One of the most effective commercials I have ever seen. From widelantern.com "Just reading about this commercial spot from McDonald’s Taiwan had me in tears. A 90 second spot shows a son at a McCafe coming out to his father via a note on a coffee cup saying, “I like boys.” The father leaves the table, his son sitting in silence and alone. The father returns, picks up his son’s coffee cup, and changes the note to, “I accept that you like boys.” And yes, you heard it right, TAIWAN. Take that, those who write racial slurs on coffee cups and receipts in America." (Comment) - And yes, I also cried.

 

When you can't get your way through honesty, change the meaning of words to suit our needs. Let's face it. In order to fabricate any case for "gay marriage", you had to change the meaning of marriage.    And the left did just that.    Rather than to accept "domestic partnerships" as the term for gay couple unions, the proponents of the "fock you, breeders" campaign decided to co-opt the term "marriage", redefine it to suit ONLY THEIR NARROW NEEDS, and then forced that redefinition onto the rest of the world.     And just to make the insult to those who believed "marriage" meant what marriage has meant for centuries, the proponents of bastardizing the language flipped the bird to society and said "are you afraid we'll have stronger marriages than breeders?" And now to insult "hero". Marriage is not the only unholy actions that have gone on in the darkness with the bastards from the left.     Now they've really done it.    They've decided to bastardize "hero".   Once upon a time, "hero" was someone who was brave and exhibited selfless actions to save lives or to assist others. Now we have HERO - "Houston Equal Rights Ordinance".    Don't think for a minute that the acronym wasn't chosen arbitrarily.    Here in the United States we have a cottage industry of leftist and non-profit causes carefully fabricating worthless, but politically correct acronyms for their chosen names.     Deciding to rape the word "hero" that suggest bravery by making it one that now panders to men who want to be women or who have gender identity issues that result in them dressing like women but carrying all the trappings of attached erectile rape instruments, the proponents of the "shove transgenderism" onto society at large wouldn't fly - so they added the trappings of goodness and spice and slipped in things you just can't be against (unless you are evil bigots from Texas) like race, age, gender, pregnancy, religion, sexual orientation, disability or military status.   Who could be against those with military status (Code Pink would be)?    Who could be against the disabled (without the disabled the Democrats couldn't show a Republican pushing someone in a wheel chair over a cliff in a political commercial)?     Republicans just love the pregnant and those who are religious (unless they are satanists who are mooslims).   So the creators of the HERO provisions put in enough things that Republicans would love and then slipped in the poison pill of having to respect men who think they are women but who are really men who want to use a women's bathroom.    And judging by how many perverts we have now in the world, it is safe to say that a man who is a real man who wants to catch a peek at women doing a number two would dress up like that to get a nice sniff.    And to make matters worse, he'll be equally as justified because his "self identification" as a part-time fish is just as reasonable as some guy who arbitrarily has invented the idea he really is a woman trapped in a war on women body.    The only difference is one pervert is a part time wanda wee wee wannabee and the other wants to make it permanent (well, until he realizes it was a big mistake a decade later and then regrets the chop-a-dick-tomy that he underwent - not to mention the add-a-bobbies therapy he also received. All of this is after the word "gay" was stolen. Once a happy and care-free word, "gay" was one of the first victims of the leftists deciding to bastardize and to rape the english language by stealing one word and to then repackage it as the rainbow flagged bookmark for all things homosexual.   Instead of just going with "queer" or "homosexual" (too honest a word), gay was stolen and raped into submission to make homosexuals the happy people they are now (unless they don't get their way and then they want to slap you silly and call you a bigot or homophobe).    I personally am happy with being called a fag or a queer - and since I am homosexual, I am fine with that.   Unfortunately I've been conditioned to usurp the happiness from gay and to label myself that from time to time - but that is when I get my elbow length white gloves dirty or someone steals my pink bunny slippers.

If you give a rat's ass, you can become informed on REAL crimes against gays.   Not wanting to bake you a wedding cake is not a crime.

Taylor Swift - "You Belong With Me"

Eric Prydz - "Call on Me"

One Direction  - "What Makes You Beautiful"

The story that goes with the video.    Why do the leftists not do what this investigator did?

