Saturday, March 22, 2014

Deflating quack arguments against gay marriage

Sometimes quacks, loudmouths, teabaggers, religious bigots and zealots offer up an array of really dumb and stupid reasons why they oppose gay marriage. Let's, once again, explore (or in this case explode) these:

1. The Slipper Slope Argument - They say that if we allow gay marriage we are going to have to allow incest marriage, child marriage, bestial marriage and the like.

Counter: First laugh in their face for this flawed, awfully stupid excuse of an argument. Let them know that they themselves (as in the right wing teabaggers) do in deed reject slippery slope arguments when it comes to their very own pet issues. Tell them that if incest must be allowed in order to legalize gay marriage then the same concept must be true for something like the second amendment (which teabaggers get a raging boner over), meaning that the incest argument is as valid as saying that in allowing assault rifles we must also allow nuclear weapons. Once they balk at you for daring to "go after me guns!" ask them why is the slippery slope argument only applicable to gay marriage and nothing else? If they still look at you like they are looking at a periodic table tell them this: oh do you believe that just because we legalize Christianity in this country does that mean we then must legalize child sacrifice being that it is very deeply held religious belief for some creepy cults out there? Come on think about. They know that this slippery slope argument is a dopey way to even begin the debate against gay marriage. It is only meant to fear-monger people into equating gay marriage to other "perversions" like boning your mom's sweet vagina.

The above counter can obliterate all teabaggers out of the anti-gay waters like a Somali pirate boat. And thus anymore arguments coming from them are to be taken with a grain of salt... but just in case they might throw these other wrenches:

2. The Polygamy Argument - what about Polygamists and their "marriage equality?"

Counter: In this argument the teabaggers rely on, again, trying to equate gay marriage to a totally different thing. If we are talking about "equality" then why is Polygamy even in the picture? Since straights are not allowed to engage in polygamy and gays want equal rights that straights have, why is Polygamy even in our minds? Teabagger airheads need to realize that polygamy is about numbers not gender. You usually marry someone you are sexually attracted to, and for gays that someone is of the same sex. Lifting the barrier on gender does not necessarily mean lifting the barrier on the number of people that can marry all at once. Just like when barriers due to religion were taken down it didn't lead to a bunch of polygamists getting hitched on A&E. Nor when when a black man was allowed to marry a white woman was there a "risk" to allowing polygamists to be blessed by the county clerk. And the same will be when the barrier based on gender will be knocked down. Polygamists will be, once again, disappointed and wedding guests will be pleased to know that only one wedding gift will be enough per wedding.

And here's the kicker by the way: Polygamy is by far a religious practice. 99% of Polygamists engage in such activity due to deeply held religious beliefs. And so we can find it hilarious when teabaggers were fuming with rage when a federal judge struck down criminal sanctions against Utah Polygamists because it was violation of their First Amendment rights to "freedom of religion" - as in they were exercising their religious beliefs and wanted an exemption from the anti-polygamy laws. The polygamists argue that these laws are a burden against their seriously held religious beliefs. Sound familiar to you Arizona teabaggers?

By now your anti-gay Evangelist teabagger friends might have their heads spinning. Hold their heads tight as there is more:

3. Gays can't have kids Argument - duh, moron.

Counter: So what's the point? The premise of this argument is duplicitous if not down right fraudulent. Because the insinuation here is that married couples have children, while knowing full well that in reality many don't. There are plenty of heterosexual couples who chose not to have kids, and there are some who cannot. Yet these couples enjoy the privileges of marriage anyway. If the "must pop out kids" rule is really even a rule, or even a societal imposition then the laws would reflect that in trying to skirt these heterosexual couples from getting married at all and "waste" society's time and resources on their fake "marriages."

4. They just want the word "marriage" Argument - They say that gays have rejected "their kind offer" of civil unions, which by the way, they have now come to embrace (even though no single teabagger state has ever even considered them, so the civil unions deal is just a meaningless ploy to stop gays in their tracks). They are saying that gays are just after a "word." This is popular with teabaggy libertarian dupes.

Counter: Well now, they have just ended the debate for themselves and you. They have conceded to a stupid idea that marriage is just a "word." If it is just a "word" then why even fight tooth and nail over it? Why are you even talking to me? Don't you have something better to do like shine your guns and make "Obama is a Socialist" signs and iron out Confederate flags for your next teabagger rally?

