Some more good news...from Arkansas, of all places

The Arkansas Supreme Court has struck down an anti-gay adoption law.

Unanimously, yet.

Pointing to the findings of a lower court that overturned the ban, the Court criticized the Child Welfare Agency Review Board’s reasons for enacting the regulation, writing, “These facts demonstrate that there is no correlation between the health, welfare, and safety of foster children and the blanket exclusion of any individual who is a homosexual or who resides in a household with a homosexual.”

The court found that there was no validity to the arguments made by opponents of gay adoption, noting that: Children of lesbian and gay parents are just as well-adjusted as children of heterosexual parents; Being raised by gay parents doesn’t increase the risk of psychological, behavioral, academic, gender identity, or any other sort of adjustment problems; Being raised by gay parents doesn’t prevent children from forming healthy relationships with their peers and others; There is no factual basis for saying that gay parents might be less able to guide their children through adolescence than heterosexual parents; There is no evidence that gay people, as a group, are more likely to engage in domestic violence or sexual abuse than heterosexual people; The exclusion of gay people and people with gay family members may be harmful to children because it excludes a pool of effective foster parents.

This is where the Holy Terrors will lose the war; in the courts. There's no justifiable legal reason to discriminate against homosexuals. The Holy Terrors know this, and that's why they're pushing for an amendment enacting discrimination into the Constitution.

An Update On Yesterday's Post...

Credit where credit is due...

Christina Page hit the nail on the head. Yesterday's post discussed how the Holy Terrors would attack the HPV vaccine not directly, but through the argument that mandatory inoculations would be taking decision-making authority away from parents.

First, the good news. The ACIP issued its recommendations today and the committee's given the green light to inoculations for women and girls between 9 and 26.

From the news article...

The recommendation involves Gardasil, which is made by Merck & Co. and is the first vaccine specifically designed to prevent cancer. Approved earlier this month by the Food and Drug Administration for females ages 9 to 26, it protects against strains of the human papilloma virus, or HPV, which causes cervical, vulvar and vaginal cancers and genital warts.

Health officials estimate that more than 50 percent of sexually active women and men will be infected with one or more types of HPV in their lifetimes. Vaccine proponents say it could dramatically reduce the nearly 4,000 cervical cancer deaths in the United States each year.

The vaccine is considered most effective when given to girls before they become sexually active. About 7 percent of children have had sexual intercourse before age 13, and about a quarter of boys and girls have had sex by age 15, according to government surveys.

The committee's vote was unanimous, with two of the 15 members abstaining because of they have worked on Merck-funded studies.

The committee also voted to add the HPV vaccine to the coverage list for the federal Vaccines for Children program, which pays for immunizations for the poor. That could mean $50 million to $100 million in additional spending in the first year, government officials said.

Now the bad news. As Ms. Page predicted, the Holy Terrors are back on the warpath.

Earlier this year, the Family Research Council, a conservative group, did not speak out against giving the HPV shot to young girls. The organization mainly opposes making it one of the vaccines required before youngsters can enroll in school, said the group's policy analyst, Moira Gaul.
Another organization, Colorado-based Focus on the Family, was even stronger in voicing fears that states would require schoolchildren to get HPV shots.

"By giving its highest level of recommendation, the panel has placed strong pressure on state governments to make HPV vaccinations mandatory," Linda Klepacki, a Focus on the Family analyst for sexual health, said in a statement.

"If that happens, state officials, not parents, would become the primary sexual-health decision makers for America's children. That's the way things are done in dictatorships, not democracies."

The emphases are mine.

Elsewhere in the AP article, it's pointed out that the ACIP hasn't recommended mandatory inoculations yet, but Planned Parenthood has endorsed that action. So the Holy Terrors are jumping the gun at this point, but why wait until the last minute?

The article also points out that studies indicate the vaccine would have little impact on sexual activity.

In a recent survey of virgins 15 to 19, only 10 percent of boys and 7 percent of girls cited fear of disease as a reason not to have sex, Liddon said.

Still, we can count on the same shit, different day coming from the Holy Terrors. States' rights are being impeded, parental rights are being trampled upon, another government intrusion into peoples, private lives. One wonders how much they'd have objected to polio vaccines or measles shots or smallpox vaccines. Of course, none of those were sexually transmitted diseases.

Here's the rub. By framing the debate as one of states' rights and parents' rights, the Holy Terrors are making it clear they value chastity more than they value human life. They'd still rather have women be dead than sexually active.

What color is the sky in their world?

"Dad? Mom? I've got a confession to make. Ever since I was vaccinated against HPV, I've...I've...got the uncontrollable urge to be sexually active."

"Oh, my darling little girl!"

"Damn those mandatory vaccination programs!"

"It's the funniest thing, Mom. Knowing I'm safe from cervical cancer has made me slutty as a whore with the fleet in port. Even worse..."

"Yes, Penelope?"

"I've become more morally tolerant when it comes to social and personal issues."

"NOOOOOOO!!!"

"Then next thing you know she'll be watching reruns of 'Will and Grace.'"

Not a pretty picture, is it?

Back To The War On Whoopie...

From Nerve.com...

Okay, class. Review session! As you will recall, we recently discussed how human pappilomavirus, (HPV) is a sexually transmitted disease which can cause genital warts and, in extreme cases, cervical cancer. Pharmaceutical companies Merck and Glaxo-Smith Klein have been developing vaccines to immunize against HPV and potentially save millions of lives. As you will also recall, I've spent some time ranting lately about how the Holy Terrors at first tried to discourage the approval of the new HPV vaccine, then did an about-face when they discovered (horrors!!!) that it was giving them some bad press.

Let's jump into the wayback machine...

To directly quote:

Bridget Maher, spokesperson for the Family Research Council, believes that last bit of good news may not be such good news after all. “Giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful, because they may see it as a license to engage in premarital sex.”

Later on, as documented, the FRC went all nicey-nice about Merck's obtaining approval for the vaccine from the FDA.

However, according to this article in Nerve, the Holy Terrors, as expected, aren't REALLY concerned with preventing cervical cancer.

Christina Page's article lays out the Holy Terrors' game plan. Rather than attack the vaccine directly (and come out being the bad guys), they're going after state programs to REQUIRE vaccination of schoolchildren, so they're coming across as only being interested in preserving parents' choices.

From the article:

Focus on the Family hailed the vaccine as "a tremendous breakthrough in science that will likely save millions of women's lives around the world," but said it would oppose mandatory HPV vaccinations. Likewise, The Family Research Council may now "support the widespread distribution of vaccines against HPV," but "would oppose any measures to legally require vaccination."

According to Dr. Gregory Zimet, chair of the vaccine committee at the Society for Adolescent Medicine, this is the Right's attempt to repackage its original agenda. "The softening of their position came, at least in part, from the recognition that being labeled as pro-cancer didn't really fit well with their attempt to present themselves as pro-life," said Zimet. "Many of them are now saying, 'We've never been opposed to it,' even though I looked at their websites a year and a half ago and they were. What they've done is said, 'Of course we're not opposed to this vaccine that can save the lives of our daughters, our wives and our mothers — but we just don't think it should be forced on people.' So, I think partly [the new message] is cover and partly it may be a warning — as they say, a shot across the bow." It will be up to the states to decide whether the HPV vaccine is, like innoculations against polio and diptheria, required for a child to proceed through school. "As states begin to consider the potential for mandating a vaccine like this," says Zimet, "They are forewarned that these groups will put resources to fight it."

One asshole to keep an eye on is Reginald Finger. He used to be the Focus On The Family's medical advisor. Now, he's sitting on the board of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) which will meet tomorrow (June 29th) to make recommendations to the Centers for Disease Control about whether and how to administer any HPV vaccine program. A few months ago, according to Ms. Page's article, Finger said, "If people begin to market the vaccine or tout the vaccine [so as to suggest] that this makes adolescent sex safer, then that would undermine the abstinence-only message."

Same old song and dance...except this nimrod isn't just a whore for the Holy Terrors' lobbying groups. He's a Bush-appointed whore grown fat on our tax dollars. "Don't inoculate your kids against HPV! If they're going to have pre-marital sex let 'em risk cancer! That'll teach them to keep their pants up and skirts down! And Uncle Sam? You can just direct-deposit that paycheck, can't you?"

Speaking as the father of four, (with two smack in the middle of puberty, God Help me!) I want my kids armed to the teeth against every STD out there, as soon as possible. It would be insanely naive of me to think my kids wouldn't dream of exploring their sexuality before they got married (and I was long in the grave). Hell, my dad was pretty forthright and up front with me when it came to sex, and there are still things I did behind his back. My kids need a vaccine against HPV for the same reason they needed shots against polio, diphtheria, tetanus, and on and on and on. My kids don't live in germ-free contact-free bubbles any more than I did. It would be incredibly stupid of me not to protect my kids as much as possible.

Except, of course, if I were a Holy Terror. Then, I'm just one of the crowd.

Just a mild rant, here...why write about sex? Why not?

True story.

A few years ago I was a member of an email group for aspiring writers of all genres. One of the group members sent an email asking for help writing sex scenes for her romance novel. She'd never done one before and she was wondering where to start. I obligingly sent a response email to the group with several suggestions and tips.

Sheesh! From the group's response you'd think she was an Al Qaida operative and I'd sent her tips on how to make a bomb. The group lambasted her for her willingness to sacrifice her novel's integrity by turning it into a porn rag and for gratuitiously going for cheap sex. As for me, I was branded a pornographer (not that that's a bad thing, but it wasn't intended as a compliment) and, worse, I was bringing an aspiring real writer down with me into the muck. Not sure if the group was trying to make me a pimp or a panderer, or a pedophile. I was definitely a corruptive influence upon the woman to whom I was trying to give (solicited) advice, and upon the group as a whole.

Needless to say, I quit the email group. I've got better ways to waste my time than to put up with that kind of shit. I did, however, get a private email from the writer who'd unwittingly started all the trouble, thanking me for my advice.

Why write about sex? For me, the basic answer is simple; because I like reading about it. Almost as much as I like doing it. And, frankly, there's not enough sex-related literature out there, IMHO. Non-fiction, or otherwise. For me, one of the frustrating things about documenting the War On Whoopie is that the very topic of S-E-X is so mortifying to most people they can't even discuss the issue unless it's late at night, the kids are in bed, and everyone's had at least a couple of shots of liquid courage.

It's easy to fall back on the topic of sex itself as taboo, where even a brief discussion brings out the prudes with their arguments that sex is a cheap way to score a few readers or viewers.

I say that's bullshit. In fact, a few generous dollops of sex here and there add spice to what we read, view, or listen to. People don't watch "Desperate Housewives" because of the well-manicured lawns. I write about sex because I like reading about sex and discussing sex. Sex is one of the two great passions of life. Why not write about it? Very few things evoke so many extreme emotions, good and bad.

Some people say the extremity of those emotions is what's so bad about sex. Nobody's into subtlety, anymore. Why must depictions of sex be so graphic?

Well, the goal of the story or picture is to attract attention, isn't it? And let's face it; demure or tactful doesn't get you airtime. Shock value works because it works. And maybe if more frank discussion and images about sex are more prevalent, it won't be suck a big deal anymore.

I'm willing to take that chance. I don't mind being considered too direct for polite society. Polite society is boring.

Let's talk about sex, Baby.

Somebody didn't get Pat Robertson's memo...

The new head of the U.S. Episcopalian Church is acting...well...with compassion, love, and understanding.

Who knew?

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Newly elected leader of the U.S. Episcopal Church Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said on Monday she believed homosexuality was no sin and homosexuals were created by God to love people of the same gender.
Jefferts Schori, bishop of the Diocese of Nevada, was elected on Sunday as the first woman leader of the 2.3 million-member Episcopal Church. the U.S. branch of the worldwide Anglican Communion. She will formally take office later this year.

Interviewed on CNN, Jefferts Schori was asked if it was a sin to be homosexual.

"I don't believe so. I believe that God creates us with different gifts. Each one of us comes into this world with a different collection of things that challenge us and things that give us joy and allow us to bless the world around us," she said.


"Some people come into this world with affections ordered toward other people of the same gender and some people come into this world with affections directed at people of the other gender."

Later in the article...

Asked how she reconciled her position on homosexuality with specific passages in the Bible declaring sexual relations between men an abomination, Jefferts Schori said the Bible was written in a very different historical context by people asking different questions.

"The Bible has a great deal to teach us about how to live as human beings. The Bible does not have so much to teach us about what sorts of food to eat, what sorts of clothes to wear -- there are rules in the Bible about those that we don't observe today," she said.

"The Bible tells us about how to treat other human beings, and that's certainly the great message of Jesus -- to include the unincluded."

Amen, Sister.

Although I'm a student of faiths, I don't know a lot about the Episcopalians other than they're considered "Anglicans" in England (being the Church of England) and they recently consecrated a gay bishop, Gene Robinson, in New Hampshire.

Oh, yeah. John Shelby Spong is an Episcopalian minister. How could I forget him?

If the Episcopalians keep this up, I might have to go back to church someday.

From Wikipedia, of all places

I used to read encyclopedias when I was a kid. I've lost interest since they've gone online, but this might make me browse them all over again.




