Are you a passive-purple-four-ball?

Well?

Are you?!

If you’ve never bothered to ask yourself that question before, then the question answers itself, because an indifference to your passive-purple-four-ball status is a classic sign of passive-purple-four-ballity.
Or so I gather from this bit of spam sent to me by Calvary Press:

Manly Dominion: In a Passive-Purple-Four-Ball World – by Mark Chanski
Are you a passive-purple-four-ball? In billiards, the four-ball is passive; it’s the one that gets knocked around by the other balls. Christian man, is that you?

If so, you must learn to become a ball knocker, not he whose balls are knocked.

Are you knocked around by your environment, rather than taking your God-given assignment to lead? Are you passive when faced with difficult situations at home, church or work? Unfortunately, the world today is filled with many passive-purple-four-ball men, who are clueless as to how to deal with their work environment, relate to their wives, raise their children, spiritually guide their families, and lead with confidence in their churches.

That does sound like a lot of work, especially when you’ve got two extra balls to deal with.  It must feel like hobbling around with a fleshy sack of Clackers.

Mark Chanski’s book is a clarion call to all Christian men to face life’s challenges with Manly Dominion.

Now with patented Purple-Four-Ball-Be-Gone™.

It will challenge and encourage you to lead, wherever God places you, with Spirit-filled conviction. The wisdom contained herein is from the most reliable source known: God’s Word, the Bible.

As interpreted by his inerrant prophet, Mark Chanski (a graduate of Grand Rapids Baptist Seminary).

As you read, you will discover that Chanski touches on just about every subject that a man needs to consider in his life, and he does so with unequalled clarity. No Christian man (or woman!) living in today’s world should be without it. Read carefully, and transform your life!

Yes, it’s a complicated metaphor, so read carefully, or you might not be able to disentangle Mark’s subtle symbology:

“Man is to aggressively dominate his environment, instead of allowing his environment to dominate him,” Chanski writes. “I am not to be a passive-purple four-ball! I am rather to be a stick-carrying player! In the spheres of my life, I must subdue and rule, and not permit myself to be subdued and ruled.

So cinch up your spheres, boys, and grab your stick, before your old lady gets her hands on it and declares her dominion over the Earth and makes you go with her to Target on Saturday.

“In the Lord Jesus Christ, the Christian finds his ultimate model for subduing and ruling over the opposing circumstances of our sin cursed world,” he writes.

Although Jesus was fined twice for using illegal submission holds, and one time he got a two-week suspension for using a foreign object, so, you know, don’t go all crazy.

Anyway, Mark’s wisdom arrived on the same day that the front page of the Los Angeles Times highlighted another front in the anti-passive-purple-four-balls war, Manliness is next to godliness:

Brad Stine runs onstage in ripped blue jeans, his shirt untucked, his long hair shaggy. He’s a stand-up comic by trade, but he’s here today as an evangelist, on a mission to build up a new Christian man — one profanity at a time. “It’s the wuss-ification of America that’s getting us!” screeches Stine, 46.
A moment later he adds a fervent: “Thank you, Lord, for our testosterone!”

Hold hands with strangers? Sing love songs to Jesus? No wonder pews across America hold far more women than men, Stine says. Factor in the pressure to be a “Christian nice guy” — no cussing, no confrontation, in tune with the wife’s emotions — and it’s amazing men keep the faith at all.
“We know men are uncomfortable in church,” says the Rev. Kraig Wall, 52, who pastors a small church in Franklin, Tenn. — and is at GodMen to research ways to reach the husbands of his congregation. His conclusion: “The syrup and the sticky stuff is holding us down.”

As dieties go, Jesus is just too saccharine.  You get the blood of the lamb, when you really want to see the blood gushing from the nose of the infidel you just decked for dissing your Headship.

John Eldredge, a seminal writer for the movement, goes further in “Wild At Heart,” his bestselling book. “Christianity, as it currently exists, has done some terrible things to men,” he writes. Men “believe that God put them on earth to be a good boy.”

But if you dig down deep into scripture, you’ll find that God really put you on earth to be a remoreless, unstoppable killing machine made of liquid metal.  So I advise all Christians concerned about their masculinity to visit their nearest zinc-plating establishment and avail themselves of the hot dip galvanizing process.

Stine asks the men: “Are you ready to grab your sword and say, ‘OK, family, I’m going to lead you?’”

