The World O' Crap Archive

Welcome to the Collected World O' Crap, a comprehensive library of posts from the original Salon Blog, and our successor site, world-o-crap.com (2006 to 2010).

Current posts can be found here.
Showing posts with label Concerned Women Are Concerned. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Concerned Women Are Concerned. Show all posts

Tuesday, September 13, 2011

Mountain Grown, The Stupidest Kind

“Dammit” Janet Folger asks the readership of World Net Daily an important question:
Just who are the haters? Here are some of the blog postings from homosexual activists following the death of one of the godliest men I have ever met, Dr. Jerry Falwell:
[Janet then produces a string of damning quotes, like a magician pulling a chain of multicolored scarves from his sleeve, except these are random, unattributed remarks from imaginary homosexuals, and she's pulling them out of her ass.]
No surprise – this is exactly how homosexual activists treated Rev. Falwell when he was alive. Homosexuals more than hated Jerry Falwell, whom they attacked, maligned, ridiculed and threatened. He didn’t make it widely known, but homosexual activists even attempted to kill him. 
Seriously.  Does anyone really believe that if Jerry Falwell had dodged a fabulous gay bullet, he would have bravely kept it to himself, rather than immediately rushing on camera to claim that God had saved him from the assassin’s hand so that he, the Reverand Mr. Falwell, could continue to enjoy your faith gift of 25, 50, or 100 dollars?
And through it all, he met hate with love.
As Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth pointed out on my radio program, when homosexuals protested Dr. Falwell, they were surprised to look up and find the reverend hugging his harassers.
Nevertheless, the subsequent reach-around still came as something of a shock.
…Those kind of hateful statements are perfectly acceptable, free from any repercussions of any kind. They get their own forum at the ACLU. However, if two 16-year-old Crystal Lake girls say an unkind word about homosexuals and pass out a few flyers to their classmates, they are in “violation of an Illinois state hate crime statute.” They face felony charges and are locked up in juvenile detention while bail is denied.
Felony for a flyer or a forum for defilement? It’s not equal rights these people are after; it’s tyranny.
I don’t know the girls in question, but we must assume that their motives were pure, and that they were compelled to speak out by the imperatives of their Christian faith.  Although Janet doesn’t come right out and say so, it’s clear that the girls have resisted the blandishments of our sex-obsessed culture and remained virgins, since any teenager who has sex in Crystal Lake is immediately skewered by a zombie in a hockey mask.  And why shouldn’t these budding brides of Christ have the right to speak out against sinful behavior?  It’s not as though they were engaging in petty revenge against one particular individual
McHenry County State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi said the students clearly broke the law when they printed and distributed fliers that showed a male student and another boy kissing, along with inflammatory statements about homosexuality…

Crystal Lake South juniors Ryan Diamond and Crystal Erdman said the fliers stemmed from a recent dispute between one of the girls who was arrested and one of the boys who was pictured.

The pair used to be best friends but recently feuded, Erdman said, and one of the girls posted the picture on her MySpace page before police said she and another girl printed the fliers and distributed them in the school’s parking lot.

Bianchi said the students targeted a specific person and his sexual orientation. Under Illinois law, a person commits a hate crime when he or she commits a crime against another person based on that’s person race, color, creed, religion, ancestry, gender, sexual orientation, disabilities, or national origin.

“This is a classic case of the kind of conduct that the state Legislature was directing the law against,” Bianchi said. “This is what the legislators wanted to stop, this kind of activity.”

Investigators and school officials would not specify the flier’s contents or whether the students remained in school this week. But classmates said the flier showed a picture of two boys kissing along with the words, “God hates fags.”
Okay, okay, let’s not get bogged down in details.  The important thing, as Janet says, is that we must not let the forces of Sodom and “diversity” suppress our Constitutional and natural right to paper a school with pictures of some guy kissing another guy in an effort to get the first guy beaten up by the water polo team.
S. 1105, the so-called “hate crimes” bill, is the most dangerous bill in America. It will revoke what used to be called the freedom of speech. I don’t agree with all the speech I hear. You may not agree with mine. But if we don’t stop this bill together, we will all lose the right to disagree, to quote the Bible and to speak the truth. Speak up before you are locked up
Go to StopHateCrimesNow.com and send your senators a “Don’t Make Me A Criminal Packet” – complete with handcuffs, mug shots and a personal letter.
No, wait…that’s the packet you’re supposed to submit to eHarmony.
The alternative is 16-year-old girls imprisoned and ministers’ graves desecrated.  It’s Catholic mothers murdered, and the thought police in schools. What do you want the future to look like?
Personally…?


I’d like it to look like this:

Outside the Tent has more.


