Obscanity: You'll know it when you see it

Pam’s House Blend:: Californians Against Hate founder files complaint against LDS.

Holocaust survivors to Mormons: Stop baptisms of dead Jews – CNN.com.

Armed guards keep watch over church services – CNN.com.

Uh, yeah. Welcome to what the Jewish community has had to deal with for years. I remember during the first Gulf War we were afraid to go to Hebrew school because there were reports of bomb threats against Jewish institutions around the city. My synagogue has had an armed security guard for as long as I can remember.

It’s not so much fun realizing that people hate you, is it?

Ex-Gays Demand Non-Discrimination Inclusion, File DC Suit / Queerty.

This is just bullshit. It’s like including “Jews for Jesus” in protection aimed at reducing anti-Semitism – counterproductive at best, subversive attempt to destroy the population from within, at worst. It’s inviting the wolves in just because they’re wearing a nice woolen coat. Why should they be protected when their whole purpose is to annihilate the group they claim to be part of?

Now, to be fair, most “ex-gays” really are gay and closeted, whereas most “Jews for Jesus” were never Jewish to begin with, and are just faking it to try to convince actual Jews that their “choice” is a valid one. So really, protection for “ex-gays” would be more logical than protection for “Jews for Jesus.” But I think it’s kind of funny that by asking for protection as “ex-gays,” these people are admitting that in fact they are still gay – because if they weren’t, they’d be calling themselves “straight,” and wouldn’t need protection. But that should come as no surprise, because we all know that most “ex-gays” are just self-hating gay people who have somehow been brainwashed by the religious right into believing that they are doing the right thing by denying themselves the gift that God has given them. But you can’t lie forever, and many of the most high-profile “ex-gays” have been caught doing exactly what they claim they’ve given up. Yep – men.

And if you’re calling yourself “ex-gay” and are now in a satisfying hetero relationship? Hey, guess what? YOU WEREN’T GAY IN THE FIRST PLACE. Call yourself “bisexual” and get off your self-righteous martyr trip. You didn’t do anything special.

With friends like Sarah Palin, who needs enemies?! I would rather see somebody supporting Israel by trying to further peace in the Middle East, rather than supporting Israel blindly in the hopes that the resulting wars will bring about the End of Days just a little bit sooner, or because as long as Israel holds out, there’s still a chance all the Jews will move there and either accept Jesus or die.

I don’t want this woman anywhere near the international peace process – or the proverbial “red button.” Religion is a personal matter, but not when her religious motivations will guide her every move in office. A religious politician – EVERY politician, really – has to have some level of humility; as we’ve seen from the past 8 years, when an official believes he has God’s mandate to rule and has been placed there to do God’s work and have God speak through him… well… I think we know how well that goes.

Does Sarah Palin Have a Pentecostal Problem? – TIME:

And finally, a videotape surfaced of a 2005 service at the Wasilla Assembly of God Church, the Pentecostal church that Palin attended for most of her life. In the scene captured on video, Palin stands at the front of the sanctuary while a visiting African pastor prays that God will help her gubernatorial campaign and protect her “from every form of witchcraft.” Later in the same service, the pastor complains that “Israelites” held too many prominent positions in business, a comment that has further alienated Jewish voters.

Sarah Palin And The Anti-Semitism Question – The Jed Report:

Yesterday, Ben Smith posted a remarkable story about Sarah Palin’s attendance at an anti-Semitic sermon delivered at her church just two weeks ago.

The sermon, given by the executive director of Jews for Jesus, blamed Jewish victims of terrorism for the attacks which claimed their lives. If Jews had just converted to Christianity, he said, they would have lived.

This is crazy, paranoid stuff, and it is far beyond anything Jeremiah Wright ever said, yet we went through six weeks of nonstop scrutiny over his politically extreme statements.