My dad was a profoundly decent man, and would never have grabbed his sword in front of the family.  Still, I don’t want to give the false impression that, what with all the talk of cue-sticks and sword-grabbing, there’s anything remotely phallocentric about this program.

A workshop called “Training the Penis” encourages men to talk openly about temptation and bond with guys who share their struggles.

Okay.  Check that.

Fortunately, this isn’t just another avenue for sneaking Promise Keeper-style misogyny into the home:

He also distributes a list of a real man’s rules for his woman. No. 1: “Learn to work the toilet seat. You’re a big girl. If it’s up, put it down.”

Doesn’t that sound like just the sort of thing Jesus would have said to Mary Magdalene if he’d had indoor plumbing?

Stine’s wife, Desiree, says she supports manly leadership; it seems to her the natural and God-ordained order of things. As she puts it: “When the rubber hits the bat, I want to know my husband will protect me.”

Admittedly, Stine’s philosophy does seem to be working in his own home, but we should note that he may have an unfair advantage, since he clearly married an idiot.  For the rest of us, living by the New Testosterone Testament may prove a bit more challenging:

But some men at the conference run into trouble when they debut their new attitudes at home. Eric Miller, a construction worker, admits his wife is none too pleased when he takes off, alone, on a weekend camping trip a few weeks after the GodMen conference this fall.  “She was a little bit leery of it, as we have an infant,” he reports. “She said, ‘I need your help around here.’ ”
Miller, 26, refuses to yield: “I am supposed to be the leader of the family.”

And leaders get to abdicate their responsibilities whenever they want and go off camping, or cutting brush, or blasting pen-raised quail.  It says so in the Bible.  Book of Jerks, Chapter 7, Verse 18.

He’s pretty sure his wife will come around once she recognizes he’s modeling his life after Jesus’, like a good Christian should. It’ll just take a little explaining, because the Jesus he has in mind is the guy on the wanted poster: “confrontational and sarcastic when he needed to be,” Miller says, and determined to use “whatever means was necessary to achieve his goal.”

Jesus’ goal was eternal salvation for Mankind.  Miller’s goal is to avoid changing a diaper.  The parallels are a little too eerie if you ask me.

And the increased steroid content in today’s sacramental wine may explain the War on the War on Christmas:

A few weeks later, Stephenson, 43, is still not sold on profanity. But he has ditched the nice-guy reflex of always turning the other cheek. When he spots a Wal-Mart clerk writing “Happy Holidays” on a window, he boldly complains: It should say “Merry Christmas.”
The clerk erases the offending greeting. Chalk one up for Christian testosterone

Then when the self-satisfied Stephenson left the store with his gallon jug of French’s Mustard, an US magazine to read on the crapper, and a set of new floor mats, the clerk erased Merry Christmas and wrote Happy Holidays again.  Chalk one up for turning the other cheek until the assholier-than-thou customer heads back to his car.

So what does it mean for Christianity that there are so many frustrated, insecure adherents desperately searching for a way to express Jesus’ message of love and peace in a manner that is spiritually authentic, but more violent and intimidating?  Well, it’s just another indication that many of our evangelicals are simply in the wrong religion.  The crusading era of Christianity is over, guys, you missed it.  If you’re looking to convert a few heathens at sword point, you’re not likely to get a purse of gold and a papal writ from the Fifth United Methodist Church in Wheaton, Illinois.

However, there is a group in Waziristan that seems to practice the kind of muscular, confrontational, action-oriented faith you’re apparently craving, and I hear they’re always on the lookout for a new number three guy.  Just a thought.

Posted by scott on Friday, December 8th, 2006 at 3:30 pm.

35 Responses to “Are you a passive-purple-four-ball?”

A workshop called “Training the Penis” encourages men to talk openly about temptation and bond with guys who share their struggles.
Let me guess. This is really just a circle jerk let by Ted Haggert?
He’s pretty sure his wife will come around once she recognizes he’s modeling his life after Jesus’, like a good Christian should.
I guess what Jesus was really doing out in the desert when he was getting “tempted” was…camping.

Left by Spirula on December 8th, 2006

When Testosterone Jesus said to turn the other cheek, he was instructing us to moon the infidels.

A workshop called “Training the Penis” encourages men to talk openly about temptation and bond with guys who share their struggles.

See, I bet once they start using highly trained penises, they won’t find themselves in so many manholes.

Left by melior on December 8th, 2006

Oh man, Jesus’ General is going to be so all over this…
Great one, scott, as usual. Where DO these idiots come from?

