Colbert Truthiness

 

SCANDAL is ROCKING the Republican Pledge-scape!

Colbert:  On the fourteen-point pledge [political] candidates have to first vow “Personal fidelity to my spouse.”  That is essential for candidates to have to swear to that one…cus that vow they said at their wedding?….BULLSH#T!

 

Michele Bachman’s husband’s Christian Counseling Center Cures Gayness!

Colbert:  Christianity is the best way to cure gayness!  Just get on your knees, take a swig of wine, and except the body of a man into your mouth!

For the July 12, 2011 episode in its hilarity, click on his picture.  His guest is sex-columnist Dan Savage discussing marriage and monogamy!  Do not miss it!

Compos Mentis: Rationality Prevails, For Now

Paul Clement and John Boehner are key crusaders for DOMA

Anti-discrimination advocates received great news over a week ago Monday, April 25th.  The law firm King & Spalding, hired by Speaker John Boehner and House Republicans to spend overspent taxpayer dollars to defend DOMA (the Defense Of Marriage Act), withdrew their representation of the case.  If you are unaware of the litigation details, basically supporters of DOMA feel that gay-lesbians who want to marry, not only for the EQUAL legal benefits that hetero marriages freely enjoy, but just as much for the sake of “love“.  They are clearly discriminated upon by not being legally allowed to marry under the guise of DOMA.  Very specific religious-based groups who do not represent the entire diverse American population (much less the rest of the free-world), feel it is their “God-given” right to enact laws binding others how they are to live their personal lives.  How have other religious-based power groups used the same God-given battle cry at the cost of basic human rights and lives?  How many can you name and are their principles much different?

With my already published blog Sexual & Gender Ambiguity as my personal foundation on this issue, I am not going to waste my time or yours with the political rhetoric and unsound empty premises that DOMA and its supporters use.  Here is my parody of the issue and how I condense their bottom-line:

Only heterosexual couples deserve all the personal and legal benefits of marriage in America.  Period.

Well no, let me rephrase that to show more accurately the DOMA logic:

Only white-with-white, or Afro-American-with-Afro-American heterosexual couples deserve all the personal and legal benefits of marriage in America.  Period.

Well, no no, let me rephrase that again to show more accurately the logic:

Only people with exactly 10-fingers and 10-toes who can produce children naturally through federally approved intercourse, deserve all the personal and legal benefits of marriage in America.  Period.

Well, no that doesn’t work quite right either.  Let us rephrase it again:

Despite that well over half of American heterosexual marriages end in divorce more than once, spending untold amounts of sparse overspent taxpayer dollars in court fees, etc., let’s pretend they represent TRUE LOVE (since “God” agrees only with heteros) and hence are the only couples who deserve all the personal and legal benefits of marriage in America. Period….until we can sound more convincing the next time.

Various amounts of sexual hormones then genitalia develop first at the molecular level, not according to any post-natal religious propaganda.

Well, that last bottom-line doesn’t work either because who or what has the right to define what true love is…the Federal or State governments?  Or more poignantly, the U.S. Constitution?  As any elementary school student will recognize, the rationale behind these highlighted DOMA premises might seem ridiculous, but I hope they show the incredulous basis behind any person or legal/political organization trying to dictate onto persons and their private lives what defines the sanctity of marriage, love, or gender combinations the two belong.  As my last ‘rephrase’ points out, American heterosexual marriages CERTAINLY have no track record worthy to define what love, marriage, or where the gender combinations belong.

My instinct tells me that DOMA advocates will grasp further outside Constitutional jurisdictions, calling upon their own individual religious or faith-based presumptions that discriminate against another sector of people with differing world or religious views.  For me, it is glaringly obvious which position should be given legitimate “Constitutional protection“!

I remind readers that these views are as much a parody as they are a personal method to cause reflection on a subject that is ultimately OUTSIDE governmental or religious dictation.  I also urge readers to read my earlier blog Sexual & Gender Ambiguity to gain proper perspective on my personal position on this discriminatory issue.  While ‘hate‘ messages are not permitted, dialogue is most certainly welcomed.  Thank you for respecting this.

