That this graphic exists excites me and depresses me.


Yesterday, Illinois joined the growing number of states to provide  equality to same-sex partners.

It’s news that makes me happy. But it also is depressing that marriage equality is an issue. That people with a dusty old book can demand certain people shouldn’t love one another because of the target of their sexuality.

I don’t mean to be negative about something so positive. But it feels weird that in 2013, the world acts like a bunch of 1900s-ers.

I mean, really. Not only should this graphic be all green. It shouldn’t be news.

It shouldn’t get people upset or think storms and earthquakes will result from pissing off the guy in the sky.


Don’t repeal DOMA … not completely … hear me out

Regular reading Glock21 wants you to consider supporting a petition he’s presented to the White House. I’ll let him describe it in his own words:



I decided to put my idea forward to my congressman and senators on possibly proposing this already, but wanted to see if I could get some traction with the petition site for the white house as well (link):

Instead of starting off with a full repeal of DOMA, a smaller step towards a military/veteran exemption that could be built upon. I’m in favor of full repeal, but if public support can be built on this exemption, that may be a more realistic goal down the road. Benefit of not leaving gay active military and veterans out in the cold during the process.

Thoughts, criticisms, etc, are of course welcome.

I signed his petition already, and hope you consider doing it as well.


Romney: If my grandkids were gay, “I’d want them to be happy”


In the same clip above, Romney says his kids are married so he’d be surprised if they were gay.

That’s interesting. It’s somewhat naive.

I have no statistics, but I’ve talked to my brother-in-law and he says that a lot of hookups at gay bars are with married men who are out for the night. Sometimes they’re in another city. Sometimes they’re horny.

But regardless, good for Romney to do a townhall thing with Univision.



How about a Tuesday nooner with Salon mag? The Biblical view of marriage

There’s nothing more telling about religious practice when its loudest adherents clearly fabricate what is NOT in the bible.

One of the greatest contributors to disbelief for me was this very argument of the biblical view of marriage. After a huge breakup during college, I searched the bible for what I was taught and came up with nothing biblical about the traditional views that I had been taught.

At that time, leaders of the church explained that “If something in the bible is untrue, all of it is.”

If there is going to be that level of ultimatum, the bible should stand up to criticism.

That, dear readers, it cannot do.

Here’s a bit from on Biblical marriage. Read the whole thing here.

Some people would have you believe that marriage began with Adam and Eve. But in the account in Genesis where Adam and Eve become one flesh (presumably through their mutual commitment and sexual intimacy), there is no mention of an “institution” of marriage nor any liturgy, vows, promises or other ritual used to solemnize their relationship. This prehistorical account can only serve as a backdrop to the meaning (not the “institution”) of marriage that developed over time.

The fact of the matter is, marriage has not been consistent or unchanging over time. Indeed, even in biblical times, we see a constant evolution in the practice of marriage. One man and one woman, united in marriage for life, mutually exclusive and “faithful” sexually, and joined because of their love for each other, is a relatively modern notion of marriage. Such was not the case in ancient times.



Billy Graham: The bible’s definition of marriage is clear, I just don’t have any room to show you where the bible says it on this full-page ad

Isn’t it amazing.

Billy Graham takes out a full-page ad (above) supporting heterosexual marriage in North Carolina, claims in the ad that the bible is clear on the topic, and yet there’s not one citation to the bible.

He writes:

“The Bible is clear – God’s definition of marriage is between a man and a woman.”

Dear reader, please show me this clear passage. Show me it, and in the meantime, I’ll show you 100 clearer stories of marriage that oppose one man/one woman.

When this is your message, you clearly need to find a new resource for morality.

Vote AGAINST, North Carolina.

Let compassion and humanism — clearly the authority on morality and human behavior — guide your decision. Not this morally corrupt, contemptible excuse for a leader of people.


Fascinating: Inbreeding was more common than you thought

Charles Darwin (age 33) and his son William (n...

Charles Darwin (age 33) and his son William (notably the only picture known of Charles Darwin and another member of his family). Scanned from Karl Pearson, The Life, Letters, and Labours of Francis Galton. Daguerrotype originally from the 1842. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Over at The Still Room, blogging virtuoso Becky Fifield wrote a post called, “Digging Up My Ancestors – Inbred,” part three in a series of blogs about digging up ancestors and worshiping them. 

Becky explains that inbreeding has been more common in history than you thought. And while some states outlaw certain sex acts, they continue to allow inbred marriages.

The sex acts note was mine, by the way.

