Beautiful Sentiment

Female celebrities really seem to love stripping down for whatever their current pet cause célèbre is. I certainly don’t mind this as it lends beauty to the sentiments, even when those sentiment lack significant inherent beauty themselves.

A case in point is Amanda Heard’s photo shoot for marriage equality.

Amber Heard Naked For Equality - A beautiful sentiment but not predicated upon accepted reality
A Beautiful Sentiment But A Flawed Premise

Amanda Heard’s naked body certainly lends both interest and beauty to the sentiments involved in the cause of legalizing and normalizing queer marriages. Sadly, however, not matter how nice Ms. Heard is too look at she doesn’t change the fact that the entire queer marriage cause is predicated upon the premise that homosexuality is either acceptable behavior or an inborn, harmless yet incurable medical condition that must be accounted for and for which allowances must be made.

Neither of these premises are accepted by the majority of people at this time. Consensus opinion is still strongly divided upon whether or not homosexuality is inborn or behavior choice. Consensus opinion is also divided, though less widely, upon whether or not homosexuality, if it’s an inborn genetic or congenital condition, is harmless or more of the nature of alcoholism or other inborn psycho-medical pathologies.

It also doesn’t help Ms. Heard’s cause that she’s bisexual with, reportedly, a strong preference for other women. That makes this all seem a bit self-serving.

So Amanda Heard’s demonstration is a beautiful sentiment in so many contexts but is based upon a flawed premise since many, many people will just believe that it is another case where Liberals want people’s choices not to have negative consequences – equality and similarity of results without concern for inputs.

Tags: | | | | | | | | | |

Gay For Pay

Summing up Obama’s “evolved” stance on Gay Marriage is really quite easy. It’s a simple case of his being Gay For Pay.

Obama On Gay Marriage
Sure! Obama Will Go Gay – For $15 Million In Donations

The Obama Campaign and the Dems in general were looking at loosing the financial support of both Queers and seriously pro-Queer donors, a situation made acutely worse by North Carolina passing Amendment 1 by a wide margin, defining marriage solely as a union between a man and a woman in the state’s Constitution.

So the Campaigner-in-Chief, under the direction of his handlers, had to say something, preferable something nuanced with lots of exit pathways and few commitments.

At a certain point, I’ve just concluded that– for me personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that– I think same-sex couples should be able to get married. Now– I have to tell you that part of my hesitation on this has also been I didn’t want to nationalize the issue. There’s a tendency when I weigh in to think suddenly it becomes political and it becomes polarized.

And what you’re seeing is, I think, states working through this issue– in fits and starts, all across the country. Different communities are arriving at different conclusions, at different times. And I think that’s a healthy process and a healthy debate. And I continue to believe that this is an issue that is gonna be worked out at the local level, because historically, this has not been a federal issue, what’s recognized as a marriage.

Yeah, the boy will do Gay for Pay alright. He’s got limits though – no Full Service; he won’t bend over that far, not when it might cost him more than he’s getting for it. 😉

~*~

I’ve got a more important and pressing question than what Obama wants people to believe is his personal stance on Gay Marriage is though. Does America’s newest rent boy think that the queers – single, involved, it’s complicated, or married – could use some jobs?

Tags: | | | | | | | | |

Biblical Marriage

In the past I’ve made some sarcastic posts about DOMA and traditional aka biblical marriage. To continue in that vein here’s an instructional video by Betty Bowers on traditional marriage as defined by biblical precedent:


Betty Bowers on Traditional Marriage Per The Bible

Yes, the video is needlessly harsh, insulting, and sarcastic. It also uses some pretty far-fetched interpretation of biblical passages – e.g., there’s no theological basis for saying Eve seduced Cain; it’s far more likely that he took one of his unnamed in the Bible sisters to wife. That doesn’t, however, mean that it doesn’t contain a number of simple truths about what Yahweh supposed endorses by way of marriage.

King SolomonChristians, you need to read your Bible; it is, after all, your holy book and, as such, more than worthy of individual study.

In it are many passages that show that Abraham’s God seemed to have little or no problem with many forms of marriage beyond “one man and one woman.” Indeed, nowhere’s in the Bible is monogamy ever explicitly described as a requirement.

Divorce, contrariwise, was expressly forbidden in both Old and New Testaments.

On the other hand, the Bible does maintain that same-sex marriage, along with a number of other acts now generally considered OK, is right out, forbidden, and an abomination to be treated with abhorrence and lethal violence.

Remember, God hates fags – though possibly not lesbians, multi-cropping / under-planting, poly-cotton blends, gaudy jewelry, and shellfish. 😛

So, my dear Christian sometimes-allies, have some fun with this if you can. Think a bit on it though; there’s truth buried in any bit of humor, elsewise it wouldn’t be funny.

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

Strange Bedfellows

Politics makes for strange bedfellows and war and Muslim Terrorism is just an extension of politics, so it’s unsurprising that Al-Qaeda’s “spiritual leader,” Osama Bin Laden would cultivate a relationship with North Korea’s yammering monkey, Kim Jong Il. Yet, who knew that it would take such a bizarre, depraved, and disgusting turn?