5. Gays will "devalue" marriage Argument - My favorite argument thus far because it is the most quacky one that I enjoy countering. Here they say that since gays are "promiscuous" they will devalue marriage.

Counter: Oh so that means that gay couples should not be allowed to eat out on Valentines day like heterosexual couples because it would "devalue" Valentines day? If we allow gay people to drive would that devalue driving? If we allow gays to eat would that devalue eating? And besides who really thinks that heterosexual couples are never engaging in promiscuous activity? Have you ever heard of "swinger parties?" Come on, get real.

Thought: It is true that men are more promiscuous than women because men are programmed to "spread their seed" and many people deal with this brain wiring in different ways - some control their urges for fidelity to their spouses, and though that can be admired, as it should, let's not forget that couples who are not monogamous yet are still able to stick together should also be admired too. If couples are able to deal with their sexual urges in a calm adult fashion and mutually agree on certain parameters they must have a lot of will power and trust, especially since jealousy tends to rear its ugly head in these circumstances. It is the premise of marriage that couples stay together through thick and thin and must be able to "work out" their issues. Emphasis on "work."

6. Gays don't need marriage Argument - A clever argument I say. But still mostly bullshit nonetheless.

Counter: First off, who the fuck are you to tell gays what they don't or do need? Fine, lets take "what you do/don't need' argument and lets just say that teabaggers don't need guns. They can defend themselves with knives and that is enough. Oh-oh. Crazy teabagger might now think you are from the "guvment, tryin' to take me guns away!" He then pops out his handy "pocket Constitution" booklet he bought from Glenn Beck and recite to you the second amendment (that's if he can actually read). It is his right goddamit! You queers need to understand that!

Yes, but the argument that is posed by the teabaggers is not that if something is a right or not, but whether or not it is "needed." And many good arguments can be made about how guns are "not needed" - just like there are arguments saying that "marriage is not needed" - heck you can make a case on how its not even needed for heteros either. Yet the teabagger does make a clear (if he's not yelling) and legal argument about why he has right to own guns based on the constitution. And gays, of course, are also making the same type of argument on gay marriage. It is not about whether or not marriage is "needed" but whether or not gays "have a constitutional right" to marriage just like if gun totting teabaggers have a "constitutional right" to own guns, irregardless if they are needed or not.

By now your teabbager friend is shaking his legs and pointing his precious shinny rifle to his head knowing that he has lost the debate. Hopefully he pulls the trigger. But these teabaggers are not that brave aren't they? We know the reason why they carry guns in a fully visible fashion and why they are so eager to tell us how teh gays are destroying all the "holy" of fat ass 'merica, because, much like their asinine arguments against gay marriage, they try to look rough on the outside because inside they are totally weak and hallow.

Monday, January 13, 2014

List of winners for the Golden Globes 2014

This years winners:

Supporting Actress: Jennifer Lawrence, "American Hustle."

Supporting Actress, Series, Miniseries or Movie: Jacqueline Bisset, "Dancing on the Edge."

Miniseries or Movie: "Behind the Candelabra."

Actress, Miniseries or Movie: Elisabeth Moss, "Top of the Lake."

Actor, Drama: Bryan Cranston, "Breaking Bad."

Series, Drama: "Breaking Bad."

Original Score: Alex Ebert, "All Is Lost."

Original Song: "Ordinary Love" (music by Bono, The Edge, Adam Clayton, Larry Mullen Jr. and Brian Burton, lyrics by Bono), "Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom."

Supporting Actor, Series, Miniseries or Movie: Jon Voight, "Ray Donovan."

Actress, Musical or Comedy: Amy Adams, "American Hustle."

Actress, Drama: Robin Wright, "House of Cards."

Supporting Actor: Jared Leto, "Dallas Buyers Club."

Screenplay: Spike Jonze, "Her."

Actor, Musical or Comedy: Andy Samberg, "Brooklyn Nine-Nine."

Foreign Language: "The Great Beauty."

Actor, Miniseries or Movie: Michael Douglas, "Behind the Candelabra."

Animated Film: "Frozen."

Actress, Musical or Comedy: Amy Poehler, "Parks and Recreation."