Take for example this from Becky:

But when families stay generation after generation in one area out of which few people immigrate to new territories, inbreeding happens. Charles Darwin and his wife, Emma Wedgewood, are probably the most famous inbred couple. Darwin himself was among the first to scientifically investigate inbreeding, and acknowledged that marrying his first cousin could be responsible for the frequent illness and the deaths of three of their children. This is examined in this article from Bioscience by Berra, Alvarez, and Ceballos.

Coming from the south, I was all too aware of the inside joke of marrying family. Sex jokes with cousins, aunts and uncles were common.

As an adoptee who didn’t know who and where my birth family were and as someone who obsessed about meeting them, I often worried that I would inadvertently fall in love with and marry a cousin or sibling, or an aunt … or uncle!

Bum, bum, bum!

I was taught that blood tests before marriage would prevent that from happening. But it didn’t stop the fantasy or possibility of thinking about it.

As a kid, my imagination fixated on the idea of meeting parts or all of my birth family. And while my immaturity sometimes prevented me from being able to handle knowing them, there was a strong urge just to know.

Now that I know who my birth family is, it’s hardly a big deal. The hierarchy of that family is nuts. I have cousins who are as limited in thought as rocks with graffiti on them.

I’m surprised my birth mom still claims to be a Christian after all these years of putting up with her family’s patriarchal, religious extremist, bullshit-believing family. When I talk to her, she is so liberal and free-minded one second. But I can figuratively hear the cogs come to a halt when she backs off and talks about religion and Jesus during phone conversations. These phone conversations are infrequent, yearly at best. But I’ve given them much thought.

Let me put it this way, imagine having a big piece of bubble gum in your mouth. You take a chunk of it and pull it away from your lips. No matter how far you go with it, it stays connected. That’s the way I see my birth mother, her family and religion. No matter how hard or far she goes to get away from that awful, short-sighted mindset of conservative, religious thought, she’ll always get snapped back into it.

Even though you can be happy as a separate piece of bubble gum and you can still go back in the mouth once in a while, setting yourself free of that sticky ideology is too freaking hard.

This is the Yeshua Fog™, and it does not let go easily.

Are you bound by the Yeshua Fog? Are you the piece of bubble gum who is incapable of becoming unstuck because of familial pressure?

We’re here for you. At least I say I am. Come on over and talk a while.


Hey Kirk Cameron, the Black Eyed Peas wrote “Shut up” to you … so just shut up!

Oh gawd, Kirk Cameron feels oppressed! Poor little guy doesn’t feel that he can say what’s on his mind without getting backlash.

He’s only telling people what his lord told him to tell you.

Isn’t he?

I mean, no one is telling him to shut up. His god also wrote into the book to expect such fallout for expressing these views. So why the ruckus?

Why in the world is Kirk Cameron whining like a little baby?

Because he wants everyone to think like him? Because he doesn’t like that his ratings have plummeted since his stint on that dumb 80s show?

How quaint.

World Net Daily is reporting Kirk Cameron’s befuddlement over the issue. You can read the article here. It’s called “Kirk Cameron fires back” by Drew Zahn. You can read how Zahn helps Cameron “fire back” for yourselves, but I want to comment on one part of the article, and it’s this one (emphasis mine):

When Morgan asked Cameron his views, the actor told the host, “I believe that marriage was defined by God a long time ago. Marriage is almost as old as dirt. And it was defined in the garden between Adam and Eve – one man, one woman for life, till death do you part. So I would never attempt to redefine marriage and I don’t think anyone else should either. So do I support the idea of ‘gay’ marriage, no I don’t.”

Do you know that the story of Adam and Eve doesn’t mention marriage one time?

And do you understand the ramifications of believing that Adam and Eve are responsible for the earth’s population of humanity and what that means about the sexuality of our supposed first humans? Adam and Eve had kids, and ostensibly they had kids. But who did their kids have sex with? Each other, right? Maybe with their mom and dad?

How dare anyone, especially Kirk Cameron, declare the Genesis couple as THE DEFINITION of PROPER, DIRT OLD “Godly” marriage.

Because if I used Adam and Eve as a model for marriage, I would likely go to jail or get committed for improper sexual relations with family.

What in the world are Christians doing by citing Adam and Eve as the role models for relationships?

If Kirk Cameron is hoping to dispel the rumor that Christians aren’t a bunch of in-bred idiots, he’s clearly barking up the wrong goddamn tree.

Hey Kirk, when you’re done defining marriage using the dumbest part of the bible, could you help me out with where the bible writes anywhere that god defined it in the way you are being persecuted for?

I don’t want you to shut up. I love when you talk. It gives me fodder for the blog.

Thanks. Bye.