33 Responses to “Mountain Grown, The Stupidest Kind”

Oh, my sweet Lordy-Gordy. JANET FOLGER is saying homosexuals are the “real” haters? The same Janet Folger who thinks the hate crimes law are a way for scary, predatory homosexuals to coerce helpless straight men into having sex with them, less they be charged with a “hate crime” for rejecting their advance?
http://pandagon.net/2007/05/09/fundie-hate-crimes-legislation-gets-in-the-wa-of-gay-panic/
The quote from her in the above link is one of the most hateful, unhinged things I’ve heard a fundie say about gays…recently.
um…”lest”, not less. I was so busy checking to make sure I typed the link correctly I didn’t notice other errors.
…and the link didn’t work any way. Day-um. Hopefully somebody knows what quote I’m talking about, and will post a better link to it. Soon, since so far I’m the only one posting comments here.
Bill, I’m not even seeing a comment from you that uses the word “less” wrong, just the correction.
As I confessed at OtT, *I* killed Jerry Falwell. And had a dandy time doing it, too. So there.
Incidentally, Janet, it’s not especially symptomatic of love for homosexuals to blame them for 9/11. Not sure why, but some of those drama queen queer types might tend to find that offensive.
And is it just me, or are the rest of y’all finding the word “homosexual” to be far more offensive than “queer”, “gay”, and “dyke” in context? (I cannot speak to “fag”, myself.) But I’d rather be called a lesbo by most of the people I know than called a “homosexual” by someone like Janet. I admit that being more or less bisexual, I may have a different take on that than some others, but I dunno. I think I might be *more* offended by Janet’s calling me a homosexual if I were entirely gay. Thoughts?
Never mind. Here’s the quote from Folger on hate crimes:
“Mike is standing at a football bar, or he’s standing at a resturant, watching a game. Bruce comes out the restroom,and he’s touching up his makeup. He’s a crossdresser with red nail-polish and five o’clock shadow. He comes out and hits on Mike. Maybe he puts his arm around him or maybe he brushes or puts his hand through his hair.
“The average man would maybe want to push off such unwelcome advances,”Folger observes. However, she warns, “That, if you touch him, is a hate crime.”
Oh, yeah, there’s nothing bigoted or offensive about that. Nooo. Not..one…teensy…bit.
I think “homosexual” is kind of like the word “negro”. It was probably originally intended to be respectful-an alternative to intentionally offensive slurs-but now seems outdated and somewhat condescending. Even worse when it’s preceded by “the”.
When fundies use the phrase “the homosexual”, it makes it sound like we’re all interchangeable. (To them, we are.)
Oh, and which term is better: “bisexual” or “equal opportunity slut”*?
*term used in an episode of “Frasier’ by “Dr. Nora” an near-perfect parody of Dr. Laura, except she was smarter, and, as she was played by Christine Baranski, much more attractive.
I think Pam was mauling that annoying crossdresser column at her place and at Pandagon recently. It is a stunner. I know two more-than-occasionally crossdressers. One’s straight, one’s gay. And you’re right, to Janet and people like her, it’s all interchangeably perverted, which is why they leap out with the man-on-dog crap the minute they spot a gay couple holding hands.
I embrace the word “slut”, but it does mean something different from bisexual, though I’m sure Janet wouldn’t understand that, either.
Seriously, when my mom found out I was bi, she automatically assumed I was sleeping with pretty much everything that crossed my path, which I really wasn’t, um, that month anyway. It was a bizarre yet hilarious discussion that seemed to assume that only straight people do not automatically fuck anyone of the gender to which they are attracted, and also that if you are not right at that moment fucking people of both genders, you are not bi. I’ve come to characterize that as the “You Are What You Eat” argument, to my mother’s horror.
Really, I prefer the phrase “plays well with others”, but that’s just me. My partner likes “Dances With Anybody”, both of which cover a non-monogamous state as well as a more or less bisexual one.
And “the homosexuals” does recall the glory days of Reader’s Digest with their museum exhibit-style articles about The American Negro.
Oh, the good old days when you could ruin peoples’ lives and not have to worry about hate crime laws….
The Pandagon thing was what I was trying to link to. You can find it in the May archives, or in the “Bad Ideas” category.
Is anybody else here but you and me, D. Sidhe? I feel like a comments hog.
I dunno. They probably all have lives and stuff. It’s Friday night, after all. I feel less like a comments hog than like the proverbial “Those who can’t do”.
It’s either that or they’re waiting for the next time it comes around on the guitar.
Anyway, my partner is habitually monosyllabic and the housemate and I can go weeks without a single word to each other. You can get used to doing all the talking, believe me. As long as you’re amusing and don’t give people the impression you’re way, way smarter than they are, they usually don’t mind.
Oh, I don’t think there’s any chance of me giving anyone the impression I’m smarter than they are. :)
Oh! One last thing before I turn in for the night. Let’s see if we can link one of scott’s quotes from Folger with one I posted. Just fer fun:
“when homosexuals protest Dr. Falwell, they were surprised to look up and find the reverend hugging his harassers.”
“The average man would maybe want to push off such unwelcome advances. However, that, if you touch him, is a hate crime.”
There, see-I guess that’s what she meant when she said it was gays who hated him.
Don’t make me a criminal packet? Who in the hell would want to be a criminal packet. I don’t want anyone to make me a criminal packet. O my gods, what the hell is a criminal packet?
Oh wait, is that one of them things you can order on the ebay? Y’know, it comes with a striped shirt, an eye mask, a bag with a dollar sign on it, and a revolver?
Or is it one of them things the kids are saying nowadays like…Hey baby, wanna check out my criminal packet? Or, Hey mama, you gotta fine fine criminal packet?
Damnit, I’m so confused. But, I guess that’s what I get for being so poor I have to get drunk on Natural Ice.
I think I might be *more* offended by Janet’s calling me a homosexual if I were entirely gay. Thoughts?
I think I am just offended by Janet on general principle, no matter what comes out of her mouth. God, fundies are horrible. As for what to call bi-sexual…Fun with Dick and Jane?
Scott, just want to say that you and Mary are doing a heroic job of keeping the home fires burning here. Thank you so much. If you get the chance, please tell s.z. that we miss her, miss her, miss her – and keep us posted on how she’s doing? Thanks again.
Scott writes: “And why shouldn’t these budding brides of Christ have the right to speak out against sinful behavior? ”
Why indeed. They sound like jerks, right enough, but the protection of the first amendment, like the gentle rain from heaven, droppeth on their stupid asses just as it does on Nazi marches in Skokie and, yes, you ‘n’ me.
Hate crime charges require underlying crimes of some type against a victim, and the only crime here appears to be a charge of “disorderly conduct,” which traditionally is charged as the result of laughing out loud at an arresting officer. Big mistake, missy!
So it would seem that this little town is nuts, or its cops are, or the prosecuting attorney is, or the story is not being accurately reported, or the world has gone to hell in a hummer with me handcuffed to the bumper because this is absolutely not the purpose of hate crime legislation, in Illinois or anywhere else.
I’m more of the “be done by as you would do” sort; you know, oppress the oppressors, and if you want to remove other people’s freedoms, to Gitmo with ya. Makes me an imperfect lefty, but there you go…
Oh, and I’ve never noticed Mr. Falwell being at all loving (ov anything but money), so I don’t know what the heck she’s talking about. (I’ve never called Mr. Falwell reverend, and I’ll be damned (no doubt) if I’ll start now…)
As to the bisexual euphemisms, Fun with Dick and Jane is, as of now, my all time favorite (not that I have a horse in this race, being somewhat limited in my preferred gender orientation).
Chris, my money’s on “the story is not being accurately reported/the kid they targeted is the son of someone important in the small-town scheme of things”.
And I suspect you’re right, there might be a harassment charge there, but otherwise the girls are malicious, bullying fuckwits who should be ostracized and reviled by people everywhere with even a vestigial sense of manners, and I don’t actually see a hate crime.
Anybody else got a clue on this one?
And Scott, dude. What’s up with WordPress scolding me about my migraine-induced typos? Even the zombies are too polite to mention it. Also, why doesn’t WordPress know WordPress is a word?
I don’t know, D., the spam filter has been sequestering comments like crazy today, and with no visible rhyme or reason. Personally, however, I have to agree with it…I don’t think WordPress is a word.
S. 1105, the so-called “hate crimes” bill, is the most dangerous bill in America. It will revoke what used to be called the freedom of speech.
God I’m tired of reading this horseshit. Here is what S. 1105 actually says:
Whoever . . . willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of any person
`(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and

`(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if–
`(I) death results from the offense; or
`(II) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.
The statute only covers violent acts. Nothing in it prevents you from saying “God hates fags” or whatever other shit you want to spew.
The high school girls are being charged under an Illinois law and couldn’t be charged under the federal law.
Bill, your non-working linkee is missing a “y.” I cut-’n-pasted it into my address field, added the “y,” and, VOOM! Off to Pam’s ya go! I leave it up to you to find the missing “y.”
Okay, that makes sense, Mark. Thanks. For some genuinely insane reason, I was apparently believing something Janet had said. I don’t know what came over me, really. It’s been kind of a genuinely insane month, though.
And Scott, I grovel. It seems it’s not actually WordPress at all…It’s the new Firefox update I just accidentally downloaded that’s nagging. On the other hand, if I right-click it offers the proper spelling, assuming there is one. (It’s somewhat perplexed by “fuckwit”, for example.) I apologize for assuming you had been brainwashed into some sort of Etymologically Correct cult or something, and I shall now go be embarrassed elsewhere.
Thanks, Marq-I knew I’d missed a letter SOMEWHERE.
http://pandagon.net/2007/05/09/fundie-hate-crimes-legislation-gets-in-the-way-of-gay-panic/
I feel kinda dumb for missing that. Although the “Wa of gay panic” makes it sound like whining is involved. Which is likely true.
Mark S., thanks for pointing out what the hate crimes law actually says. I have to wonder-do people like Folger simply not know what they’re protesting against, or are they intentionally lying? In her case, it’s especially hard to tell.
“Dammit” Janet Folger asks …
Rocky Horror Picture Show reference received and appreciated.
Thanks, BTW, we’re doing our best to keep the home fires burning. I spoke to s.z. day before yesterday, and she’s finally feeling a bit better. Whether her system is strong enough to take a dose of Ann Coulter or Dr. Mike Adams, Ph.D…that’s another matter. But it did sound like she was anxious to get back into it.
Well, she should work her way up to Adams and Coulter. Maybe start with something smaller and whinier, like, say one of the Bens.
Or L’il Debbie Snackcakes. She’s been, um, particularly tasty lately. Or did I mean “testy”?
Lil Debbie is hard enough on the constitution when you’re feeling okay. I agree with Bill. Start with a Ben.
And tell her we miss her. :-)
Re: “plays well with others” and “Dances With Anybody.”
I prefer “does not discriminate on the basis of gender.” :)
The girls were arrested on a list of about 4 different offenses, last I heard. As for the hate crime portion, I would say that encouraging violence is a possible crime, but may not quite fall under the hate crime umbrella.
Oh, and they weren’t offered bail because of a violent home. There wasn’t anyone to turn the girls over to, even if they had been given bail.
Sagra, I’ve made very few friends over the years with my assertion that picking a potential mate on the basis of gender is a form of bigotry. But I keep saying it anyway. ;-)
In my case, it really does seem to be a matter of the personality being far more important to me than literally any specific details of the body it’s attached to. I know why that is, but apparently can’t explain it to anyone else, which will probably always annoy me on some level.
“Nevertheless, the subsequent reach-around still came as something of a shock.”
Best. Line. Of. My. Week.
And as for self-identifying as a bisexual, I prefer, “Equal-Opportunity Offender.” If I like ‘em, goody. If I don’t, fuck ‘em sideways with a chainsaw.
I’d say more, but I’ve got six fucking kittens yelping for attention in my bathroom, so I gotta go.
It’s not a form a bigotry, D.Sidhe, I just can’t take being ignored by twice as many people. It’s bad enough being invisible to hot guys-who needs the added rejection?

J. Matt Barber, Concerned Woman


J. Matt is not only a columnist for RenewAmerica, not only “an attorney concentrating in constitutional law,” (which usually means filling up the break room at work with empty pizza boxes and discarded Slurpee cups as he brainstorms strict constructionist and/or original textualist interpretations that prove the Commerce Clause totally outlaws abortion), but he’s also the “Policy Director for Cultural Issues” at Concerned Woman for America.  And as a woman concerned with America and culture and Issues, J. Matt has naturally gone all twitter-pated about Mary Cheney’s bouncing baby abomination.
Mary Cheney, unwed lesbian daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney, has given birth to a son, Samuel David Cheney. This beautiful child of God is undoubtedly a wonderful blessing to Ms. Cheney and to his two doting grandparents. This precious new life should be celebrated. But the conditions under which Ms. Cheney has chosen to bring this child into the world are to be condemned.Although circumstances don’t always allow child rearing to occur within God’s natural design for the family (which includes both a mother and a father), Ms. Cheney has very sadly and selfishly made the conscious choice to deny her child a natural family environment. She has intentionally deprived him of his other parent — his father.
More commonly known as “that guy who masturbated into a cup at the sperm bank for fifty bucks.” 
Ms. Cheney apparently intends to have a woman by the name of Heather Poe, whom she has identified as her lesbian “partner,” assist in the rearing of her son; but unfortunately, Ms. Poe can never replace little Samuel David’s other parent — his dad.
Has this “Ms. Poe” person ever taken a Juggs magazine into a toilet stall and whacked off for a cup of juice and a small honorarium?  No!  All she’s gonna do is hang around for the next 18 years, changing diapers, bandaging skinned knees, helping with homework and saving for college.  Sure, hop on the bandwagon now, bitch!  The hard work’s all done. 
One wonders if Ms. Cheney has ever contemplated what her childhood may have been like if she had been denied her own father.
Self-righteous jackholes like you wouldn’t be writing about her personal life?
The Fox News Channel, which in the past has at least made an effort to avoid liberal bias and political correctness in its reporting…
We will now take a break, while those who spewed their drinks pause to swab the monitor, and those who aspirated their beverages stagger around the house looking for someone to Heimlich them.
Okay, we’re back:
…has covered the story with the PC caption: Dick Cheney’s Daughter & Lesbian Partner Give Birth to Boy. This begs the question: How is it that Ms. Cheney’s lesbian partner has “[given] birth to a boy”?
Well, she’s got a better shot at it than Dick Cheney’s son-in-law, Phillip Perry.  On the other hand, given Phil’s tireless efforts to defend chemical plants from EPA regulation, he might have started to grow his own set of bacon and Playdoh, allowing he and wife Elizabeth Cheney to trade off the childbearing chores.
It is a biological impossibility for a homosexual “couple” to conceive a child without the assistance of a third party who is a member of the opposite sex. Yes, due to infertility natural male-female couples sometimes have to employ similar assistance, but there is no comparison.
Oh wait, I just made one.  Crap!

