« save our libraries | Main | PSA »

bad choice

He has referred to AIDS as a "gay plague."
He has referred to homosexuality “deathstyle," not a lifestyle.
He thinks gays can be rescued by Christ.

He is Jerry Thacker and he has been appointed to the Presidential Advisory Commission on HIV and AIDS.

In September 2001, Thacker returned to his alma mater [Bob Jones University] to give two “Chapel Messages.” The speeches, summarized on the university Web site, focused on the “sin of homosexuality” and his family’s struggle with AIDS.

“When he and his wife discovered in 1986 that they had contracted HIV, the most horrible thought was that it was a disease connected with the sin of homosexuality,” according to the summary. “They didn’t want anyone to think they were homosexual because they knew what the Bible said about homosexuality.”

Granted, AIDS is not strictly a gay disease. But in order to be able to deal with the realities of AIDS and its victims, you have to be able to deal with homosexuality. A man who believes gay people are evil, vile and sinful cannot effectively help a gay person stricken with AIDS if part of his agenda is for those people to repent and conform.


update Thacker has withdrawn his nomination.

Comments

That - and the fact that he went to Bob Jones University is enough evidence for me. Shit - what normal person goes to Bob Jones?

Bush, Bush, Bush...sometimes I liked it better when that referred to a womens muff or an overrated English rock band.

Well, praise the lord, and pass the bigotry.

Hopefully, this guy'll be pulled as the hateful, misguided, homophobic embarrassment he is.

Bush needs all the good PR he can get right now, and this simply won't do it for him. Give Thacker enough press, and he'll be out of the house, and back to the kennel with the other curs.

Ah, again the voices of tolerance speak! So tolerance doesn't apply to those who have a different view?

Did someone slip this guys name in as a prank when Karl Roves back was turned?

This is just so .... stupid on the administrartions part

Perhaps they should make him ambassador to South Africa.

something tells me he's going to counsel the victims that prayer is the cure.

King's Kid-
I'm a little confused- Did you mean myself and Dawn, as of being intolerant of divergent views; or, did you mean M. Thacker?

Very-gay-supporting-fag-hag-here.........
Just a little hipocracy here that I have noticed.
I have heard MANY gay rights supporters ALSO refer to AIDS as the "gay plague". Not sticking up for anyone, just wanted to note that.

well, shame on them, sondra..

Be that as it may, SOndrak- I do not think that Thacker was calling it "the gay plague" out of a sympathetic connection to the gay community. The "sin of homosexuality" was a fairly good clue there, in my most humble opinion.
The point to all of this is exactly what Michele listed as her headline for this post, "Bad Choice"

Thacker, judging by his voiced stance, is quite a poor choice by the administration. A large poilitcal faux pas.

What is wrong for the goose should also be wrong for the gander, if it is wrong.

No one in this chair said that it was right, hon.

I often stuff my geese with ducks and chickens. Ask Laurence.

It's time for a small dose of reality, people.

Regardless of the popular gestalt, regardless of the feelgood ideology, regardless of the threadbare apologetics trotted out every time the subject is brought up, homosexuality is not a race, gender or "inborn trait." It is a behavior. It is the active choice to engage in sexual activity with someone of the same gender.
This is a behavior that is condemned as immoral by thousands of years of human history and by at least three major world religions. Regardless of what's hip in the pop culture, The question of morality in this matter is not something to be dismissed lightly. It is this man's vital and necessary right to contemplate a particular type of behavior and judge its morality based on his own knowledge, religion and ethical discernment.... even if the conclusion he reaches isn't popular with those who engage in homosexuality or voice apologetics for it.

Now there will be those who read the above and immediately start talking about how homosexuality is "natural." Let me state a modern heresy: The argument of whether or not homosexual tendency is "natural" or that it has genetic roots (of which coincidentally there is NO proof, save in the worst examples of quack science) is irrelevant to the question of the morality of homosexual behavior.

