posted by perkiset on Nov 28

I’m going to be doing a couple posts along this line, because the level of holier than thouness and cavalier insensitivity to other races, religions and people of different sexual orientation has hit an incredible level. I’m not amazed that there is hate, but am amazed at how, more and more, the rightwing uses the bible to define why we must discriminate against people.

The post that really got this going was California Ruling Made Me Gay, where I sarcastically assert that because gay marriage was proven to be constitutionally allowed in California, I have been made gay (There’s another post that’s really rocking, but that will be the subject of Part 2 of this topic).

Before we look at some of the comments, it is important to note what I feel are my qualifications to speak to the topic. Unlike my sequestered and seemingly, societally homogenous right wing readers, my life as hardly been sheltered. I was involved in theater and music since I was 4, have spent the last 40 years involved in communities with a large LGBT population, have a gay brother and been involved in the travel industry for the last 17 years (where there’s a disproportionately large gay and lesbian population). When I was a younger man teaching programming to 5th and 6th graders I was shocked one day to find that my mentor had been taken away for child molestation. Last but not least I partner with a company that sells exotic underwear and apparel (I mean really exotic) and a wide range of clothing for the transvestite and transsexual community.

All my life I have been uncomfortable with “simply is” and have always tried to understand why something was. For example, after my mentor was arrested and convicted, I still visited him many times in prison and got a pretty thorough understanding of his sickness and issues. When my brother came out, my father and I spent a weekend in the Castro simply hanging out and trying to understand things thing called “gay” because we really had no clue at all. It is important to me to understand what I am talking about before I condemn or accept it.

So. The assertion by the right is that “Gay” is perverse, deviant and wrong. It’s also a choice that can be unchosen and in one particular comment, a “fad” for people that just really want to be different. I will address all of it, but first – a selection of choice quotes:
 

Jeepers, where to start? ::Sigh::

Well first off, the logic just doesn’t connect. There’s a lot of push that being gay is a choice and that it’s only about the sex – so why then is there such hard push back against marriage between two men? One comment concluded, “It’s not gay to love another man. It’s gay to stick your dick in his mouth[sic].” Well then, marriage between two men should not offend you at all – yet it does. (An interesting side note: the first person nature of the comment lead me to some interesting questions about how much self-despising there must be going on for that guy… )

Logic aside, let’s look at it this way. I am in touch with the feminine part of my personality, yet I have no desire to have a gay relationship. I’ve not been party to the gay sexual experience nor do I fantasize about it. But what if I did?

Simple answer: Who gives a damn?

More important answer: Why should YOU give a damn? Further, What gives YOU the right to assert right/wrong notions against MY sexuality?

Well, the answer is clearly here, in Leviticus 20:13 and Romans 1:27…

See? If you’re gay then you deserve to be put to death and it’s YOUR OWN FAULT. And see how nicely those two quotes (from two completely different books) come together to damn you perverted nasty fags?

But wait… have we forgotten a little something?

Ergo, by the book that defines your law, the perpetrator of the evil must atone in front of his/her god alone and explain their sins vir quod deus, not to you sparky. Get with the program.

Then there’s that whole bothersome Constitutional notion of separation of church and state. While this is hotly debated by contemporary evangelicals and other loons, it is a pretty established principal and essentially describes how the state can neither aid religion or how (your) religion can be used as a weapon against (me). This is actually WAY WAY more important because it describes how your chosen book of morals does not have jurisdiction upon my American civil liberties. Ergo, applying laws specifically to impose a priority for your beliefs above my liberties is un-Constitutional and inherently wrong.

Right. Now that I’ve gotten VSloathe all ramped up (our resident scholar) let’s talk ourselves down a bit.

Since there will be no convincing the un-exposed that Gay is not a choice, there’s little point in arguing it. That said, anyone with half a brain and some experience with the LGBT community knows this inherently and pretty quickly. Having been around gay and lesbian people for most my life, I can assert from personal experience that, of the gays and lesbians I know, this is not a choice – it is who they are. Are there those that are confused and want to try it on for size? Of course. Are there those that are not bound to the same notions of man/woman monogamy and heterosexuality as I am? You betcha. But again – what the hell does this do to you? I mean, who cares if YOU think it’s nasty? Don’t do it then! Just because you eat brussel sprouts doesn’t mean that I have to.

One comment was made that “two of my friends were gay and then decided to give it up and are now straight” … and interesting assertion. First off, we cannot really know the motivations and feelings of these people and second, just because some people decide that “it’s not for them” does not make everyone else the same. It’s like saying that since my car has faulty windshield wipers, all brands of wipers suck. It just doesn’t pass any sort of logical test. Similarly, it is arguable that since I have experience of people where being gay is not a choice, it doesn’t mean that all people involved in same-sex behavior are gay, and I’ll concede that. But that means you must concede that to some people, being gay is not a choice.