19 Responses to “J. Matt Barber, Concerned Woman”
Has this “Ms. Poe” person ever taken a Juggs magazine into a toilet stall and whacked off a cup of juice for a small honorarium?
[spit take]
Wot th’‽‽‽ Damn, I better read that again!
Has this “Ms. Poe” person ever taken a Juggs magazine into a toilet stall and whacked off for a cup of juice and a small honorarium?
Oh! Heh-I musta misread that sentence. I thought you were talking about some bizarre, mutant offspring of Peter North and Matt Ramsey… [in joke alert]… and, if you know where I can find such a man, TELL ME NOW!!!!
[licks chops at the thought]
Scott, maybe you could start including those helpful intermissions in all of your posts? I’d be grateful.
And would anyone like to explain to me how, if male/female married couples are so ideal, Mary ended up lesbo in the first place? Don’t they usually blame that on abusive fathers?
But the conditions under which Ms. Cheney has chosen to bring this child into the world are to be condemned.
Yes, it’s bad, but there is worse news… many parents bring children into the world under conditions even more condemnable [is that a word?]. Hard to imagine, but some of them can’t even afford hired help!
and those who aspirated their beverages stagger around the house looking for someone to Heimlich them.
actually, that’s more of an 911 call and trip to the hospital, since you can’t block an airway with liquids, but can get pneumonia
I’ll be happy to give the matter serious consideration just as soon as these guys offer anything which sounds like a solution. Make it a crime for unmarried women to get pregnant. Require both mothers and fathers to be home at least fourteen hours a day. Outlaw assisted fertilization, or require all properly heterosexual couples availing themselves of such assistance to adopt one unwanted child for each one they artificially conceive. When the Right’s as eager to feed, clothe, shelter, and provide health care and decent public education for poor children as it is to create tax-exempt sinecures for the likes of Mr. Barber, I’ll begin to believe they’re serious.
One wonders if Ms. Cheney has ever contemplated what her childhood may have been like if she had been denied her own father.
Every time I read that, and contemplate Daddy Cheney [eeeww] I think she probably did contemplate exactly that. Daddy being run over by a truck was probably her favorite childhood dream.
Mary Cheney, unwed lesbian daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney, has given birth to a son, Samuel David Cheney.
Sounds Jewish.
Of course she’s unmarried, you dopes, she isn’t allowed to marry her partner!
As inane as this goober’s excuse for reasoning is, I can’t get past the fact he monikers himself “J. Matt”. I could do that, ya know. “Matt” is my middle name, and my first name (which is only used when I have to give someone a lot of money for anything other than, well, weed) starts with a “J”. So I could call myself “J. Matt”, but I’m not gonna, ’cause it looks stupid.
“Matt” is just fine, dude, there’s no need to give yourself false gravitas by adding your first initial. Makes you look like a dork. There’s a rhythm to the whole thing, donchasee. Like “J. Edgar” or “J. Alfred”, and I don’t know if that’s really something you wanna emulate.
Hey, I didn’t have Dick Cheney for a dad, and I think I turned out O.K.
As usual with homobigots like J’matt, the fact that Heather isn’t just some random woman Mary srt up house with, but someone she’s been with for SIXTEEN FREAKIN’ YEARS just flies over his head.
Oh, and thanks for adding Teh GAYZ! as a category. June is Gay Pride Month, so we can expect idiots like this to be popping up like weeds, but not as useful.
More commonly known as “that guy who masturbated into a cup at the sperm bank for fifty bucks.”
Ironically, J. Matt is almost certainly ideologically similar to, if not a member of, the group of Mens’ Rights types who are decrying the apparent wave of cases in which sperm donors are being gone after for child support.
John Grisham had a bit about that in one of his books, the Street Lawyer, I think, although I won’t swear to it. All these snotty law school graduates were named along the lines of J. Michael Nesbitt, or R. Bruce Bisbee, or T. Morris Talbot. Apparently it’s supposed to be very upper-class-aristocrat-Harvard Law or something. Grisham’s take on it was quite amusing.
More commonly known as “that guy who masturbated into a cup at the sperm bank for fifty bucks.”
You mean they don’t have a cool kinda milking-machine thing like in “A Boy And His Dog“?
Damn, I’m cancelling my appointment.
*sigh* I was going to announce that I thought I could speak on behalf of my fellow Teh GAYZ in thanking you for the new category, but I see Bill has already adopted the spokesqueer position. (Also, I think Marq prefers “Teh Gheyz”.)
On the other hand, I see I’ve been blogrolled, so take that, the rest of you people, you know, without blogs!
“The Fox News Channel, which in the past has at least made an effort to avoid liberal bias and political correctness in its reporting…”
To be fair, this is accurate. The FNC has avoided liberal bias and political correctness through the means of conservative bias and avoiding correctness of any sort.
I agree with other lefty commentators on the Mary Cheney case, she’s no heroine to liberals or the GLBT community. Problem is that her “frame” or talking point is that “My family is my business” as opposed to “It’s my human right to have a baby.” What this means is essentially that she’s gotten into the treehouse and pulled up the rope after her. All the other kids are still on the ground, thinking “Gee, I wish I could get up there, too!”
Marq:
These days Peter “It’s ‘Matt Ramsey’ when I’m flamin’, baby” North can squeeze more Brylcreem from his hair than sperm from his peter.
Have you heard the ridiculous urban legend that his huge milky-white loads are a product of his consuming large quantities of Elmer’s Glue?
Well, still, a lovechild with his alter-ego (and, aren’t they both “stage” names?) would, so to speak, have teh stuff. As far as the urban legend goes, no, I had not heard that-but I rarely pay any attention to such lore, as it is often amazingly ill-informed. Elmer’s is, technically, “non-toxic,” but consuming unspecified “large quantities” of it would likely do something bad to you… other than producing prodigious loads o’ spooge.
Wait…large amounts of spooge is a BAD thing?
I guess that depends on which side of it you’re standing.

Saturday, May 21, 2011

And Speaking of Dumb …

Jan LaRue of the Concerned Women for America asks, “When Will Bisexuals Drag Homosexuals out of Polygamy Closet?

Anyone have an answer for her?

And here’s a paragraph in which she explains her thesis, which is: Homosexuals want to destroy society, and if we let them marry, the slippery slope will inevitably lead to polygramy, chaos, the dead rising from the grave, human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together – mass hysteria.
A May 2005 Gallup poll found that 92 percent of Americans oppose the practice [of polygamy], which is illegal in all 50 states. But if Americans can be convinced that polygamy, like same-sex marriage or civil unions is about “fairness,” opposition can be expected to erode, once homosexual activists come out of the closet in support of the right of bisexuals’ to marry an individual of each sex. 
Because you know that that is every bisexual’s dream.


25 Responses to “And Speaking of Dumb …”


How about it, gay Wo’Cers, can I drag you out of the polygamy closet? Or would you rather try being allowed to get married to one person before you make that multiple spouse leap?
Anyway, Jan needs help with her math skills. If I marry an individual of each sex, then one of those two people I marry is going to have to be a straight man. Assuming we’re all marrying each other, anyway, and assuming we’re not marrying an additional guy so the boys can both be bisexual, and assuming it’s automatic that every bisexual person desires to be jointly and concurrently married to someone of each gender, and assuming that it would be a marriage where each of the people involved were marrying each of the other people involved, and assuming gay people don’t want to get married to more than one person, or that a straight person doesn’t want to marry one or two bisexuals. Actually, I suspect Jan needs help with her logic skills, or maybe just her brain.
Honey, if gay marriage leads to polygamy, so fucking what? You still don’t have to divorce your husband and do that. Feel free to get or stay married to any given single person of your choice. Why would I care? And let’s not get into the bullshit about how it’d be terrible for employers who then have to pay for health coverage for extra dependents–it’s a good argument for universal health care, not much else. My two spouses is in no way a bigger problem for my employer than John in the next cubicle’s Full Quiver of eight kids.
Really, some of you straight people need to put your own house in order before you start leaping out at people and yelling “Queers in the closets! Run away and hide!” Jan, is it maybe just jealousy that you can’t find two people interested in spending their lives with you?
D. Sidhe:
But it’s precisely your assumptions that lead you astray. Obviously it’s God’s plan for men and women to come together in sets of four, so that everyone gets some variety. Thusfar, though, God hasn’t implemented that particular plan because of the dating hassles it would cause.
Obviously it’s God’s plan for men and women to come together in sets of four, so that everyone gets some variety.
I support this plan of God’s. Strongly. I could not be more in agreement with this. Can we start tomorrow? My partner and I have been poly for decades, so I feel we’ve got a handle on the dating thing already. So, tomorrow, right? We’d like to leap into the new year in accord with God’s desires.
This is the first time God’s ever come up with a program to induce a genuine state of grace in people like me, rather than just endorphin highs. I may have to convert back. (Although, really, it sounds more like the sort of deal one of my gods would have come up with.)
“When Will Bisexuals Drag Homosexuals out of Polygamy Closet?“
Next Wednesday at 5:30 in the afternoon ( eastern standard time). At least that’s what it said on the invitation.
D. Sidhe, I was thinking about the math thing, and I think we need to put the question on a “No Child Left Behind” math test:
“If a train full of straight people leave Chicago going north at 165 miles per hour ( forget about the lake), and a train full of gay people leave Kansas City ( for obvious reasons)going north at 170 miles per hour, and a train full of bisexual people leave Philadelphia and travel north at a speed of 145 miles, how soon before they all get to Canada where things seem to be a lot saner and they all realize that Jan LaRue is a complete nitwit.
Oh, I don’t need to take a frakkin’ train ride to realize Jan’s a complete nitwit.
tomg,
You forgot the train full of transgendered people leaving from Des Moines.
Whoa.
Where do you come up with these nitwits?
Bisexuals want to be polygamous, so they drag their homosexual lovers out of the closet and marry them?
And Kwanzaa is a hokiday dreamed up by the FBI…
I want their drugs. Their reality is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much more paranoid than mine, so I’d get to lay blame for everything off on someone else!
A hokiday?
I’m bi, and I’ve been happily, monogamously married to a woman for seven years. Polygamy would just be way too stressful.
But perhaps we should ban marriage for anyone who’s attracted to both blonds and brunettes – that would obviously lead to polygamy, since such a person would have to have a spouse with each hair color. And what if the blond likes redheads too?
Okay. So if we support same-sex unions or gay marriages, then we automatically also support “big love” in the form of polygamy. Hmm. Heck, why not? And incest, too!
I support polygamy and incest.
Personally, I would like to get married to my (one) partner before I even have the option of marrying multiple people.
Jan, honey, I know that your sexual development is severely stunted, but by lumping together every non-straight, non-married, non-having-sex-through-a-hole-in-the-sheet person into some kind of nebulous “other” category where everything is permissible and everybody wants to do everything to everybody else, you belie your sheltered, irrational logic for what it is. I believe the proper term is “bullshitus uninterruptus.”
I have an idea, Jan: you let me, a humble faggot in a wonderfully monogamous relationship, marry my partner and you go get laid. Seriously. By anyone.
Tara, I love you and am stealing that argument. Mostly I just stare at people with contempt and ask if they sleep with everyone they’re attracted to. Occasionally, I discover that yeah, maybe they do. Short circuits the entire argument.
Bill S.,
“and they all realize that Jan LaRue is a complete nitwit”
So you figured out that that part was a trick question and you got the right answer.
And Cranny Mint,
you’re right. I forgot the transgendered train leaving from Des Moines. But really doesn’t that suggest the more serious flaw with standardized testing? ( starts to whistle Malvina Reynold’s “Little Boxes” ).
D. Sidhe: I just wanted to tell you I enjoyed the Full Quiver reference.
It’s sad how the fundies ideas on anyone who doesn’t fit the Saint Augestine methoid of sexuality are automaticly deviants, ready to be crammed with whatever paranoid fantasy that crawls into their heads.
I think we can all agree to LaRue the day that Jan, that horny (I mean actual horns BTW), hysterical, Munch-housin’ by Fantasy sufferer ever got near a keyboard or a microphone.
There seems to be more lustful thoughts in those Christianist “think” tanks than there were in the High Temple in Gomorrah – allegedly!
Why, if we start deciding some laws based on the ideas of compassion and fairness, pretty soon we’ll be making ALL our laws that way.
And what a horrible world that would be.