So what if it is "natural?" So is violence. So is dishonesty and falsehood. So is cruelty and greed, sloth and gluttony.
Lust is only one behavior that is rooted in the human nature. What of the tendency to drunkenness, violence, sloth, the thousand and one other destructive vices that are far more demonstrably "natural" to man? There is a thousandfold more evidence of a genetic root for alcoholism than there is for homosexuality, yet society still is sane enough to criticize the alcoholic for his refusal to control himself and to insist that he desperately requires help. Do we call the founders of Alcoholics Anonymous "bigots" for insisting that people with a genetic tendency towards alcoholism need to resist that tendency and control themselves?

If we forfeit the right to judge the content of someone's character by their chosen behavior--- regardless of how FASHIONABLE that behavior is-- we forfeit the right to insist that people are responsible for any of their behavior, and to claim that people are anything but the helpless victims of the passions which rule their members.

"Natural" is not a justification. Hemlock is natural; so is smallpox. So is the HIV virus.

And as an aside, I have had to deal, personally, with people who use the "natural" argument to justify having sex with their house pets. There are organizations dedicated to the proposition that pedophilia is "natural." Others who, flying in the face of everything known about human emotional makeup and venereal disease, insist that polygamy and promiscuity are natural and healthy.

"Natural" is no criteria by which to judge the morality of a behavior.

And, in the face of the terrible consequences demonstrated by licentiousness, a cleaving to traditional morality is no criteria by which to condemn a man as a "bigot."

Hey, did you just cry "fowl", Justin? :-)

Look at King's Kid's site and I think you'll see what he meant, Justin.

I don't believe it's hypocritical to want him to tolerate gay people when we don't tolerate him.

The point is that Thacker is being invasive with his opinions to the extent that they can be damaging. Gay people are not intentionally doing that.

Umm, does that make sense? Point is: one party (gay people/tolerators) has a "live and let live attitude", the other (Thacker) doesn't.

Ohshitit'sbeenalongday.

RH-
An excellent argument. I agree with you on certain points and disagree with you on others. To go over them all would take me a bit more time than i have to invest here, right now. So let's deal with this point in your statement: Is Homosexuality natural, and is it a modern/popular fad?

On the state of something being natural or no: Who cares? The point of the matter here is that this gentleman was nominated to perform duties in a government-based beurocarcy. To quote Michele, "Granted, AIDS is not strictly a gay disease. But in order to be able to deal with the realities of AIDS and its victims, you have to be able to deal with homosexuality. A man who believes gay people are evil, vile and sinful cannot effectively help a gay person stricken with AIDS if part of his agenda is for those people to repent and conform."
This position that he is being nominated for should not be used to further someone's socio-religious agenda. The position was created for addressing the problems of a disease, and assisting with the population stricken with it. Regardless of their sexual preference, religious views, race, or type of house pet. Thacker has every right to his own beliefs. They, however, are exactly that- HIS beliefs. This proposed position of his, whoever may fill it, requires a person who is able and willing to put aside their personal morals, and deal with things on a more factual, non-theological manner. They need not respect the people they are trying to help, nor must they agree with their choices; they must, however, be able to deal with these people in a pragmatic manner containing as little bias as possible.

As for the historical references you made about homosexuality being taboo for thousands of years, I am afraid that you are largely incorrect. Many, many cultures exist and have existed with tolerated, and in some cases, encouraged (and still do) what would be deemed as homosexual activity. In example; the Roman legions encouraged soldiers to have sex with each other. It promoted camaraderie, and loyalty to the unit. Spartans id much the same thing, but starting at an earlier age. Tribes in New Zealand still practice rites, deemed homosexual here, for purposes of strengthening their warriors. (indeed, they believe that ingesting sperm makes you stronger, and more manly--Look it up, there was a great article not too long ago about this titled, "Semen Warriors", or something like that)
Societies, as they change, grow, decline, and die, will constantly change what is taboo and unnatural. If you really get down to it, ALL things are natural. Polyester, disco, Michael Jackson..... Okay, maybe not him...

Andy, i get it now. No, no. I am tolerant of anyone's views, even if I fervently disagree with them. They have every right to their opinions, just as I have mine. -I was just unclear who Kid was talking about, was all.

Yes, SOndrak- I did cry fowl. You silly goose, you. (oh, the thing i was talking about is called a turducken- they're great.)

Justin,

You are quite correct about some of the Greek warriors practicing homosexuality from time-to-time. You are, however, incorrect on the Roman legions' acceptance of the same. Engaging in sexual congress while a legionnaire was grounds for the fustarum, where a man would be beaten to death by his fellow soldiers.

Really? Hm, I had always read conflicting things on this. I shall have to do some more reading, it seems. Shuckydarn. Thanks Robb

Story

His nomination has been withdrawn, however, it still was really stupid

Note of course that he is identified as a 'Conservative' in the article title.

Now what is it with Americans? Why is there this great desire among the political classes to believe (and act) as if it is their right to impose their personal moral values on everyone society? What happened to "live and let live" and tolerance and respect for each other's views?

Not just with Aids / Homosexuality, but:

1) Abortion
2) Sex outside marriage
3) "Unnatural" sexual acts (oral sex)
4) Sex education for high school students
that involves contraception
5) Sensible laws regarding sale and
consumption of alcohol
6) The role of religion - and religious beliefs
as someone's personal choice, and not to
be rammed down everyone's throats in
an orgy of evangelical fervour.

People say this country is founded on "religous freedom" - which is a crock of lies anyway - but there ain't much difference between Bush and his fundamentalist cronies and the more extreme mullahs in some muslin countries insisting on women wearing the top to toe coverings.

Just a coupla quick points, probably marginally off-topic.

You can't attempt to set morality based on other cultures. There is literally no such thing as a moral absolute, and what you really need to keep in mind is that you need to live in the society you're in, and change it if you can.

I think there's more than "quack" evidence for homosexuality being a result of genetics or birth circumstances, but that is also besides the point.

From a purely pragmatic point of view there are enough gays willing to stand up now that there is a chance for making a real change to peoples views and opinions. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying it's happening.

Personally, I find characterizing HIV as a "Gay Plague" dishonest and dangerous. I'd like to see a poll of how many people would agree with the statement "I can't get aids cuz I'm straight and don't use drugs", because that's the best way to increase the spread of the disease.

Do we really want someone in a position of authority who apparently has such a narrow view of the situation? What might be ignored while the crusade continues to make all the homosexual sinners into heterosexual converts?

Come now Ken. There's open debate about every one of those issues, and no discussion whatsoever in Islamic Fundamentalist countries. You can't compare the two with any honesty.

And since we're discussing issues that are being forced down our throats, how about Gun Control, Smoking and taxation?

"…homosexuality is not a race, gender or "inborn trait." It is a behavior. "

What a coincidence that the desire to engage in this behavior occurs at the exact same rates across all nationalities, races, ages, ethnicities and cultures: 3% of women, 6% of men, follows a classic "maternal effect" pattern linking it to the X chromosome, and is 50% more likely in identical twins of such people. No, surely it's just a sinful decision made by wicked people, certainly not inborn.

My point was that the left screams about tolerance, but that tolerance does not include being tolerant of those whose views conflict with their own.

And Sean, just because there is a predisposition to a particular behaviour doesn't mean an individual has to engage in that behaviour. Alcoholism tends to run in families, but a member of that family can live happily by choosing not to engage in the behaviour.

Your numbers are suspect, but at least folks are beginning to recognize the “magic 10%” number propagated by Kinsey is falling by the wayside. Yes, surely it is just a sinful decision made by people, and certainly not inborn.

Hey there bucka-roo. Who're you callin' a leftist? Them's be fightin' words.

Would someone please tell me if I'm supposed to regard my behavior as a sin or not? Honestly, if I'm sinning, I'd prefer to enjoy the process.

