Showing posts with label Natural Law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Natural Law. Show all posts

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Pope Makes Preemptive Attack on Marriage Equality before Trip to U.K.

     In a prelude to his trip to the United Kingdom, Pope Benedict has once again condemned equal civil marriage rights for same sex couples.  (For those of you in the U.K., there are some protests of the Pope being planned.  Join up here.)

     Benedict, speaking before paying a historic visit to the U.K. later this week, said the Roman Catholic Church “cannot approve of legal initiatives that imply a re-evaluation of the life of the couple and the family.”  The pope, in a reference to legalized marriage among homosexuals, said such laws “contribute to the weakening of the principles of natural law” and to “confusion about society’s values.”  He made his remarks today while receiving Germany’s new envoy to the Holy See at his summer residence in Castel Gandolfo south of Rome.
 Image from Mario Piperni

Sunday, May 30, 2010

A Nun, a Dying Young Mother, a Life-Saving Abortion, an Excommunication, Pedophile Priests, and an Op-Ed

     Here are a few snippets from the Times op-ed:
     We finally have a case where the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy is responding forcefully and speedily to allegations of wrongdoing.   But the target isn’t a pedophile priest. Rather, it’s a nun who helped save a woman’s life. Doctors describe her as saintly. The excommunication of Sister Margaret McBride in Phoenix underscores all that to me feels morally obtuse about the church hierarchy.
     “In this tragic case, the treatment necessary to save the mother’s life required the termination of an 11-week pregnancy,” the hospital said in a statement. “This decision was made after consultation with the patient, her family, her physicians, and in consultation with the Ethics Committee.”
     Sister Margaret was a member of that committee. She declined to discuss the episode with me, but the bishop of Phoenix, Thomas Olmsted, ruled that Sister Margaret was “automatically excommunicated” because she assented to an abortion.
     “The mother’s life cannot be preferred over the child’s,” the bishop’s communication office elaborated in a statement.
     Let us just note that the Roman Catholic hierarchy suspended priests who abused children and in some cases defrocked them but did not normally excommunicate them, so they remained able to take the sacrament.
     I heard about Sister Margaret from an acquaintance who is a doctor at the hospital. After what happened to Sister Margaret, he doesn’t dare be named, but he sent an e-mail to his friends lamenting the excommunication of “a saintly nun”: “True Christians, like Sister Margaret, understand that real life is full of difficult moral decisions and pray that they make the right decision in the context of Christ’s teachings. Only a group of detached, pampered men in gilded robes on a balcony high above the rest of us could deny these dilemmas.”
     The Roman Catholic hierarchy is entitled to its views. But the episode reinforces perceptions of church leaders as rigid, dogmatic, out of touch — and very suspicious of independent-minded American nuns.
     Sister Margaret made a difficult judgment in an emergency, saved a life and then was punished and humiliated by a lightning bolt from a bishop who spent 16 years living in Rome and who has devoted far less time to serving the downtrodden than Sister Margaret. Compare their two biographies, and Sister Margaret’s looks much more like Jesus’s than the bishop’s does.
     When a hierarchy of mostly aging men pounce on and excommunicate a revered nun who was merely trying to save a mother’s life, the church seems to me almost as out of touch as it was in the cruel and debauched days of the Borgias in the Renaissance.
     Once again, the absurd hypocrisy of Catholic teachings and bishops, who stress the letter over the spirit of the law, reveals that the Catholic Church is still operating under a medieval notion of science, politics, and morality, not a Christ-like system, but a system that led to widespread corruption and resulted in the Reformation.

     When the dwindling life of a terminal unborn fetus/child is placed above the life of a 27-year-old mother of four, the only winners are dogma and those who fear its collapse.  There is no grace.  There is no justice.  

     When children have to brought into the world at all costs, but then are subjected to rape by the church's priests and when victims of abuse speak out as adults and are threatened by the bishops and blindly faithful laity, what does that say about the "sanctity of life"?

     I don't believe in god, but from what I learned about Jesus of Nazareth, both the myth and the man, Sr. Margaret sacrificed herself to save the life of another and stood in the person of Jesus Christ in a more profound, real and true manner than Bishop Olmsted's promises of supposed celibacy and poverty ever have.