Left by BeginningToWonder on December 8th, 2006

Opps. Haggard.

Left by Spirula on December 8th, 2006

If you are concerned about having purple balls, the answer is masturbation, not naked wrestling with your fellow HE-MENNNNNNNNN WIMMIN HATERSSSSSS
This message brought to you courtesy of “Simply Left Behind” and “Masturbate For Peace”

Left by actor212 on December 8th, 2006

…he boldly complains…
That really says it all, doesn’t it? “He whined with courage.”

Left by RobW on December 8th, 2006

“Users of Christian testosterone who experience purple balls lasting over four hours should seek medical attention immediately.”

Left by trashfire on December 8th, 2006

Wow. These ass clowns don’t see just not giving a damn and not trying to even make excuses for yourself… and this? is godlike?

Left by heydave on December 8th, 2006

“Are you ready to grab your sword and say, ‘OK, family, I’m going to lead you?’”
I’m totally ready to grab my sword…
Whoops, I think it’s time for another training session for my penis…
mikey

Left by mikey on December 8th, 2006

I am not a passive purple four ball! I am a man! Well, a woman. Also, a spaghetti pusher, I have that on some authority.
While I’m at it, can I try once more the joke I used the first time I read about these grubby Promise-Keepers (At No More Mr Nice Blog)?
Iron John is Born Again.

Left by D. Sidhe on December 8th, 2006

Oh yes. Let’s try it again, gentlemen. If you want us to not bitch at you for leaving the seat up, aim better or clean the fucking thing. No one wants to look at that, understand? If you’re not going to do either, you can bloody well put the seat down so we don’t have to dash in and scrub at your spots every time we hear you flush. Okay? It’s got nothing the fuck to do with oppressing you or bending you to our will or anything like that. It’s a simple courtesy that is, let’s face it, much easier for you to learn to do than cleaning the damned thing yourself.
Jesus Christ, boys, even the fucking housecats know enough to cover their piss until someone can clean it up. You guys really want to demand special treatment for being less clever than an animal that eats live bugs?

Left by D. Sidhe on December 8th, 2006

I am also a spaghetti pusher. I have no balls. Not even two. No colors. And although I am a big woman, I still expect the toilet seat and lid to be put down by all members of the household so the cats don’t fall in.
It’s part of that tricky “Love each other as I have loved you” thing Christ said.
Christ! These guys are moronic!
Thank you.

Left by JillK. on December 8th, 2006

See, this is why fundies went ballistic over “Brokeback Mountain”. Every woman who sees it is gonna wonder what her husband’s REALLY doing when he takes off with one of his buddies. And judging from these guys, a lot of those women will be right.

Left by Bill S on December 8th, 2006

If there’s anything worse than being a passive-purple-four-ball, it’s being a yammerin-yellow-nine-ball. Not only do you have a yellow strip down your back, but others are trying to pot you straight into the Iraqi side pocket!

Left by arghous on December 8th, 2006

The toilet seat thing is approachable by means of cold logic, immune to even the most advanced Manly Theological arguments.
To wit: there are three bodily functions distributed amongst two sexes that commonly require the use of the toilet whose seat’s position is the object of contention. One of these functions is performed by only one gender and requires that the seat be in the down position. Of the other two functions, shared by both genders, only one function is performed by one gender in such a way that the seat must (or should) be raised.
The raised position function is in a 20% minority, and must therefore, in a democratic republic, cede to the majority.

Left by Li'l Innocent on December 8th, 2006

If you’re wondering what Brad Stine’s comedy act is like, here’s a couple samples:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JodsaHFUGvQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CaqXrA1BGE
The nicest thing I can say about it is, it’s not as bad as Victoria Jackson’s (to name another bloody awful “Christian comedian”).

Left by Bill S on December 8th, 2006

I dunno. That leaves the door open for a majority-male household to leave the seat up despite issues of pets, sleepy-sitting-in-the-dark, and cleanliness and aesthetics. I like to stick with the basics. Men seem to loathe cleaning the toilet and drying off the cat far more than they dislike making a habit of putting the seat–and lid, dammit–down.
I just think it’s cute how Mr Petulant whines that women should learn to operate a toilet seat (while suggesting that it should always be in the Up position for his convenience). Seriously, buddy, who cleans it in your house? I’m guessing, given the dinner-on-the-table-when-I-get-home attitude, it’s your wife. This would seem to indicate *she* already knows how to use it, and *you* want to be allowed to forget.

Left by D. Sidhe on December 8th, 2006

Okay, the up/down question’s a silly one. I wanna know why people don’t turn the bathroom light on first. I live alone and I don’t do that.

Left by Bill S on December 8th, 2006

I grew up playing billiards – both balkline and three-cushin — to the best of my knowledge, the game is played with only three balls (white, white w/red dot, and red); there is no purple ‘jesus’ ball. . . I thought for a moment that I was going to be saved, and repent my sinful ways, but then I realized that this guy didn’t understand billiards, and therefore his entire analogy was bogus. Oh well, I guess I’ll have a drink and download some porn. . . .

Left by steve on December 8th, 2006

A moment later he adds a fervent: “Thank you, Lord, for our testosterone!”
That’d be the extra pair of balls talking, I guess.

Left by Chris Vosburg on December 8th, 2006

[...] From World ‘o Crap, something really funny. [...]

Left by Hee hee at K’vitsh on December 8th, 2006

Kudos, man. So funny, I plotzed.

Left by Heather on December 8th, 2006

Are you a passive-purple-four-ball?
Well. No. But I think I can be classified as a one-eyed, one-horned, flyin’ purple people eater.

Left by Crumpet on December 8th, 2006

Wow, this is great. A Church of Pure Entitlement. This new attempt to edit christianity into a form more appealing to Y chromosomes sounds rather like the Promises Keepers farrago, although without any tiresome talk about Promises or Obligations or Responsibilities. But if they were serious about making the churches more appealing to men, they would provide beer on tap. And a billiard table.
“When the rubber hits the bat, I want to know my husband will protect me.”
Clearly these people have not actually read the bible, or they would know that Leviticus prohibits the mixing of metaphors. I can’t remember the actual verse but it’s just after the prohibitions on mixing two fibres in the same cloth, or planting two grains in the same field.
OK — I made it up. But I am fairly sure that there is nothing in the Sermon on the Mount about “Blessed are the wife-beaters”.

Left by Herr Doktor Bimler on December 9th, 2006

I thought the line about rubber hitting the bat for protection was a reference to birth control. I certainly hope so-the Stines don’t strike me as people who should reproduce.

Left by Bill S on December 9th, 2006

Mark Chanski’s book is a clarion call to all Christian men to face life’s challenges with Manly Dominion.
Now there’s a niche. If I were more of an entrepreneur, I would certainly be marketing an aftershave called Manly Dominion. Along with my Blood-of-the-Lamb shower gel: “Have you been washed in the Blood of the Lamb?”

Left by Herr Doktor Bimler on December 9th, 2006

Now had he asked “You want to do a Frisco Speedball” instead of “Are you a passive-purple-four-ball?” the rest of the column would have been just as crazy, but at least I could have figured out what triggered it.
Linking The Christian Fundy Man Movement with the Taliban sort of reminds me of When Hitler met Stalin.

Left by tomg on December 9th, 2006

From the “Trivia you couldn’t care less about” desk (It’s in my spare room – er, the desk, not the trivia). When Clay Lacy was flying Unlimited Class at the Reno Races back in the Seventies he flew the “Passionate Purple P-51″. And he had a big stuffed snoopy in his backseat…
mikey

Left by mikey on December 9th, 2006

This guy must contribute to writing the Zippy strip. The last frame writes itself here:
“Passive purple four ball”.
“Passive purple four ball”.
“Passive purple four ball”.

Left by mmm...lemonheads on December 9th, 2006

Christian man, is that you?

Well, there he goes, leaping to incorrect conclusions right out of the gate.
You know, the title of this little petite fours is such a mangled attempt at a topical reference that I thought the book just had to be by WO’C favorite, li’l Doug Giles, but… no.

Are you knocked around by your environment, rather than taking your God-given assignment to lead?

And then he goes on to suggest that all these men lead. As in everyone. Well, in fact, there can only be one leader at a time. It all settles into a hierarchal, graduated order of leaders and followers. If every (Christian) man attempted to lead in every situation in which he found himself, constant fighting and rampant chaos would result. If you went to Church, and rather than listen to a sermon by the pastor, every man in the place got up and started in on his own sermon at the top of his lungs, as they fought amongst themselves for the pulpit, what would you think? Other than that every male in the place had gone completely, 100%, rubber-room insane?

assholier-than-thou

That was an absolutely delicious turn-of-phrase, which I (ass)wholly intend to steal and use, probably without attribution. It describes so many so well.
Life is unpleasant enough without assholes actually training people to be just like them! And isn’t there at least something a little bit sacrilegious in admitting, so openly, that your savior is a jerk?

Left by Marq on December 10th, 2006

Now had he asked “You want to do a Frisco Speedball” instead of “Are you a passive-purple-four-ball?” the rest of the column would have been just as crazy, but at least I could have figured out what triggered it.
Mehitabel the Abyssinian has just reminded me, by coughing one up, that Chanski would also make more sense if he had asked about passive purple fur-balls. I do need to keep her away from the food colouring.

Left by Herr Doktor Bimler on December 10th, 2006

Oh, and scott? Don’t mess around with Wheaton, Illinois. It is the World Capitol Of Bible Printing! Yes, the Wheaton Bible Press (probably the source of all those motel Bibles that used to plague D. Sidhe so) and the Billy Graham Center at Wheaton College are pretty much its claims to fame. Oh, and Belushi was born there.
Ayup. That’s pretty much it.

Left by Marq on December 10th, 2006

“When the rubber hits the bat, I want to know my husband will protect me.”
Whoaa. Way too much information about their sex life.

Left by trenchcoat on December 10th, 2006

[...] Scott at World O’ Crap points us to the anti-passive purple four ball vision of Christianity. [...]

Left by Thudfactor » War God in Wal*Mart on December 12th, 2006

Brad Stine kinda looks like a Just-A-Buck version of Owen Wilson.

Left by Bill S on December 14th, 2006

October 17, 2003

Hey, We're Back! Yeah, the forces of Dr. Pepper TRIED to shut us down by causing problems to our blog server, but WE SHOWED THEM!  And to celebrate, I'll be making Ketchup Cake!.  And throwing out the Pineapple Parfait cake that is still in my cake holder (I should have tossed in long ago, but it scares me). Also, if you followed my instructions and checked back for updates, you get a dime.  To collect your dime, send a self-addressed stamped envelope to this blog.  Thank you. 5:47:22 PM