Incidentally, in the popular imagination polgymy is linked more heavily with straight people then wth bisexual folks; Ask somebody to describe the stereotypical polygymous marriage and I’ll bet nine times out of ten they’ll describe some mormon patriarch with a bunch of wives, rather then four bisexuals, or whatever.
And yet straight mariage hasn’t really paved the way for acceptece of polygymy.
When did it become the 1960s again? Back in the 90s we were sailing along, happy as clams, and now suddenly we’re again stuck in an unwinnable, pointless war while we fight a form of bigotry based on nothing more then rank stupidity.
If you legalize aspirin you are gonna have to legalize crystal meth.
>nine times out of ten they’ll describe some mormon patriarch with a bunch of wives
New assignment for Jan LaRue: find out if within rebel Mormon sects still practicing polygamy the wives are engaging in girl-on-girl action. I mean, they’d have to be, right? What with all the marriage and stuff?
Better yet, do a survey of the USDA food stamp/WIC/welfare rolls, and see how many white & delightsome polygamous Mormon families are suckling off of the gubmint teat, whilst they are still trekking the earth, trying to destroy every scrap of indigenous culture left on the planet, in favor of taking OVER the planet. And they own hotel chains and the Boy Scouts, too.
As the professional doms always say (and yes, I was but a rank amateur, up against some of the girls that I’ve known): The kinkiest, sickest, most demented fetishists on the planet are right-wing, “conservative,” greed-whore, borderline neo-nazi, filthy-fucking-rich-off-of-slave-labor-in-other-countries *REPUBLICUNTS*.
They are the most regular customers at dom/fetish houses, they spend the most money on their fetishes (everything from trampling/smothering/vanilla BDSM to “adult baby” and “rebirthing” as sexual fantasia), and they treat the WORKING CLASSES worse than they pay the dominatrixes to treat them, because they separate their OWN behavior from how the “proles” “should” behave/do as they’re told, because, of course, the rich live by “different rules.”
Them that doth protest too much, them that doth draw the nastiest little pictures in the heads of their highly-repressed, extreeeeeemely dysfunctional readers/listeners/viewers/sheeples’ heads — is them that’s got the weirdest/sickest/most desperate fetish fantasies of them all.
Not only does Jan need to get laid, apparently she wants to get laid by two bi boys and one REALLY angry omnisexual dominatrix.
And fuck no, I am NOT applying for THAT job.
Could we please lay off the “SSM is dandy, but those polymarriage people are moral monsters” crap? Any three random adults marrying each other is a far different thing from the rest of the “But gay marriage will lead to dogs and cats living together!” garbage. It’s not sisterfucking, it’s not kidfucking, it’s not animalfucking. The difference? A little thing I like to call “consent”.
I know it’s convenient to be able to stake out for your civil rights but to be able to suggest that you’re a reasonable person by making compromises. But I think we’re, as usual, giving too much ground in our arguments with inherently irrational people.
Polymarriage would be legally complicated, not that voting rights or desegregated schools or currency readable by the blind aren’t in their own way. This is generally not an argument the courts consider valid in determining what’s legal.
But it doesn’t hurt anyone who doesn’t want to do it, and it sure as hell isn’t the crystal meth of marriage. It’s just another way some people live, and would it really hurt Jan or anyone else if they could do it legally? If you’d like to make your “It is not a slippery slope!” stands, may I suggest you object to age-of-consent laws that allow minors to get married? Or arranged marriages? Really, anyplace that involves people who cannot or do not consent, as opposed to people who, like the rest of you, want to be allowed to be with the people they love, and have some legal protections.
Disclosure: my partner and I lost our partner several years ago. It was ugly. We had no legal right to make decisions, and it resulted in a great deal more suffering than was necessary. How, exactly, did our three-person all-equals household hurt Jan or any other straight couple, or even gay couple? We all had our own jobs and insurance, we filed taxes seperately, etc. But it was pretty much just luck that the house wasn’t in the wrong name, despite us all paying to the mortgage. And it never got quite as ugly as it could have on some levels, at least, there were no disapproving relatives stomping in to start making vicious decisions and demanding inheritances and the like.
But if you can tell me who would have been hurt if we’d all been able to marry each other, then we can have a discussion about why it’s appropriate to throw poly people to the Moral Values wolves. Otherwise, you might as well be saying “I support a woman’s right to choose, but think there should be a limit on the number of abortions she can have” or “I support an increase in the minimum wage, but don’t think it needs to be applied to farmworkers”.
There’s a rational place to draw these lines, and even if you don’t agree with my suggestion, this kind of “Those people are perverts! I just wanna redefine marriage a little!” triangulation is disturbing and irrelevant. Do you really think Jan’s going to agree to a deal where gay couples can marry as long as poly marriage, pedophilia, and man-on-dog are off the table? You’re never going to be able to lighten the sled enough to get away from wolves like Jan. Why try?
The logic deprivation is severe.
Conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer asked: “If marriage is redefined to include two men in love, on what possible principled grounds can it be denied to three men in love?”
Which could also be stated, “If marriage is defined to include a man and a woman in love, on what possible principled grounds can it be denied to two women and two men in love?”
Or, “If marriage is redefined to include two complete fucking idiots in love, on what possible principled grounds can it be denied to right-wing bigots like me and LaRue?”
However, being a crude person, I enjoyed this:
“It’s not a case people can sniff at,” said Richard G. Wilkins, a law professor at Brigham Young University.
Tara, I love you
Shhh….don’t tell Concerned Women!
Tara, I got thick fingers and the “k” and “l” keys are next to each other…
Personally, I think the whole concept of marriage, love, and relationships need to seriously be reconsidered. Women and children aren’t property, sex isn’t only for making babies with little pleasure as possible, and even men are free from fitting into some tightly-packed macho breadwinner ideal. Not everything would change, but I think it would do society good.
Confused Women in America actually have women among their membership? Most of their spokesmen seem to be men. And if they aren’t gay, my gaydar went kablooie.
I gave up on my gaydar after yet another closeted bi boy who preferred to be the… shall we say… feminine one…
And Raj, have you ever thought about how most of the “mavens” of “fashion” are MANvens? Sure, sure, they’re gayer than a maypole, but they’re still MEN who tell WOMEN how they should look/interpret themselves/starve themselves to look like prepubescent BOYS.
Sounds like “Concerned woMEN for Murka” aren’t the only ones who want to “define” women according to some very fucked-up templates.
It’s not a “conspiracy theory” when the evidence rakes in billions of dollars (and billions of cases of anorexia & bulemia and cutting and self-loathing ad nauseum) every fucking year.

