Can straight men have sex with men and still be straight?
by Joe Kort
There is a lot of talk about Bromances these days. The urban dictionary definition of a bromance is described as "complicated love and affection shared by two straight males." But what if the two men decide to have sex? Does that make them gay or bisexual?
When girls do this in Girls Gone Wild they are not accused of being latent lesbians or bisexuals. Their sexual orientation is not speculated about at all as it turns out. But this is different for me.
Understanding Straight Men Who Have Sex with Men
There's growing evidence that many men who have sex with men aren't all gay or bisexual. According to the Centers for Disease Control, more than 3 million men who self-identify as straight secretly have sex with other men-putting their wives or girlfriends at risk for HIV infection and other sexually transmitted diseases.
A recent New York City survey that appeared in the September 19, 2006, issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine found that nearly 1 in 10 men say they're straight and have occasional sex with men. In addition, 70 percent of these men are heterosexually married. In fact, 10 percent of all married men in this survey reported engaging in same-sex behavior during the previous year.
Related Articles
To best understand these men, therapists and clients need to be able to differentiate four terms that are often confused: sexual identity and orientation; sexual preferences; sexual fantasies; and sexual behavior. Contrary to common usage, they aren't always in alignment.
Sexual identity and orientation encompasses one's sexual and romantic identity, in which thoughts, fantasies, and behaviors work together in concert. It's the alignment of affectional, romantic, psychological, spiritual, and sexual feelings and desires for those of the same or opposite gender. Sexual orientation doesn't change over time. One's sexual behaviors and preferences might change, but like one's temperament, one's orientation remains mostly stable. The term also refers to how someone self-identifies, not how others may categorize him or her. Some people self-identify as straight, while others self-identify as gay or lesbian, bisexual, or questioning. It's important as therapists to ask your clients how they self-identify, regardless of with whom they have sex.
Sexual preferences refer to sexual acts, positions, and erotic scenarios that someone prefers to have while engaging in sexual activity. The term takes into account what individuals like to do and get into sexually, not necessarily with whom they like to do it. Preferences and erotic interests can change over time, as one becomes more open or closed to certain thoughts and behaviors.
Sexual fantasies are any thoughts that one finds arousing. They can encompass anything-sexual positions, romantic encounters, body parts, clothing and shoe fetishes, even rape. Sexual fantasies aren't necessarily acted out. In fact, in many cases, they aren't.
Sexual behavior is any behavior intended to pleasure oneself and/or one's sexual partner. It doesn't necessarily reflect one's orientation. For example, men who are imprisoned engage in sexual behaviors with other men, but do so out of sexual necessity, not because of erotic interest in another man. They desire the behavior and the sexual release it achieves, and the gender of the partner is secondary.
For straight men who have sex with men, same-sex encounters aren't about romance or sexual attraction and desire, but about sexual and physiological arousal-"getting off" with another who's male and accessible. They don't sexually desire or get aroused by looking at other men, only by the sexual act. But if they don't actively desire other men, how do they get to the point of having sex with them? These men typically want to bond with and get affection from other men. Their behavior may reflect a desire to experiment, to engage in something that's taboo, or to express inner psychological conflicts involving their sexual feelings and desires that have nothing to do with having a gay or bisexual identity.
Straight men who have sex with men do so for a variety of reasons. Some have been sexually abused and are compulsively reenacting childhood sexual trauma by male perpetrators; some find sexual release with another man more accessible; some have sex with men because it's easier and requires fewer social skills than those required to have sex with women; some are "gay for pay" and get financial rewards; some like the attention they receive from other men; some like anal sex, which they're otherwise too ashamed to talk about or engage in with their female partners.
When I learn that a straight client is having sex with men, I ask a series of questions: What is your interest in men? Do you prefer one type over another? Do you feel drawn and compelled to satisfy your sexual urges with men? Do you care about the physical appearance of the man? Do women play any role in the fantasy? Is it different for you if they aren't? I also try to listen for the themes running through their sexual interests and fantasies, which often decode aspects of their personal identity and histories.
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Friday, July 22, 2011
Must be Friday because Ulf is horny
Tonight's honors go too:
Ian Roberts.
Ian is an out gay rugby player and is nuthin' less than my ideal of the perfect lookin' guy.
Seriously, I doubt there is anything I wouldn't do with this fuckin' man.
Ian, if I ever meet you in person, we're gonna redefine what hot man on man sex means.
Ulf
Ian Roberts.
Ian is an out gay rugby player and is nuthin' less than my ideal of the perfect lookin' guy.
Seriously, I doubt there is anything I wouldn't do with this fuckin' man.
Ian, if I ever meet you in person, we're gonna redefine what hot man on man sex means.
Ulf
Which is hotter?
I'm a big *Shameless* fan, both the Uk and US versions.
There are many similarities this being one of 'em.
The first time hook ups between Ian and Mickey.
I had a hard time deciding which one I liked best.
The Uk version is infinitely more funny and lets face it Ciaran Griffiths is hot,
but when push came to shove, I think the US version is sexier.
The fact that Ian in the UK version is such a prick to Mickey helped me decide, the US version still has the two go'in at each other.
But what the fuck do I know, you guys can decide for yourself.
Ulf
The second take is a link to Youtube for the US version (sorry they won't allow embedding)
http://youtu.be/Nk1d1m4ksZY
There are many similarities this being one of 'em.
The first time hook ups between Ian and Mickey.
I had a hard time deciding which one I liked best.
The Uk version is infinitely more funny and lets face it Ciaran Griffiths is hot,
but when push came to shove, I think the US version is sexier.
The fact that Ian in the UK version is such a prick to Mickey helped me decide, the US version still has the two go'in at each other.
But what the fuck do I know, you guys can decide for yourself.
Ulf
The second take is a link to Youtube for the US version (sorry they won't allow embedding)
http://youtu.be/Nk1d1m4ksZY
Thursday, July 21, 2011
What I've been reading
The drama of Steve McQueen's life far surpassed anything he ever played on screen. He followed in the footsteps of his mother, a prostitute, who eventually seduced him as part of an Oedipal fling. Earlier, he'd been brutally molested by some of this mother's "johns," and endured gang rape in reform school. In a bordello in Santo Domingo, he hired himself out as a sex object and porn performer.
Returning to New York, he hustled on the streets of Times Square. Later, in a borrowed tux, he became a "gentleman for rent," the toy boy of rich, aging women, two of whom included Joan Crawford and Lana Turner. When stardom finally came, the abused became the abuser. "The last thing I want is to fall in love with a broad." The string of seductions that followed earned him an almost mythical status as a pansexual Love Machine. His A-list conquests included Jacqueline Bissett, Faye Dunaway, Lauren Hutton, Sharon Tate, Mamie Van Doren, Tuesday Weld, Natalie Wood, and Marilyn Monroe.
Publicly, he insisted that he loathed homosexuals, yet he often went to bed with them, especially if they were bikers or
race car drivers. He had a tumultuous sexual relationship with James Dean, and a longer love/hate affair with Paul
Newman. Other sexual liaisons developed with Peter Lawford, Sal Mineo, Rock Hudson, Chuck Connors, and George
Peppard.
McQueen lived life at top speed, like the machines he raced so famously. His early death remains a source of lurid
speculation, all of it explored within this pioneering biography by celebrity chronicler Darwin Porter.
What a whore, I can appreciate that in any man, 'cause ya know what your gettin'.
Ulf
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Military gay couples won't enjoy benefits
By The Associated Press
07.19.2011 8:00am UTC
(San Diego) – Gay service members from Army soldiers to Air Force officers are planning to celebrate the official end of the military’s 17-year policy that forced them to hide their sexual orientation with another official act – marriage.
A 27-year-old Air Force officer from Ohio said he can’t wait to wed his partner of two years and slip on a ring that he won’t have to take off or lie about when he goes to work each day once “don’t ask, don’t tell” is repealed. He plans to wed his boyfriend, a federal employee, in Washington D.C. where same-sex marriages are legal.
He asked not to be identified, following the advice of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a national organization representing gay troops, including the Air Force officer, that has cautioned those on active duty from coming out until the ban is off the books.
“I owe it to him and myself,” the officer said of getting married. “I don’t want to do it in the dark. I think that taints what it’s supposed to be about – which is us, our families, and our government.”
But in the eyes of the military the marriage will not be recognized and the couple will still be denied most of the benefits the Defense Department gives to heterosexual couples to ease the costs of medical care, travel, housing and other living expenses.
The Pentagon says the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act – which defines marriage for federal program purposes as a legal union between a man and woman – prohibits the Defense Department from extending those benefits to gay couples, even if they are married legally in certain states.
That means housing allowances and off-base living space for gay service members with partners could be decided as if they were living alone. Base transfers would not take into account their spouses. If two gay service members are married to each other they may be transferred to two different states or regions of the world. For heterosexual couples, the military tries to keep that from happening.
Gay activists and even some commanders say the discrepancy will create a two-tier system in an institution built on uniformity.
“It’s not going to work,” said Army Reserve Capt. R. Clarke Cooper, who heads up the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay rights group that sued the Justice Department to stop the enforcement of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. “Taking care of our soldiers is necessary to ensure morale and unit cohesion. This creates a glaring stratification in the disbursement of support services and benefits.”
Cooper said he also plans to marry his boyfriend, a former Navy officer, in a post-repeal era.
The Obama administration has said it believes the ban could be fully lifted within weeks. A federal appeals court ruling July 6 ordered the government to immediately cease its enforcement. After the Department of Justice filed an emergency motion asking the court to reconsider its order, the court on Friday reinstated the law but with a caveat that prevents the government from investigating or penalizing anyone who is openly gay.
The Justice Department in its motion argued ending the ban abruptly now would pre-empt the “orderly process” for rolling back the policy as outlined in the law passed and signed by the president in December.
The military’s staunchly traditional, tight-knit society, meanwhile, has been quickly adapting to the social revolution: Many gay officers say they have already come out to their commanders and fellow troops, and now discuss their weekend plans without a worry.