Marrriage Cops: To Serve and Protect Marriages As our hero and role model TBOGG reminded us (by pointing us to Marriage Protection Comic), it's Marriage Protection Week.  And so we, along with President Bush, wish to remind everyone in a marriage to use protection. No, actually we want to discuss the origins of this new national holiday and explore its rituals and customs. Marriage Protection Week began when President Bush declared that this week we would all protect marriage; marriage was defined as "a union between a man and a woman", meaning intercourse.  Several religious groups, including the National Religious Broadcasters, and the Southern Baptists' Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission are sponsoring the week ("Guests of Marriage Protection Week stay at the luxurious Focus on the Family").  The first question you're probably asking yourself is "A week to protect marriage from what?  Adultery?  Spousal abuse?  Poverty? Immaturity?  Toilet seat conflicts?"  Well, not really.  The week is for protecting marriage from homosexuals who want to get married.  Because if THEY get married, then it devalues everybody else's marriage, since marriage won't be a cool, exclusionary club anymore.  Here, listen to World Net Daily's Jane Chastain (Marriage Protection Proclamation – What's Missing) : President Bush issued a proclamation making this "Marriage Protection Week," stating that "marriage is a union between a man and a woman." That is a worthy goal. However, it is impossible to protect traditional marriage while supporting "domestic partnerships" pushed by homosexual activists. The U.S. Treasury has the responsibility for minting our coins and printing our money. What if Congress, the various federal agencies and our states suddenly decide to recognize counterfeit money as legal tender?  It would undermine the nation's monetary system and throw our economy into chaos. That is exactly what is happening with traditional marriage.  It is being undermined by domestic partnership laws created by state and local governments and has been further eroded by acts of Congress and regulations issued by various federal officials and agencies. And how do these "counterfeit marriages" undermine our REAL marriage? For many years, our federal, state and local governments recognized the obvious: It costs money to raise children. By legalizing unions between a man and a woman, the government was able to put a "hedge of protection" around traditional marriage and to give the partners in these unions certain rights that went along with their responsibilities to the family unit. Homosexual-rights activists want to change the definition of marriage from a union between one man and one woman to a union between any two or more people living together in a "committed" relationship. That could apply to almost anything from a couple of roommates to a college basketball team. Are you beginning to see the problem? If everyone is allowed inside the hedge, than the hedge, for all practical purposes, ceases to exist. If I read Jane correctly, she's saying, "It costs money to raise children, and so the government gives tax breaks to married people.  But if we let homosexuals get married, then EVERYBODY gets tax breaks, and there aren't enough people paying full taxes to subsidize MY family."  Not exactly a noble sentiment, but at least she's honest.   But let's hear from Focus on the Family's Maggie Gallagher on Why is Same-Sex 'Marriage' a Threat? Pro-family groups have declared this Marriage Protection Week. Author Maggie Gallagher shares how you can respond to those who only shrug at the thought of same-sex "marriage."  So courts are going to impose "gay marriage" on you, your family and your country?  So what?  What's "normal marriage," and how can "same-sex marriage" threaten it? Well, here's one thought: Marriage is the way every single known human society tries to create ties between mothers and fathers so firm that a child's heart can rely on them.  Marriage is the place where we encourage people to have children, because we know society needs babies to survive, and because we know those babies need and deserve mothers and fathers.  When marriage fails, children suffer, communities are plagued by different social problems and, ultimately, a whole civilization can be put at risk. Okay, I buy this.  In fact, I think it's a valid reason FOR homosexual marriages: so homosexual couples can create firm ties with their children, and have the government recognize that these children do indeed have two parents.  But apparently that wasn't Maggie's point: With "same-sex marriage," your government and your laws will be actively committed to the very opposite of the marriage idea. They will be teaching your children and your neighbors and your community that children don't need mothers and fathers after all. That it's perfectly OK for adults to deliberately create motherless or fatherless families because, 'Hey, that's what the adults want,' and what the adults want is what matters.  Government will be teaching this new unisex marriage idea to your child in a public school; in teen pregnancy prevention and abstinence education and in every public image of marriage — this new idea that children don't need mothers and fathers, after all, is going to be taught. At a time when 25 million children are fatherless, it is not kind — it is callous to the extreme — to be rewriting our most basic marriage laws to suit the desires of adults. So, Maggie is saying that if Heather legally has two mommies, then the government will be teaching my hypothetical child (I think I'll call her Becky) and my neighbors that children don't need a parent of each gender, and so Becky and my neighbors will all immediately become unwed mothers, even the homosexual ones, who COULD get married now.  I guess it could happen with the neighbors, but I think Maggie is giving me and Becky too little credit -- my child will get her basic values, including those regarding marriage and child-rearing, from me and MTV, not from her teen abstinence class.  Seeing  a different kind of family relationship sanctioned by the goverment isn't going to make her suddenly go out and have fatherless babies; especially because if I've told Becky once, I've told her a thousand times, "Just because Mary and Susan Jones are having a baby, it doesn't mean THAT you can have one."  But Maggie's argument does suggest an interesting point: what if Becky sees that Mr. and Mrs. Adams down the block don't have ANY children, and learns that the government recognizes THEIR union as legal -- won't that give her the idea that it's perfectly okay for adults to deliberately create childless families because, 'Hey, that's what the adults want,' and what the adults want is what matters?  And then Becky will never reproduce, our whole society will be at risk, and eventually cats will inherit the Earth?  So, if government is prohibiting homosexual marriages just to keep Becky from getting any ideas that might discourage her from having the babies which society needs to survive, then we have to also refuse to recognize unions which are not fruitful, for whatever reason. Maybe it would just be easier to offer Maggie Gallagher some help with her marriage, so her hypothetical children will have such strong pro-traditional marriage values that they'll quit being tempted into deviency by government regulations and that gay couple down the block. To help in this endeavor, we turn to Queer Eye for the Straight Couple, a program of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund: "Same-sex couples face all of the same challenges and joys that heterosexual couples do - but we're left navigating through them without the protections marriage provides," said Lambda Legal's Michael Adams. "We've brought together some fantastic lesbian and gay couples who are kind enough to lend their relationship experience to their heterosexual peers."  For instance, they have Carolyn Conrad and Kathleen Peterson, who have been together eight years and were the first couple to enter a civil union in Vermont.  They are here offering advice to a Jersey City, N.J., man who worried his romance was losing its spark after three years. "It is the little things that make the difference," Conrad said. "I'm a Diet Coke fiend, and if I'm working late, KP (Peterson) will often drop by with an ice cold jumbo sized one for me. It never fails to make my heart beat a little faster."  You know, if somebody would bring me by a large Diet Pepsi when I was working late, I too would feel sparks.  Good advice, Carolyn. But not everybody agrees. Genevieve Wood of the conservative Family Research Council coalition said she laughed after learning of "Queer Eye for the Straight Couple." "It's almost hard to take it seriously, considering that the majority of homosexual couples don't stay together more than a year and half," she said. "It's ludicrous that they would even suggest that two men or two women could have advice for a married man and woman."  Well, since most couples I know (defined as: a man and a woman who've been dating for a while who get to the point where the woman asks the man where their relationship is going; and he says he thinks they should just enjoy where their relationship is right now; and she says, "So, where are we?"; and he says, "We're, you know, enjoying being together"; and she says, "Then we're an exclusive couple?"; and he says, "Well, we're a COUPLE") don't stay together for more than two months (some don't even make it through the entire "couple" discussion), so I think the homosexuals are doing okay.  And anyway, isn't the main purpose of marriage to encourage people to stay together, so if Mrs. Wood is so concerned about the briefness of homosexual relationships, then maybe she should demand that the government allow them to marry.  But in any case, the advice about the Diet cola drinks is good, no matter who it came from. And personally, I'm with Gary Aldritch, who says that maybe everybody should stop devoting so much energy to trying to arrange it so that if the court rules in favor of gay unions, we can get the President to ammend the Constitution to prohibit it; and more energy on improving existing marriages (Limited Energies): But even if a person’s sole issue is the preservation of the institution of marriage, there are several areas that can be addressed that have nothing to do with gay unions.  For example, the national divorce rate is over 50%, and statistics reveal that more than 60% of all divorces filed are filed by women. If one follows the progress of the feminist movement I believe they can find the roots of injury to the institution of marriage planted deep in the politics of the gay and lesbian leadership of the various women's rights organizations, especially the National Organization of Women. As a result of broken homes, children are being raised in fatherless environments, causing a new wave of crime, and poverty. Um, I don't think I agree with THIS part of Gary's message, which seems to be that since 60% of divorces are instituted by women, it's probably because gays and lesbians have infiltrated feminist organizations and have used their leadership positions to encourage women to burn their bras and to divorce their innocent husbands, as part of some sinister plan to . . . well, break up marriages, I guess. But let's see Gary's plan for preserving the institution of marriage: If as a culture we wanted to use precious time, resources, donor dollars and finite political capitol to get a single issue before presidential candidates, would we choose homosexual activity and activism, or would we choose ways that the institution of marriage can be strengthened, such as tax advantages for those who struggle to keep their marriages together?   So, the solution is simple: pay women to stay with their husbands.  Works for me.  Well, as long as the money isn't coming FROM me -- I need all of my funds to raise little Becky.  But, in honor of Marriage Protection Week, I promise not to sleep with anyone's husband, encourage my neighbors to have children out of wedlock, or marry any college basketball teams.  I hope President Bush appreciates my efforts. 7:33:13 AM

