Queer Lies from the Religious Guys

From the Miss America pageant to high school yearbooks, the topic that just won't quit smacking us all in the face is homosexuality, specifically same-sex marriage. I mean seriously. You absolutely can not engage in any activity at large without this issue being raised, railed, screamed, or smeared. I hit the old internets, and I have Perez Hilton making a total jackass out of himself, because a beauty queen contestant didn't provide him with the answer he wanted in an interview question. I open my email box, and I have half a dozen viral emails prophesying the end of the world and a brimstone- laden death for the United States because of the wicked ways of the homosexual. Why is everyone so up in arms about it all, and is this truly the next "I have a dream" issue?

Since the Informed Southerner's mission is to present facts and interpretations that are not expressed and usually completely disregarded, let's take a look at why America is feeling so queer about homosexuals and their unions.

The "Religious" Stance... During an interview Dr. Laura said this:

Recently, she said that as an observant Orthodox Jew homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned in any circumstance.

This is really the focal point of the entire argument. The United States has an extremely vocal and fundamental Christian element, and this element comes down squarely on the side of the Jewish Dr. Laura regarding homosexuality. Indeed, if you are a Christian this would seem to be an open and shut case. Let's read Leviticus 18:22 to process the full might of this argument.

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. Such a thing is an abomination. (Lv 18:22)

Well this definitely seems straightforward enough. This is a passage right out the Bible, and it calls man on man action an abomination (interesting that it doesn't mention woman on woman action?) . So certainly if you are a Christian and follow the edicts of Christianity, you must oppose homosexuality and certainly homosexuals joining in matrimony. Except...

What I am pointing out here is the broad scope that Leviticus, and particularly chapter 18 and 20, are in a context of priestly rituals and purity for worship. It is not altogether clear that the Hebrews intended these passages to apply to all people as part of a moral law, rather than a priestly code for ritual worship activity. Perhaps these are priestly rules in particular. It is interesting to note that Leviticus does not condemn lesbianism (there were no women priests at that time)! Source: http://liberalcatholic.blogspot.com/

Oh and then there was this clever reply...

The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a US resident, which was posted on the Internet:

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination.

End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by ev.19:27. How should they die?

I) I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.
Jake

In fact, J. Cecil, in his blog Progressive Catholic Reflections does an extremely thorough job of examining just about every Biblical passage that may be construed as applying to homosexuality and guess what? There is not one that clearly condemns homosexuality and the marriage of same sex individuals. This source is a great read, so please check out: http://gaycatholic.blogspot.com/

The Next "I have a dream" Battle?

Many members and leaders of the gay community liken their struggle for acceptance and full legal recognition to the civil rights struggle of African Americans and other minorities . Is this accurate? Conservative pundits would certainly lambaste this claim as whining and irrelevant, while more liberal pundits would draw grand comparisons to those struggles. I for one think that the struggle is legitimate, but figureheads in this struggle should take a few notes from those who have stood on civil rights issues and won. For instance, in approximately fifty years we have come from:

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. " - Martin Luther King Jr.

To:

She is a dumb bitch- Perez Hilton

I'm sorry, but it's going to take more eloquence, persistence and character than Perez Hilton can summon in his video blog to turn the tide of public opinion on this issue. I say this because pundits and the public alike in many instances rallied behind this crass display of attention grabbing. All this stunt accomplished was to solidify the fundamental "Dr. Laura" crowd who is steeped in scripture they have seldom examined and poorly understand. Further, it has pushed the moderate base, who may possibly open their eyes to reality, further toward the apathetic.

Rush Goes Hog Wild...Socialized Medicine is the Culprit? **Updated x1**

Welcome to the inaugural post of the Informed Southerner. As I have exactly zero readers at the moment, I will sincerely appreciate the first comment that is submitted regardless of its opinion!

This first post will reference a character who will most certainly be a frequent flier, Rush Limbaugh. Now Mr. Limbaugh is unique in that he pushes his opinion with such malice, deceit, and fervor that he exists in a category all of his own. This is a man who has absolutely no issue with mimicking and mocking a man with Parkinson's in order to further his agenda. So it is with pleasure and diligence that I pay particularly close attention to Mr. Limbaugh. And away we go...

Why Swine Flu is Worse in Mexico: "Mexico has socialized medicine" (????)

This is is a topic from today's Rush Limbaugh Show, and yes, you have probably noted from the parenthetical question marks that I don't exactly understand how one plus one equals two here. Here is the link to this glorious piece of hogwash (oh yes pun intended). http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_042809/content/01125110.guest.html

So let's dissect this argument together. Rush starts by tossing out what he says are the latest numbers from the CDC on flu related deaths in the United States.

I have a press release from the Centers for Disease Control. Now, the press release is January 7, 2003. Now, admittedly, this is six years ago. But it's most recent I could find. "Using new and improved statistical models, [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] scientists estimate that an average of 36,000 people ... each year in the United States. In addition, about 11,000 people die per year from respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), a virus that causes upper and lower respiratory tract infections primarily in young children [crumb crunchers] and older adults." So in a normal year... The reason I looked this up is because I was asking about this yesterday. In a normal year, 36,000 people die in this country of the flu. Now, this pig flu apparently doesn't just hit the elderly.

Right off of the bat I have to point out that a jaunt over to the CDC website and a simple search for "flu deaths" generates a result that discusses statistics from 2007 and 2008. So Rush's statement about "all he could find" is a bit shaky from jumpstreet, but I will grant him leeway that specific numbers regarding non-child deaths are not as readily available in the 2007-2008 article. The most significant point that surfaces from doing a minuscule amount of reading on this topic, however, is that the Center for Disease Control states that actual numbers of flu-related deaths are extremely difficult to determine as only deaths of children cause by influenza are required to be reported. Take a look.

Exact numbers of how many people died from flu this season cannot be determined. Flu-associated deaths (which have laboratory confirmed influenza), are only a nationally notifiable condition among children; however not all pediatric influenza deaths may be detected and reported and there is no requirement to report adult deaths from influenza. source: http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/season.htm

Let's move from Limbaugh's shaky numbers and extremely poor Googling skills, and examine the thesis of his argument. Rush makes the jump to say that the reason that no one is dying here in the United States and so many are dying in Mexico, is that Mexico has socialized medicine while we do not. THAT'S IT! Rush obviously has thoroughly researched this and has formulated a rock solid hypothesis bordering on undeniable fact here. You see the Rush logic works like this: Mexico employs a system of health care which Rush is politically, ideologically, and financially opposed to, so obviously this must be the cause of the Swine Flu deaths in Mexico. Rush does a shoddy job of garnering statistics and numbers that may vaguely support his push-point, and then rams them down the throats of his listeners as if they were the "Gospel" truth. In all honesty, one could take a driving tour of the South and stop in any little town and inevitably ask citizens why people are dying in Mexico from the Swine Flu and not in the United States, and the response in an overwhelming amount of cases would be, "Because they have socialized medicine."

It is truly unbelievable to me how easily the average citizen (especially the Southerners) swallow Limbaugh's swill hook, line and sinker, but that's why I started the Informed Southerner to hopefully show at least one individual out there that he or she should kick the tires before they buy the car, so to speak. So let's kick the tires...

1. Rush is basing this conclusion on the 150 deaths estimate that is being touted by many. Well the WHO issued a press release today that states that number is grossly overestimated. Indeed they only are able to attribute SEVEN deaths to the Swine Flu, and those are in fact in Mexico. Granted many more may eventually be chalked up to the swine flu once thorough analysis post mortem has been concluded, but these numbers are absolutely nothing to bank on as of yet. sourece: http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21498,25403429-5005361,00.html?from=public_rss
2. Rush attributes the deaths to the fact that Mexico's socialized system isn't treating it's citizenry, thus they are dying. The fact is that this virus has most likely been present in Mexico for a great deal longer than the United States, and it has had time to affect and unfortunately kill more individuals seems to have not even blipped Mr. Limbaugh's radar. In traditional Rush fashion he completely ignores anything that might be based in scientific fact or research. For instance take a look at a post from the Daily Kos, and read his opinion on the situation and the logical progression of the case fatality rate (CFR) of this virus.
   

Human flu genes got into the virus in two ways. One, humans with normal seasonal flu fed their dinner table food wastes to their household pigs. Two, humans with seasonal flu interacted with their household pigs in the yard. Thus the human flu genes mixed with the avian & swine flu genes present in the pigs.

The new combined virus was transmissible from pigs back to humans, and was also H2H (human-to-human) transmissible. Thus it passed among humans. As often happens with new viruses, the virus was most virulent (caused the worst symptoms and highest death rate) among those who were in closest proximity to the source of initial infection. This would account for the high CFR (case fatality rate) among the cases in Mexico.

So now you have the "ground zero" infections: people who caught it from pigs, or from people who had high contact with pigs. These people got the worst of it and had the highest death rate.

After that came the "first ring" infections: people who caught it from the "ground zero" cases. CFR would be starting to decrease in this population.

After that, the "second ring" infections: people who caught it from the first ring cases. CFR would decrease further in this population.

After that, the "third ring" infections: people who caught it from the second ring cases. This would most likely be the people in the US who caught it. Notice that so far, the CFR in the US is zero: no deaths. This would be consistent with the virus losing some of its virulence as it passed between humans: a common occurrence for new viruses. Source: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/4/25/205934/014

This is just a small sample of exactly how unresearched and completely jaded/biased Rush Limbaugh's opinions can truly be. One thing complimentary I must say about Mr. Limbaugh is he is always consistent.

**Update: The confirmed death toll in Mexico has now risen to 19, still a far cry from the original one hundred and fifty some-odd deaths reported by the over-hyped media. So what has Rush done as this situation has evolved and much of the information released and publicized has been shown to be false? Does he recant? Does he update his previous shows or correct his info on a current show? Naaahhh. He blames the swine flu and the Mexico City Earthquake on Obama! This guy is a gem! Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dz5_QxmMRog