Seems this fellow tracked down all the dirty images found on Wikipedia and put them in a single place for the sake of convenience.

What a nice guy.

I'll even throw in a political one.

About that anti-gay Constitutional Amendment...

The Senate's failure to get a proposed Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage happened a few days ago. Normally, I'd have posted something addressing that issue as soon as the amendment went down to horrible, devastating, painful, humiliating defeat.

However, I'd opted to wait a few days and allow a little distance to let the issue develop some perspective.

Nah, that's bullshit. Sometimes you just get busy, you know?

Anyway, what strikes me about the whole fucking waste of time was the fact that Bush knew his amendment had no chance, the ReThuglicans in the Senate knew they had no chance, and the Christo-fascists in the House know THEY'LL have no chance when it comes up later this year.

So why bother?

Because they're looking at approval numbers in the twenties and thirties and they know they've got to do SOMETHING to shore up their base. It's called in some circles, "pandering." I call it "whoring."

But the kicker is, Bushco's base is rock-solid behind him no matter what he does. Bush could get caught on FOX News anally raping Karl Rove on his desk in the Oval Office and screaming, "Squeal like a piggy" and Bush's base would say, "That's the beauty of compassionate conservatism. It's just a giving ideology."

So what does it all mean? First, Bushco is in panic mode. Rather than move to the center, Dear Leader is moving so far right he's about to head off the cliff and into oblivion. Again, Bush's base will suck his dick no matter what he does, so there's not much point in whoring himself for them any more. His numbers won't get much lower than where they already are.

Second, the pro-sexual freedom forces are still somewhat in disarray. Rather than seize the opportunity and put some valid talking points out there for consideration, they were content to simply sit back and watch King George and his fellow whores trip all over themselves. A successful strategy this time, but if we're going to win on this issue once and for all, we need something coherent and assertive.

Such as? I'm glad you asked.

1. In a truly free society, whatever consenting adults choose to do in their bedrooms is their own affair and nobody else's. Freedom rests in the confidence that one's own life and lifestyle aren't threatened by outside forces. If my gay neighbors down the street want to get married, I have enough faith in the strength of my own marriage not to be threatened by what they want to do. Those who try to stifle the liberties of their neighbors are so intimidated and weakened and lacking confidence in their own resolve that they have to remove any and all opportunities to deviate from what they perceive is the straight and narrow.

Furthermore, it is a violation of the most basic principles of human dignity to invade the sanctity of that most intimate form of human interaction, sex. Truly moral behavior means demonstrating the respect for one's neighbor's choices and lifestyle to not be threatened by that lifestyle and to leave those neighbors alone to practice those certain inalienable rights which include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

In short, to those who wish to limit freedom of association (especially in a sexual context)

Mind your own business.

(Catchy slogan, there. I like that).

Quote of the day (week?)

"I'm a man! When a man's seen one woman naked...he wants to see them all naked!" Steve (Jack Davenport), BBC's "Coupling"

And now the bad news...

King George has decided he needs to do SOMETHING to make his base happy, so rather than properly arm and supply the troops in Iraq, rather than address the monstrous deficit, rather than do something, ANYTHING constructive, he does this

As if this is the most important issue facing the American people today.

"President Bush will promote a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage on Monday, the eve of a scheduled Senate vote on the cause that is dear to his conservative backers.

The amendment would prohibit states from recognizing same-sex marriages. To become law, the proposal would need two-thirds support in the Senate and House, and then be ratified by at least 38 state legislatures."

The amendment doesn't stand a chance of passing, but I'm getting upon my soapbox about it for two reasons:

First, it goes back to what I've been saying for what feels like forever these days, the Holy Terrors that put Uncurious George into office want nothing less than the total eradication of anything fun about sex. That means anything which doesn't expressly produce more cannon fodder for overseas wars (within the bonds of matrimony, of course) is bad. So anything involving sex for love or just for fun is just bad, bad, bad.

Second, it's not as if there's been this marriage crisis which requires an amendment to the Constitution anytime soon. Bush is just pandering to his base.

The worst thing about this is the fact that it's giving the Holy Terrors an excuse to rev up their hate machine.

It's going to get ugly.

Had a helluva day today...

But the day's not over yet...

I've been working on pizza and my fourth beer in half an hour...

Lonesome George Thorogood on the CD player...

and I'm horny as hell. The only thing to make the night complete would be some pussy, but that's coming later.

In the meantime...



it doesn't get much better than this