The Air Force officer says he has dropped the code words “Red Solo Cups” – the red plastic cups used at parties – that he slipped into conversations for years to tell his partner he loved him when troops were within earshot. He now feels comfortable saying “I love you” on the phone, no longer fearful he will be interrogated by peers.
One male soldier, who also asked not to be identified, said after Congress approved repealing the law, he listed his boyfriend on his Army forms as his emergency contact and primary beneficiary of his military life insurance in case he dies in Afghanistan.
He said when he was transferred to South Korea, he and his partner had to pay for his partner’s move.
“But we were able to stay together,” the soldier wrote in an e-mail to The Associated Press from Afghanistan. “During the move, I realized I needed to make sure my partner in life was taken care of if something, the worst, ever happened to me, especially knowing I was about to deploy.”
The soldier said when he added his boyfriend’s name to the paperwork as a primary beneficiary and identified him as a friend, the non-commissioned officer in charge shut his office door and told him: “Unlike the inherent benefits to being married in the Army, such as housing and sustenance allowances, our life insurance and will don’t discriminate.”
Same-sex partners can be listed as the person to be notified in case a service member is killed, injured, or missing, but current regulations prevent anyone other than immediate family – not same-sex spouses – from learning the details of the death. Same-sex spouses also will not be eligible for travel allowances to attend repatriation ceremonies if their military spouses are killed in action.
Gay spouses also will be denied military ID cards. That means they will not be allowed on bases unless they are accompanied by a service member and they cannot shop at commissaries or exchanges that have reduced prices for groceries and clothing, nor can they be treated at military medical facilities. They also will be excluded from base programs providing recreation and other such kinds of support.
Military officials say some hardship cases may be handled on an individual basis. Activists warn such an approach will create an administrative nightmare and leave the military vulnerable to accusations of making inconsistent decisions that favor some and not others.
Military families enjoy assistance from the Defense Department to compensate for the hardship of having a mother or father or both deployed to war zones and moved frequently.
“It strains a relationship when you’re gone for over a year,” said Navy medical corpsman Andrew James, 27, who lived two years apart from his same-sex partner, who could not afford to move with him when he was transferred from San Diego to Washington. “But straight couples have support so their spouses are able to be taken care of, with financial issues, and also they are able to talk to the chain of command, whereas gays can’t. They don’t have any support at all financially or emotionally, and that is really devastating.”
He said he was lucky that his relationship survived and now that he is in the Reserves, they are together again in San Diego.
The benefits issue came up repeatedly during training sessions to prepare troops for the policy change.
“There are inconsistencies,” Maj. Daryl Desimone told a class of Marines at Camp Pendleton, north of San Diego, after being asked about benefits for gay military personnel. “Anyone who looks at it logically will see there are some things that need to be worked out in the future.”
The military’s policy denying benefits to same-sex couples could change if legal challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act prove successful. The Obama administration has said it will not defend DOMA in court.
Earlier this month, the Justice Department filed a legal brief in federal court in San Francisco in support of a lesbian federal employee’s lawsuit claiming the government wrongly denied health coverage to her same-sex spouse. The brief said the lawsuit should not be dismissed because DOMA violates the constitution’s guarantee of equal protection and was motivated by hostility toward gays and lesbians.
07.19.2011 8:00am UTC
(San Diego) – Gay service members from Army soldiers to Air Force officers are planning to celebrate the official end of the military’s 17-year policy that forced them to hide their sexual orientation with another official act – marriage.
A 27-year-old Air Force officer from Ohio said he can’t wait to wed his partner of two years and slip on a ring that he won’t have to take off or lie about when he goes to work each day once “don’t ask, don’t tell” is repealed. He plans to wed his boyfriend, a federal employee, in Washington D.C. where same-sex marriages are legal.
He asked not to be identified, following the advice of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a national organization representing gay troops, including the Air Force officer, that has cautioned those on active duty from coming out until the ban is off the books.
“I owe it to him and myself,” the officer said of getting married. “I don’t want to do it in the dark. I think that taints what it’s supposed to be about – which is us, our families, and our government.”
But in the eyes of the military the marriage will not be recognized and the couple will still be denied most of the benefits the Defense Department gives to heterosexual couples to ease the costs of medical care, travel, housing and other living expenses.
The Pentagon says the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act – which defines marriage for federal program purposes as a legal union between a man and woman – prohibits the Defense Department from extending those benefits to gay couples, even if they are married legally in certain states.
That means housing allowances and off-base living space for gay service members with partners could be decided as if they were living alone. Base transfers would not take into account their spouses. If two gay service members are married to each other they may be transferred to two different states or regions of the world. For heterosexual couples, the military tries to keep that from happening.
Gay activists and even some commanders say the discrepancy will create a two-tier system in an institution built on uniformity.
“It’s not going to work,” said Army Reserve Capt. R. Clarke Cooper, who heads up the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay rights group that sued the Justice Department to stop the enforcement of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. “Taking care of our soldiers is necessary to ensure morale and unit cohesion. This creates a glaring stratification in the disbursement of support services and benefits.”
Cooper said he also plans to marry his boyfriend, a former Navy officer, in a post-repeal era.
The Obama administration has said it believes the ban could be fully lifted within weeks. A federal appeals court ruling July 6 ordered the government to immediately cease its enforcement. After the Department of Justice filed an emergency motion asking the court to reconsider its order, the court on Friday reinstated the law but with a caveat that prevents the government from investigating or penalizing anyone who is openly gay.
The Justice Department in its motion argued ending the ban abruptly now would pre-empt the “orderly process” for rolling back the policy as outlined in the law passed and signed by the president in December.
The military’s staunchly traditional, tight-knit society, meanwhile, has been quickly adapting to the social revolution: Many gay officers say they have already come out to their commanders and fellow troops, and now discuss their weekend plans without a worry.
The Air Force officer says he has dropped the code words “Red Solo Cups” – the red plastic cups used at parties – that he slipped into conversations for years to tell his partner he loved him when troops were within earshot. He now feels comfortable saying “I love you” on the phone, no longer fearful he will be interrogated by peers.
One male soldier, who also asked not to be identified, said after Congress approved repealing the law, he listed his boyfriend on his Army forms as his emergency contact and primary beneficiary of his military life insurance in case he dies in Afghanistan.
He said when he was transferred to South Korea, he and his partner had to pay for his partner’s move.
“But we were able to stay together,” the soldier wrote in an e-mail to The Associated Press from Afghanistan. “During the move, I realized I needed to make sure my partner in life was taken care of if something, the worst, ever happened to me, especially knowing I was about to deploy.”
The soldier said when he added his boyfriend’s name to the paperwork as a primary beneficiary and identified him as a friend, the non-commissioned officer in charge shut his office door and told him: “Unlike the inherent benefits to being married in the Army, such as housing and sustenance allowances, our life insurance and will don’t discriminate.”
Same-sex partners can be listed as the person to be notified in case a service member is killed, injured, or missing, but current regulations prevent anyone other than immediate family – not same-sex spouses – from learning the details of the death. Same-sex spouses also will not be eligible for travel allowances to attend repatriation ceremonies if their military spouses are killed in action.
Gay spouses also will be denied military ID cards. That means they will not be allowed on bases unless they are accompanied by a service member and they cannot shop at commissaries or exchanges that have reduced prices for groceries and clothing, nor can they be treated at military medical facilities. They also will be excluded from base programs providing recreation and other such kinds of support.
Military officials say some hardship cases may be handled on an individual basis. Activists warn such an approach will create an administrative nightmare and leave the military vulnerable to accusations of making inconsistent decisions that favor some and not others.
Military families enjoy assistance from the Defense Department to compensate for the hardship of having a mother or father or both deployed to war zones and moved frequently.
“It strains a relationship when you’re gone for over a year,” said Navy medical corpsman Andrew James, 27, who lived two years apart from his same-sex partner, who could not afford to move with him when he was transferred from San Diego to Washington. “But straight couples have support so their spouses are able to be taken care of, with financial issues, and also they are able to talk to the chain of command, whereas gays can’t. They don’t have any support at all financially or emotionally, and that is really devastating.”
He said he was lucky that his relationship survived and now that he is in the Reserves, they are together again in San Diego.
The benefits issue came up repeatedly during training sessions to prepare troops for the policy change.
“There are inconsistencies,” Maj. Daryl Desimone told a class of Marines at Camp Pendleton, north of San Diego, after being asked about benefits for gay military personnel. “Anyone who looks at it logically will see there are some things that need to be worked out in the future.”
The military’s policy denying benefits to same-sex couples could change if legal challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act prove successful. The Obama administration has said it will not defend DOMA in court.
Earlier this month, the Justice Department filed a legal brief in federal court in San Francisco in support of a lesbian federal employee’s lawsuit claiming the government wrongly denied health coverage to her same-sex spouse. The brief said the lawsuit should not be dismissed because DOMA violates the constitution’s guarantee of equal protection and was motivated by hostility toward gays and lesbians.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Thom Barron
Hunky Thom Barron fucks and loads French/Arab boi then lets him suck the cum off his dick.
Damn, now that's porn.
Ulf
Sounds like my mom
John invited his mother over for dinner. During the meal, his mother couldn't help noticing how handsome John's roommate was. She had long been suspicious of Johns' sexual orientation and this only made her more curious.
Over the course of the evening, while watching the two interact, she started to wonder if there was more between John and the roommate than met the eye.
Reading his mom's thoughts, John volunteered, "I know what you must be thinking, but I assure you, Mark and I are just roommates."
About a week later, Mark came to John and said, "Ever since your mother came to dinner, I've been unable to find the beautiful silver gravy ladle. You don't suppose she took it, do you?"
John said, "Well, I doubt it, but I'll write her a letter just to be sure." So he sat down and wrote: "Dear Mother, I'm not saying you 'did' take a gravy ladle from my house, and I'm not saying you 'did not' take a gravy ladle. But the fact remains that one has been missing ever since you were here for dinner."
Several days later, John received a letter from his mother which read: "Dear Son, I'm not saying that you 'do' sleep with Mark, and I'm not saying that you 'do not' sleep with Mark. But the fact remains that if he was sleeping in his own bed, he would have found the gravy ladle by now. Love, Mom"
Over the course of the evening, while watching the two interact, she started to wonder if there was more between John and the roommate than met the eye.
Reading his mom's thoughts, John volunteered, "I know what you must be thinking, but I assure you, Mark and I are just roommates."
About a week later, Mark came to John and said, "Ever since your mother came to dinner, I've been unable to find the beautiful silver gravy ladle. You don't suppose she took it, do you?"
John said, "Well, I doubt it, but I'll write her a letter just to be sure." So he sat down and wrote: "Dear Mother, I'm not saying you 'did' take a gravy ladle from my house, and I'm not saying you 'did not' take a gravy ladle. But the fact remains that one has been missing ever since you were here for dinner."
Several days later, John received a letter from his mother which read: "Dear Son, I'm not saying that you 'do' sleep with Mark, and I'm not saying that you 'do not' sleep with Mark. But the fact remains that if he was sleeping in his own bed, he would have found the gravy ladle by now. Love, Mom"
Warehouse 13 Adds Openly Gay Character For Third Season
19 July 2011
by Bridgette P. LaVictoire
I can imagine that groups like Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, and the rest are, right now, throwing a screaming fit because another character has come out of the closet. Steve Jinks, played by Aaron Ashmore, came out to Claudia Donovan, played by Allison Scagliotti, on last night’s Warehouse 13. The decision to make Jinks gay came from the network, apparently. Ashmore joined the series this season.
According to the star of the show, Jack Kenny, it was the network who pitched the idea, and according to Kenny “We were pitching this character and a couple of the execs are gay and said, ‘What if Steve was gay?’ We immediately jumped on the idea – but it’s just a part of who he is, it doesn’t define the character.”
Ashmore liked the idea, noting that romance isn’t a huge part of Warehouse 13. He said “[T]he show’s not really about romantic relationships. These people’s lives are crazy trying to save the world, so there’s not a lot of time for love. I think when he interacts with some people, in the back of my mind as an actor, I’ll decide that he thinks a guy is cute. But it doesn’t play into how he does his job.”
During the episode, according to OnTheTop:
Steve and Claudia collide over Claudia’s frequent references to being the senior agent on their investigation as they share the front seat of a car during a stakeout. Steve tells her to “relax” because it’s just the two of them on the mission, which Claudia takes as a come on.
“I felt it too, that crackling chemistry between us,” Claudia says. “It’s just that I really need to focus on my career right now. I don’t have a ton of bandwidth for other stuff. As attractive as that other stuff may be.”
“Oh my god, I’m not hitting on you, I’m gay,” Steve interrupts.
“You’re how now?” Claudia asks.
“Gay. You know when two people of the same sex find each other …”
The scene ends with the revelation taking the pair from adversaries to friends.
LGBT characters are popping up all over the place lately. This means that many people in the anti-gay movement are busy complaining about the ‘indoctrination of children’, after all, they want us to be obsessed with the children like the Roman Catholic Church. The anti-gay groups often attack Hollywood for portraying LGBT people as real people instead of the caricatures that they want to use instead. These are people who believe that LGBT people choose to be the way that they are.
It is good to see more positive LGBT characters on TV, especially when they are being treated as just part of the show rather than a lot being made over their orientation. It brings us one step closer to being seen as equal.
Aaron Ashmore being kissed by Mac Fyfe in: "Prom Queen"
I've rather liked this quirky SyFy show, now I have another reason to like it.
Ulf
Monday, July 18, 2011
Just for shit's and giggles
Ten Reasons Gay Marriages Are Wrong!
1. Homosexuality is not natural. Real people always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses,
polyester, and air conditioning.
2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around
tall people will make you tall.
3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may
even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage
contract.
4. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women
are still property, blacks still aren't supposed to marry whites.
5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if homosexual marriage were allowed;
the sanctity of Brittany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
6. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Homosexual couples,
infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages
aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.
7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight
children.
8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of
one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in
North America.
9. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's
why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new
social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy,
or longer life spans.
1. Homosexuality is not natural. Real people always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses,
polyester, and air conditioning.
2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around
tall people will make you tall.
3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may
even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage
contract.
4. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women
are still property, blacks still aren't supposed to marry whites.
5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if homosexual marriage were allowed;
the sanctity of Brittany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
6. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Homosexual couples,
infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages
aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.
7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight
children.
8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of
one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in
North America.
9. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's
why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new
social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy,
or longer life spans.
Marvel comics goes gay...sort of
The Seven Biggest Gay Moments in Marvel Comics History
Posted by
Lyle Masaki
With Marvel announcing that they were making an online archive of their comics available to subscribers, I though it'd be worth noting the company's significant moments in its history with gay characters. Since Marvel doesn't have a complete list of all the comics available to subscribers, I can't tell if any of these comics can be read through the new service. However, if the service succeeds, hopefully it'll get more content to offer. (I'd be tempted to subscribe in that case -- there are plenty of "So bad it's good" stories from the grim 'n gritty era that I might enjoy reading but wouldn't care to own.) There's a little bit of good, a little bit of bad and a lot of "Well, it was progress at the time." In order to keep the best moments above the cut, let's start with the most recent events:
Hulking and Wiccan's (semi-)botched coming out
From: Young Avengers #7 (2005)
A lot of the buzz on the early issues of Young Avengers focused on the relationship between Hulkling and Asgardian. Their banter sounded a lot like a superhero couple, but since the early issues of Young Avengers didn't show the team's downtime, there was plenty of room for debate (including speculation that Hulkling would turn out to be an young woman drawn to look sexually ambiguous) if they really were a gay couple. Part of the confusion came because superhero comic readers still aren't used to seeing same-sex couples written the same as an opposite-sex couple, so when a couple of gay characters were introduced without fanfare it was still surprising. Soon after the relationship between the two young men became clear, the team decided they had to let their parents know about their superhero activities. However, Billy and Ted's attempt at coming out was mistaken for a more typical kind of coming out. The title would later go on to be one of the few Marvel titles to win a GLAAD media award, which frequently goes to independent or DC titles.
Ultimate Colossus is finally outed
From: Ultimate X-Men #65 (2005)
When Marvel introduced the Ultimate Universe in 2001, it introduced familiar characters and stories with new perspectives and twists. For years Ultimate X-Men readers got hints that the Ultimate version of Colossus was gay -- most involved Colossus playing to stereotypes or teammates making snarky comments about Alison Blaire's chances with him (she had an obvious crush). When we finally got confirmation of Colossus' sexual orientation (in the form of him accepting a date with Northstar) it was a pretty welcoming moment, especially since the mainstream version of Colossus was a character that straight, male readers of X-Men titles identified. A safer choice could have been made for a mutant to be re-imagined as gay, but Ultimate X-Men creators happily picked Colossus.
Things get a little more bitchy after the break:
The Rawhide Kid is re-imagined as gay
From: The Rawhide Kid (2003)
When Marvel introduced its short-lived Max line of comics aimed for Mature Readers, that included a number of titles that mixed familiar concepts with "mature" amounts of violence and sexuality (which, sadly, did not include a promising Buffy-inspired revamp of romance comic Night Nurse). In 2003, Marvel drew media controversy over a mini-series that saw Western comic icon The Rawhide Kid as gay. Unfortunately, many readers were disappointed to find that the comic was fueled by stereotypes and innuendo-based humor. Worse, there was little meriting the "Explicit Content" warning aside from the acknowledgment that the character was gay, suggesting a double-standard.
The title got plenty of media coverage thanks to controversy from anti-gay media activists who think of comics as a medium belonging strictly for children. One popular (and politically conservative) writer, Chuck Dixon, even accused Marvel of tricking The Rawhide Kid's artist into working on the gay-themed comic. Three years later, the series ignited more controversy when Marvel Editor-In-Chief Joe Quesada mentioned in an interview that, due to the Rawhide Kid furor, any title starring a gay character would have to have a "Mature Readers" warning -- a comment that left some worried (since Marvel wasn't publishing Mature Readers titles anymore) that gay characters were being specifically excluded at the publisher.
Northstar comes out
From: Alpha Flight #106 (1992)
The coming out of Northstar was a mixed bag. It was an important moment in terms of gay visibility, but it had so many downsides. Most importantly, the story fully falls into so-bad-it's-good territory. The comic stars with Northstar's team, Alpha Flight, finding a baby infected with HIV. When he decides to care for it, the positive media coverage angers a retired Canadian superhero, Major Mapleleaf, into attacking Alpha Flight. The Major's fury, it turns out, is fueled by memories of his son's death from AIDS complications, a death ignored by the media because it happened to a gay man (making him hate HIV-positive babies who get better treatment in the media). Northstar defuses Major Mapleleaf's anger by announcing that he, too, is gay. No, that issue does not make any more sense if you read the actual comic.
Beyond that, however, the story brought about other problems. The story happened to coincide with the writer leaving the series, a coincidence that fueled speculation that he was fired for the story. The way Northstar was handled afterwards was also pretty bad, with stories that included an illness (that was meant to be revealed as AIDS), an unrequited crush on a straight man and a controversy-courting storyline where he dies and comes back.
Larry Bodine's suicide
From: New Mutants #45 (1986)
While not specifically gay-themed, the powerful "We Were Only Foolin" was a major moment for gay readers. It told the story of Larry Bodine, a student picked on at his high school for being the new guy. He is taunted by bullies who call him a mutant as a generic insult, but it turns out that Larry actually is a mutant. Thinking his secret is known and unable to figure out how to deal with being a mutant, Larry kills himself. The story ends with one of the most moving scenes in X-Men history when Kitty Pryde eulogizes Larry:
Who was he, then, that we gather to mourn him? Who am I? A four-eyed, flat-chested, brat, chick, brain, hebe, stuck-up Xavier's snob freak! Don't like the words? I could use nicer. I've heard worse. Who here hasn't? So often, so casually, that maybe we've forgotten the power they have to hurt. Nigger, spic, wop, slope, faggot, mutie--the list is so long. And so cruel. They're labels. Put downs. And they hurt.
"We Were Only Foolin" was a powerful story for gay readers since the outsider metaphor of anti-mutant hysteria applied particularly well to the gay experience. For many gay readers, Kitty's inclusion of an gay slur in her list of hateful words was a quiet acknowledgment that the X-Men's angst was meant for them, too.
Aurora meets Raymonde
From: Alpha Flight #7-8 (1984)
For years, an early scene from Alpha Flight's history was all we had in showing that Northstar was meant to be gay. In the two-part story he introduces his sister to a "special friend" who Aurora isn't so quick to accept and is, instead, quick to condemn for his influence on her brother. When Raymonde is later killed by a supervillain, Northstar's reaction is very strong, furthering suspicion that there was more to the relationship than being just friends. In hindsight, a lot of the hints towards Northstar's sexual orientation plays to gay stereotypes but at the time it was a major step towards gay inclusion.
Bruce Banner is nearly assaulted in a YMCA shower
From: Hulk Magazine #23 (1980)
This story by former Editor-in-Chief Jim Shooter is seen as a notable low point for Marvel's treatment of gay characters. While positive depictions of openly gay characters weren't allowed at the time, that didn't seem to exclude a story where a couple of effeminate men seem intent on sexually assaulting Bruce Banner in a YMCA shower.
Posted by
Lyle Masaki
With Marvel announcing that they were making an online archive of their comics available to subscribers, I though it'd be worth noting the company's significant moments in its history with gay characters. Since Marvel doesn't have a complete list of all the comics available to subscribers, I can't tell if any of these comics can be read through the new service. However, if the service succeeds, hopefully it'll get more content to offer. (I'd be tempted to subscribe in that case -- there are plenty of "So bad it's good" stories from the grim 'n gritty era that I might enjoy reading but wouldn't care to own.) There's a little bit of good, a little bit of bad and a lot of "Well, it was progress at the time." In order to keep the best moments above the cut, let's start with the most recent events:
Hulking and Wiccan's (semi-)botched coming out
From: Young Avengers #7 (2005)
A lot of the buzz on the early issues of Young Avengers focused on the relationship between Hulkling and Asgardian. Their banter sounded a lot like a superhero couple, but since the early issues of Young Avengers didn't show the team's downtime, there was plenty of room for debate (including speculation that Hulkling would turn out to be an young woman drawn to look sexually ambiguous) if they really were a gay couple. Part of the confusion came because superhero comic readers still aren't used to seeing same-sex couples written the same as an opposite-sex couple, so when a couple of gay characters were introduced without fanfare it was still surprising. Soon after the relationship between the two young men became clear, the team decided they had to let their parents know about their superhero activities. However, Billy and Ted's attempt at coming out was mistaken for a more typical kind of coming out. The title would later go on to be one of the few Marvel titles to win a GLAAD media award, which frequently goes to independent or DC titles.
Ultimate Colossus is finally outed
From: Ultimate X-Men #65 (2005)
When Marvel introduced the Ultimate Universe in 2001, it introduced familiar characters and stories with new perspectives and twists. For years Ultimate X-Men readers got hints that the Ultimate version of Colossus was gay -- most involved Colossus playing to stereotypes or teammates making snarky comments about Alison Blaire's chances with him (she had an obvious crush). When we finally got confirmation of Colossus' sexual orientation (in the form of him accepting a date with Northstar) it was a pretty welcoming moment, especially since the mainstream version of Colossus was a character that straight, male readers of X-Men titles identified. A safer choice could have been made for a mutant to be re-imagined as gay, but Ultimate X-Men creators happily picked Colossus.
Things get a little more bitchy after the break:
The Rawhide Kid is re-imagined as gay
From: The Rawhide Kid (2003)
When Marvel introduced its short-lived Max line of comics aimed for Mature Readers, that included a number of titles that mixed familiar concepts with "mature" amounts of violence and sexuality (which, sadly, did not include a promising Buffy-inspired revamp of romance comic Night Nurse). In 2003, Marvel drew media controversy over a mini-series that saw Western comic icon The Rawhide Kid as gay. Unfortunately, many readers were disappointed to find that the comic was fueled by stereotypes and innuendo-based humor. Worse, there was little meriting the "Explicit Content" warning aside from the acknowledgment that the character was gay, suggesting a double-standard.
The title got plenty of media coverage thanks to controversy from anti-gay media activists who think of comics as a medium belonging strictly for children. One popular (and politically conservative) writer, Chuck Dixon, even accused Marvel of tricking The Rawhide Kid's artist into working on the gay-themed comic. Three years later, the series ignited more controversy when Marvel Editor-In-Chief Joe Quesada mentioned in an interview that, due to the Rawhide Kid furor, any title starring a gay character would have to have a "Mature Readers" warning -- a comment that left some worried (since Marvel wasn't publishing Mature Readers titles anymore) that gay characters were being specifically excluded at the publisher.
Northstar comes out
From: Alpha Flight #106 (1992)
The coming out of Northstar was a mixed bag. It was an important moment in terms of gay visibility, but it had so many downsides. Most importantly, the story fully falls into so-bad-it's-good territory. The comic stars with Northstar's team, Alpha Flight, finding a baby infected with HIV. When he decides to care for it, the positive media coverage angers a retired Canadian superhero, Major Mapleleaf, into attacking Alpha Flight. The Major's fury, it turns out, is fueled by memories of his son's death from AIDS complications, a death ignored by the media because it happened to a gay man (making him hate HIV-positive babies who get better treatment in the media). Northstar defuses Major Mapleleaf's anger by announcing that he, too, is gay. No, that issue does not make any more sense if you read the actual comic.
Beyond that, however, the story brought about other problems. The story happened to coincide with the writer leaving the series, a coincidence that fueled speculation that he was fired for the story. The way Northstar was handled afterwards was also pretty bad, with stories that included an illness (that was meant to be revealed as AIDS), an unrequited crush on a straight man and a controversy-courting storyline where he dies and comes back.
Larry Bodine's suicide
From: New Mutants #45 (1986)
While not specifically gay-themed, the powerful "We Were Only Foolin" was a major moment for gay readers. It told the story of Larry Bodine, a student picked on at his high school for being the new guy. He is taunted by bullies who call him a mutant as a generic insult, but it turns out that Larry actually is a mutant. Thinking his secret is known and unable to figure out how to deal with being a mutant, Larry kills himself. The story ends with one of the most moving scenes in X-Men history when Kitty Pryde eulogizes Larry:
Who was he, then, that we gather to mourn him? Who am I? A four-eyed, flat-chested, brat, chick, brain, hebe, stuck-up Xavier's snob freak! Don't like the words? I could use nicer. I've heard worse. Who here hasn't? So often, so casually, that maybe we've forgotten the power they have to hurt. Nigger, spic, wop, slope, faggot, mutie--the list is so long. And so cruel. They're labels. Put downs. And they hurt.
"We Were Only Foolin" was a powerful story for gay readers since the outsider metaphor of anti-mutant hysteria applied particularly well to the gay experience. For many gay readers, Kitty's inclusion of an gay slur in her list of hateful words was a quiet acknowledgment that the X-Men's angst was meant for them, too.
Aurora meets Raymonde
From: Alpha Flight #7-8 (1984)
For years, an early scene from Alpha Flight's history was all we had in showing that Northstar was meant to be gay. In the two-part story he introduces his sister to a "special friend" who Aurora isn't so quick to accept and is, instead, quick to condemn for his influence on her brother. When Raymonde is later killed by a supervillain, Northstar's reaction is very strong, furthering suspicion that there was more to the relationship than being just friends. In hindsight, a lot of the hints towards Northstar's sexual orientation plays to gay stereotypes but at the time it was a major step towards gay inclusion.
Bruce Banner is nearly assaulted in a YMCA shower
From: Hulk Magazine #23 (1980)
This story by former Editor-in-Chief Jim Shooter is seen as a notable low point for Marvel's treatment of gay characters. While positive depictions of openly gay characters weren't allowed at the time, that didn't seem to exclude a story where a couple of effeminate men seem intent on sexually assaulting Bruce Banner in a YMCA shower.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
What a nice guy
What a guy, that Justin Timberlake.
Just a few days after being asked to accompany Corporal Kelsey De Santis to the Marine Corps Ball in Washington, D.C., the 'Friends With Benefits' star accepted her long-shot invitation.
He made the big announcement during a press event with his co-star Mila Kunis, according to PEOPLE.
"I'll tell you what: I accept," Timberlake said, adding that he loved that De Santis referenced his song, 'Cry Me A River,' in her YouTube proposal.
"If my schedule works out to do it, I'd love to do it. It's an honor," he said.
Of course this whole thing started earlier this month when Sgt. Scott Moore, who is currently stationed in Afghanistan, took to YouTube to ask Kunis to go to the North Carolina Marine Corps Ball with him this fall.
Thanks to a little help from Timberlake, the actress agreed to the date before turning the tables on her co-star.
Story continues below
"Are you going to come?" Kunis asked Timberlake after she accepted the offer.
"They don't want me! They want you," he responded. "You need to do it for your country."
Now it looks like both Timberlake and Kunis will both be making some Marines very happy this fall.
and here's the invite:
Hell, I don't know about her, but I sure as hell will go with all the guys behind her and I can promise far more than dancing for all of 'em.
Ulf
Shad Smith...I wonder if he'd like to have my baby?
Shad Smith: The First Openly Gay Mixed Martial Artist
by Luke Thomas
A New York Times profile reveals his orientation:
But most of Smith's childhood fights took place outside the ring, on the streets and at his instigation. He used to wear his hair in a mohawk as a tribute to the professional tag-team wrestlers the Road Warriors and prowl the neighborhood looking for fights. "I was just mad-dogging everyone" -- staring them down -- "until somebody said something, and then I'd put my hands up and start fighting." He said he had 46 counts of assault and battery as a juvenile. "And that's 46 counts posted on me. Can you imagine how many there actually were?"
I asked Smith why he spent so much of his youth looking for trouble. I expected some sort of cliche, though possibly true, explanation -- a difficult childhood or a Napoleon complex. What I didn't expect him to say was, "You know, bro, the sexual-preference thing."
Smith is gay, and I know of no other professional fighter who is openly so. "I was always scared that my mom and dad would find out and wouldn't like me, and my brothers wouldn't like me," he said. "I was petrified, because I didn't want anyone to find out. And I would try to be the toughest person around. That way, no one would suspect, no one would ever say it, no one would think it."
The amount of misogyny and homophobia among MMA's hardcore fans is appalling. Worse, "the closet", for gays and lesbians, is a terrible prison that breeds confusion, sadness and severs connectivity to others. Smith's revelation is a quiet, but significant milestone if not for the sport, then certainly for an integral minority group within our society.
Smith may be the first, but he isn't the last. They are part of the community of MMA fans, promoters, writers, and fighters. We in the straight community have an obligation to welcome them without prejudice or suspicion. It's their sport, too.
by Luke Thomas
A New York Times profile reveals his orientation:
But most of Smith's childhood fights took place outside the ring, on the streets and at his instigation. He used to wear his hair in a mohawk as a tribute to the professional tag-team wrestlers the Road Warriors and prowl the neighborhood looking for fights. "I was just mad-dogging everyone" -- staring them down -- "until somebody said something, and then I'd put my hands up and start fighting." He said he had 46 counts of assault and battery as a juvenile. "And that's 46 counts posted on me. Can you imagine how many there actually were?"
I asked Smith why he spent so much of his youth looking for trouble. I expected some sort of cliche, though possibly true, explanation -- a difficult childhood or a Napoleon complex. What I didn't expect him to say was, "You know, bro, the sexual-preference thing."
Smith is gay, and I know of no other professional fighter who is openly so. "I was always scared that my mom and dad would find out and wouldn't like me, and my brothers wouldn't like me," he said. "I was petrified, because I didn't want anyone to find out. And I would try to be the toughest person around. That way, no one would suspect, no one would ever say it, no one would think it."
The amount of misogyny and homophobia among MMA's hardcore fans is appalling. Worse, "the closet", for gays and lesbians, is a terrible prison that breeds confusion, sadness and severs connectivity to others. Smith's revelation is a quiet, but significant milestone if not for the sport, then certainly for an integral minority group within our society.
Smith may be the first, but he isn't the last. They are part of the community of MMA fans, promoters, writers, and fighters. We in the straight community have an obligation to welcome them without prejudice or suspicion. It's their sport, too.
Say wuh?
Do Gays Cause Hurricanes?
by Janis Walworth
Do "Unnatural" Acts Cause Natural Disasters?
Pat Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition, recently warned Orlando, Florida, that it was courting natural disaster by allowing gay pride flags to be flown along its streets. "A condition like this will bring about ... earthquakes, tornadoes, and possibly a meteor," he said, apparently referring to his belief that the presence of openly gay people incurs divine wrath and that God acts through geological and meteorological events to destroy municipalities that permit gay people the same civil liberties as others. (Robertson also warned Orlando about terrorist bombs, suggesting the possibility that God may also employ terrorists.)
Before Pat and his Christian cronies get too carried away promulgating the idea that natural disasters are prompted by people who displease God, they should take a hard look at the data. Take tornadoes. Every state (except Alaska) has them - some only one or two a year, dozens in others. Gay people are in every state (even Alaska). According to Pat's hypothesis, there should be more gay people in states that have more tornadoes. But are there? Nope. In fact, there's no correlation at all between the number of gay folks (as estimated by the number of gay political organizations, support groups, bookstores, radio programs, and circuit parties) and the annual tornado count (r = .04, p = .78 for you statisticians). So much for the "God hates gays" theory.
God seems almost neutral on the subject of sexual orientation. I say "almost" because if we look at the density of gay groups relative to the population as a whole, there is a small but statistically significant (p < .05) correlation with the occurrence of tornadoes. And it's a negative correlation (r = -.28). For those of you who haven't used statistics since 1973, that means that a high concentration of gay organizations actually protects against tornadoes. A state with the population of, say, Alabama could avert two tornadoes a year merely by doubling the number of gay organizations in the state. (Tough choice for Alabama's civil defense strategists.)
Although God may not care about sexual orientation, the same cannot be said for religious affiliation. If the underlying tenet of Pat's postulate is true - that God wipes out offensive folks via natural disasters - then perhaps we can find some evidence of who's on God's hit list. Jews are off the hook here: there's no correlation between numbers of Jews and frequency of tornadoes. Ditto for Catholics. But when it comes to Protestants, there's a highly significant correlation of .71.
This means that fully half the state-to-state variation in tornado frequency can be accounted for by the presence of Protestants. And the chance that this association is merely coincidental is only one in 10,000. Protestants, of course, come in many flavors-we were able to find statistics for Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists, and Other. Lutherans don't seem to be a problem-no correlation with tornadoes. There's a modest correlation (r = .52, p = .0001) between Methodists and tornadoes.
But Baptists and Others share the prize: both groups show a definite correlation with tornado frequency (r = .68, p = .0001). This means that Texas could cut its average of 139 tornadoes per year in half by sending a few hundred thousand Baptists elsewhere (Alaska maybe?).
What, you are probably asking yourself, about gay Protestants? An examination of the numbers of gay religious groups (mostly Protestant) reveals no significant relationship with tornadoes. Perhaps even Protestants are less repugnant to God if they're gay. And that brings up another point - the futility of trying to save the world by getting gay people to accept Jesus. It looks from our numbers like the frequency of natural disasters could be more effectively reduced by encouraging Protestants to be gay.
Gay people have been falsely blamed for disasters ever since Sodom was destroyed by fire and brimstone (we have been unable to find any statistics on disasters involving brimstone). According to a reliable source, the destruction of Sodom was indeed an act of God (see Genesis 19:13) and was perpetrated because the citizens thereof were, according to the same source (see Ezekiel 16:49-50), "arrogant, overfed and unconcerned [and] did not help the poor and needy" - not because they were gay. Now Pat would have us believe that gays are the cause of tornadoes (as well as earthquakes, meteors, and even terrorist bombs) in utter disregard for evidence showing that Baptists are much more likely to cause them.
I say "Kudos!" to Orlando. Despite Robertson's warning that Orlando is "right in the way of some serious hurricanes" (hardly a revelation), note that it was not struck by the very destructive Hurricane Andrew a few years ago. And amid the recent conflagrations (that's fires) in central Florida, which occurred just after Pat sounded his alarm, Orlando was spared. Keep those flags waving!
As any statistician will tell you, of course, correlation doesn't prove causation. Protestants causing tornadoes by angering God isn't the only explanation for these data. It could be that Baptists and Other Protestants purposely flock to states that have lots of tornadoes (no, we haven't checked for a correlation between IQ and religious affiliation). But if Pat and his Christian crew insist that natural disasters are brought on by people who offend God, let the data show who those people are.
by Janis Walworth
Do "Unnatural" Acts Cause Natural Disasters?
Pat Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition, recently warned Orlando, Florida, that it was courting natural disaster by allowing gay pride flags to be flown along its streets. "A condition like this will bring about ... earthquakes, tornadoes, and possibly a meteor," he said, apparently referring to his belief that the presence of openly gay people incurs divine wrath and that God acts through geological and meteorological events to destroy municipalities that permit gay people the same civil liberties as others. (Robertson also warned Orlando about terrorist bombs, suggesting the possibility that God may also employ terrorists.)
Before Pat and his Christian cronies get too carried away promulgating the idea that natural disasters are prompted by people who displease God, they should take a hard look at the data. Take tornadoes. Every state (except Alaska) has them - some only one or two a year, dozens in others. Gay people are in every state (even Alaska). According to Pat's hypothesis, there should be more gay people in states that have more tornadoes. But are there? Nope. In fact, there's no correlation at all between the number of gay folks (as estimated by the number of gay political organizations, support groups, bookstores, radio programs, and circuit parties) and the annual tornado count (r = .04, p = .78 for you statisticians). So much for the "God hates gays" theory.
God seems almost neutral on the subject of sexual orientation. I say "almost" because if we look at the density of gay groups relative to the population as a whole, there is a small but statistically significant (p < .05) correlation with the occurrence of tornadoes. And it's a negative correlation (r = -.28). For those of you who haven't used statistics since 1973, that means that a high concentration of gay organizations actually protects against tornadoes. A state with the population of, say, Alabama could avert two tornadoes a year merely by doubling the number of gay organizations in the state. (Tough choice for Alabama's civil defense strategists.)
Although God may not care about sexual orientation, the same cannot be said for religious affiliation. If the underlying tenet of Pat's postulate is true - that God wipes out offensive folks via natural disasters - then perhaps we can find some evidence of who's on God's hit list. Jews are off the hook here: there's no correlation between numbers of Jews and frequency of tornadoes. Ditto for Catholics. But when it comes to Protestants, there's a highly significant correlation of .71.
This means that fully half the state-to-state variation in tornado frequency can be accounted for by the presence of Protestants. And the chance that this association is merely coincidental is only one in 10,000. Protestants, of course, come in many flavors-we were able to find statistics for Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists, and Other. Lutherans don't seem to be a problem-no correlation with tornadoes. There's a modest correlation (r = .52, p = .0001) between Methodists and tornadoes.
But Baptists and Others share the prize: both groups show a definite correlation with tornado frequency (r = .68, p = .0001). This means that Texas could cut its average of 139 tornadoes per year in half by sending a few hundred thousand Baptists elsewhere (Alaska maybe?).
What, you are probably asking yourself, about gay Protestants? An examination of the numbers of gay religious groups (mostly Protestant) reveals no significant relationship with tornadoes. Perhaps even Protestants are less repugnant to God if they're gay. And that brings up another point - the futility of trying to save the world by getting gay people to accept Jesus. It looks from our numbers like the frequency of natural disasters could be more effectively reduced by encouraging Protestants to be gay.
Gay people have been falsely blamed for disasters ever since Sodom was destroyed by fire and brimstone (we have been unable to find any statistics on disasters involving brimstone). According to a reliable source, the destruction of Sodom was indeed an act of God (see Genesis 19:13) and was perpetrated because the citizens thereof were, according to the same source (see Ezekiel 16:49-50), "arrogant, overfed and unconcerned [and] did not help the poor and needy" - not because they were gay. Now Pat would have us believe that gays are the cause of tornadoes (as well as earthquakes, meteors, and even terrorist bombs) in utter disregard for evidence showing that Baptists are much more likely to cause them.
I say "Kudos!" to Orlando. Despite Robertson's warning that Orlando is "right in the way of some serious hurricanes" (hardly a revelation), note that it was not struck by the very destructive Hurricane Andrew a few years ago. And amid the recent conflagrations (that's fires) in central Florida, which occurred just after Pat sounded his alarm, Orlando was spared. Keep those flags waving!
As any statistician will tell you, of course, correlation doesn't prove causation. Protestants causing tornadoes by angering God isn't the only explanation for these data. It could be that Baptists and Other Protestants purposely flock to states that have lots of tornadoes (no, we haven't checked for a correlation between IQ and religious affiliation). But if Pat and his Christian crew insist that natural disasters are brought on by people who offend God, let the data show who those people are.
Saturday, July 16, 2011
Bedtime story
I'll leave ya tonight with an inspirational bedtime story read by Christopher Walken.
Enjoy!
Ulf
Enjoy!
Ulf
Marine humor
"Wear your seat belt, don't run with scissors and drink milk"
That poor kid was probably ready to shit himself.
Ulf
Pack you bags bitch!
I told JD this morning to pack his bags, I was in love with someone else!
His response was typical: "Ain't gonna happen, I'm the only one that can put up with you."
Ulf
THE TWO FACES OF OBAMA
The Obama administration has asked an appeals court to reconsider a verdict ruling that the ban on openly gay troops should end immediately.
Last week, the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the Pentagon to cease enforcing the ban.
The law is to be fully repealed at some point this year but the Obama administration says the ban should not be lifted until the long repeal process has run its course.
The court ruling said that as the US government and Congress concluded that ban was unconstitutional, it cannot be enforced.
The judgment came in response to a legal case filed by Republican gay group Log Cabin Republicans.
Tracy Schmaler, a Justice Department spokeswoman, said in a statement.“The department has filed a motion asking the Ninth Circuit to reconsider its order lifting the stay of the injunction on the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy to avoid short-circuiting the repeal process established by Congress during the final stages of the implementation of repeal.”
She added: “Senior military leaders are expected to make their decision on certifying repeal within the next few weeks.”
R Clarke Cooper, the executive director of Log Cabin Republicans, said: “All this does is further confuse the situation for our men and women in uniform.
“‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ is an offense to American values that should have been gone long ago. It is shameful that a president who has taken credit for opposing the policy is taking extreme measures to keep it on life support.”
President Obama pledged to repeal the 1993 law in his 2008 election campaign but was criticized by gay groups for being slow to act.
In December, the US Senate finally voted to repeal the 17-year ban, which is known as ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ because it requires gay and lesbian troops to keep their sexuality secret.
More than 13,500 troops have been fired under the law since 1993.
More and more, President Obama is sounding like a conservative Republican.
Certainly *NOT* the man who ran on a "change" platform.
Consider this, name one thing he has "changed" that betters the LGBT community?
Can't think of one? Neither can I.
Ulf
Last week, the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the Pentagon to cease enforcing the ban.
The law is to be fully repealed at some point this year but the Obama administration says the ban should not be lifted until the long repeal process has run its course.
The court ruling said that as the US government and Congress concluded that ban was unconstitutional, it cannot be enforced.
The judgment came in response to a legal case filed by Republican gay group Log Cabin Republicans.
Tracy Schmaler, a Justice Department spokeswoman, said in a statement.“The department has filed a motion asking the Ninth Circuit to reconsider its order lifting the stay of the injunction on the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy to avoid short-circuiting the repeal process established by Congress during the final stages of the implementation of repeal.”
She added: “Senior military leaders are expected to make their decision on certifying repeal within the next few weeks.”
R Clarke Cooper, the executive director of Log Cabin Republicans, said: “All this does is further confuse the situation for our men and women in uniform.
“‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ is an offense to American values that should have been gone long ago. It is shameful that a president who has taken credit for opposing the policy is taking extreme measures to keep it on life support.”
President Obama pledged to repeal the 1993 law in his 2008 election campaign but was criticized by gay groups for being slow to act.
In December, the US Senate finally voted to repeal the 17-year ban, which is known as ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ because it requires gay and lesbian troops to keep their sexuality secret.
More than 13,500 troops have been fired under the law since 1993.
More and more, President Obama is sounding like a conservative Republican.
Certainly *NOT* the man who ran on a "change" platform.
Consider this, name one thing he has "changed" that betters the LGBT community?
Can't think of one? Neither can I.
Ulf
Minnesota becoming gay Mecca?
Minnesota has seen a quiet surge in the number of same-sex households over the past decade, and the trend has moved beyond the core of the Twin Cities into many suburbs. The U.S. Census Bureau on Thursday released its second-ever count of same-sex partners in Minnesota, and the numbers detailed a dramatic picture of change: • A 50 percent jump in same-sex households, a rate of growth five times faster than households overall. The census counted 13,718 same-sex couples in 2010, accounting for about 1 percent of all couples statewide.
Friday, July 15, 2011
Must be Friday 'cause Ulf is horny
This is the start of what will be a weekly post.
Guys I'd like to do.
This week the honor goes too:
Yup, I would love to skull fuck WWE star Randy Orton.
Definitely. I would ram my fat cock passed those perky lips and stuff his cheeks with my big hairy balls, then make him choke and gag 'til I pumped my load in his sucking faggot mouth.
You just know he's a fuck'in cum pig!
Ulf
Guys I'd like to do.
This week the honor goes too:
Yup, I would love to skull fuck WWE star Randy Orton.
Definitely. I would ram my fat cock passed those perky lips and stuff his cheeks with my big hairy balls, then make him choke and gag 'til I pumped my load in his sucking faggot mouth.
You just know he's a fuck'in cum pig!
Ulf
Things I love
Since I was a kid, I've always had a fascination for muscle cars.
One of my passions was collecting Matchbox cars, I'd spend every penny of my allowance on the latest releases and would play with them for hours.
In high school, my best friend and I would walk, thumb even beg for rides too get to a local race track in Georgia, just to watch demo rallies which also side showed drag races.
We would spend our weekends working on a wrecked 64 GTO his dad salvaged for him. (he owned and operated an auto machine shop)
Greg, my brother and I would travel to all sorts of junk yards looking for the perfect V8 to slam in that bad boi or just to find the various parts we needed.
The task took us years (money to purchase parts always being an issue)
Greg's dad, who coulda' rebuilt a V8 blindfolded, would only give us advice when we were absolutely stumped or were about to make some monumental blunder.
Our goal was to be done before we graduated High school, which didn't happen, but that's life and we learned many things from the project.
Eventually, we did complete the *Goat* replete with restored interior and enjoyed several years of weekend road trips.
Alas, in 1982 during a freak storm in winter, the roof of the storage building in which the GTO was housed, collapsed and crushed it like a pancake.
We ended up actually having a "farewell" party for the Goat and yes, more than a few tears were shed as well as many fine memories.
Today, I never miss an episode of Top Gear and still sport wood every time I see or get to ride or drive in a growling, tire smoking muscle car, which brings us to my current passion.
What I wouldn't give just to drive one of these:
For me, the Veyron is pure sex on wheels and I would probably lap some old whores diseased twat just to drive one.
Check this vid out, if your a gear head and don't get a boner watching this, then you dead between the legs.
One of my passions was collecting Matchbox cars, I'd spend every penny of my allowance on the latest releases and would play with them for hours.
In high school, my best friend and I would walk, thumb even beg for rides too get to a local race track in Georgia, just to watch demo rallies which also side showed drag races.
We would spend our weekends working on a wrecked 64 GTO his dad salvaged for him. (he owned and operated an auto machine shop)
Greg, my brother and I would travel to all sorts of junk yards looking for the perfect V8 to slam in that bad boi or just to find the various parts we needed.
The task took us years (money to purchase parts always being an issue)
Greg's dad, who coulda' rebuilt a V8 blindfolded, would only give us advice when we were absolutely stumped or were about to make some monumental blunder.
Our goal was to be done before we graduated High school, which didn't happen, but that's life and we learned many things from the project.
Eventually, we did complete the *Goat* replete with restored interior and enjoyed several years of weekend road trips.
Alas, in 1982 during a freak storm in winter, the roof of the storage building in which the GTO was housed, collapsed and crushed it like a pancake.
We ended up actually having a "farewell" party for the Goat and yes, more than a few tears were shed as well as many fine memories.
Today, I never miss an episode of Top Gear and still sport wood every time I see or get to ride or drive in a growling, tire smoking muscle car, which brings us to my current passion.
What I wouldn't give just to drive one of these:
For me, the Veyron is pure sex on wheels and I would probably lap some old whores diseased twat just to drive one.
Check this vid out, if your a gear head and don't get a boner watching this, then you dead between the legs.
What we've always known
Homophobic Men Most Aroused by Gay Male Porn
Homophobia Associated with Penis Arousal to Male on Male Sex
Published on June 9, 2011 by Nathan A. Heflick in The Big Questions
Even a man who thought that women want to have sex with their fathers, and that women spend much of their lives distraught over their lack of a penis is right sometimes. This person, the legend that is Sigmund Freud, theorized that people often have the most hateful and negative attitudes towards things they secretly crave, but feel that they shouldn't have.
If Freud is right, then perhaps men who are the most opposed to male homosexuality have particularly strong homosexual urges for other men.
One study asked heterosexal men how comfortable and anxious they are around gay men. Based on these scores, they then divided these men into two groups: men that are homophobic, and men who are not. These men were then shown three, four-minute videos. One video depicted straight sex, one depicted lesbian sex and one depicted gay male sex. While this was happening, a device was attached to each participant's penis. This device has been found to be triggered by sexual arousal, but not other types of arousal (such as nervousness, or fear - arousal often has a very different meaning in psychology than in popular usage).
When viewing lesbian sex and straight sex, both the homophobic and the non-homophobic men showed increased penis circumference. For gay male sex, however, only the homophobic men showed heightened penis arousal.
Heterosexual men with the most anti-gay attitudes, when asked, reported not being sexually aroused by gay male sex videos. But, their penises reported otherwise.
Homophobic men were the most sexually aroused by gay male sex acts.
Homophobia Associated with Penis Arousal to Male on Male Sex
Published on June 9, 2011 by Nathan A. Heflick in The Big Questions
Even a man who thought that women want to have sex with their fathers, and that women spend much of their lives distraught over their lack of a penis is right sometimes. This person, the legend that is Sigmund Freud, theorized that people often have the most hateful and negative attitudes towards things they secretly crave, but feel that they shouldn't have.
If Freud is right, then perhaps men who are the most opposed to male homosexuality have particularly strong homosexual urges for other men.
One study asked heterosexal men how comfortable and anxious they are around gay men. Based on these scores, they then divided these men into two groups: men that are homophobic, and men who are not. These men were then shown three, four-minute videos. One video depicted straight sex, one depicted lesbian sex and one depicted gay male sex. While this was happening, a device was attached to each participant's penis. This device has been found to be triggered by sexual arousal, but not other types of arousal (such as nervousness, or fear - arousal often has a very different meaning in psychology than in popular usage).
When viewing lesbian sex and straight sex, both the homophobic and the non-homophobic men showed increased penis circumference. For gay male sex, however, only the homophobic men showed heightened penis arousal.
Heterosexual men with the most anti-gay attitudes, when asked, reported not being sexually aroused by gay male sex videos. But, their penises reported otherwise.
Homophobic men were the most sexually aroused by gay male sex acts.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Marine Corps get's the job done
This is the official release from the Marine Corps leadership to all Marines on DADT.
The Marine Corps wasted no time in issuing this statement.
It is this very mentality that exist in almost all Marines, that makes them stand above the rest.
Ulf
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Republicans are just fucking nuts.
Here's a novel idea, instead of repealing DADT, and fighting for our basic civil rights such as: marriage, gay adoption or just walking down the street holding your mans hand without the fear of being beaten to death by rabid animals.
Why don't we just force congress to pass a bill banning stupid people.
Once we accomplish this, everything else will just fall into place.
Ulf
OMG, Ulf's in love with a woman!?
Okay, so she's a lesbian and I'm a faggot, think of what kinda' child we would spawn.
Ulf (loves dick for life)
Soldiers juz have'in fun
Pretty sure I'd fuck all of 'em, but the one with the gun...I'd save him for last and spread my legs for him. (and that's sayin' sumthin')
Ulf
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
The new Spartacus
Liam McIntyre has been cast as the new lead role as “Spartacus” for Spartacus Blood and Sand Season 2
On Monday Liam McIntyre received some of the most exciting news of his career, and some of the most difficult: he learned that he had just been cast in the title role in a cable series — but as the replacement for Andy Whitfield in “Spartacus: Blood and Sand.”
“It’s been the toughest thing,” Mr. McIntyre said in a telephone interview from his home in Melbourne, Australia. “Every actor dreams of getting a big break, a big opportunity. Andy’s such a wonderful actor. I don’t want to follow that guy, and everybody hurts that he’s had to give up the role, myself included.”
But the casting of Mr. McIntyre, a little-known Australian actor who will soon be carrying the second season of “Spartacus,” was necessitated after it was announced in the fall that Mr. Whitfield, who created the lead character in that hit Starz series about the Roman gladiator who eventually leads a slave rebellion, had had a recurrence of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
Mr. Whitfield announced his original diagnosis last March, and Starz said in May that it was producing a prequel series, “Spartacus: Gods of the Arena,” that would not feature his character, a strategy partly intended to give Mr. Whitfield time to recover.
But after Mr. Whitfield learned his cancer had returned, Starz was faced with a difficult decision. “Either we close down the show permanently,” said Steven S. DeKnight, the creator and producer of both “Spartacus” series, “and have one season and a prequel stand as a testament to what we had done, or look to find another actor to step into the role of Spartacus.”
Mr. DeKnight and his Starz colleagues were particularly encouraged to proceed with recasting the show after receiving an e-mail from Mr. Whitfield that said he wanted to see “Spartacus” continue.
After a few frenzied months of searching, the “Spartacus” producers discovered Mr. McIntyre on an audition tape in which he looked thin and haggard, and hardly seemed to possess the build of a gladiator.
“We needed someone that not only had that gravity and that manliness that the hero requires,” Mr. DeKnight said, “but he also had to have a sympathy and a compassion that just radiates.”
“The way he delivered everything was spot on,” Mr. DeKnight said of Mr. McIntyre, “but he looked like Christian Bale from ‘The Fighter.’ ”
In fact Mr. McIntyre had been working on a thriller called “Frozen Moments” for which the director had asked him to lose a significant amount of weight. (Invoking a different Christian Bale movie, Mr. McIntyre recalled: “When I got this role back in January, the director rung me up, he said: ‘Congratulations. Now, have you seen “The Machinist?” ’ I was a rake.”)
So Mr. DeKnight assigned Mr. McIntyre to a rigorous exercise and workout regime (“gladiator-camp hell, plus 10,” as Mr. DeKnight described it) and looked at photographs of the actor’s progress every two weeks before the commitment was made this week to hire Mr. McIntyre for the role.
Mr. McIntyre said it is not his intention to try to duplicate Mr. Whitfield’s performance when Season 2 of “Spartacus: Blood and Sand,” begins production in Auckland, New Zealand, in the spring.
“As an actor, you never try to be someone else,” Mr. McIntyre said. “You can’t. I honestly think the reason I’ve got this far and now have got the role — I’d like to think I have the same soul as Spartacus, that Andy brought to it. But I guess it remains to be seen.”
Mr. McIntyre added: “Beyond that, Andy’s Spartacus is always going to be Andy’s Spartacus, and I would never try and emulate that. Or try to be him. I think that should stand alone as his legacy.”
Though he and Mr. Whitfield share an agent in Australia, Mr. McIntyre said he had not reached out to his predecessor. “Obviously I’d love to speak to Andy,” Mr. McIntyre said. “But he’s going through a lot. I don’t want to get in the way of that. Whatever it takes to get him well is more important. I send him my love, and I wish him well.”
While he keeps Mr. Whitfield in his thoughts, Mr. McIntyre is also slowly starting to think about what the future will hold for him, and what the responsibility of being Spartacus entails.
“All I know is my foreseeable future is living in the gym,” Mr. McIntyre said, adding, “they’ll tell me when I can start doing the lines and doing the performance. There’ll be some acting there eventually, I’m sure.”
This is one of my favorite show's.
I loved Andy Whitfield in this role and will miss his contribution to it.
Have too say tho, the new guy looks promising and I have high hopes the show won't crash and burn.
Never the less, I wish Andy a speedy recovery and hopefully see him perform again.
Ulf
Bend over and spread 'em evangelicals:
My Take: The Bible’s surprisingly mixed messages on sexuality
By Jennifer Wright Knust, Special to CNN
We often hear that Christians have no choice but to regard homosexuality as a sin - that Scripture simply demands it.
As a Bible scholar and pastor myself, I say that Scripture does no such thing.
"I love gay people, but the Bible forces me to condemn them" is a poor excuse that attempts to avoid accountability by wrapping a very particular and narrow interpretation of a few biblical passages in a cloak of divinely inspired respectability.
Truth is, Scripture can be interpreted in any number of ways. And biblical writers held a much more complicated view of human sexuality than contemporary debates have acknowledged.
In Genesis, for example, it would seem that God’s original intention for humanity was androgyny, not sexual differentiation and heterosexuality.
Genesis includes two versions of the story of God’s creation of the human person. First, God creates humanity male and female and then God forms the human person again, this time in the Garden of Eden. The second human person is given the name Adam and the female is formed from his rib.
Ancient Christians and Jews explained this two-step creation by imagining that the first human person possessed the genitalia of both sexes. Then, when the androgynous, dually-sexed person was placed in the garden, s/he was divided in two.
According to this account, the man “clings to the woman” in an attempt to regain half his flesh, which God took from him once he was placed in Eden. As third century Rabbi Samuel bar Nahman explained, when God created the first man, God created him with two faces. “Then he split the androgyne and made two bodies, one on each side, and turned them about.”
When the apostle Paul envisioned the bodies that would be given to humanity at the end of time, he imagined that they would be androgynous, “not male and female.” The third-century non-canonical Gospel of Philip, meanwhile, lamented that sexual difference had been created at all: “If the female had not separated from the male, she and the male would not die. That being’s separation became the source of death.”
From these perspectives, God’s original plan was sexual unity in one body, not two. The Genesis creation stories can support the notion that sexual intercourse is designed to reunite male and female into one body, but they can also suggest that God’s blessing was first placed on an undifferentiated body that didn’t have sex at all.
Heterosexual sex was therefore an afterthought designed to give back the man what he had lost.
Despite common misperceptions, biblical writers could also imagine same-sex intimacy as a source of blessing. For example, the seemingly intimate relationship between the Old Testament's David and Jonathan, in which Jonathan loved David more than he loved women, may have been intended to justify David’s rise as king.
Jonathan, not David, was a king’s son. David was only a shepherd. Yet by becoming David’s “woman,” Jonathan voluntarily gave up his place for his beloved friend.
Thus, Jonathan “took great delight in David,” foiling King Saul’s attempts to arrange for David’s death (1 Samuel 19:1). Choosing David over his father, Jonathan makes a formal covenant with his friend, asking David to remain faithful to him and his descendants.
Sealing the covenant, David swears his devotion to Jonathan, “for he loved him as he loved his own life” (1 Samuel 20:17). When Jonathan is killed, King David composes a eulogy for him, praising his devotion: “greatly beloved were you to me; your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women” (2 Samuel 1:26).
Confident claims about the forms of sex rejected by God are also called into question by early Christian interpretations of the story of Sodom. From the perspective of the New Testament, it was the near rape of angels - not sex between men - that led to the demise of the city.
Linking a strange story in Genesis about “sons of God” who lust after “daughters of men” to the story of the angels who visit Abraham’s nephew Lot, New Testament writers concluded that the mingling of human and divine flesh is an intolerable sin.
As the New Testament letter Jude puts it:
It’s true that same-sex intimacy is condemned in a few biblical passages. But these passages, which I can count on one hand, are addressed to specific sex acts and specific persons, not to all humanity forever, and they can be interpreted in any number of ways.
The book of Leviticus, for example, is directed at Israelite men, offering instructions regarding legitimate sexual partners so long as they are living in Israel. Biblical patriarchs and kings violate nearly every one of these commandments.
Paul’s letters urge followers of Christ to remain celibate and blame all Gentiles in general for their poor sexual standards. Jesus, meanwhile, says nothing at all about same-sex pairing, and when he discusses marriage, he discourages it.
So why are we pretending that the Bible is dictating our sexual morals? It isn’t.
Moreover, as Americans we should have learned by now that such a simplistic approach to the Bible will lead us astray.
Only a little more than a century ago, many of the very same passages now being invoked to argue that the scriptures label homosexuality a sin or that God cannot countenance gay marriage were used to justify not “biblical marriage” but slavery.
Yes, the apostle Paul selected same-sex pairings as one among many possible examples of human sin, but he also assumed that slavery was acceptable and then did nothing to protect slaves from sexual use by their masters, a common practice at the time. Letters attributed to him go so far as to command slaves to obey their masters and women to obey their husbands as if they were obeying Christ.
These passages served as fundamental proof texts to those who were arguing that slavery was God’s will and accusing abolitionists of failing to obey biblical mandates.
It is therefore disturbing to hear some Christian leaders today claim that they have no choice but to regard homosexuality as a sin. They do have a choice and should be held accountable for the ones they are making.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Jennifer Wright Knust.
Can I hear an Amen for sister Knust?
Ulf (not gay enough to say: "You go gurl"
We often hear that Christians have no choice but to regard homosexuality as a sin - that Scripture simply demands it.
As a Bible scholar and pastor myself, I say that Scripture does no such thing.
"I love gay people, but the Bible forces me to condemn them" is a poor excuse that attempts to avoid accountability by wrapping a very particular and narrow interpretation of a few biblical passages in a cloak of divinely inspired respectability.
Truth is, Scripture can be interpreted in any number of ways. And biblical writers held a much more complicated view of human sexuality than contemporary debates have acknowledged.
In Genesis, for example, it would seem that God’s original intention for humanity was androgyny, not sexual differentiation and heterosexuality.
Genesis includes two versions of the story of God’s creation of the human person. First, God creates humanity male and female and then God forms the human person again, this time in the Garden of Eden. The second human person is given the name Adam and the female is formed from his rib.
Ancient Christians and Jews explained this two-step creation by imagining that the first human person possessed the genitalia of both sexes. Then, when the androgynous, dually-sexed person was placed in the garden, s/he was divided in two.
According to this account, the man “clings to the woman” in an attempt to regain half his flesh, which God took from him once he was placed in Eden. As third century Rabbi Samuel bar Nahman explained, when God created the first man, God created him with two faces. “Then he split the androgyne and made two bodies, one on each side, and turned them about.”
When the apostle Paul envisioned the bodies that would be given to humanity at the end of time, he imagined that they would be androgynous, “not male and female.” The third-century non-canonical Gospel of Philip, meanwhile, lamented that sexual difference had been created at all: “If the female had not separated from the male, she and the male would not die. That being’s separation became the source of death.”
From these perspectives, God’s original plan was sexual unity in one body, not two. The Genesis creation stories can support the notion that sexual intercourse is designed to reunite male and female into one body, but they can also suggest that God’s blessing was first placed on an undifferentiated body that didn’t have sex at all.
Heterosexual sex was therefore an afterthought designed to give back the man what he had lost.
Despite common misperceptions, biblical writers could also imagine same-sex intimacy as a source of blessing. For example, the seemingly intimate relationship between the Old Testament's David and Jonathan, in which Jonathan loved David more than he loved women, may have been intended to justify David’s rise as king.
Jonathan, not David, was a king’s son. David was only a shepherd. Yet by becoming David’s “woman,” Jonathan voluntarily gave up his place for his beloved friend.
Thus, Jonathan “took great delight in David,” foiling King Saul’s attempts to arrange for David’s death (1 Samuel 19:1). Choosing David over his father, Jonathan makes a formal covenant with his friend, asking David to remain faithful to him and his descendants.
Sealing the covenant, David swears his devotion to Jonathan, “for he loved him as he loved his own life” (1 Samuel 20:17). When Jonathan is killed, King David composes a eulogy for him, praising his devotion: “greatly beloved were you to me; your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women” (2 Samuel 1:26).
Confident claims about the forms of sex rejected by God are also called into question by early Christian interpretations of the story of Sodom. From the perspective of the New Testament, it was the near rape of angels - not sex between men - that led to the demise of the city.
Linking a strange story in Genesis about “sons of God” who lust after “daughters of men” to the story of the angels who visit Abraham’s nephew Lot, New Testament writers concluded that the mingling of human and divine flesh is an intolerable sin.
As the New Testament letter Jude puts it:
And the angels who did not keep their own position, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains in deepest darkness for the judgment of the great day. Likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual immorality and went after strange flesh, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire (Jude 6-7).The first time angels dared to mix with humans, God flooded the earth, saving only Noah, his family, and the animals. In the case of Sodom, as soon as men attempted to engage in sexual activity with angels, God obliterated the city with fire, delivering only Lot and his family. Sex with angels was regarded as the most dangerous and offensive sex of all.
It’s true that same-sex intimacy is condemned in a few biblical passages. But these passages, which I can count on one hand, are addressed to specific sex acts and specific persons, not to all humanity forever, and they can be interpreted in any number of ways.
The book of Leviticus, for example, is directed at Israelite men, offering instructions regarding legitimate sexual partners so long as they are living in Israel. Biblical patriarchs and kings violate nearly every one of these commandments.
Paul’s letters urge followers of Christ to remain celibate and blame all Gentiles in general for their poor sexual standards. Jesus, meanwhile, says nothing at all about same-sex pairing, and when he discusses marriage, he discourages it.
So why are we pretending that the Bible is dictating our sexual morals? It isn’t.
Moreover, as Americans we should have learned by now that such a simplistic approach to the Bible will lead us astray.
Only a little more than a century ago, many of the very same passages now being invoked to argue that the scriptures label homosexuality a sin or that God cannot countenance gay marriage were used to justify not “biblical marriage” but slavery.
Yes, the apostle Paul selected same-sex pairings as one among many possible examples of human sin, but he also assumed that slavery was acceptable and then did nothing to protect slaves from sexual use by their masters, a common practice at the time. Letters attributed to him go so far as to command slaves to obey their masters and women to obey their husbands as if they were obeying Christ.
These passages served as fundamental proof texts to those who were arguing that slavery was God’s will and accusing abolitionists of failing to obey biblical mandates.
It is therefore disturbing to hear some Christian leaders today claim that they have no choice but to regard homosexuality as a sin. They do have a choice and should be held accountable for the ones they are making.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Jennifer Wright Knust.
Can I hear an Amen for sister Knust?
Ulf (not gay enough to say: "You go gurl"
Monday, July 11, 2011
Bayou bois
Don't know why, but I'm inna lovey, romantic mood tonight. Never fear tho, I'll be back to my normal vicious self tomorrow.
Ulf
Songs I like: "In my dreams with you" by Steve Vai
The ol' man knows he's in for a rough night when he hears this song.
Ulf
Truly, my kinda porn.
The thing I like about this video the most, the guys are really so into each other and what they are do'in.
Of course, it probably helps Keiran has such a big fucking cock.
Ulf
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Yes Virginia, Ulf does satire:
Really, I'm not going to say much about this,(I'll let the pic do that) but it was a huge topic of conversation with some guys JD and I met at a gay bar while on vacation.
JD *was* a huge fan of Logan McCree, but like a lot of his fans, now feels decieved by this man.
That and the fact his comments are coming off as *gay is a choice and he now loves pussy and it's what he's always been missing*
Oh well, as I told grumpy: "He's a pornstar, what did you expect?"
On a happy note, I'd like to say thanx to Dan and Jason (and a bunch of others) who were the very first people I've met out in the *real* world who knew who I was and asked for my autograph (a big first for me and I'm sure I was beaming from ear to ear)
Thanx for the great time guys and the pitcher of Margaretta's ; )
Ulf (still buzzing from the experience)
How I spent my summer vacation:
JD and I spent a week on the North Carolina beaches and oh yeah, after all these years, I still love draining those big balls of his right in my faggot mouth.
(the man can really shoot a big load and I love ever drop)
Ulf *still smil'in*
All mine!
Sometimes I find inspiration in simple pics like this; I could spend hours just eating that big sweaty ass and even more time pounding it.
Ulf
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Monday, November 9, 2009
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Friday, November 6, 2009
Can ya smell it?
Ulf
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Boot camp discipline
Ulf
Monday, November 2, 2009
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Whose thirsty?
It dates back to my childhood, my Dad was stationed in Norfolk and we lived across the street from a Marine base.
During the Cuban missle crisis, the base went on high alert and they stationed armed Marines up and down the streets of the military housing project we lived in (I was just a little Ulf then)
but I remember vividly my brother and I looking out our bedroom window late one night and there was the most perfect specimen of manliness just a few feet away, his back too us.
We must have been loud enough for him to hear, because he turned, winked at us and mouthed the words: "Everythings okay, go back to sleep."
I have never in my life felt safer than I was that night, but it burned an indelible memory into my young psyche and for this fag, there ain't nuthin' in this world hotter than a Marine in (or out) of his dress blues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)