So now, let’s make my assertions clear, so that they can be flamed:

• Gay marriage does not affect heterosexual marriage. If it’s affecting your marriage then you’re probably not dealing with the fact that you’re gay and/or despise your spouse already.
• What two people do together in the clutch of passion does nothing to me or you. Unless you fantasize about it, in which case you’re probably bi-curious and should give it a try. You might like it. Who am I to judge you and your desires?
• Gay men cannot infect you and make you gay. Unless you really are and want to give it a whirl, but that’s your thing. Have at.
• Being gay is not a choice. Having sex with someone of the same gender may be a choice, but being gay is not. For those that don’t understand this, simply look at your own life: how strongly do you covet someone of the opposite sex? Is it possible for you to imagine that these feelings are equally strong yet simply apply to the same gender in gay and lesbian people?

I have been accused of being intolerant because I rant and rail at those who would assert that gay is anything other than what I have just posted. Well, a bit true: I am intolerant of hate, intolerant of intolerance and intolerant of people so stuck that they are in love with their ignorant biases. Perhaps over time we can talk a few of you out of the trees and back down to reality where the Monster of Gayness is not quite so large.

Alright, have at me. Let’s get this on.

Bookmark to:

posted by perkiset on Nov 14

This Article begins a VERY frustrating thing for me. It outlines how political cronies want to protect themselves from their actions while in office.

There is movement at the top to protect Bush, Cheney and everyone in his administration from any legal action resulting from their behaviors while in office. This includes torture, lying to the public and taking us to war, international war crimes, defying the Constitution, forgoing the public good for personal gain - in essence, the high crimes and misdemeanors that would either get them impeached while in office or jail time once out.

This kind of crap makes Ken Lay look like a choir boy.

I hope, from the bottom of my toes, that as Obama comes into power he does not surrender the Rule of Law for post-partisan harmony. If crimes have been committed they MUST BE ADDRESSED. Remember, you right wing apologists, that we impeached a president simply because he lied about getting a blow job. This president has had non-mutually-consensual butt-love with the American people, the economy, the Constitution and the people of the world. He certainly deserves AT THE VERY LEAST the treatment that the right wing gave Clinton during that fiasco. The bum must be made to atone for his actions, or our laws mean nothing.

And I don’t mean this as a simply partisan thing: When Clinton said, “I did NOT have SEX with that WOMAN.” My first response was, “Wow, I hope not. Because you just threw the gauntlet down and if you’re lying, you’re gonna get hurt - and you’ll deserve it.” Our elected officials are THERE AS SERVANTS OF THE PEOPLE and should AT THE VERY LEAST be as responsible to the law, populace and the Constitution in a way that attends their oath of office. Hell - Since I was born here, I didn’t take an oath to be a citizen yet I am absolutely held liable for my actions in every way - to the full extent of the law.

The bastards that would use those same laws to exert ill-pointed power must be held the same way.

They MUST NOT get away with it.

Bookmark to:

posted by perkiset on Nov 12

Tonight on Countdown, Keith Olbermann said that there is an obscure law, drafted in the early 90s during the Clinton administration that President Elect Obama probably didn’t know about, and I’ll betcha that Professor Bush was blind to as well.

Apparently, any EOs made after November 4th are subject to potential straight-away rescinding by the new president. But this little codicil allows for a new President to unwind EOs made up to 6 months BEFORE November 4th. Obviously, since the Procrastinator in Chief waited till the last moment to do his dirtiest of work eviscerating the country, the new President Obama may very well have the opportunity to rescind the great bulk of them!

This went by on the tube pretty quickly tonight and I am not clear on all the details, so I’m hoping someone knows more than me about this and can comment, because that would be just a HUGE benefit to the soon to be President.

So: Who knows what? Spill it! We’re dying here! I don’t even know where to start researching this, so any help greatly appreciated.

“It’s beginning to look a lot like chr-ISTmas…” heh heh heh…

Bookmark to:

posted by perkiset on Nov 12

I’d love to say that I’m amazed by the brazenly stupid parade of crap being floated by the frothing right wing, but alas I am not. Their tired, monochromatic whining is ever so similar to what it has been, only dustier and less effective. It’s still fun, I’ll give them that. I’m not even going to link to the sites and stations I’ve read this hooie on, because it doesn’t even warrant the digital ink it’s pushed to you on.

Rush Limbaugh has already started on a new technique - the day before yesterday he started using “The Obama Recession” as he begins his blame spewing ramp up. What a buffoon. To prey on listeners who are clearly so thinking-disabled that they can neither A) change the channel or B) figure out that he is a cartoon, is horrible. Someone needs to introduce him to his new wife, Bubba, in cell block D.

Several of the Faux News anchors are already on about how Obama has either taken the law into his own hands, or is skirting the Constitution AND the Bill of Rights AND his beloved Koran, or is too arrogantly assuming power too early, or is not doing anywhere near enough to get a hold of the issues. Or all at the same time. Honestly I’m getting to the point where I can’t even watch for research, they are so slimy and repulsive.

There are now a whole buttload of right-wing groups already working aggressively on Obama’s impeachment. The grounds are as-yet unknown, but I’m certain they’ll figure out what to pin on him as soon as they learn to read. Apparently they imagine it takes less than six seconds after the oath of office is taken for the new President to violate his Constitutional duties. That would be impressive indeed.

There’s another fringe group claiming that Obama wishes to eliminate all guns. All guns. Eliminate ‘em. Lordy.

Faux News Again and Limbaugh amongst a host of other windbags: Obama plans to eliminate them from the airwaves. Well, there is a certain modicum of truth here: Obama has been quoted as saying that the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated - this is a law that essentially says you can’t have a radio station that is 100% gas conservative, you must allow time for balancing viewpoints. So, it is conceivable that some of these boys would have to either give up time or move to other slots to make time for competing opinions. Can’t you just imagine Rush having to clear the airwaves for Olberman? Ah, delightful.

Of course it’s old news that Ben Stein and Glenn Beck have compared Obama to Hitler, Mussolini, Karl Marx, Stalin, Juan and Evita Peron, Hannibal, Genghis Kahn, Pinhead from the movie “Hellraiser,” the Joker, Riddler and even the evil genius Spongebob Squarepants, but that specter is raising it’s ugly head yet again as the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, Representative Paul Broun claims that Obama may be pushing to do much the same thing as was done in the Third Reich from a political control standpoint. Also that he is trying to set himself up as a Marxist dictator. Now, step away, for just a moment, from the fact that he is saying Obama is both a fascist AND a marxist dictator, let’s just consider what it means to have a Congressman from the USofA saying something like this: “You have to remember that Adolf Hitler was elected in a democratic Germany … what I’m saying is there is the potential of going down that road.” I’m afraid that the bogeymen the meaningless yet inconsequential right are going float will get bigger and bigger until they can prove that Obama is the devil himself. Although Rep. Broun apologized if he offended anyone with his remarks about Obama being a marxist, he is standing by everything he said. I think he’s more worried about pissing off marxists than Obama.

Bill Maher is not helping. Last Friday he said, “I don’t want to hear…” and went on a litany about things he doesn’t want to hear the Republicans say about Obama. Some of them quite pointed and strong. However, WGAF if Bill Maher doesn’t want to hear them? The point should be that we all want to hear the TRUTH not the trumped up bullshit produced by the petulant miscreants that squat the stupid side of the aisle. Bill needs to hear that crap and continue to push as he has this last summer. His heart is in the right place, but it’s clear that he’s ready for his season to be over.

Of course the most frightening thing I’ve heard all week is how Dubya welcomed the new President Elect - “We’re going to help him in his transition in every way we can.” Obviously, Still President Bush thinks that issuing as many costly, damaging and mean spirited Executive Orders before he takes off are just the red carpet Obama needs. It is rumored that the list of EOs Obama will be reversing is in the 200 zone for day one already. Some will take immediate effect, some may take years to unwind. Welcome to the White House, Mr. Obama.

Here we go!

Bookmark to:

posted by perkiset on Nov 6

Nope, not the economy, not energy, not the war or education, not global climate change, intolerance, terrorism, international discord - nope, these all pale in comparison to his real challenge.
 

Why exactly, did he want this job again? I’d have to say this is the most thankless, lose-lose job on the planet. Here’s a tip: If you are expecting that the government is going to change up in the next couple weeks, don’t hold your breath. If you expect that the economy is going to suddenly straighten right up because we have a president elect, perhaps you should avoid purchasing stock. And if you’re a right-wing windbag that wants to start hacking at the new President, you might consider waiting till he has the tiniest modicum of Presidential authority before you slam him for his inaction in office.

Oh, and BTW: If you’re an ignorant, racist motherfucker, please just leave. There’s no room for you here and your quaint-yet-ugly stupidity is a huge scar on the face of my country. Find somewhere else to spit your hatred. Perhaps Rwanda - I understand there’s plenty of delightful touristy things down there for you to see. Don’t forget your cloak and pointy hat, I’m sure the locals will be amused.

But I digress.

Obama’s biggest problem is the THRONGS of people that expect that he walks on water, that all of Congress will suddenly bend and bow to his will, that all the political divisiveness will disappear in preparation for his administration, the entire world will suddenly start risking their money in the market again and that the ignorance and hatred that is racism simply disintegrates before he takes office. There is no way on this planet that a person can live up to the expectations that have been foisted upon him.

To be sure: there are also a WHOLE LOT of reasonable expectations on him, and I am one of those that will keep those expectations alive and loud, and will listening, watching and auditing intently as the new President steps into the shoes of My President.

But FFS people, let’s let the guy take a breath and figure out HOW he’s going to govern before we hassle him for not having done it. He’s going to do just fine - most probably be exceptional. But he deserves the time to convert from the discipline of campaigning to the science of governing.

Bookmark to: