Newt Gingrinch, Republicans And Gay Marriage

Newt Gingrinch and the Republicans are now waffling on all the issues the voters have already answered no to. Gay marriage is
a major part of the socialist putsch to universtal Obamacare. It’s one more component leading to all out fascism, aristocracy, and neo-nazi socialism.
So, I’m rerunning this article from 2003 to review, again, how neither left or right are listening to what the voters have actually said. There is a choice: Vote Jim Casey!

A Straight Eye For The Queer Guy
(and binoculars for the colored folks)

By Mr. Jim Casey
November 5, 2003

You know, it’s funny, in a queer sort of way. I can remember a good
friend of mine from long ago who once chastised me quite roundly for the inappropriate use
of the word “queer.” He (only a friend mind you) informed me that words like “gay” and
“queer” were good words gone bad when used as slang for homosexuality. A major
social faux pas to be likened to the use of the “N” word when discussing colored folks…oops,
excuse me, I mean to say blacks, er uh, or is it currently African American?

It seems to me I also remember recently seeing a broadcast television program making casual, and
apparently acceptable use of that very jargon. I might have thought queers, and black people alike (both minorities, right?), would more likely prefer to simply drop the designators altogether. For the most part, I’d say that has occurred where blacks are concerned. I used to enjoy watching “The Jefferson’s,” for instance. It wasn’t ever advertised as the show about colored folks moving on up. Nope, it was an entertaining program that so happened to be about black people.

I tended to agree with my long lost friend, especially since classic author Ernst Steinbeck wrote about a character named “Jim Casy” and referred to him as “a little queer.” Now, I know, Bill Clinton said “don’t ask don’t tell,” but I’m afraid ole’ Ernie begs the question. Some folks have called me strange and unconventional, but by no means — in it’s modern connotation — have I ever been “queer.” No siree, I ain’t no butt crammer, never have been, never will be.

Now that that’s straight, so to speak, I can move on to the focal point of this week’s column.

Last week the Episcopal Church consecrated it’s first openly gay bishop. The Episcopals
are a Christian Church, and one can only wonder how and why declared homosexuals are so
interested in following a religion that is so clearly and repeatedly opposed to homosexuality.
Anyone who has ever read The Bible knows that even in the new testament, homosexuality is
clearly considered aberrant, and sinful.

In the scheme of things, being a Christian, I never have thought to persecute homosexuals.
I really believe in “love the sinner” and “hate the sin.” But, I can’t possibly see why some “Christian” Churches wish to condone homosexuality outright.
You would think that the gay flock would rather create their own religion, based on their
own beliefs and understanding. They could even get their own boy priest. Ready for the stereotypical cliche? It seems to me they are
confused. Butt, then, I congress.

Gay marriage and adoption is one area where homosexuals are definitely out on a
limb. Homosexuality cannot possibly be genetic. If it were, then where do the new
queers come from? If similarly equipped people whiff together, they just aren’t going to
make a new baby. How can gay genes be passed on? So, what’s up with
the adoption thing? Am I supposed to believe that homosexuals are oriented naturally, and yet they still have the other part of the procreation instinct — the desire to propagate their own
kind by having children? Something just doesn’t fit there.

I’ve also noticed that many heterosexuals loose their tolerance when it comes to gay marriage
and benefits. I agree with them. I have to wonder why the gays don’t appreciate the tolerance and acceptance that they now have, without forcing the issue to the point that it backfires on them. The effort to legitimize homosexuality by the Episcopalians has resulted in a backlash already, and may well add fuel to fire of those who do persecute homosexuals. I wouldn’t agree to that.

Since I have already dared to lump the two minorities of colored folks and queers into the
same column, I’ll go ahead and suggest that the two cultures are similar in that
they sometimes don’t seem to know what’s in their own best interest. The queers may actually do their cause more harm than good for the reasons already discussed. Long ago, bigots would say
that black people weren’t so smart, and that they were suffering from the “bell curve.”
I’ve known quite a few really smart black people, so I don’t think that’s exactly true.
And, in spite of the fact that they sometimes don’t seem too intelligent, it’s one thing you can say about queers too, they sure aren’t suffering from no bell curves.

In the black community, I have to wonder why so much music, and culturing, continues to center around negative themes and obscenities, including the “N” word. Don’t get me wrong on this either. I understand, and appreciate, the need for artistic expression in order to vent, express, represent, and to sublimate, and to seek familiar common ground with others. But, I also believe that the trend has gone so far over the line that it ends up fostering denigration
in the people who listen to it. It certainly doesn’t earn much respect by those who don’t.

Well, you know they say “live and let live.” And although I enjoy listening to Paul
McCartney (who says live and let die), I pretty much agree with that philosophy. For the record though, I
don’t consider the homosexuals to be a minority, because I don’t accept the
homosexual orientation as being genetic. I know, that sounds like something out
of The Bible.

And, just in case you’re thinking I’m gettin’ uppity and you really want to know who do I think I am? Calm down a little bit and I’ll tell you. Just a dumb ole’ white cracker man, that’s who.

I guess everthing don’t change much.

© 2012 – Jim Casey Red HOT Uploads