Category Archives: homophobia
When it comes to getting people to accept you in general society, there is a little give and take. You aren’t going to get everyone in the world to accept you, someone is always going to have some problem with you, as the Pink song says:
Done looking for the critics, cause they’re everywhere
They don’t like my jeans, they don’t get my hair*
You really just have to learn to love yourself and stop worrying what other people think so much, but the gay left is so hyper sensitive that everything is a direct attack on them and every one and every thing that goes against them makes them so angry that they have to attack attack attack constantly.
Frankly I pity them.
The specific reason for this post is to remind the gay left that suing people and getting them sent to jail because they wouldn’t bake you a cake, is sort of the epitome of childishness and isn’t do you any favors when it comes to gaining acceptance with others.
In this post-Sequester world the Obama administration is doing its utmost to cut back on useless and wasteful spending. They are only spending money on the most necessary of projects, like 2.7 million dollars on the gravely serious issue of lesbians and their “hazardous drinking habits”.
Oh, you don’t think that is a necessary research project for the government to be funding? Well you, my dear reader, are clearly a horrid homophobe. Weren’t you aware that the government only exists to do irrelevant studies about the mental and physical well-being of the LGBTQUERTY community?
Seriously though, this isn’t the first time (nor will it probably be the last) that the NIH announced a dumb as hell study with ties to the health and well-being of the gay and lesbian community. For a group that composes less than 10% of the population (if that) the government spends an awful lot of money coddling them.*
Like the $1.5 million that the NIH just spent on trying to figure out why so many lesbians are obese. Yes, of course that’s an issue of national importance, why wouldn’t it be?
Or in 2011 when the NIH had a study, funded with nearly a million dollars, on whether gay men’s penis size indicated whether they would be a “top” or “bottom” in gay sex.
Can someone please explain why the National Institutes of Health feels this is a reasonable allocation of resources? Especially during a time when our country is apparently so strapped for cash that it can’t even allow school children in to the White House for tours and they threatened to shut down the yearly Easter Egg hunt?
Could it be that the government is only shutting down programs that will cause national outrage, because they want to make sequestration look as bad as their Chicken Little impersonations said it would be earlier this year?
Yeah, I figured that was what this was about.
You know Obama, if you are actually all that worried about my “hazardous drinking habits” and the effect they will have on my health, you could do me a huge favor and resign. The amount I drink is directly proportionate to the amount of time you spend in office and the number of stupid things you do.
Can I have that $2.7 million now? I’m sure I will spend it better than you will.
You know what I want a study on? I’d like to know why so many lesbians get Justin Bieber haircuts, that seems worthwhile to me. Can I get a couple million dollars to study that Mr. President? Inquiring minds (meaning mine) want to know.
*I’m saying “them” because I refuse to be associated with these morons just because we all happen to be attracted to the same gender.
A thought experiment (via Conservative New Ager) and a few follow up thoughts on my letter to the editor.
Before we begin this thought experiment, a disclaimer. If you burn anyone’s holy book intentionally you’re an asshole (burning a trash heap and they just happen to be in there, that’s not intentional). That is a given. No need to really discuss it because the assholishness of the act is self-evident. It shouldn’t be a crime, but if you do it just to be obnoxious, there is something wrong with you.Now for our thought experiment.
If I burned a copy of the Tao Te Ching, how many Taoist do you think would riot?
If I shredded….(continued at link)
via A thought experiment.
As one of the intelligent responses (probably the only one) said: Your reactions were all very dramatic and, ultimately, only proved that Ms. Walker’s assessment was, at least in part, right. The reaction to her criticism was completely disproportionate to the criticism itself.
So from me, to the State Press and all those who responded to my letter, I extend a heart felt thanks.
You proved my point completely. Learn to take criticism where criticism is due. This religion is not based around peaceful ideology (which was my point, my point was not ‘all muslims are crazed terrorists’ as you seem to be thinking, can you read?), this religion is not respectful of women, homosexuals, or Jews.
Quite simply, you are lying through your teeth…or still deluding yourself.
(This is the first, in what may be 2 or 3 posts on this issue. This is a general response, next I will respond to the rest of his speech, and perhaps another post to deal with some of the responses that liberals have had to the completely justified outrage that conservatives are feeling about this.)
I spent most of the day, yesterday, trying to figure out how to start this post.
I’m usually quite witty (if I do say so myself), but I’m honestly just very angry about this. Wit has deserted me in favor of mental equivalent of “HULK SMASH!”
Now let me preface this with something that I don’t talk about often.
I am not a Christian. Let’s get that out of the way so that I won’t be categorized as a “religious bigot”, “butthurt Christian”, “conservative fundie”, or any of the other terribly tolerant language that the liberal blogs have been categorizing anyone who takes issue with Savage’s language as.
Yes, that’s right, I’m personally pro-life and extremely conservative in most other ways…but I don’t believe that Jesus Christ rode into Jerusalem on a donkey, ate the last supper with the 12 apostles, or died on a cross and rose again 3 days later.
I do believe that the Bible has some good stories and some good lessons to teach, just as I believe about many religions. I believe that it shows a unique look at a society (or a religious history, for the Jewish people, if you are looking at the Old Testament) and it must be read in the context of its time, as a form of history. (Something even my mother who, unlike my father, can be a bit of a Biblical literalist, freely admitted in a conversation with me last night).
The Bible, similar to most other philosophies and religions, has some bad parts as well. The large portion of the Old Testament is history and some truly awful shit has gone down in every society/religion at some point.
Now, having said that.
What Dan Savage said in his rant (yes, that’s what I categorize it as. Lot’s of anger, no real substance) just made him a bully and destroyed his credibility as a promoter of “anti-bullying” views.
Yes, calling a holy book, or part of it’s contents, “bullshit” is sometimes accurate (I often say similar words about things that about the Q’ran) however, saying the things he said in a pre-planned speech, to a group of high school students, was bullying. This wasn’t said in the heat of the moment, when he was angry at someone coming after him personally, this was pre-meditated and there is no way he did not know that many students and teachers in that crowd would be Christians. That would be a statistical improbability.
Then, of course, he took it a step further and called those who did the mature and walked out (rather than I would have done, even as a non-Christian, which would have been stand up and take him to task…or possibly pop him in the mouth…depending on my mood) “pansy assed”. Which, unless I’m wrong, is a pejorative used to refer to effeminate gay men.
Oh the irony inherent in a man who hates the bullying of gay people, using a gay slur to insult others.
Maybe he should have just called them faggots and gotten it over with.
I have an intense problem with hypocrisy. It is the one thing that will automatically make me lose all respect for you.
I may not like the views of certain groups (PETA, liberals in general, the Taliban, etc) but if you can remain consistent in your views and actions, I can at least respect that you know your own mind…even if I can’t stand the way your mind works.
It is the hypocrisy of Dan Savage’s views that kills me.
You cannot truly know yourself or your beliefs if you believe that bullying of one group is wrong, but bullying of some other group is fine…because you don’t like them.
You can’t be believed or respected if you say “It Gets Better” from one side of your mouth, while the other side says that you wish an entire political group was “just fucking dead”.*
You can’t demand respect for gay people, while using gay slurs to categorize those that you don”t like.
You can’t demand change and respect from people, when your actions against those who disagree with you is to make up vile uses for their name.
Not only has he shown his hypocrisy, but Savage has once again shown his sheer lack of intelligence (Yes, I think you are unintelligent if you can’t hold consistent beliefs, it isn’t hard to do) and his immaturity.
Is this really the person the gay community wants to represent the great future that is in store for young GLBT people?
How can life “get better” if the role model for a better life is so filled with anger, so bitter and hurtful to others?
You can’t fight fire with fire Mr. Savage. Perhaps it was your intent to live up to your name, but you are doing a great disservice to those you claim to be trying to help.
As Perez Hilton said** “Can’t we just be good and kind to each other? Isn’t faith in love and honesty and kindness all any of us really need?”
That is what will get our world where it needs to be, not divisive language and anger towards anyone who doesn’t fall in line with your ideal.
*As a gay conservative/Republican I would like to know what that means for me. Should I just die to make Savage happy? Or does life get better for me too, since I’m gay?
**Yes, I was shocked that he was one of the people to speak out about this.
It’s been a while since I worked on this series. Even longer for those of you reading this on my personal blog (The Snark Who Hunts Back) as opposed to the articles on Queerlandia. (Yes, they are posted in both places. It’s relevant to both blogs).
Here is the review of the original documentary that this information comes from, for the most part.
I’m writing about both Leviticus verses in one post today. Each verse on it’s own would be terribly short and both have some similar issues.
“‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.”
- Leviticus 18:22
“‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”
- Leviticus 20:13
Before we get to bogged down in analysis of this verse, I would like to mention that Leviticus 18 (in fact all of Leviticus) is a lot more complicated than a simple book of the Bible that tells a story like the Gospels, or Esther or Ruth (my two favorite books of the Bible, if you want to know). It is ritual and theological moral and legal code that was devised to govern the priest class (Levites) and the other tribes of Israel. The code was established by people interpreting theological ritual into rules for a society. I know of no serious Biblical scholar that refers to Leviticus as a book that was “inspired” by god.
Now that we have that out of the way.
Let’s talk about the actual meaning of these verses.
First we hear from Reverend Gregory Dell and Dr. Amy Jill Levine on the purpose behind these two particular verses.
The purity codes, the holiness codes from which Leviticus 18 is taken had a very specific design. And that design was to help distinguish themselves from the other cultures and faiths around them.
- Reverend Gregory Dell
The text is interested in categories and everyone and everything fits into an appropriate category. The categories do not mix.
- Dr. Amy Jill Levine
Then of course there is the constant issue that we find with Leviticus.
All we ever hear about from religious fundamentalists is “homosexuality is an abomination – Leviticus 18:22″.
What they seem to forget, is that Leviticus was a code of conduct for a people group over 2,000 years ago and they had a lot of funky ideas about proper behavior and what was an “abomination”.
[I]f one in the church must insist on using Leviticus then it seems only appropriate for those members of the Christian church to look at other laws in Leviticus.
To pick and choose which laws to follow and which laws not to follow, at the very least we need to determine why are we choosing this law and not that law.
- Dr. Amy Jill Levine
In chapter 18 of Leviticus alone there are at least 19 prohibitions against different types of sexual relations.
That’s not to mention the incredible amount of truly odd things that are mentioned in the book (as well as the rest of the Old Testament) as being “abominations” and “detestable” outside of sex.*
One of the prohibitions mentioned specifically in the documentary is Leviticus 18:19.
“‘Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.”
When this is mentioned, Pastor David Ickes had this to say.
Okay, but still, how does that support homosexuality? All that does is tell me that we should start preaching against people sleeping with their wives on their cycle. That doesn’t give you any justification whatsoever.
Okay, so here is where I earn the name of my personal blog, because hoo-boy does this comment deserve a lot of snark.
Where do I start? (this could almost be a blog of it’s own).
First thing. He says “people sleeping with their wives”. People? Shouldn’t that be “men sleeping with their wives.”? For someone that is all about heterosexual marriage, he’s being very PC in his language.
Secondly, the point wasnotthat the sheer number of silly prohibitions invalidated the one about homosexuality. (We’ll get to that later). The point was that you can’t run around preaching that homosexuality is an abomination and ignore all the other rules that you and your congregation are breaking without looking like a horribly hypocrite.
If there is one thing that I truly hate in this world, it’s a hypocrite. I don’t use the word ‘hate’ lightly.
Third. So why don’t you preach to men and tell them not to have sex with their wives during their period or the 7 days after it?
Try it. You’ll be laughed off the pulpit. People are happy to listen to prohibitions on other people’s sex lives, but a pastor who starts telling people how and when to have sex with their spouse and you will be out of a parish really damn quick.
That’s the same reason why most churches, even the American Catholic church, barely even look askance at divorce anymore. Or remarriage after divorce. That second one, specifically, carries a penalty of death in the Bible.
Okay, now I’ll leave Ickes alone. He’s not all that bright it seems, but that isn’t the point of this post.
Here’s where the real issue of this verse becomes clear.
This verse isn’t, just like the rest of these verses, talking about homosexuality at all.
What Leviticus actually says is “A man shall not lie with a man, as a woman”. In other words ‘a man shall not treat another man, sexually, as if that other man were female.
- Dr. Amy Jill Levine
Greek homosexuality had the same concept. Men were not women, you could have sex with them, but you couldn’t treat them like a women. You could even have a relationship with another man (as women could with women, y’know…Sappho) but that man would not be another women. He was intrinsically going to be more than a women, based on that culture, and he would be more your equal.
Every woman in that time was the property of some man. A part of the way you claimed and made this property your own was the consummation of the marriage through intercourse. If you have sex with a virgin who isn’t properly betrothed to you, you have damaged another mane’s property. So all of thsi is really just property law and according to the understanding of this law code a man cannot own another man like that.
- Reverend Dr. Fred Neidner
Guess what…you can’t own anyone that way in this country in this day and age. So does that make heterosexual marriage invalid as well?
*List compiled at Canyonwalker Connections by Kathy.
So the Prop 8 Court decision came in a few weeks ago and along with the Birth Control Mandate helped push Rick Santorum up in the polls.
And the gay rights community rejoiced. Which I found odd, as usually, people don’t rejoice in their own downfall (ignoring the Obama inauguration and mythical behavior of Nero). Wait, ruling that a ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional is bad for gay rights?
Professor Charles Xavier: We have it in us to be the better man
Erik Lehnsherr: We already are. We are the next stage of human evolution, you said it yourself.
Oh I can already hear your grumblings. “Great, she’s doing another X-men/Gay rights comparison. Isn’t she ever going to get tired of comparing these two things?”
Short answer: No.
However, this post isn’t about gay rights so much as it is about how the gay community in general (the gay liberal community specifically) is missing their chance to be the better men in this scenario.
Erik Lensherr was wrong, being a mutant didn’t make him any better than non-mutants. Just as we, the gay community, are not better, more tolerant, or more deserving of respect, simply by virtue of being gay. Put away that victim card, stop playing it. If someone criticizes your belief, your behavior, your politics, or your attitude, the response of “but I’m gay!” or “You’re only saying this because your self-loathing/homophobic” is irrelevant and smacks of asking for special privileges to act however you want because you were bullied as a child, maybe your parents tried to “pray away the gay”, or you aren’t able to marry who you want.
Let me tell you right now, I don’t really fucking care about your sob story. Everyone, and I mean everyone, has one. It’s not an excuse to treat others like shit.
In fact it should be the reason that you treat others better than you were treated. I know the glbt and liberal community have (in general) no great love for the Bible or Christianity, but maybe a refresher course on The Golden Rule is in order.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
It doesn’t say “Do into others as you think they will do unto you” or “Do unto others as others have done unto you”. And maybe you aren’t a Christian, that’s fine, neither am I, but at the very least this one verse is one that should be followed.
And when I say that we are losing the opportunity to be the better men, it is because the gay community insists on returning hate to those that disagree with them and, on occasion, hate them. I don’t deny that there are those out there who actively hate gay people, but having a difference of opinion doesn’t equal hate and it doesn’t deserve hate in return. In fact, true hate does not deserve hate in return. In light of tomorrow’s holiday, I will quote Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
“Love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into friend.”
Why do I choose today to say these things? Because in the last couple of days, a fellow gay conservative blogger, The Gay Republican (aka Ethan Sabo), has come under extreme and hateful fire from the left. I don’t always agree with all of his ideas, nor do I always support all the same things that he supports. We have a difference on opinion on several social topics such as abortion and even our ideas on gay marriage differ in some ways. His support of Santorum I do not understand, as Santorum is one of the least Conservative candidates on display currently. I’m also not a fan of Ron Paul, for several reasons.
However those differences in opinion are things that we occasionally discuss. We both have good, strong reasons for believing what we do and the odds of us changing each other’s opinions is slight at best. We do not insult each other, we rationally discuss our differences, and agree to disagree on those occasions that we differ in opinion.
Now I understand that there are rational gay liberals, I know a few personally, who would not stoop to the insults, vulgarity, and hatefulness that Ethan has received. However that doesn’t change what has happened to him, what happens to me in comments and emails as a result of this blog, or what happens to other gay conservatives who dare to stand up and make their beliefs known.
In Japan they have a saying, “the nail that sticks up gets hammered down.” It means that if you are part of a group and you insist on having different beliefs, political views, or attitudes than the rest of the group and you make them obvious, the rest of the group, the majority, will pound at you until you get back in line with the rest of the group…or just sit down and shut up.
Sorry, I insist on being the nail that sticks up and the squeaky wheel in the machine of the gay political movement. Someone has to be and I’m proud to be that person, along with Ethan Sabo, Mel Maguire, and all the other gay conservatives out there who daily stand up for their beliefs, no matter how unpopular they are and no matter how hurt they may feel by the hateful words that get thrown at them for those beliefs.
In closing, here are some of the videos that have sparked this backlash at The Gay Republican.