Director: Alfonso Cuaron, "Gravity."

Series, Musical or Comedy: "Brooklyn Nine-Nine."

Actress, Drama: Cate Blanchett, "Blue Jasmine."

Actor, Drama: Matthew McConaughey, "Dallas Buyers Club."

Picture, Drama: "12 Years a Slave."

So far the winners are good this year. My favs are "Breaking Bad" with Bryan Cranston, who is becoming one of my favorite actors lately, and "Behind the Candelabra" with Micheal Douglas was great; too bad it didn't get a chance to have a theatrical release.

Bigot Cuban Marco Rubio wants to keep gays out of economic recovery (his version of recovery that is)

Dumb teabagger bigot from Cuba Marco Rubio has the ultimate solution for ending poverty in America. Ready?... Here it is:
"Social factors also play a major role in denying equal opportunity. The truth is, the greatest tool to lift children and families from poverty is one that decreases the probability of child poverty by 82%. But it isn’t a government spending program. It’s called marriage."
You see according to this nitwit all you have to do is bag (or in this case teabag) yourself a bride and BOOM! problem solved. Never mind the fact that single people without children (the majority of gays BTW) have more disposable income than those who are not. Hence, we can safely say, these single people are better off. When you get married and have children, gay or straight, you take up more financial responsibilities and logically puts a squeeze on your wallet.

What Super-teabagger maniac Rubio wanted to say was that women should just marry a guy for his money and for financial support. In other words, not only should women just be barefoot and pregnant, but also be crass gold diggers.

What he didn't say, and what needs to be pointed out, is that Rubio doesn't support gay marriage at all as he follows the Tea Bible to the TEA. Following his logic, gays will be denied economic mobility because in Rubio's world they are denied marriage and in the end we will keep gays economically oppressed (besides the sociological, religious oppression we are dealing with already) through Rubio's warped unintelligent economic theory.

Hopefully we are not that stupid to actually believe the guy. Because according to him it is not economic investment in production, manufacturing, education, infrastructure, science, space, and medicine that any sane individual would agree that is the proper solution, it is to have heterosexuals getting married that would save us.

So what are you waiting for you breeders? Get busy! Get hitched and have as many babies as possible see how that works out for you.

Sunday, January 12, 2014

Is Patti Stanger right about Bisexual men?

The 'Millionaire Matchmaker' cabler host has an interesting theory on the subject of bisexuality in men. Mainly, she so self-righteously barks, bisexual men are actually just a bunch of homosexual men who refuse to admit it. In the end, her theory leads to the conclusion that bisexual men don't exist.

Hm. Okay. Well, we have heard this junk quack theory before haven't we? And Stanger's stupid theory just tells us that yes: many people believe that bisexual men are only gay men in disguise.

Gay men, I will admit, are to blame for this theory getting any sort of steam. Mainly because most of us who came out for the first time usually say to our friends (especially family) that we are bisexual, knowing full well that we find pussy absolutely repulsive. We used to say 'I am bisexual' in order to sort of 'soften' and 'sugar coat' the reality of fact that we love cock.

"Heck my son just told me he's bi!... But at least he's only bi and not gay, and at least I hold some hope in the future that he would meet a woman and keep him off the dudes and give me some grandchildren" are the thoughts of many parents who have been duped into believing the bisexual conspiracy by their fearful 100% homosexual exclusive cock-sucking sons. Most of these sons will never see a pussy (at least in real life). So forget about that 'hope' Mom, your son is a complete homo. Be proud and be loud!

But in the end does the bisexual hoax created by these gay men justify the allegation that bisexual men do not exist? Though rare, yes, bisexual men DO exist. But lets understand something very clear about bisexuality in men: bisexuals love both cock and pussy equally and are aroused by both sexes. And usually these men have deep sexual and romantic relationships with both men and women.

Sorry but I ain't into the chicks peeps. So I am a proud HOMOSEXUAL male.

Monday, December 23, 2013

Teabaggers using Phil Robertson controversy to make money

Its becoming clearer to me that this whole Phil Robertson flop is nothing but a gimmick by the supposed Jesus-loving mud-dweller duck detective.

Not only are merchandise selling out and fattening the pockets of A&E execs (ironically, those meanies who dared suspend Super Jesus duck chaser Robertson) but also teabagger gold diggers are getting into the act.