     And to think that many Catholics judge Christian Scientists as backwards for their beliefs to let their god's will/nature take its course in matters of illness and health.

     One issue lost in the reporting of this travesty is that anyone who participated in procuring the life-saving abortion was also excommunicated, including the mother and father of the now deceased fetus/child.  They are also cut off from the "graces" of Holy Mother Church, or one could say that they have been spiritually aborted by Mother Church.  I hope the parents are finding the support they need, as they mourn both the loss of their deceased child and their church community.

Saturday, April 17, 2010

Rush Limbaugh Knows the Mind of god Claiming Iceland Eruption Is Heavenly Condemnation of Healthcare Reform

     Methodist, Republican, Talk-show Host, and tea-bagger Rush Limbaugh's god hates the 43.8 million American people who go without healthcare insurance so much, that in order to punish the world for the passage of President Obama's healthcare reform bill, god willed this week's volcanic eruption in Iceland causing the worst disruption in air travel since World War II

     According to Rush, it's either the end of the world or his god hates healthcare reform.  That's logical.  Right?

     If Rush is right and there is a god that was revealed through the loving, forgiving, prophet Jesus, who went out of his way to cure the lepers, epileptics, and mentally ill, whom society had cast aside, deeming unclean and letting them rot to death rather than giving them aid, then this god would be against providing healthcare to the poor?  I'm not sure that follows, Rush.

     Of course, Rush could validly, according to Christian scriptures, believe in a god that is vindictive, promotes genocide and filicide, and demands strict adherence to the law of the theocratic monarchy, then Rush could be right.  If this is the god of the universe, then punishing air traffic controllers for the sin of caring for the poor makes complete sense.

     Here's the hate-monger's quote (via Think Progress):
     You know, a couple of days after the health care bill had been signed into law Obama ran around all over the country saying, “Hey, you know, I’m looking around. The earth hadn’t opened up. There’s no Armageddon out there. The birds are still chirping.” I think the earth has opened up. God may have replied. This volcano in Iceland has grounded more airplanes — airspace has more affected — than even after 9/11 because of this plume, because of this ash cloud over Northern and Western Europe. At the Paris airport they’re telling people to head to the train station to catch trains out of France, and when people get to the train station they’re telling people, “There aren’t any seats until at least April 22nd,” basically a week from now. It’s got everybody in a shutdown. Earth has opened up. I don’t know whether it’s a rebirth or Armageddon. Hopefully it’s a rebirth, God speaking.
     Of course, Christians and Limbaugh devotees can claim that he's just kidding, etc., but they won't get on his case for distorting their god and using jokes about their god for his political purposes.  Hypocrites.

Tuesday, March 2, 2010

No Pride for Gays of St. Petersburg

     The Christian leadership in St. Petersburg, Russia, is proudly waving their hatred and bigotry of gays.  In name of their Orthodox Christian god and their interpretation of the "Natural Law," a coalition of religious and nationalist groups has called for the the cancellation of St. Petersburg 2010 (gay) Pride festival.  Those calling for the god-inspired ban on free speech and freedom of expression include: Intellectuals of the Orthodox Church, Russian Imperial Movement, Movement For Faith and Fatherland, People's Cathedral, and the Imperial Russia Union.

     Here is the text of their hate letter, as reported by Gay Russia:
     “We are categorically against holding any public events, which in any way present a propaganda of sexual perversions.
     “Any parade is a demonstration - demonstration is a form of propaganda. As a result, a gay pride is a propaganda of homosexuality.
     “Love between a man and a woman exists only for one purpose – to give birth to a new life but gay pride is the propaganda of death
     "But why does no one remember that holding these actions grossly violates the right of the majority and is doubtful from the point of moral action?
     “After all, for the majority of our country and, in particular, for our city, homosexuality is an unacceptable deviation from the norm, a moral rejection and a disgust.
     “We are constantly told that democracy is the government of majority, but it turns out that the interests of the majority would be sacrificed to a handful of people with unnatural sexual orientation.”
     Here is a tragic fact that these gay-bashers have overlooked, when it comes to the downfall of St. Petersburg's morality.  St. Petersburg is one of the most popular sex tourism destinations for those seeking child sex slaves.  Knowing that, why are they rallying against a bunch of peaceful homosexuals and not against the people selling their precious children in the streets, alleys, and hotels of St. Petersburg?