Sarah Palin and the Jewish community | Op-Ed Contributors | Jerusalem Post:

FINALLY, THERE is the matter of two anti-Israel politicians – Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan. In February Palin in an interview lavished praise on Ron Paul. There is also a controversy over whether Palin has supported former presidential aspirant Pat Buchanan. To be fair there is no evidence that Palin shares either of these Republicans’ anti-Israel creed. However, since the beginning of the GOP narrative within the Jewish community is that Obama can not be trusted because of a handful of people who have endorsed him. If this guilt by association standard is one the McCain stands by, then they also need to deal with Palin’s past support for anti-Israel politicians.

Sarah Palin’s Jewish Problem – Michael Fox – Open Salon:

In his talk at Wasilla on August 17, 2008, with Palin in the audience, Brickner described terrorist attacks on Israelis as God's "judgment of unbelief" on Jews who have not converted to Christianity.
…
At the conclusion of Brickner's sermon, the congregation contributed money for Jews for Jesus' mission of converting
the Jews and and prayed that Jews would come to accept Jesus.
…
John McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin as his vice presidential candidate has already cost him the vote of at least one prominent Jewish politician — former New York City Mayor Ed Koch.

Koch, who endorsed George W. Bush in 2004, said that McCain’s choice of Palin has led him to endorse Barack Obama.

“She’s scary,” Koch said.

Rock Me Sexy Jesus | Slog | The Stranger | Seattle’s Only Newspaper:
A columnist whose work I’ve never read before, Gwen Daniels, at a student newspaper I’ve never heard of, The Maneater, at a university I’ve never visited, the University of Missouri, introduced me to a trend with which I wasn’t familiar: Saving your first kiss for your wedding night. Basically it’s like saving your virginity for your wedding night only, um, a whole hell of a lot crazier. (Read more)

Oh… that’ll DEFINITELY help the climbing divorce rate. Oh yeah.

I published this article over at Hubpages, and thought you might like to read it. I’ve included the text for archive posterity.

Five Myths About Same-Sex Marriage

Over the past several weeks I have seen a huge number of articles spring up in protest of last month’s CA Supreme Court ruling in favor of same-sex marriages. I want to address some of the arguments and claims that I’ve seen in those articles.

Myth #1: Four liberal activist judges overruled the will of the people.

What You Should Know: The California Supreme Court, a conservative court, struggled with the issue, looked to the CA Constitution, and concluded that equality means equality for ALL – and that includes those who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender.

Many have argued that legislatures, not judges, should be responsible for making marriage law. The CA legislature has twice passed the Religious Freedom and Marriage Equality Act, which equalized civil marriage rights among couples but explicitly stated that no religious institution shall be compelled to preside over a same-sex marriage. The bill was passed by two different assemblies of the legislature, since one passage was prior to a major election and once occurred after. The bill was twice vetoed by the Governor specifically because he believed it WAS an issue for the courts, not for the legislature.

Of the seven CA Supreme Court Justices, six were appointed by Republicans. The CA Supreme Court is traditionally known for being fairly conservative. If you think “CA” and think “liberal judges,” you might be mistaking the CA Supreme Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the Circuit. They are two very different courts. Incidentally, one of the dissenters is personally in favor of allowing same-sex marriage. Judges can and do go against their own personally-held beliefs in favor of upholding the CA Constitution.

The Supreme Court decision did not create a “new right” – rather, it acknowledged prior decisions stating that every person has a right to choose his or her life partner, and determined that this right cannot be abridged based solely on sexual orientation, which the Court views as akin to race and religion as far as discrimination practices are concerned. The judges did not come to their decision easily; they struggled with it, and that struggle is documented in the extremely lengthy opinion released last month (most court decisions are NOT this long – the Massachusetts marriage decision was less than a third of this length). If you think all it took was a stroke of a pen, I challenge you to read the 172-page opinion. I did.

Myth #2: The people of CA already spoke on the issue of gay marriage by passing Proposition 22

What You Should Know: Only 29% of registered California voters (21.5% of eligible voters) voted in favor of Prop 22. Is that an overwhelming majority?