Here we have an ad by the National Council for Freedom and Enterprise, a teabaggy Koch brother funded zombie group that is against big bad evil guvment' and protecting 'merica's constushion from teh gays:

The ad, which asks you to stand with poor multi-millionaire Phil and help him be on the show again, you know just like what the first amendment says (the A&E clause if you are wondering), then takes you to this 'petition':

Needless to say I used fake info on the petition form. But I come to find out that you can sign this petition with fake names and non-email characters and also interesting is that the Zip code doesn't even need to be real (I've entered '90666').

You click 'submit' and that takes you to this 'thank you' (as in thanks for submitting fake names to our fake petition that we claim we will send to A&E) page:

BUT you scroll down and...

...YES! Don't forget motherfuckers to give us an 'emergency' donation to stop teh gays from harassing poor Phil who has made tons of money from this controversy already.

LOL, and I wonder how many teabaggers have fallen for this scam. I bet quite a lot. The teabagger movement is quite a lucrative business I tell you that.

Friday, November 15, 2013

Today's Comment: Let's get this whole gay Chick-Fil-a issue STRAIGHT

Here is my latest comment on the issue of Chick-Fil-A and its dumb-fuck-o-rama of a president it has. I comment on a Bloomberg article that seems to take very lightly the real issues at hand regarding this inbred company and its redneck leader:

"This yahoo muppet supported a group that wanted to "export gays", called gay people pedophiles, wants gay people to become straight, harasses gay employees of other companies, bullies Christians who do not agree with them.

THAT was and is the problem with Fred Cathy Flintstone. He supports these ideas as he has financially backed these groups that support them. Wall Street hacks like Bloomberg are trying to paint this Chick-Fil-A issue over merely "disagreeing" with a Christian man's beliefs on "traditional marriage" - No, we are dealing with a man who has supported religious terrorism against the gay community. THAT is why we won't go and eat his chicken sandwiches, and I find it hilarious that the "free marketeers" and Wall Street ghouls are having a fit over gays and their supporters NOT wanting to do business with Chick-Fil-A, these are the same hacks who cry and moan that they want businesses to allow them to discriminate, to de-regulate them and so on, all in the name of "freedom" yet balk at the idea of gays choosing freely to not buy chicken sandwiches from Yokel Cathy. What they are now saying is that NOT buying a product from a person you find reprehensible somehow violates that person's "freedom of speech."

Yeah, right. You tea-fascists are masters of Orwellian manipulation and distortion"

Monday, November 11, 2013

When teabaggers say 'religious freedom' when talking gay rights they really mean this...

As in harassing gay couples at Walmart.

You see Tea-fascists and their reactionary allies want you and I to believe that gay rights will hurt or infringe their 'religious freedom.' One would assume how can two dudes getting married actually do that? How does a gay wedding actually stop someone from worshiping their invisible yet very angry and manic depressed sky god?

Well it doesn't. And those who disagree with reality, well what can we say: they are just lost causes. They are zealots who want and need a culture war against loving and caring people.

Teabagger's definition of religious freedom: the ability to expose your religious beliefs to people who are not interested in them, no matter how condescending, no matter how repulsive they are, and no matter how much we politely say 'no, thank you.'

In other words, they are not just fine with homo-erotically worshiping Jesus - they must, MUST convert you or me to their beliefs. If we do not submit to their demands then they would either try to make us feel bad by telling us we are going to burn in hell, persist on us until we surrender, or in many cases, legislate us until we submit to them.

I dunno about you but I am done with all of this religious terrorism. And that's what it is, terrorism and not freedom. Because gay couples have the freedom to believe that being gay is okay and not sinful and no other persistent little ugly troll like the stupid Walmart teabagger employee has a right to try to persuade you otherwise unless you are open to that persuasion.

Sunday, November 10, 2013

Weird confused lesbian Hawaiian lawmaker goes into a an incoherent rant as she votes against gay marriage

It seems that Hawaii lawmakers finally broke through the 'citizens filibuster' by right wing bigoted fanatics who had really fantastical views on homosexuality and gay marriage.

