April 12, 2014
"White House Petition for Gov’t to Recognize Non-Existent Genders Reaches 100K+"

eftrom:

A petition was created at WhiteHouse.gov two weeks ago. It wasn’t asking for President Obama to publicly reprimand all his tens of thousands of “sons” who go about knocking strangers on the head for fun; it wasn’t asking Obama to explain why Attorney General Eric Holder and the IRS Exempt Organizations Director Lois Lerner should not be jailed for their crimes; and it wasn’t asking that the government put as many federal agents and law-enforcement officers along the border as it has at the Bundy ranch in Nevada.

The petition instead asked that the government “Legally Recognize Non-Binary Genders.” “Binary” is a word used by computer nerds and social-justice nerds. The difference is that computer nerds use it correctly. The definition of the word, when not applied to the sciences, is “consisting of, indicating, or involving two.” So the leftists who made this petition are asking for the government to legally recognize genders that are not consisting of two. So, genders that consist of one, three, and beyond? Genders don’t consist of numbers, so “non-binary genders” is a phrase that really makes no logical sense. But social-justice warriors heard it once, thought it sounded scientific and lent them credibility, and have stuck with it ever since. But just know that when they say “binary,” they mean “perceived as normal,” which, again, is not the actual definition of the word.

Nevertheless, here is the text of the petition, which I warn is sprinkled with words that don’t actually exist, much like the problem the petitioners are trying to solve:

Legal documents in the United States only recognize “male” and “female” as genders, leaving anyone who does not identify as one of these two genders with no option. Australia and New Zealand both allow an X in place of an M or an F on passports for this purpose and the UK recognizes ‘Mx’ (pronounced as Mix or sometimes Mux) as a gender-neutral title.

This petition asks the Obama Administration to legally recognize genders outside of the male-female binary (such as agender, pangender, genderfluid, and others) and provide an option for these genders on all legal documents and records.

It’s also been categorized by the petition creator under “Civil Rights and Liberties.” It is, after all, a person’s civil right to have his sexual fetishes listed on federal forms.

For the mainstream conservatives who are unaware of the extent to which the younger generation are ever increasingly subverting American culture, “agender” means you have no gender; “pangender” means you are all genders (a romanticized multiple-personality disorder); and genderfluid means your gender changes. As you can see, these are things, conditions, that do not exist in reality. But young leftists want the government to recognize them anyway. Make no mistake, the day will come soon when that happens.

The number of signatures the White House requires for a petition to be addressed is 100,000. With over a week to spare, this particular petition has been signed by 100,622 at the time of this writing. One-hundred thousand special little snowflakes. When the petition is addressed, it’s not likely that the media will report on it since it will only serve to show the general public just how completely unhinged are the Left.

November 10, 2013

Anonymous said: Do you know the cure for my homosexuality if it's a glitch?

Nope. But I know that society’s catering to your desires isn’t going to help you at all. Pray.

November 10, 2013

Anonymous said: Even if circumstances create homosexuality, why should he punish them for that? It's not their fault then. Circumstances are created by God also, everything is created by him. He's God, after all.

Who’s punishing gays? Not degrading your laws and your country for the pleasure of gays is not tantamount to punishing them.

Some circumstances are created by God—divine intervention, it’s called. Otherwise we have free will.

November 7, 2013
It does speak against lesbianism, actually. See the Book of Romans, chapter 1, verse 26.

It does speak against lesbianism, actually. See the Book of Romans, chapter 1, verse 26.

November 7, 2013

Anonymous said: hope u get run over by a truck driven by gay poc transwomen.

"Gay transwoman" is redundant.

But what does Physical Optics Corporation have to do with anything?

November 7, 2013
If you believe race doesn’t matter, then surely you believe racism doesn’t matter either. And if you believe sex doesn’t matter, then surely you believe feminism doesn’t matter either.
All that matters, as you say, is that my neighbor deeply, deeply loves his 12-year-old daughter, and she deeply, deeply loves him back. And when I say love, I mean looooove. They like to share a bed, if you know what I mean. But they don’t always go right to sleep at bedtime, if you know what I mean. But that’s okay! They love each other. “Love is love and that’s all that should matter!”
Consider this message “threw” my head.

If you believe race doesn’t matter, then surely you believe racism doesn’t matter either. And if you believe sex doesn’t matter, then surely you believe feminism doesn’t matter either.

All that matters, as you say, is that my neighbor deeply, deeply loves his 12-year-old daughter, and she deeply, deeply loves him back. And when I say love, I mean looooove. They like to share a bed, if you know what I mean. But they don’t always go right to sleep at bedtime, if you know what I mean. But that’s okay! They love each other. “Love is love and that’s all that should matter!”

Consider this message “threw” my head.

November 7, 2013

Anonymous said: Ah, but you realize that the Old Testament has Leviticus in it, which clearly states that you cannot shave, wear two different types of cloth, or get a tattoo, but I am sure that YOU don't follow at least one of those. Yet, you choose to follow the one that says one man may not sleep with a man like they would sleep with a woman-and I promise you sex with another man is different than it is with a woman. There was a gay couple in the Christian bible. It NEVER SAID ANYTHING BAD ABOUT LESBIANISM.

I don’t follow those because those are specifically Jewish laws for Jewish people.

Romans 1:26 talks about lesbianism.

November 7, 2013

Anonymous said: What's wrong with gays???

I ask myself this every time I see one.

November 7, 2013
Nobody cares if you’re bisexual, quit rubbing it in our faces. I believe all parts of the Bible.

Nobody cares if you’re bisexual, quit rubbing it in our faces. I believe all parts of the Bible.

November 7, 2013

Anonymous said: Calling someone a faggot isn't very Christ-like.

Being a faggot isn’t very Christ-like, and neither is approving of it. Don’t shoot the messenger, shoot the faggot.

[Update for the effing morons: I said don’t “shoot the messenger,” which is what I’m saying this guy is doing to me. Is he literally shooting me? No, he is condemning me. When I said “shoot the faggot,” then, I mean “do to the faggot what you’re doing to me,” which is to condemn them. My word, you people are insaaaanely stupid.]

November 7, 2013
Does “bronies” have to be capitalized? I’d really prefer all words related to the LGBT community be lower-case.

Does “bronies” have to be capitalized? I’d really prefer all words related to the LGBT community be lower-case.

November 7, 2013
Impossible. Ronald Reagan was neither black nor gay.

Impossible. Ronald Reagan was neither black nor gay.

November 2, 2013

Anonymous said: Why would you want to throw someone in jail for believing people shouldn't have to fear for their lives just because they are gay? Why should anybody have to fear for their life at all?

I don’t. I didn’t say that. Why, why, do you people not read the words I write? I wouldn’t imprison someone for believing whatever they want to believe. I would deport them for promoting homosexual “rights.” Yes, I know this is a fascist belief. But if it’s right for the country, it’s right for the country.

November 1, 2013
"Art": Gay Student to Lose "Anal Virginity" on Stage

Just as potheads are the worst advocates for the legalization of marijuana, homosexuals are the worst advocates for homosexual “rights.” Seeing a headline that reads “Gay Art School Student to Lose Anal Virginity in Front of Class” makes me even less of a supporter of homosexual “rights” than I was before—not that I ever was.

It’s on the days that I am exposed to the degeneracy of homosexual activists that I really appreciate Russian president Vladimir Putin’s social policies, particular his active quashing of homosexual propaganda and the persecution of those who spread it. His duty as leader of his country is to defend it against all harm. He views homosexual propaganda as a harm to his country (as indeed it is to all societies), and it is his number-one priority to push back against such harm. It’s a bit fascistic, but if it’s right for his country, it’s right for his country.

The aforementioned headline is a real one, titling an article posted at Gawker. It begins:

Art school student Clayton Pettet says he’s held on to his anal virginity for the past 19 years, but he’s finally ready to lose it—and he wants to share his grand opening with the world.

"Grand opening" is just about the worst phrase one could use in this context.

Many in modern society are deviants who hold nothing sacred, but especially those in the LGBT community. Their bodies do not belong to God, but to whomever meets their disgustingly low standards. (In the case of bisexuals, that standard is simply, “Will it let me fuck it?”). This Pettet fellow wants to share his body with whomever wants it, at least visually.

On January 25, 2014, Pettet, a second-year student at London’s Central Saint Martins art school…is planning to exhibit a one-time-only performance art piece entitled “Art School Stole My Virginity,” which will involve Pettet and a friend engaging in safe anal sex on stage at an art space in the London Borough of Hackney.

The qualifier “safe” is interesting here. It of course refers to the use of a condom to suddenly make “safe” something that otherwise would be dangerous. It’s also a sad statement against society that most liberals out there would only be outraged were Pettet not to use a condom, rather than over the act of perversion itself. With the condom, however, it’s beautiful and it’s “art.”

"Since culturally we do hold quite a lot of value to the idea of virginity I have decided to use mine and the loss of it to create a piece that I think will stimulate interesting debate and questions regarding the subject," Pettet said.

Sharon Ferguson, spokeswoman for the U.K.’s paradoxical Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement, is the only negative reaction cited by gay website InstinctMagazine.com (which was cited by Gawker): Pettet’s exhibitionism “cheapens our own sexual relationships.”

That it does, but so does the mere concept of homosexuality.

Were Pettet planning on doing this in Putin’s Russia, he would go to prison. And, honestly—here I’m breaking with the conservatives, liberals, and the libertarians, because why limit myself to the confines entailed by such labels; why be afraid to step outside the box?—my only complaint with that decision would be that he wasn’t outright deported.

October 31, 2013
How did you arrive at the comparison of socking a random person in the face to hiring only who you want to hire?

How did you arrive at the comparison of socking a random person in the face to hiring only who you want to hire?