community-based, non-corporate, participatory media
community-based, non-corporate, participatory media
PA Senator Rick Santorum Makes Homophobic Remarks
by druid
Tuesday, Apr. 22, 2003 at 11:31 AM
PA senator Rick Santorum Makes Homophobic statement by comparing homosexality to incest, bigamy, and polygamy; disgraces nation
Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, yesterday made homophobic remarks during an interview with Associated Press. During the interview, he criticized homosexuality and insulted most of the nation by stating, "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything." Senate Dems are already asking that Santorum resign from his leadership post, the number three slot of his party in the country. Although not surprised of this conservative's remark, people are outraged that someone of his standing in the US Government, and a representative of the people of Pennsylvania would make such a public statement. Ask for the resignation of this bigotby emailing him at :
http://santorum.senate.gov/emailrjs.html
or writing and calling at:
120 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6324
Who's Afraid
by Prodigal Yunzer
Tuesday, Apr. 22, 2003 at 3:44 PM
Of low T Cell count skinny sissies wearing chaps with no britches underneath? Ha. Maybe he's a HETEROSEXIST, but no one is afraid of you gayboys. Except maybe if you sue to take our sons to Boy Scout Camp with no straight supervision.
Homosexual protection as a class is a GREAT platform plank for you leftists! Combine that with supporting Scott Petersen's One Murder and One Fetal tissue disposal charge, and maybe throw in some anti war stuff, and the Democrat platform writes itself!
Hey, you all turned out at about 90% in 2000, and you still lost. Can you say MARGINALIZED?
?
by Theo
Tuesday, Apr. 22, 2003 at 7:52 PM
TheoK444@aol.com
Wow. That didn't even make sense. You need to really work on your writing skills, Yunzer. I get the idea that you were trying to slam gays, but i'm not sure of what you even said.
Compassion in America
by Tod
Tuesday, Apr. 22, 2003 at 8:14 PM
Gee, Prodigal Yunzer. And they say there is no compassion in America. They say we are not an inclusive, understanding society. Heck, they even say we are a bunch of religious wackos hell-bent on spreading our Christian fundamentalist beliefs across the world. Boy, do they have it wrong!
You want to talk hypocrisy? Maybe you don't know the meaning of the word, seeing as you conservatives don't much like that edumacation stuff. At least you people could have the guts to admit you hate anybody that isn't a white, heterosexual, racist, homophobic, gun-loving male. Don't you realize you people leave yourself open to such classifications when leaders like Santorum make such disgusting, anti-inclusive comments, only to have apologists rally around and defend such reprehensible remarks?
This is 2003, and this is the United States. We are all supposed to be equal under the law, but I guess that doesn't matter anymore. We need to feel "safe" and concern ourselves with "homeland security," so therefore we have not the time to quibble with trivial matters such as homophobia and racism. We need to limit the freedoms of others in so doing, not realizing that we as individuals fall in the category of "others.
I am a gay male, and I find offensive the comments of Santorum. To me, anybody who votes for him the next time is a homophobe - they are lending credence to his thoughts and opinions.
If you can't see that this is a sad state of affairs to be dealing with in this day and age, then you are one dillusional person.
The acts and words of those like Santorum and Trent Lott only prove our positions correct. There really exists a strong sense of racism, bigotry and homophobia in modern America. We act holier-than-thou to other countries, yet deny basic human freedoms and rights to our own citizens, and we do it willingly and with malice and contempt.
Fascism is alive and well, and it resides in the good ol' US of A.
God bless America my a**.
Interesting quote
by Vance
Tuesday, Apr. 22, 2003 at 10:33 PM
Interesting quote from Santorum: "If New York doesn't want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. ... I wouldn't agree with it, but that's their right. But I don't agree with the Supreme Court coming in."
Funny he should bring up New York. Fact is, sodomy (oral/anal sex, often charmingly listed in the law books as "crimes against nature") and fornication (conventional intercourse by unmarried couple) are perfectly legal right here in PA. In addition, when sodomy laws were struck down by the highest courts in both PA and NY, the PA legislature later chose to repeal the law, but NY kept it on the books (although unenforceable). http://www.sodomy.org/laws/
So by Senator Santorum's measure, Pennsylvania is even more a pit of depravity than New York! :-)
.
by .
Tuesday, Apr. 22, 2003 at 11:33 PM
i wonder if fred phelps will support santorum's homophobic comments. and if he does, will he mention "god hates america" and "thank god for 9/11". that would look great on santorums website. another reason for patriotic voters to support america and her closeminded officials.
States' Rights
by Sam
Wednesday, Apr. 23, 2003 at 9:38 AM
"Interesting quote from Santorum: 'If New York doesn't want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. ... I wouldn't agree with it, but that's their right. But I don't agree with the Supreme Court coming in.'"
Bigots have been using states' rights as an excuse since time immemorial.
.
by .
Wednesday, Apr. 23, 2003 at 9:46 AM
Yes, I agree. Santorum and all other rednecks have the right to be homophobic. But, it's foolish to offend a group and not expect backlash. There are thousands of gay voters in the state of Pennsylvania and they have friends and relatives who support them. People seem to forget that this isn’t back in the days where people were not as openly gay. He insulted my friends based on their sexual preference, so I feel that he has no respect towards people who are different then him. He lost my vote along with thousands of other Pennsylvanian’s. I think it’s funny how he’s trying to cover it up though. That’s like saying “I'm not against homosexuals or them having relationships. They’re just not allowed to have sex.”
Should senators be allowed to be openly prejudice? Not just towards gays but race, age, gender, and nationality? Sure, they can be all they want. But, again, it’s not intelligent to say anything against the people who can vote for your opponent.
You all are missing the larger issue...
by George
Wednesday, Apr. 23, 2003 at 12:20 PM
gwalker@comcast.net
...and Senator Santorum is obviously more open-minded than any of you. It is unquestionable that the senator is taking one sexual practice he believes is wrong (homosexuality) and comparing it to other sexual practices he doesn't approve of (bigamy, incest, and polygamy). I think he is right about the implications of the supreme court case: US law won't be allowed to interfere with ANY concentual sexual act (well, anything that doesn't break other laws, like statutory rape, etc). And I think that's a good thing.
I am a straight, white, adolescent, christian male. I happen to be attracted to girls. But even if I was attracted to men, old ladies, or my sister, I don't think its the place of any secular institution to judge that. Who are YOU ALL to say that having more than one wife, or having sex with one's brother/sister is wrong? While we may not, as the last commenter said, be living in a world where people arn't openly gay, polygamy and incest is still viewed with disgust the way homosexuality once was. Who knows, maybe couples will be openly incestuous in 50 years. All I'm saying is that you all arguing now are just as discriminatory against another sexual minority as the "rednecks" are against homosexuals.
Eventually, we all make judgements about other people's actions. The difference lies in how we deal with the judgement our own set of ethics and morality gives us. I personally think homosexuality is wrong. That is a judgement I have made (though its one I've been re-thinking as of late...), after a lot of thought. I also think polygamy is wrong. But that doesn't mean I think the government should be enforcing my morality on anyone else. My views don't prevent me from loving homosexuals (or polygamists) as Christ loves ALL of us, nor do they force me to discriminate based on sexual orientation. In the same way, I would hope that people that view all sodomy as wrong don't discriminate against me for being in favor of blowjobs, and I hope that homosexuals, who have been discriminated against for so long (and still are), don't become a new class of bigots, discriminating against other sexual minorities.
Huh?
by Sam
Wednesday, Apr. 23, 2003 at 1:23 PM
"Who are YOU ALL to say that having more than one wife, or having sex with one's brother/sister is wrong?"
You don't know that all of us think these things are wrong. However, Santorum is wrong in saying that the right of consenting adults to engage in homosexual acts in one's home necessarily means that "anything" goes. Homosexual behavior is natural (I know someone reading this board will take issue with that comment, but for the purposes of this argument, assume it to be true -- I'll discuss this point in detail later.) Homosexuality has occurred in human societies throughout history. It was widely practiced, for example, in ancient Greece.
On the other hand, there is a universal taboo against incest (though the definition of incest varies from culture to culture). The government also has a duty to protect children, on the grounds that they can't truly consent to sex until a certain age. Similarly, an animal can't really be said to consent to sex.
You're right...and not.
by George
Wednesday, Apr. 23, 2003 at 2:18 PM
gwalker@comcast.net
The point of view that says the Senator's comments were offensive relies on the assumption that bigamy, incest, and polygamy are wrong, and so the comparison made is thereby denegrating homosexuality by bringing it down to that level. I say that aside from personal, moral decisions and judgements we all make as individuals, no concensual sexual act is, in and of itself, better or worse than any other. It all depends on the preferences and additudes of the performers. As for children, our society makes the judgement (and rightfully so, in my opinion) individuals below a certain age (which varies from state to state) are not mature enough to knowingly consent to sexual acts. Therefore, sex with children is not considered (by me or the law) as consensual.
As for animals, they have never had the rights humans have. For that matter, how many animals consent to be slaughtered for food? I don't know if this is right or not, and I'm not going to argue animal rights either way, but as the law stands humans can basicly do what they want with animals (eat them, for instance) and so I don't see why beastiality would be illegal.
Taboos are completely relative. There have been taboos about eating red food, homosexuality, sodomy, and plenty of healthy, natural things, Taboos are only superstitious opinions and preferences. They therefore have no bearing on the debate on human sexuality.