While the weird and totally bizarro-world psychotic diatribes of these so-called Christian wanna-be avengers that can make the God Hates Fags cult look tame, it gets even weirder as a confused lesbian legislator votes against the gay marriage bill that would no doubt benefit her and change her quality of life.

Her reason? Well how the fuck should I know.

 I mean her reason is as follows:
"First of all, I didn’t write it down. I really didn’t have time to prepare, because we pretty much went from hearings, hearings, hearings, go home, shower, sleep for three hours. But you really didn’t have time to process. Now we get into the hearing itself, make the decision. Now it’s ready to hit the floor. I really didn’t have any time to write anything down. 
I just decided I’ll take it as it goes. It was really how I was feeling, what was I internalizing from all the 57 hours of testimony. And not just in the room, but when you’re outside the room and seeing people waiting three, four days to stand up there for two minutes. That spoke volumes to me. People coming back day after day, waiting for their chance when they got missed. 
When I stepped into this position, as an appointee in January 2011, I felt I wasn’t worthy of being here. Because you’ve got lawyers, really brilliant people with huge college degrees. And this and that—whew, I’m just Jo from Waianae and I’ve got some street smarts and a fast mouth. When I walked in here, I said, all I have is my integrity, to do my best I can. And I’ve kept myself grounded in that. When this issue started arising, I had to think to myself, you need to stay grounded in what your root beliefs are. I’ve won an election, and sworn to uphold the constitution of the state as well as the United States. You have an obligation to this institution. You really have to think differently, because you are being watched and it is a position that you need to respect even while sitting in your seat. 
I always have taken my personal hat off, my personal beliefs away from it, and said, "Look at the substance, what is the measure, have you heard all the dialogue, have you vetted everything? Have all your questions been answered? And are you willing to make a decision for the 1.4 million people in the state?" For your constituents, but also for the whole state. 
I know who I am, I’m grounded in who I am, I’ve never hid who I am. And when I walked in this door, the GLBT community came knocking on my door and they said, "We’re so glad you’re here. Come on in here." And I’m like, “I’m Jo, I’m a legislator, those are my hats first.”
I know what it meant to step in this room for a kid from Waianae, who graduated from public school, who has no background, to be a female and to be GLBT on top of that. And I didn’t want to come up the gate saying, "Look at me, here I am." Because it would distract from anything that I worked on. I have never waved my flag. I don’t wear it across my chest. 
They were very good at respecting that. And even last year, when they engaged. Let’s vet some bills last November. I saw some stuff I wasn’t pleased with; it was more like, a national group coming down. And that’s when you start tearing at my other side. We don’t need a lot of Mainlanders coming and telling us what we gotta do. And you’ll hear that going on. I said, "You know what, I’m here with my legislative hat, not my personal hat. You guys move forward with whatever you’re doing, and I don’t want to be a participant in that." I stepped out of it. 
As DOMA [section] 3 fell, I was like, this is going to be big. Many of the larger groups, Equality Hawaii and national groups came to me, when stuff started bubbling up, and the governor called the special session. Then it came: "We want you to attend this meeting. We want you to be the face." I was honest with them: "That’s not what I want to do." 
I’m a legislator first and foremost, and I’m not here to promote your pride. I’ve got to do my duty first and I don’t want to seem biased. And they had respectfully said, "OK, cool."
It’s about your work. Vet all the issues, put your personal stuff aside and let’s see where we’re going with this measure. 
I’m choosing not to look at the news, but I hear I’m being blasted pretty bad.
As soon as I got off the floor, probably within the first half hour… (makes explosion noises) I want to have faith that it’s the Mainland and it’s not here. I’m like, "You don’t know who I am, No. 1, because obviously you weren’t in those hearings." 
I totally thought I was going to get blasted by the religious community. When I walked into the hearings, I was like, those faith-based guys are going to come out. And not one of them said anything. They were more about, "Thank you, thank you for listening." And they didn’t know who I was. Outside, I was Rep. Jordan sitting at the table. They had no idea who I was, or my lifestyle, and that’s why I like it. Can we get to know each other before you know the rest of the stuff? 
I was blasted by the GLBT community on Saturday, outside the door. That took me aback. At the time, I hadn’t stated my position, and I was still undecided. These were testifiers the day before, saying, “How can you be undecided? You should be a 'yes.' Do you know what this means?” And I politely engaged with them: "I have some problems with SB1." I explained the issues and they slammed me again. “It’s good. Just vote yes.” They started getting boisterous. My natural instinct is, I’m going to fly some words at you. But you can’t, so I’m like, "Thank you." 
It has been interesting. I am not part of any faith-based group, so I walked in thinking those were going to be the ones going, grrrr, grrrr. But unfortunately, it’s been coming from my community during the hearing. I was like, “Wow, so much for minorities that have been suppressed.” But I’ve got to look at it this way: Maybe they feel they’ve been suppressed for so long that they no longer can contain it and they are just going to lash out at anything without thinking first. But I have to keep that faith to help me not take it personally. It’s not about who is right and who is wrong. It’s about, are we creating a measure that meets the needs of all? 
I had come to the decision that SB1 needed to amended. It wasn’t protective enough for everybody. And I truly know, my GLBT community is not going to go somewhere where they are not welcome. They are not going to go, "Pastor, you need to marry us, even though it is against your grain." Because they want their happy day to be a happy day. A couple isn’t going to step into something that’s not warm and welcoming. We’re really looking at those fringe guys, those ones that pop up on the edges that say, "You’re treading on my rights, so I’m going to come and challenge you." 
When you look at a measure, you have to consider, how do we make this the golden standard, as bulletproof as possible? My major concerns on SB1 was, first, the parental maternal rights, 57-2c, that wasn’t healthy. That definitely needed to be fixed. The religious exemption was not adequate enough. And the divorce portion in there is not fair. We’re talking about creating equity. They have made a provision here where you don’t have to domicile here. And I totally get what they’re saying, but I have some serious problems with that. We should at least make some sort of domicile in our state, so they can file for divorce here. 
I really am not happy with the exemptions. Too narrow. 
I’m not here to protect the big churches or the little churches, I’m saying we can’t erode what’s currently out there. We don’t want to scratch at the religious protections at all, because if we don’t create a measure that’s bulletproof, or as close to bulletproof as possible, then the measure will go to the courts. And they will interpret it however that may be. A judge will make assumptions and make a ruling, and that will become the law of the land. So you really want us to create the legislation. 
I haven’t figured out why I felt so compelled to fight for the religious exemptions, to not erode Constitutional rights. I don’t belong to any particular denomination. I don’t wear one of those hats. I take religion out of everything. My religion is the mountain, the aina and spiritual. Everybody finds their own religion somewhere. I have the same values as they do, but it’s just a little different. When I walked into this session, that rose to the surface. Why me? Why am I trying to protect your religious rights? 
I’m still trying to figure out. I’ve always followed paths. I don’t find the path. The path finds me. This, obviously, is a path I’m supposed to go. You’re not supposed to question. Just ‘OK.’ 
At the end of the day, the way SB1 HD1 is written right now, walking into the third reading I can’t say it is written the best that we can provide to all. If that’s at the risk of not allowing same-gender couples to get married on Dec. 2, I can’t stop that, I’m sorry. We want to make sure it’s good. It’s not about who gets to the finish line first. It’s just not."
Did you get that?

Me neither.

She seems like one of those confused dykes that would blow a gay guy, well I dunno why, but she would I tell ya... And her explanation would be as long and as incoherent that it would make a lunatic homeless shouting obscenities at a street corner while selling pencils from a cup be viewed as prime for a debate at Oxford.

Meanwhile, all kidding aside, the only thing I can gather from Miss Mess is that she was probably blackmailed by the right wing fascistoids. God know what shenanigans she is up to that would expose her to political blackmail.

Maybe she was caught giving a blowjob to a gay teen in her car at the airport?

Or its probably typical political bribery, or blackmail. Nothing new here. Keep moving folks nothing to see here.

I mean she had no choice but to vote AGAINST a bill that would change her life for the good, is supported by 3/4 of her district, is supported by a majority of Hawaiians, and its clearly something her constituencies wanted her to support. We are supposed to believe that she has 'concerns' over religious exemptions and other items on the bill, yet she never once attended a meeting while the bill was being drafted and written. She was basically M.I.A. and we are supposed to believe that her concerns are truly genuine and so strong enough that it merited for the first time ever in the history of politics that an openly gay politician to vote against gay marriage.

Oh, did I mention blackmail?