It’s been a banner week for whacky American sex talk. In Denver, former state Sen. John Andrews, who has a rich history of neo-con-stipation, stepped in it while explaining why he fought a gay Republican group’s effort to attend a national GOP event here last week.

June 27, 2013

After telling the Log Cabin Republicans they weren’t Christian enough to do anything but give the GOP money, Andrews said he and his fellow Neos actually welcome any Judeo-Christian types, even those afflicted with “alternative lifestyles.”

Is being heterosexual a “lifestyle” and homosexuality an “alternative?” Like living off the grid in a teepee or something? Do gay couples not have to pay bills, clean toilets, argue about loading the dishwasher, talk crap about the neighbor’s vicious dog and laugh out loud whenever Texas Sen. Ted Cruz opens his mouth?

Not to be outdone, the loser lawyer from Utah who lost the gay-marriage case in that state, essentially starting the dominoes that fell all the way to the Supreme Court this week, said yesterday that legalizing gay marriage will lead to 900,000 abortions. That’s because dudes marrying dudes will discourage other dudes from marrying anybody, and straight hook-ups tend to make for more abortions, and so there you go. Arguments like that make it pretty clear that, well, the homophobes just don’t have a better argument than that.

But my very favorite homophopithycus blarb this week came from some gack at the Family Research Council who said marriage is meant to “domesticate” men, make them go to church more and lower their testosterone levels. They argue that women like to be subservient to men, and it’s important for men to oblige them. That women are happier when Daddy is the big breadwinner and Mommy stays home and does the ironing. Two mommies or two daddies couldn’t possibly figure all that out, and there would just be testosterone everywhere.

What we need is a diversion for the Neos. So I’m starting a support group for gay and lesbian cross-dressing Muslim illegal immigrant cat collectors from Cuba who came here for the sole purpose of enrolling in Obamacare and getting food stamps.

21 replies on “PERRYBLOG: Homophobe Cooking — recipes for absolute nonsense”

  1. Namaste Everyone, We must put an end to homosexual behavior in this country forever. We must love and care for our human family members who have this disorder but first we must honor our Creator and follow all his laws. What does it profit a man if he gains the entire world but loses his Soul? Our lives on Mother Earth truly are a test which will determine our eternal resting spot, Heaven or the eternal torments with Great Demon. Love God-Man-Nature and I will see you in paradise! Pilamaya, Timothy Two Toes Less Right Foot.

    1. Timothy, there are — conservatively — about 18,000,000 people who are gay. That’s 18,000,000 in this country alone. You say we should put an end to homosexual behavior in this country. Could you elaborate on how you’d like to see that happen?

      1. “Timothy, there are — conservatively — about 18,000,000 people who are gay.”–Actually, according to the CDC, it’s about 7.25 million, based on estimated percentages.

        1. OK, Timothy, let’s go with your numbers. (I checked National Institute of Health and they place it at over 9 million) But my post was this question, which you didn’t answer: How do you propose we ‘put an end’ to these 7.25 million people?

          1. You might want to check who you’re responding to. I never said that 7.25 million people should be eliminated, and arguing that there are “conservatively” 18 million gay people when scientific studies have shown far lower figures does little to bolster your argument.

  2. Homosexuality is a defect. The simple fact that two homosexuals can not reproduce without external intervention is proof that it is an abhorrent deviation from the normal biological context. In other sectors of nature, the abhorrent deviation is allowed to whither away so as not to corrupt the gene pool. Those in support of the gay agenda claim that homosexuals are born that way, a belief I happen to agree with. If homosexuals are in fact born with that condition, shouldn’t we consider it a birth defect? With birth defects, we strive to discover a cure or treatment to mitigate the effects of that defect. Can we do the same for the homosexual?

    1. Religion is a defect. AND A CHOICE. an abhorrent one, IMO.
      and I have a bit of an issue with the strong-arm mlitancy of the Jesus movement. They claim to follow Jesus, but I just don’t see the correlation of their actions and his words.
      For example, see post by Squid. Does he sound like Jesus?

      1. My point is unequivocally proven……….total lack of appreciation of any viewpoint that is not in lock step with the homosexual mantra. Carol, where in my post is there any reference to religion or Jesus? Was that the response that was on top of your GLAD talking points flashcard?

        1. where is your evidence that “homosexuality is a defect”, your starting point above? That talking point comes straight from AmeriChristians, so I apologize if I mistakenly made that jump.
          Any viewpoint you have is OK with me, as long as you don’t advocate laws treating individuals differently.

          1. Carol,
            Again, you make unsubstantiated assumptions, letting your anger get the best of you. Again, where in my post did I advocate for laws that treat individuals differently? I’ll save you from again looking at your GLAD flashcards….I didn’t advocate for any legislation. I simply maintained that homosexuality is a biological abnormality. Do you disagree with that premise?

            Are you aware of the fact that across many sectors of our society there laws in place that purposely discriminate, i.e. laws that treat individuals differently? Affirmative action gives preferential treatment to minority applicants, lending regulations treat potential borrowers differently based on credit worthiness, felons are not able to vote or own guns…..the list goes on.

          2. If all organisms were homosexual, they would eventually die out due to
            the inability to produce more of the same. Do you disagree with that
            premise?
            Nope, totally agree. Maybe that’s why nature made us all different.
            You also know there are distinct differences in your laws listed above. WHY AA? WHY lending regulations? WHY felons aren’t allowed to own guns? Measure that against they WHY for this issue.
            and since you’re convinced I’m reading from flashcards (after all, how could we possibly form our own thoughts), I’ll let you carry on with the assumptions you’re bent on setting on me.
            Have a great day, and don’t back down on your opinions! I served so you could proudly and freely express those. Aint America great!

          3. Last I checked people of same sex attraction are able to have their marriage to a person of the opposite sex recognized by the state. You do not want the same privilege, you want a new privilege. A new privilege that violates the tenets that Western civilization is based on.

      2. I would say yes. He is stating the Truth out of love for sinners. Jesus stated the Truth and it angered many people and even got Him tourtured to death. Sorry if you think this is hate, but in reality it is love.

  3. Dave, while you are attempting to vilify anyone who disagrees with you with labels like loser, homophobopithycus (?), and gack (?), you may want to have a look around your ‘newsroom’. You may find that many of your colleagues disagree with your ‘enlightened’ viewpoint’, but are afraid of being labeled with one of your arcane monikers. Prop 8, in California, prevented gay marriage–and that is a heavy blue state, and won handily. Clinton passed DOMA. Obama, in his first term, was against gay marriage. Why? Both knew that the DEMOCRAT base had not reached the heights of the enlightened, as you have, Dave. I hope that you, speaking for the Aurora Sentinel, are not in the business of using fascistic strategies like name calling, and MISINTERPRETATION of the facts (telling Log Cabin Repubs they weren’t Christian enough and only want their money??) to force good Christian people into thinking like you, the enlightened. By the way, the Log Cabin Republicans have been brought back into the Republican fold, after a MINOR misunderstanding, taken to a sensationalistic media (Hello, Dave!!). Republicans have accepted the gay lifestyle, as much as democrats, but sanctifying marriage under god is a step too far for many Christians, and clearly mainstream Democrats.

    1. vilifying some one who lives a different life or disagrees with you is called being a bigot. so they scream that Christians or even people who dont belive the gay chromosome is part of the DNA we all carry are bigots but they are really being one. I agree kelly!! too many people view marriage “as little more than a love contract.” If that is indeed what marriage is reduced to, then by all means, allow homosexuals to marry. But, “If marriage is little more than a love contract, why do we need government to get involved? Why was government invited to regulate marriages but not other interpersonal relationships, like friendships? Why does every religion hold marriage to be a sacred and divine institution? Surely marriage must be more than just a love contract.”the creation of new life between a male and a female is what differentiates true marriage from any other. Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples relegates this once noble institution to nothing more than a lousy love contract. This harms all of society by turning marriage, the bedrock of society, into a meaningless anachronism.

  4. There sure is a lot of hatred going on here, some of it in the name of the “Creator.” Oh, my goodness, do we not have bigger problems to solve? So what if gays cannot produce offspring? So what if you think they are sinners? How does that bother anyone? Unless someone forces someone to commit a homosexual act against his or her will, it doesn’t, not even in the least. So quit worrying about it; quit trying to impose your morals onto someone else. How is this being “militant?” Did the gays somehow manage to begin combative military operations of which I wasn’t aware? Like Dave Perry alludes, don’t you think gays just want to be left alone to live their lives in peace, just like everyone else? PLEASE!

    1. “How does that bother anyone?”
      It bothers me if the state forces me to support their lifestyle choices by using my taxes to support their unnatural relationship or forces me to contribute (e.g. a cake) to their “wedding”. Most people believe it is a sin to encourage the sin of others.

  5. “Is being heterosexual a “lifestyle” and homosexuality an “alternative?” ”
    I think he was refering to the affliction of same sex attraction as opposed to the willful choice to choose to not live chastely and engage in homosexual acts.

Comments are closed.