Thursday, July 14, 2011
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)