And a special hello to RHJunior. Thank you for your studied, erudite and thoroughly incorrect evaluation of my motivations. The only conscious decision on my part was to be open and honest about my sexual drives. I can't change my preference for men any more than I can change my hairy back. I can shave it off, but it'll still grow out again.

Sucking my husband's cock like there's no tomorrow,
Keith

"Engaging in sexual congress while a legionnaire..."

I didn't copy the rest of it because I couldn't stop laughing. But let me say this; we never engage in sexual congress while a legionnaire. Sometimes we dress up like Bette Davis and Joan Crawford. We take our sinful lesbian coupling seriously...and sometimes we use fruits and oils. Is it moral? Who gives a fuck? We're just trying to get a nut here. Afterwards we try to come up with new strategies to convert teenaged girls to the light side. The free make-up and subscriptions to Teen People is really working, though. Why fix what ain't broke?

What the fuck is wrong with you? "Yes, surely it is just a sinful decision made by people, and certainly not inborn." Oh, that's right, YOU KNOW GOD, AND GOD HATES FAGS.

Shutting down your intellect in favor of a 3000 year old book that was written by men is a far greater sin than a man sucking another man's dick. The Bible is inherently self-contradictory, full of hate and vitriol. It's the same book that suggests that you are more in service to God if you give your daughter to the rape mob to keep them from sodomizing a complete asshole stranger. (Try that shit in front of my house and they'll have to identify you from your dental records.)

Is this how God has decided to help us, by sending the Holy Scourge and scions to guide us past our wickedness? Of course not, and shame on you if you think so. Use your brain, for Christ's sake. That's why He gave it to you.

Perhaps I am truly intolerant of those who would restrict my freedoms in favor of their moral codes, but somehow I'll live with it. What I will absolutely not stand for, however, is a Biblical answer to HIV/AIDS. At least not this one...

How about this? LOVE the fags. HOPE that we can find a cure for this terrible disease. Have FAITH that God will be with those who are dying of this incurable disease (including fags and fag-haters alike), and that His will shall be served.

Nahhh, much easier to read the other part and just hate fags.

I think that all Americans should be required to answer the following question: "Do you believe that there is any behavior, engaged in by choice by two completely rational and consenting adults in the privacy of their own home, and which harms no living thing, which can be properly categorized as 'immoral' and which should be controlled in some way by the government?"

Anyone who answers "Yes," should be fired out of a cannon toward the moon.

The scientist I am just needs to clarify: behaviors can be inborn. In other animals we call them "instincts". There is documented evidence of homosexual behaivior in the animal kingdom. (In fact, the New England aquarium has gay penguins. The articles are on boston.com.) It's by no means common, but it does happen.

How about this? LOVE the fags. HOPE that we can find a cure for this terrible disease. Have FAITH that God will be with those who are dying of this incurable disease (including fags and fag-haters alike), and that His will shall be served.

You've absolutely nailed it! Folks see the "hate the sin" and miss the "love the sinner" bit. Faith, hope and love is indeed what it's about.

Folks see the "hate the sin" and miss the "love the sinner" bit.

Yes, but in the case of homosexuals -- given the premise that it is inborn, and I have seen no convincing evidence that it is not -- the "sinner" is the "sin." Homosexuality isn't something you do, it's something you are.

To RH Jr.
"...homosexuality is not a race, gender or "inborn trait." It is a behavior. It is the active choice to engage in sexual activity with someone of the same gender."

Wow! So I could wake up tomorrow morning and choose to like men sexually after all these years of liking women?

My wife had better make me waffles tomorrow!

Well I for one don't have any funny DNA telling me who to frolic with. The acronym that gets me a bit, erm, "ambidexterous" sexually, is MDMA. ;-) Bet this Thacker fellow really hates me, even though I voted for his boss. Chemically enhanced bisexual Republican goth freak. I'm as rare as Sammy Davis, Jr., the black Jewish Republican.