comment []

A Decent Lifestyle? Bill O'Reilly uses his latest Talking Points Bulletin (Whose Money is it Anyway?)  to voice his disapproval for Joe Lieberman's plan to raise taxes for those making more than $250,000 a year.  Now only two percent of us earn that kind of money. And if elected president, Senator Lieberman will get to know us very well. Whoa, sounds like a threat to me!  I volunteer the remaining 98% of us to protect President Lieberman from Bill and his gang of vicious rich people. Anyway, what I really wanted to comment on was this portion of Bill's remarks: Under Lieberman's tax plan, an American living in New York City and earning $250,000 would pay 58 percent of his income in combined taxes. That means more than $145,000 be taken out of his or her paycheck. Of course, that doesn't count property taxes, sales taxes, energy taxes, tolls and all the rest. So $250,000 suddenly will not afford you a decent lifestyle in New York City. So, you'd have $105,000 after federal taxes.  Even if you have to pay tolls and sales taxes and such, like everybody else, to me that still sounds like enough money on which to live decently.  Even in New York City.  I know people in NYC who are trying to get by on a third of that -- BEFORE federal taxes.  Of course, they don't have lifestyles, they just have lives, so that's probably how they do it. You know, for somebody who grew up in the poverty-stricken streets of the Westbury section of Levittown, Bill sure seems to be out of touch with how decent people live, and how little money they actually have to do it with.  I'm starting to wonder who he's REALLY looking out for with his "no more taxes on poverty-stricken rich people" remarks. 12:26:14 AM