Friday, May 20, 2011

If We All Clap Our Hands and Believe . . .

Here’s a nice example of the power of positive hypocrisy in action: the Concerned Women for America and Abstinence Clearinghouse (you may already be a loser!) are saying that a report can’t be accurate, because it doesn’t say what they want to hear — and what they don’t want to hear is that people are having sex before marriage, because it will make kids believe that people can have sex before marriage.  Here’s part of the Agape Press report:
A pro-family group is expressing skepticism about the accuracy of a new report that says 95 percent of Americans have had premarital sex. A study by Lawrence Finer of the Alan Guttmacher Institute finds that 99 percent of Americans had sex by the age of 44, and 95 percent had done so before getting married.
[…]
An Associated Press report on the study quotes Finer as saying that the likelihood of Americans having sex before marriage has remained stable since the 1950s. In other words, the researcher claims premarital sex is “normal behavior for the vast majority of Americans, and has been for decades.”
However, Dr. [of Communications] Janice Crouse of Concerned Women for America (CWA) sees Finer’s report as a ploy to cast doubt on the need for abstinence-until-marriage programs. “My eyebrows went up when I first saw the numbers,” she recalls, “and I thought that the results were a bit too pat because they fit so specifically into the agenda of Planned Parenthood and the Guttmacher Institute.”
Heck, Janice never had sex, and all of the other women at the institute say they have never had sex, so Finer’s report HAS to be wrong, because Janice’s study shows that nobody has ever had sex!
Abstinence-based sex education proponent Leslee Unruh, who heads the South Dakota-based Abstinence Clearinghouse, is also suspicious of the Guttmacher Institute’s findings — and of the motives behind them. […]
“The sexual revolution came, it went, and it lost,” the Abstinence Clearinghouse director observes. “The sexual revolution ended the last century, and we feel people need to be looking to what the newfound research is on sexuality,” she says. “Today’s a new day, and we know that from the studies we have seen, that many young people are demanding the higher standard of abstinence education.”
Abstinence Clearinghouse has seen study after study indicating that increasing numbers of young people are open to the abstinence message and that many are choosing to remain chaste until marriage, Unruh observes. “According to the CDC, there are less kids having sex now than those that are,” she asserts.
Well, the CDC did find that only 47% of high school students reported having had sexual intercourse (down from 53% in 1993), but the rate goes up as the kids get older — so, by 12th grade, 63% of students say they have done the deed.  So, I guess it’s all how you define “kids.”
 But, if fewer than 50% of 14-year-olds are having sex, then Leslee must be right about the sexual revolution being over.  (Thanks to her and abstinence education, of course.)
“So we have numbers that show there is a different thought process going on in America right now, and we believe a lot of that has to do with the fact that these programs [abstinence only education programs] raise the bar.”
Or it means that teens are having oral sex instead of intercourse, and it’s Bill Clinton, not Leslee, whom we should thank for this new age of purity.
But hey, if Janice and Leslee think that they can keep people from having sex by telling them that nobody is doing it, then I wish them all the best.  After all, it’s not like sex is that popular anyway.
AddThis

24 Responses to “If We All Clap Our Hands and Believe . . .”



Oh, I’m sure Jan and Les will both be a smashing success.
After all, what teen doesn’t look to some hand-wringing, finger wagging biddy whose knickers get knotted up at the thought that, somewhere out there, beneath the pale moonlight, someone is humping somebody else-for information on sex?
“The sexual revolution came, it went, and it lost…”
Well, hell. ‘Cause I think it’s taken up asylum in my home. Hang on, let me check on it. Maybe it was, you know, just a flesh wound. Seemed okay last night, though, admittedly the dark glasses were somewhat distracting, but those who lose revolutions probably need to remain incognito so as to avoid retaliation by the winners.
Yup, it’s doing just fine. Nobody tell Leslee where it’s hiding, or she’ll have sex up against a wall with a cigarette and a blindfold before you can so much as blink.
Say, when are you two going to mock a Christmas movie for us and make Baby O’Reilly cry? Tell me I didn’t miss it when the internet connection was out here?
Slightly OT rant.
The way the religious nuts use the word “purity” is creepy. It hovers far too close to the notion of being “unclean,” and walks hand-in-hand with notions of racial purity.
Putting people in categories like pure/impure, clean/unclean sets up an us-them situation, where we are the good guys and you’re not. It’s ok for us to oppress you, drive you from your home, kill you, whatever, because you’re impure and unclean. Our god says you’re an abomination and should be eliminated. Whose god gets to call the shots is determined by whoever has the most power at the moment.
Seriously, I have trouble imagining that someone who uses “purity” is not racist or sexist or an ideologue.
But doesn’t Janice report being a Wild Woman in college? Or have I got her confused with some other middle-aged vicarious thrill seeker?
Any road, there’s always hope that today’s sexual revolutionary will become tomorrow’s withered, joyless husk.
“The sexual revolution came, it went, and it lost.”
I believe the sexual revolution did come, but I also believe it’s multi-orgasmic. It will come again…and again…and again…
Apparently the sexual revolution came, went, and then set up housekeeping among fundamentalist ministers in Colorado. Maybe Janice should look there.
“My eyebrows went up when I first saw the numbers,” she recalls
WASP has orgasm….film at eleven….
hell if any of these so called women had actually HAD and ORGASM I think that might change that tune
These comments are beautifully hilarious. I have just two things to add: the CWA response is sadly quite lame and smacks of the wild flailings of a drowning person (a person drowning in TRUTH, as Jack Handey might style it), and Bill S., don’t think no one noticed your quotation of the lyrics from “Somewhere Out There” (as sung by Feivel Mouse in “An American Tail”).
Yes, but as you can see, they were the UNCENSORED lyrics.(And I was thinking of Linda Ronstadt & James Ingram, but ok.)
Janice Crouse is one of those people who believe that having sex soley for pleasure is immoral. And with her, impossible.
Jesus, is that where that song is from?
Buffalo Gal: You make a really excellent point about the “purity” and “unlcean” connection. It’s sad how just because a person (especally a girl) is a virgin, she’s automatically seen as “virtueous” and “pure.”
It’s sad how just because a person (especally a girl) is a virgin, she’s automatically seen as “virtueous” and “pure.”
Good point. As I recall, it wasn’t until I had sex that I calmed down.
A little. And that should be expunged from my record by now anyway.
[...] In short, without the questions asked and a better breakdown of the information, the conclusion that has been touted by so many liberal blogs is, shall we say, unsubstantiated. [...]
I don’t really know how I’ve stumbled upon this absolutely preposterious web-site..but seems to me that there are alot of troubled people who feel offended by abstinence programs. Allow me to retort to the asinine comments that have been posted. If someone wishes to practice abstinence, allow them to do so. I don’t really see the point of blasting someone for making a sound and respectable decision…from what I gather here it’s seems that the lot of you are most likely the off-spring of lower class inbreeding.
Sex soley for pleasure is pathetic and deplorable. Sex is a commonly accepted bond between a man and a woman who are in love with each other and regard one another with the highest esteem. Let me ask you this. Where do babies come from? They are a recreation of two persons who love each other so much that they want to bring another one of them into this world. It’s really sad to see someone lower sex as just a pleasurable experience and that is all it is… I think it’s time all of you cynics about abstinence open your eyes and WAKE UP!! Oh and while I’m at it the word you spelled as ‘virtueous’ is actually spelled “virtuous” when it is spelled properly.
Wow, did I just spelled preposterous wrong? Boy, is my face red! So, disregard that “virtueous vs. virtuous” remark. Mouse-in-Da-House is caught with his tail ‘tween his legs!
So, class warfare over sex? That’s new.
Sounds like someone has trouble getting it up.
My ex-husband and I tried to recreate ourselves. Often. With gusto, and sweat, and dirty talk, and positions impossible to hold without the proper restraints and supports.. Alas, butt-babies never live. My next-ex and I are trying it again, with new positions, equipment and language (Yo queiro grande pinga, Papi! Mas! Con gusto mi bruto Papi! Ai, chico! Ai! Ai!)
Mouse-in-Da-House is caught with his tail ‘tween his legs!
and here we thought you were just happy to see us
I’ve loved every woman I ever had sex with. Even if I didn’t know her name.
Ditto, merlallen.
Mouse, darling, we’re not mocking people for being chaste. I don’t believe any of us gives a good goddamned what you guys do in your bedrooms or public parks, or don’t do, as the case may be. We’re mocking because frankly, we’d like y’all to return the favor, and stop scolding and trying to punish those of us who *don’t* choose chastity.
Or, as you put it before you went off on your judgmental “You’re All Pathetic And Deplorable!” bit, we don’t see the point of judging us for making a sound decision.
In my case, entirely sound. No harm, no foul, kiddies, and while we may certainly argue about what constitutes “good” decisions, I would suggest it is any decision in which no one is harmed (after they safeword). Feel free to prove that we’ve somehow hurt someone in some concrete fashion with all our reckless non-procreative sex, and we’ll give it some consideration.
Me, I’ve never understood the mindset of people who plainly do not want to be here reading this, wasting their time, who not only continue to waste their time here, but then take the extra time to tell us how little they wanted to be here. If I didn’t know better, I’d say there was some Internet Version of “Saw” in which persons are forced to atone for their crimes by reading lefty weblogs. Would you like us to notify the police, Mouse?
Incidentally, you’re not the Mouse who writes the gay “X-Files” smut, are you? Because I totally love your stuff.
Apologies to the rest of you for my absence, it seems I’ve been missing a lot of fun. Apparently, my appendix might be lonely without my gall bladder, they were the only two organs that, you know, really *got* each other, man, and none of the other ones really *understood*, right?, and it’s possibly decided it doesn’t want to live anymore. Probably not, though, since I’m guessing someone would have called me even if it *was* a holiday weekend. My partner found this all rather funny. “This is like our New Year’s tradition!” Next year we’re going for the tonsils! I got vestigial organs and I’m not afraid to not use them, dammit!
If someone wishes to practice abstinence, allow them to do so
This is probably a good idea, since the alternative is usually called “rape.”
“offspring of lower class inbreeding.” Ah, where to begin………..
Wasn’t western Europe ruled for several centuries by the offspring of upper class inbreeding? And what were the results…
Me, I was the child of white upper middle class folks with no prior genetic ties, and what I went through before age 18 would make a decent training manual for any social services agency. So when I go to catalog my own premarital sexual encounters it’s not an entirely pleasant task, know what I’m saying? So when I hear people inferring through such self-congratulatory drivel that “nice people wouldn’t say or do such things” or “nice people’s shit don’t stink” it makes me want to projectile vomit. Except that I don’t have good enough aim or range to hit the intended target.
Damn, ButchPansy, your post made me all…
[mumbles]
…and stufflikethatthere!