I'm with you on the back thing, Keith. But waxing is so much more effective. No stubble burn, and shaving just makes it thicker.

Regards,

Michael

If I hear one more sanctimoneous asshat respond with "hate the sin, love the sinner", I'm gonna beat up a fundie with a fifty-count box of ribbed condoms and a quart of lube.

Fuck you and your condescending attitude. With bells on.

And Michael? I LIKE back hair. Woof! :-)

and I have seen no convincing evidence that it is not -- the "sinner" is the "sin." Homosexuality isn't something you do, it's something you are.

And I'm lefthanded but have learned to do some things righthanded. I am who I am by the choices I have made and continue to make each day. You're wrong, it's not who you are, it's what you do.

And another thing, this really tells a story. 25% on the new AIDS cases are from Bug Hunters -- the idiots who actively seek to be infected. Justify that. How sad is that? Tell me that's a group of folks who want to sit at home and be left alone. This is what you want to teach my kids in my schools? I don't think so, Ace. At this point it goes beyond leaving people alone with their "lifestyle". Why do you think the terminology of Christianity is about "saving people"? Who needs to be saved more? I know, I know, that's intolerant. I can live with it. Can you?

King, have you been taking your statistics lessons from Mark Shea? Everytime you post my already ground-into-dust estimation of your powers of reason gets ground into an ever finer powder.

Let's, for the sake of argument, accept the reporter's claim that 25% of newly infected HIV positive gay males wanted to contract the disease (since I don't have the data or any estimate of its reliability, I can't say one way or the other - but it's not germane to the discussion). All you can say from that is that, uh, "25% of newly infected HIV positive gay males wanted to contract the disease." Period. End of story.

There is no statistically valid way to take that percentage and extrapolate it to all homosexual males, although in your effort to flip and twist through the mental gymnastics required to cloak your hate as good Christian love, you, Shea, et al seem to do just that. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

King's Kid is just up to the same tired old hatemongering he engaged in last time. When we'd beat his ass into the ground, he ran away -- "gotta go for a week, but I'll be back" -- and never returned. He's just hoping that he'll find a new, uneducated crowd to try it on this time.

This is the only topic he shows up for, and his endlessly-repeating babble gets tiresome. He won't respond to evidence, he'll just bury his head in the sand and change the subject.

The best thing to do, I think, is to ignore the little troll.

When did this discussion move to the realm of the mythic "sin"? I thought that this was about a poor political choice.

Can anyone tell me what the decision process is like for these "White House appointments"? Is the slate of candidates decided by staff only, or does the President make some decisions at that point? I'm trying to understand if the President was aware of who was going to be included as an appointment candidate.

I am who I am by the choices I have made and continue to make each day. You're wrong, it's not who you are, it's what you do.

So can you please pinpoint for me the exact date on which you were presented with heterosexuality and homosexuality as equally appealing choices, and after careful deliberation, said to yourself, "Hmmmm . . . I'll pick . . . um . . . let's see . . . straight!"

Given the way that people like, well, you feel about them, why would anyone choose to be gay? Think about it:
--You're not allowed to marry your partner
--you have no automatic inheritance or power of attorney rights
--in most states you cannot legally adopt any children
--you might be beat up for holding hands with your partner on the street
--you feel uncomfortable bringing a date to office parties
--you can't have a picture of you and your partner on your desk without risking being harassed, or maybe fired for "unprofessional behavior"
--you find yourself forced to refer to your dates with gender-neutral pronouns so as not to out yourself . . .

Need I go on? Yeah, it's a real bowl of cherries for the gays and lesbians. If I had ever found myself sexually attracted to the same gender, then looked at the list I just made, I'd think long and hard about taking up celibacy.

Yes Troy, I am back. Some of us do have lives. The reason I have posted on this topic on this site is that I'm pretty much in agreement with most of Michelle's topics and I like her style. I also like some of T.S. Eliot's stuff and he was apparently a homosexual. Folks can be a little wrong.

So can you please pinpoint for me the exact date on which you were presented with heterosexuality and homosexuality as equally appealing choices

We're faced with choices to do or not do the right thing daily. I can point to several occasions in my life where I was given choices in this area. I'm happy to say that I chose the straight path.

Given the way that people like, well, you feel about them, why would anyone choose to be gay? Think about it:
--You're not allowed to marry your partner
--you have no automatic inheritance or power of attorney rights
--in most states you cannot legally adopt any children
[etc.]"

I think this topic has come up before. Our society was founded on natural and moral law. Homosexuality was to be discouraged. Apparently society is heading down another road today, much to our discredit. Enacting the special privileges Phil has listed above would be -- in natural and moral law -- tantamount to giving government sanction to car theft or pedophilia.

But Justin was right -- this thread started over Thacker's appointment. I think Bush (or his staff) caved massively to the left. And that's a bad thing. The administration sends the message that we will stand firm on everything but postmodern PC correctness.

King - Once again we address the issue of morality.

Where is this absolute morality you speak of? Is there a written edict decreeing what the moral laws governing us are?

In my book, morality is different for everyone. Yes, some people have what others would consider bad or no morals. But you can't call it right or wrong.

While I think it's ok to smoke pot in my own home, someone else would say that I have low moral values by doing that.

And just as you think it's ok to slander all homosexuals, I think it is reprehensible.

I'll tell you what, Kid. You don't tell me who I can have consentual sex with and I won't tell you how to live your life according to my morals.

He's talking about Christian morals, of course. That's what they always mean when they claim "our society" was founded on blah, blah, blah. Because that's the only right way, you know.

choke*cough Almost got that out with a straight face.

Where is this absolute morality you speak of? Is there a written edict decreeing what the moral laws governing us are?

Yup. But most folks don't want to read it today.

I also like some of T.S. Eliot's stuff and he was apparently a homosexual. Folks can be a little wrong."

What the hell is that supposed to mean? You seem to flip-flop between gay=evil and gay=mildly annoying. Which is it? Are you mildly annoyed with fags, or are you certain they're going straight to Hell?

Spit or swallow, young man. One or the other.

Our society was founded on natural and moral law. Homosexuality was to be discouraged.

Citations, please. I must have missed this part of history. Probably too busy jacking that guy in the back of the class.

Are you speaking of the Bible, Kid? If so, bzzz wrong answer.

As an atheist, I'll kindly not take the Bible as my guide to morality, thank you.

Freedom of religion ring a bell, Kid? Or are you one of those people who think everyone who isn't a Christian is a misguided heathen?

You seem to flip-flop between gay=evil and gay=mildly annoying.

I hope I have been consistent in saying (in this and other posts) that homosexuality is no more evil than any other sin -- yup, there's that word again. Long term penalty is the same, whether it's homosexuality or pedophilia or disrespect to your parents (read Romans). And the forgiveness for each sin is the same. That's the beauty of it all.

Well, that didn't take long for the idiotic homosexuality / pedophilia comparison to pop up - congratulations, Kid, you're a winner!

Unfortunately, in this contest, it's not a good thing to win.

As an atheist, I'll kindly not take the Bible as my guide to morality, thank you.

And someone can pretend there's no such thing as the law of gravity. The bridge from which you jump and the ground which you impact don't care if you don't believ in gravity. The result is the same.

Ya missed the point -- cross out "pedophilia" are read "carjacking" or "investment fraud".

So far my results are pretty damn good. Your absolution is interesting, though.

And someone can pretend there's no such thing as the law of gravity. The bridge from which you jump and the ground which you impact don't care if you don't believ in gravity. The result is the same.

Posted by King's Kid at January 24, 2003 02:21 PM

Yeah, but there's a little thing called the scientific method that has rather convincingly proven that the law of gravity exixts. Your God can make no such claim.

I am reminded of the philosophical experiment in statistics. (Was it Pascal?) He said that even if there is a 1% chance of god/heaven/etc, that statistically 1% times an infinite period of heaven is a pretty good risk.

Typical of the results when mathematicians-turned-philosopers try working with numbers. Their newfound faith introduces an unacceptable error.

If there's a 99% probability that god/heaven/etc doesn't exist (though this is admittedly a high confidence interval, they came up with the 1%), and this threescore and ten is all I get, then I'm damn sure not going to waste it by living according to some dark ages code of morality.

Michael

And, Keith, you are sick, twisted, and I appreciate your apprciation for the hirsute among us. ;-) I just feel better with it smooth under my shirts. If it's any consolation, I leave the front in all its fuzzybear glory.

Regards,

Michael

Whenever any post on any blog goes to this many long-ass comments, you know it's about homosexuality. Something on a related but different topic way back is worth commenting on, though (from Ken):

"Now what is it with Americans? Why is there this great desire among the political classes to believe (and act) as if it is their right to impose their personal moral values on everyone in society?"

Well, all over the world, politics by nature attracts those who cherish the idea of running other people's lives and cling to the law factory model of government. Also, in most democracies outside America, social pressure remains much more effective at enforcing standards of behavior, at least in public. Back to homosexuality specifically: I live in Tokyo, where citizens can generally travel, buy, and associate as they choose. The gay scene here is flourishing, but almost everyone I know is closeted to family and in the workplace. The idea is that it's okay to be a practicing homosexual as long as you keep it private (i.e., pretend to agree that it's shameful). That attitude is still around in America, but there are also large segments of the general population to whom it no longer applies. It's not surprising that people who want the comfort of visible, real-life "consequences" to reinforce their view of sin get defensive about it.

I know I said don't feed him, but...
Some of us do have lives.
Some of us have lives, and the balls to stand and argue when we're losing... or admit we're wrong, which is harder. Much harder. You, OTOH, just ran away and didn't come back 'til now.
The reason I have posted on this topic on this site is that I'm pretty much in agreement with most of Michelle's topics and I like her style. I also like some of T.S. Eliot's stuff and he was apparently a homosexual. Folks can be a little wrong.
So, I read from that odd little statement that not hating homosexuals is the thing you disagree with. So the other stuff Michele posts on is fine with you?

Like drinking? A lot?
Like divorcing her husband and then re-marrying?
Thinking it's okay to smoke pot in your own house?
How 'bout that little anti-war porno story?
For that matter, how 'bout all them tits! Yeah!
Giving blowjobs? Guess it's okay for a woman to like giving them, eh?
Being an atheist? She's always been really upfront about that.

Kid, you are so full of sanctimonious bullshit that it's no wonder you can't see the truth in front of your face.

What are you really afraid of? Got some deep, dark urges that scare you really, really badly when it comes to this topic?

Oh Yeah!!!

Lets go and burn down all of these homosexuals' houses!

And after that we'll kill all the 14 year old boys and girls who are just discovering they are homosexual.

Maybe we should then go into a hospital with a shotgun and randomly kill some baby boys and girls. We might well kill some damn fags, eh Kid?

And I bet (for example) if you found out that your favourite musical artist was gay you'd stop listening to all their albums.

You might become too "tolerant" if you don't!

Shock! Horror!

Stop! The tolerance is overwhelming me.

Stepping in a bit late to say that you shouldn't believe everything you read in Rolling Stone. The author's alleged source for the 25% statistic says the author is a big fat liar. So do all the other "sources" he quoted.

Gee, with such thoughtful folks as King's Kid seizing on these sensationalized "facts" and running with them, it's really a shock that AIDS educators/prevention agencies discouraged Rolling Stone from doing the story. Such a scandal!!

And Rolling Stone is just a shill for the Christian right. My, how times have changed!

Okay, God hit me upside the head. Someone showed me Romans 2:4, which says, “For it is the kindness of God that leads to repentance, not his judgment or anger.” Yes, He does judge all of us for our actions, but telling someone that isn’t going to change lives. What you do with your life (and with whom) is between you and God, not you and I. My apologies if my words have turned someone away from Him.

LMAO!

When I graduated HS, my new step daddy offered me a free ride to college, in South Carolina, a place named Bob Jones, BJ for short. He told me if I refused, I'd most likely burn in hell. So I packed my below the knee skirts, making sure they were slit all the way up the sides (they made me sew them up), sunbathed naked on dorm roof (got caught) listened to forbidden music (Genesis, The Lamb Lies Down On Broadway, it sounded legit!) etc...

Make a long story short, after three semesters of living a modern version of "Freaks", I returned to California, where a letter from the Dean of Women (her lips had never been defiled, I quote) preceded me, asking my parents to please NEVER send me back to their fine institution, I didn't fit in the spirit of things.

So, I admitted it, yes, I did stare at the only black student (his admission guaranteed tax exempt status for the school) and I stared long and hard. If I could have touched, I would have. The thought seared my brain hourly, even though I would be reminded daily the Tower of Babel made the races separate, not the languages, the races! COOL, forbidden pleasures are the sweetest. Yes I went to the guest opera singer's dressing room after the last performance of Aida, and my tongue slipped, yes, I thought David Bowie was fine, and yes that was my Playgirl magazine next to the beer & cigarettes, and true, I should have never started hanging with the "other tramp", but I enjoyed her stories of seducing the bartender on the train on Christmas break, on her way home to her preacher Daddy.

Just wanted to share that BJ promotes racism, xenophobia and homophobia. I got carried away remembering sermons that blamed Elvis for the moral decay of society, and the argument that through Christ, homosexuals could be "normal" and made whole again.

I could only shake my head in amazement, when I heard that one, no one at the Little Shrimp or Boom Boom Room was going to believe me!

Final point, the religious zealots of Greenville who accuse and judge violate the "thou shall not judge" law among others, but don't even waste your energy trying to argue, see, they believe "be ye separate from the world" means NOT associating with non fundamentalist Christians, period. The reason? If they were to tear down the walls guarding their school, if they had to mingle with the Sinners their FREAKISHNESS would be exposed. I say this in all seriousness, 80% of students at BJU are mentally or physically off, explanation for low numbers of returning freshmen.

And they will NEVER make love standing up BECAUSE, someone might think they are dancing.

I posted in response to the comment about "normal" people attending BJ. Well if you are "normal" going in, a few brainwashings later will leave you with that greater-than-catholics-and-jews-put-together GUILT, and that will screw up your premarital-interracial-eyesopened taboo sex life and drug use will be untolerable,

"Love the sinners, hate their clothes!!"
"I gave myself to Jesus, & now he never calls"
www.bettybowers.com
Visit the world's best christian

http://www.livejournal.com/users/rhjunior/62289.html
http://www.livejournal.com/users/rhjunior/95081.html
I believe that RHJ has the right to express his opinions. I believe he should be able to defend them. Every mother fucking waking hour, if necessary.

I stopped believing in Santa Claus when I was six. Mother took me to
see him in a department store and he asked for my autograph.
-- Shirley Temple
Texas Holdem http://www.texas-holdem-poker-casino.com

Flugg's Law:
When you need to knock on wood is when you realize that the
world is composed of vinyl, naugahyde and aluminum.
Online Dating http://www.online-dating-com.com

I have a simple philosophy:

Fill what's empty.
Empty what's full.
Scratch where it itches.
-- A. R. Longworth
Credit Report http://www.credit-report-x.com

Comparing information and knowledge is like asking whether the fatness
of a pig is more or less green than the designated hitter rule.
-- David Guaspari
Auto Insurance http://www.auto-insurance-com.com

Blore's Razor:
Given a choice between two theories, take the one which is
funnier.
Refinance Mortgage http://www.refinance-mortgage-com.com

highest quality replica jewelry Rolex watch, wrist watch, Replica Watch purchase your affordable realistic Rolex replica watch today at http://www.pro-rolex-replica-watches.com