One of the amazing things I would like to comment on, is that gay conservatives can receive such levels of abuse from comments and then, when we defend ourselves like Ethan does in this next video. WE are accused of being the hateful ones.
And finally, a response to the hate, made by Mel Maguire from Gay Conservative.
If you are gay and conservative and you live in the Phoenix Metro Area (or Arizona in general, depending on how far you want to drive), then I and Lori Heine (a fellow gay conservative blogger from the area) are starting up a group to bring us all together.
I know that I, for one, can sometimes feel very alone as a gay conservative. I’m surrounded by people that don’t understand why I’m a conservative and it sometimes seems that I can’t hold a conversation with another gay person, without defending my views constantly. It makes a person feel isolated, even with people like Daniel Blatt at Gay Patriot (who has advertised our group on that blog as well) and groups like GOProud out there, making themselves visible.
Sometimes you just want to go grab a cup of coffee or spend an evening with people that understand you and that you can have a serious political discussion with and not want to scream.
So if you are from the area and are sick of being in the closet about being a conservative, then you need to comment here, shoot me a message on Twitter, email me at Sakasamanochou@gmail.com, or check out our facebook group and join us. We already have a few that are interested and we hope to find more in the future.
And if you are a gay conservative who is from some other area, there are more of us than you probably think and if you start looking you will find others around you and maybe you can start up a group of your own.
Foreign aid now comes with strings attached and that’s a good thing. So why is it wrong when domestic government aid comes with strings?
Britain and the United States have both decided that enough is enough. They aren’t going to be handing out anymore foreign aid to countries that ban homosexuality or do not adhere proper human rights in other cases. David Cameron, the Prime Minister of Great Britain says that aid should come with more strings attached.
“Britain is one of the premier aid givers in the world. We want to see countries that receive our aid adhering to proper human rights. We are saying that is one of the things that determines our aid policy, and there have been particularly bad examples where we have taken action.”
And in the United States
“I am deeply concerned by the violence and discrimination targeting LGBT persons around the world,” Obama said in a memorandum. “Whether it is passing laws that criminalize LGBT status, beating citizens simply for joining peaceful LGBT pride celebrations or killing men, women and children for their perceived sexual orientation.”
Obama said, “I am directing all agencies engaged abroad to ensure that U.S. diplomacy and foreign assistance promote and protect the human rights of LGBT persons.”
Much to my chagrin, I have to say that if Obama actually enforces this plan, I’ll have to applaud his actions. We can’t give money to countries that are doing things we disapprove of. It would be like continuously giving out free money to people who are only going to spend it on drugs and not on bettering themselves.
Of course I would be a little happier if Obama had decided that any violations of human rights would be enough to nix foreign aid for a country, similar to David Cameron’s plan. Making it only about issues discrimination and violence toward the GLBT community just seems a bit like he is ignoring all the other violation’s of human rights that happen all over the world that have nothing to do with homosexuality.
Liberals are, of course, very excited about this move on both country’s parts. Most of the Conservatives I know are also pleased and if they aren’t, they should just remember something that The Conservative New Ager said to me a couple of days ago. If America is only giving aid to countries that don’t discriminate against against homosexuals, then the countries we give aid too will shrink drastically (good for the deficit) in fact the number will probably shrink down to only 1…Israel.
Of course there is something ironic about Liberals being okay with, even excited about, financial aid coming with more strings attached. Remember that comment I made about giving money to someone so they could just spend it on drugs? Yeah, you may not have read this post I wrote in June, but give it a read really fast.
Liberals were in an uproar about how wrong it was to give people drug tests before they could qualify for welfare. Isn’t that basically the same thing as telling other countries to shape up or we won’t give them money? America and Britain don’t want to subsidize the violence and bigotry of other nations, I think we can all agree that is great. So why is it suddenly wrong when the tax payer’s of America don’t want to subsidize someone’s illegal drug habit?
Is marriage actually a right?
I started thinking about this the other day when I saw this picture on another blog.
I mean, don’t get me wrong. I understand that we want equality. That we don’t want certain people to be able to do things and ban other people from doing them. That’s discrimination.
However, where is marriage mentioned as a right in our constitution or bill of rights…or anywhere in our law in fact? Or is there some legal precedent that was set at some point that made marriage a de facto right of some sort?
I’m just a little confused.
I’m going to leave this up to my readers. Tell me why you think that marriage is (or is not) a right. I’m more than a little bit interested in your opinions on this topic.