Veterans over LGBTQ? I think not!

 

When you ask a veteran why they fought, they will most likely say to protect our people, no matter race, creed, nationality or religion. 

Boilerplate stuff, right?

But then, someone comes along and demands that Veterans are more important than LBGTQ+ folks, therefore deserve their own "month" dedicated to them.

Really?
C'mon, grow up.

That really "burns my biscuit!

I'd bet that the Veterans would say no, that they did it for EVERYONE!.

So, why then, are they trying to put words into the mouths of Veterans - we have been celebrating/mourning Veterans since 1946, and technically, since 1919 at the end of the Great War.

As a Veteran, I am disgusted at the twisting of logic to pass on an even more twisted message. This speaks to the laziness of the general public who have no interest in determining the truthfulness of such headlines and accusations.

Comparing Veterans with LBGTQ is like comparing BBQ's to lighters.

Why are they so interested in banning the lighters of this world?

Why do they feel the need to throw Veterans under the buses by claiming they need even more recognition over the backs of people who have the exact same Human Rights as you!

Just who do you think Veterans fought for? You?

So egotistical!

They fought for wives, girlfriends, schoolmates, rich and poor. And more.

How many of those do you think were LBGTQ?

None is the wrong answer, because there were countless numbers hiding their real lives because of the Backsplash, Public humiliation, Bullshit arrests and downright Lynching they would face if exposed to the public.

Heck, many of your most favourite movie stars were likely gay. 

Here's a quick historical synopsis:

Cary Grant swung both ways (pardon the pun), Anthony Perkins (died of HIV...go figger), James Dean and Marlon Brando were actually secretly a couple.

Marlin Brando admitted to having homosexual experiences in an interview with Gary Carey, because "it is so much in fashion, it no longer makes news." So....FACT.

Clark Gable, while married 5 times and fathered 2 children, paid his way while starting out in showbiz by claiming he was "gay for pay", doing sexual favours to advance his career. FACT.

Claiming that female Hollywood stars bisexuality was very widespread during the heyday, Tallulah Bankhead and Barbara Stanwyck were both lesbian lovers. FACT

Cesar Romero was flagrantly gay, bisexuality on full display. But being Latin, he was often forgiven. He was reputed to even have bedded Dezi Arnaz (I love Lucy). FACT.

Greta Garbo, that Swedish wench, had several affairs with other leading ladies, claims to have made "passionate love to Marlene Dietrich" while in Berlin. FACT.

Joan Crawford was a voracious man-eater, but was also known for her "female conquests". Such as Marilyn Monroe, Martha Raye and Barbara Stanwyck.

For Pete's sake, even Katharine Hepburn had multiple secret, short-term "dalliances" with countless young women whom her Hollywood pimp, Scotty Bowers, supplied for her.
He claims that he provided over 150 women for her to satisfy her hunger. 

She apparently liked "a nice young dark-haired girl" as her staple.

Joe DiMaggio claimed he divorced Marylin Monroe because she preferred women. Women reportedly, like Barbara Stanwyck, Marlene Dietrich, Elizabteh Taylor and Joan Crawford. Several others have confirmed her "preferences". Fact? Leaning towards ... yes.

Montgomery Clift's friend, Elizabeth Taylor admitted he was gay, years after his death. This is how much some try to hide their Pride - because of relentless attacks by folks who won't mind their own business.

I remember Raymond Burr from Ironsides, but he initially started out on Perry Mason - where he met with, and began a long-term relationship with Robert Benevides.

No surprise then, that Richard Pryor had some trysts with Marlon Brando in the 70's. One of Pryor's ex-wives said "It was the 70's...if you did enough cocaine, you'd fuck a radiator and send it flowers in the morning".

 So, I'm up to about the 80's. Do you really need me to go on, or are none of these folks I mentioned above worthy of saving? Or having soldiers fight on their behalf, for their safety, security and lifestyle. I mean, the list is HUGE!

Getting back to business

I really would like to know just who are you to anoint Veterans with such a bullshit comparison?

If you really are a Christian, as I have a strong feeling the originator was - even if not a practicing one (which I suspect) - you ought to know that you have no right to make these decisions. Non-practicing Christian + Politics = Christian-Nationalist!

Your God made these people. He made them the way they are. He made them perfect for whom they are. Just like your God made you, He made your wife and children - even though you had some "input", it was your God that made conception happen in his design, for which you are but a vessel for his essence.

I'm hearing a lot about "your God" lately. How do you know there IS a "Your God". How do you know that YOU'RE "His People", and even if so, that does not benefit you with any of his powers to YOU.
Neither does your Bible.
What if the Muslim God is the "real" God?
Or the Jewish?
Or Buddha?
Rastafarians???
No matter...

there is no power handed down by ANY God to ANY human other than the capability to write a lot of stories about the events centuries after happening. No other power is given by the Christian God to anyone other than his Son - who is, or may not be, God, in reality. But something else totally!

Sheesh; but that is how cheap fairy tales start - with confusion about initial definitions.

We'll sort that kind of minor thing in the future...they say. Riiiiiiight...

Hey, Didja know that the Bible does not say the word Homosexual a single time? If your copy does, then it was printed after 1960, when a Christian Publishing Companies replaced many "other" words/people with homosexual, even though the original word had nothing to do with homosexuality, nor with anything illegal.

The German Bible, in the meantime, retained it's original translations (the correct ones!) up until 1986, when another American printing company noticed that the Germans retained the original translation, and just could not have that.

It seems the Germans, most of whom are Lutheran and/or Protestant, had no issue with the Catholic Bible's translation because so few Germans use it. Of course, their German Protestant Bibles still had the original, correct words/definitions. No homo's there! In reality, the German words were more true to older versions by talking about "boy abusers, boy molesters".

