April 17, 2006

More evidence that the Bush administration hates gay people

No fucking for you. Ever.

In addition to being costly, inaccurate, and ineffective, the programs must now operate under a strict new definition of abstinence:

Abstinence curricula must have a clear definition of sexual abstinence which must be consistent with the following: �Abstinence means voluntarily choosing not to engage in sexual activity until marriage. Sexual activity refers to any type of genital contact or sexual stimulation between two persons including, but not limited to, sexual intercourse.�

Later, the guidelines explicitly define marriage:

Throughout the entire curriculum, the term �marriage� must be defined as �only a legal union between one man and one woman as a husband and wife, and the word �spouse� refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.� (Consistent with Federal law)

In other words, if you�re gay, the Bush administration has decided that you should be taught to never, ever engage in �any type� of �sexual stimulation� � ever.

I wish we sex-crazed liberals had sex half as much as the amount of time spent thinking about it by the homo-obsessed conservatives.

How do they ever get any work done, what with all the fantasizing they do about deflowering virgins and anal intercourse?

Posted by binky at April 17, 2006 01:40 PM | TrackBack | Posted to Extremism


Comments

That last sentence is a classic - and something that's crossed my mind many times. What is it about being a right-winger - particularly a "Christian" (in italics b/c a lot of them are cafeteria Christians at best) right-winger - that leads so many of them to think about little else but the tawdriest stuff imagineable. Stuff that you'd think they'd never want discussed, seen in a movie or book or whatever. Put another way: why do they have such "dirty" minds?

Posted by: Armand at April 17, 2006 01:52 PM | PERMALINK

the cynic in me wants to posit elementary jealousy. they find and these prohibitions in their respective faiths and sub-faiths and observe them (well, sometimes), and the thought of others living less restricted lives drives them crazy. i.e., if i can't have anonymous sex with a trucker in a public restroom than neither can you.

but now that's just pithy, isn't it? isn't it?

Posted by: moon at April 17, 2006 02:08 PM | PERMALINK

Oui.

Posted by: binky at April 17, 2006 02:11 PM | PERMALINK

Armand, if you had sworn a committment to an organization that told you that you'd be DAMNED FOREVER for looking at, talking about, reading about, or even thinking of elephants, wouldn't you find it kind of hard to refrain from thinking of elephants?

Posted by: jacflash at April 17, 2006 04:03 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, so this is how you announce that you have a blog? No grand opening? No fanfare? Where's the cheap hootch and cheese cubes? Huh?

Posted by: binky at April 17, 2006 04:10 PM | PERMALINK

There ain't nothing there yet. Give me a week or two and I'll throw the doors open all proper-like.

Posted by: jacflash at April 17, 2006 07:15 PM | PERMALINK

Well, there's enough there to let me put up a comment. :)

Posted by: binky at April 17, 2006 07:29 PM | PERMALINK

Hmmmm - So I'm supposed to find the sect weird, instead of the adherents? I can kind of go with that. But why would people people who are supposed to be so far above X and consider X something that should never be discussed or even thought about devote their lives to a cause that spends most of its time (it seems) talking about X all the live long day. I get your point. But the whole thing still strikes me as peculiar.

I remember when going to church as a Protestant was just services filled with football analogies, and talking about people's kids or pretty new dresses afterwards (while sipping coffee). It didn't use to be all about the threat of the gays, or what unexpected things people can get up to with otherwise inocuous (spelling?) household objects.

Posted by: Armand at April 17, 2006 08:17 PM | PERMALINK

seems to me there's an awful lot of christianity that gets left out of these discussions. i don't pretend to know, but it doesn't seem to me that all significant quadrants of the faith hold with utter self-abnegation or with the prescription of same as against all infidels. too bad they aren't speaking up more, because i suspect that, in various guises, they vastly outnumber those who a) think their faith denies them any terrestrial fun and b) think their faith demands that they fight tooth and nail to deny the infidels any terrestrial fun.

and just to be clear, i'm not filing abortion, inter alia, under fun. just being pithy again.

Posted by: moon at April 18, 2006 05:29 PM | PERMALINK

"But why would people people who are supposed to be so far above X and consider X something that should never be discussed or even thought about devote their lives to a cause that spends most of its time (it seems) talking about X all the live long day."
Well, two things come to mind. First, if X is that important to them, then they're not far at all from X, they're just not in a good place with that part of themselves that's close to X. Second, they're kicking their own ass, because the absolutely best way to get most ambivalent people to do something, as Jacflash says, is to keep telling them not to do, ergo leaving it to everyone else to come up with the reasons to do it (and talk themselves into it), because the ones not to have already been covered. It's just more proof God hates a know it all.

Posted by: Morris at April 18, 2006 11:00 PM | PERMALINK

stop the presses; i actually am with morris on something.

Posted by: moon at April 19, 2006 12:01 PM | PERMALINK