The only sexual act we can definitively say, without debate, is totally natural is heterosexual, vaginal sex. I only say this because that is how the human race got here. Beyond that, its all up for debate. I would argue that the other things mentioned (polygamy, incest, etc.) have also existed since humans have existed. If not, those taboos you spoke of wouldn't exist. I would say that in a strictly darwinian sense, any propensity toward sexual behavior that doesn't result in reproduction is a deformity, and would ordinary be weeded out of the gene pool, unless it offered some other reproductive advantage (I can't think of one...). However, in our society we don't need heterosexual, vaginal sex in order to continue our lines. See sperm banks, ai, etc. And in previous times, there was social pressure to ensure that homosexuals married and reproduced (thanks to taboos). The same goes for incest. It harms the gene pool, and naturally bad things happen to lines that inbreed. Social pressure forces incestuous people to marry outside of family ties, and now, with the advent of condoms and other methods of birth control, a brother and sister could potencially live a long, happy, geneticly safe life together, and make use of things like sperm banks for genetic integrity. Or not, as they saw fit. After all, its their blood line, and none of my business. And most off all, not the governments place to judge.
Bigamy?
by Theo
Wednesday, Apr. 23, 2003 at 5:58 PM
TheoK444@aol.com
Comparing bigamy and polygamy to homosexuality is comparing apples to oranges. Bigamy and polygamy are not sexual practices, they are societaly sanctioned marital arrangements. Polygamy is not having sex with more than one woman (or man) is is being married to more than one woman. It is not a sexual behavior. I can be married to one woman and have sex with dozens, even hundreds of other women, yet not commit polygamy or bigamy. It is only when i live or act as husband and wife with more than one woman that i commit one of these acts. Sex has little to do with it. Adultry is a sexual act, but i still don't think it is comprable to homosexuality. Homosexuality is an innate orientation towards members of one's own sex. I don't think there is an innate orientation towards individuals who aren't your spouse in any human being. The same can be said for incest, i don't think any people who commit incest have an innate attraction only towards people they are related to. Most incest occurs in the context of adult/child sexual molestation, there is a whole other dynamic going on there. I'm not arguing from the perspective of morality here, you can be against incest, homosexuality, whatever you want. However, Santorum's comparison of homosexuality with incest and polygamy is simply ignorant. He does'nt know what he's talking about. And allowing a sexual practice between consenting adults in no way necessarily compels the Supreme Court, the states, or anyone to redifine legal marital relations. Remember, a married guy can engage in illegal or legal sodomy with another guy. Marital status has nothing to do with it. Santorum doesn't have a clue what he's talking about, he's just trying to score points with the Falwell/Robertson crowd.
study yer evolutionary theories
by charles darwin
Wednesday, Apr. 23, 2003 at 7:26 PM
"I would say that in a strictly darwinian sense, any propensity toward sexual behavior that doesn't result in reproduction is a deformity, and would ordinary be weeded out of the gene pool, unless it offered some other reproductive advantage (I can't think of one...)."
In a strictly darwinian sense, you're wrong...there are plenty of evolutinary advantages to not breeding, and demonstrated in nature. there are several great ape groups that will have non-breeding indivviduals in their "clan" whose sole duty is to help raise children and add numbers for safety purposes. and guess what, they like to get off to, and it don't matter the gender to them.
Homosexuality
by Phil
Thursday, Apr. 24, 2003 at 6:07 AM
To Senator Santorum: I always thought that your "far-right"
political agent was out of touch with the rather humble people of Pennsylvania. I have two very close relatives who are admitted homosexal. They claim that they didn't choose this life style but are somewhat certain that they were born with the traits. But they are the most considerate, compassionate, honest, humble, caring people I know. They are always there to help out in any family crisis and are
wholeheartedly accepted by everyone who knows them. Hopefully, senator, in order to avoid embarrassing the state of Pennsylvania further you'll show more tolerance to people whose
life styles and attitudes are different. We are all "Gods
children", let's let Him decide what is correct or wrong.
NOT INTOLERANT
by Prodigal Yunzer
Thursday, Apr. 24, 2003 at 8:08 AM
All sex outside of marriage is officially "sinful" to Rick Santorum and other Roman Catholics. It might come as a shock to you all, but that goes for all Christianity as well. People say "you can't legislate morality" but what are laws if not codified mores? Rick Santorum isn't proposing anything except that you consider the argument before the Supreme Court in light of his comments. Gee what a shock that a GOP conservative that stands for "family values" would make such a comment? "Family Values" means that I get to keep the money I earn for my family to buy a piano and lessons for my children, instead of giving it to the School Board so they can buy 100 pianos from their uncle at retail, then refuse to hire music teachers to teach anyone how to play them. "Family Values" means I keep my money instead of giving it to Family Services to pass it out to a 17 year old girl who got pregnant so she could get out of Momma's house, get her own apartment and "pretend" that that makes a family just like mine. Thats what "family values" means. It doesn't mean that my values are better than yours, it just means I don't have to fund your immorality or notions of equity by depiriving my own family. And guess what? It wins every time it is an issue in a campaign.
an attack on sodomy?
by literati
Thursday, Apr. 24, 2003 at 12:40 PM
Unless my understanding is completely misplaced, the case is not only about "homosexual acts," but about sodomy in general - that includes consensual sodomy between members of the opposite sex. So saying, though this is obviously leveled primarily at homosexuals, in a blantant attempt to find a way to criminalize sexual preference, a ruling against the act itself has implications for EVERYONE, something we should definitely consider before rushing off to condemn a certain class of individuals for something that doesn't concern the government at all.
And for the record, I am NOT a hypocritical, white liberal Christian who is supporting acts that I find personally objectionable.
No, no no...
by Grant
Thursday, Apr. 24, 2003 at 6:13 PM
I don't think that Senator Rick Santorum was in any way degrading homosexuality, but merely encouraging incest, adultry, bigamy, and polygamy. He just thinks that if you are able to be able to be gay in your own home, you should also be able to screw your mom ocasionally. haha.
literati
by Theo
Thursday, Apr. 24, 2003 at 7:05 PM
TheoK444@aol.com
Literati, i may be wrong, but i think that the laws being challenged in this case were chosen specifically because they outlaw homosexual sodomy but not heterosexual sodomy. Hence the equal protection argument, i.e. why should heterosexuals be allowed to have oral sex, but not homosexuals? If anybody out there knows differently, please correct me, but that's my understanding.
Yunzer - once again, i'm not even sure what you are talking about. Your latest rant doesn't even seem to have anything to do with the topic. And since when do 'family values' equal getting to 'keep your money'? Huh? This makes absolutely no sense. This case has nothing to do with taxes, or government funding for anything, so i don't know what your argument is supposed to be. But i'm seeing that is typical of you, you blather on about something, making very little sense, then someone comes along with a rational, coherent argument that you simply cannot respond to, so you invent another rant trying to justify god knows what. You're certainly not convincing anybody here. Wow, i'm still bewildered.
RE: NOT INTOLERANT
by Brian
Friday, Apr. 25, 2003 at 1:26 AM
artriotmedia@aol.com
Prodigal Yunzer,
Not entirely true, there are churches that don't entirely condemn sex outside of marriage(not saying that they promote it either, they just don't completely condemn anyone that does it or tell them it's wrong), as well as many that don't condemn homosexuality(actualy I believe there are now more churches that don't condemn homosexuality, they just aren't as outspoken as the bible thumping biggots).
As for your concept of family values, I hope you weren't implying these too be Christian family values. Jesus tells a man in the bible when he asks how he can fully serve him to "sell his possessions, give the money to the poor and follow Me". Certainly I believe Jesus would be in favor of you giving your money to that single parent then keeping it to buy yourself a new TV or football tickets. Most churches that arne't just out there to make a profit would as well.
--brian
Finally!
by Mark
Saturday, Apr. 26, 2003 at 6:35 PM
Thank you Senator for being willing to stand for what you believe even when it is not politically correct. Politicans are elected by those they serve. It can be assumed that they have similar values. Why should he change his views, like most do, just to be politically correct for those who did not elect him or a minority in his district?
On homophobia. Being against homosexuallity is not being against the individual who is a homosexual. Hate the sin love the sinner.
Hate the sin love the sinner
by Martin
Sunday, Apr. 27, 2003 at 8:06 PM
I'm pretty sure you have a lot of gay friends, and you tell them every day how much you love them but that you think that they should get arrested for their sexual behavior. Yeah right
He will survive !
by Paulie
Sunday, Apr. 27, 2003 at 11:05 PM
Santorum will be pilloried by the media and this site will be choked with criticism of his "homophobic" remarks, but the simple truth is that this outcry will not hurt him--only make him stronger. You see, most voters (and in general, most Americans), despite their lip-service to "tolerance" and "right to privacy," still view homosexuality as an un-natural, unsavory lifestyle. No amount of media promotion, lifestyle education or sensitivity classes have been able able to change these views. As humans, we have a natural discomfort with behaviors, sexual or otherwise, that confuse the social order. When behaviors challenge our social knowledge, they're stigmatized. Not because of the actual morality or immorality of the act itself--the act itself is irrellevant. The stigmatization occurs because the behavior has 'confused' the way we order the world and brings then some question to how individuals find their place in that order. (Want to see this confusion and the typical human response to having 'order' messed with, witness a bar scene where gays and straights mix in an atomosphere that is not publically known to be a 'mixed enviornment.' Women, interested in making social contacts with good-looking men, spend a good deal of effort connecting, but when they find out the man is gay they are angry, confused, bewildered...their 'order' has been called into question, and also...their place in that order, and their understandings of how their particular culture operates are now in doubt. Same thing happens when a man has been buying a cute lesbian drinks all night...then meets her girlfriend.) The rightness or wrongness of this attitude is always open for debate, but the issue of how citizens actually feel is most certainly not. You see, Santorum is actually saying what most people believe. Despite what people say in public, when their ideas are out in the open and subject to criticism, privately they feel different. When they draw that curtain on the voting booth--they vote those private instincts, they vote against discomfort.
Paulie
by Theo
Monday, Apr. 28, 2003 at 5:11 AM
TheoK444@aol.com
Paulie, what exactly are you basing your argument on? How the heck do you know that most people are secretly uncomfortable with homosexuality, even though they pubicly state that they are okay with it? Did you do a survey? Has there been a scientific study? Do you have anecdotal evidence from all of your friends? Please enlighten me. Your entire argument is apparently based on a feeling you have, without a single shred of evidence to back it up. And your 'example' of what happens when gays and straights mix in a bar - just where did you ever see this happening? Other than in your own mind. Please come back to Earth and argue from reality. Besides, nothing anybody has said has been able to defend or explain the basic ignorance of Santorum's statements, that legalizing private, consentual homosexual behavior is going to lead to societal re-definition of marital arrangements regarding polygamy, bigamy, and incest. I have explained above why his comments are ignorant and ill informed, regardless of whether he is allowed to dislike or disagree with homosexuality. Hate us all he wants, Santorum is still ignorant. Nothing you have said in your post was able to defend what he actually said.
To Theo...
by Paulie
Monday, Apr. 28, 2003 at 12:53 PM
Who's the one not grounded in reality? How is it that folks like Santorum get elected? Somebody is in the booth, pulling the lever with his name on it. And lots of times those voters are the same folks who publically proclaim their "tolerance," and "respect for privacy." Yet they vote Santorum and his ilk in...why? Could it be that what they say they believe in the workplace and at parties is at odds with what they really feel? No, I don't have any polls to cite--and can't remember the last time a serious, reputable polling organization asked a wide cross-section of Americans about their specific attitudes about alternative lifestyles. But there is signifigant and well accepted evidence that polling itself is generally unreliable because people tend to offer answers, even anonymously, that put them in what they would expect to be "the best light." (i.e, the notorious unreliability of "exit polling" during elections.) Comments on the reactions of people to the disruption of their social order comes from widely accepted Sociological studies... Anectdotal evidence, from working for 25 years in "mixed" (gay and straight) social enviornments were only used as illustration of these accepted principals, but are true and have been repeated over time with great frequency. Give as much creedance to them as you wish.
You see Theo, my point is that what we want "ideally" is often not what we have "realistically." People lie. About how they feel, about what they believe, about just about everything. It is in our nature and may be unchangeable. So is our understanding of our "social order." (Which may be changeable, albiet with torturous slowness.) So put two and two together, do you think some would lie about their attitudes to protect something as important to their self image as their place in the world?
Paulie
by Theo
Tuesday, Apr. 29, 2003 at 6:09 AM
TheoK444@aol.com
Let me explain to you how people like Santorum get elected. We only have two choices in this country, the Republican and the Democrat. Each party tries to get people to vote for them by scaring them with what the evil *insert insulting term here* on the other side is going to do if they get elected. The Republicans try to scare people into thinking the family will collapse and drugs and sex will become the American way of life. Democrats try to scare people into thinking Social Security and Medicare are going to be dismantled next week, and old people will be thrown into the streets. And suckers like you fall for it every time. That's how they get elected. Oh, i almost forgot, whoever raises the most money usually has the best shot. It's the same old thing every election. There's no real choice, so why bother? Using the fact that people vote for Santorum to 'prove' that the agree with his statments on homosexuality is quite a stretch of logic. First of all, he hadn't made these statements when he was elected. Second, even if he had, do you think his stance on homosexuals is going to be the most important issue to most people? Nope, most people who vote for Santorum will vote for him despite his stance on homosexuality because they strongly believe in something else that he stands for. Unless you are queer, or have somebody in your family who is, most people just don't think it is a very important issue for them. Remember, Trent Lott got elected, again and again, i hardly think that most people in his state agree that the country would be better off if a segregationist had won a presidential election in the 1950's. They vote for him based on other issues. Bad argument, sorry, it just doesn't cut it.
Subject to interpretation
by ?
Tuesday, Apr. 29, 2003 at 2:59 PM
I don't know, maybe he was speaking out in favor of bigamy, adultery, polygamy, etc...
Opinions
by Theo
Wednesday, Apr. 30, 2003 at 6:30 AM
TheoK444@aol.com
I'm not disputing that people are not always honest about their opinions, i just disagree that the majority of Americans, or Pennsylvanians, or anyone in this country secretly hate gays, or support Santorum's kind of rhetoric. I know that the majority of the country is not pro-gay, or we wouldn't need to fight over things like sodomy laws. I do think that a majority of Americans do have more of a 'live and let live' attitude towards homosexuality. They may not like it, but see no justification for hatred and discrimination. My main argument is that the fact that Santorum gets elected somehow proves that Pennsylvania specifically agrees with his anti-gay remarks. I really don't think they do. Besides, his remarks are still ignorant no matter what anyone thinks. I will repeat - insisting that legalizing private sexual behavior somehow compels the court or the states to redefine marital relationships is simply asinine. Santorum is an ass. I do agree that we have a long way to go, that's why i will make my voice heard over this issue. Hope that makes sense.
Peace
Santorum Another Dumbass GOPer
by Prodigal Yunzer
Wednesday, Apr. 30, 2003 at 8:09 AM
Yeah he's stupid, like the Moron Cowboy. Not smart like you and your friends. I surmise that your MBA is from Penn, or a program a little better than Harvard B.
You should read what Santorum said instead of joining the mau mau chorus renouncing him. If Pennsylvania wants to make it illegal to drive a lawnmower barefoot, they can. Even if it is on your property. What Santorum said is that the phony made up "right to privacy" is a joke, and that there is no Federal protection that overrides a state's right to make certain behavior between consenting adults legal. The "Right to privacy" "emanates from the penumbra", or didn't you know that Roe V Wade is a joke for that reason? That's all Santorum is saying. Look carefully he never mentioned gay sex at all in his commentary. Probably too much trouble for such a SMART guy like you.
A rose is a rose...
by Tod
Wednesday, Apr. 30, 2003 at 8:44 AM
Hey, look - either way you slice it, Rick Santorum is a homophobe. I don't care what you want to use as a basis for supporting or defending his views regarding the "right to privacy" thanks to "emanations" from "penumbras" found in Roe v. Wade (by the way, I am a legal studies and poli-sci major, so I am quite familiar with these such things).
A rose is indeed a rose; consequently, so is a homophobe and closed-minded individual. If it walks like a bigot, talks like a bigot - well, you get my drift. I am a gay man, and I can tell you that I deal with people like this all the time in this mainly patriarchal hierarchy that still exists in western PA - or for most of this state, for that matter. People here claim to not "mind" gay people, or people of color - so long as you don't ask or require recognition under the law that everybody else enjoys. That's what surrounds this whole Texas lawsuit, Lawrence v. Texas (surprised I know that one, too?).
I'm 32 years old, and I don't want to spend my whole goddamn life fighting for basic human rights that people in other more progressive countries - Canada, Sweden, Denmark, and for that matter most of Europe - enjoy.
Perhaps I will heed the advice of all the nationalistic, so-called "patriots" residing in this country. Apparently, we are never going to get the chance to truly "love" America. Maybe it is time for those who are "different" to leave this country.
Citizen of the World
by Prodigal Yunzer
Wednesday, Apr. 30, 2003 at 11:58 AM
I love to nit pick. The fact is, NO ONE is afraid of homos. The term HOMOPHOBE means "one who is afraid of homosexuality". Rick Santorum is not afraid of you. Neither am I. Rick's point is when you tell states that they cannot make it a crime to commit what they consider illegal acts because of the Constitutional right to privacy, then you are on shaky ground. First because the right to privacy is bullcrap. Second because if this did happen and a "right to privacy" did exist, there would be no constitutional state laws preventing one from soliciting 18 y/o girls for oral sex for money as long as they consented. Again, your pretension of moral superiority clouds your judgement- you have no idea whom Rick Santorum hates. I daresay you would have difficulty explaining your own motivations for some of the things you have said and done.
Actually
by Noam
Thursday, May. 01, 2003 at 10:16 AM
Actually, "homophobia" is a false term that is trotted out and used as a weapon--really a stroke of genius, from a propaganda point of view. Use of the word implies that the person being described is somehow primitive or backwards, ( due to the "fear" aspect associated with the suffix "phobia") The term has no true meaning however, because it is very rare for someone to actually "fear" homosexuality. It would be more accurate to use a term that would reflect what people actually feel. The don't fear homosexuality, they just don't like it. We don't call gays "heterophobic" do we? But if we use the same logic employed by gay propogandists, then we should, no?
How many of you are registered to vote?
by OG Readmore
Thursday, May. 01, 2003 at 10:42 AM
when the next senate election comes along and we have the ability to vote Santorum out, hope you all show up to the polls.
people who don't vote because "either way you lose" are ignorant.
Whose opinion counts more?
by Otis E.
Monday, May. 05, 2003 at 10:49 AM
"Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, yesterday made homophobic remarks during an interview with Associated Press."
Ok...first off, these were not "homophobic remarks"...the word "homophobic" is the newest buzzword in the media....lets not overuse it yet again.....he simply stated his feeling that he classed homosexuality in the same light as the others......and he is entitled to his opinion without being labeled as "homophobic"....you and I dont have to agree with it.
"During the interview, he criticized homosexuality and insulted most of the nation by stating, "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything." "
Again, he didnt disgrace me.....frankly, I find male homosexuality kind of gross and pretty much pointless, while I find lesbian homosexuality oddly exciting.....but that is my opinion and I feel that if you are homosexual you have the right to be that way if you desire...but he does have a point.....His point was that homosexual sexual activity was (and still is) illegal in many states....he simply classifies homosexual activity in the same class as bigamy (having two or more wives), incest and such....again, HIS RIGHT.
Frankly, in my opinion, consentual sex between two people regardless of their orientation shoudl be ok as LONG as its consenting 100%.
But like it or not, homosexuality is STILL not considered "mainstream" even if it is given more attention and more folks are "coming out"...it is on TV more (even having a couple of shows dedicated to the idea aka "Will & Grace"........
The same as bigamy and polygamy....accepted in many other cultures but not in ours....
Lifestyle choices, when they depart from a society's "normal" activity, will always be target, given our country's basis in conservative Christian cornerstones.
Liek I said....I am not trying to demean or slam homosexuals......to each his/her own...but dont ask an entire society to put its stamp of approval on your lifestyle if you feel the need/desire/urge/biological necessity to be 180 degree different than the "norm" of the society you live in.
Its funny, its ok for the Dixie Chics to say that they are embarrased of our president publiclly, but this guy cant speak his mind.
"Senate Dems are already asking that Santorum resign from his leadership post, the number three slot of his party in the country."
Well of course they are. Santorum is republican. Duh.
" Although not surprised of this conservative's remark, people are outraged that someone of his standing in the US Government, and a representative of the people of Pennsylvania would make such a public statement. "
Again, I guess it depends upon who you lump into "people".....I, for one, understood the point of his comment and feel that this is another case of selective sensationalism.
Ignorant
by Theo
Tuesday, May. 06, 2003 at 5:27 AM
TheoK444@aol.com
Debating whether people are allowed to use the word homophobic is silly. Wether you agree with the etymology of the word or not, we all know what they are saying. Would it make the argument any different if the word homophobic were replaced with heterosexist, or anti-gay? It wouldn't. I personally don't use the word 'homophobic', but i don't argue with others when they use it, i understand what they mean.
Santorum certainly did disgrace this country with his incredible display of ignorance of the American legal system. Read what i have said above. This man is a United States Senator, and he doesn't understand the difference between legaly sanctioned marital relationships and consensual, private sexual behavior. In the very specific context of Santorum's remarks, comparing homosexual sex to bigamy or adultery is simply ignorant. While it may be his right to make such statements, they are still ignorant. It is my right to stand in front of the courthouse and scream about how i hate all people who aren't white, or insist that each and every Republican in this country is secretly a facist intent on imposing a nazi-style dictatorship in the U.S. This does not make these comments any less stupid.
You are certainly allowed to find gay sex gross and even pointless (although i don't understand the pointless comment, what's the point of anyone having sex?) and Santorum has the same right to his opinion. He certainly does not have to become pro-gay just because he is in the Senate. But he does have the responsibility to protect the freedoms of ALL of his constituents, not just the straight ones. The Texas sodomy law outlaws gay sodomy, but not straight sodomy. Gay people, and many straight people, find this to be discriminatory. They are arguing that this law violates the equal protections of the Constitution. Santorum doesn't seem to understand this.
Finally, i don't see where anybody is insisting that society put it's stamp of approval on homosexuality. I frankly don't give a shit what anyone thinks of my sex life. I just don't want the government to be able to criminalize it. That's all this case is about.
Unnatural
by dustin pain
Sunday, May. 18, 2003 at 8:05 PM
dustin_main@hotmail.com
There's a group of people who beleive that a certain group of people are unnatural and evil. The group blaimed the other group for all their problems, they even went so far as to vandalize stores, burn down houses, terrorize, and even kill the other group, because they were seen as unnatural.
Sadly, this scenario has repeated itself through out history, whether it be "moral crusaders" against homosexuals, the kkk against blacks, or nazi's against jewish people. There's the old argument that people have the right to be intollerant or hateful, and argue that when you try to silence hate, you're no better than those you oppose. Finding sympathy for racists, fascists, biggots, rapists, murders, and then telling the victims to quit complaining, you leave yourself open to another Holocaust. I'd rather see one hundred nazi's die than see one jewish person tossed into an oven.
Are you kidding?
by Nara Pezolano
Saturday, Jun. 21, 2003 at 3:17 AM
Who is ANYONE to say what us AMERICANS can do in our own homes and lives? Homosexuality is not, by any means the same as incest,etc. If they are happy, so be it...How dare anyone voice against an individuals happiness/choice? Nobody is better than the next. And only the Big Guy upstairs can decide what is right abd what is wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Lots Of Things YoU Cannot Do In Your Home
by Prodigal Yunzer
Friday, Aug. 08, 2003 at 5:45 AM
You cannot modify the trigger group on a cheap semi auto rifle to make it fire automatically. You cannot roll up a dried weed you found in the back yard and smoke it. You cannot link web sites to your anarchy web site like Austin did. You cannot tell someone who calls to rent your property "Its already rented" because they sound black, even if it is the adjoining apartment and you prefer not to live under the same roof you pay for with black people. You cannot scoop the kitty litter out of your catalytic converter in your own car to make it breathe easier. . What the hell country are YOU living in or talking about?
Laws passed by VIRTUECRATS respect no limits. There are even some laws passed by Democrats that reach overseas to govern your conduct when you are not even in the USA, like paying "baksheesh" to win a contract, when everyone else sitting in the Minister's waiting room has a bag full of American dollars for him.
The more "democracy' we get, the more goofy laws like this we will "enjoy". There are some burgs where you can't smoke tobacco in your own house now. Check out New Jersey for some really stupid laws passed in order to get votes from Sucker Moms and other worry warts. I agree that the sodomy law was stupid, but the way the USSC changed it is worse by far than any goofy law a local authority would pass.
Dixie Chicks???????????
by Pete
Tuesday, Sep. 02, 2003 at 3:32 PM
As I recall, the Dixie Chicks were ridiculed for their opinions as well.
He is right
by Me
Wednesday, Feb. 11, 2004 at 7:09 PM
Rick is 100% correct. The homosexuals preach exceptance until it comes to life choices they don't agree with. What makes them any different? A brother and sister are both concenting adults. This is the arguement that homoselxuals present for themselves. A lot of hypocrites.
Dear Me,
by Wagner
Thursday, Feb. 12, 2004 at 4:20 AM
EXCEPTance of homosexuality aside, the arguEment that you presented is ludicrous. Consenting adults should be able to hump whichever way their crotches take them and be left alone, so long as Billy and Jilly don't live too close on the old family tree. The reason brothers and sisters cannot shtook each other is to avoid inbreeding, which, as you are doubtlessly aware, creates genetic defects in children. Perhaps included in these defects is the spelling ability of a primate, but of course you, sir, would know nothing about that. Last time I checked, Adam and Steve weren't making babies, just a little santorum here and there.
they're just like you and me
by paleskin
Monday, Feb. 16, 2004 at 6:34 AM
they're just like you and me
by Wagner
Tuesday, Feb. 17, 2004 at 7:03 PM
Which one's you?
by H. Hay
Wednesday, Feb. 18, 2004 at 6:32 AM
Irvingwagnerpaleface, which picture is of you? Do you still have the negatives and could you make a set of prints for me?
they're just like you and me
by H. Hay
Wednesday, Feb. 18, 2004 at 10:54 AM
they're just like you and me
by H. Hay
Wednesday, Feb. 18, 2004 at 12:40 PM
Dear H. Hay
by Wagner
Wednesday, Feb. 18, 2004 at 12:51 PM
Please don't include my name sandwiched between theirs again. Since my gay rights stance has gone misunderstood, I'll dumb down the language a little bit for you now:
Argument that homosexuality and incest are related - G. Dumbya
Any law other than incest or competence laws relating to sex - G. Dumbyer
Any law that says gay folks aren't entitled to the same rights as me - G. Dumbyest
Your picture of the three shiny people - funny
If anyone wants to see a funny definition of the term "Santorum," consult the humorous "Savage Love" Column or just type "Santorum" on yahoo.com - it's the second site listed.
Dan Savage
by Wagner
Wednesday, Feb. 18, 2004 at 7:29 PM
Only something on par with baby rapers would find anything significant in Dan Savage.
by the way
by Wagner
Wednesday, Feb. 18, 2004 at 7:37 PM
Whenever you encounter the remnants of KY Jelly and fecal matter, just call it "Wagner".
Sorry, Wagner
by H.Hay
Friday, Feb. 20, 2004 at 6:21 AM
Our little trolls have identity crises, which are most likely sexual in origin, hence their coopting of the identities and names of others.
That's why they cruise parks and hang out in men's rooms rather than being out and proud. Damn digital closet.
Sorry to lump you in with them.
Sorry, Wagner
by H.Hay
Friday, Feb. 20, 2004 at 6:36 AM
Our little trolls have identity crises, which are most likely sexual in origin, hence their coopting of the identities and names of others.
That's why they cruise parks and hang out in men's rooms rather than being out and proud. Damn digital closet.
Sorry to lump you in with them.
childish projection
by Wagner
Friday, Feb. 20, 2004 at 10:47 AM
One of the de facto rules for Leftists is to project onto others. When confronted with the fact they are Evil and Degenerate, accuse the messenger of having the disease.
Rule # One: Never face the Truth. Never accept responsibility for yourself. Always blame others for your afflictions.
Rules
by Matt Wagner
Friday, Feb. 20, 2004 at 4:11 PM
Rule Number One for the Religious Right Zealots:
Whenever an issue arises that you do not agree with, call it "evil" and scream "Bible!" (this, of course, does not take into account the fact that slavery, human sacrifice, and holy wars are all condoned. Nor does it account for the separation of church and state. Nor does it account for the fact that in describing the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah, Jesus never mentioned homosexuality as a reason for them being burned to the ground).
But all this aside, "It's just evil, the Bible says so" is a fabulous argument. Really. No, seriously. Okay, I'm just fuckin' with you. . . it's stupid. Phil and RJ who live together across the street from me are really bringing down the neighborhood! Not really, Phil keeps a delightful garden, and RJ gave my car a jump the other day.
Leave RJ and Phil alone, they're not hurting anyone.
why I'm a useful idiot
by Matt Wagner
Friday, Feb. 20, 2004 at 10:04 PM
less than intelligent
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7006/psychopolitics.html
CHAPTER VIII
DEGRADATION, SHOCK AND ENDURANCE
Degradation and conquest are companions. In order to be conquered, a nation must be degraded, either by acts of war, by being overrun, by being forced into humiliating treaties of peace, or by the treatment of her populace under the armies of the conqueror. However, degradation can be accomplished much more insidiously and much more effectively by consistent and continual defamation.
Defamation is the best and foremost weapon of Psychopolitics on the broad field. Continual and constant degradation of national leaders, national institutions, national practices, and national heroes must be systematically carried out, but this is the chief function of the Communist Party Members, in general, not the psychopolitician.
The realm of defamation and degradation, of the psychopolitician, is Man himself. By attacking the character and morals of Man himself, and by bringing about,through contamination of youth, a general degraded feeling, command of the populace is facilitated to a very marked degree.
There is a curve of degradation which leads downward to a point where the endurance of an individual is almost at end, and any sudden action toward him will place him in a state of shock. Similarly, a soldier held prisoner can be abused, denied, defamed, and degraded until the slightest motion on the part of his captors will cause him to flinch. Similarly, the slightest word on the part of his captors will cause him to obey, or vary his loyalties and beliefs. Given sufficient degradation, a prisoner can be caused to murder his fellow countrymen in the same stockade. Experiments on German prisoners have lately demonstrated that only after seventy days of filthy food, little sleep, and nearly untenable quarters, that the least motion toward the prisoner would bring about a state of shock beyond his endurance threshold, and would cause him to hypnotically receive anything said to him. Thus, it is possible, in an entire stockade of prisoners, to the number of thousands, to being about a state of complete servile obedience, and without the labor of personally addressing each one, to pervert their loyalties and implant in them adequate commands to insure their future conduct, even when released to their own people.
By lower the endurance of a person, a group, or a nation, and by constant degradation and defamation, it is possible to induce, thus, a state of shock which will receive adequately any command given.
The first thing to be degraded in any nation is the state of Man, himself. Nations which have high ethical tone are difficult to conquer. Their loyalties are hard to shake, their allegiance to their leaders is fanatical, and what they usually call their spiritual integrity cannot be violated by duress. It is not efficient to attack a nation in such a frame of mind. It is the basic purpose of Psychopolitics to reduce that state of mind to a point where it can be ordered and enslaved. Thus, the first target is Man, himself. He must be degraded from a spiritual being to an animalistic reaction pattern. He must think of himself as an animal, capable only of animalistic reactions. He must no longer think of himself, or of his fellows, as capable of "spiritual endurance," or nobility.
The best approach toward degradation in its first stages is the propaganda of "scientific approach" to Man. Man must be consistently demonstrated to be a mechanism without individuality, and it must be educated into a populace under attack that Man's individualistic reactions are the product of mental derangement. The populace must be brought into the belief that every individual within it who rebels in any way, shape, or form against the efforts and activities to enslave the whole, must be considered to be a deranged person whose eccentricities are neurotic and insane, and who must have at once the treatment of a psychopolitician.
An optimum condition in such a program of degradation would address itself to the military forces of the nation, and bring them rapidly away from any other belief than the disobedient one must be subjected to "mental treatment." An enslavement of a population can fail only if these rebellious individuals are left to exert their individual influences upon their fellow citizens, sparking them into rebellion, calling into account their nobilities and freedoms. Unless these restless individuals are stamped out and given into the hands of psychopolitical operatives early in the conquest,there will be nothing but trouble as the conquest continues. The officials of the government, students, readers, partakers of entertainment,must all be indoctrinated, by whatever means, into the complete belief that the restless, the ambitions, the natural leaders, are suffering from environmental maladjustments, which can only be healed by recourse to psychopolitical operatives in the guise of mental healers.
By thus degrading the general belief in the status of Man it is relatively simple, with co-operation from the economic salients being driven into the country, to drive citizens apart, one from another, to bring about a question of the wisdom of their own government, and to cause them to actively beg for enslavement.
The educational programs of Psychopolitics must, at every hand, seek out the levels of youth who will become the leaders in the country's future, and educate them into the belief of the animalistic nature of Man. This must be made fashionable. They must be taught to frown upon ideas, upon individual endeavor. They must be taught, above all things, that the salvation of Man is to be found only by his adjusting thoroughly to this environment.
This educational program in the field of Psychopolitics, can best be followed by bringing about a compulsory training in some subject such as psychology or other mental practice, and ascertaining that each broad program of psychopolitical training be supervised by a psychiatrist who is a trained psychopolitical operative.
As it seems in foreign nations that the church is the most ennobling influence, each and every branch and activity of each and every church, must, one way or another, be discredited. Religion must become unfashionable by demonstrating broadly, through psychopolitical indoctrination, that the soul is non-existent, and that Man is an animal. The lying mechanisms of Christianity lead men to foolishly brave deeds. By teaching them that there is a life here-after, the liability of courageous acts, while living, is thus lessened. The liability of any act must be markedly increased if a populace is to be obedient. Thus, there must be no standing belief in the church, and the power of the church must be denied at every hand.
The psychopolitical operative, in his program of degradation, should at all times bring into question any family which is deeply religious, and, should any neurosis or insanity be occasioned in that family, to blame and hold responsible their religious connections for the neurotic or psychotic condition. Religion must be made synonymous with neurosis and psychosis. People who are deeply religious would be less and less held responsible for their own sanity, and should more and more be relegated to the ministrations of psychopolitical operatives.
By perverting the institutions of a nation and bringing about a general degradation, by interfering with the economics of a nation to the degree that privation and depression come about, only minor shocks will be necessary to produce, on the populace as a whole, an obedient reaction or an hysteria. Thus, the mere threat of war, the mere threat of aviation bombings, could cause the population to sue instantly for peace. It is a long and arduous road for the psychopolitical operative to achieve this state of mind on the part of the whole nation, but no more than twenty or thirty years should be necessary in the entire program. Having to hand, as we do, weapons with which to accomplish the goal.
Religion
by Doesn't really matter
Saturday, Feb. 21, 2004 at 4:23 PM
If hatred and/or intolerance of homosexuality does not come from religion, where then does it come from? And let's not forget that people do not wake up and choose to be gay, like "Hey, holy shit, I can't wait to have a life of people questioning me and casting judgement! I want clergy to tell me how I'm going to hell! I don't want the same rights as straight people are afforded!"
I cannot understand why gay marriage is so offensive to some people if not for religion's sake or from the resulting mess of santorum that is left, post-coitus. I would argue that marriage is contained in the "pursuit of happiness" ideal that is contained within the constitution, as many people would list their "wedding day" as the happiest day of their lives.
Oh, and for the record, I'm fucking brilliant. So call me stupid if it makes you feel better about yourself, ye who remains nameless. I, however, have composed a second solid argument. You, my friend, have nothing supporting your position, other than the typical Pat Robertson/Jerry Falwell gibberish, whereas my "pursuit of happiness" argument, as far as I'm concerned, is both original and just fab u lous. Now who wants a mimosa!?!
the pursuit of brilliance
by Matt Wagner
Sunday, Feb. 22, 2004 at 11:41 AM
Since I'm so fucking brilliant, let me also add to the pursuit of happiness thing.
I say if you're an arsonist, and if it makes you happy, then go for it.
If you have a thing about knives, and wanna gut somebody and lick their blood from your fingers, then I'm all for it.
If you wanna have sex with 6 year olds, and those thoughts make you happy, then go for it.
If you'd be happy being in the Klan and lynching blacks, go for it.
Damn, I really are brilliant, aren't I? I'm just oozing with "Wagner".
this is brilliance
by Matt Wagner
Tuesday, Feb. 24, 2004 at 10:13 AM
This is intellectualism at it's finest, don't you agree?
Haha
by Matt
Tuesday, Feb. 24, 2004 at 12:00 PM
How is homosexuality in any way like the horrible things that you listed?
The fact is that homosexuality hurts no one (assuming, of course, that a ready supply of KY or Astroglide is handy).
Who does it hurt?
Why is it wrong?
Can anybody give me a reason other than religious belief why homosexuality is wrong?
Or is it that people like Fallbertson (that is your new name, oh unworthy adversary, name-stealer, promoter of the ad hominem attack, proponent of unoriginality, forger of sub-par sarcastic attacks) have actually been somehow programmed to think they are right? Where do we learn to hate. . .
hurting nobody
by Matt Wagner the Magnificent
Wednesday, Feb. 25, 2004 at 6:26 AM
Spreading the AIDS plague and bug chasing hurts nobody.
Pursue happiness! Do whatever you want, no matter who else gets hurt! Don't assume any responsibility for civilization, because I said so.
After all, I'm fucking brilliant, (as I keep reminding you people from my lofty Ivory Tower).
ahahahahahahahahaha
by !
Wednesday, Feb. 25, 2004 at 4:03 PM
What wit! What repartee!
This troll must be an atheist.
pursuit of happiness
by Matt Wagner the Magnificent
Friday, Feb. 27, 2004 at 6:01 AM
By my decree, I say anything goes. So what's wrong with this picture? They need to move to Gavin Newsom's pig sty. And we need to get Human Rights Watch in on the deal too. Don't you agree?
But of course you do. Man does not rebel against fucking brilliance and live.
http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AL_INCEST_PRISON_ALOL-?SITE=WBRC&SECTION=STATE&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Feb 27, 1:46 AM EST
Father who married daughter ordered back to prison
MOBILE, Ala. (AP) -- A 53-year-old man was sent back to prison after a judge decided the man had violated a probation order barring him from cohabitation with his 30-year-old daughter, who is also his former wife.
Mobile County Circuit Judge John Lockett ordered Carroll Eugene Ferdinandsen to prison on Thursday after determining he violated a probation order barring him from cohabitation with Alice Ferdinandsen.
Each had pleaded guilty to incest last summer in connection with their May 2003 civil marriage in Mobile County and served six months in jail before being released in January.
Prosecutors presented police witnesses who testified they found the father and daughter together in motel rooms on two occasions, just days after the couple's release from jail.
Each had pleaded guilty to incest last summer and served six months in jail before being released in January.
Lockett ordered Carroll Ferdinandsen to serve the remainder of a 10-year sentence.
The judge said the state had not proved its case against Alice Ferdinandsen and ruled she had not violated her probation.
the fantastic brilliance of Leftists
by Matt Wagner - bowel control specialist
Friday, Feb. 27, 2004 at 6:48 AM
http://www.wect.com/global/story.asp?s=1673146&ClientType=Printable
2.27.04
Woman injected with wrong sperm
This is about as bizarre as it gets.
It began a year and a half-ago, and the victim says she still has trouble believing it really happened to her. Kelly Chambliss went to a Wilmington clinic to get pregnant. She says she ended up with the wrong sperm. That's when her real-life nightmare began.
Chambliss is 36-years-old, and has a same sex partner. She went to the Coastal Area Health Education Center for artificial insemination. The sperm she expected was from a bank in California. Instead, her lawsuit claims she was injected with two-day-old sperm that, she says, was never cleaned or even tested. Worse yet, no one knew whose sperm it was. It was unlabeled.
Chambliss described for us the excruciating physical pain that followed.
"Almost immediately, I was rolling on the ground, vomiting and losing control of my bowels," she said. "I thought I was going to die."
It wasn't until two days later, she says, the clinic called her back and told her they had made an enormous mistake. They had her take a "morning after" abortion pill, and tested her for HIV and all other STD's. Fortunately for Chambliss, everything turned out okay. But she would never try that process again.
"They said I could still have children, but I could never go through that again. I was violated," Chambliss said.
Chambliss has won a legal judgement against the independent clinic, called AHEC. Later this spring, a jury will decide how much money in damages she's entitled to.
The attorney for the clinic tells News 6 that they're accepting full responsibility for the mistake. But they don't believe any long-term damage was done.
Reported by Aaron Saykin
it's WISE to be homophobic
by Matt Wagner- bowel control specialist
Friday, Feb. 27, 2004 at 9:28 AM
http://www.local6.com/news/2876599/detail.html
local6.com
Police: Partiers Injected With Blood At Sex Parties
Syringes Of Blood, Sex Harness Found In Man's Garage
POSTED: 11:18 AM EST February 26, 2004
UPDATED: 2:29 AM EST February 27, 2004
Young men attending sex parties in Orlando, Fla., were reportedly drugged and
injected with tainted blood inside a man's garage, according to a Local 6 News
report.
Authorities arrested Mark Randall, 45, earlier this month for
allegedly trafficking 48 grams of methamphetamine.
After an investigation, authorities determined that Randall was reportedly
having sex parties in the garage of his home at 211 E. Kaley St. and possibly
injecting the men with blood.
According to court records, four witnesses said "Randall lured subjects to his
residence via the Internet for the purpose of sex and once they were at his
residence he would get them high" with drugs.
The report also said Randall had a sex harness in the garage and "once the
subjects were in the harness, Randall and other participants would have sex with
them and videotape them."
Then, "Randall would inject the subjects with the syringes of tainted blood."
Investigators said Randall's garage was wired with video cameras and more than
100 videotapes were confiscated from the structure.
Several syringes were also taken filled with blood, Local 6 News reporter Louis
Bolden reported.
Many of the men lured to the garage were apparently juveniles, according to the
report.
The confiscated syringes are being tested to determine whether they contain
HIV-positive blood, according to the Metropolitan Bureau of Investigation.
The U.S. Attorney's office has asked local law enforcement officers not to make
comments to the media about the case, Local 6 News reported.
Faulty Generalization
by Matt
Friday, Feb. 27, 2004 at 11:55 AM
123 Ivory Tower Lane
By that logic, it pays to be heterophobic as well. . .
http://www.mayhem.net/Crime/serial1.html
(This is a website hosted by a guy who's a little too interested in serial killers - i.e. he notes his first killer as having racked up an "impressive" 300 victims. . . yeah, I don't think I'm signing up for the newsletter, but nonetheless, he offers an interesting GENERALIZATION on their typical demographic)
Serial killers tend to be white, heterosexual males in their twenties and thirties who are sexually dysfunctional and have low self-esteem. Their methodical rampages are almost always sexual in nature. Their killings are usually part of an elaborate fantasy that builds to a climax at the moment of their murderous outburst. Serial killers generally murder strangers with cooling off periods between each crime. Many enjoy cannibalism, necrophilia and keep trophy-like body parts as mementos of their work. Serial killers are sadistic in nature. Some return to crime scenes or grave sites of their victims to fantasize about their deeds. Many like to insert themselves in the investigation of their crimes and some enjoy taunting authorities with letters or carefully placed pieces of evidence.
Serial killers tend to prey on women and children of their same race. Prostitutes, drifters and hitchhikers are their victims of choice. Some homosexual killers enjoy hunting young boys and gay men. Female serial killers tend to be "black widows" who kill a succession of husbands, lovers, or other family members. They can also be nurses or other medical professionals who become self-appointed "angels of death" murdering babies, elderly, or the desperately ill in a misguided effort to relieve their suffering. Most serial killers grew up in violent households. As youngsters they enjoyed torturing animals, setting fires and were chronic bed-wetters. As adults, many serial have some type of brain damage and are addicted to alcohol and/or drugs.
By the way, I'm finished with you, Fallbertson. I don't like to bully the weak, so I'll just let you off the hook and assume I'll see you on the news at the next gay rights parade, holding a "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" poster. You'll be standing there, nostrils flaring, and testicles expanding all in the wake of being surrounded by your fellow bigots. Your inability to make a point only makes my argument stronger. I ain't really all that bright when it come to book larnin', but going back and forth with you has just made me feel like Stephen Hawking von Einsteinewton. Thank you for my weekly ego boost, kind sir; it usually takes me at least a few drinks and a George Bush article to make me feel this good about having dropped out after the third grade. Hmmm, now if I could only find someone really unattractive to make me feel good looking. . . I know, I'll watch a John Kerry pre bo-tox speech!!!
"There's an old saying in Tennessee I know it's in Texas probably in Tennessee that says, 'Fool me once, shame on. . . shame on you. Ya fool me, can't get fooled again.'"
-G.W. Bush
Faulty Generalization
by Matt
Friday, Feb. 27, 2004 at 11:58 AM
123 Ivory Tower Lane
By that logic, it pays to be heterophobic as well. . .
http://www.mayhem.net/Crime/serial1.html
(This is a website hosted by a guy who's a little too interested in serial killers - i.e. he notes his first killer as having racked up an "impressive" 300 victims. . . yeah, I don't think I'm signing up for the newsletter, but nonetheless, he offers an interesting GENERALIZATION on their typical demographic)
Serial killers tend to be white, heterosexual males in their twenties and thirties who are sexually dysfunctional and have low self-esteem. Their methodical rampages are almost always sexual in nature. Their killings are usually part of an elaborate fantasy that builds to a climax at the moment of their murderous outburst. Serial killers generally murder strangers with cooling off periods between each crime. Many enjoy cannibalism, necrophilia and keep trophy-like body parts as mementos of their work. Serial killers are sadistic in nature. Some return to crime scenes or grave sites of their victims to fantasize about their deeds. Many like to insert themselves in the investigation of their crimes and some enjoy taunting authorities with letters or carefully placed pieces of evidence.