[Later addition]  Former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who vetoed a bill in 2005 for legalizing same-sex marriage in California, admitted May 17th, 2011 that ten years earlier he fathered a child with another woman other than his wife.  He never told her or his children, and most certainly while being governor paid-off monthly child support to keep this unethical behavior out of the public eye.  Whether Schwarzenegger is a great example of the “sanctity of heterosexual marriage” or not, is not the real issue.  The very REAL issue is America’s acceptance of not only non-monogomous marriages or relationships, but more importantly getting out of everyone’s personal lives and bedrooms and concerning themselves with and accepting the ethical sanctity of humanity instead of the genetic-hormonal-sexual differences of humanity.  One of the best things now that Schwarzenegger can do to save face is reverse his position on same-sex marriage and start campaigning for its legalization.  For more on this important genetic-sexual issue, read my blog Sexual & Gender Ambiguity.

 

Creative Commons License
This work by Professor Taboo is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at https://professortaboo.wordpress.com.

The Curious Perplexity of Attachment

“Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day?
Thou art more lovely and more temperate;
Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May,
And summer’s lease hath all too short a date;
Sometime too hot the eye of heaven shines,
And often is his gold complexion dimm’d;
And every fair from fair sometime declines,
By chance or nature’s changing course untrimm’d;
But thy eternal summer shall not fade,
Nor lose possession of that fair thou ow’st;
Nor shall Death brag thou wander’st in his shade,
When in eternal lines to time thou grow’st:
So long as men can breathe or eyes can see,
So long lives this, and this gives life to thee.”

(line break)

∼ ∼ ∼ ∼ ∼ ∼ ∼ ∼
(line break)

I was contacted over the last several months by a few old, intimate friends, some of which were ex-girlfriends.  I considered these now defunct dating relationships (and still do) to be quite significant to my life whether past or present.  Now they have disappeared into that mysterious lost world of attachment, again.  If history holds true, I should not hear from them again for another ten or twelve months or more, or perhaps never again.  Why is that?

(line break)

I suppose the freedom and pursuit of happiness and meaningful experience in all of our human interactions is in these cases just too risky an endeavor within the subtle framework of traditional attachment.  These situations sadden me to be honest because it was they who missed me and contacted me after so long.  I find this curious and perplexing… and so I write.

(line break)

I did not graduate from elementary and junior high school by passing one subject.  I did not graduate from high school or college by passing one subject.  As obvious as those implications might seem, why did we all take so many various subjects throughout our educations?  What did it benefit us?  Why was it required to pass many subjects?  Could we not have functioned or succeeded in life just as well with only one single subject of study?  Of course not, so why should our relationships/friendships be any different?

(line break)

Allow me to put this analogy in another perspective.  How about your teachers or your classmates?  Would it be considered well and fine if they forbid you to study any other subject but their own?  Or what about the not so ancient business of human slavery?  Isn’t it fine and well to own slaves to benefit the personal well-being of the owner?  Of course not, so why should our relationships/friendships be any different?

Yet, too often I discover this curious, perplexing attachment in relationships today.  One subject and one subject only… and it seems to be either chosen or enforced, verbally or non-verbally, in action or by passiveness.  Very reminiscent of ages and civilizations gone when proprietary rights ruled in all aspects of life and home.

Edgar Cayce believed, as I believe, that soul mates (i.e. persons in our life that through interaction we become acutely aware of our shortcomings and our abilities) were to be embraced…forever.

Soul mates (not one but many) are individuals that are not our full compliment or other half that makes us complete, but rather in being with those individuals we are provided with an impetus to become whole ourselves AND to offer the same to them.”

Fullfillment, happiness, problems or obstacles are all presented in the relationships/friendships for a purpose:

they are infinite opportunities of invaluable assistance to mature mentally, emotionally, physically, and spiritually.  Soul mates are not to be feared by a partner, but on the contrary should be encouraged by both to grow as they may.”

How well do you live freely?  How well do you love freely?  How deeply and how freely are YOU loved…and how freely is it given?

“…When in eternal lines to time thou grow’st: So long as men can breathe or eyes can see, so long lives this, and this gives life to thee.

(paragraph break)

Creative Commons License
This work by Professor Taboo is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at https://professortaboo.wordpress.com.