     A 2007 article in the Japan Times by Cesar Chelala, M.D., reports [I added the bold for emphasis]:
     According to the Russian National Consultation on the Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children, Russia is now one of the main producers of pornography in the world, and registers a significant number of incidents related to child prostitution or child trafficking for sexual purposes.
     Although the real number is difficult to assess, experts believe that tens of thousands of children are involved in the production of pornographic materials in Russia today. These materials are frequently produced by small criminal groups, each fulfilling a specific task to keep the costs of production low compared to those of a regular startup business. The production and consumption of these materials are particularly pronounced in big cities such as Moscow and St. Petersburg.
     According to experts, almost a quarter of the pornography on global Internet sites contains child pornography. Among these, almost 50 percent include child pornography from Russia. Nowadays, it is possible to buy videocassettes of child pornography at any railway station or in several stores in these cities.
     St. Petersburg and the northwest region of Russia report a high incidence of sex tourism, which is widely advertised on the Internet and aimed at people from neighboring Scandinavian countries. Prostitution is the most common form of child exploitation in the region.
     It is really a travesty that the vindictive, wrathful, sadomasochistic, amegalomaniaciac "prophets" of the Old Testament god didn't have the sense for a commandment stating "Thou shalt honor thy children and protect them violence and abuse of all types, including sexual."  Instead, the Old Testament calls for the killing of cheeky children.  And Christians are surprised when people violencence to children?  Have they not read their own bible? 

     Of course, it's easier to ignore your child sex/porn trade and tourism and focus instead on the gays.  Shove them back into some dark, shameful closet, just like you do you do your teens.  You hypocrites!

But this is neither a demonstration npropagandanda? 

Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Pizza Chain Declares a Time to Kill

     In a homily that I heard years ago, the priest quipped that if Jesus held the last supper today instead of the ancient staples unleavened bread and wine, he would use pizza and beer.  If left up to the Catholic church and the conservative Christians behind a federal lawsuit that was just filed, Jesus would have to use Domino's Pizza.

      According to the Center's website:
The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes America’s Christian heritage and moral values, including the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life.  It supports a strong national defense and an independent and sovereign United States of America.
     What version of the Jesus Christ of the gospels promotes "a strong national defense"?  How is hate a "time-honored family" value?  Oh yes, this is the Bible we're using as a source, and there are plenty of accounts of genocide, hatred, rape, pillaging, stoning, child sacrifice, slavery, and racism carried out  in the name of the Judeo-Christian god, a brilliant foundation for one's "moral values."

     As usual, the lawsuit is being filed on behalf of a group of pastors, including  Levon Yuille of The Bible Church in Ypsilanti, René B. Ouellette of the First Baptist Church in Bridgeport, and James Combs, pastor of four different churches.  I hope their loving Jesus is proud of them.  Also listed among the plaintiffs is Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association which professes:
     We believe that God has communicated absolute truth to man through nature and the Bible, and that all men everywhere and at all times are subject to His authority. Therefore, a culture based on Biblical truth best serves the well-being of our country as evidenced by the vision of our forefathers as set forth in the Declaration of Independence.
    Absolute truth!  And through nature?  Does that mean they believe in evolution? 

    The lawsuit is founded upon nothing new: fear and ignorance.
    In an article posted on the Law Center's site, Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, states of the Matthew Shepherd and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act:
      “This is part of the list of political payoffs to homosexual advocacy groups for support of Barack Obama in the last presidential election.  The sole purpose of this law is to criminalize the Bible and use the threat of federal prosecutions and long jail sentences to silence Christians from expressing their Biblical-based religious belief that homosexual conduct is a sin.  It elevates those persons who engage in deviant sexual behaviors, including pedophiles, to a special protected class of persons as a matter of federal law and policy.”

    Once again, the equating of homosexual persons with deviants and pedophiles.  They even dubbed the hate crimes law as the "Pedophile Protection Act."  Time and again this ignorant, bigoted view has been dismissed by science and psychology, but still the fundamentalist Christians turn to this damaging and untrue myth for their arguments against homosexual's rights.  

    Once again, our country is founded on religious freedom and separation of church and state, but the fundamentalist Christians claim that is not the case.  If we were erase the church/state boundary, whose religious tradition and interpretation of their particular scriptures would be used? Which of the hundreds of offshoots of Christianity in the U.S.A. would be the ultimate truth?  Which person or theological "tradition" or "school" of "thought" within those individual churches and denominations would be the ultimate truth?  Which version and disputed books of the Bible are included in this truth?  Which translation?  Religious "truth" and "knowledge" of god is not absolute!  It's relative even within the walls of individual churches and families, and it's relative even within the lifespan of an individual.

     Here are some results of an extensive survey of U.S. religious belief (or non-belief) and praxis by the Pew Forum:
     More than one-quarter of American adults (28%) have left the faith in which they were raised in favor of another religion - or no religion at all.
     If change in affiliation from one type of Protestantism to another is included, 44% of adults have either switched religious affiliation, moved from being unaffiliated with any religion to being affiliated with a particular faith, or dropped any connection to a specific religious tradition altogether.
     The number of people who say they are unaffiliated with any particular faith today (16.1%) is more than double the number who say they were not affiliated with any particular religion as children.
      Even smaller religions in the U.S. reflect considerable internal diversity. For instance, most Jews (1.7% of the overall adult population) identify with one of three major groups: Reform, Conservative or Orthodox Judaism. Similarly, more than half of Buddhists (0.7% of the overall adult population) belong to one of three major groups within Buddhism: Zen, Theravada or Tibetan Buddhism. Muslims (0.6% of the overall adult population) divide primarily into two major groups: Sunni and Shia.
      So of the thousands of variations of belief in god, whose should be the one that determines the laws of the state?  And what of people who switch churches or belief systems in their lifetime, should they remain bound to the systems of their former churches?  All arguments from the U.S. Christian religious right about our nation being a Christian nation that should be bound by one sect's interpretation of biblical law are ludicrous.

     Once again, the argument against LGBT rights and protections under the law are attacked by using lies to invoke fear in good Christians that they will be prosecuted for their religious beliefs, saying that  their free-speech rights are being violated and that pastors and priests will be prosecuted under the hate crimes act for preaching about their scripture based condemnations of homosexuality.  This is absolute bullshit.  

     There is no question that the expression of anti-gay views, whether religiously based or not, is protected by the First Amendment (as it should be). And in reality, the provisions of the hate crimes law only applies to the investigation and prosecution of actual physical crimes against individuals, not against speech. Unless the plaintiffs intend to actually assault someone, their anti-gay beliefs are irrelevant; if they chose to assault someone, then those expressed views could be used to establish that they committed such a crime out of hatred or bigotry and that might then trigger the provisions of the hate crimes bill. But the mere expression of anti-gay views cannot be punished under the hate crimes law unless the person expressing those views actually commits a violent crime of some sort.
     Once again, to quote the anti-human rights, biblical-based bigots own Ecclesiastes' Qoheleth: "There is nothing new under the sun."  Except for Domino's pizza, but even that tastes as stale as a communion wafer.

      "A time to kill... a time of hate... a time of war..." 

Tuesday, February 2, 2010

Pope's Preemptive Strike in Great Britain

     Big surprise: Pope Ben is bashing LGBT persons again, this time in a preemptive on Great Britain's pending equality legislation, setting the stage for coming visit in September.  A visit, that according to the National Secular Society will cost British taxpayers approximately £20m ($31.88 U.S.), that includes the taxpayers whom Benny doesn't want to have equal civil rights under the law.  But don't worry because, "The pope urged the bishops to make their voices heard and to defend the faith, saying Christian teaching did not undermine or restrict the freedom of others." Of course it doesn't, you historically blind, delusional and hypocritical imbecile!

     In a speech in which he confirmed that he will be coming to Britain on a four-day visit in September, the Pope said: “Your country is well known for its firm commitment to equality of opportunity for all members of society. Yet, as you have rightly pointed out, the effect of some of the legislation designed to achieve this goal has been to impose unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs.
     “In some respects it actually violates the natural law upon which the equality of all human beings is grounded and by which it is guaranteed.”
     There it is again: the precious natural law argument.  That is the natural law as seen through the Medieval, male-centered, and heterosexist, colored lenses of the one, holy, Roman, and closeted Catholic church. 

    Ruth Glenhill of the Times Online responds to Ben's argument that anti-discrimination laws encroach on the church's religious freedom to discriminate according to their belief system:
     The question the Pope seems to skate over is whether religious communities can legitimately choose for themselves their own constitutional arrangements. The Pope’s view is a misunderstanding of that principle. Religious toleration involves not passing laws that aid a religion or elevate one religion over others. Laws that subject religion to the same responsibilities on discrimination as civil society are not a violation of religious liberty because they do not penalise religion.
     The Government, in the Equality Bill, has never intended to remove from religious groups the right to apply religious criteria to religious jobs, such as those of priests. Harriet Harman’s intention is merely to clarify what is and is not a religious job, ensuring that the secular workers are not subject to unfair discrimination because of their sexuality or any other reason.
      Pope Ben and others, who argue that equal rights and anti-discrimination laws that protect LGBT persons impede conservative church's religious liberties, are so self-righteous that they fail to consider the religious liberty of other individuals, who have no problem with LGBT persons. 

     The laws will not require Benny to ordain gay men, so he can still keep his clerical "Do Ask, Don't Tell (the Truth)" policy in place.  He and his bishops will be able to continue to manipulate their closeted gay clerics (and have periodic "celibate falls" with them) and will be able to continue to project their own shame by bashing the evil homosexuals and atheists who are responsible for the "destruction" of society.  No one is taking that "right" of his away.

     Pope Benedict XVI still has the right to continue to be a defecating sphincter, who thinks his own anal pronouncements do not offend.

Monday, February 1, 2010

Escatology, Ssepma, and the "Natural" Law

Escatology: the practice of blaming the end of civilization or the world on homosexual males, based on the faulty assumption that all gay men eat "poo poo;" common belief held by conservative Christians and Muslims, both in the United States and abroad.

     Two weeks ago, Ariel Rubin of the Huffington Post exposed yet another level of the lies, scare tactics, and dangerous ignorance being manipulated and preached by pro family pastor Martin Ssempa, who is the holy cleric leading the charge to pass Uganda's proposed Bill No. 18, otherwise known as the kill-the-gays bill.  The blogosphere has been abuzz with comments, posts, and responses to Ssempa's pornographic  argument for executing gays or at least putting them in prison for life.  Rubin reports on Christian man of god, Ssempa's recent press conference:
    A pornographic slideshow of black and white photographs of men engaging in scatological fetishism is revealed. "I want to show you from their website", he proclaims, a devious smile forming. "I've taken the time to research what homosexuals do in the privacy of their bedroom. It is inhuman, it is animalistic, and it cannot be right. I want to show you these pictures." The audience lurches forward, leering at the pictures and groaning in disgust. Ssempa, enthusiastically goes on:
     "I want to say homosexuals eat each other's poop. Homosexuals stick their hands into their rectum. Homosexuals stick all sorts of deviant sexual things into their rectum. I want to show you this is from their website. So the first picture that I want to show you, you can see this man has just eaten the other person's poo poo and is rubbing it on his mouth, and I'm going to ask that we print for each of you a photocopy of this story so you get it fully.
     "Then, of course, they are grabbing each other's gentials, that is level number one, touching each other, grabbing each other. Then number three, now they are licking each other's anus and are licking poop. And they call poo poo, chocolate. You see it is a change of words. I want you to see, Sheikh please forgive me but I want these people to see, they say a picture is worth one thousand words. This is a man eating the other person's poo poo, can you see that one? Please from BBC, I want you to tell them, we know what they do. "
     This coming from a man of god, a community and church leader, and yet also the co-author of a bill which makes touching another person "with the intention to commit homosexuality" an offense punishable by life in prison. He concludes, "After they have eaten poo poo, then he puts his hand inside the other man's rectum. You can see it. That is called fisting. FISTING! Practiced by 65% of all homosexuals. It is deviant! As if that is not enough, he puts it all the way," he pauses for effect and then excitedly grunts, "iiiiiin!" The audience erupts in laughter.
     It would be easy to laugh at Ssempa's views and hasty generalizations.  I mean, come on, 65% of gay men fist?  I have never met a single gay man that says he fists, and online, where people are very open on their preferences about what they do and don't like, an extremely small percentage of gay men fist, and very, very few people indicate that they like scat play.  Ssempa is ridiculous, and I'd like to ignore him, but Ugandan's lives are at stake and his views are still being used to spread homophobic lies and discrimination in the United States

     Ssempa used a porn movie from an internet fetish site and concluded that all, or at least the majority of homosexual men, engage in these same fetish activities.  [WARNING: do not click on the remaining hyperlinks in this paragraph, unless you are okay with seeing graphic sexual images.]  Using this logic, one can also assume that all married couples swap their wives and swing, as the hetero sex site, Wink, Wink, Play, Play: The Adult Social Network for the Swinglifestyle, indicates.  Or why not click on Affair Match, where all "traditionally" married heterosexual couples go to cheat on their spouses?  Or head on over to where all you married heterosexuals can chose from over two and half million practitioners of bondage, S&M, leather, or any fetish of your choosing?  And finally, Ssempa's argument really falls apart, when one has brains enough to Google and discovers that there are also heterosexual "poo poo" sites, like the Scat Porn Diary or even the  more daring Puke Scat.

     The thing that really sets me off, about Ssempa and many of the anti-LGBT comments that have been fielded over the past two weeks and over the centuries since Thomas Aquinas ate himself into oblivion, is that religious folks, especially Catholics, claim the Natural Law Theory of Aquinas and that god's will for what is right and wrong is discernible in they way that things have naturally been created.  The church claims absolute knowledge of god's will and revelation through its own interpretation of natural law, full of projection and superstition.   For example, one could argue that according to natural law everything in the universe is recycled: water, plant matter, dead stars, energy, etc.  From that simple observation, according to the natural law, reincarnation would seem logical.  Why wouldn't the "soul" be recycled like everything else?  But Catholics don't believe in reincarnation, so the natural law can't be interpreted that way.

     What homophobic religious zealots like Ssempa, Pat Robertson, and Pope Ben do is project their own heterosexual (questionable in the case of Pope Ben) understanding onto creation.  It's obvious that they've never had an erect penis against their prostates, or even a mere finger for that matter.  If they had, they would know that the male body was created or evolved with a very powerful pleasure spot three or four inches inside the anus, just where an erect penis is perfectly shaped and formed to stimulate.  So apparently, human males were created with the ability to pleasure other human males up the butt.  I, myself, have never known the "natural" urge or desire for sex with a woman: no attractions, no fantasies, no wet dreams.  I have always fallen in love with men.  I've been this way since I can remember.  So, in my experience, following my natural way of being is homosexual.  To have sex with a woman seems unnatural to me, but I don't project this onto the world claiming that all men have to be gay.

    Ssempa also has no understanding of douching and bathing.  Does he have sex with his wife when she's bleeding out?  I doubt it?  So, why does he assume that gay men have no sense of cleanliness?  Homophobic ignorance and bigotry.

     What all of you gay people don't understand is that you defy the logic of the creation of man and man, man and woman, and woman and woman. There is no natural way for you to have intercourse so you resort to what many think is disgusting. Anytime someone attempts to enter someone else [sic] anus, the result has to be some amount of poop. Sempa [sic] is absoultely [sic] right to mention this...these are the unspoken disgusting aspects of homosexuality for men and truly it is a disgusting thought for anyone to comprehend. Even without Sempa's [sic] explanation, he still can just say, they use their anus' [sic] for pleasure. DISGUSTING! We are trained from a very young age to treat poo poo as disgusting.
     Just for shits and giggles, let's turn the tables on anonymous' train of thought, by changing just a few words:
     There is no natural way for you HETEROSEXUALS to have intercourse so you resort to what many HOMOSEXUALS think is disgusting. Anytime someone attempts to enter someone else [sic] VAGINA, the result has to be some amount of BLOOD.
     Sex whether it's hetero or homo involves bodily fluids in germ-infested holes that either bleed, poop, or have teeth. 

     Parts of the body, naturally serve multiple functions, some involving waste and others sensory pleasure.
  • The nose: it smells, is a passage for breathing, expels phlegm, and drains the head of infection. 
  • The mouth: it chews, it tastes, it provides a breathing passage, it is our species' instrument for verbal communication and intimate touch, and it provides an escape passage for poisons and toxins that one might accidentally ingest. Vomiting and tooth decay are disgusting, but you heteros still kiss your wives (and mistresses).
  • The penis: it's used for ejaculating semen and also for passing urine and kidney stones. Does that mean that all heterosexuals use their penises to urinate up their female partner's vaginas?  Of course not!
  • The vagina: it's an outlet for the urethra and urine; a pleasure center for tactile and sexual stimulation; a drainage passage for blood, unused uterine and embryonic tissues, a canal for "god's" natural abortions (that make up about 10-20% of pregnancies that women know about and 50-70% of pregnancies end in natural spontaneous abortions-so much for natural law proving that god wants every fertilized embryo to be born a baby); and finally, the vagina is the passage for birth, with all of its blood, fluids, mucus plugs, and meconium.  So does this mean that all heterosexual males drink blood, eat naturally aborted embryonic feces, and smear expelled uterine baby "poo poo" on their lips?  Of course not.
     So why is is so hard for homophobic religious people to understand that the anus, like every other hole in the body, serves multiple functions?

     Again to restate and rework cowardly anonymous' words:
     "We are trained from a very young age to treat VAGINAL BLOOD as disgusting." 
     It's in the Jewish and Christian scriptures.  Look it up.  You might find that your god thinks you deserve a good stoning.

     Until then, as one of my believing friends says: "If god didn't want men to fuck, god wouldn't have given us holes."  Not as elegant as Catholic natural law, but definitely simpler and truer. 

Committed Homosexual Partners: Saints Sergius and Bacchus

Saturday, November 7, 2009

More Reasons to Hate Traditional Marriage Laws: Adultery

     Give the people what they want!  Give them their traditional marriage law.  Let religious fundamentalists define and enforce the law.  Twenty-six of our nation's states have laws punishing adultery, and in four states adultery is a felony.  Why aren't the traditional marriage advocates going after those states that promote adultery by decriminalizing it?

     Our nation's civil marriage law was based on English Common Law (not the bible), which outlawed adultery, premarital sex (fornication), and sodomy. So, my traditional marriage supporting friends, let's go all the way.  Let's get adultery outlawed in all fifty states.  Let's outlaw premarital sex.  Let's make sure that the 38.2% of straight men who stick it in the 32.6% of women's asses, no longer deflower traditional marriage and sexual virtue, even within marriage.  (This does happen, as a certain Catholic in good standing, who shall remain nameless, told me that once her husband talked her into trying anal.  Of course, I'm the one who's Satan, gay atheist that I am.  But, I would never stick it in SHE's mangina.  That would be against Gay Natural Law.)

     If you are wondering what life in a nation that allows traditional marriage law to be enforced would be like, just move to Somalia.

     Last year in Somalia, traditional marriage law was enforced.  The BBC reported:
     A young woman recently stoned to death in Somalia first pleaded for her life, a witness has told the BBC. "Don't kill me, don't kill me," she said, according to the man who wanted to remain anonymous. A few minutes later, more than 50 men threw stones. Human rights group Amnesty International says the victim was a 13-year-old girl who had been raped. Numerous eye-witnesses say she was forced into a hole, buried up to her neck then pelted with stones until she died in front of more than 1,000 people.
     Yesterday, the BBC reported:
     Islamists in southern Somalia have stoned a man to death for adultery but spared his pregnant girlfriend until she gives birth. Abas Hussein Abdirahman, 33, was killed in front of a crowd of some 300 people in the port town of Merka. An official from the al-Shabab group said the woman would be killed after she has had her baby.
     "He was screaming and blood was pouring from his head during the stoning. After seven minutes he stopped moving," an eyewitness told the BBC.
     Moderate Somali President Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed accused the fundamentalist stoners of spoiling the image of Islam by killing people and harassing women:  "'Their actions have nothing to do with Islam,' said the moderate Islamist."