Serial killers tend to prey on women and children of their same race. Prostitutes, drifters and hitchhikers are their victims of choice. Some homosexual killers enjoy hunting young boys and gay men. Female serial killers tend to be "black widows" who kill a succession of husbands, lovers, or other family members. They can also be nurses or other medical professionals who become self-appointed "angels of death" murdering babies, elderly, or the desperately ill in a misguided effort to relieve their suffering. Most serial killers grew up in violent households. As youngsters they enjoyed torturing animals, setting fires and were chronic bed-wetters. As adults, many serial have some type of brain damage and are addicted to alcohol and/or drugs.
By the way, I'm finished with you, Fallbertson. I don't like to bully the weak, so I'll just let you off the hook and assume I'll see you on the news at the next gay rights parade, holding a "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" poster. You'll be standing there, nostrils flaring, and testicles expanding all in the wake of being surrounded by your fellow bigots. Your inability to make a point only makes my argument stronger. I ain't really all that bright when it come to book larnin', but going back and forth with you has just made me feel like Stephen Hawking von Einsteinewton. Thank you for my weekly ego boost, kind sir; it usually takes me at least a few drinks and a George Bush article to make me feel this good about having dropped out after the third grade. Hmmm, now if I could only find someone really unattractive to make me feel good looking. . . I know, I'll watch a John Kerry pre bo-tox speech!!!
"There's an old saying in Tennessee I know it's in Texas probably in Tennessee that says, 'Fool me once, shame on. . . shame on you. Ya fool me, can't get fooled again.'"
-G.W. Bush
ego boost coming right up
by the REAL Einstein
Friday, Feb. 27, 2004 at 12:14 PM
How does it feel to be brilliantly stupid? After all, you kept pushing the posting button like a chimp on one of the early space capsules.
Oh well. I genuflect anyway.
I punched the button twice
by Matt Wagner the Magnificent
Friday, Feb. 27, 2004 at 7:46 PM
....and almost immediately, I was rolling on the ground, vomiting and losing control of my bowels.
they're just like you and me
by Matt Wagner
Saturday, Feb. 28, 2004 at 8:26 AM
dangerous animals that run in packs
by Irving
Monday, Mar. 01, 2004 at 8:28 AM
http://www.nbc10.com/print/2857417/detail.html?use=print
NBC10.com
Students Fear 'Lesbian Gang' At School
School Holds Meeting On Alleged Threats
POSTED: 6:49 PM EST February 18, 2004
UPDATED: 8:16 AM EST February 19, 2004
PHILADELPHIA -- Gang concerns brought parents and students together Wednesday at a West Philadelphia middle school. But the kind of gang may surprise you.
The gang is allegedly called DTO (for Dykes Taking Over) and made up of self-styled lesbian students.
Girls Fear Lesbian Gangs
Girls at the Turner Middle School allege that the lesbian students are harassing them with gay remarks. The straight students say lesbians are bullying, groping and harassing them in gym and in the girl's bathrooms.
Parents of the students say the harrassment must stop before it becomes violent.
"I told them, 'No.' And they kept bothering us. (They) kept coming to us asking us to become gay," said Felicia Anderson , a straight student.
Anderson, 14, said she doesn't like it and it makes her cry.
Wednesday morning, Felicia and her mother joined around 24 other parents and students to meet with school officials behind closed doors for two hours at Turner Middle School.
"(I am) very angry. Now my daughter is afraid to come to school," said Tonya Grandy, a parent of a student who said she was harrassed.
Other parents said they were also fed up with the sexual harassment from as many as a dozen 8th-graders at Turner.
"She called me last week screaming and hollering and crying because they had her in the gym cornered off, telling her what they were gonna make her do," said Renee Alexander.
"Don't nobody wanna be gay. Don't nobody wanna be harassed. Don't nobody wanna be scared to come to school," said Kendra Branch, a student.
State Rep. Ron Waters, who attended the meeting, said all students were reminded about the school's code of conduct. It includes policies against bullying and sexual harassment with consequences.
"(You don't have to) accept it as part of growing up. They're violating your right," Waters explained.
Perhaps the most productive moment came when one mother, Barbara Crawford, whose daughter has been accused of harassment asked for help.
"Accusations, fighting and all that. Maybe my daughter is causing trouble. Maybe not. I know it's a change and I need help. I'm going to do something about it if I have to walk her to school and pick her up -- or even transfer her to another school," Crawford said.
Crawford said she is pleased with how the school is handling this situation. Philadelphia schools have a zero tolerance policy regarding harassment and bullying. Officials at Turner Middle School declined comment on Wednesday's meeting.
pulling the hood off intolerance
by Irving
Saturday, Mar. 13, 2004 at 8:38 AM
March 13, 2004
My modest proposal
By MICHAEL COREN -- Sun Media
Gay couples all across North America are getting married. What a great
symbol of tolerance.
In the name of that same tolerance, however, I believe we should go
further and allow brothers and sisters to marry. In other words, incest
should be not only allowed but recognized and affirmed by the state.
If you're not tolerant of this, quite clearly you should not be tolerated.
Those of you who are shocked at first glance should take some time to
consider what I'm saying.
Remember, there were at one time frightened and reactionary people who
objected to marriage between homosexuals.
Sometimes progress can leave some wounded souls in its midst. That doesn't
mean we can stand still.
When we come down to the core of this, it's about love. And when love is
involved, nothing else really matters. Love is divine, love is all, love
is everything. The love I have for my dog, for my favourite sports team,
for my favourite food. If a brother and sister genuinely love one another,
who are we to say they cannot be married?
Imagine the pain of Jane and John, in love since childhood. Then a
thoughtless and cruel society tells them that because of some archaic
tradition they should not be allowed to be happy. Jane's and John's
feelings come first. If the majority is in some way offended, it is the
majority that has to look within and adapt.
History is on my side on this one. Ancient cultures routinely encouraged
incest and, indeed, used it to preserve aristocratic clans. It was only
that hateful and outdated book known as the Bible that forbade such
activities, and we all know that nobody takes Judeo-Christian values
seriously any longer. Thank God. No, forget that. Thank my magic crystal.
We also hear that tired old line about incestuous couples producing
genetically deformed offspring. It is possible, of course, but that is
irrelevant. They might not want children in the first place, in that kids
get in the way and, anyway, the world is so terribly over-populated. If
they do conceive and the fetus (after all, it's not a child until it can
say "mummy," "daddy" or "caregiver") is handicapped in some way, our
generous policies on abortion will allow a publicly funded termination to
take place.
Or, if the married brother and sister are intent on having a child that is
healthy, they could find an obliging friend to donate his seed, or a man
to directly impregnate the woman. Nothing unusual or wrong in that.
Loveless intercourse with a relative stranger is not so different from
loving intercourse with a strange relative.
Consent is a major issue here. These siblings are adults and they want to
marry. What they want is all that matters.
I have, of course, heard the arguments from some who favour pedophilia
that children can, in fact, give consent to sex with adults. I see the
logic, and it's compelling. I could, forgive me, be a little conservative
here, but I'm not ready to accept this. Not yet anyway.
What we face, though, is the influence of the incestophobes, who have a
powerful lobby and try to persuade people some love can be "wrong."
These people have no souls. They are bigots who are threatened by sex,
change, love, freedom and sugar-free diet drinks. They quote a Bible that
is full of contradictions and stupidity. So much so that one day I'll read
it for myself.
Look, I realize there are some good men and women who find this all a
little sudden.
Fine, agreed, with you, feel your pain. But the abolition of slavery, the
end of child labour, women being able to vote, all of these caused some
people concern. But all were noble.
I can see a day when our state television and radio stations will
broadcast brother/sister weddings and where magazines will feature special
editions on what the stylish incestuous bride will be wearing this summer.
We'll have a popular television show called "Incest Eye For The Straight
Guy" and nobody will be upset. If they are, nobody will listen.
It's all about tolerance. And if you can't tolerate this, it may be time
to live somewhere else or just fade away.
Quiet discomfort
by Ashley
Thursday, Oct. 14, 2004 at 6:09 PM
Your belief that people will vote for comfort rather than what they know is right and just is I believe discrediting intelligent and educated Americans. If Americans had voted your way in the days of the Civil Rights movement we'd still be segregated. I'm sure there were people then who were uncomfortable with African-Americans being in school with them, their children or teaching them, but they still knew that to vote for a person or law that would allow these rights would be the right thing to do. America is supposed to stand for freedom and justice for all. How can we as Americans say that denying someone their natural born rights be justice? Have we now decided to let our fears rule our minds?
YOU ARE AFRAID
by Kiss It
Thursday, Oct. 14, 2004 at 6:15 PM
So you say you are not afraid. Well anyone could tell by your comments that you are. Homos? I'm beginning to wonder if you're comments are an internalizec homophobia. That means you are gay and hate what you are. What do you think?
YOU ARE AFRAID
by Kiss It
Thursday, Oct. 14, 2004 at 6:15 PM
So you say you are not afraid. Well anyone could tell by your comments that you are. Homos? I'm beginning to wonder if you're comments are an internalizec homophobia. That means you are gay and hate what you are. What do you think?
what I think
by Irving
Wednesday, Oct. 20, 2004 at 11:10 AM
I think you're a brain dead adolescent bastard, bereft of an original thought. One of the most yawn inducing tactics of the Regressives is to bring up the old "closet defense". If you had even one working brain cell, you'd realize just how embarrassingly stupid you are. Now run along and chase the diseased anus of another male, little "intellectual".
.
by .
Thursday, Oct. 21, 2004 at 9:11 AM
How'd Irving get back on here? Didn't you kill your girlfriend? Aren't you supposed to be in jail?
Fuck off homophobes and die!
by Chris
Sunday, Jan. 08, 2006 at 8:39 PM
Irving is probably one of those filthy little perverts that gets all excited when two female fucking faggots starting acting all GAY with each other.
steelers, browns, and everything reeking of anti-gay values
by dylan terreri, i
Tuesday, Feb. 19, 2013 at 11:15 PM
gay@anti-gay.com 8882468469 po box 2613 cranberry township 16066
THE ENTIRE PITTSBURGH REGION IS MADE UP OF CLOSED-MINDED BULLIES.
having been the victim of snide remarks and anti-gay attitudes during my youth, i am never one to keep quiet about harassment and discrimination when it happens. in fact, i have a whole website devoted to this kind of bullying - it's called anti-gay.com, but this letter isn't about that. you see, everywhere i go in pittsburgh, bigotry and bullying happens - it is for this reason that i want to bring pittsburgh into the limelight as a most intolerant town of bullies.
exhibit A: when i was walking to my car from giant eagle grocery, i was sure that i saw (out of the corner of my eye) a man making a circle by pressing the tip of his thumb against the tip of his forefinger - then spitting through it and in my general direction. it is disgraceful that this is the attitude i get wherever i go. i am bullied wherever i go.
MY COMPAINING ABOUT BEING BULLIED DOES NOT MAKE ME ANY KIND OF A CRYBABY-WOMANWIMP OR A CRYBABY-GIRLIEWIMP. i'm simply a man who is voicing his complaints.
though cities and towns all may be environmentally-conscious and therefore "green" nowadays, there is still bigotry and bullying (and other OLD customs) which are running amok in any progressive town. one old custom that i am vehemently opposed to is a lack of diversity. there are three environmentally-conscious and therefore green "valley savings banks" that have banned me from their buildings after i sent them mail which expressed my outrage over their all-female staffs. there is a "valley pet store" which banned me because i refused to stop wearing the same tube-tops/short-shorts as i see females wearing everywhere i go. there is even an environmentally-conscious and therefore green "valley veterinary hospital" which once banned me as a client because i used sites like pissedconsumer.com and pghcitypaper.com to criticize their all-female staff as a mark of sexism. they bullied me through their lawyer, i was told that i was making defamatory statements by stating AN OPINION about their all-female staff being a mark of sexism. the lawyer sent me a bullying letter, in which he told me that i'd face legal action if i were ever to be near (or even speak of or write about) the place again. though i've learned that opinions and truthful statements are not considered defamation, and that a lawsuit on these grounds will fail, i will never (outwardly) refer to the place (or its location) by name.
now, regarding the intolerance shown by the "valley vet" and other "valley businesses" who've denied me, i will say that my not being well-known or famous should have no effect on how i'm treated. my name may not be as well-known as names like tim dalton (007) or hall linden (barney miller) - i may not be a star like tim o'brien, tin curry or hall wilkerson (from malcolm in the middle) - my name may not be as lucid as names like tim kris, tin burton - hall johnson (of the famous "negro music-drama") or even the semi-famous hall scott. my name is not as famous as these names, but even no-names like me do not deserve the treatment i get from bigots in western pennsylvania. i don't deserve it on a train, i don't deserve it in the rain. whether or not i'm 68 years old, whether or not i'm having lunch in a subway sandwich shop, i deserve tolerance. all people deserve tolerance. that statement shouldn't be anything new
brighton dark, that's thecontrast when comparing westernpennsylvania to any other place i've lived in. bright on dark. i've never been treated so badly, and this is my complaint: i do not deserve the treatment i get. i am not a criminal and i am not a maureen (pardon me, a moron), what i am is a man studying gender most every day of my life (and asking myself why so many facebook photos portray the female gender as the shorter gender, much like the photo of a certain nick mcelhinny and his shorter female counterpart). i realize that i am a member of the taller/broader/stronger gender, and i DON'T deserve to be slighted or disrespected like i'm a member of the lesser gender who wants to compete like a man but who will not compete unless a "woman's division" has been made to compensate for the lesser gender's lesser heights/widths/strengths/appetites. i don't require compensation for a competition because i am a man. i'm not a maureen and i should not be treated as one.
getting back on-topic, it DOESN'T MATTER that the types of people who slight me are mindless and robotic zombies who love to be getting on their knees and outright worshipping a football team with the words "ferris bueller, you're my hero" (as if to suggest that they, themselves, are too lackluster to be their own superhero). this just DOESN'T MATTER - i am not complaining about ANY joiners who populate pittsburgh, whether they'd be 1) women who can't budge a 100-pound barbell yet who compensate for their frail bodies by calling themselves "strong women," 2) steelers fans who cherish a football team's accomplishments to compensate for their own lackluster existences and/or accomplishments, or 3) homosexual "men" who lack the self-respect and dignity to regard themselves as their one and only man and who therefore rely on a "real man" to compensate for their lackluster masculine existences/identities). i'm not complaining about these people at all, i am complaining about BIGOTS who slight me for being who i am.
i am slighted for not being a pittsburgh steelers fan. actually, i am slighted for wearing a cleveland browns cap everywhere i go. now, it's true that i am not a sports fan. it's true that i wear my browns cap simply to make steelers fans feel psychologically raped (or violated - or whatever the cleveland browns do to the lackluster and paltry existences of pittsburgh steelers fans). in a way, i guess i could be asking to be slighted...but the simple fact that residents of pittsburgh are even capable of feeling raped or violated by the sight of anything that's pro-cleveland, the simple fact that they feel a cause to slight somebody wearing a cleveland browns cap...well, that just points to the kind of losers who populate pittsburgh.
i apologize - i do not want this letter to bash the joiners of pittsburgh, i'm sure that they're...hmn, nice people? i do not want to take issue with anything but the bigotry shown to me - the bigotry that is so reminiscent of the anti-gay bigotry i'd been exposed to as a young adult. pittsburgh is an anti-gay city because residents of pittsburgh are so apt to belittle anyone whose happiness and pleasure relates to the cleveland browns - and because...well, who is "anti-gay" if not anyone who is so apt to belittle anyone else whose pleasures may be not "mainstream" enough?
i realize that people in pittsburgh have had their hearts and minds changed by the "mainstream," by the steelers-worshipping attitudes of pittsburgh residents. i will continue to support the browns, but someone close to me who has never watched football in 60+ years (and who's always had more of an animosity rather than an interest) has become a steelers fan after years of being exposed to the steelers-praising, numb-sculled zombies of pittsburgh. this outwardly-inflicted change of mind which has been inflicted by steelers' fans is anti-gay. i say this because, well, if one's heart and mind can so easily be changed through communication, then how long is it going to be before bible-worshipping christians invoke the same kind of "talk therapy" to change the minds of gay people?
if one's mind and interests can so easily be changed through communication, then how long is it going to be before bible-worshipping christians invoke the same kind of "talk therapy" to change the minds of gay people?
pittsburgh is a town with anti-gay tendencies, evidenced by a love of steelers' football being inflicted by fans of the steelers and onto someone with absolutely no interest in football. the people of pittsburgh should be ashamed of themselves for being proud of altering peoples' minds in this way. how long will it be before pittsburgh residents start trying to change the minds of masculivoids (that is, "men" who look for the man of their dreams in other men) - how long before pittsburgh residents start trying to change their own minds through talk-therapy? maybe they want to be rid of an addiction to smoking that they were BORN WITH, maybe gambling, maybe pornography. the bottom line is that if steelers fans continue to change the hearts and minds of non-steelers fans, it's going to lead to more changes of hearts and minds...which, in turn, is going to compromise the entire "born this way" defense of smokers, gamblers, gays and other addicts who had no intention of changing anything about themselves even before they uttered those three words. the end of the "born this way" defense will, by the way, fuel the "ex-gay movement" and will lead to a proliferation of anti-gay attitudes and ideals.
also, the end of the "born this way" defense will be the fault of pittsburgh. if people learn that minds can be changed through total immersion in steelers-fanaticism, then minds will be changed in every conceivable way. the smoker will become a non-smoker despite his "genetic predisposition," the (predisposed) slot-machine addict will not donate any more money to old people, the fabled "gay gene" will be overridden by the choices one makes, the shopoholic will refrain from shopping...and the "strong woman" who's been indoctrinated into thinking that she's simply a man with a womb, well, she'll realize that she's not just a wombman. she'll realize that there is no B in woman because she is missing balls which provide testosterone, which is responsible for mens' deeper voices and mens' more powerful bodies, as well as mens' body-hair (maybe females want men shaved because of a form of penis-envy known as testosterone-envy).
summing up, i REFUSE to be bullied because i wear a "cleveland browns" cap, i REFUSE to have my mind changed through communication (whether that communication is pro-steelers, pro-strongwoman or pro-gay), and i REFUSE to be exposed to bigots who bully. also, residents of pittsburgh MUST change their steelers-praising attitudes, or at least keep them out of the limelight, because i REFUSE to become a pro-gay and pro-steelers nitwit who's void of any identity aside from the identity pushed upon him by the bigoted bullies who want everyone to think like them.
mr. dylan terreri, i
dr. sheldon cooper, ii
--------------------------
"When I'm hungry, I eat. When I'm thirsty, I drink. When I feel like saying something, I say it." - Madonna
http://www.jaggedlittledyl.com/essays
![[masthead]](/images/masthead_140.png)