Now, I realize that not all gay people behave inappropriately.


by Ted Grant

The tax-filing deadline is fast approaching, and gay couples face a particularly unique hurdle, what with the patchwork of state and federal laws regarding gay marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships. A good tax preparer is essential. Which is why it was so surprising when one couple discovered that the at-home, on-line tax prep software from H&R Block doesn’t support a joint tax return function for civil unions in Connecticut, a state where such unions are legal and those in them can file joint state returns.

Let’s see how the commentators at The Consumerist took that news, shall we?

i don’t support civil unions either. go H&R block!

You know, for a site allegedly devoted to detailing consumer rights issues, the readership seems to side with corporations an awful lot of the time…

Oh, shut up. Fact is, this is the first time in our nation’s history that our government has legislated protection for a behavior. If homosexuals didn’t advertise their sexual tastes, they wouldn’t need legislative protections. I don’t walk, talk, and dress in a manner that screams, “Overweight women with big floppy breasts get me off.” That would be inappropriate. Equally inappropriate are flaming gay men who act like little girls to ensure everyone around them knows exactly how they like to take it in bed, and I take great offense to being told by my government that I have to pretend this is acceptable. It isn’t.

Look, I don’t care if gay people want to live together and be gay together. More power to them, this is a free country. I do mind being forced to financially support their homosexuality in the form of benefits for “partners.” I’m not saying they can’t be gay, just saying I want nothing to do with it.

Yes, God forbid you have to be reminded who a gay man is sleeping with. As opposed to the exhaustive coverage the media devotes to which famous straight person is sleeping with who.

Of course, you had to bring race into this. You people always do and it’s clear what you’re doing - trying to paint me as a racist bigot since you can’t win your argument without attacking my character. The comparison is invalid, and I’ll tell you why: A black man can’t help that his skin is black. Anyone who sees him will immediately know he is black and there’s nothing fair he can do about that (clearly asking black people to bleach their skin is barbaric).

A gay man, on the other hand, can very well help his behavior in public. He does not need to behave in a manner that informs everyone what type of sex he likes and it’s perfectly fair for others to ask him not to advertise what turns him on. This is what I, and for that matter most of the rest of the American population, find offensive. The stereotypical homosexual behaviors - limp wrist, dressing outrageously, giggling like a schoolgirl, etc - can be controlled and we should not have discrimination laws that protect these controllable behaviors. Note that I feel the same about heterosexuals who dress, talk and/or behave in a manner that advertises their sexual desires.

Now, I realize that not all gay people behave inappropriately. I work with and have friends who are gay and I like them all just fine. What they do behind closed doors is no more of my business than what sexual positions my wife and I use is of theirs - and that’s the key: The gays I like and respect don’t advertise their sexual desires. In fact, you’d never know they were gay until you really got to know them.

Ah, the old “I know a gay guy, and I don’t beat the crap out of him every time I see him, therefore I can’t possibly be a homophobe” arguement…



I’ll be over at Aint It Cool News where the right to free speech is still enforced. You cocksm’kers! Get the duck sauce out of your ears.


by Brought to you by Carl's, Jr.

It’s true that established film critics are slowly losing ground as print publications’ markets shrink. One of the latest to get the axe is Newsweek critic David Ansen, a truly sane and entertaining voice that will be missed by many. I saw this announced on Rotten Tomatoes, a site I hardly ever visit, and, because I’m a moron, I decided to check the comments.

Now instead of getting a boring old 2007 BMW they can now afford the 2008 series.

Kind of an obtuse line. The OP misinterprets:

he point is not that he’s being replaced by a “2008 series” but that his position and that of tons more critics around the country is being eradicated. It won’t be upgrading an old model, it’ll be making everyone (readers) drive the exact same car.


Okay, a simple misunderstanding. Happens all the time. But the internet wouldn’t be the internet if it couldn’t turn an acknowledged misunderstanding into an instantly over-the-top flamewar.

you two no speaka english…I make interesting comments that add fuel to the fire not this boring politically correct disney sh’t, please! When I said they can afford the 2008 series I mean’t Newsday, Newsweek and village voice execs not the critics that got booted, who gives a sh’t about them! I can watch movies on my own and make my own opinions and not rely on people like Mr. Ansen here. I’m my own man I don’t need this guy telling me what’s good! I’ll be over at Aint It Cool News where the right to free speech is still enforced. You cocksm’kers! Get the duck sauce out of your ears.

Why a person who doesn’t give “a sh’t” about movie critics feels the need to visit and comment on a site like Rotten Tomatoes—and raise a voice in support of critics—is something that goes unasked and unanswered.

Wait, he’s back!

Minderbinder here’s another fagg’t. Did I hurt your feelings? You remind me of my girlfriend when she’s on her period. Wahhhh! I can’t post on RT cause this kid is annoying WAHHHHH!!! Get over it’s a silly bullsh*t forum board. You come here to talk sh”t and say what you want. And Dahluzz i don’t even know you but if you want to be down with these fagg’ts then f’ck you too. You muthaf’ckas can’t be us or see us. East side! Peace bitches

And now you know why I would rather chew my own testicles off than visit Ain’t It Cool News. Imagine an entire board… of that.



Necromancy, which is what John Edward practices, falls into the category of witchcraft.


by Ted Grant

Most rational people, when faced with an obvious charlatan and con-man like John Edward (the “psychic” not the former Presidential candidate), have no problem with openly laughing and mocking his claims to possess magical powers. But, what if you’re a right-wing Christian fundamentalist, with a vested interest in preserving the idea that people do, in fact, have magical powers?

Well, you accuse John Edward of being in communication with demons, that’s what:

Perhaps John Edward is a fraud and a brilliant con man. Then again, it’s entirely possible that he does, in fact, receive information from the spirit world. My question for those who believe he’s for real, and that he actually communicates with spirits of the dead, is this: What if the info that’s piped into the medium’s mind comes from another sort of spirit, a spirit not from a deceased loved one, but from a demonic spirit?

God’s Word tells us that there are dark powers lurking in the unseen world. One such spirit is the fallen angel, Lucifer, AKA Satan, also the Devil.

Hey, I wonder if we can squeeze in any pet smear tactics of the American right-wing into this piece?

Last year I wrote a piece on Oprah’s endorsement of the self-help manifesto The Secret, “Is Oprah Peddling Snake Oil?” In it I said,

“Oprah Winfrey’s message comes straight from the pit of hell. Think about that for a moment. Who else but Satan would be behind such a diabolical movie? Why would any serious follower of Jesus Christ worth their salt waste his or her time watching Oprah’s show? Christians (wittingly or unwittingly) are entering into practices that are contrary to the Word of God. Whether they know it or not, their actions are counterproductive to the cause of Christ. My love and concern for them is what drives me to speak the truth in love.

Is there anything Oprah isn’t involved with?



« Previous Page