I was going to let this issue go having read about it on Benjy's blog- its 11:30 p.m. on a Sunday - I'm tired - getting ready for bed, and I don't need the world to know I'm queer.    And God knows I am not looking fabulous at the end of another week.    Tomorrow is Monday and it brings its own kind of hell to even those of us who wake up all smiles and ready to kiss the new week on the lips.

With that said, something has happened in the last decade where gay people seem to think that their sexuality somehow matters in every day life.    I don't give a flying monkey's ass about straight people, men fondling a woman's set of chest pimples or grabbing her ass as if the act of seminal turkey basting is about to happen right then and there.

I read the news - I have no real interest to know that a teenager is openly gay with a science fair project or that a pro football player sucks dick and feeds his nasty boyfriend cake.    I don't care that the average NBA player has more children out of wedlock than in it.   Big flying monkey's ass.

Perhaps I am really now practicing "agism" - you see, my gay awareness period was during the age of post Stonewall - a decade after the riots where police did some really mean things just going into a gay bar in the late 1960's.   I became cogently aware that my penis knew it was a fag long before the rest of me concluded the same.    In the era of my coming to terms with being gay, I also did so under the shadow of the "gay plague" - AIDS.    And in that era, it was not a great thing to be a gay person - and to be out in that era was not brave - it was plain stupid.    Yes, there were some people who stood out, stood up, and revealed themselves to be gay.   To many of us being gay was a queer thing.   Different.   A failure.

A decade later, being gay was more accepted yet the ramifications of AIDS had cleared a large swath through our community claiming young men in their 40's like the Civil War claimed young men in town after town.    My beloved Richard left me in 1993 and I have felt that pain ever since - I know all too well that being an out gay carries a price - with black coworkers I had the worst experience ever - overt homophobia and threatened violence.   I've never forgotten that those who play the victim the most are also primed to be the aggressors in hate.   

My own personal pain is nothing compared to those in the era of Stonewall or before.   People arrested and jailed for sucking cock or taking it up the bum.    Maybe arrested even for acting too swishy or for cross-dressing.   Men and women losing jobs and careers because they dared to be as open with their sexuality as the rest of society.

We've turned the corner - but lord knows the militant schmucks in our community seem to want everything their way - and their way is what they say it is even if what they want now is directly oppositional to what the same folks wanted ten or twenty years ago.   It used to be that gay people wanted to share nothing that society called right and proper - marriage - you've got to be focking crazy - decades ago marriage was the last thing gays wanted - now it seems that it is all they care about.     Sexuality was supposed to be kept to yourself - now it is in everyone's face.

Being gay is not important anymore - being an individual is far too precious to be lumped in with the rest of the conned masses.    I never knew that being successful and just happening to love sucking cock mattered in the same sentence.   I never knew that being a police officer and being a carpet muncher while having a carpet yourself to munch really mattered.

Yes, I had that moment in my life - during the era when blacks were threatening to beat my ass up because I came out - where being "OUT" was important.   It was a freedom - like escaping from North Korea, that caused one to feel compelled to escape the repression of compliance and to be open and carefree with a sense of sexual freedom.

But seriously - where is the oppression?    Since we cannot even mention Islam and all of its dirty catbox of qualities these days, we are left with a few sprinklings of neanderthal Christians like the Westboro fools - but hell, even the Catholic Church has moved into the 1990's (that still makes them 1200 years more advanced than Mooslims) and now recognizes gay people.   Compared to the 1960's, it is almost okay to suck a cock even for straight people!

I think now it is far more acceptable to leave whatever one's sexual orientation out of the news - live your life and succeed - but we don't need to know you love men as a man or that you are a lesbian and hate men.   Let's appreciate the person for the greatness that is there and eschew feeling a need to make him gay just so that we can hook onto that as proof that our own gayness is valid instead of accepting it on our own terms.   It seems now that many gay people seem to feel the need to out people so that being gay is more numerous than it is and that being gay is more special than it is.

We don't need to say "gay" anymore than we need to know that someone shaves their pubes.   Let's just go on with our lives keeping things special to ourselves and reward those close to us with the special nature of intimacy of our own little worlds.    The public at large has no need to know our orientation - and it is now not brave to come out for you risk shit doing so.    It is in fact now passe, IMHO, to be gay - it is not special - it is not unique - and it is now just a movement trying to rub society the wrong way - a way that we didn't even give a shit for two decades ago.

And that Smith who won a "singing award" recently should be forced to admit he's straight.  With my new Saturday gay artist videos, I see talented gay people who can sing.  All that Smith does is howl - and he isn't even good enough to be called a dog while doing it.   Having him out embarrasses all of us (or gives those of us who also can't sing our own little boner for being as horrific as Sam).

Recommended by a Canadian Friend

Matt Alber - "End of the World"

Matt Alber - "Velvet Goldmine"

Matt Alber - "I Wanna Dance With Somebody"

Matt Alber - "Handsome Man"

Eli Lieb - "Lightning in a Bottle"

Eli Lieb - "Young Love"

Eli Lieb - "Zeppelin"

Read more about this memorial

Forty years before Michael Sam came out for monetary profit, Jerry Smith (TE) of the Washington REDSKINS was a gay NFL player - 1972.     So now you know why I'm not impressed with gay for play players - there have been gay NFL players for decades that didn't use their sexuality for profit.

Read about this story by going here

She has incurred legal bills - if you would care to donate to her legal fund, click here.

Arizona votes to punish gays, but should have protected  all of us from having to patronize or to serve those whom we don't like or whose lifestyle with which we don't agree. Even Knuckle Draggers Can Sometimes  Make a Point Worth Considering Being a gay libertarian gives me a freedom to think outside of the box imposed by leftist, militant homosexuals and those Bible humping Fundamentalist Christian gay hating pieces of dog crap. I understand the Right's desire not to have to serve those whom that they don't like. Businesses should be free to decide whom they want to employ, whom they want to serve, how much they want to pay their employees, and by all means should be able to decide which morality they want to support and which to tell to go take a hike. As a gay businessman, I shouldn't be compelled to work with breeders.    I find nothing more repulsive than a brood mare who already has hatched four or five snot factories who is now obviously had a load pumped up her snatch that took root and she's ready to offload another varmint. I should be able to bar such gross displays of barnyard social grace from my place of employment - and the offspring should be kept as far away from me as possible lest I find a decent recipe in the "Modest Proposal" cookbook. It is such a heavy burden for straight people, particularly Fundamentalist Christians, to have  to deal with men who love to suck cock and women who consume vaginal and mammary secretions.    It is also quite illuminating that only your sensibilities can be offended and should be pandered to. I would like to offer an amendment to this bill, seeing that it approves of selecting out populations you find offensive and seeking to provide cover for not having to deal with those folks. I think that anyone who consumes tax dollars who has any child they can't support should be made to go get her cunt lips sewed up and/or to get sterilized.   And to prevent the father from having a sequel two minute performance with the same results, I think his nuts should be cut off and sold as furry (or not) dice to be hung from a rear view mirror. As for children, since I'm not popping them out, I should be excused from their educational expenses.   You can divert my tax dollars to the arts, thank you very much. As for all religions who think they should be able to escape taxation, I think it is now your turn to contribute.   Let's tax you at the rate of Apple Computer and levy all of your property as subject to property taxes. I also should be able to tell polyester water buffaloes with who bring along proof of their ability to do internal horizontal seminal harvesting to get the hell out and to go take their business elsewhere.   Their offspring are noisy and often ill mannered - they cough and chew with their mouths open - and spill things.   Sometimes they barf and have not yet been trained to use the facilities.   Unclean barnyard animals aren't allowed in stores so I should be able to bar two legged ones from mine. (CNN) - Arizona's Legislature has passed a controversial bill that would allow business owners, as long as they assert their religious beliefs, to deny service to gay and lesbian customers. The bill, which the state House of Representatives passed by a 33-27 vote Thursday, now goes to Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican and onetime small business owner who vetoed similar legislation last year but has expressed the right of business owners to deny service. The measure has drawn criticism from Democrats and business groups who said it would sanction discrimination and open the state to the risk of damaging litigation. Arizona Rep: Law would not shield waiter "With the express consent of Republicans in this Legislature, many Arizonans will find themselves members of a separate and unequal class under this law because of their sexual orientation," Anna Tovar, the state senate Democratic minority leader, said in a statement. "This bill may also open the door to discriminate based on race, familial status, religion, sex, national origin, age or disability." In a letter to Brewer on Friday, the Greater Phoenix Economic Council urged the governor to veto Senate Bill 1062, saying the "legislation will likely have profound, negative effects on our business community for years to come." "The legislation places businesses currently in Arizona, as well as those looking to locate here, in potentially damaging risk of litigation, and costly, needless legal disputes," council President Barry Broome wrote, adding that four unidentified companies have vowed to locate elsewhere if the legislation is signed. He added, "With major events approaching in the coming year, including Super Bowl XLIX, Arizona will be the center of the world's stage. This legislation has the potential of subjecting the Super Bowl, and major events surrounding it, to the threats of boycotts." The bill is being pushed by the Center for Arizona Policy, a conservative group opposed to abortion and same-sex marriage. The group has justified the measure on grounds that the proposal protects people against increasingly activist federal courts. "As we witness hostility towards people of faith grow like never before, we must take this opportunity to speak up for religious liberty," the group said on its website, asking people to contact Brewer and urge her to sign the bill. "The great news is that SB 1062 protects your right to live and work according to your faith." Cathi Herrod, the center's president, told CNN on Friday, "The Arizona bill has a very simple premise, that Americans should be free to live and work according to their religious faith. It's simply about protecting religious liberty and nothing else." Herrod said the bill's opponents are "showing unbelievable hostility toward religious beliefs." "America still stands for the principle that religious beliefs matter (for) something in this country, that we have the right to freely exercise our religious beliefs," she said. But Robert Boston, a spokesman for the Washington-based Americans United for Separation of Church and State, told CNN the legislation would "fling the door wide open to discrimination, not just against gay people, but basically to any class of individuals that a religious fundamentalist decides he or she doesn't want to deal with." He added, "A woman who is pregnant out of wedlock, for example, 'Well, out the door, you don't get served in my business.' " The Arizona legislation was passed as conservative states work to counter laws legalizing same-sex marriage. Arizona voters approved a ban on same-sex marriage as a state constitutional amendment in 2008. The American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona called the bill "unnecessary and discriminatory." "What today's bill does is allow private individuals and businesses to use religion to discriminate, sending a message that Arizona is intolerant and unwelcoming," the group said in a statement. Some Republican legislators have defended the bill as a First Amendment issue, while Democrats dismissed it as an attack on gays and lesbians. "We saw it with Russia and the Olympics," said state Rep. Chad Campbell, a Phoenix Democrat, who voted against the legislation, according to KPHO. "I mean, hey, I'm not sure if Russia is any less progressive than Arizona now against gay rights to be quite honest with you." Monica Jones, a Phoenix resident, agreed: "Think about what this says to the rest of the country. We are not Russia. We are a first nation. And, as Americans, we have civil rights."

The Gay Marriage Problem is Created by Government, Not By the Church The application of laws to ensure equal protection for all is a paramount issue for our times.   As we enter this period of social enlightment, we cannot be quick to cure past perceived ills by committing to laws and actions that are just as insidious and limiting of rights for other citizens.     I seek no application of equality of our laws to non-citizens who are here of illegal means; rights of man has historically bestowed rights to man by virtue of birth, but those rights have never established a right to US citizenship or to cross our border in violation of our laws.   And so I shall limit my discussion here to only being concerned about US citizens and their protection of rights which are governed via the US Constitution.    Miscreants and American Experience thieves are of little concern to me and their deportation should be a given, not something negotiated by those whose hearts are claimed to be far more understanding and bleeding than others. Being a gay man having occupied a small personal space of this world for over fifty years, I've been touched by hate, hugged by love, and seen the world evolve in my life time in ways I thought I would never see - some ways are of goodness, but much has been made in recent years of punishing others to elevate others supposedly to create equality - and sometimes when terms get in the way, we seek to define equality through the bastardization of language to carve out equality for ourselves in a very selfish means while denying equality for others - if not by intent, but by result.   Pursuit of equality by narrowing a discussion is fraud - that is not equality - it is pandering. Being a libertarian, I feel the greatest liberty to all is the greatest good - that we enter this world with the same opportunity - we consume oxygen, we have free will, and we can move our body from one locality to another in search of the best in our lives.   And while we are born into different circumstance, we are nonetheless afforded the same aspirations.    And while it is so popular by the party in power now to insult the wealthy, there is no use in this if we are seeking true liberty.   To listen to the President's party, we have to assume the wealthy sneak into the homes of the poor at night and steal all the accumulated wealth and goods of the poor and that this is how the rich get richer.    It is quite laughable to think that there are those who believe the rich are merely the Grinch who slides down the chimney and bags up 22 inch rims, Obamaphones, and impregnates the unwed to set them down a path of failure. As someone who was not born into wealth, I know the feeling of looking at others and wondering what could be and what might be.   But I was also not born shackled and into a caste system like in many third world nations.   I am thankful that the gift I received upon drawing my first breath some fifty odd years ago gave me a chance to seek to live a life under this Constitution and not in Iran or China or North Korea or some African nation. As a gay man, I also have felt the angst wondering why my love of another man cannot be equated with the love of a man for a woman; but I am a man of reality and I have my eyes open and understand that institutions that Government interferes in, are not necessarily institutions that Government should be involved with.    There is almost always a bastardizing of life when Government gets involved.    The law of unintended consequences seems to always raise its head - birthed into this world with good intentions - but consuming oxygen and infecting the lives of many with violations of liberty and rights even under the guise of giving others rights.     How is it that we have a President who spent nearly 45 years supporting the definition of marriage being between a man and a woman be allowed to suddenly vacillate to a position that just happens to coincide with his leftist donating population which was threatening to deny him their funds during the election of 2012.   How is it that a mid-course change by our President in support of gay marriage be applauded and not questioned?     Is the fact that he changed his position to one of popular inertia excuse his profound ignorance he showed for most of his life.   He was neither struck by lightning and brought to a near death experience nor was he ever a product of an epiphany where he suddenly found it upon himself to seek absolution of his 45 years of bigotry for a greater cause of rights.    This President is one of the kind of people who are backed into a position out of greed - out of exploitation - whether it is pitting the wealthy against the unmotivated - or by pitting gay against those who view marriage as between one man and one woman.    This is a man who holds no dear core belief that exhibits well thought out positions and who has a history of lengthy, scholarly dispositions in written evidence.   We cannot see in this man an lifelong pursuit of supporting the righteous position; rather we find a life history of exploitation and division - often wrapped in a bacon of flowery language - not far removed from bull shit. My belief in the concepts of liberty and equality seek to not defile one group to raise another to its assumed placement in life.   I would no more ask Government to define what marriage is - as marriage is more of a religious institution in which Government has seen fit to meddle and to involve itself to provide benefits and freebies to some, tax provisions to others, and to exploit marriage to win votes.    Marriage is a holy union - and if you are such a person to seek a union that is of the church, then don't seek to tell the church how it will run its unions.   And since marriage has only been exploited by Government, there is no actual violation of any equality by marriage being of one man and one woman. Those who seek to have a non-religious union bastardized marriage by moving it from a religious institution to a secular one instead of crafting a name for secular unions.   And by redefining marriage into one where it is no longer a religious only institution, we have a true problem - not of liberty and of equality, but by Government sticking its focking nose into things it should never have been allowed to be. I'd argue that Government, in the pursuit of equality, should have established the concept of "Civil Union" for all adult unions it seeks to codify for legal purposes.    