You Don't Need to Justify Being Gay with Genetics

Gay Community: Stop letting yourselves get walked on like this! Stop letting the haters and Christians steer the debate. It's okay to be gay, and you don't need to appeal to your genes to justify it. Let me explain.

See, the whole debate about being gay has broken down into two camps in the United States. On the one side, you have the Christians who are complaining that homosexuality has broken one the laws of their god and of the Christian Bible. Beyond the idea that a god capable of the mass-murder (if you believe the Bible literally) of everyone in the world except for eight people has no moral authority to condemn anything, should the god in question be the one acting against the gay people if he's offended by it? I mean, if the Christian god is really so upset by people having homosexual sex, then let him start throwing lightning bolts at the gay people himself. He doesn't need a bunch of slack-jawed redneck yokels to do his job for him.

However, there is a problem on the other side as well. For some reason, the main argument from the gay community on the issue seems to be, "Look, we were born this way and we can't help being gay." While there is a growing body of scientific evidence to support this, I think this sells the gay position short. In my mind, who cares if gays were born that way or not?

People who practice any other kind of sex don't need to justify their actions. You can have a good religious couple who does all sorts of kinky crap in the bedroom (think 50 Shades of Grey), and they don't have to justify to anyone that their sexual proclivities come as a result of their genetics. I don't think I've ever heard someone who is into BDSM say, "Well, I only like it because I was born this way." They like it because ... well ... it gets them off. And, that's perfectly fine.

Similarly with gays, I know that there are people who are born that way, who are genuinely not attracted to the same sex. But, why can't there be other gay people who just enjoy that kind of sex? Personally, as a heterosexual male, I don't see the allure. However, I don't see the allure of 50 Shades either. I wouldn't want to get beaten during sex. But, hey, more power to the people who do like that.

So, gay people, next time you have the debate, say something like, "Sure, I was born this way ... but I also do it because I enjoy it. And, there's nothing wrong with that."

Related articles

• Pew: Democrats and Independents Support Gay Marriage (themoderatevoice.com)
• When People Care More About a Chicken Sandwich Than Your Rights (patheos.com)
• Is the gay community declaring war against Christianity? (themadjewess.com)
• America is in danger because gay people on TV are too nice (dailykos.com)
• Man with Bible threatens to rape woman during 'Gay Day' in Michigan (rawstory.com)

Traditional Marriage -- Explained by the Bible

Have you ever wondered what traditional marriage is? Well, let's just ask the Bible.

I am not sure which of those is the worst. My first thought would be for the rapist and his victim, although the male soldier + prisoner of war one is pretty gruesome too.

Which "traditional marriage" from the Bible do you think is most horrific?

Related articles

• Sexy Girls with Blue Hair

  ---

• Personal Trainer: What I Really Do

  ---

• Pictures of Trayvon Martin as a Teenager

  ---

• Rihanna and Her ... Deep Lyrics?!

  ---

• For gay marriage opponents, moments shape minds (newsok.com)
• Obama in support of gay marriage - The Seattle Times (seattletimes.nwsource.com)

Bert and Ernie Gay? Jimmy Kimmel Says No.

One of the long standing question in the universe, along with a debate over the meaning of life and the existence of the Higgs Boson, is the question of whether Bert and Ernie, famed Sesame Street characters, are gay. Some people say yes and say the characters should marry. Jimmy Kimmel thinks otherwise.

Related articles

• Bert & Ernie will not wed (elkrapidslive.com)
• I now pronounce you, Bert, and you, Ernie - nope, not going to happen (theglobeandmail.com)
• Bert and Ernie are NOT gay, say Sesame Street bosses (mirror.co.uk)
• Sesame Street Asserts Bert And Ernie Are Not Gay (alan.com)
• Should Bert & Ernie Marry? (since1910.com)

Oscar Worthy Movie

Image via Wikipedia

After watching The Boy in Striped Pajamas, I've decided to make my own “Oscar Worthy” movie. I only need the following five things.

1. Actors with a British accent
2. Evil Nazis doing evil things
3. A boy coming of age
4. A father betraying a son's trust
5. Dramatic music

If all of those things don't work, I might throw in a random hooker-with-a-heart-of-gold, some drug use, the first sexual experience of a small town girl, and random violence that is really a commentary on privileged, white society. 

Any movie with at least one homosexual character is also a plus (preferably lesbians though since not as many people will pay to see two guys kissing). 

Also, anything that makes fun of religion or religious people is also gold. I am not religious, but I also call hypocrisy on this when it comes to Hollywood. Hollywood has no problem making money off religious people, just with giving them a positive portrayal in movies.

Lets make a movie :)

Related articles

• What is the boy in the striped pajama about (wiki.answers.com)
• Death at the Multiplex: The Summer Movie Body Count begins now! (popwatch.ew.com)
• First Nazis, Now Confederates: Tarantino's Slave Movie (andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com)
• The help (whitelocust.wordpress.com)
• What is the theme of the boy in the striped pajamas (wiki.answers.com)

Osama and His Porn

Image by Paul Keller via Flickr

In case you missed the news from Reuters today, lots and lots of hard core porn has been found on hard drives (no pun intended) seized from the Pakistan compound of Osama Bin Laden. I have decided to take the mildly humorous one.

Here is the irony of the situation to me: this Bin Laden guy swears an oath to destroy western civilization, bring jihad down on the world, win his 72 virgins in heaven, or whatever cooky fundamentalists like him believe. Yet, he still gets his jollies not from reading the "sacred" Koran but by whacking off, probably to pictures of western girls.

Or, perhaps Western guys.

However, be that as it may, it is still indicative of the way that most of the fundamentalists of the world role. After all, it's usually the guy with the loudest voice condemning porn in public that has the biggest porn stash in private.

So, the question becomes: is this a propaganda piece against Osama so that he doesn't become a martyr?

Possibly.

But, any religion that would make a guy who has killed thousands of innocent people a hero is a disgrace to humanity anyway. So, if this little piece of propaganda stops even one Muslim man from blowing himself up in a shopping mall full of Jews, so much the better.

Related articles

• Huge Porn Stash Found in Osama Bin Laden's Compound (thehollywoodgossip.com)
• Porn Discovered in Bin Laden's Hideout (littlegreenfootballs.com)
• Osama bin Laden Had a Porn Stash (blippitt.com)
• Porn Stash Found In Bin Laden Compound (outsidethebeltway.com)
• Porn Stash Found At Bin Laden Compound (alan.com)
• Osama Bin Laden: Chicken or Egg? (pajamasmedia.com)

Hate Under The Cloak of Anti-Religion

After reading an article in the L.A. Times, I thought that I needed to post a response and turn the arguments of the author back against him. If you would like to read the original article, click here. If you don't want to read the full article, I'll summarize a bit as I write.

First, the article author, Tim Rutten, details an incident where The Southern Poverty Law Center has defined the Family Research Council, a group that promotes traditional marriage and opposes gay marriage, as a "hate group" -- basically lumping them in with groups like the KKK. The author then explains the outraged reaction of the FRC and their demand for an apology and dismisses them by saying that the FRC "goes well beyond the limits" that he considered acceptable for a group opposing gay marriage. Rutten goes further to criticize a particular publication that the FRC puts out and some of the statistics cited in the pamphlet (without offering statistics or studies that refute their position) and equates their opposition to . . . wait for it . . . segregation against blacks in the civil rights era. Rutten then finishes by whining about people teaching religion outside of the churches (as if belief stops at the church door) and basically says that if the religion dares to preach outside of church, they're subject to attack.

The first thing to note is how much gay rights activists love to use false analogy when they're criticizing their opponents, especially as it relates to blacks in the U.S. during the civil rights era. The oppression of blacks during that era was related to race -- an intrinsic human characteristic that a person can no more change than they can flap their arms and fly to Mars. The opposition to gay marriage relates to the personal choices of an individual AND the effects of those choices on society. Personally, I couldn't care less if someone wants to engage in homosexual sex in their own house -- none of my business. However, when they start to mess with the institution of marriage, something thousands of years old and ubiquitous throughout the world, I start to get a little upset. I like the institution of marriage (including mine), and I think that society would be dramatically worse off if it were to disappear, as I have explained in some previous posts.

Second, I find the undercurrent against religion in general. I think it's the "vogue" thing right now, especially among 20-somethings, to swear off religion and embrace the militant pseudo-religion known as New Atheism. One of the undercurrents to this article, and others like it, is an implied message from the author that the ideas of the opposition are bad not because of logical reason X or Y but because they're based on a belief in God that isn't weaker than a wet sheet of newspaper. Rutten and his ilk tolerate religion -- just not if they actually believe anything substantial or try to apply those beliefs to the world around them. If they do, they lose their "exemption" as he puts it in the article -- code for a call-to-arms for persecuting the religion in question, similar to what happened to the Mormons after the Proposition 8 vote in California. To me, this is a level of bigotry that matches even the most unfortunate extremes found in history.

Related articles

• FRC labeled a 'hate group' (washingtontimes.com)
• What Do You Call a Group That Hates Hate Groups? (blogcritics.org)

Funny or Die Sucks -- Update

I thought that I would post an updated example of another not funny video from "Funny or Die" -- the unfunny Youtube video series that features a whole cadre of Hollywood stars. This particular one features Adam West (of Batman and Family Guy fame).




First off, the scene where the guy get robbed and killed in his own house. I've posted videos of people getting hurt on my blog before, and I've even posted vids of insurgents getting wasted by U.S. troops. I have no problem with violence in general. However, in this particular case, it comes off as much creepier. There is just something disturbing, even to me, about seeing a guy get shot in his pajamas. Of course, a lot of the reason why they show this is because it's a white guy getting shot by another white guy, which makes it perfectly okay. If it were, say, a black man shooting/getting shot by a white guy, that would be racist.

Second, the solution shown in the video is dorky. I was really hoping for some sort of "Bazookanator" or instant death ray gun to help protect the home owner. I would have even settled for a vampire dog. But, the eye hole thing is a piece that gets way too much usage in comedy shorts. Back in the days of Looney Toons, maybe it was fresh. But, after 80 years of seeing it, not so much.

Finally, Adam West is best seen and not heard. He's cool in Family Guy because his voice is so weird. But, on screen, he looks like some sort of pedophile grandpa. I guess if someone was really drunk or stoned, it might appeal to them. But, I'm sober and not so much.

Maybe I'm just nit picking here. But, I don't find these videos funny. What do you think?

 

Related articles

• Adam West Sells Paintings With Eyes That Move (VIDEO) (tvsquad.com)
• Adam West and William Shatner drop in for fest (ctv.ca)
• Would You Wear These Batman & Robin Shoes Out in Public? (cinematical.com)

Gay Mormons, Elder Packer, and Three Myths about The Homosexual Lifestyle

Image via Wikipedia

Elder Boyd K. Packer, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints created quite a stir over the weekend with a talk that he gave in that church's General Conference that, among other things, suggested that engaging in a homosexual lifestyle is ultimately a choice. Predictably, this upset a lot of members of the queer movement, many of whom felt that such a statement was offensive. To me, after reading Packer's talk, I couldn't agree more. However, I'm sure that this statement will be controversial. So, I wanted to discuss some myths surrounding the homosexual lifestyle.


Myth 1: It is not a choice to live the homosexual lifestyle.


Reality: Beyond eating, sleeping, and breathing, most things that people do in life are choices. I see no real reason why living in the homosexual lifestyle is any different. All of us have to make choices in life. For example, I choose not to take illegal drugs, sky dive, or go to the opera. All of those aspects of my life are choices, and I could have easily chosen a path where I did things differently.

Myth 2: It is not a choice to whom one is attracted.

Reality: When I was young and single and had much less experience with sex and the opposite sex, I might have bought this one. However, as I have grown older, I realize that this argument doesn't hold water either. People literally choose every day to whom they're attracted (or not). For example, this is why some guys prefer blonds and others prefer brunettes (or girls with black hair in my case). It's also why most guys, but not all, don't look at porn with fat girls in it and why some guys choose to be celibate and some choose to cheat on their wives. If you're going to claim that attraction in some of these cases is genetically based, why not in the rest of them? What is so different about a guy being attracted to another guy and a guy being attracted to a girl who is 300+ lbs? When the gay rights activists can explain that one to my satisfaction, I'll believe the arguments about attraction being an inborn thing that people can't change.

Myth 3: Homosexuals can't find a satisfying relationship with someone of the opposite sex.

Reality: Anyone whom has ever been married should realize that sexuality is a small part of the overall picture in a marriage. Sometimes the sex is good, bad, frequent, infrequent, hot, not, heavy, nonexistent, or none of the above. If you're married to someone you love, it doesn't matter much anway. Even in situations where the sex is less than ideal, married couples have many other things to focus on in life.If sexual relations were the end all be all of married or couple life, people would break up once the sex stopped.

I think that, in consideration of my personal experiences in life, Packer hit the nail on the head for this one. Lets get a discussion going here -- what do you think? Bring on the hate!

Related articles

• LDS Church leaders re-affirm position on marriage and morality ()
• LDS General Conference ends with words of hope, warning ()
• LDS Church addresses changes made to Pres. Packer's talk ()

Blog Catalog -- Helping Mentally Disabled People to Be Jerks Since 1995

If you've every thought about registering for and trying to use the "Blog Catalog" (I'm not going to give them a link, jerks) website to promote your blog -- don't; they suck. They banned me recently for . . . ya know, I'm still not even sure. I put up a message in their forums, asking any of the users on Blog Catalog if they wanted to exchange links on their blog roll with me, and possibly followings with Google Followers and Twitter. Apparently, that was enough to get my website banned and my profile taken down. I'm just guessing here because they never emailed me at all to say exactly why they took down my profile; they just removed it.

The subtitle on their website says (or at least used to say) something about "helping disabled people find independence" (or some crap like that). From what I've seen, I think it should be changed to mentally disabled people -- not even the happy, innocent kind but the freaking jerks, like the girl with down syndrome from Family Guy.

If you look carefully at some of the people who work for Blog Catalog, you can probably see better what I'm talking about. I think that the main guy is "Tony B". Here is his profile pic:

I'm trying to decide, from looking at it, which type of mental disability the man has. Mental retardation seems like an obvious candidate, along with a possible fetish for small boys (IMHO, of course :)? It's really hard to say. He, and the other people who work there are definitely jerks. Just looking at him, he is an extremely ugly man and likely hasn't been with a woman in a very, very long time. Girls: would you sleep with him? Guys, would you sleep with him either (the gay ones)? I don't think that many people would, to be honest. The fact that he would even post this pic on a page viewed monthly by millions of people shows that he has some unresolved issues.

"Angie A." (short for arse hole?) seems to be another major player for the website. From looking at her picture, she seems to me to be someone that Family Guy would label as "a backup girl" -- a girl that you date if you can't find anyone better (think Meg). She looks old too. In any case, she too is a jerk, along with whoever else was involved in blocking my account from the website.


In summary, Blog Catalog has a bunch of freaking jerks who work there. Don't support them, and perhaps they'll go away. They suck.


Okay, after subjecting my readers to those pictures, here is some visual relief:


Cute kitten:

Note: I have nothing against Tony or Angie personally. I don't even know them. I just thought that it would be funny to trash them b/c they work for the devil (a.k.a. Blog Catalog).

Related articles by Zemanta

• 6 reviews of BlogCatalog (rateitall.com)
• BlogCatalog Forum in the Frying Pan (onecoolsitebloggingtips.com)
• 2 reviews of BlogCatalog (rateitall.com)
• What's Going On at BlogCatalog? (dannybrown.me)
• How to Get Massive Traffic to Your Blog Contests for Free (performancing.com)

Keith Olbermann -- Worst Person on Television

Ah, Keith Olbermann. I hesitate to call him a prick (it's part of a man) or a douchebag (it has a good chance of being close to a woman), but I have to call him . . . something.

In any case, Future Twits has been honored with an exclusive interview from this faggy momma's boy. Enjoy.

@Moderator: We here at Future Twits are very privileged to have Keith Olbermann with us today in the studio.

@PhatSnob: I hate Bill-O

@Moderator: Hold on there, Slick! Let me start out by asking you a question. One of the staples of your program every week is a segment called “The Worst Person in the World” where you name different people that have done things that you disapprove of during that week and then post their picture and a short description of why you think that they're such a bad person, correct?

@PhatSnob: I hate Rush Limbaugh.

@Moderator: That's nice. Now, my question to you is this: you don't literally mean that these people are the “worst people in the world”, do you? I mean, if I was going to make a list of the three worst people in the world, I'm pretty sure that no one that you've ever mentioned in any of your segments would be on there. Even though I don't agree with all of the politics of people like Glenn Beck, Lou Dobbs, George Bush, etc., I still think that they're probably okay people in real life; and they certainly don't count as among the world's worst three people – probably not even in the top 100.

@PhatSnob: I hate Bush-wacker.

@Moderator: Right. Got that already. So . . . my list of world's worst people would include dictators like Kim Jong Il, Robert Mugabe, and Omar Hassan al-Bashir – all of whom have let millions of their own citizens starve to death for political reasons. After them, I might throw some ordinary criminals onto the list, like serial killers or child molesters. I might even be tempted to throw on a few people like Bernard Madoff, who stole billions and ruined thousands of people's lives. But, even there, I would feel a little bit inhibited because I don't know these people like God does.

@PhatSnob: God! That's another of the worlds worst people . . . if he existed, that is.

@Moderator: Uh huh. Let me ask you something, KO. Do you have brain damage by any chance? You seem very prone to outburst, and it's one of the classical signs of head trauma.

@PhatSnob: *sob It's true! I was at a gay parade, and I got my head stepped on by a big burly from Vermont.

@Moderator: Wait, how did you get your head stepped on . . . actually, don't answer that. I don't think that I want to know.

@Moderator: KO, don't you think your rhetoric might be a bit over the top though? Except for the small contingent of hard core lesbians that watch your show every night, I doubt that the the rest of the small audience that you have really appreciates that level of exaggeration – which might be the reason MSNBC is losing ground so quickly to Fox and CNN.

@PhatSnob: I hate everyone who has children, or loves Jesus, or . . .

@Moderator: You know what? I'm just going to put you out of your misery right now, KO. Someone get the phenobarbital and vodka!

Apology To Tom Hanks

Source



When our site wrote an opinion about Tom Hanks, we did so harshly. To express an opinion of him as a "dork", "faggot", "nancy boy", "loud-mouthed jerk", "scum sucking trailor trash", and "God-hating sodomite" were harsh. Especially harsh were our questions about his sexuality, morality, sanity, and gender neutrality. Also harsh were questions regarding the frequency of bed wetting on his part and whether his uncle ever touched him as a child. Finally, questions about borrowing makeup from Meg Ryan in several of the movies that he filmed with her were also harsh. We recognize this harshness. Were we to write the piece again, we would use less harsh words, including "gay" instead of "fag" and "assertive, vocally-challenged human with passive-agressive tendencies" in the place of "loud-mouthed jerk". Tom Hanks, we thank you for your understanding.

Jerk.