Married Women Abort for Secret Desire to Make Lesbians Equal

As a former Virginian, I’m all too aware of the asshatery that is Pat Robertson. I once lived a short distance from his colonial palace cum religious law school and occasionally saw some of his on-air “journalists” at the local Farm Fresh. I knew of him when Jim and Tammy Bakker were still producing a kids show starring gospel-spewing puppets (real puppets, not the marionettes that watch CBN). And I’ve followed his frightening career as he prayed away hurricanes and claimed the storms were God’s vengeance on Walt Disney World’s Gay Days.

His latest crusade against the Thundering Herd of Queerosity is a rip-roaring fantasy – aborting babies as a way to “level the playing field” for lesbians. He claims to speak directly with God on the celestial hotline daily, but this is more proof that God really should get a better PR man to service his temporal account.

As with all Robertsonian screeds, he fails in the simple logic his “God” bestowed on humans. Clearly the daily conversations with the Big Kahuna aren’t nearly often enough.

Ether of the Gods
In his latest jaunt into the non-secular ether – ether which is apparently copiously pumped into the CBN News set – he makes his case for how lesbians would be on a “level field” with straight women.

His level playing field theory is so weak because he is simply unable to step across the aisle to see that women are constitutionally supposed to be on a level playing field, much as the religious can’t be “demoted” because atheists think Christians aren’t worth of a half set of civil rights (I believe that’s the implicit 11th Commandment he’s following here).

Pinhead Pat also contends that, “If a woman is a lesbian, what advantage does she have over a married woman? Or what deficiency does she have?”

“Well, she can’t have children,” his animatronic co-host mews. Pat answers, “And so if these married women don’t have children, if they abort their babies, then that kind of puts them on a level playing field (with lesbians).

Pat buddy, it’s time for your birds and the bees talk. Let us break out our copy of Pat Has Two Mommies which we bought at the last Level Playing Field Bowl.

Your rambling analysis jumps to the conclusion that lesbians can’t have children – “Little Pat, pay attention! Both straight and lesbian women can have children. It happens every day. You really should get out more.”

Sapphic vs. Non-Sapphic Equality
And what’s up with this whole “abortion levels the playing field” concept? If a straight woman gets an abortion does she become a lesbian or a straight woman at 4th and 10 on the 20 yard line? If a lesbian aborts, does she become straight?

And, what’s on this “level playing field” anyway? Equal pay? The right to marry whoever she damn well pleases? Does it take an abortion to make the sapphic and non-sapphic equal in their right to get divorced?  And let’s not forget the gentlemen. If gay men get a geldingoscopy, do they turn straight, or is the other way around?

Just how many lesbians can dance on the tip of your pin head any way?

Pat, I know you’re terrified of many things in life, not the least of which are people who play for the other team. But dammit (Author’s note: The author was careful to adhere to the Third Commandment) Pat, if you’re going to love the sinner and hate the sin by hating both the sinner and the sin, get your story straight. Notwithstanding your belief in Creationism according to the Vlasic pickle stork, hire someone having a nodding acquaintance with the simple biology that deposited you here like a gay turd on our doorstep. It would be money well-spent. Unless, of course, God turns you into a lesbian to level the playing field.

Ouch! That WOULD be embarrassing, wouldn’t it?

Cross posted at The Omnipotent Poobah Speaks!

Married Women Abort for Secret Desire to Make Lesbians Equal

As a former Virginian, I’m all too aware of the asshatery that is Pat Robertson. I once lived a short distance from his colonial palace cum religious law school and occasionally saw some of his on-air “journalists” at the local Farm Fresh. I knew of him when Jim and Tammy Bakker were still producing a kids show starring gospel-spewing puppets (real puppets, not the marionettes that watch CBN). And I’ve followed his frightening career as he prayed away hurricanes and claimed the storms were God’s vengeance on Walt Disney World’s Gay Days.

His latest crusade against the Thundering Herd of Queerosity is a rip-roaring fantasy – aborting babies as a way to “level the playing field” for lesbians. He claims to speak directly with God on the celestial hotline daily, but this is more proof that God really should get a better PR man to service his temporal account.

As with all Robertsonian screeds, he fails in the simple logic his “God” bestowed on humans. Clearly the daily conversations with the Big Kahuna aren’t nearly often enough.

Ether of the Gods
In his latest jaunt into the non-secular ether – ether which is apparently copiously pumped into the CBN News set – he makes his case for how lesbians would be on a “level field” with straight women.

His level playing field theory is so weak because he is simply unable to step across the aisle to see that women are constitutionally supposed to be on a level playing field, much as the religious can’t be “demoted” because atheists think Christians aren’t worth of a half set of civil rights (I believe that’s the implicit 11th Commandment he’s following here).

Pinhead Pat also contends that, “If a woman is a lesbian, what advantage does she have over a married woman? Or what deficiency does she have?”

“Well, she can’t have children,” his animatronic co-host mews. Pat answers, “And so if these married women don’t have children, if they abort their babies, then that kind of puts them on a level playing field (with lesbians).

Pat buddy, it’s time for your birds and the bees talk. Let us break out our copy of Pat Has Two Mommies which we bought at the last Level Playing Field Bowl.

Your rambling analysis jumps to the conclusion that lesbians can’t have children – “Little Pat, pay attention! Both straight and lesbian women can have children. It happens every day. You really should get out more.”

Sapphic vs. Non-Sapphic Equality
And what’s up with this whole “abortion levels the playing field” concept? If a straight woman gets an abortion does she become a lesbian or a straight woman at 4th and 10 on the 20 yard line? If a lesbian aborts, does she become straight?

And, what’s on this “level playing field” anyway? Equal pay? The right to marry whoever she damn well pleases? Does it take an abortion to make the sapphic and non-sapphic equal in their right to get divorced?  And let’s not forget the gentlemen. If gay men get a geldingoscopy, do they turn straight, or is the other way around?

Just how many lesbians can dance on the tip of your pin head any way?

Pat, I know you’re terrified of many things in life, not the least of which are people who play for the other team. But dammit (Author’s note: The author was careful to adhere to the Third Commandment) Pat, if you’re going to love the sinner and hate the sin by hating both the sinner and the sin, get your story straight. Notwithstanding your belief in Creationism according to the Vlasic pickle stork, hire someone having a nodding acquaintance with the simple biology that deposited you here like a gay turd on our doorstep. It would be money well-spent. Unless, of course, God turns you into a lesbian to level the playing field.

Ouch! That WOULD be embarrassing, wouldn’t it?

Cross posted at The Omnipotent Poobah Speaks!

Pat Robertson - Kill Babies, Make Lesbians

Fundamentalist Christian Pat Robertson has the crazy idea that liberals want to kill babies to turn straight women into lesbians.

 

The Irreverent Frog

 

 

                                                              by Walter Brasch

 

             The First Sometimes United Church decided last week not to ordain any frogs. To find out why, I visited the Rev. Matthew Mark Johnson.

            I approached him as he finished blessing the ceremonial offerings plate. "Rev. Johnson," I asked, "the frogs-rights groups are upset with your Board's decision. What are your reasons?"

            "The Bible tells us that frogs are nothing but problems."

            "The Bible tells you that?" I asked suspiciously.

            "Right there in Exodus. God said he'd smite all of Egypt with frogs if the Pharaoh didn't let the Jews be free. It proves that God was so ticked off he had to find the most loathsome creature he could to punish the Pharaoh. Do you know how bad it must be to be smited by, of all things, frogs?"

            "But God used the frogs to help the Jews. It's not that the frogs did anything God didn't want to be done."

            "Bad is bad," said the Rev. Mr. Johnson. "Turn to Revelations," he commanded. "John says that he saw three unclean spirits that looked like frogs come from the mouth of the dragon. That proves it! Not only are frogs loathsome creatures, they're also unclean." I tried to interrupt, but the anti-frog minister wasn't about to let another view meddle in his logic. "Even Shakespeare hated frogs. Right there in Macbeth. The witches brewed the most horrible concoction they could. What do you think was in it?! Eye of newt and toe of frog!"

            "This is ridiculous," I said. "Are you sure there's nothing deeper to your decision to ban frogs from the ministry?"

            The Rev. Mr. Johnson cleared his throat, looked at me carefully, then somberly explained—"They're green."

            "They're green?" I asked incredulously. "That's it? Because they're green!"

            "Green conflicts with our basic color scheme. It's not as if we're the only religion not to like color. For the longest time, a lot of churches didn't allow anyone who's black to be ordained, let alone be a member, so I guess that green is just as good a reason as any." He thought a moment, and then added, "Of course, I guess there might be another reason."

            "I thought so!" I said, now writing furiously in my note pad.

            "Frogs also have webbed feet. It's against the laws of God for ordained ministers to have webbed feet."

            I stopped writing. "Let me get this straight. You don't want to ordain frogs because they're green and they have webbed feet?"

            "That's right. Webbed feet is not God's wish for humanity. Webbed feet is a sign of breaking with God's world of five-toed feet. It's a sign of willful rebellion. It results from living in a sinful world."

            "Shouldn't the Church recognize that even frogs have faith?" I asked.

            "The Bible tells us to love all creatures, and that we are all part of the Lord. But, nowhere does it say that frogs should be ordained."

            "But what about their knowledge of Scripture or whether frogs have the ability to lead people? Shouldn't that count for something?"

            "You think that frogs can lead people? Have you ever seen a frog walk? There's no one who's going to hop to church on Sunday mornings."

 

            "But, most frogs seem to be so much more respectful and honest than many of your own parishioners," I pleaded in the frogs' defense.

            "I agree," said the minister, "and the ministry should offer models of integrity, morality, and honesty—if at all possible. And, I do admit that some ministers do stray from the paths of righteousness on occasion. But, at least they're not green, they don't have webbed feet, and they never smited anyone!" He thought a moment, and then suggested, "Maybe instead of trying to ruin the ministry, he could join the military. They have amphibious vehicles and a whole darn SEAL team."

            "You know dang well the military doesn't allow frogs."

            "Not my problem."

            Forgetting my role as an objective reporter and lapsing into an impassion plea, I cried out, "Frogs are wonderful creatures who should be given a chance to preach the will of God!"

            The Rev. Matthew Mark Johnson looked at me sharply. "You ain't a frog in disguise are you, boy? You ain't trying to take over this here church, are you?"

            "Oh, no sir!" I said. "I'm just trying to find out why frogs can't be ordained if they have every other ability."

            "You're trying to cause us serious trouble," said the Rev. Mr. Johnson, "and I don't care to discuss this issue any more. Now, if you'll leave me alone, I have to go watch an important television show. Never miss it. Even better in re-runs than first time I saw it."

            "What show is that?" I asked.

            "The Muppets."

 

            (Walter Brasch is an award-winning syndicated columnist, and the author of 16 books, the most recent one Sex and the Single Beer Can, a look at the media and popular culture.)

 

Values Voters: Hating Sin, Loving Sinners Only Applies to Their Own Group

When will politicians learn that running on personal values is a non-starter, particularly since most voters don’t care? But more importantly, how is it that the most sanctimonious pricks are usually the ones who turn up in compromising positions with those they hate on?

I don’t care what a person does behind doors. Really, I don’t. Plushies, fisting, or sex with park benches, it’s all good with me. By the same token, if you don’t like something, I’m OK with that too as long as you don’t try to force others to embrace your kookie, holier than the holiest of holies blather. But when a lout like Carl Palidino screams about the evils of the “homosexual life style” and is then caught emailing “awesome lesbian porn” (BTW Carl, lesbians are homosexuals) it’s rank, “large H” hypocrisy.

However, I expect a some “little H” hypocrisy, even though it too is wrong. There are a variety of reasons for candidates to change positions – from legitimate conversions of opinion to taking a slightly different spin on an issue to placate a particularly important constituency. But, there is something different about ignoring what you preach, particularly when you scream it at the top of your sinning-assed lungs.

And, here’s the difference.

When a candidate changes position on, for example, whether the Department of Education should be abolished, most voters – if they notice at all – forget about it within days. Most wouldn’t vote based on that single issue anyway.

But when a sanctimonious ass cake preaches the evils of homosexuality and is then found in bed with hookers or shipping porn spam around like a Nigerian Viagra dealer, values voters never seem angry about the breach of faith. In fact, they often scapegoat others, from the media to some innocent party, to protect the “sinner”. Values voters are much more likely to care less that a soldier who was never asked and never told was discharged than the sin of the anti-gay, red-handed jackwad pulling his pud over lesbian porn.

And values voters do often vote purely on values issues. They seem to have an attitude of hating the sin but loving the sinner only when the sinner is one of their own – even if the sinner has compounded their original sin with the sin of lying about it – repeatedly.

It’s also different in another important way.

If someone is elected and succeeds in abolishing, say, the Department of Education, the Republic may suffer from a stupid decision, but it’s unlikely to perish. However, if values voters continue to ignore and defend the transparent imbeciles like Palidino and nibble away at constitutional protections because someone is gay or Muslim or black or just different in some way, the Republic will perish.

If you think the worst thing that can happen is the repeal of DADT or gay marriage, you ain’t seen nothing like a country turned into group-belief theocracy.

Especially if you’re not a member of the theocratic elite.

Cross posted at The Omnipotent Poobah Speaks!

 

 

 

Diaries

Advertise Blogads