It turns out that the ancient world condoned and encouraged a system whereby young boys (8-12 years old) were coupled/understudied to older men. Ancient Greek documents show us how even parents utilized this abusive system to help their sons advance in society. So for most of history, most translations thought these verses were obviously referring to "pederasty", NOT homosexuality. And the boys were not necessarily a sex-toy for the older gent. But that such activities did happen often. Just not always. When an older man overworks the young boy, he'd be called an abuser, and that was frowned upon. But it was not homosexual.

Get the point? Many other such words suddenly turned into "homosexual" in the English Christian Bibles.

For most of history, most European Bibles taught the tradition that these 4 verses were dealing with pederasty, not homosexuality. I am saddened when I see pastors and theologians cast aside the previous 2000 years of history.

Even the first King James version did not utilize "Homosexual" label as well. They used the phrase "abusers of themselves with mankind".

Hardly Homosexual, eh?

So eventually in modern times, this American printing company re-wrote the German Catholic Bibles to change those words also to "homosexual", and it was more than the one word (arsenokoitai/pederasty).

Believe it or not, scholars now say that the mistranslation of "Pederastry" to "Homosexuality" was a mistake, and should have been left as it, in it's original context.

In my mind, this is no different than the many times the Christian Bible has been re-written, edited, amended, dissected and words removed/inserted for one nefarious reason or another.

I feel that if we attached modern nomenclature on the latest versions of the Bible, it would read Vers 345.23.11.2

Why they could not leave it alone? Perhaps it is because they wanted to entrap more folks into this belief, bring in various religions/cults/beliefs all under the single umbrella of "Christianity".

Of course, they begged and borrowed (often without permission) stories, fairy tales and characters from many other religions into the Christian fold to make Christianity look more palatable for those who could not think for themselves. It was not their fault - Church elders were made up of educated folks, and could easily bullshit anyone into believing the Bible was real, and every single story was true.

Whenever their bullshit stores from the Bible were actually called out, this meant another revision/addendum/law could be inserted into the Bible to "answer the quandary".

So, like, make shit up?

Probably.

The problem is that these many "stories and fables and parables" are NOT true, and because of that, throws every other line in the Bible under suspicion of fakery as well.

Occasionally someone will say they descovered something that was mentioned in the Bible, proving that everything in it is true.

Uhhhh, no.
If you want folks to believe everything in the Bible, proof of ALL allegations held within it's covers would need to be presented, otherwise it is all just heresay. (Not heresey - totally different word!)

It's okay to use a story, parable or fable as a teaching tool, but that does not mean that the sources are REAL! However religious scions refute that - everything in the Bible is True, or it would not be in there, so they maintain..

Circular Logic Failure, eh?

Going waaaay back when, "small boys and older man couples were considered fashionable, a good way for a boy to learn a trade, to learn to trust someone, to learn the ways of man". This quote from a research paper which translated dozens of languages with linguistic experts to dig out the "real dirt" on original words and their likely translations - usually based upon topic. To some extent, this sort of relationship still happens in middle eastern cultures to this day! Because it was, and still is tied to their culture and some instances, to their religion.

We are still trying to apply today's standards to ancient cultural practices that have continued to this time, with basically no outside interference. But that is coming to an end because of the increasingly strident demand by various Religious sects and agencies to go to these foreign lands and eradicate such behaviour - usually with the help of explosives.

But that was over 2,000 years ago. This is today. So, even with all this religion BS trying to nose it's way into politics, I stamp my foot and say Non!

Right, Israel?

Hey, remember that bastard, Pierre Elliot Trudeau (P.E.T. or PET), whom is famous for stating in 1967 that there is "No place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation" on National TV? 

The Quote was originally from Globe and Mail reporter, Martin O'Malley, whom Trudeau kindly credited for quote.
So kind of him. 

The bastard! Mozi Chrrrrrrissss!

Then the prick had to go ahead and get elected Prime Minister of Canada. 

So glad I only had to meet him once! But PM Harper had soft, sweaty hands. Never did meet up with shorty or the single female PM we ever had. Oh, gosh.../s

Trudeau was talking about, of course, the 1967 Omnibus Bill addressing abortion, divorce and homosexuality in Canadian Law as major topics in the Bill. This was actually a good thing as it opened up many more doors for all these subjects to create laws that still stand to this day.

Now, I will say the same about Religion and Politics. Religion has no rights to be involved in Politics, just as it has no place in the bedroom of the nation. And yes, this was a thinly veiled threat towards the Christian-Right at the time.

 

 

I've veered way off topic again, so I will end it here by stating that it's a low-brow idea to think Veterans are more important than any other group, no matter what they stand for  We are all equals under the law, and therefore demand to be treated as equals. All it does is foster hate, is divisive to many folks, groups and even laws.

 Those whiners must step back and start minding their own business, as what others do for their love-lives is no concern of theirs. I'm sick and tired of people proclaiming "facts" that they heard other people yell, scream or post, normally with no absolutely no proof, backup, video, audio or personal stories given under oath.

 

Who bases their arguments on "stories" with no proof?

Absolutely not one iota of proof?  Completely fabricated on purpose to deliver fake news, bad ideas and pump up emotions of those who are too simple to understand fake news from real news, and no skills to verify one way or another.

 

It is incumbent upon those of us who do understand the truth, the consequences, and the depravity of those who would trod upon their opponents dead body to earn just one more vote.

 

So utterly despicable. They ought to know better, but don't, mostly because of laziness

 

I'll bet that they don't even know that the Bible had absolutely NO reference to "The 3 Wise Men" at all. Not even a peep! There is no mention as to how many, and IF any, were actually there!

 

 --Peace--