Homecoming Princes and the Predictable Fundie Backlash

Over at the "Free Republic," they posted an article about two "Homecoming Princes" at Davis Senior High School in CA. Two 16 year-old boys were voted homecoming princes by their classmates, in lieu of a homecoming king and queen. Ever the predictable bunch, the fundies are yammering away at how unfair all of this is, and how the liberal gay agenda is on a "seek and destroy" mission on "traditional American morals." Or something. More to come on morality in a future article, by the way.

This is an important milestone for a couple different reasons. For one, it allows LGBTQ students to feel included in a system that has very traditionally excluded them.

For example, my high school homecoming night was probably spent smoking and getting drunk with my own friends, my teammates usually, while the rest of my friends spent weeks discussing their dresses and dates ad nauseum. To every last. boring. detail.

But seriously. Had homosexuality been more accepted at my high school, I may have had the balls to come out sooner. And maybe another girl at my high school would have, too. And maybe, instead of becoming addicted to cigarettes and binge drinking, I would have had a romantic relationship like the rest of my friends, and gone to the dances and done normal dating things that "everyone else" does.

After all, I'm not a total Monet.

I may have experienced a "first love," that wasn't hidden away from my family and friends and dealt with as something to be ashamed of. The distance may not have grown so far between my mother and me. My family, had they known at the time what I was going through, may have been more understanding. And I wouldn't have been too scared to tell them.

I'm not blaming the cigarettes and alcohol and other things solely on being gay, but there are definite reasons that a much higher percentage of lesbians smoke than straight women.

The fundies that are so anti-gay, and who seriously think that we are on a mission to destroy society have no idea. They must have no compassion. They sit in their safe, "religious," "moral," hetero or closet-homo worlds and judge anyone who isn't exactly like them. Again, more to come on morality in a future article that I've already started.

I'm so glad to see that these boys felt as though they could be openly gay at their school. And that their classmates voted for them. It's an enormous step forward for equality. Congrats, boys!

You got back at people like this in the best way possible (taken from the comments section http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1917662/posts):

"Must they make a mockery of every single tradition that ever was? All this pandering and teaching is nothing less than negligence of the mentally ill.
4 posted on 10/28/2007 3:38:26 PM PDT by gidget7 "

"If only they knew, that for the vast majority of kids who voted for them, they are a joke and are being laughed at behind their backs.
7 posted on 10/28/2007 3:43:30 PM PDT by prov1813man"

"How do they know the couple is gay?
9 posted on 10/28/2007 3:48:16 PM PDT by Crawdad"

[my personal favorite]* "In the early to mid eighties we have a few effeminate boys coming to high school dressed as women. Transvestites. In high school.
In a rural, logging town.
It only took a couple ass-beatings out on the football field to put an end to that crap.
10 posted on 10/28/2007 3:50:51 PM PDT by Grunthor"

"Must they make a mockery of every single tradition that ever was?
Yes. The homosexual political agenda is obsessive and totalitarian, so they are compelled to destroy every tradition.
11 posted on 10/28/2007 3:50:54 PM PDT by puroresu"

">>And in a day and age when we have had gay governors, gay congressmen and gay senators, I imagine that the nation can survive a gay homecoming couple.<< href="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1917662/posts?page=19#19">19 posted on 10/28/2007 3:58:56 PM PDT by ishabibble"

"So they have Homecoming Sissies instead. Isn’t that just so special!
26 posted on 10/28/2007 4:05:59 PM PDT by FormerLib"

"Must they make a mockery of every single tradition that ever was?
That is their goal. To destroy every aspect of Western Civilization.
And don't doubt for a second that some of the "educators" had a hand in this.
27 posted on 10/28/2007 4:06:31 PM PDT by B Knotts"

"
Hmmm....the average smoking white male lives to something like 70....the average homosexual male lives to something like 50....guess they likely won’t be around to party at their 30th class reunion. And, wonder how much THEIR health care will cost.....
33 posted on 10/28/2007 4:11:26 PM PDT by goodnesswins" [DEFINITELY NOT MORE THAN WHAT THE HEALTH CARE OF HETEROSEXUALS COSTS, WHICH WE GAYS PAY FOR]

"Furthermore, people are making the assumption that just because it is a gay couple that was elected that the two must be sexually active.That being the case, are we to assume that all straight couples that are elected homecoming king and queen are also sexually active?
Apples and oranges.
Straight couples are, on the face of it, exhibiting normal, healthy relationships, and until fairly recently teenagers were at least expected to conform to societal restraints.
Homosexual couples, on the other hand, are exhibiting abnormal, unhealthy, deviant, disturbed behavior, and, since their very relationship is in defiance of societal taboo, societal restraints are less than even a minor inconvenience to them. Perverted sexual congress is implicit in their declaration of poofterhood.
44 posted on 10/28/2007 4:24:24 PM PDT by Jeff Chandler"

*a-wha? excuse me...before continuing, can someone please explain to me the meaning of "poofterhood?" dang. these fundies make up some really whack terms. but that one takes the cake. it is worse than the terms the opine idiots over at "that one blog" come up with.

"You may be right. My point was in response to someone who had taken the debate off onto a tangent regarding what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms. I was merely noting that we have no idea whether or not these perverts are actually engaging in homo sex (though I’d bet they are) and in any event it’s irrelevant to the issue at hand. And that issue is that the tradition of crowning a homecoming king & queen shouldn’t be given the Marxist Deconstruction treatment by allowing two sissy boys to boot out the normal couple.
Read all my posts on this thread and you’ll see that I’m on your side! :-)
93 posted on 10/29/2007 6:47:37 AM PDT by puroresu"

and

"Someone a few years ago said that as homosexuality spreads, women lose respect within society. I forgot who it was who said that, but they made some good points.
94 posted on 10/29/2007 6:59:08 AM PDT by puroresu"

(i would LOVE to see how this is applicable to the real world and who it was that actually said this)

"
It’s just plain disgusting. It’s only a matter of time until drag queens start demanding to enter beauty pageants. There’s really no logical reason for things like this. They’re only being done to mock societal norms and to destroy something traditional, to eradicate the past so as to pave the way to the Orwellian future.
98 posted on 10/29/2007 8:35:16 AM PDT by puroresu"

(oh, apparently several of those asinine comments are made by the same person, "puroresu")

"When a boy at Brockton High School was allowed to use the girls room dressed as a girl, I opined if it would be okay for a student to attend school in Black Face and demand to use the “Colored Only” rest room because he had Ethnic Identity Disorder. Would the Black Students be forced to accept that?
100 posted on 10/29/2007 8:55:23 AM PDT by massgopguy"

AFA Alert! Truth for Youth Bible Update

Received today from AFA:

"Just a quick update on the status of the free Truth for Youth bible that you still have not received.
As you may know, during the annual national Truth for Youth project on American Family Radio we were thrilled and excited with the overwhelming and record breaking response we received. When everything was said and done, almost 60,000 teenagers, or parents in their behalf, had placed an order to receive a free bible. Think about this…almost 60,000 teenagers agreed to give a bible to someone in their school that doesn’t know Jesus. What an awesome evangelism outreach opportunity.
We filled 55,000 of those orders for bibles leaving approximately 5000 that still have not received theirs. This is where you come in. I regret, our records show that you were one of those that have not yet received your bible. (If you have please let us know.)
When we saw we were running low we immediately ordered more bibles. When they arrived in Houston, TX they were flagged by customs and have not been released. Our attorney has informed us that it may be the beginning of December before the bibles are delivered to us. As soon as they get to us we will get the bibles to you.
We need a miracle. Please pray with us that God will expedite this process and the bibles will be released for delivery. We are doing everything we can and greatly appreciate your patience. It will be worth the wait!!!
God’s very best to you!
Evangelist Tim Todd
President/Executive Director
Revival Fires International
http://www.revivalfires.org/
Mark 16:15"

phew.

but two questions: what country were these bibles ordered from? and why were they flagged by customs?

strange.

Sorry

I've been on hiatus...work, school, and life has been getting in the way. I'll be back soon. :-)

Important Update!

There is a blog that exposes unnecessary apostrophe use! It's called Apostrophe Abuse.

HaHa!!!

The "Blog" of "Unnecessary Quotation Marks" is genius. I love it.

Now, I hope someone does a Blog of Unnecessary Apostrophe's. ;-)

Medical Consequences of What Heterosexuals Do

Paul Cameron, PhD, wrote this article, (titled "Medical Consequences of What Homosexuals Do") detailing the dangers of homosexual sex. Which, of course, means gay men only. Apparently lesbians are either non-existent or less offensive to the average bigot. I don't know which is worse, really.

Here is an example of why selective statistical misuse is a simple way to spread your own bigotry everywhere (note the obvious satirical content here):


MEDICAL CONSEQUENCES OF WHAT HETEROSEXUALS DO

By Jane Know, Honorary PhD in Spreading the Homosexual Agenda and Proud Shrill Feminist


Throughout our people's storied history, men have always had sex with women. Yet this behavior often brings with it many detrimental effects. It is becoming clearer and clearer that heterosexuals are on the verge of destroying themselves with their spread of STDs and HIV, unwanted pregnancies, their contributions to the overpopulation problem, etc. Yet before delving into those atrocities, we must first ask:


What do heterosexuals do, anyway? Per the CDC:

-97% of ALL men ages 25-44 report having some sexual contact with the opposite sex

-97% of ALL men report having vaginal sex with female partner

-90% of ALL men report having oral sex with a female

-40% of ALL men report having anal sex with a female

-34% of all new HIV cases in 2002 were from heterosexual vaginal intercourse

-Teenage birth and pregnancy rates are higher in the U.S. than in many other industrialized countries

-34% of non-Hispanic black men have had more than 15 opposite-sex partners

-22% of non-Hispanic white men have had more than 15 opposite-sex partners

-18% of Hispanic men of all races have had more than 15 opposite-sex partners

-While HIV rates are far lower for lesbians than heterosexual women, they are 70% likely to be tested for HIV in their lifetimes, compared to only 53% likely for heterosexual women.

-15% of solely-heterosexual men have had an STD other than HIV

-88% of females have had oral sex with a male

-35% of females have had anal sex

One may now ask what the damages are of these depraved sexual practices of heterosexuals.

Thankfully, Dr. Cameron has already answered that for me. All I have to do is substitute "heterosexual" for "homosexual" in certain sections of his article.

For example: "ORAL SEX [Heterosexual women] fellate almost all of their sexual contacts (and ingest semen from about half of these). Semen contains many of the germs carried in the blood. Because of this, [heterosexuals] who practice oral sex verge on consuming raw human blood, with all its medical risks. Since the penis often has tiny lesions (and often will have been in unsanitary places such as a rectum), individuals so involved may become infected with hepatitis A or gonorrhea (and even HIV and hepatitis B)..."

and "RECTAL SEX Surveys indicate that [about 40% of heterosexual males and 34% of heterosexual females] have engaged in rectal intercourse..."

"Rectal sex is dangerous. During rectal intercourse the rectum becomes a mixing bowl for 1) saliva and its germs and/or an artificial lubricant, 2) the recipient's own feces, 3) whatever germs, infections or substances the penis has on it, and 4) the seminal fluid of the inserter. Since sperm readily penetrate the rectal wall (which is only one cell thick) causing immunologic damage, and tearing or bruising of the anal wall is very common during anal/penile sex, these substances gain almost direct access to the blood stream. Unlike heterosexual intercourse [sic] (in which sperm cannot penetrate the multilayered vagina and no feces are present),7 rectal intercourse is probably the most sexually efficient way to spread hepatitis B, HIV syphilis and a host of other blood-borne diseases.
Tearing or ripping of the anal wall is especially likely with "fisting," where the hand and arm is inserted into the rectum. It is also common when "toys" are employed ([heterosexual] lingo for objects which are inserted into the rectum--bottles, carrots, even gerbils8). The risk of contamination and/or having to wear a colostomy bag from such "sport" is very real. Fisting was apparently so rare in Kinsey's time that he didn't think to talk about it..."

Further, heterosexual teens practice the absolutely vile, irresponsible behavior of premarital sex resulting in unwanted teen pregnancies. These unwanted pregnancies result in abortion, adoption (the lesser of two evils), or raising an unwanted child in poverty. The addition of more babies does wonders for our world's overpopulation problem.

Further, heterosexual teenagers are the subgroup with the highest rates of STD infection. This irresponsible behavior is something they no doubt learn from their (usually) heterosexual parents. It is obvious that they are imitating their parents' behavior of having heterosexual intercourse. The Southern states of Mississippi, Texas, Arizona, and Arkansas, and New Mexico are particularily guilty of these moral crimes. Anyone who supports American Families surely would advocate the ban of heterosexual parents. Or at least a ban on heterosexual parenting south of the Mason-Dixon line.

The dangers of heterosexual intercourse for women, specifically are gonorrhea, chlamydia, pelvic inflammatory disease, HIV/AIDS, trichomonas, and syphilis. Studies have shown that repeated infection in the reproductive tract or PID can cause sterility. Studies have also shown that heterosexual women are far more likely than lesbians to get these common STDs. This is because most of these STDs require a penetrative penis entering the vaginal or rectal mucous membranes. ("Although the rate of transmission of STIs between women is probably low relative to that of transmission from men to women, a substantial proportion of lesbians, including those who self-identify as lesbians, and especially younger women most at risk for chlamydial infection, may continue to have sex with men"). So, there you have it. Get rid of that pesky penis, get rid of those pesky STDs.

Speaking of that pesky penis, it is evident that the United States has the highest rape rate of every developed country that keeps such statistics. 1.3 women in this country are raped every minute by men, and 1 out of 3 women will be sexually assaulted by a man in her lifetime. 1 in 7 women will be raped by her husband. 1 in 4 college women have been raped or suffered attempted rape. 1 in 12 male students admit to commiting acts that are considered rape. 84% of those males believed that what they had done didn't constitute rape. It is clear that the heterosexual male is some kind of depraved sex-seeking machine who still stop at nothing for intercourse.

Just so we're clear here, this is not an attack on heterosexuals themselves. It is only an attack on their immoral, depraved, unhealthy behavior. This is borne out of Genuine Compassion for The Heterosexual, or in the words of Dr. Cameron himself:

"Society is legitimately concerned with health risks-- they impact our taxes and everyone's chances of illness and injury. Because we care about them, smokers are discouraged from smoking by higher insurance premiums, taxes on cigarettes and bans against smoking in public. These social pressures cause many to quit. They likewise encourage non-smokers to stay non-smokers.
[Heterosexuals] are sexually troubled people engaging in dangerous activities. Because we care about them and those tempted to join them, it is important that we neither encourage nor legitimize such a destructive lifestyle. "

And remember, I don't hate the heterosexual. I just hate paying for their sins.

Peace.

Great Article on the Anger of Atheists

Over at one of my new favorite blogs, Greta Christina discusses the "Atheists and Anger."

Among my favorite lines by Greta Christina: "I'm angry that atheist conventions have to have extra security, including hand-held metal detectors and bag searches, because of fatwas and death threats."

and

"I'm angry that the 41st President of the United States, George Herbert Walker Bush, said of atheists, in my lifetime, "No, I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God."

and

"I'm angry that women are dying of AIDS in Africa and South America because the Catholic Church has convinced them that using condoms makes baby Jesus cry."

As a "devout" agnostic, I can definitely appreciate this article.

My Coming Out Story

In honor of National Coming Out Day (which I missed by 4 days, sorry), I have decided to post my coming-out story. I realize that many people have one story that rings true as their "coming-out story." But for many others, coming-out is more of a long process of revelations, anxieties, heartbreak, joy, and relief.

Now, there are several different stages of coming-out, as well as different models of the coming-out process itself, so I will do my coming-out story in stages. For example, the Cass Identity Model, developed in 1979 by Vivienne Cass, was the first to treat gay people as "normal" in a homophobic society. In other words, being gay was no longer seen as a problem within itself.

I will discuss my personal coming out in light of the this model.

*As a side note, this is merely a "model" of coming out. Similar to Kubler-Ross' stages of grief, one may skip over stages, visit them out-of-order, and re-visit them as needed throughout life.

Stage 1: Identity Confusion. This is the stage where the individual begins to wonder if homosexuality is personally relevant. Denial and confusion is experienced.

For example, when I was a pre-teen, I knew a tiny bit about homosexuality. What I knew of it was bad. Lesbians were, as my mom said, "unhappy, bitter dykes" and gay men were "fruity" or "fags."

But I didn't really understand it, in the same way I didn't and couldn't possibly understand heterosexual relationships. Because I was a child. And, as most children naturally are, I was non-judgmental until I hit puberty.

Enter Stage 1 of Jane Know's coming-out process. Around the same time I started my period, grew out my mullet, and entered high school, I also began to realize that I didn't like boys in that way.

Not only that, I was really jealous that my girl-friends now were more interested in boys than in their friendships with other girls (well, with me). In my self-denial throughout high school, I told myself that I was "more focused on school and sports and getting into college, than in getting a boyfriend." Further, when I did have boyfriends, I made sure to make it very clear that I was "saving myself for marriage." I never once allowed the conscious thought of "I want to have sex with a girl" to enter my mind. But that thought stayed stubbornly nestled back there for all 4 years of high school.

Stage 2: Identity Comparison. This is the stage where a person "accepts the possibility of being gay or lesbian and examines the wider implications of that tentative commitment."

Or, as I like to think of it: it's the "I'm bisexual" stage.

One doesn't want to fully commit yet to the "gay-identity," and it really is much easier to say to one's straight friends "I still like boys, too" so they don't completely freak out. This is also the stage where you think your friends will freak out much more than they really will, because you haven't yet realized that it's not gonna shock anyone too much when you do announce your homosexuality.

This is not meant to denounce bisexuality. I just think it's common for many "Stage 2" gays to straddle the fence at first, rather than complete hop over it in one fell swoop.

For instance, when I was 19, my softball-playing friends and I all came out to each other as "bisexual." We said things like, "I'm probably 70/30, or 60/40, but so-and-so is like 90/10" (as in 70% lesbian/30% heterosexual). But, as it turns out, a decade later we are all consistently self-identified lesbians. (not that I think anyone is 100% either/or, but we have all consistently maintained female/female relationships).

Stage 3: Identity Tolerance. This is the stage where the person comes to the understanding that he or she "is not the only one." As Wikipedia explains it, "The person acknowledges that he or she is likely gay or lesbian and seeks out other gay and lesbian people to combat feelings of isolation."

For example, the major turning point of my life/coming-out story is at the age of 19. I was just starting my sophomore year in college and sick and tired of pretending to be interested in boys just to appease my straight friends and teammates. So, I made it a point to go out of my way to talk to the girls who were "known lesbians" at our school.

I had spent my entire freshman year feeling lonely, isolated, and ashamed of my "secret." I kept wishing and waiting for some lesbian to "discover" me and make me her own little protege. It may have been one of the most depressing times of my life. Well, the "being discovered" plan didn't happen, so I eventually sought it out on my own.

Enter J.B., a 25 year-old well-known lesbian at my college, who unbeknownst to me, had just gotten out of a 4 year-relationship with a girl on my team. (*gulp*) If that doesn't spell trouble, I don't know what does. After weeks of trying to get her to notice that "hey-look-at-me-I'm-super-cool-with-you-even-though-everyone-knows-you're-gay", my plan worked. She invited me to go out with her one Friday night. That night was a drunken blur of continuous Miller Lite pitchers, cigarettes, pool, and revelations. She and her friends "officially" came out to me. And, I to her, and them. But, really, it wasn't as romantic as it sounds.

We courted, I guess you could call it, for a couple months, until she realized she was still in love with her ex, and we just drifted apart and never spoke again. She never did get her ex back, I might add.

It was an okay part of the coming-out proces, but I am sad that my first experience dating someone I really liked, turned into a situation where I felt like I was being used to "get over" an ex. And at the end of that experience, I reverted right back to Stage 1, which happens so often with gay people when they have a failed romantic relationship. For, it often seems easier to "go straight" than to deal with real pain and real heartbreak again.

Stage 4: Identity Acceptance. This is the stage where the gay or lesbian person says, "I will be okay." The person attaches a positive connotation to being gay or lesbian without simply tolerating it.

This is where it gets tricky. I thought I hit this stage of my coming-out at the same time I hit Stage 3. But then I reverted alllll the way back to Stage 1 after Stage 3. Let's just say I am definitely past this stage now. But it wasn't always an easy road, especially when my college roommate was a right-wing fundie who was very anti-lesbian.

I think I hit this stage for good by my senior year of college.

Stage 5: Identity Pride. The main thinking here is "I've got to let people know who I am." The lesbian or gay man (or bisexual, or transgendered person) will often begin to surround herself in "gay culture" because it is often easier. The person will stop trying to "pass" as heterosexual and begin to see the world as us/them. The task in this stage is to deal with the incongruent views of heterosexuals (that don't fit the gay person's).

Again, when I was at this turning point of the age of 19, I "fell" into a group of friends who were also in this stage of the coming-out process. We proudly wore our rainbow bracelets, talked openly about our "gayness" in public, and came out to all of our straight friends, and "fuck 'em if they don't like me anymore because we have each other now." I don't agree anymore that the world us us/them in the sense of heterosexuals vs. homosexuals. I believe it is us/them in the sense of tolerant vs. intolerant.

But at that point in my life, it just felt damn good to finally feel like I belonged somewhere. And I am so sorry for the confused teens lingering in Stage 1, who will never feel this way because of their parents, or their communities, or their religion.

Stage 6: Identity Synthesis. From Wikipedia, "The last stage in Cass'es model is identity synthesis: the person integrates his or her sexual identity with all other aspects of self, and sexual orientation becomes only one aspect of self rather than the entire identity."

In other words, being gay is no longer the center of the gay person's universe. It may, at times, seem that way to intolerant people. Yet, a gay man or lesbian knows that this is an error of that intolerant person's way of thinking, not their own. Thus, they no longer feel ashamed of their orientation. They no longer apologize for it. And they realize that they are just as free to chatter incessantly about their boyfriend or girlfriend as the straight girl next door chatters about her constant yeast infections from drunk sex with her boyfriend.

See, the tolerant person realizes that when a gay person talks about his or her relationship, it is the same as a straight person talking about their relationship. The gay person isn't "flaunting their gayness" for everyone to see. They are merely exercising the right to discuss their loved ones (and be annoying about it sometimes) the way straight people do.

The gay person at this stage in the process realizes that they have a right to talk openly about their relationship(s) or lack thereof, and not immediately be placed in a little box titled "rainbow homo alert" because of it. Because relationships are one part of their lives.

But I digress. This stage is one that I hope every gay person realizes. And one that I hope society eventually allows. Sexual orientation is but one little piece of the pie of each person's life, as cheesy as that sounds. It usually can not be controlled or changed, nor is it inherently harmful to individuals or society at-large.

I started to realize this (I think it is a work in progress) at the age of 20. My heterosexual best friend one day a couple months' post-coming out to her, had the balls to say, "All you talk about is gay stuff now."

Because I, like she had done the previous 5 years I had known her, had started to openly talk about my relationships. I just wanted someone to confide in the way she had confided in me for so long. I cried for hours because she said that to me. Because she didn't actually consider us equals, after all. She was the heterosexual one, and thus her relationships were automatically validated, and mine meant nothing. Because she wanted me to hold back who I was to make her feel more comfortable. When it was a part of me that isn't even that big of a deal. Because I thought I had lost a friend over something as stupid as my sexual orientation.

It was then that I realized everyone should come out because it normalizes Big Bad Homosexuality.

Maybe one day soon the bigoted hate-speech will stop. Hate crimes based on sexual orientation will stop. Employment and housing discrimination will stop. Gay people will stop being seen as "destroyers of the American Family" for wanting to start their own families. Athletic little girls will no longer be called "dyke" or "lesbo" by their classmates. Or boys who wear pink will no longer be beaten up and called "fag" or "queer."

The tide is already changing for the better. While there is still work to be done, I think we, as a society, have come a long way in the past 10 years.

I know I have.

I Love My Black Lab More Than You Love Your Mother-Daughter Incestuous Marriage

This is Cary Grant. He is my black lab. See how cute he is?

He is a really good doggy. And my girlfriend and I are really good doggy mommies. Because he is so cute, if gays are allowed to marry each other, then mothers and daughters will also start to want to get married.

Or something.
*Obligatory cute story*

Cary Grant, unlike Blair Warner (who is a small dog), is housebroken. He never poops or pees in the house.

But one time, Cary Grant had the diarrhea from gastroenteritis, unbeknownst to his doggy mommies. On said day of diarrhea, Mommy #1 arrived home from work and noticed a foul stench coming from the office.

For, hidden on the floor, underneath a pile of mail that was previously on top of the desk, and pajama pants that were on the bed, was a pile of liqui-poop.

Moral of this story: labs are smarter than other dogs because they use out of reach supplies to cover up their messes.

2nd Moral of the story: that wasn't really a cute story so much as it was gross.

Sorry.

Oh, and gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because mothers and daughters will want equal marriage rights, too.

Stay Tuned...

...for my coming out story in honor of National Coming Out Day two days ago. But for now I have to study for an exam I have to take today. More later!

I Love My Dog More Than You Love Your Polygamist Goat Colony, Part I

This is my doggy, Blair Warner. She is really cute.

See everyone, see what a good doggie mommy I am? Because I am such a good doggie mommy, you shouldn't be allowed to form your polygamist goat colony (which will happen when gays are allowed to get married).

*Obligatory cute story*

Blair Warner has been mysteriously finding treats around the house that we haven't given her. Every day when we get home from work, Blair Warner runs straight into the spare bedroom and emerges with a treat each time.

We thought this was because she was storing treats previously given to her. Or something.

Today, the mystery was solved.

A previous house guest and guest-doggy had left a box of treats under a pile of blankets, unbeknownst to us.

Blair Warner has somehow found this out, and has used it to her advantage. The box is almost empty now.

Moral of the Story: Although not fully housebroken, and really yappy, little dogs can be surprisingly smart.

Oh, and of course, this means you shouldn't be able to form your Polygamist Goat Colony.

Hump Day Bonus Blog: It's Flu Shot Time!

Yep, it's that time of year. Now that the autumn weather has started (here in Chicago, anyway), we are reminded of winter colds and the flu. :-(

Don't forget to get your flu shots this season. (yes, Wednesdays are my slow days at work, obviously)

I think there are a lot of misconceptions out there about the flu vaccine (for example, that it will make you sick), so here is some information from the CDC's website:

"Influenza (also known as the flu) is a contagious respiratory illness caused by flu viruses. It can cause mild to severe illness, and at times can lead to death. The flu is different from a cold. The flu usually comes on suddenly and may include these symptoms:

Fever (usually high)
Headache
Extreme tiredness
Dry cough
Sore throat
Runny or stuffy nose
Muscle aches
Stomach symptoms, such as nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea, also can occur but are more common in children than adults
These symptoms are usually referred to as "flu-like symptoms."

"Most people who get influenza will recover in a few days to less than 2 weeks, but some people will develop life-threatening complications (such as pneumonia) as a result of the flu. Millions of people in the United States — about 5% to 20% of U.S. residents — will get influenza each year. An average of about 36,000 people per year in the United States die from influenza, and more than 200,000 have to be admitted to the hospital as a result of influenza. Anyone can get the flu (even healthy people), and serious problems from influenza can happen at any age. People age 65 years and older, people of any age with chronic medical conditions, and very young children are more likely to get complications from influenza. Pneumonia, bronchitis, and sinus and ear infections are three examples of complications from flu. The flu can make chronic health problems worse. For example, people with asthma may experience asthma attacks while they have the flu, and people with chronic congestive heart failure may have worsening of this condition that is triggered by the flu."

In short, as you probably know, the flu sucks. It is way worse than the common cold or sniffles that most people get a couple times per year.

I got it three years ago and was bedridden for 7 days, with fever, nightmares, sweating, chills, all-over aches, etc. It was a miserable time.

Here is a synopsis of the CDC's current recommendations:

*The best way to prevent getting the flu is to get an annual flu vaccine

*There are 2 types of flu vaccines: the injection and the nasal spray (which not every health-care provider has)

*Each vaccine contains three influenza viruses-one A (H3N2) virus, one A (H1N1) virus, and one B virus. The viruses in the vaccine change each year based on international surveillance and scientists' estimations about which types and strains of viruses will circulate in a given year

*About 2 weeks after vaccination, antibodies that provide protection against influenza virus infection develop in the body

Who Should Get Vaccinated?

*Anyone interested in reducing their chances of getting the flu

*Especially recommended are people at high-risk for complications from the flu: children aged 6 months-5 years, pregnant women, the elderly, people with chronic medical conditions, people who live in nursing homes or other long-term care facilities

*Also especially recommended are people who live with or care for those at high risk for complications from flu, including: household contacts of people at high-risk for complications from the flu (above people), household contacts and caregivers of children less than 6 months (they are too young for vaccine), and healthcare workers

Who Should Not Be Vaccinated?

*People who have a severe allergy to chicken eggs.

*People who have had a severe reaction to an influenza vaccination in the past.

*People who developed Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) within 6 weeks of getting an influenza vaccine previously.

*Influenza vaccine is not approved for use in children less than 6 months of age.

*People who have a moderate or severe illness with a fever should wait to get vaccinated until their symptoms lessen.

It's a common misconception that getting the flu shot will automatically make you sick. However, some minor side effects could occur, such as:

*Soreness, redness, or swelling where the shot was given

*Fever (low grade)

*Aches

Stay tuned for a future article, where I will offer advice for those that don't listen to me, on what to do if you get the flu. ;-)

AFA Alert [insert 1950s Commie bomb warning sound here]

The latest email from the AFA: "Big Media Ignores San Francisco Homosexual Event"

Hmmm, so why, exactly, is the AFA bringing it to attention? If the point is to mock how no major media sources covered the event, then why are they instead bringing it more publicity?

The article states:

"Recently, homosexuals in San Francisco celebrated an event called the Folsom Street Fair. The organizing group claimed that 400,000 people attended the event.
The purpose of the fair was to celebrate "leather pride", a euphemism for homosexuals who indulge in sadomasochism, often called S&M. These people enjoy bondage, whipping, spanking and other perverted sexual practices.
People who attended the event reported that police backed off while the party-goers practiced oral sex, nudity, masturbation, and orgies in public.
My purpose in writing is to let you know that not a single Big Media outlet reported the event. Can you imagine another event, of any kind, which draws 400,000 people not getting a single minute or a single mention from Big Media? Let Fred Phelps, who complains about homosexuals, show up somewhere and Big Media is all over him.
But let 400,000 people celebrate getting sexual kicks from inflicting physical pain on another person and Big Media can’t be found.
I encourage you to read the two articles so you can better understand the situation. Big Media, heavy promoters of the homosexual lifestyle, decided that any reporting on this event would hurt the homosexual agenda. Test Big Media not only by how they report the news, but also judge them by what they refuse to report."

Ohhhhh, so that's the reason they are writing about it. Alright, mmkay.

My favorite part about all this is that the email includes a link to photos from the event. (stating: "By clicking the link below, you are agreeing to leave the American Family Association website to view disgusting photos of the Folsom Street Fair event. These photos are provided forverificatons purposes only.")

Instead, I'll wager $50 that the AFA just provided mounds of Prime Masturbation Material for many of the Fundie men that read it.

Thank you, Dear Abby

For supporting gay marriage:

"I believe if two people want to commit to each other, God bless 'em ... That is the highest form of commitment, for heaven's sake ... If gay Americans are not allowed to get married and have all the benefits that American citizens are entitled to by the Bill of Rights, they should get one hell of a tax break. That is my opinion."

and

""If they are my readers, they know how I feel on the subject," she said. "I don't think I'm a flaming radical. I'm for civility in life. I'm for treating each other with respect, trying to do the best you can."

Right on, Sister.

Culturologist: Our Second Public Health "Ally"

Apparently, the Opine Idiots aren't homobigots. They are merely interested in preserving the health of our nation's gay men who practice anal sex.

Well, why didn't they just say so?

Note Culturologist's latest attempt to rationalize his anti-gay stance:

"There is a LARGE literature in the medical health field demonstrating the specific health hazards homosexual men run by their behaviors. If you don't know it, you would do well to start reading some of it. I would happily send you pdfs of articles documenting higher anal cancer rates in homosexual men and higher rates of other anorectal disease as well as general anorectal dysfunction. And what about the well-known Cophenhagen study that showed clear and significant differences regarding rates at which the homo- and heterosexual populations they looked at showed evidence of various health problems? To quote it: ”The total burden of infections expressed as the actual number of infections was largest among homosexuals, 40.4%, 22.4%, and 5.3% having one, two, and three infections respectively.”As I said, I have a good deal of stuff in pdf form, should you actually be interested in looking at it. It's a grave mistake to imagine that simply waving your credential and your opinion is enough to settle the question of what the medical literature does or does not show. I've certainly never claimed that the sociological argument is settled simply by me noting that I'm a sociologist and I happen to think X. The material still has to be INVESTIGATED."

Culturologist, ever the classic authoritarian, will go to nearly any length to prove that he is the moral authority for every human being in this country (because in his eyes, he is the "do-gooder" of all humankind). Thus, no interpretation of statistics other than HIS interpretation will ever be enough. Because, as the all-knowing purveyor of good and evil in society, he will flick like a fly from his squinty eyes anyone who tries to counter his arrogant, narrow-minded claims. He really does think that he is making society a better place. His offer to send me PDF files of certain studies only further document his authoritarian stance: that no evidence is evidence unless it is interpreted the way he interprets it. That he already, without any evidence at all, assumes I haven't already read any scholarly works on the subjects in question is evidence enough.

He disregards the APA, the AMA, the American Academy of Pediatrics, et. al. as falling victim to some kind of "homosexualist propaganda" that advocates for the rights and equal treatment of gay people. He ignores studies in nearly every discipline that point opposite his bigoted belief-system. Unless it supports his view that homosexuals are dangerous to children and/or unhealthy, he disregards it.

This is my take on "The Culturologist:" he is a Right-Wing Authoritarian(RWA) thinly-veiled in the sheep's clothing of a "liberal(?)" college professor...well, some of his comments have indicated he sees himself this way. I guess he's just not liberal in regards to the "morally wrong."

Do any of these traits look familiar in regards to his comments and blogs? I've bolded the most common characteristics of his internet comments thus far(taken from "The Authoritarian Specter"):

1: Faulty reasoning — RWAs are more likely to:

Make many incorrect inferences from evidence.
Hold contradictory ideas that result from a cognitive attribute known as compartmentalized thinking.
Uncritically accept that many problems are ‘our most serious problem.’
Uncritically accept insufficient evidence that supports their beliefs.
Uncritically trust people who tell them what they want to hear.
Use many double standards in their thinking and judgments.

2: Hostility Toward Outgroups — RWAs are more likely to:

Weaken constitutional guarantees of liberty such as the Bill of Rights.
Severely punish ‘common’ criminals in a role-playing situation.
Admit they obtain personal pleasure from punishing such people.
Be prejudiced against racial, ethnic, nationalistic, and linguistic minorities.
Be hostile toward homosexuals.
Volunteer to help the government persecute almost anyone.
Be mean-spirited toward those who have made mistakes and suffered. (several times I have seen Fannie and myself attempt to make-nice with the Opine Idiots, and "The Culturologist" never accepts)

3: Profound Character Attributes — RWAs are more likely to:
Be dogmatic.
Be zealots.
Be hypocrites.
Be absolutists
Be bullies when they have power over others.
Help cause and inflame intergroup conflict.
Seek dominance over others by being competitive and destructive in situations requiring cooperation.
*I can't speak for his character attributes since I don't know him in person.

4: Blindness To One’s Own Failings And To The Failings Of Authority Figures Whom They Respect— RWAs are more likely to:
Believe they have no personal failings. (It's apparent from his blogs that he sees himself as a "Really Good Dad." And people who don't fit that mold are evil destroyers of society).
learning about their personal failings.
Be highly self-righteous.
Use religion to erase guilt over their acts and to maintain their self-righteousness.

I would LOVE to see his results on this test: http://www.anesi.com/fscale.htm.

Among the different variables tested are these:

Conventionalism: Rigid adherence to conventional, middle-class values.

Authoritarian Submission: Submissive, uncritical attitude toward idealized moral authorities of the ingroup.

Authoritarian Aggression: Tendency to be on the lookout for, and to condemn, reject, and punish people who violate conventional values.

Anti-intraception: Opposition to the subjective, the imaginative, the tender-minded.

Superstition and Stereotypy: The belief in mystical determinants of the individual's fate; the disposition to think in rigid categories.

Power and "Toughness": Preoccupation with the dominance-submission, strong-weak, leader-follower dimension; identification with power figures; overemphasis upon the conventionalized attributes of the ego; exaggerated assertion of strength and toughness.

Destructiveness and Cynicism: Generalized hostility, vilification of the human.

Projectivity: The disposition to believe that wild and dangerous things go on in the world; the projection outwards of unconscious emotional impulses.

Sex: Exaggerated concern with sexual "goings-on."

So you tell me? Is Culturologist an Authoritarian?

*Oh yeah, and his interpretation of the stats and literature on anal sex basically amounts to this: "anal sex is riskier than vaginal sex."

That isn't exactly new knowledge. Nor is it a basis for denying gay couples the right to get married.

When men like Culturologist and Jose Solano get so wrapped up in their own disgust and anal sex obsessions and telling the world how dangerous it is, it further proves that this is their MAIN and only real motivation in denying gay couples the freedoms they have with their partners. THAT. THEY. ARE. OBSESSED. WITH. ANAL. SEX. I feel that people will go to extreme lengths to defend that which goes against their initial knee-jerk reactions.

If this is his basis for denying gay couples the right to get married, then one can only conclude that lesbian couples are, in fact, the ideal type of couple. As their rates of STDs, HIV infection, and intercourse-related cancers are the lowest.

But I would never advocate for that because it isn't fair to those couples who wish to get married who aren't lesbians like me.

See how easy that is?

Giving rights to other groups or people doesn't have to mean that you are giving up your own rights.

I wonder what they are really so scared of.

Jose Solano: Our New Public Health Authority

Posted by another Opine Idiot, Jose Solano: One of the many homophobic (but probably really gay) heterosexuals obsessed with gay sex.

It's amazing to me the misconceptions among this crowd of supposedly educated people.

By "amazing," I mean "sad and pathetic."

Here it is everybody, a comment warning us all of the dangers of anal sex by the amazing Jose Salano...a "peaceful" man, who simply cares about the public health of our nation's homosexuals.

This is a man, who as far as I know, has no medical background whatsoever, yet has somehow managed to sift through the epidemiology, biostatistics, and medical knowledge that surrounds STDs, gay men, HIV, and anal sex to provide new recommendations for all our nation's youth and adults!!!

I'm very impressed. I guess he at least he doesn't use dead people analogies the way Culturologist does.

Here goes: *My comments are in italics*

"Peace Jane Know. You are not under attack. Cease fire. (0h, I'm not? Phew. For a minute there I thought you were calling homosexuals vile, unnatural, immoral, and perverse. I guess you just define those words differently than me.)

I am talking only about specific unhealthy sexual behaviors. You may not be aware of the numerous health problems associated with anal intercourse. (Actually, yes. I am. But I'm sure you are about to enlighten us all, anyway)

The anus is not at all like the vagina. The membranes of the anus tear much more easily than those of the vagina. These tears allow fecal matter to enter the blood stream causing a host of diseases. (Maybe so. But this isn't really your war to fight, Jose. As long as the sex is consensual, we don't need your moral guidance to tell us what is right or wrong.)

Non-promiscuous homosexual men are at a lower risk of contracting AIDS but the problem of membrane tears remains the same and the use of condoms does nothing to prevent this.
(Yes, because it is possible to transmit HIV from one non-infected person to another solely by anal sex. Well, according to homobigots like you. Since when did you care so much about gay people and their rectal tears, anyway?)

The environment of the vagina is far cleaner than the rectum with its enormously toxic fecal matter. Homosexual men are disproportionately vulnerable to diseases such as hepatitis B and a variety of rare conditions such as shigellosis and Giardia lamblia infection which are collectively referred to as the “Gay Bowel Syndrome. (Ohhhhh, is that what it's called? Because people in the medical world stopped using "Gay Bowel Syndrome" in 1985. But I don't expect you to know this as you are not a member of the medical profession)

Among the numerous diseases which are caused by anal sex are amebiasis, campylobateriosis, Chlamydia trachomatis, Treponema palidium, etc. The list of these diseases contracted through anal intercourse is huge and includes rectal cancer. (None of these are spread only through anal sex. Chlamydia and syphilis (the disease caused by Treponema palidium) are spread through any sexual contact, anal, vaginal, oral, etc. That means gay and straight people get them. Did you cut and paste your little arguments from a Christian homobigot website that seriously skews the facts? Because I'm sure you would never intentionally try to mislead anyone. Further, HPV can cause rectal cancer. The same way it causes cervical cancer in women. Surely you wouldn't argue for women to stop the dangerous practice of having vaginal intercourse.)

When you consider how homosexuals enjoy traumatizing the rectum with such rather common practices as “fisting” you can see why one can justifiably refer to their varieties of anal intercourse as perverse and vile. These activities are part and parcel of their form of “love making.” We cannot encourage such practices and we must warn children and everyone, at the appropriate age and with parental consent where necessary, against such practices.
(When I see a handbook given out to second-graders on the proper methods of fisting, I will take you seriously)

They are dangerous and deadly. So please try to understand where I am coming from. I am seriously concerned with the well-being of those people engaged in these practices and will use strong language to try and dissuade them from doing these things. We must sound the alarm because the media is not doing it and even “medical professionals” such as yourself are obviously not aware of the facts.
(Yes, tell that to the thousands of people who are grateful for my unbiased, unopinionated care before you jump to conclusions about my knowledge-base. Or, better yet, ask my boss. Fuckwad. You say I'm not under attack, but then you put "medical professionals" in quotes as if I am not really one. I see the facts every day, and I am trained by experts in the field. I read scholarly journals exactly on these issues you claim to be an expert on. I am bound by an oath to cause no harm to patients. And that means letting them live their lives the way they see fit. Because they are adults practicing consensual sex that is harming no one else. If I were to judge gay men the way fuckwads like you do, I would only be hurting them more.

This is one of the reasons I see the relationship of homosexual men as significantly more dangerous than that of lesbians. I’m not insulting anyone and my words must not be taken personally. I’m simply warnings people of the real dangers. As a medical professional you also have a responsibility to research the facts about these behaviors and warn the public. This should not be concealed by political opportunism but revealed as a public health hazard. Think about it. I wish you well.

(You are seriously delusional if you think any of what you said is peaceful or loving. I suggest a mental health counselor or therapist to work out some unresolved issues. Further there's a reason we don't let people just walk off the street and start practicing medicine or nursing. There are reasons we don't allow uneducated, unresearched, untrained people start making guidelines for the rest of us to follow. Jose Solano is one of those reasons.)

New Internet F***wad Alert

I have been having some "interesting" discussions yet again with the Opine Idiots. And each time I believe I have made a breakthrough with one of the contributors over there, this power-trip loser Op-Ed deletes my comments, accusing me of profanity and personal attacks. I think his wittle feelings are hurt that I won't engage him in his idiot comments: (here's an example, mine are in bold that he selectively cut and pasted, per his usual routine of selective editing)

"Jane: Marriages are no longer seen as *only* a baby-making institution'

Op-Ed: No, but marriages are still seen as the *only* (endorsed) baby-making institution.

From the mid-20th century on, husbands and wives were more than just the above... they were lovers, friends, and companions

Op-Ed: That romance is only a recent discovery of the last century or so is a standard anti-marriage talking point. This falsehood is exposed with just two words: "Romeo" and "Juliet." Do you want to see how far back the notion of romantic marriage really goes?

I also don't think that we should be in the business of telling people to abide by our own moral standards.

Op-Ed: We tell people to abide by our moral standards all the time. Murder, for instance. Basically, any practice contrary to the existence of an orderly society is regularly denounced and discouraged.

others shouldn't (in my opinion) be able to tell women that they can't freely have sex with whatever man they want to now that birth control is an option.

Op-Ed: Then you object to marriage entirely. Marriage precisely says women (and men) "can't freely have sex with whatever man (or woman) they want to."But at least you have gotten around to answering half of the question I asked you earlier in this conversation:"Are you saying that society is not concerned with responsible procreation, or that it should not be. If it is, then through what institution does it pursue that interest? If it should not, then what should the purpose of marriage be?"From your statement, above, I take it your answer is that society should not be concerned with responsible procreation, presumably because birth control and abortion have solved the problem of illegitimacy over the last 30 some years.Now answer the second part of that question: What should be the new purpose of marriage? If it's simply an outdated and unnecessary institution, you should argue to eliminate it, not make it more "inclusive."

*I will now answer his questions on my terms to avoid being unfairly portrayed as one who can only argue by resorting to personal attacks every time I reach a new level of understanding with someone.

(a.) because marriages are (in Op-Ed's eyes) seen as the only baby-making institutions (arguable, because this leaves out single parents who are also protected by certain laws) does not mean we must then exclude other types of relationships from being deemed "marriages." Like sterile couples, post-menopausal women, people who intend to never have children, etc. It's very simple logically, surely Op-Ed can understand this. Ugh. Anyone else sick of beating this dead old horse? I sure am.

(b.) I never claimed that romance was new. If that is what you surmise from what I said, then you are either trying to mischaracterize my argument, or you need a rudimentary lesson in critical reading. I do think it's the former. For it's much easier to counter a fake argument that you, not your opposition, makes up.

I said the concept of marrying solely for romance is relatively new in Western Society (and still doesn't happen much in other societies). Romance has probably existed for centuries upon centuries. Leave it to religion, authoritarianism, wealth, hierarchy, and greed that got in the way of "true love." My point, which you have thus far completely ignored, is that people in the U.S. now usually marry for romantic love. And since gays and lesbians share romantic love with their partners they should be able to have the legal rights of marriage, as well. As Billie Jean said, "Fair's fair." (random shout-out to Helen Slater, btw)


(c)As far as not being in the practice of holding others to our moral standards, I think there are some inherent moral standards that are absolute (murder is wrong) and those that are relative. I have already said that I most closely relate to libertarianism, where others are free to act as they will so long as they aren't causing harm to another. I feel that you most closely resemble an authoritarian, in that you (dangerously) try to tell everyone to abide by your own set of moral standards: heterosexual families are the only acceptable family. To quote my girlfriend's social work book, that she generously lent me, "Such a person highly values conventional behavior and feels threatened by unconvential behavior of others. In order to reduce this threat, such a person labels unconventional people as being immature, inferior, or degenerate, and therefore avoids any need to question his or her own beliefs and values. The authoritarian personality views members of minority groups as being unconventional, degrades them, and tends to express authoritarianism through prejudice and discrimination" (from "Understanding Human Behavior and the Social Environment," Zastrow, 2007). Op-Ed, I urge you to examine your own beliefs and see how fair you think you have been to gays and lesbians.

See how it's not fun to be told what to do? But remember in the words of your friend Jose, I do love you. I just hate your sin.

(d) as for the rest, you have grossly taken my statement out of context. You never fail to surprise me with what you claim I say. I was replying to Renee's post where she implied that birth control and abortion have led women to allow themselves to be further demoralized by men. And I was replying to her specific question. I do NOT believe that anyone can tell a woman, or a man, who they can or can't sleep with. So long as they aren't harming anyone. Within the context of a marriage, then someone would be harmed, wouldn't they? Got it?
So no. I don't object to marriage at all. Otherwise why would I think gays and lesbians should be able to get married?

That would be silly.

See how logical I can be when you aren't censoring me and selectively (mis)quoting me? It all makes sense when you put it together.

Op-Ed, it's sad how hateful you are. And how inferior you must feel deep down to go about your stupid power-trip. I like to think that most people are inherently good...but sometimes I start to wonder.

UPDATE:

as if on cue, enter the epitome of authoritarian, Culturrrrrrologist, everybody!!! The expert we "should sit and take notes on" per his other Opine Idiots.

the man who says things like:

"Jane Know: Gay couples are very similar to straight couples in nearly every aspect."

Culturologist: Dead people are very similar to living people in nearly every aspect too. But there's one really important way in which they differ.I'll hasten to add that I'm not comparing homosexuals to dead people. The logical weakness of the construction is what I'm getting at, not any parallel there."

and

"As for medical evidence, there's a good deal of that showing that homosexual men suffer risks for STDs and other health hazards well above and beyond those that non-heterosexual men face. This topic has been discussed here before. People who engage in anal intercourse open themselves to all sorts of additional health hazards--this has something to do with the actual primary function of the anus, which doesn't involve shoving objects up it over and over again.Those mundane facts of the human body don't go away just because some people decide they want to express their romantic attractions to others by doing such things."

and

"There's also a good deal of evidence challenging the image you are trying to construct of the 'monogamous homosexual man.' All the data suggest that the average homosexual man has at least several times as many sexual partners as the average heterosexual man. Even people like Jonathan Rauch realize they can't deny this fact--although they work themselves into a sweat trying to shrink the margin as much as they can. It seems pretty clear that this subculture has a strongly entrenched element of promiscuity and there's little reason to believe that allowing them to 'marry' will change that."

This guy is ridiculous. His blog "Being a Father," is loaded with pictures of his (adorable) daughter, yet nearly every article he writes in it is anti-gay and not really about "being a father" at all. It's as if he thinks that because he is a good father, his homobigot speech is somehow more valid. Talk about using children as commodities...

I bet his University is proud to have such a nice, open-minded fellow. Surely, he has the conviction to stand behind his strong personal beliefs.

Seven Straight Nights for Equal Rights

According to an article in the Bangor Daily News, two equal rights groups started an event called "Seven Straight Nights for Equal Rights" in order to show others that straight people can be and are supportive of equal rights for gays and lesbians. It's a weeklong rally for straight people to show their support for gays and lesbians.

I think it's important to note that some of the event's main organizers and attendees are the children of gays and lesbians. So many anti-gay or anti-gay parenting people believe they are "preserving families and children" in their missions, yet I think most children of gays wouldn't trade their parents for anything. They don't want to be saved because they recognize that a person's parenting ability has nothing to do with his or her orientiation or gender identity.

Or, in the words of Becca Hanks, one of the children of a lesbian, ""I want to get across the idea that having a gay mother isn’t any different than having a regular family," Becca Hanks said Wednesday. "Everyone seems to think that’s a big deal, but it’s not. I have a stepparent at both houses. They’re just stepmoms."

Further, the article states that while she has encountered little opposition to her lesbian mother, those who initially were opposed ended up changing their minds once they met her family.

While I can recognize that not everyone who is anti-gay marriage opposes it on the grounds of finding homosexuality immoral, I think that the vast majority of people do. And even if they don't oppose it on those grounds, I challenge any of them to become my friend. Or to become friends with another gay or lesbian person, and then look them in the eyes and tell them they shouldn't be allowed to get married.

Because, when it comes down to it, sexual orientation is one small part of multi-faceted people that has little to do with their innate morality, intelligence, parenting ability, or fashion sense.

I think it's time that all heterosexuals suck it up, get rid of their egos, and start to recognize the realities of gay relationships the way these kids have.

A Pro-Active Approach for "Marriage Defenders"

Fannie presents a deliciously hilarious approach for the anti gay-marriage folks here: http://fanniesroom.blogspot.com/2007/10/pro-active-advice-for-marriage.html.