Support Gay Rights? No Jesus Cookie For You…

[Repost from Jakeneck] Catholic churches around the US are responding to a gay-Catholic rights campaign by denying its supporters communion (that’s when you eat the wafer, or um, the body of Christ…hot!).

Sure, God hates fags. But he hates shrimp too, just about the same. And well, the truth is, God doesn’t hate fags, he just hates gay sex. And I mean, ew, so do I—it’s gross. But, uh, God doesn’t seem to mind lesbians, whereas the commandment says merely that a man should not lie with a man as he does a woman. It says nowhere that a woman can’t lie with a woman… And in fact, considering that a prominent man was expected to keep a harem, you’d kind of hope they would hook up, cuz otherwise all them womens might get hard up and bitchy. N’ah I mean?

And actually, considering all that love and peace shit flowing out of his mouth endlessly, isn’t it a little obvious that…

Can’t queers get a fair shake? A reach-around maybe? Er, I mean, hey… What the fuck is up with this? Fucking eugenecists. Is this how Jesus loves?

Filed under *Uncategorized

16 Responses to “Support Gay Rights? No Jesus Cookie For You…”

  1. The Catholic Church isn’t denying communion to gays. They are denying communion to people protesting the way the Church chooses to interpret G-d’s will. I’m sure if the protesters took off their rainbow sashes inside the church, they can get it.

    You can’t be forgiven if you don’t believe you’re wrong.


    velvel · May 31st, 2004 at 6:42 pm
  2. Does the shulchan orach mention something about lesbians being punished? I remember hearing somewhere that it did.


    RobertTewilliger · June 1st, 2004 at 6:43 am
  3. “Female-female sex acts are forbidden by Torah law under “maaseh eretz mitzrayim.” But the laws of this prohibiton have different details than male-male sex. The commonplace “touchiness” between girls would not be prohibited, arousal notwithstanding.”

    tinylink.com/?dj13CVAmtJ

    looks like i gotta add egypt to my list of places to visit.


    Schneider · June 1st, 2004 at 10:03 am
  4. I’m pretty appalled by the homophobia of this post. If you don’t want to enjoy gay sex, that’s fine, but no need to call it “gross”.


    Anonymous · June 1st, 2004 at 12:01 pm
  5. Mobius may have been joking when he wrote that gay sex is gross – its unclear but its also not the point. He was simply doing an aesthetic judgment which has nothing to do with homophobia.

    i personally think kasha is gross. and so is gay sex. and sometimes heterosexual sex (for instance between two 70-year olds).

    I think there is an important point to be made here – sex is mostly judged in moral terms instead of aesthetic ones. this is one place where we must thank neitzsche for enlightening us. Sex is sex is sex. it could be a lot of fun and it could be really gross, depending on whats your favorite fetish.

    Thus a homophobe is not someone who is merely disgusted by gay sex but applys MORAL judgement to it. If mobius would say that gay sex is WRONG or BAD or something like that, i would agree with you that this is a homophobic remark.

    on the other hand, if mobius would say that rape is merely gross you would agree that this judgement is missing something… and what is that? a moral judgement :)


    Asaf Shtull-Trauring · June 1st, 2004 at 12:45 pm
  6. btw – gay sex can be also really hot. i was just giving an example to make my point.


    Asaf Shtull-Trauring · June 1st, 2004 at 12:46 pm
  7. rape is wrong. gay sex is not wrong when it’s between two consenting adults. it’s just icky. ew. ew. ew. in other words–according to what turns me on, that’s a nasty gross blechy icky turn-off kinda thing. ewwwwww. there is nothing more apalling than the idea of anal sex between two men. ew ew ew. but hey, whatever floats your boat.


    Mobius · June 1st, 2004 at 2:26 pm
  8. how about a friendly salad tossing?


    Schneider · June 1st, 2004 at 2:45 pm
  9. i prefer syrup


    Mobius · June 2nd, 2004 at 10:02 am
  10. Asaf:
    Well said.


    AngerBoy · June 2nd, 2004 at 10:26 am
  11. Syrup as a lube…Mobius, for a guy who says he doesn’t like it, you’re rather creative.


    Solomyr · June 2nd, 2004 at 3:45 pm
  12. uh not quite … click here


    Mobius · June 2nd, 2004 at 10:47 pm
  13. crap sorry … click here instead


    Mobius · June 2nd, 2004 at 10:47 pm
  14. RobertTewilliger & Schneider:
    Yevamot 76a asks whether women who, “rub one against the other” may marry a kohen. R. Huna says no… but the Halakhah rejects his view because there is no penetration… (those dirty Talmudic Rabbis)… The Rambam suggests that the penalty is a good flagelling.


    lerxst12 · June 3rd, 2004 at 4:37 am
  15. As a gay man myself I do not find it homophobic that he finds gay sex gross… I find straight sex gross, yet I adore all the hets in the world.
    Am I breeder-phobic? No… Leave Mobius alone, we are free to express our opinions in this country.

    To tell you the truth, I don’t believe gays should have the right to marry. Marriage is a ceremony before God that a woman and a man share… and we ca’t change God’s words. However, here in Canada, church and state, I am told, is supposed to be seperate, So when Mobius or any man or woman out there wants to get married, they can go get their civil union license, and so will I and my boyfried. And if the Heteros of the world wanna marry, then they can do so in front of their God and their faith. Think about this, someone is not less of a citizen because he/she is not baptised. So why couldn’t I have the same rights as someone who is in a “civil union” with someone straight… and share the same rights.

    food for thought…


    Steph · July 16th, 2004 at 3:47 pm
  16. When I consider the actual presence of god the physical word become far less particular in meaning in relation to the infinate goodness.
    Man on his part determins his own virtue in presence of this experience and does try to live up to his moral self.
    I assumethat the gay man or woman can actually find peace with themselve when a god of infinate virtue would not bother to dicern the difference of people based uopn a morality that is concieved by man himself reguarding instinctual bias.


    gerald bauske · March 12th, 2006 at 6:30 pm

Leave a Reply

If your comment does not immediately appear, do not freak out and repost your message a dozen times. Please note that all new visitors must have their first comment approved by the editor, and you must provide a legitimate e-mail address and use the same username for the system to "remember" you. The editor maintains the right to refuse comments deemed inappropriate or unhelpful. Users who repeatedly delve into ad hominem attacks or other troll-like behavior will be banned.

Trackback (Right-click & 'Copy Link...') | Comments RSS

"I may attack a certain point of view which I consider false, but I will never attack a person who preaches it. I have always a high regard for the individual who is honest and moral, even when I am not in agreement with him. Such a relation is in accord with the concept of kavod habriyot, for beloved is man for he is created in the image of God." —Rav Joseph Soloveitchik