     But, they do!  Why is it that religious "moderates" are quick to blame fundamentalists' "craziness" whenever their common religious heritage is used to justify violence?  The root of the issue is the scriptures.  There is precedence for stoning adulterers in the scriptures of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism, so don't be shocked when some of your followers choose to enforce that precedent.

     As far as I'm concerned, if you share those scriptures, you share the responsibility, just as those who supported the U.S. war on Iraq, share the responsibility for the estimated 100,000 civilian deaths of innocent Iraqis since the start of the war.  It's called social sin, according to the Catholic Church (unless, of course, it involves the Catholic Church; then, it's the fault of a few individually misled priests).

Image Credit:

Sunday, October 25, 2009

Confession #3

     Forgive me, Father Hate, for I have sinned. It’s been one week since my last confe...
     Father who?
     Father Boundarilessi. Did I pronouce that right?
     Yes, I have a bit of a lisp. Big deal. So, where's Fr. Hate? I only confess to him.
     Working vacation? A cruise chaplain, really? Well, good for him. Everyone needs a little R&R now and then.
     You know, a little rest and recreation: R & R, B & B, T & A, S & M. I bet he's on one of those special cruises.
     All gay cruises.
     Yes, they have those. Why? Interested? Because I have a cruise guy.
     For the past seventy-five years, really? Wow, that must have been hard for you.
     I meant hard as in difficult, Fr. Boundarilessi.
     So, why didn't you just come out?

     ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
     But why didn't you...
     ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
     I see, and then...
     ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
     ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
     (double yawn)
     ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
     Wow. So, let me be sure I got this straight, not that there's anything straight about it, right?
     Sorry. I just think it's good to be able to laugh about such things, our limitations. I mean, even Jesus laughed for fuck's sake.
     Excuse me? You, like it, when I talk dirty? (cold shivers, swallow vomit)  Anyway, let me see if I got this right. You've known that something was different about you since you were in third grade when you first got to serve Mass. It was then that you discovered that you liked putting on the cassocks and surplices because it felt like a lacy dress. You spent the next five years making up excuses to stay home from school so that you could dance around in front of the mirrors wearing your mom's and your granny who lived in the attic's underwear while they were passed out drunk from the homemade whiskey. After you were caught dancing before the ark, you were sent off to high school seminary, where you happily got to wear a "dress" every day and you even slept in it.  In fact, this was encouraged, so as to avoid self pleasuring.  Then you fell in love with Jesus and the Pope because they were surrounded by all men all the time and you thought that would be a good way to stay celibate because you wouldn't be around lascivious and tempting women.  All the while, you were still secretly mail-ordering women's lingerie and wearing it underneath your cassock. Finally, in major seminary, a kind old priest showed you "the way" to channel your ejaculations into Jesus in secret group "prayer" meetings with the older seminary professors and other seminarians that had strong historical interests in birettas, ferraiuolos, and baciamanos. From then on, you were celibate, because you didn't have sex with women, and because you didn't swallow with men, and you always rinsed your mouth out with holy water afterward. You have served thousands of people and brought them closer to God, all the while decrying the "sin" of homosexuality as a violation of God's Natural Law. And, you are a serial boundary violator, confessing this truth to anyone and everyone who will listen in the confessional box, because they are bound by the seal of the confessional.
     Yeah. When you put it that way, strangely, it does make sense. I mean, the good news is that you found a way to be open about this, the bad news is that I'm the one thats supposed to be confessing here.
     No, I don't really have anything to confess today. After listening to you, I'm beat.
     Well, that's your problem. I don't feel much like confessing, so technically the sacrament didn't take place. I'm not bound by the seal.
     This is going to be great for my blog!
     The internet, Father. Check it out. Write this down: and Have fun.
     And peace be with you, too.

Image Credits: