Read "An Economic Case Against Homosexuality" by self-proclaimed conservative librarian Bert Chapman. Among the head explodey:

* The AIDS epidemic is caused by homosexuals worldwide, and heterosexual promiscuity in Africa (note: Africa exclusively).
* Homosexuals are criminals, as evidenced by the high rate of homosexual rape in prison.
* Domestic partner benefits and other forms of progress for homosexuals has come at the expense of us poor heterosexuals and this is ruining the economy.
Scanning the various ballot measures listed by CNN, it turns out that Arkansas has a ballot initiative to prevent adoptions or fostering by unmarried couples - straight or gay. Glad to know they consider me an evil sinner too!
Well this one slipped in under my radar. The MA state legislature has voted to work on a State Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage. They still have to write it, vote for the wording next year, and then have the people vote for it as well, all by the end of 2008, but until then here's some steps you can take.

  1. Look up your MA legislators.

  2. Look up how they voted.

  3. A Y means "Yes, I support bigotry." N means "No, I think homosexuals are human too."

  4. Write a letter with the appropriate sentiments to your legislators. Models below. Physical letters may have more impact, but I've had decent luck with emails personally.

To Sentors AGAINST Gay Marriage (Y vote) )

To Sentors FOR Gay Marriage (N vote) )
In response to a locked post by [ profile] l0stmyrel1g10n, I wrote the following long rant against infant circumcision of boys. I'm mostly against, though not yet entirely convinced. Enough that I will not blindly accept what doctors or a partner tell me, but enough unconvinced that I'm willing to discuss it.

The rant... )


Dec. 12th, 2006 04:12 pm
asterroc: (rhino)
#1 - I hate how the article that should've been about the risky self-defense of a child and his dog against a hawk, instead ends up praising nature-bashing. It's not like it's the hawk's fault that daschund puppies are the most plentiful form of prey in the area.

#2 -
There is no substitute for having both a mother and father; it takes a mother and a father to create a child and every child has the right to be raised by a mother and a father. No child should be deprived of these inalienable rights as a matter of public policy.

I'm glad to hear they're planning on voting upon the inalienable right to force single parents to give up their children to married couples who don't want children. It's not right for public policy to deprive every single person of a family consisting of a husband, a wife, 2.5 children, a half a dog, and a third of a cat. I mean, 170,000 people in MA clearly think it's important that we have the whole state vote on exactly how every single family should look and behave, civil rights be damned. [WHDH-TV Channel 7 Boston]
Two women married in MA have filed for divorce in RI. This is the first gay divorce I have heard of, and it's the first one the RI courts have seen. Their laws are silent on gay marriage and the issue hasn't been forced yet, so this now *is* the first test of their laws. I'm not holding my breath - that is, while I am hopeful RI will do the right thing, it's not clear to me what the right thing even *is* here, nor do I think it'll happen quickly.


Nov. 7th, 2006 10:47 pm
If I'm reading this correctly, AZ peeps are voting AGAINST Prop 107, 107 would amend their constitution to ban gay marriage/unions, so they're voting FOR gay marriages/unions. This looks promising. It's 57% No, 43% Yes.


Jun. 5th, 2006 06:55 pm
Before Benedict became pope, the Catholic Church had begun a far deeper reckoning with Christian roots of the Holocaust, and that led to a profound shift in basic claims made about the Jewish religion. Most importantly, the church had affirmed the permanent integrity of God's covenant with the Jewish people, leading to the renunciation of the ancient impulse to convert Jews. But last March, in an address delivered at St. Peter's Square, Benedict issued ``a summons to all Israel to conversion," urging Jews ``to allow themselves to be reunited in a new covenant, full and perfect accomplishment of the old."

James Carroll, The Boston Globe
Is this true?

Dear Senator Frist,

You have stated the Senate will vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment during the week of June 5th. I urge you to reconsider this decision. This divisive and unnecessary amendment, would undermine the Constitution and has overwhelmingly failed each time the Senate has voted on it. The last thing the American people want is Congress reaching into a family's private life.

The Senate should be working on real issues – not writing discrimination into the Constitution.

The "Federal Marriage Amendment" also going by the name "Anti-Gay Marriage Amendement."
On several of the death-penalty-eligible charges against Moussaoui, there was just one person who voted against the death penalty. This scares me.
Although this article is dated 1999, I believe Oregon still has legalized assisted suicide. I'm not sure if Medicare covers it, but it's interesting to see the cost benefit analysis, as well as where they make the cutoff on what diseases are NOT covered to make up for covering assisted suicide. And while the death penalty costs the state money, every state, assisted suicide is cheaper than a lot of other diseases' treatments.

ETA: Here's some more updated info, Oct 2005. Look for the caveat for fat people!


May. 4th, 2006 09:34 am
The jury had two choices -- death by injection or life in prison. The jury's rejection of the death penalty was viewed as a setback for the government.
"I certainly believe the verdict should have been death," said former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. [CNN]

I'm a New Yorker originally, and I think Moussaoui got the appropriate sentence. Nothing we can do will undo the atrocities of September 11, 2001. We only bring ourselves to their level if we kill them in return. And while Moussaoui may have had info that could've prevented the event, he didn't even do it himself - he was in prison at the time! Would a serial killer's girlfriend get the death penalty? If he were given the death penalty, he'd simply waste years of US money in appeals, and some would view him as a tragic hero. I wish it could be undone, but we can't, and vengance won't help.
The same Massachusetts court that ruled that gay marriage was legal under the state constitution, has unfortunately limited it in accordance with a 1913 (miscegenation?) law forbidding marriage to out-of-staters if the marriage would be illegal in their home state.

While I disagree with the law, the little bit I know does make it seem that the ruling is correct under that law. What I would like to see happen is instead they can get married in MA but the marriages are only legal within the state and others that honor gay marriages. Similarly, I hope that MA will honor gay marriages and unions made in other states and countries, but I haven't heard anything about it yet.
I am officially rescinding any tolerance I had for fundamentalist Islam. I heard about this on NPR this afternoon - an Afgan man is on trial for converting away from Islam (to Christianity, but that part's irrelevant) 16 years ago. It's his own family that turned him in. The legally required sentence under sharia law is death.

The article doesn't say but NPR did, that after statements from Bush, the prosecutor wants to allow the defendant to plead not guilty by reason of insanity, in which case he will not get the death penalty.

ETA: I got a better link (hooray BBC!) from [ profile] q10.
The Boston Archdiocese's Catholic Charities said Friday it would stop providing adoption services because state law allows gays and lesbians to adopt children.

The social services arm of the Roman Catholic archdiocese has provided adoption services for the state for about two decades, but said it would discontinue once it completes its current state contract. It said that the state law allowing gays to adopt runs counter to church teachings on homosexuality.

--Steve LeBlanc, Associated Press/Boston Globe

I don't get it. The Catholic church refuses to adopt babies to homosexuals because the Church is against the sin of homosexuality. But they're also against other sins, so they shouldn't adopt babies out to people who covet their neighbor's posessions, or have had premarital sex, or who've taken the Lord's name in vain or spoken back to their parents. Do they question potential parential candidates about all their other sins? Why don't they make a big deal about those in the press?

Within an hour of Catholic Charities' announcement, Gov. Mitt Romney said he planned to file a bill that would allow religious organizations to seek an exemption from the state's anti-discrimination laws to provide adoption services.

So does that mean that any organization that wants to start discriminatory practices only has to become a recognized religion? Well then, let's make Wal-Mart a religion, and they can ignore the MA law requiring them to stock emergency contraception!


Feb. 27th, 2006 08:23 pm
Can you recall the last time you voted?
For me it was for the 2004 presidential election, and I voted via absentee ballot. Before that, I voted in the primaries I think, in a small building attached to a church in North A****.

Do you recall how you got into the last building you voted in?
I had trouble finding a parking spot; but I was lazy, I should've walked. There some three or four steps - I forget how many - and there was also a ramp, that I remember grumbling was the size of two or three parking spaces.

Was *your* polling place wheelchair accessible? What about the ballot - could a blind person, or someone with limited mobility, have voted confidentially? Was there Braille? Would they have to pull a lever that able-bodied people find stiff? Or would they have had to trust some stranger to read all the items slowly and clearly, said their vote aloud for all to hear, and hoped the stranger marked down what they said?

According to the ADA, polling places have to be accessible to all, and yet, they aren't. Less than half.
Pointed out to me by [ profile] q10, the Italian courts are in the process of ruling that a man who raped a 14-year-old girl should get a lighter sentence because she had already been sexually active. That's abso-fucking-lutely insane! What if her previous sexual activity had also been rape? Would the second rapist get off more easily? That's blame the victim! It's like saying if I steal someone's car, but it's not the first car they owned, I should be let off the hook. *grr*
Some of you really showed your talent a few weeks ago giving me your most offensive jokes. Now I challenge you to do better: your most offensive cartoons - offensive Jewish cartoons. But only if you're Jewish yourself. And don't submit them to me, submit them to the Israelis running the contest.

A Danish paper publishes a cartoon that mocks Muslims.
An Iranian paper responds with a Holocaust cartoons contest -
- Now a group of Israelis announce their own anti-Semitic cartoons contest!

“We’ll show the world we can do the best, sharpest, most offensive Jew hating cartoons ever published!” said Sandy “No Iranian will beat us on our home turf!”



April 2017

232425 26272829


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 24th, 2017 06:51 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios