If this video doesn’t tell you everything you need to know about the mentality of DICK HEAD HOMOPHOBIC FUCKING CHRISTIANS I don’t know what will

When they’re done with gays and lesbians they’ll start on other minority groups until the only people left are rightwing evangelicals just like them. And you know the worst part? They aren’t even ashamed to admit it. That’s what they actually want; a Christian world for Christian people. A flat, 6,000 year old planet populated entirely by magic bread eating, AIDS riddled, hypocritical douchnozzles so busy self-loathing they completely forget to obey the basic teachings of the faith they ram down everyone’s throat.

I say we take off and nuke the site from orbit—it’s the only way to be sure.

Now, look at the picture opposite. Matt Lucas is gay as the day is long. He plays gay in just about every role he does. He’s a brilliant comedian and funny precisely because he’s unashamedly camp as a row of tents. I’ve laughed at him endlessly since the days when he started on the Paramount comedy channel at 2 in the morning doing weird little vignette sketches which eventually became the huge comedy sensation ‘Little Britain’.

But at no time, in his long as successful career, have I ever looked at him and thought, “you know, I think I’ll take up the cock to be more like Matt Lucas”. I have never, for example, looked at him in his “only gay in the village” outfit and thought, “You know, to be popular with all my mates, I really should get into man love”. And there’s a very good reason for that. I’m not gay. I wasn’t born gay. Matt, on the other hand, was. And for that single difference between him and me, apparently, he deserves to die at the hands of the state.

No consideration for the kind of person he might be or the goodness in his heart. No accounting for the quiet dignity he showed when his partner, who lost his life to drugs, had his image splashed across the tabloids day after day. No recognition of his worth as person at all, on any level. He’s just “a gay”—who therefore deserves to die.

The anti-intellectual hatred of these fucking morons sickens every fibre of my being.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121605529
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/04/world/africa/04uganda.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Lively
http://www.defendthefamily.com/

11 comments on “If this video doesn’t tell you everything you need to know about the mentality of DICK HEAD HOMOPHOBIC FUCKING CHRISTIANS I don’t know what will

  1. Hypocrites too Jim. The number of choir boy fiddlers that are being outed points toward there being a host of gay priests, which is yet another case of ‘not practising what they preach’!
    Bunch of whited sepulchres the lot of ’em!

  2. I emailed Scott Lively and, needless to say, he is unrepentant about his sick behaviour. Although apparently I am going to burn in hell forever. Which is a bonus! I had feared spending an eternity surrounded by Christians—so at least that’s one less thing to worry about.

  3. I disagree with gay bashing to be sure, but I have to admit I’ve always wondered how evolution could create an organism which, whilst physically capable of procreation, possessed an innate disposition which all but ruled it out.

    I think the best ways to resolve this issue are to either reject evolution, or reject the idea that homosexuality is simply an innate – and therefore evolved – disposition. Perhaps there are other answers (mutation, socially beneficial adaptation, hormonal imbalance in the womb etc)

    I haven’t ever had the chance to debate this issue of course, most people have preprogrammed responses to these sorts of issues.

  4. Michael. When was the last time you had sex and thought, “this is all a waste of time unless this chick gets pregnant”?

    Recreational sex isn’t anything to do with procreation. Most of the time we do things just because they feel good. By the logic you’ve offered here, there should be a selection advantage to become a smoker at a young age, to select for those with a higher resistance to lung disease. Clearly this isn’t how natural selection works—because it’s not necessarily driven by immediately obvious advantages to merely the environment or subjective desires of the given organism. Indeed selection advantage isn’t “driven” at all—it’s based upon random mutation of the genes. That’s why it takes so many millions of years for speciation to occur—during which the organism might pick up many millions of genetic traits which will only provide a selection advantage many millions of years later in the evolution of the species.

    With homosexuality, clearly there is a selection advantage in male to male grooming which fosters hunter gatherer bonding and teamwork—which in terms of survival are not necessarily driven primarily by access to females, as much as they are advantageous to the well being of the group as a whole. Indeed altruism and group reciprocity are thought to be the primary selection advantages behind the transition from Homo erectus to Australopithecus. So, ironically, it may well end up being shown at some point, that homosexuality played a vital part in our evolutionary ascent.

  5. Thats an interesting initial response Jim. To clarify, are you saying that evolution programmed us to find certain behaviours pleasurable, such as eating, sex etc (presumably so we would be driven to do them) but we have reached a stage where these behaviours are acted upon out of context, simply because they feel good? This could definitely apply to something like overeating but can it to homosexuality?

    I think that the smokers analogy falls short because smokers choose to start (for whatever reason), whereas the general consensus with homosexuality is that it is innate, in other words there is no choice. If this is not the case of course there is no argument in any of this, but as far as I’m aware that is not an acceptable view.

    Also, you make a good point in regards to social adaptation\group reciprocity. It remains to be seen if homosexual behaviour actually does confer a social advantage (historically I believe it did in ancient greek society for example) and if so is this a cultural phenomena or something more universal?

    See this is where the fundies fail badly. They are so quick to oversimplify and condemn that they will never really understand the world they think their God created, and therefore by extension the nature of that God itself. They deserve pity as much as indignation really.

  6. Indeed they do, but I’m not going to go into that just yet because I am in correspondence with Scott Lively and I’m waiting to see how it pans out before I publish.

    On the smoking analogy, I believe it does stand up because the point I was making is that there isn’t a selection advantage to simply adopting the habits of the parent solely because they are pleasurable. In other words people wouldn’t choose to be gay, just because it is pleasurable to engage in recreational sex. There of course has to be a stronger sexual attraction to same sex copulation over opposite sex copulation, but—I believe—we will understand completely one day that this has its evolutionary roots in the same grooming and bonding rituals that explain the highly advanced hunter gatherer team-working skills we see in Australopithecus compared to the less sophisticated Homo erectus, rather than in strict sexual selection rituals such as self preening and sex organ displaying.

    There is strong evidence to suggest, incidentally, that one of the strongest sexual selection advantages to walking upright, apart from that it enables the young to be carried through the high watermark wetlands that surrounded the savannah, is that it exposes the male genitals while it conceals the female—hence giving the female control over who she procreates with and the male the chance to impress her into it.

    But sexual selection isn’t the only aspect which drives natural selection. This might seem a moot point, since clearly homosexuality is genetically predetermined. But it’s always worth underlining the facts, since this is one of those areas the Jesus freaks like to pump so much misinformation into, in the hope some of it sticks. In Uganda, at least, it appears to be having the desired effect.

  7. “There of course has to be a stronger sexual attraction to same sex copulation over opposite sex copulation, but—I believe—we will understand completely one day that this has its evolutionary roots in the same grooming and bonding rituals that explain the highly advanced hunter gatherer team-working skills…”

    So you see the solution in Lamarckism? (I thought you were a neodarwinist.) Interesting.

  8. Well there are some very good reasons beyond merely sexual behaviour to suggest that certain characteristics can be learned within a generation, yes. For example fire. You only have to watch a fire being built once to know how to do it for the rest of your life. A skill that literally redefines the entire social dynamic of a group, which took millions of years to evolve, can become an almost commonplace addition to the group’s overall knowledge set overnight—and what’s more it spreads exponentially to other troops at the same time.

    This seems to me a useful way of describing one of the possible evolutionary roots of homosexuality. If a dominant male in a group can be seen to do much better socially than if he did not engage in same sex copulation, it wouldn’t take his subordinates too long to figure out how to use this to their advantage in exceeding his authority within their subordinate group and so on.

    Also note, male to male copulation doesn’t always have to be a passive or entirely recreational part of ordinary grooming. If we look at the way in which rape is used as a control mechanism in violent, all male prison populations for instance, we immediately see that this is a highly effective way of emasculating pretenders to the throne of gang leader and so on.

    As for “Neo-Darwinism”, I’ve never found this a particularly useful label. It suggests a distancing from “pure” Darwinism is needed in order to understand genetics, for example—when clearly what we’re really doing is building upon the fact of evolution by natural selection to do this, rather than abandon it as “just another theory”—as the creationists would have you believe it is.

  9. These are good points Jim. To clarify, I mean Lamarckism in the sense that in order for homosexuality to remain an innate disposition, whilst simultaneously claiming a social basis for it’s origins is to accept that learned characteristics can be inherited, which is obviously rejected by neo-darwinism.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s