Chick-Fil-A: An Exercise in Hypocrisy Explained

Based on the events of this last month, chicken sandwiches beat civil rights. Yes, I’m serious.

August 7, 2012

In a way, I’m sad that the culture war over gay rights has come to a head over a crappy chicken sandwich. On the other hand, I’m glad it finally opened the floodgates and we can tell who is for gay rights, who is pretending to be trendy, and who really has no idea what’s going on. For the latter group, let me explain a few things.

“This is a First Amendment issue!”

The most common gripe right now is that people who are boycotting Chick-Fil-A are somehow trampling on the company’s (and Cathy’s) freedom of speech.


He wants to believe gays shouldn’t marry, he has that right. He also has the right to donate money as he sees fit to whatever charity he chooses. My grievance, and that of many others, is WHO he gave the money to… the Family Research Council, among others. Just click the link and find out what kinds of people this good Christian man thinks deserve millions of his money.

Free speech means saying what you want. Paying to have others denied their rights is oppression. It’s that simple.

“Gay marriage isn’t that huge a deal! He’s just standing up for what he believes in!”

And what he believes in is hatred and intolerance even if he doesn’t sound like it.

Whenever people say they champion “traditional marriage,” it’s very likely they’re actually saying “the Biblical definition of marriage.” The problem, however, is that the Biblical definition of marriage is nowhere near what conservatives think. In fact, the Bible condones pretty much every other type of marriage except straight marriage. It advocates types of marriage we now consider highly unorthodox, so it’s ridiculous to claim opposition to gay marriage is based on the Bible.

Even worse, historically, “traditional marriage” has been a term used to deny rights to people who today can get married without fear of getting lynched. Interracial, different denominations, divorced couples… think about it. At one point, these groups were denied marriage for the same reason gay couples can’t get married. And every time, conservatives have been wrong. Their stance has been based on bigotry and hatred.

Why is this time any different?

Also, claiming that he’s innocent because he’s basing his actions on his beliefs pretty much frees any of us from any responsibility for our actions. The next time I get a traffic ticket, I can just say that my beliefs in chaos ruling the world make me except from the laws of man. So there.

Chick-Fil-A’s new ad campaign. by ~SlightlyImperfectPro on deviantART


“You’re just as intolerant as Cathy! You’re being intolerant of intolerance!”

…I’ve actually had people tell me this one. Somehow, calling someone out for being a bigot is the same as being a bigot.

Let me tell you something. Cathy and everyone like him can say whatever they want. I, too, can say whatever I want, and that includes disagreeing with him and his beliefs. However, I take special offense the actions he takes to limit gay rights and donate to a group that thinks homosexuality should be a criminal offense and thinks gays being killed for being gay is a good thing.

On the other hand, the Right doesn’t bat an eyelid when people on their side protest and boycott in the name of morals. Disney and General Mills, for example, have been hit with protests for their own stance on gay rights, and yet those actions were called brave, moral, etc.

But god forbid the Left protests something! We’re a bunch of communazi baby-killers, right?

“But it IS a First Amendment issue! Those mayors tried to ban Chick-Fil-A from their cities!”

Yeah, but they were wrong. A lot of people on the Left agree they were out of line to suggest they could deny a business a license based on their donations.

On the other hand, the Right was perfectly fine with denying mosques the right to build where they wished. That was also a First Amendment issue, but the Right screamed and whined that, well, they just didn’t want mosques in their cities. There was a wave of violence and a series of protests against Muslims who wanted to build houses of worship, and none on the Right stood up and said, “Hey, maybe this is a First Amendment issue.”

So remember, folks: chicken sandwich > religious liberty.

“Well, I don’t want to be part of this stupid debate. I’m going to keep going to Chick-Fil-A, but I still support gay rights.”

This is the same as saying, “I’m all for civil rights, but I’m going to keep eating at Swastikas and Subs, the Neo-Nazi shop down the street. I know they donate to the Klan, but they make a great meatball sub.”

If you know where the money goes and say you’re still for gay rights, you’re a hypocrite, pure and simple.

“But are you saying I have to check where companies donate their money and buy based on my stance on important social issues?! What about gas? Are you going to stop buying gas because it helps fund Middle Eastern dictatorships?”

Uhm, yes. You do have to check.

I know it’s impossible to check every major store, and it gets more confusing since many companies are owned by larger companies that are owned by larger companied, etcetera, etcetera, but if you KNOW you’re hurting the gay community and you keep doing this despite having the choice of going somewhere else, you’re complacent.

I’d love to stop buying gas form the Middle East, but have very little say on the matter. But this? I can NOT buy a chicken sandwich.

Takei Take Two by ~Afina79 on deviantART


“What about all the jobs that will be lost if the boycott succeeds? You’re hurting everyone else!”

No, that would be Cathy. He made a terrible business decision by giving money to an organization that’s labeled as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Center. Management made a terrible decision that hurt the company’s image. If Disney decided to donate a million dollars to groups that wanted to keep minorities from voting, a good chunk of the population would be outraged and stop buying Disney products.

Any lost business would be the fault of management angering their customers. We’re responding to something the company did, and if employees lose out on it, it’s a simple fix: Cathy has to stop donating to hate groups.

The point is that companies aren’t entitled to our business. They have to please their customers and put out a quality product. Chick-Fil-A did something that has a physical impact on the gay community. Their customers don’t like that. We’re boycotting.

If anyone suffers, it’s Cathy’s fault.

Don’t believe me? When was the last time Christians lined up at strip clubs to give money to the poor girls dancing their way through college? Because, after all, who will think of the employees?

The Bottom Line

Cathy’s donations hurt the gay community. People who willingly buy Chick-Fil-A sandwiches are feeding those donations. To ignore that fact is to be complacent and culturally lazy if you actually think gays should have the same rights as the rest of us.

The Right took more offense to a business losing money and being called out for its homophobia than to houses of worship being desecrated and attacked in the name of hate. They mobilized like Jesus himself was making sandwiches.

It’s enough to make me gag. And now, let’s see one brave, and stupid, protestor make a stance against gay rights.

Boycott Chick Fil A by ~Korpsellyn on deviantART

Questions for Homophobes

The public and legal vows for eternal love are only for straight people who have a 50% chance of getting divorced anyway.

May 17, 2012

Maybe it’s me. Maybe I don’t get the big deal about wanting to ban gay marriage. If a gay couple wishes to get married and live together, how does that undermine my own coming marriage or the marriages of everyone else? I’ve bene doing some thinking and I have a few questions to everyone who opposes gay marriage or is otherwise against LGBT individuals having rights or being able to express themselves in the public forum. If you can answer these questions, you win. It’s that simple. And they’re not trick questions.

If you believe the Bible dictates we must shun homosexuality because it is a sin, should we also shun divorcees, people who eat shellfish, and people who do not worship in a Judeo-Christian way?

Much of the core argument against gay rights in any way, shape, or form, comes from Judeo-Christian readings of the Bible. It clearly states in Leviticus 20:13 that man lying with man is an abomination.

Of course, as I pointed out last year, there are other things in the Bible we seem to not pay attention to even though they are clearly commandments: paying taxes, not tattooing, wearing gold, etc. The problem with this justification is that it doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. It’d be like police arresting everyone who jaywalked but ignoring murders and rapists and focusing on only a single law.

Either enforce ALL the laws in the Bible or admit you’re cherry-picking.

If pro-LGBT groups wanting marriage for these individuals have declared “war” on traditional marriage, does that mean that North Carolina redefining marriage rights for a very narrow segment of the population is a war on heterosexual couples as well?

Buzzfeed put together a great list of all the consequences of passing Amendment 1. It’s not just that it takes rights from gay couples. It also takes rights away from ANY couple that is not married. Medical and financial decisions, for example, may now only be made by married individuals for another person. Likewise, domestic abuse laws no longer apply unless the couple is married. Oh, and domestic partner insurance benefits? Those are gone, too.

This is like when Texas was in such a haste to ban gay marriage that it banned marriage IN GENERAL. That’s right. North Carolina has taken rights away from straight couples, too, kind of like a doctor trying to remove a tumor with a shotgun. Straight couples will suffer and be discriminated against because of Amendment 1.

Why isn’t THAT being called a war, either?

Marriage in the Bible UPDT v.2 by ~Eshto on deviantART

If the whole point of Amendment 1 in North Carolina was to protect traditional marriage but you can still marry your first cousin, does that mean we now consider marrying your first cousin is “traditional” and morally right?

There’s a Deliverance joke in there. Nothing more to say. Moving on…

If people who are pro-gay rights are “demonizing” so-called traditional marriage by disagreeing with it, does this mean that Christians are “demonizing” Jews by claiming the Messiah has already come?

This one is part of the conservative attack plan on gay rights. If someone wants gay marriage, then that person must therefore think people who believe in “traditional” marriage are monsters.

Well, yes and no.

Playing the victim is not an argument. Being upset or shocked that someone has the gall to disagree with you and acting all butt-hurt because you’ve been called out for bigoted views is not evidence that you are correct. For example…

Mother: “Steve, eat your vegetables while Mommy drinks her special water.”

Steve: “But Mom, isn’t that your third glass of vodka… this hour?”

Mother: “How dare you!? Are you saying I’m a drunkard? Just because you’re twelve and don’t rink you think I’m wrong?”

See the similarity. Being hurt someone disagrees with you is not an argument. End of story.

Gay Marriage Rally 4 by =methylated-spirit on deviantART

If Bristol Palin truly believes traditional marriage is the only way to raise children, why did she engage in behavior that led her to her teen pregnancy and why didn’t she stay with her baby’s father?

Bristol Palin was quite vocal in her disbelief that the President of the United States would endorse gay marriage. She endorses the view that only a mother-father family is good for raising kids.

I’m sorry, but isn’t she the most famous case of out-of-wedlock teenage motherhood in the last… however long we’ve been caring about this? Bristol Palin could not believe President Obama saw the need to speak to his children about gay marriage and would endorse it in order to expand their world view.

Maybe it’s me, but her saying traditional marriage is the only way to raise a kid stinks of hypocrisy. After all, if she truly believes that, she would have married her kid’s dad at the first opportunity.

If you are against gay marriage because you believe it will force citizens to be gay or invalidate straight marriage, do you actually understand the law?

Pat Buchanan is the perfect example of how the Right sees gay marriage. In their minds, making gay marriage legal will invalidate straight marriage because gay marriage will now be the norm? He also does a nice job of showing the fake outrage at being called out for being bigoted I mentioned earlier. You really have to see this to admire how Buchannan manages to stuff nearly everything I’ve talked about until this point

You got all that? He can’t believe someone would say we’ve been wrong up until this point. He can’t believe someone is challenging marriage. The only rational way gay marriage will invalidate straight marriage is if it supersedes it. Which is NOT the plan.

It’s like being afraid your favorite band is going to play a large venue or reach out to new fans. It’s like geeks being scared because more people are liking their hobbies.

Buchannan is a marriage hipster. There. I said it.

If you believe only gays support gay marriage, do you then believe half the country is gay or bisexual?

The statistics for gay marriage approval are hovering around the 50% mark, give or take 10% and depending on which poll you use, but it’s still pretty high. However, according to the Paul Cameron, head of the Family Research Institute, Obama has sided with gay marriage because he himself may be gay.

Following that logic, does that mean almost half of America is gay?

You don’t have to be part of a group to advocate for that group, but the Right can’t seem to grasp this. Obama reaches out to Europe? He must be a socialist. He wants good relations with Muslim countries? He must be a Muslim! He supports gay marriage? He must be gay!

That’s weird. I support feminism but am not a woman. I support gay rights but am straight. I support welfare and social safety nets for the less fortunate yet haven’t been in those situations myself. Am I a gay unwed mother?

No, I am a Hispanic straight male. And one that has empathy, something the Right seems to forget exists.

There you have it. If homophobes and everyone against LGBT rights can answer these questions in satisfying manner, if they can justify the cognitive dissonance inherent in making these arguments, then they win.

They can have all the straight marriage they want. And… go!

And now, let’s enjoy some levity by listening to Ahnold’s greatest hits. Remixed!

Star Wars Makes You Gay?

After Don't Ask, Don't Tell got repealed, many of the Empire's finest felt comfortable coming out.

January 30, 2012

A long time ago, in a Galaxy far, far away, Star Wars had more humane marriage laws than we do in modern America.

And the Right is not happy.

It seems that Star Wars: The Old Republic, the latest Star Wars video game, will allow players to enter into homosexual relationships as part of the plot. That’s great! In a modern world where many young people have embraced the idea of gay marriage and gay relationships, it makes sense to give that part of the fan base and population an opportunity to be themselves, even if it is in a world of turbolasers and lightsabers.

Of course, you know what this means?

Star Wars is going to make your kids gay. I know, I know. But now, to my eternal delight, someone has summoned the poor, innocent children. Won’t someone think of the children?!

Can I? by ~NoctisLiberi on deviantART

By the way, the group that is protesting this? It’s the same group that called for a boycott of Girl Scout Cookies. The Family Research Council really has a knack for going after things that are trying to help children or just provide entertainment. I love how they’ve got their tighty-whities in a knot over the possibility of kids seeing a digital gay couple that won’t be able to do anything besies announce its gay and they don’t bat an eyelid over the fact that, in a Star Wars game, starships filled with hundreds or even thousands of people get blown out of the sky on a regular basis. There’s also the little fact that you can have a high Dark Side score by committing questionable acts.

Like murder.

This is what I love about anyone spinning like a top over something like a gay character in a game somehow corrupting the youth. Said critics never seem to be worried about the MASS MURDER going on in video games. It might be the sci-fi aspect, and it’s not like people didn’t complain about killing and guns in games like Grand Theft Auto. But add sex to the equation?

It’s like yelling Frau Blücher. Somewhere, a horse is going to bray.

Star Wars Funnies: Han Solo by *kevinbolk on deviantART

We live in an interesting culture. We can show Starship Troopers on TV and no one bats an eyelid when humans get mangled and torn to bits. Have someone say a curse word or show a boob?


All I’m saying is…

Actually, I’m not saying anything. Let’s just point at the Family Research Council and laugh at them for wasting time trying to warn us of the gender-bending dangers of Star Wars.

And now, let’s watch a sleeping dormouse and start the week off with something cute.

The Book of Gaga: Why the Right Needs to SHUT UP

Her will be done! Even if her will is bat-shit crazy costumes!

April 22, 2011


Here we go again. You know, I respect Lady Gaga for doing something outrageous and performing well, though I’m still up in the air as to whether she’s stealing from Madonna, but could the Right Wing PLEASE stop using her as some sort of moral barometer? For that matter, stop taking pop culture as a sign of the End Times.

The Meat-Wearing One released a new song, “Judas,” that she sings as Mary Magdalene. The lyrics are found here, and you can hear the song by clicking the video below.

Let me start by saying that I cannot listen to this song more than three times because the music’s just… ear-splittingly horrible.

But let’s look at the lyrics for a second. It’s basically a love song to Judas Iscariot. Okay. Weirder things have been done in the name of art. And who was Judas Iscariot? Why, he was only the man responsible for the greatest betrayal in all of Christian teaching! He kissed our Lord Jesus Christ and sentenced him to death. How DARE she sing a song, as a harlot no less, to the man who killed Jesus?

Well, it’s more complicated than that.

If you believe that Jesus was prophesized to die, that his death was needed to save the world, then I propose that Judas was nothing more than a patsy. Judas was framed. Think about it. If this had to happen, if there was no way to avoid it, then he had no say in the matter and was therefore a victim just like Christ. Anyone would have fit the bill. In that sense, the lyrics touch upon the subject by having Mary Magdalene forgive Judas and apparently love him.

That’s not enough for some people. Cue Right Wing hysteria and outrage:

Oh, the number of things that are wrong with that statement… But first, let me wash off after those last ten pseudo-pervy moments…

Lady Gaga does not have a problem with religion. As was stated in the interview, she’s exploring her own religious background. She’s not going after Muslims, as Donohue suggested, because she’s not deconstructing Islam. It’s the same reason I’m making Charcoal Streets a deconstruction of Hispanic Christian beliefs. That’s my background. I’m not about to use European mythology because, frankly, I’m only about one-eight French.

And someone else already cornered the faerie novel.

Donohue then laments that, while Gaga has talent, she’s part of a pattern of artists that seem to go after religion. Why, oh, why, won’t the artists leave him alone?!

Maybe it’s because, again, WE LIVE IN JESUS LAND. Look, I have my qualms with religion in general. And yes, I guess some of the things I say in Charcoal Streets could be applied to organized belief, but I’m targeting Christianity (and I can’t believe I’m writing this) much like Lady Gaga is looking at religion in her song.

We’re working with what we know.

Christianity by ~TechnoJon on deviantART

It gets even better when Donohue says that Christians don’t enjoy the protection of Muslims because Muslims will react violently if you mock or criticize their religion. Well, yes and no. While I concede that a lot, if not most, Muslims would be offended by something as supposedly innocent as an image of the Prophet, and I’ve explained why that’s actually a really stupid belief, that’s not the point. Just because members of another religion are willing to behead people for the slightest religious offense does not mean that ALL religions are off-limits.

Furthermore, the belief that artists don’t need to criticize religion really misses the point. It’s movie Imperial Stormtrooper-like accuracy. Of course artists need to go there. Hell, I LIVE there. Artists, as John Lennon said, point a mirror to society. That’s our job. If you don’t like what you see, close your eyes and be happy in the darkness.

::Art:: by ~10-GunShOTreSiDUe-01 on deviantART

You can’t lament that radical Muslims will kill you for criticism, then turn around and say you wish you had that kind of protection. You can’t lament that radical Islam has no tolerance, then complain that someone is looking at your religion through an artistic lens. This sums up the Right Wing’s stance to a T.

“Critique anything you want except my own beliefs and stances.”

Really classy.

Also… “You hang out with Bill Donohue, I’ll buy you a beer, honey, and maybe we can straighten you out.” Did anyone else feel dirty after hearing that? Like, “stepped in gum and had to clean it off with my fingernails” dirty?

Anyway, let’s get some links up in!

  • Just in time for Easter, check out the latest blog from the Cheezeburger network… Sketchy Bunnies!
  • Laredo, Texas has done some… interesting things in the past, but this little error in a sign on the loop is nigh inexcusable. Way to piss off the writer.
  • And finally, Weird Al is one of my personal heroes. He takes pop culture apart and gives us back comedy gold. It looks like Lady Gaga didn’t like his newest parody and so didn’t give him permission to use it… but she finally said yes! Take a listen to “Perform This Way,” which takes a few swipes the Gaga, but it’s all in good fun. Have a good Easter weekend and I’ll see you Monday.

Gay for Truth and Vocabulary

If you're offended by the picture, you should really question your life decisions.

April 13, 2011

Let’s get something out of the way before I start a nuclear-powered rant.

I love words. The written word, or even the spoken word, is the greatest tool at our disposal for the dissemination of emotions, opinions, and points of view. Visual art can sometimes do a better job, but the right construction of words, the right application of grammar and syntax, is a beautiful thing.

That being said…

To the far right movement in America… suck my electronic text, you slopped-forehead evolutionary throwbacks.

The internet, for all its faults, is a forum where anyone, ANYONE, can post an opinion, a piece of art, or just use the combined electronic advancements of the last fifty years to watch cats do funny things.

Three small, almost innocuous incidents caught my attention this morning. My dear enemies in the Far Right (oh, where would this site be without you) did three things that showed me that not only are they getting craftier, they are now intruding on the realm of words, the aether of logos, and I am going guns akimbo on them.

Nuclear Bear _Strahlebaerchi_ by *pilzwolke on deviantART

Make “Gay” a Dirty Word

Please watch this video. It’s really short, but it shows just how desperate the Far Right is to make sure their agenda gets embraced by everyone instead of just white redneck hicks.

This is from “The Awakening” conference at Liberty University. Our dear speaker is going on about how “gay” implies an identity and how renaming it something else will give them edge.

Basically, he wants to make sure the Far Right phrases things in the context of “they must WANT to be gay.”

Among the more tasteful terms they wish to use to refer to homosexuality are – “Same-sex attraction,” “Same-sex intercourse,” “Sodomy,” and “Unnatural vice.” There could a whole article just on each of these, but let me say this.

“Gay” is about as dirty as “homosexual.”

If we need to just go back to scientific terms and refer to people as “homosexual,” “bisexual,” or whatever, fine. We’ll strip ALL the propaganda and tone form the conversation. Let’s see who wins.

And if we’re going to go around branding this graphically, allow me to be the first to stand up to the Caucasian vaginal penetration agenda.

Yeah, I said it.

Stand With Planned Parenthood by ~eclectic-acoustic on deviantART

Fact Are Irrelevant to My Argument

Senator Jon Kyl has a very… interesting concept of the standard debate. After getting in front of the Senate and stating that we must defund Planned Parenthood because abortion is well over “90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does.”

I won’t go over the fact that this is a horrendously erroneous statistic, but whatever he might have said (he could have claimed ants invented Telemundo), the fact remains that the crux of his argument was the statistic. His office, though, responded by saying that his argument was not meant to be factual.

But the statistic was meant to illustrate a point…

But the point was the statistic…

But the statistic was made up…

I’m going to stop before I get sucked into a Möbius strip of stupidity.

Let that sink in for a moment. The argument that hinges on a false statement is still valid because… the statement was made. Yeah… I’m going to go ahead and state that Kyl is a pedophile who can’t get an erection unless he kills a dog, because, while not factual, it is relevant to my overall argument.

Ride the Tubes!

The Tea Party is getting some training in internet guerilla warfare. Watch:

Basically, they’re being told to blog, give out negative reviews to liberal films and documentaries, and otherwise clog the internet with as much conservative cholesterol as possible. This is not only a dirty tactic, it’s downright dishonest.

What would Jesus do? Would be comment on something without knowing what it was? Would he lie to hurt his enemies?

More to the point, what do they hope to accomplish by lying, but going to classes where the main purpose is to fool people? Lying can reveal truth if used properly, but to cheat and spew falsehoods for the sheer purpose of making someone else look bad, to spread “facts” you know to be wrong, is the lowest form of debate.

It’s not even debate. It’s sick.

antics number 157 by ~readmorebooks on deviantART

There you have it, folks. The Far Right conservative movement. I really wish I could say it’s the FAR right, but this has some bleed-through to the regular conservative movement. Words have power, and if we let these self-righteous hypocrites hijack language, we lose. It’s that simple.

Link time!

  • George Takei just oozes awesome… and this ringtone proves it.
  • And finally, while I’m not one to go for overtly sentimental films, this one about a poor, elderly villager who returns to school to learn to read got the teacher in me. I’d love to see it. That’s all for today. See you Friday!

Gay Bomb OR Why Republicans Love Genocide

Just keep believing the narrative... just keep believing the narrative... just keep believing the narrative...

January 5, 2011

Are you gay? Bisexual? Thinking of changing teams after a drunken New Year’s night? Guess what? Republicans think you’re a bigger threat to this country than nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists.

And no, that’s not hyperbole.

And if you don’t know what hyperbole means, here’s the link.

Last month, our government had to work to pass the START Treaty, a nice little piece of legislation from the Reagan era. You know President Reagan, right? He’s the patron saint of the GOP. They invoke him like a level one wizard uses magic missile. The treaty states that both Russia and America will lower their nuclear stockpiles and we will get to go to Russia and make sure their nuclear programs are working properly. This way, Jihad Bob doesn’t get his hands on a nuke and before we know it, Baltimore’s a dust cloud.

Physics Remain by *mrgraphicsguy on deviantART

And guess what? Republicans would rather have a major American city turned into a sea of glow-in-the-dark glass than have dudes who want to marry dudes serve our country.

They held up ratification of the START Treaty, a treaty that would prevent nuclear war, because they didn’t want to pass the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. That’s right. They held one branch of government hostage and held a nuclear gun to the world’s head because the thought of gays in the military repulsed them.

Oh, they paraded out the usual excuses. John “War Hero” McCain went off on people who claimed that discrimination hurt the military. Over at Fox, they’ve done a real bang-up job of likening the repeal of DADT to some sort of Apocalyptic herald. And yes, I capitalized “Apocalyptic” because I think they really think this means we’re going to have oceans of blood soon.

Don’t believe me?

So there you go. I already hold nothing but contempt for the Republican Party. They are a bunch of knuckle-dragging backbirths. No sympathy from me. They were willing to put the nuclear safety of this country, perhaps the world, on the line just so gays could not openly serve in the military. They also did this to try and keep the Democrats from scoring political points like this was some giant game of Battleship.

I have no love for the Dems, but I have utter hate for Republicans.

They put out a ton of heavily questionable reasons to ban gays from the military, but since they’ve all been exposed to be phony posturing, we’re left with one conclusion.

At the End of All Things by ~L-nay on deviantART

Republicans hate gays more than death itself. They would rather we get a few kilotons shoved up our butt than have gays serve our country and risk their lives. They would rather risk decades of deformity and nuclear fallout than risk openly gay men and women bolster our flagging recruitment numbers. They would rather that the population and infrastructure of an American city be destroyed in a ball of plutonium-fueled fire than have gays defend the Constitution Republicans themselves hold so dear.

The GOP has done some atrocious things in the past for the sake of political points, all hoping to just not let the Democrats do anything. This though, and the obligatory backlash to repeal the repeal, show the true face of the Grand Old Party.

Homophobes and bigots. If you’re a Republican, you have no business talking about compassion, common sense, and inclusion. And if you’re gay, bisexual, or transgendered, remember this. The Republicans believe you are more dangerous than nuclear weapons.

Nothing but unhinged contempt is required here.

No Homophobia by ~Lexee90 on deviantART

And now, to clean the taste of Republican exposure out of your brain, here are the links!

  • Would you like your next sexual innuendo to be REALLY cool? Here’s a chart! Likewise, if you want to last longer with your significant other and you have a penchant for the scientific and philosophical, here’s a guide.
  • It looks like the cartels in Mexico are calling a month-long truce. I’m pretty sure this is a trap of some sort, but let’s see how it plays out.
  • Look, I’ve made no secret of my hatred for bad writing that gets put up like it’s some new standard to achieve… and I’ve worked hard at what I do… which makes it that much more infuriating when Snooki of all people gets a book deal just because she was on a show where she and a bunch of other D-bags made a whole state look bad. And it looks like she’s giving the great American writers a run for their money. And it saddens me that the sarcasm in the last sentence doesn’t translate well through text.
  • And speaking of the genetic landfill that is Jersey Shore, the Situation also has a book out. This has to be the greatest review ever.
  • And finally, here’s a video that made even ME smile. The happiest penguin ever. Take care, don’t forget to share the link, and I’ll see you Friday.