Congratulations!
Strange Indeed! Most Believed Osama Preferred Goats

A leading Al-Qaeda cleric, Imam Abdul Al Akroot ibn Al Daa’reh Khanzeer responded to queries about Osama Bin Laden’s seemingly prohibited relationship with the North Korean dictator.

What Osama has done is permissible. It is not the sin of homosexuality because Kim Jong Il is not a man; he is a monkey. As Abdullah ibn Abbas narrated in the Kitab Al-Hudud, “There is no prescribed punishment for one who has sexual intercourse with an animal.”

Allah is merciful. Women of Islam are few and goats and such are many, and it is often hard for a man to tell them apart in the night. Allah knows this and thus it is halal.

Sadly, when questioned on the fact that the ayat immediately preceding the one that he cited (Book 38, Number 4450) called for the death of any man caught fornicating with an animal – and the death of the animal! – Imam Abdul Al Akroot went into a violent rage and became too incoherent to continue the interview.

The Civilized World just fervently and desperately hopes and prays that Osama Bin Laden and Kim Jong Il will not follow in the trend of celebrities couples and release a sex tape. 😯

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

Queers Say Don’t Ask!

One of the More Disturbing Faces of Gay Activism - Of course it's from a Gay Pride parade which have always been an insult to common decency and to the bulk of the LGBT communityIt seems that various queer activist groups are having a hissy fit over the US Military’s new questionnaire regarding the possible repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT).

To these groups’ collective consciousness it’s wrong for the Pentagon to even ask the men and women serving in the military how they might respond to openly gay servicemen.

Given the nature of such agendists, this isn’t surprising in the least, but it’s certainly worthy of note and derision.

Gay rights organizations are up in arms over a Pentagon survey on the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” claiming that some of the questions put to U.S. servicemembers are “homophobic.”

The surveys, emailed to 400-thousand active duty, national guard and reserve forces includes questions like;

“IF A WARTIME SITUATION MADE IT NECESSARY FOR YOU TO SHARE A ROOM, BERTH OR FIELD TENT WITH SOMEONE YOU BELIEVE TO BE A GAY OR LESBIAN SERVICEMEMBER, WHICH ARE YOU MOST LIKELY TO DO?

* TAKE NO ACTION
* DISCUSS HOW WE EXPECTED EACH OTHER TO BEHAVE
* TALK TO A CHAPLAIN OR MENTOR
* TALK TO A LEADER TO SEE IF I HAVE OTHER OPTIONS
* OTHER

“IF DONT ASK DONT TELL IS REPEALED AND YOU ARE ASSIGNED TO BATHROOM FACILITIES WITH OPEN BAY SHOWER WITH A GAY OR LESBIAN SERVICE MEMBER…?_

* TAKE NO ACTION
* USE SHOWER AT DIFFERENT TIME

There’s also a question asking servicemembers if a gay or lesbian member moved into military housing with a same-sex partner, would they pick up their family and move out.

Jim Miklaszewski
MSNBC’s First Read, July 9, 2010

That’s right; the agitators and professional grievance-mongers leading a large swath of the queer advocacy groups want people to believe that a questionnaire issued by the Pentagon to 400K+ members is homophobic because it asks military personnel how they might respond to the realities of living, serving, fighting, and dying alongside openly homosexual servicemen and women.

Yeah, I know; most claims of homophobia by queer activists are, like most claims of racism by Black activists or the claims of Islamophobia from Muslim vermin, something to be ignored.

Sometimes. though, ignoring such problems, like ignoring a growing tumor, just allows the cancer to spread unchecked. It’s sometimes necessary to cut or burn out the diseased flesh so that the body may survive.

Apparently our military, charged with defending the lives of the American people, isn’t supposed to be allowed to try to determine if repealing DADT will negatively impact national security and in what ways, if any at all, it might do so – or at least so these treasonous queer activists rant.

NOTE: As an American and a veteran I’m passionately and virulently opposed to DADT, as I’ve posted before on this blog.

[Sic] … Dont Ask, Dont Tell should be repealed. It is predicated upon unconstitutional ideas and, as such, should have been struck down by the Courts years ago. Sadly, they have to-date failed to do so, though the SCOTUS has not yet deigned to hear any case regarding it.

From the US Constitution, supposedly the highest law of the land:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

- US Constitution, Second Amendment

That the right to bear arms was intended by our Founders to mean the right to bear arms in the common defense, i.e., serve in the military forces of America, can be deduced from the concerns over the original 2nd Amendment. The Constitution makes it quite clear that such a right exists for every American and it shall not be infringed.

Nowhere does it say, except for sodomites, which would have been the term used at the time.

— jonolan
Asking And Telling

That doesn’t mean that I’m going to turn a blind or forgiving eye to rabble-rousers and grievance-mongers from within the LGBT community who want to deny the military the right to determine how repealing such legislation and the underlying ban on openly homosexual people serving in the military it was meant to ameliorate will affect military discipline and operational efficiency.

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | |