Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your appearances on the Steve Nolan Show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that (Leviticus 18:22) clearly states it to be an abomination.

End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them.

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in (Exodus 21:7). In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

4. (Lev. 25:44) states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to the Irish, but not Scots. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Scottish people?

5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. (Exodus 35:2) clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this?

7. (Lev. 21:20) States that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by (Lev. 19:27). How should they die?

 9. I know from (Lev. 11:6-8 ) that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves? 

From pinkpages.co.uk

Ulster politician Iris Robinson has been named ‘Bigot of the Year’ at the Stonewall Awards after a particularly abhorrent series of comments determining that homosexual activity is a greater abomination than paedophilia and promoting ‘talking therapy’ for homosexuals (is there a ‘talking therapy’ for stupidity?) . Robinson is a member of the ‘Democratic’ Unionist Party, the DUP (‘Getting it Right’), which was founded by Ian ‘never, never, no, no’ Paisley and is now led by Iris’ husband, Peter Robinson. Incidentally, during 2007, a junior member of the DUP was defended by his party after claiming to be ‘repulsed’ by homosexuality. And who was that member? Oh, Ian Paisley Junior, of course. Could the party get any more inbred? The ‘Union’ to which the party title refers is that between Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom; they oppose Nationalist Republicans who wish for a ‘united’ island of Ireland. Confused? Let’s just say that even in the current political climate, there are a few moments when it’s good to be a ‘Republican’. As an aside, Sinn Féin regularly speaks out against homophobia.

Anyway, political sentiments aside, back to Robinson, who describes herself as a Born Again Christian and who insists that the government and Church should be strongly connected. After a homophobic attack in June of this year, Robinson decided to get herself some tenuous publicity by making the statement that it would be possible, through therapy, for homosexuals to change their sexual orientation. This theory has caused controversy for many years; some believe that homosexuality is caused by a trauma which can be uncovered and reversed with psychiatric assistance. It’s possible to be an activist for homosexual rights and still acknowledge that people’s sexual orientation is influenced by events in their lives; and that, in some cases, that their perceptions of their sexuality may be inaccurate or delusional. However, it is utter nonsense to suggest that homosexuality is a ‘choice’ taken by those who wish to lead immoral lives. Defying the removal of homosexuality from the list of mental disorders held by the American Psychiatric Association, this nonsense is a key part of the rhetoric promoted by the ex-gay movement, which would be laughably ridiculous if it wasn’t so frightening. Oh, but it works, claims Robinson!: ‘I have met people who have turned around to become heterosexual.’ No, you haven’t. You have met people who were never really non-heterosexual but worried themselves into a frenzy because they accidentally looked the wrong way in a urinal. You have met people who have been shamefully brainwashed into repressing their feelings, which will no doubt cause them great turmoil later in life. Or you have met people who are just outright lying to get you to shut up and leave their doorsteps on your disgusting canvassing slime-trail.

Robinson compares homosexuality with the act of murder (‘just as a murderer can be redeemed by the blood of Christ, so can a homosexual’) and with paedophilia (‘There can be no viler act, apart from homosexuality and sodomy, than sexually abusing innocent children’). She also takes the bizarre standpoint adopted by many homophobics in suggesting that granting any rights to non-heterosexuals will result in a homo-run anarchy with heterosexuals washed away by the tides of gayness; in reference to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, Robinson makes the utterly erroneous claim: ‘We are moving mountains to facilitate immorality and to bring the rights of lesbians above all others in this country.’ How is it that enabling a few non-heterosexual couples to have children (which will still be a very arduous process) will mean that their rights are suddenly ‘above’ those of others? Might I add that this woman chairs the Health committee of the Northern Ireland assembly? Another tendency of such homophobes is to believe that it is perfectly fine for them to spout their disgusting diatribes whenever they wish, but any retaliation means that ‘Christians’ are being ‘silenced’ and abused. As Robinson said, refusing to retract any of her comments: ‘I think at the moment there is a witch hunt to kerb or actually stop or prevent Christians speaking out…’ Boohoo. Only bad witches are ugly.

Finally, Robinson espouses this rubbish: ‘I stand by my faith and the word of God that man was created in the image of God and that woman was created from the rib of Adam to be his helpmeet and companion.’ Oh, COME ON. You’re a Health minister and you actually want to defy evolution. Are you channelling Sarah Palin or are you just having a laugh? The misogyny which saturates the Bible is all abhorrent, but this ‘Adam’s rib’ nonsense is the worst part of all; a shameless attempt to subjugate women by making them feel unequal to, and the property of, their male counterparts. What is worse than ever is to see a woman willingly complicit in this nonsense. And what’s most terrifying of all is that it’s 2008 and this person is a leading politician.

Susan Curran, current.com

This is such a sad story and is emblematic of something very wrong in Britain. Susan Curran, 58, who suffers from cerebral palsy and uses a wheelchair, was banned from every branch of Marks & Spencers after she used the emergency bell in the disabled toilet to alert staff that she was having difficulties. Apparently, staff would be put at risk under some tenuous health and safety claim if they were asked to assist her, and so handing her a ‘trespass order’ was deemed a better way to handle the situation. Subsequently, no doubt due to the leaking of this story to the press, M&S revoked the order and said that it had been made in error. But this was not the phone bill with the misplaced decimal point that was accidentally posted to Granny Smith and made her think she’d have to remortgage her flat. This was a rationalised, premeditated event; the manageress waited for Miss Curran to return to the store before handing her the note. A spokeswoman has subsequently claimed, ‘It was never our intention for Miss Curran to feel she was not welcome in the store.’ Of course it was the intention. That’s just a cop-out because you got caught. When will ‘disabed’ people be treated like normal citizens? And what is the point in having an emergency bell designed to offer them assistance, if that cannot be provided? Okay, so it is a difficult and embarrassing situation if someone needs help at the toilet, and no doubt with our pervasive rape anxiety, the manageress was worried that Miss Curran would sue the helper on some tenuous claim of sexual harrassment. But just do it and don’t make the woman feel even worse about it. When I used to work at a charity shop, people with all manner of mental and physical ‘disabilities’ would come in, and on more than one occasion get naked in the shop. When you don’t have health and safety rule #7897 to refer to, common sense tends to prevail. Of course, health and safety regulations are a necessity, because apparently without having every possible rule written down in a pamphlet, we will send children up chimneys and cut off our hands in terrible industrial accidents. But seriously, sometimes you just have to use a little bit of logic, sense, and compassion. And because when it comes to jobsworths like these I am an incompassionate misanthrope, this story makes me entertain fantasies about the manageress being immobilised by the sheer terrifying force of the flush in one of those Virgin train toilets and having to be yanked out in a shitty pool of chemical goop.

You've seen it before, but it's appropriate... fark.com

So, for a little proof… I have already mentioned the author’s abhorrent statements about Stu Rasmussen, the transgender Mayor who was elected in Oregon, and who is apparently spearheading a ‘Fascist Communist Trannie Theocracy’ and should therefore be stoned. This is no joke, whether or not it is intended to be satirical.

Referring to the shameful success of Proposition 8, the author states that: ‘Hopefully, we will be able to return to the REAL definition of traditional marriage: a contract between a man and his concubine’s father. Hopefully, we can also fully protect marriage, by executing homosexuals.’ How very progressive.

But, this post, ‘A Truly Terrifying Vision of the Future’, was by far my favourite, if such a term can be used, for the sheer detail of its paranoid inanity. Even if this is intended to be satirical, it is revelatory of a very disturbed pysche. The author hypothesises a future under a liberal government, which he fails will not fulfil his special remit for dealing with homosexuals, who should apparently be ‘quarantined and stoned.’ Let’s see what he predicts. Apparently, to educate schoolchildren that homosexuality is NOT abhorrent will result in the following: ‘…bullies will now be able to sodomize our children on the swings and face little to no reprimand for doing so. Our children will be encouraged to get a sex change if they want to; sex change operations will be performed by the school nurses, and they will be forced to experiment with a condom in forced sex with an older, pedophilic teacher.’ Yes, that will be a logical conclusion to a programme of sexual education which does not intend to instill shame and self-loathing into those children who will be non-heterosexual. But I have no doubt that this author subscribes (or is pretending to subscribe) to the belief that homosexuality is a ‘choice’ and that the suppression of natural desires can be encouraged with a healthy dose of fire and brimstone.

This diatribe becomes even more bizarre: ‘According to homosexuals, if a child wants to profess Christianity, he or she should be placed in ‘time out’ until he or she renounces Christianity. Children will now be forced to be raised by people that are likely to get AIDS, more likely to separate, and more likely to be suddenly smitten by the LORD.’ Oh, is this a doctrine which is adopted by all homosexuals? I wonder at which point they are granted access to that. I’ll have to ask one of my homosexual Christian friends, who would be surprised to hear about it, as I think they missed out on that… Perhaps it is part of the graduation ceremony at the Sodomy Academy. My favourite part, though, has got to be ‘smitten by the LORD,‘ which, in this context, looks like a bit of a Freudian slip. Purple-faced, and, I speculate, furiously-masturbating man of God (whether you’re ‘joking’ or not), I think you would have been better off using ’smote’, to avoid the terrifying implication that all of these disease-ridden, child-cannibalising degenerates are developing unhealthy designs on the Celestial Master.

It continues: ‘Homosexuals are far more expensive to care for than heterosexuals’ and are unable to work since they are all ‘too busy masturbating.’ Sounds okay to me. ‘Muuuuum, can I get a homosexual?’ ‘No, Billy, they’re too expensive, and they need all those accessories. Leather chaps and George Michael CDs / Birkenstocks and Murray’s Pomade don’t come cheap, and you know who’d end up looking after his / her Chihuahua / German Shepherd. No, you can have a sugar glider or a Madagascar Day Gecko.’

Now the author’s ‘satirical’ fantasy is getting a little out of control, and he whips himself up into a frenzy: ‘We ought to respect the rights of doctors to avoid checking a homosexual’s private organs, since in a sensible society, administering towards a patient of the opposite sex would be punished by death, due to its deviancy. No person should have to examine the genitalia of a homosexual that is likely masturbating towards them, or have to pluck off the butt plugs of a lesbian.’  None of this makes any sense. Is the author implying that homosexual men and women are of the ‘opposite sex’ to non-homosexual men and women? And is he suggesting that we execute all male gynaecologicists? And those pesky gays just won’t give up the masturbating, not even to get their blood pressure checked. I wish my trips to the GP were as much fun. Oh, and ‘butt plugs’? Really, plural?

Next, ‘group masturbation will be forced in churches under a homosexual proletariat.’  What an interesting image… I think you came up with that one all by yourself. Oh, and any child carrying a copy of the Bible will be tortured. And new babies will be raised in vast test tubes. And ‘[a]ny nurse that doesn’t deliver an abortion will forcibly be stripped of her job, and then continually raped by Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and their ‘human’ clones until a baby is conceived, after which it will be partially aborted until the woman professes respect for abortion.’  Doctors will be forcibly infected with sexually-transmitted diseases and will be required to infect their patients.

The whole thing spirals into completely insanity to the point that I’m sure the author realises the ridiculousness of what he is saying and must surely realise how dangerous it is, whether or not he intends it to be satirical. More choice visions of the future include the genital-exposing Burka for women and the abolition of any energy sources apart from ‘Hippie’ ones such as wind and solar power (gee, imagine that). However, one of the best quotes from the whole diatribe is the fear that ‘[t]he nation will be ‘forced to worship at the altar of homosexuality.’ Imagine what that would look like… the altar of homosexuality. Mr. Calvinist or Fake-Calvinist, if you read this, and I hope you do, you are utterly obsessed with homosexual intercourse and paedophilia; although that is no surprise from someone who espouses / pretends to espouse a religion which focuses upon the nonsense concepts of ‘original sin’ and ‘total depravity.’ In the movie Fetishes by Nick Broomfield (I’m sure you’ve seen it), one of the clients at the New York S/m parlour remarks that ‘fetishes are the eroticization of the worst thing you can ever imagine happening to you.’ This writing can be considered as indicative of a severe sodomy fetish, which is compounded by your suffering from androphobia (fear of men), contreltophobia (fear of sexual abuse), cypridophobia (fear of venereal disease), genophobia (fear of sex), haphephobia (fear of being touched), homophobia (goes without saying), iatrophobia (fear of doctors), ithyphallophobia (fear of the erect penis), paraphobia (fear of perversion), and virginitiphobia (fear of rape). Take three poppers and call me in the morning.

I’d continue, but I’m suffering agateophobia (fear of the insane). At least William S. Burroughs had several drug addictions to justify his sex-obsessed ramblings. You know, the more I read about homosexuality from its detractors, the more fun it sounds.

Sturasmussen.com

So, as many bloggers (Cosmodaddy, Bamboo Nation)have already written, Proposition 8 has passed. It’s officially sacred and sanctified for Elizabeth Taylor to marry eight times, and for Britney Spears to have a drunken Las Vegas wedding with an old friend; but not for a non-heterosexual couple in a loving and enduring relationship to achieve the union they wish. Hard to believe that the people have determined this in the same week that they have moved America so far forward by electing Barack Obama. Nevertheless, some interesting progress was made this week in Silverton, Oregon, where Stu Rasmussen has been elected as America’s first transgender mayor.

In this article, Rasmussen is termed a ‘transgender man’ and is referred to as ‘he’; now, normally, as every good gender rebel knows, a male-to-female transgendered or transsexual person, regardless of their decision to undergo hormone therapy or surgery, should be referred to with female pronouns. There is also the possibility of using gender neutral pronous; however, even though language has very slowly been evolving away from gender-restrictive terms since the eighteenth century, the use of ‘sie’, ‘hir’ and ‘xe’ might be counter-productive as it explodes the brains of those who still think baby boys should be swathed in blue and baby girls in pink.

Anyway; what’s interesting about Rasmussen is that he does not class himself as a transsexual woman, but rather refers to himself as ‘he’ and considers himself ’a heterosexual male… [who likes] to look like a female.’ This would imply that he is a transvestite, but he does not follow the remit of transvestism defined by Magnus Hirschfield, who considered it a paraphilia. Arguably, images of male transvestites have become more prevalent in recent years, although they are usually restricted to comedy; the concept of female transvestism is still largely unknown, perhaps because there are less restrictions placed on female who wish to wear ‘male’ clothing, and so less likelihood that females will fetishise this taboo. The difference between everyday transvestism and sexually-motivated fetishistic transvestism is now more widely understood. Although Hirschfield acknowledged that transvestism and transgenderism or transsexualism were by no means mutually exclusive, Rasmussen, who has had breast implants, has certainly gone a step further than say, Eddie Izzard, who also identifies as male but enjoys wearing women’s clothing. It could have followed, therefore, that Rasmussen would be too much of an anomaly to be accepted by the voting public, as he is not a transsexual but a transgendered or gender variant person. Similar apprehensions might have been associated with, for instance, Thomas Beattie, who is arguably the world’s most well-known transsexual man but who made the decision to carry a child. And, although Beattie was not the world’s first pregnant ‘man’, he is one of only a small minority of male transsexuals who have carried children (the term ‘mothered’ is scarcely appropriate). Some of the negative reaction to Beattie seemed to suggest that it would perhaps be easier for the world to have more ‘conventional’ images of transgendered and transsexual men and women to follow, before embracing the vast spectrum of gender variance. However, the election of Stu Rasmussen proves that considerable progress, in this respect, is already being made.

And now, apologies in advance for a rant. But still, there are some dark crevices where the torch of enlightenment just doesn’t shine. The only other WordPress entry that I have yet found on Rasmussen is this one from the vile everything-phobic Calvinists 4 Conservatism blog, which is apparently dedicated to ‘Making Palin President’. At first, I assumed that this blog was a satirical joke, but reading through some of the previous entries, I have the depressing sense that actually it is very real indeed. If it’s a parody, it’s a very dedicated one. Of course, inevitably, the author has chosen to reinforce his disgust by quoting only the negative comments left on the original KGW News article, in the hope of proving that all America shares his bigotry. No mention is made whatsoever of Rasmussen’s intentions for the town, nor the fact that this marks his third election as Mayor. The sucess of one transgendered person is apparently sufficient to prove that ‘trannies are taking over’, and Rasmussen’s gender identity is apparently proof that he intends to install a ’full scale brainwashing program’. The author also suggests that Rasmussen will be distracted from his duty by shopping for shoes, which is pretty funny for a blog supporting reverse-Robin Hood Palin, she of the grossly inflated head clothing budget. Isn’t there a regulation on WordPress against this hateful speech, especially when a blog suggests the revocation of female suffrage (which is also… pretty funny for a blog supporting Palin) and hopes that the town concerned will stone its governor? Of course, the real motivation behind this diatribe is that special strand of Christianity, the religion which loves everyone. Now, I want to point out that I hold no bigotry towards religion, or I would have no right to criticise anyone for their own prejudices. But this exclusivist, fundamental Christianity, I am glad to say I will never understand. How is it that we have all been made in God’s image, but yet Rasmussen and billions of others have slipped through the net, resembling neither Adam nor his rib? Oh… because we / they all support the ‘Dark Lord’, of course, and are condemned, in which case ‘Hell’ sounds a lot more fun than ‘Heaven’. But how do we know any more, in this world of infinite variance, who is damned and who is saved? Shut your eyes, put your fingers in your ears, all together now: ‘Jesus loves me, this I know. Because the Bible tells me so.’

Meanwhile, Holly Jervis, the terrifying, abysmal holiday camp singer with the giant mouth which Simon said was like ‘looking into a cave’, refuses to answer producers’ calls. And Emma Chawner, who became a ‘star’ after her atrocious performance of ‘My Heart Will Go On’, is living in a car after her entire family has been evicted due to her appalling singing. Only in Britain can someone be ‘famous’ for being rubbish at something. (See, for instance, Maureen from Driving School, Jade Goody, etc…)

28 September 2008: A mob goads suicidal teenager Shaun Dykes to his death. Dykes jumped from the roof of a multi-storey car park after attracting a crowd of onlookers, some of whom filmed the event on their cameraphones and jeered him to jump, encouraging him to ‘get on with it’, and subsequently photographed his body. This is an indictment of the police, who were unable to negotiate with the young man sufficiently to discourage him from suicide, or to disperse the crowd. More so, it is a shocking indictment of a minority of the British people who have become so inhumane, bloodthirsty and desensitised. To me, the saddest thing about this story was that it was neither impossible to believe nor a horrifying anomaly, but another signifier of the shift which has occurred in the British public over the past five or ten years and which suffuses so many towns with an atmosphere of aggression and nihilism. Although the reasons for the suicide of this young man are not known, it is possible that he was motivated to kill himself because of his homosexuality. This serves to remind that we cannot yet risk apathy regarding the difficulties which some people, and particularly young people, still suffer due to their sexuality. It also reinforces a need to change the lexicon which has made homosexuality an object of derision and which associates the term ‘gay’ with anything negative; a term which is used in this context with a frightening abandon. It’s interesting that the reactionary tabloids which reported this story (The Sun, The Mirror, The Daily Mail) did not mention Dykes’ sexuality; although the latter suggested that he had been depressed by the breakdown of a relationship. There were no plans to pursue inquiries into those responsible for goading Dykes. As an aside, one of the strangest things about modern tragedies like these is the ease by which information about the people concerned can be discovered by looking at their pages on personal networking sites. It is so eerie and melancholy to see the banal elements of their lives and the sudden cessation of their posts and comments.

More good news: Colorado and South Dakota voters rejected stringent anti-abortion measures; penalties for the use of marijuana have been reduced; dog-racing was banned in Massachusetts and improved conditions for farmed chickens demanded in California.

But: Proposition 8 is still being debated in California…

So WHY THE FR*G is the pavement completely crawling with joggers? At least ten passed us during our brief toilet stop; almost all of whom were dressed completely in black, with no reflectors, so they swished out of the darkness like wraiths. It is hard enough to walk on a night like this. Why would anyone be so masochistic?

To be honest, I just don’t understand the lure of jogging. I can see that it makes a lot more sense than running on a treadmill, but there cannot be anything enjoyable about it. Baudrillard stated: ‘Nothing evokes the end of the world more than a man running straight ahead… Do not stop him. He will either hit you or simply carry on dancing around in front of you like a man possessed.’ …makes a lot of sense. Plus, there is severe risk of jogger’s nipple. But then, I am pretty excited about getting my Wii Fit board, and surely there is nothing more apocalyptic than doing virtual exercise in a tiny space in front of the TV. What do you think, which signifies the end of the world more?