is something more clever in the map... like sloppy gay sex scenes superimposed in the background.

Since Windsor, there have been legislative victories in the following States:

Rhode Island

Delaware

Minnesota

New Jersey

Illinois
Hawaii

More importantly court victories in these States:

California

Utah

New Mexico

Oklahoma 

Texas
Virginia

Kentucky

Michigan

And more to come...  But as for me, it's now time for beer then bed.

Liam '14

Joy Division

Bad news. Vernita Gray died on Tuesday March 18, 2014 in her home in Chicago after succumbing to cancer. Ms. Gray made national headlines late last November when she married Pat Ewert becoming the first couple to get gay married in Illinois, even though marriage equality was to be promulgated on June 1, 2014.

In an article by Carla K. Johnson for ABC News, the circumstances are explained:

Gray's failing health and her wish to marry persuaded a federal judge to order that an expedited marriage license be granted to the couple ahead of the June 1 effective date of the state's gay marriage law. A subsequent judge's ruling then paved the way for more same-sex couples to marry early in some Illinois counties.

Gray worked for gay rights for decades, advocating for same-sex marriage long before many other activists saw it as a possibility, Bennett said. To win over conservatives, she made the case that her Social Security survivor benefits should go to her partner, and her knack for working with people across the political spectrum "made everyone feel that they had a unique contribution to move us forward," Bennett said.

A former restaurant owner, Gray worked for the Cook County state's attorney's office for 18 years, assisting crime victims and witnesses. 

Please, please read the rest of the article.

An important piece to the marriage debate that never seems to be answered is "What is marriage?" A few miles north of Chicago, the State of Wisconsin defines it through Wis. Stat. § 765.01.:

Marriage, so far as its validity at law is concerned, is a civil contract, to which the consent of the parties capable in law of contracting is essential, and which creates the legal status of husband and wife.

Marriage is a contract.

Like all contracts, the purpose of marriage is to end disputes. When two people cannot agree about anything else (the sky is blue; NO it’s azure!) they must agree to predetermined terms and conditions as prescribed by state statute.

When life is going well, there is no real need for marriage. It doesn’t take the state to determine who takes the trash out on Tuesday or who cooks dinner on Wednesday. It’s not a document that means forever and ever puppy dog love. If you want one of those, go buy a box of crayons and doodle on a piece of printer paper, then send it off to your preferred spiritual leader to blow smoke up your ass, since that’s not marriage.

Marriage is a contract. A contract to settle disputes over property and responsibilities.

Anyone dumb enough to say the state should be removed from the marriage business should wrap their dick in tinfoil and stick it in an electric outlet. The government is the arbiter of contracts; therefore it is necessarily needed to be involved in contracts. And as polygamy is not legal in the United States (nor is there a structural basis for it), it is necessary to have marriage license to verify the marriage as being valid.

Marriage is what happens to the house when one spouse dies. Wis. Stat. § 766.605.:

A homestead acquired after the determination date which, when acquired, is held exclusively between spouses with no 3rd party is survivorship marital property if no intent to the contrary is expressed on the instrument of transfer or in a marital property agreement. A homestead may be reclassified under s. 766.31 (10).

Marriage is what happens when the husband kidnaps the children and flees across state lines. Wis. Stat. § 767.105(3)(a).:

Except as provided in par. (b), a party who violates any provision of sub. (1) may be proceeded against under ch. 785 for contempt of court.

Marriage is what happens when a wife’s sole proprietorship collapses into debt. Wis. Stat. § 766.55.:

(1)   An obligation incurred by a spouse during marriage, including one attributable to an act or omission during marriage, is presumed to be incurred in the interest of the marriage or the family. A statement separately signed by the obligated or incurring spouse at or before the time the obligation is incurred stating that the obligation is or will be incurred in the interest of the marriage or the family is conclusive evidence that the obligation to which the statement refers is an obligation in the interest of the marriage or family, except that the existence of that statement does not affect any interspousal right or remedy.

(2)(a) An obligation incurred by a spouse in the interest of the marriage or the family may be satisfied only from all marital property and all other property of the incurring spouse.

Taking the state out of marriage removes widows out of deceased spouses’ homes. It makes dividing property in divorce even more unbearable. It takes away a creditors ability to collect on debts.

Gays will get sick. I myself will die one day. Being a misanthrope I don’t give a shit what happens to my possessions, but I respect others to make up their minds. Gays go bankrupt. Gays get divorced and need to divide shared property.

Gays need marriage. Now.

Liam ‘14

Homersexual Agenda

The Homosexual Agenda a brief history.

In the landmark case Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), Antonin Scalia wrote:

Today’s opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.

The problem with relying solely on group morality in a constitutional democracy to dictate the laws is that the constitution often interferes with the group morality. When we have penumbras such as privacy and the equal protection clause discrimination based on morality will be . Another way to put it is that our morals are eclipsed by our laws. The large distinction between morality and law is the concept of harm. Many things that are immoral are harmful: murder, theft, breaking-people's-legs. Other things are "immoral" but are not harmful and not illegal: eating bacon, sloppy gay sex, being a douche, etc. There is also another category of harmful but not immoral: jaywalking, speeding, being too awesome.

So obviously there are somethings that are harmful and immoral and those definitively should be against the law. But it is sloppy to say that because something is immoral that it is also illegal. And for good reason. Who's morality are we going to use? And what principles are behind that chosen morality?

The legal approach has its goods and its bads; however, the concept of harm as the basis of all laws is rather non-arbitrary, when compared to morality.

The moral approach is highly arbitrary particularly among religious zealots and literalists. They probably claim that they are the ones who definitely are not arbitrary since they follow every word of the bible, rationality be damned. But that is the problem, what rational reason is there for something to be illegal or immoral without harm. In the bible it often justifies morality by saying it displeases God. Eating cilantro displeases me; however, I don't consider it to be a sin nor think it should be illegal.

Here are somethings that the bible says are immoral:

Shellfish
Pork
Peeing while standing up (seriously 1 Samuel 25:22)
Gay Sex
Wearing Boyfriend-Jeans
Girls wearing pants
Men wearing skirts (Sorry Scotland)
Adultery (Punishable by Stoning)
Sex for Pleasure
Hair cuts
Palm reading
Leather
Polyester
Mixed Fabrics
Having Acne
Not Washing your Shower
Tattoos
Worshiping the wrong god (funny how that's every religion)
Saying Abracadabra
Forgetting the Incense
Simply wanting new things

Arguing with your parents (death penalty)
Wear gold
Shaving
Marring Foreigners
Doing anything on Sunday (goodbye football) 

And here are somethings the bible conveniently forgets:


Slavery
War
Homelessness
Illiteracy
Outsourcing
Tax Evasion (well Jesus said not to evade them)
Land Annexation
Burning of Fossil Fuels
Genocide
Over Population
Pre E-ZPass Toll Booths (evilest of all things)



So why is homosexuality immoral to some, and what is this Scalia-called homosexual agenda?

Morality is arbitrary and often based on religious text or philosophical work based on religious tenants. (As Nietzsche would say in today's parlance "suck it Marx.") Some people guess that religious texts are ancient survival guides and nation building manuals. So in that context perhaps then there was some rationality, but it no longer is applicable.

The homosexual agenda is not some scary menace. There is no conspiracy to convert teens into gays. There is a legal defense fund called Lambda Legal, the Human Rights Campaign, and organizations like the SPLC.

These organizations promote issues that actually matter in the lives of gay people and have little impact on the rest of Americans.

The Real Homosexual Agenda's Issues:

1. The right to marry whomever a person chooses.
2. The right to stick it in any consenting hole.
3. The right to continue Health Insurance in cases of HIV.
4. To be protected from acts of physical violence and destruction of property.

Wie schrecklich! It is so menacing to want to marry a person and have legal rights, or to not be arrested for having consenting sex in your own house (or blackmailed for it), or not lose your health insurance from catching a communicable disease, or to ask the police to actually investigate and catch criminals.


Anyway, I was trying to think of how a hick would say homosexual, and I came up with the word homersexual. And then I thought of a gay Homer Simpson, so this is today's disturbing photoshop:

Liam '12

Freedom Just For Me