In this application, you would have separated Church from State, separated marriage from civil avenues, and allowed for an equal application under the law.     With marriage being of Church and Civil Unions being of State, we would have a situation where marriages would only be administered through Churches and if these unions were to be legally recognized, then that union would require them to pursue a civil union with all the trappings, protections, and responsibilities of the law.    We would have afforded a clear "civil" procedure that would have separated a "marriage" from a "civil unon" and would have instantly had a true and logical distinction that would have resolved all conflicts of gay and straight and removed the bigotry of one for the other and allowed for a way to recognize all unions of consenting adults under the law. Yet, my analysis here assumes the goodness of the hearts of the homosexual left - that they truly want to have marriage just so they can be like straights.    And having not just fallen off the turnip truck  yesterday, I know that for decades the gay community lambasted the concept of societal norms and eschewed marriage as if it had been a ripe vagina.   You see, youngsters, marriage was something that gays just didn't do - and the sudden push for gay marriage has to be viewed within this context - that the conquest for gay marriage has nothing to do with equality at all - it is a way of destroying a societal institution. But how can I say this? When gay marriage advocates narrowly define what they say constitutes marriage, that is bigotry no less as insulting as straights who think marriage is of one man and one woman.   If you are to be logically and intellectually consistent, you cannot advocate a position predicated on equality while imposing non-equality on other adults who don't share your characteristics.   So if you find that having marriage as between a man and a woman as violative of equal protection, how is defining marriage as being between only two people equate with equality for all?   How does your narrow view of unions only of two people being worthwhile and legitimate make you superior to advocates of one man and one woman marriage?    You simply accept the terms of two parties and then redefine the parts you find distasteful.   Your integrity of equality ends where your own political and narrow view allows - meanwhile others who are in relationships of love and their beliefs are just as precious to them in their bonds - and that their numbers exceed two.    How is it your numerical bigotry is any less insulting than those who seek marriages of disparate genders? This is why I argued that marriage is a religious institution only -not one of equality pursuits or violations.   It is a separate union recognition from the State - and it is the error of the State to seek to involve itself in a religious institution and tried to coopt the position and then to recognize it.    Having not established civil unions for legal recognition of all adult unions, the Government created the unintended consequence of whoring what marriage truly was and created the problem of gays seeking legal protection for their unions.   And  with the gays seeking only the expansion of recognition to their narrow two party unions, it is a wonder that we can exist at all in harmony. Government should immediately establish as the only adult unions of legal recognition as the civil unions - and that even those "married" in the Christian or other religious institutions are not recognized in civil life as having been pair bonded or protected.    Those married in the Church would need to acquire a civil union in the secular government to have all legal protections and responsibilities.    In this way we no longer have to essentially violate religious rights with bastardizing marriage - we set a clear and distinct civil procedure where all adult unions are handled exactly the same, and we don't limit recognized unions as only being of two adults.    Those who seek unions of more than two would be bound by the same constraints and duties as those of two parties.    And we'd have a logical, ethical, and Constitutional approach that removes Government from invading the religious "marriage" area and would have something distinct for legal purposes. The consistent application of civil unions would provide a clear and distinct recognition for application of all secular situations - survivorship, retirement, benefits, divorces, and all transactions within government.   One set standard, separate and distinct from the Church, and one that would be clear to all - not violative of those with religious convictions - and without the appearance of the leftist homosexual community exploiting marriage for political reasons. I am not unsympathetic to homosexuals and polygamists who seek to have their lifestyles recognized and made equal as the marriages we see with straights.    Yet, it seems queer that gays who have no use for the Church in any way and levy intolerance and bigotry toward non-secular institutions should seek to embrace an institution of theirs.      So if our pursuit of equality is truly a pursuit of equality, then we must adopt a consistent secular institution for administering recognition of adult bonds.    We must not seek to divide or conquer or to punish our adversaries or to act like children with jealousy and indignation.   We should advocate for a total overhaul of our civil union system that applies to all, is distinct from the Church, and is not called marriage.   Marriage should always remain a Churchcentric recognition and distinctly separate from the Secular Government.   And marriages should only be administered and regulated by the church of your faith and the duties and responsibilities should be set forth by the Church and dissolution of marriages should be handled by the Church.    Secular legal procedures for adult bonds should be handled distinctly and not called marriage.   This would end the debate.    And it would ensure equality for all.

To of Us is a 1987 gay-themed BBC television film written by Leslie Stewart and directed by Roger Tonge.  It was produced as part of the BBC Schools SCENE series, and intended for young adults. It confronted the Thatcher government's attempt to ban gay sex education in schools via the controversial (since repealed) section 28 legislation.  Given this backdrop, the BBC opted not to show it during the day and it was screened at night, even though it was originally created for a school audience.