While Proposition 22 was a statewide ballot initiative, it was not an accurate reflection of all of CA, for two major reasons:

First, contrary to popular belief, Prop 22 was not approved by an overwhelming majority of CA voters. Prop 22 was passed by an overwhelming majority of the voters who came out in March of 2000 to pick between John McCain and George Bush, since there was no true competition in the Democratic race, with Vice President Al Gore being the assumed winner. True, more Democrats than Republicans voted in the election, but if you count by who they voted for instead of their party identification, you get 2,654,114 voting Democratic and 3,702,487 voting Republican. In a consistently blue state, these statistics are not representative of the true population (about 30 million people). Overall, the election had a pretty low turnout rate. That primary election had around 7 million voters out of about 15 million registered voters. This past February primary (2008) had about the same number of registered voters, but more than 9 million actually turned out – and THAT was with closed primaries, which we didn’t have before, and no real contest in the Republican race.

In a state of more than 30 million people, only 4,618,673 voted in favor of Prop 22, and 2,909,370 voted against it. With only about a third of eligible voters, and barely half of registered voters, having voted on Prop 22 (that’s overall, not just in favor), it’s hard to use the word “overwhelming” to describe the outcome. Basically, 29% of registered voters (21.5% of eligible voters) voted in favor of Prop 22 – and that was eight years ago. The world has changed since then. People have changed since then. I know a LOT of people who voted for Prop 22 and are, in retrospect, utterly ashamed of themselves for it.

Second, Proposition 22, while appearing simple, was actually quite misleading. It came as a response to DOMA, which allowed states to refuse to recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages, and the entire campaign was centered around the notion that CA should not be forced to recognize other states’ marriages. The argument was framed in such a way that many people who had no particular opinion on same-sex marriage voted for Prop 22 because they believed CA should be allowed to make the decision for itself and not be forced into it by another state. While this same Supreme Court ruling ultimately determined that Prop 22 did apply to all marriages and not just those performed out of state, the “yes” campaign intimated otherwise, and countless voters were duped in the process.

Even if Proposition 22 HAD passed with the approval of most Californians (which it didn’t), the CA Supreme Court had the responsibility to ensure that it complied with the CA Constitution (which it didn’t). The Court here didn’t ignore Proposition 22; it attacked it head on and found it to violate the spirit of the California Constitution. Courts have declared other initiatives unconstitutional as well, and in the 1960’s the US Supreme Court even invalidated a voter-approved CA constitutional amendment which sought to overturn a recently-passed legislative act banning housing discrimination based on ethnicity, religion, sex, marital status, physical handicap, or familial status. Propositions don’t just glide into law just because the voters approved them. They still have to meet the rigorous standards of our great state and federal constitutions, and Proposition 22 violated what both the CA and US Supreme Courts have called a basic human right, the right to marry and create a family with your chosen spouse.

Myth #3: Marriage is a sacrament and has always been between one man and one woman.

What You Should Know: Read Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage, by Stephanie Coontz. You’ll learn things you didn’t even know you didn’t know.

I could go on for pages about the ways in which marriage has changed over the years. One man can no longer have eight wives. Women are no longer subsumed by their husband’s identity and viewed as property. Couples are no longer barred from marriage based on their racial makeup. Most importantly, however, couples do not have to have their marriage blessed or sanctified by a religious institution, and they do not have to be married by a member of the clergy. This is the key to the constitutionality argument for same-sex marriage. The court cannot, and must not, and WILL not force religious institutions to officiate marriage for same-gender couples. Religions have the right to dictate their requirements for marriage, and the government may not interfere.

However, the state does not “recognize” religious institutions’ marriages; it creates the official status itself, and it officiates marriages outside the religious sphere. We call this civil marriage. It is an entirely different institution from religious marriage; it just happens that the state grants clergymen the status to officiate civil marriages at the same time as religious ones, for convenience’s purpose, so that a couple can be married in a single ceremony. A couple that goes to church and exchanges vows before witnesses is NOT married unless they fill out the necessary paperwork for a civil marriage. Likewise, a couple can obtain a civil marriage license and be married by a judge, a marriage deputy, or other civil servants acting as agents for the state, and never even interact with a religious institution.

