A Place for LGBTQ Atheists, Skeptics and Humanists

I’m taking a short hiatus to work on a few other writing projects. Badger the others on Twitter to keep yourselves entertained.

I think at this point we all expect “don’t ask, don’t tell” to, at last and way too late, be repealed very soon. What I find absolutely unfathomable is that there are still so many people out there who think it’s a perfectly reasonable policy. (I would have said I find it shocking, but the level of hate and bigotry in this country has ceased to surprise me.) I caught some snippets of a debate on the issue on CNN the other day, and the only argument anyone seemed to be able to present in defense of DADT is that boarding with an openly gay soldier may make other soldiers “uncomfortable”. Well, excuse me! As I tweeted shortly thereafter, that’s really their problem, isn’t it?

And this is where I see the fundamental hypocrisy in supporters of DADT. As I mentioned in a previous post, I come from a pretty religious (though supportive and loving) family, and, naturally, we have had arguments about sexuality. I will fight to the death anyone who uses the word “choice” regarding my sexuality; I didn’t choose this. That’s not to say I’m in any way ashamed of who I am, but as a 14-year-old gay Mormon kid, if I’d had the choice, what do you think I would have done? The rebuttal to this is always that, while we may not be able to control our urges, we can control our actions. For the moment I’ll leave aside the obvious offenses this line of thinking brings up, such as the automatic sexualization of any gay relationship or the assertion that I should be forced to live the life of a lonely spinster, and focus instead on the even more insidious subtext: the idea that anyone who is gay should suppress natural and healthy urges in order to to protect the conservative sensibilities of others.

How does this relate to DADT? Well, let’s put the shoe on the other foot for a second. Let’s say you’re a bigoted asshole who just can’t fathom having to live with A Gay. Well, why should you have to suppress your natural urge to spread hate and fear? Why should you be the one to keep quiet? While these people are saying that I should just keep my mouth shut and my legs closed for the rest of my life, they don’t feel that they themselves should be forced to to suppress any of their own feelings. So while I’m being asked to deny myself pleasure, companionship, and identity for some meathead’s comfort, he feels no compulsion to hold back his contempt and intolerance in the name of equality and nonviolence.

Now, couldn’t any DADT supporter turn around and say that if I want the right to live my life the way I choose and with whom I choose, without apology, that he should have the same privilege regarding his own bigotry? I’ve basically made that argument, right? Not quite. See, as I stated above, my sexuality is a harmless and natural urge. What I do in the privacy of my bedroom with my body is really no one else’s business. Besides offending prudish sensibilities simply through the knowledge that it’s occurring, it has no effect on the outside world. DADT has a huge effect, including the perpetuation of stereotypes, the mere existence of state-sanctioned bigotry and discrimination, millions of taxpayer dollars spent to enforce said discrimination, instances of extreme violence, detrimental effects on our national security due to gay people who will never enlist in an army that already has recruitment issues, the loss of intelligent, willing soldiers for no good reason, and the list goes on.

So no, bigots, I will not hide who I am, because you have nothing to fear from me. And if it makes you “uncomfortable” to share barracks with me, well, first of all, don’t flatter yourself, and second of all, that’s just your too bad. You can simply do what we’ve had to do for years: I won’t ask if my sexuality makes you uncomfortable, and you can not tell me if it does.

I’m trying to keep up with life I swear. New job takes all my free time. I could promise to update more but I’ve done that before. I promise to try harder this time? x

Dear all, I would fucking love to know. Why is the pope coming to my country? 

Ok, I know why the pope is coming to Britain in September. The useless Prime Minister decided to invite him, the Christian majority decided they were cool with that, and that was enough to send £20 million (is that number wrong? please tell me that number is wrong) in taxpayer money straight his way. It’s good to know, really, that the money I earned from renting out my pussy at £60 an hour is being poured into bringing a nazi virgin bigot to the country. The 20% tax I pay on my cunt can help fund a little more sexual repression. There’s something not quite right there.

Here’s what I really don’t understand though. Why does the pope want to come here? Britain is 70% Christian, as I mentioned. But we’re actually pretty liberal as a country, compared to some. We have pretty great GLBT laws, adequate abortion rights, and a very low national tolerance for pedophiles. The pope has, in fact, spoken out against our equality laws and made it pretty clear that he does not like the principals that our country takes pride in – namely, a strong anti-discrimination stance that protects the minorities from the bullshit and bigotry of the majority.

Thing is, I bitch a lot about Britain. There’s some messes in the law and in society that do make me feel discriminated against as a bisexual, as a woman and particularly recently as a sex worker. But generally speaking I like the country. I like that I have some protection under the law, some rights, and some basically decent standard of living. I don’t like seeing some ancient, fucked up fucktard being given the red carpet treatment to come shit all over that. I don’t like some cunt from another country waltzing in here criticizing our laws. I don’t want the pope in my country. Anyone else?

Edit: Thanks to Shaded Spriter for this link: National Secular Society Plan Protests

Gaytheists will be hosting the Humanist Symposium on February 21st.  The Humanist Symposium is run by Adam Lee, who also has a blog named Daylight Atheism.  I’m guessing since I volunteered us, I’ll be writing the post.

The Humanist Symposium is a bit different from the Carnival of the Godless – it’s less addressing superstition, atheism, church/state separation, etc and more about dealing with how we live life, find meaning and positive alternatives to belief systems based on the supernatural. 

So if you’ve got something that you think will fit, send it on my way.  You can submit on the form that the blog carnival website provides, or you can e-mail me directly.

I’ll be posting the edition on February 21st, which is a Sunday.  If you’d like to post your article (and have enough time to read through it to be able to sound intelligent about it!), send it to me by midnight EST the 20th. 

Look forward to reading what’s out there!

Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council said on Hardball with Chris Matthews on Tuesday that the Lawrence v. Texas Supreme Court decision that struck down anti-sodomy laws was wrong, and that gay behavior should be outlawed.

Sprigg, a senior fellow for policy studies at the antigay FRC, appeared on the program to debate the repeal of the military’s "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy with Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.

As Sprigg mounted an increasingly illogical defense of the policy based on discrimination, Matthews pressed him on the question: "Do you think we should outlaw gay behavior?"

"I think that the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas which overturned the sodomy laws in this country was wrongly decided," said Sprigg. "I think there would be a place for criminal sanctions against homosexual behavior."

"So we should outlaw gay behavior?" asked Matthews again.

“Yes,” said Sprigg.

- The Advocate

All news anchors, when their producers force them to lower their quality of journalism by having morons like Mr. Sprigg appear on their shows, should do this.  Boil down the hatred of the “guest” to the simplest form and ask them, point-blank and repeatedly, if they will acknowledge their own bigotry.

What Chris Matthews did, with the help of Mr. Sprigg, was show the country in brief, understandable and highly portable soundbytes, that the opposition to repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is not about troop cohesion or military strategy or any of the other meaningless buzzwords people supporting DADT hide behind.  The opposition to repealing DADT comes out of a baseless fear of what gay people do in their bedrooms.

The people who discriminate against gay people in the military and keep them from getting married, holding teaching positions, adopting children, etc. can hide behind whatever rhetoric they want, but when grilled properly on national television, the truth comes out.  None of this is about troop cohesion, traditional values, protecting children or protecting marriage, this whole gay rights divide between conservatives and everyone else comes down to one thing and one thing only:  Fear of sex.

CotG 134  is up at Right to Think.

Homologous Legs will be hosting next, on Feb. 14.

Once again, Carnival of the Godless needs hosts!  Contact me and let me know if you’re interested in hosting.

In light of both the Super Bowl and Academy Award nominations coming up within the next week, as well as the imminent return of all my favorite reality shows (I know they’re trashy, don’t hate), I figured now was as good a time as any to discuss a certain shadowy figure who always seems to be given the credit for the outcome of such events.

It makes sense that an actress accepting an Oscar would thank her parents; chances are they provided her the genetic assets and education necessary to further her career. The same goes for her director, supporting cast, family, etc. All had a part in her success, no? Likewise, a star athlete, having just propelled his team to an outstanding victory owes a debt of gratitude to his teammates, coach, and cheering fans. But there always seems to be one person credited above all, despite a glaring lack of direct involvement and, one would think, questionable motive for being involved in the first place: God.

Let’s think about the first case for a moment. Ostensibly, the actress is thanking God for giving her the talent needed to win the award. My problem in this case is that it negates her years of hard work and dedication to her craft. Is she saying that if I pray hard enough, and if God loves me enough, I, too, can become an Oscar-winning thespian? On the flip side, she could also be insinuating that God was in the ear of the Academy, and garnered her votes necessary to win. Is this to say that the other nominated performers were somehow undeserving or less loved by God? If that’s the case, He must really hate Peter O’Toole, who has been nominated a record 8 times without ever winning one of those little gold guys. (He was given an honorary Academy Award in 2003, which I find a little surprising; wouldn’t you think the Academy members would be afraid of God’s wrath, giving an award to someone not hand-selected by Him?) Basically, at best one is giving credit for his hard work to some supernatural force and at worst is telling his colleagues “God loves me more than you.”

Hell, I didn’t even know God was such a film fan. I guess we shouldn’t expect a surprise win for Creation this year, huh?

I think this is even worse in the context of sports. A star quarterback spends years training to get to the Super Bowl, leads his team to victory, winning by a hair, and thanks God? Really? I guess he could be thankful for the genetic gifts necessary to… tackle the other team a lot? (As you can see, I have no idea how football is played). I mean, I’m all for a little humility, but take a little credit, dude! It was you who threw those passes, ran those yards, and scored those touchdowns! Either that, or God simply proved last year that he really loves Pittsburgh. Like, a lot. (Well, maybe not his economic side, but certainly his Iron City Beer-drinking, pierogie-snarfing side)

If the Saints win, does anyone want to bet that Pat Robertson will say this is God’s apology for Katrina, and that they’re even now?

And so we come to the most dubious arena for God to involve himself in: reality TV. In some shows, the situation is much as above. I remember Russell, winner of last season of So You Think You Can Dance, shouting a bunch of crap about God right after he was crowned. (I went from ambivalent about his win to distinctly less excited) So you already know my feelings there. What I always find amusing are the people on the competition shows like Survivor, Big Brother, and The Amazing Race who actually pray to God to help them win. Natalie, on season 9 of Big Brother, would regularly read the bible and, when her side of the house was in control, went so far as to dub them “Team Christ”. Come on, Natalie. Do you really think God has a vested interest in Big Brother? Maybe he just has a thing for Julie Chen. And if he is a fan, how do you think he feels about your position as a bikini barista? And there’s always that couple on The Amazing Race where the husband is a priest and the wife rambles on about how they have a “third teammate”. Really, honey? So that’s God helping you dig through the mud for a clue? Don’t you think it would be better to ask him for help with not throwing a tantrum on national television?

But even if there were a God, and he really did have nothing better to do than veg out in front of CBS, why do these teams almost never win? I guess He works in mysterious ways: killing 200,000 people in Haiti, stopping a privileged Midwesterner from winning $1,000,000. Man, the suffering some people must endure!

Let’s just put all of this in perspective. Even if we were to pretend God exists, wouldn’t you think He has better things to worry about than ensuring that U2 wins their umpteenth Grammy or that so-and-so can eat the most bugs on Survivor? So come on, athletes and artists, take a little credit! This is your accomplishment. And no, sweetie, God does not care whether or not you become America’s Next Top Model or the Next Pussycat Doll. Sorry to burst your bubble.

From Funny or Die:

My doctor gave me a prescription cough medicine today that has the word “meth” in the name.  And I have to write a blog carnival!  Oh boy!

Andrew Bernardin over at The Evolving Mind has two posts that go hand-in-hand with the theme of my this blog… he must have known I was hosting.  When Two Moms Are Better talks about new research that claims to show that children raised by two men or two women are no more at a disadvantage than children raised by a man and a woman.  Religion — Good or Bad? gets it right in that religion is neither wholly bad or wholly good, but the worst you can say about it is that it is pretty much irrelevant.

Banquet Manager at So You Want To Be a Banquet Manager… offer’s today’s plucky comic relief:  Restaurant Refused To Give Man a Toothpick? Although, I do have a bone tooth to pick (sorry…) with this article:  I have injured myself with dental floss at least once in my life.  Dental floss is dangerous and not a safe substitute for those dangerous splinters of malice we call toothpicks.

Some quick online investigation unearthed a video of the incident that began the moratorium on toothpicks:

Madeleine Begun Kane of Mad Kane’s Political Madness writes limericks, and although the metre isn’t perfect, they’re fucking hilarious!  Ode To Weak-Kneed Democrats, Rudy “Noun and a Verb and a 9-11″ Giuliani Loses His Mind and Shameless Republicans On Christmas Attack are three limericks to brighten your day after the previous video brought on the crippling realisation that we are all slightly autistic and/or we don’t treat our autistic siblings with the dignity they deserve.  In this world, you’re either mentally handicapped or an asshole, but at least we have naughty poetry!  (I would like to take this opportunity to remind my readers that I’m on loopy cough medicine and shouldn’t be held accountable for anything I say.)

Leave it to Carl Mitchell to bring the mood back down to serious business on his blog, My Humble Opinion.  In, Is President Obama’s desire to seek compromise greater than his desire to seek change?, he takes the President to task over his insistence on “bi-partisanship,” a word I don’t think the President fully understands.  When you seek compromise on healthcare, what do you get?  Compromised healthcare, correct.

Nick Ottens at The Atlantic Sentinel offers a brief history of Sarah Palin and post-Reagan (big-C) Conservatism.  The Palin Brief is better written, more informative and almost as long as the Palin book pamphlet recently published.

Alexander Bisignano over at The Chromosome Chronicles raises some interesting points about bioethics and personal information in the era of biotechnology in his article Genetic Identity Theft: Will You Need to Protect Your Genome? Personally, I think the idea of someone swabbing your glass at a party to gain information about your genome is far-fetched, but Bisignano is right in the regard that we are entering a new era of technology where some very personal information about all of us is pretty much publicly available and, for all practical purposes, unregulated.

On the other side of the Atlantic, at River’s Edge, Riversider laments a taxpayer-funded display of a warplane to be erected in the town of Preston, Lancashire:  Lancashire’s Angel of Death.  I’ve seen similar displays of warplanes on large stalks in at least a dozen cities in the United States.  Alexandria, Louisiana has one of the worst I’ve seen, with warplanes dotting the horizon everywhere you turn within a few miles of the airport.  There’s something unsettling about hearing a jetliner take off and looking up to see a WWII gunner with a twisted painted grin looking down at you.

This one I’m throwing in as an example of why more people need to submit their articles to blog carnivals:  Ella Moss at Zodiac Times claims to know how to read God’s clock.  She also hates it when liberals gripe about Obama reneging on his campaign promises because, well, he’s not Jesus.  (“But then, again, the last MIRACLE GUY we know of was crucified on the cross.”)  1 YEAR OLD PRESIDENCY

Back to reality, Josh Rosenau of Thoughts From Kansas brilliantly takes the Democratic Party to task over its pussyfooting on healthcare in On Healthcare.  He even works in a Jay vs. Conan reference!

Aaron Rogier on his self-titled blog wrote The Hard Reform, a knowledgeable obituary for the economy of the United States outlining where we went wrong, but not necessarily how to fix the problem.  Basically, we’re all fucked; but at least we know why.

Carnival of the Liberals needs more hosts!  Contact Leo Lincourt to set up a date when you can host the carnival.  Also, don’t forget to submit your blog articles to Carnival of the Liberals and my own carnival, Carnival of the Godless.

Don’t miss the next edition of Carnival of the Godless, which should be posted tomorrow at Right To Think.

Good to know that religious belief as a reason to murder someone isn’t condoned in Kansas.

Although I’m a bit put off by CNN’s headline:

Activist Roeder convicted of abortion provider’s murder.

Here’s to you, Dr. Tiller.  I never needed your services, but you touched the lives of many women who did.  And here’s to the dismantling of the bigotry and hatred that resulted in your death.

Your memory lives on.