Religious institutions can discriminate against certain couples; for example, most rabbis will not officiate at a marriage between a Jew and a non-Jew, because Jewish law only recognizes as valid a marriage between two Jews. However, the STATE cannot discriminate in the same way and purport to be upholding the Constitution, state OR federal. If the STATE offers civil marriage, it must allow it to all adult couples, not just those who fit religious descriptions of propriety. After all, can you imagine the chaos if the state refused to issue a marriage license to a couple because one of them was Jewish and one was not? It is not the state’s business to uphold or enforce religious restrictions on marriage. (In fact, considering the VAST number of religious institutions and clergy who submitted amicus briefs to the Supreme Court in support of same-gender marriage, I would argue that the state would have been in violation of the Establishment Clause had it NOT allowed the marriages to take place, since barring same-gender couples would have been equivalent to expressing a preference for some religions over others, at the expense of individual civil rights.)

If you want Biblical proof that it hasn’t always been about men and women, read I Samuel, not just the lines I have provided below, but the entire story – and read a translation that is as close to the original Hebrew as possible, as modern versions have diluted the story, often explicitly changing words entirely to tone down the relationship. Think about what it means to make a “covenant.” In nearly every other case in the Bible, the word “covenant” refers to the relationship between God and people, or to people promising to serve God. A covenant is an eternal promise – why else would some states institute “covenant marriages,” which are not as easy to dissolve?

1 Samuel 18

1. And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.

3. Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.

1 Samuel 23

18. And they two made a covenant before the LORD: and David abode in the wood, and Jonathan went to his house.

Myth #4: Allowing same-sex marriage will lead to legalization of incest, pedophilia, and polygamy! Next thing you know, people will be marrying their dogs!

What You Need To Know: It’s far too late for that.

Let’s get this one over with: A dog is not and will never be a consenting adult. Nor will a goat. In addition to being morally and utterly repugnant, sex with animals is always rape, because an animal cannot consent. Likewise, a paw print does not suffice as a signature on a marriage license – and no matter how sure you are that your dog is trying to tell you something, absent a licensed dog-to-human translator, “Arf arf” cannot be properly construed to mean “I do.” Get your mind out of the gutter and stick to the issue at hand.

Incest is already legal in the 26 states where individuals can marry their first cousins. Cousins are the next degree of siblings; they are the children of your parents’ siblings. The great irony of today’s marriage laws is that I can marry my black cousin, the son of my aunt, but I can’t marry my wife. Or rather… I couldn’t. Now I can.

Pedophilia is already legal in the 1/3 of states that allow children under age 16 to marry, with some allowing marriage as early as age 13 with permission from the court. I’d be willing to bet that in most cases the men marrying adolescent girls are not also in their teens. If you want to protect children, you can start by lobbying states to prohibit children from getting married before they are old enough to see R-rated movies.

Polygamy is a separate issue because it doesn’t involve marital prohibition so much as it involves individuals trying to “double-dip” on the marital property and tax systems, among other things. A marriage is a union of two individuals into one economic unit. You can’t “become one” with one person if you’re already “one” with another person. There’s an argument to be made for allowing “threesomes” of people to marry, but I highly doubt anybody would take the economic risk, considering that one individual could wind up paying alimony to everybody else in the group if s/he decided to leave. I think the specter of alimony would be enough to prevent anybody from seriously raising this concern – not to mention that it’s an extremely rare arrangement in the first place.

Myth #5: Gay couples don’t need marriage in order to get their legal matters in order. Calling it “marriage” does nothing but devalue the sanctity of marriage.

What You Need To Know: Allowing committed couples to marry encourages and promotes monogamy and family responsibility, two crucial family values. As a result, federal and state governments have instituted a system of rights and responsibilities that have become necessary and irreplaceable for two people sharing their lives together. These rights are not replicable in private legal arrangements since most of them have to do with third-party or government recognition.

First, I have to point out that same-gender couples can’t possibly do more harm to the institution of marriage than that already inflicted by the heterosexuals who have held a monopoly on it for so long. (Hello Britney; hello “Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?”) With more than half of all marriages ending in divorce, marriage needs all the good role models it can get. Many of the couples that are getting married in California this week have been together longer than most heterosexual marriages ever last. In fact, some social scientists believe that studying the way same-sex couples communicate and deal with conflict may actually help decrease the divorce rate among heterosexual couples by helping them overcome conflict.

Whether you like it or not, same-sex couples will have children. Children fare better in life when their parents are married. Why would you deny these children the right to be raised by married parents? Studies show that there is no substantial difference between children raised by gay parents and those raised by straight parents. They do, however, show that two parents are better than one. Marriage encourages two-parent childrearing, and provides economic safety-nets for situations where one parent abandons the family. Without marriage, the protections are substantially reduced. Marriage also encourages personal responsibility and shifts economic support responsibilities from the government to the individual and the private sector; with gay marriage legalized, many people will no longer have a need for state-provided benefits because they will be eligible for benefits through their spouse.

Children tend to thrive when they have one parent at home and one parent working to support the family; in an ideal world, families could afford to live on the salary of only one working parent (this is becoming less common as the cost of living skyrockets). Federal marriage recognition encourages parents to stay home with their children; spouses are entitled to their deceased spouses’ Social Security benefits if their own are insufficient. Gay couples do not receive this benefit, effectively removing this incentive to keep one parent at home. Additionally, federal marriage recognition keeps families from being uprooted in case of the death of a spouse; the property passes from one spouse to the other without tax repercussions, which means that in the tragic event of one spouse’s death, the other spouse and their children will not be forced to sell their home to pay estate taxes. Gay partners are taxed on bequests as though they were granted by any acquaintance; a partner of 55 years could be forced to sell her home to pay the taxes on property inherited from the deceased partner. Finally, the federal tax system actually penalizes gay couples who choose to have one partner remain at home to care for the children; the wage-earning partner is taxed on her income as a single person even though her salary is supporting both partners and their children. Stay-at-home moms should relate to this – imagine if your husband had to pay taxes as a single person!

I could go on forever, but I think it’s time to wrap up this article. However, I am happy to answer any questions you might have. As for me, my wife and I got married this past Tuesday, on the one-year anniversary of our religious wedding. We were already married in the eyes of God – it was time for the state to catch up.

Boreded Ceiling Cat makinkgz Urf n stuffs

1 Oh hai. In teh beginnin Ceiling Cat maded teh skiez An da Urfs, but he did not eated dem.

2 Da Urfs no had shapez An haded dark face, An Ceiling Cat rode invisible bike over teh waterz.

3 At start, no has lyte. An Ceiling Cat sayz, i can haz lite? An lite wuz.4 An Ceiling Cat sawed teh lite, to seez stuffs, An splitted teh lite from dark but taht wuz ok cuz kittehs can see in teh dark An not tripz over nethin.5 An Ceiling Cat sayed light Day An dark no Day. It were FURST!!!1

NancyKay Shapiro – Let’s all eat trafe for Chanukah!

When will markets LEARN?

Oh gosh. The American Foundation for Self-Righteous and Holier-than-thou Consumption of Pornographic Materials strikes YET AGAIN. I LOVE it when this happens.

Behold, the email I received this week, [and my own contribution, what you know they were thinking, in brackets]:

January 23, 2006

Please help us get this information into the hands of as many people as possible by forwarding it to your entire email list of family and friends. [Seriously. We think they’ll really want to see this one.]

Ford Helps Sponsor Explicit, Sickening [Hot] Homosexual Scene

Description and video of the scene below. [Keep reading; this is a really offensive, explicit one. We promise!]

Dear Obscanity,

Rather than backing down from its support of homosexuality, Ford Motor Company has apparently taken a ‘rub it in your face’ attitude. [Yes. They want to rub it all over your face. How dare they?]

On the January 16 episode of ‘Dirt,’ which airs on the FX channel, Ford helped sponsor one of the most explicit, sickening homosexual scenes ever shown on television.

Because it is so explicit, I could not even include a description of it here. [I needed to give it its own page complete with explicit descriptions and a link to the video.] I hope you will simply trust me. However, if you want to read our [detailed] review of the [hot] scene, or to see the video of the [hot] scene, click here. Be forewarned, it is extremely graphic [and hot].

Ford has made it extremely clear that they have no intentions of ending their support of homosexuality. Among other things, the company reneged on their agreement to remain neutral in the culture wars, increased their support of homosexual publications, sponsored TV programs pushing homosexuality and required employees to attend ‘diversity’ training promoting homosexuality. For more information on Ford’s track record, go to BoycottFord.com. [For more hot man-on-man action, see our previous action alerts.]

Take Action

Send an e-mail to Ford’s new CEO Alan R. Mulally.

Forward this e-mail to your local Lincoln, Mercury, Volvo, Jaguar, Land Rover, Mazda or Ford dealer (all owned by Ford). Find their e-mail address here (click on the auto icon). Ask the dealer to forward it to CEO Mulally.

If you haven’t already done so, please sign the Boycott Ford Pledge.

Print out the Boycott Ford Petition and distribute it at Sunday School and church.

Extremely important! Help us get the word out about Ford by forwarding this to friends and family! For more information on Ford’s support for the homosexual agenda, click here.

Click Here for an update on SB1 and Fox network alerts

If you think our efforts are worthy, would you please support us with a small gift? [Maybe an issue of Playgirl?] Thank you for caring enough to get involved.

Sincerely,

Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman
American Family Association

P.S. Please forward this e-mail message to your family and friends!

Now, if you were wondering what you might find in their ‘review,’ check this out:

The following is a description of a scene taken from the January 16, 2007, episode of ‘Dirt’ on the FX network.

WARNING: The following description is graphic and offensive. [It’s so dirty you’ll want to wash your hands after viewing.]

Two [big, strong, supple] men on a backyard patio are discussing their acting careers when one of them asks the other if he may ask a personal question.

The other man says, ‘Relax. I’ve been thinking the same thing.’ He then places his hands on the first man’s face and pulls him in for a very long, passionate kiss.

He then says, ‘Every since I met you, I’ve been thinking the same thing.’ He then moves one hand down the first man’s shirt and rubs his crotch. Immediately he falls to his knees and begins undoing the man’s belt, pants and zipper. [Mmmm, isn’t that HORRIBLY perverse? Mmmmm. Yes. Perverse. They are bad boys. God hates them. God wants to spank them.]

After gazing at the man’s penis, he moves his head forward toward it.

The scenes cuts to a distance view, where the second man is seen giving the first man oral sex.

[We realize this may not be quite enough for you. In order to show you how TRULY offensive this is, we’ve taken the additional step of uploading the scene to YouTube so that even MORE people can witness this atrocity while typing one-handed (the other hand is on the Bible, of course).] To view the actual scene, Click Here.

I’d forgotten about this, until I received a reply recently that said, simply, ‘Thank you.’ I guess sarcasm is completely lost on them.

I received this email from the American Family Association. All links were included in the email, and I’ve left their emphasis (here’s some background about the AFA’s fabulous emails, if you need reminding):

May 11, 2006

Ford Makes Historic Move in Support of Groups Pushing Homosexual Marriage

Dear Obscanity,

Sign the Pledge! Earlier this year, Ford Motor Company sponsored a program showing two lesbians passionately kissing each other. Now the automaker has made an in-your-face move against traditional marriage advocates with the historic step of advertising all their name brands in a homosexual magazine. This followed a request by AFA that Ford withdraw from supporting any homosexual magazine.

In the May issue of the homosexual publication OUT, Ford has advertised all eight of their brand automobiles. This is first time in history that Ford has advertised all their brands in a homosexual publication.

In this issue of OUT, which Ford supported with their advertising, are articles such as Nightlife: Party All the Time. Here is the description OUT gave of that article: ‘Rockin’ and raunchy queer clubs are making a comeback, and we tell you where the three hottest places to play are.’

Another article was The Mix: Scary Lady, Porn 2 Go. Here is the OUT description: …porn stars cook up their favorite meals for your pleasure…’

Under the title The Long and Short of It, we find this description by OUT: Ronni Radner goes inside Runt, a weekly party for bite-size gay guys and the men who love them, and looks at the rise of the vertically challenged queer man.

To view the front cover of OUT, click here. To see the Ford ad supporting OUT, with all their brands, click here. Notice the wording at the bottom of the ad: ‘Standing strong with America’s families…’ Since this ad was run in a homosexual publication, evidently Ford considers two homosexuals to be a ‘family.’

To which I responded:

‘I want to thank you for the emails you send out regarding homosexuals in the media; were it not for you, I would never get to see two men posing half-naked on a magazine cover, or two girls kissing on TV. Like the rest of your readership, I very much enjoy staring at these images as I commend myself on standing up for morality. You brighten my day with your continuous flow of pictures which I can behold with revulsion as I print them out and paste them on my walls as reminders of your generosity and selflessness. Thank you, AFA. Thank you.’

Tell me if this doesn’t seem more like a promise or an advertisement than a warning:

WARNING: By scrolling down this page, you will see only a few of the offensive photos taken at the last Gay Games. There are dozens more. These photos are provided for informational purposes and only to show the types of activities Kraft Foods is sponsoring at the 2006 Gay Games in Chicago.

Scroll down to see photos.
Scroll down to see photos.
Scroll down to see photos.

I shit you not. This is on the “Gay Games Proof” page created for and linked from the American Family Association’s most recent email, which proclaims, “Kraft Says It Proudly Supports The Gay Games,” and offers these photographs as a representative example of activities commonly held by and/or sponsored by the gay games.

Never mind that these photographs bear the prominent copyright of chrisgeary.com, which is a pornographic site (heads up, AFA members! Not only are they sending you free porn, but they’re telling you where to find more!!). Never mind that these photographs were obviously taken of chrisgeary.com models, for chrisgeary.com. No, clearly these photographs represent the heart, soul and core of the Gay Games. It’s like sending a porn crew to dance outside a junior high school and then using their pictures to convince people that this is what sex education is like. It bears no relevance to anything. (Speaking of inappropriate behavior, did we all hear how Phucking Phred Phelps and his Klan o’Krazies just went to an elementary school to protest and threaten hellfire and brimstone for the homasexshuls because some little kid wrote an essay about Ellen DeGeneres?)

I can add this latest AFA email to my Hall of Shame, along with the following classics I’ve shared in previous posts (emphasis added):

“On December 31, 2004, CBS re-aired an episode of Without A Trace, complete with an extended teen-age orgy scene. The original broadcast of this episode had thousands of FCC complaints against it, which were tossed out in the November FCC/CBS “back-scratching” deal. Click here to view the abominable Without A Trace scene for yourself! Be warned, it contains offensive and graphic scenes.“

and

“YOU WOULD NOT BELIEVE THIS ABOUT PROCTER & GAMBLE, SO WE INCLUDED THE PROOF! . . . Suppose I told you Procter & Gamble created and ran an ad that showed two men (in fuzzy focus at top center of the ad) in bed after an apparent sexual encounter. . . Suppose I told you the ad showed clothing scattered across the floor like the two men were in a hurry to get undressed and get into the bed. . . [Thousands of self-righteous closet-cases are nodding their heads eagerly at this point, anticipating the next line even as they savor the last.] Suppose I told you the P&G ad was captioned with these words: “You were more concerned with taking them off than folding them up.” (In other words, the two men just could not wait to get into bed to have homosexual sex.) . . . Suppose I told you this ad, which leaves the impression that homosexual sex is normal, thrilling and exciting, was created by P&G and run in a homosexual publication called Xtra. I know you would have a hard time believing me. So see it for yourself. Click here to see the ad. If that link is no longer active, Click here. There should be no doubt P&G is aggressively promoting the homosexual agenda. A company doesn’t create and run an ad that leaves the impression that homosexual sex is thrilling and exciting unless they support the homosexual agenda. . .”

How many times can you say homosexual in one email? Does it get them off to say it? Do they say it with that conservative twang, which comes in several delicious variants? You know which ones — the two most common are “HomaSECKshul” and “HowmowSECKshools.” God forbid they should actually say SEX. Hmm. I wonder how the author of these emails says it. Really, I just wonder how old the naked men are — you know, the ones you know he’s imagining with relish as he drools drawls it out.