And Mr Gingrich is an adulterer at least two times over -- probably many times over.

He's a serial adulterer.

At least.

Not only that, but his behavior towards his first wife, whom he served with divorce papers while she was IN THE HOSPITAL recovering from CANCER, was unspeakably caddish.

Cad.

The man's a cad.

No two ways about it.

I don't know if he's a rogue.

I don't think so.

That requires wrong-doing of a rather higher order.

But he is without question a cad.

And a toad.

Nevertheless, the Christian right, which has been in a dither about finding an acceptable candidate for 2008 -- has forgiven him.

As it does virtually all adulterers nowadays among its evangelical flock.

Is homosexuality a worse sin than adultery?

NO.

As a matter of fact -- and of the New Testament -- it's not clear that homosexuality per se is a sin at all.

Like I said, Jesus never mentions it, while Paul's references are equivocal and open to debate.

Adultery, by contrast, is a sin.

As is fornication -- promiscuity.

And Newt is a sinner.

So let's be fair.

If Newt's going to be forgiven, then Ted should be too.

Not marched out of town and drummed out of his life's work.

Right?

That's why I think the evangelical dreamticket in 2008 should be Gingrich-Haggard.

Gingrich is a cad.

And Haggard is a scoundrel.

Slinking around back alleys to hook up with male whores and drug dealers.

Whilst denouncing "homosexuality."

That's scoundrelly behavior.

I think a womanizing cad and a hypocritical homo-hater would make for a nice, balanced, ticket.

Since they are, after all, both opposed to gay marriage.

Which is without question the great and pressing moral issue of our time.

Now, another powerful evangelical has weighed in on the question of "homosexuality," and he thinks the Biblical thing to do is use the knife of science to excise the Love of Man for Man from the tender unborn breast -- excise it forever and ever:

Furor Over Baptist's Gay-Baby Article

by the Associated Press

Posted: March 14, 2007

(Washington) The president of the leading Southern Baptist seminary has incurred sharp attacks from both the left and right by suggesting that a biological basis for homosexuality may be proven, and that prenatal treatment to reverse gay orientation would be biblically justified.

The Rev. R. Albert Mohler Jr., one of the country's pre-eminent evangelical leaders, acknowledged that he irked many fellow conservatives with an article earlier this month saying scientific research "points to some level of biological causation" for homosexuality.

Proof of a biological basis would challenge the belief of many conservative Christians that homosexuality - which they view as sinful - is a matter of choice that can be overcome through prayer and counseling.

However, Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., was assailed even more harshly by gay-rights supporters. They were upset by his assertion that homosexuality would remain a sin even if it were biologically based, and by his support for possible medical treatment that could switch an unborn gay baby's sexual orientation to heterosexual.

"He's willing to play God," said Harry Knox, a spokesman on religious issues for the Human Rights Campaign, a national gay-rights group. "He's more than willing to let homophobia take over and be the determinant of how he responds to this issue, in spite of everything else he believes about not tinkering with the unborn."

Mohler said he was aware of the invective being directed at him on gay-rights blogs, where some participants have likened him to Josef Mengele, the Nazi doctor notorious for death-camp experimentation.

"I wonder if people actually read what I wrote," Mohler said in a telephone interview. "But I wrote the article intending to start a conversation, and I think I've been successful at that."

The article, published March 2 on Mohler's personal Web site, carried a long but intriguing title: "Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?"

Mohler began by summarizing some recent research into sexual orientation, and advising his Christian readership that they should brace for the possibility that a biological basis for homosexuality may be proven.

Mohler wrote that such proof would not alter the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality, but said the discovery would be "of great pastoral significance, allowing for a greater understanding of why certain persons struggle with these particular sexual temptations."

He also referred to a recent article in the pop-culture magazine Radar, which explored the possibility that sexual orientation could be detected in unborn babies and raised the question of whether parents - even liberals who support gay rights - might be open to trying future prenatal techniques that would reverse homosexuality.

Mohler said he would strongly oppose any move to encourage abortion or genetic manipulation of fetuses on grounds of sexual orientation, but he would endorse prenatal hormonal treatment - if such a technology were developed - to reverse homosexuality. He said this would no different, in moral terms, to using technology that would restore vision to a blind fetus.

"I realize this sounds very offensive to homosexuals, but it's the only way a Christian can look at it," Mohler said. "We should have no more problem with that than treating any medical problem."

Mohler's argument was endorsed by a prominent Roman Catholic thinker, the Rev. Joseph Fessio, provost of Ave Maria University in Naples, Fla., and editor of Ignatius Press, Pope Benedict XVI's U.S. publisher.

"Same-sex activity is considered disordered," Fessio said. "If there are ways of detecting diseases or disorders of children in the womb, and a way of treating them that respected the dignity of the child and mother, it would be a wonderful advancement of science."

Such logic dismayed Jennifer Chrisler of Family Pride, a group that supports gay and lesbian families.

"What bothers me is the hypocrisy," she said. "In one breath, they say the sanctity of an unborn life is unconditional, and in the next breath, it's OK to perform medical treatments on them because of their own moral convictions, not because there's anything wrong with the child."

Paul Myers, a biology professor at the University of Minnesota-Morris, wrote a detailed critique of Mohler's column, contending that there could be many genes contributing to sexual orientation and that medical attempts to alter it could be risky.

"If there are such genes, they will also contribute to other aspects of social and sexual interactions," Myers wrote. "Disentangling the nuances of preference from the whole damn problem of loving people might well be impossible."

Not all reaction to Mohler's article has been negative.

Dr. Jack Drescher, a New York City psychiatrist critical of those who consider homosexuality a disorder, commended Mohler's openness to the prospect that it is biologically based.

"This represents a major shift," Drescher said. "This is a man who actually has an open mind, who is struggling to reconcile his religious beliefs with facts that contradict it."

[emphases mine]

Bill Weintraub:

I can't say I agree with Dr Drescher that Mohler has shown "openness."

People like Mohler will, in my experience, pretend to be open, and then hit you again and again with "this is a sin."

These are not loving or inclusive people.

So in their view, "homosexuality" no matter how it's based -- biologically, culturally, genetically, hormonally -- is a sin.

Jesus himself could reappear tomorrow and tell them that homosexuality isn't a sin and they wouldn't listen.

What they'd do is try to kill Jesus.

And then there's the Catholic dude, the Rev Joseph Fessio, who says, "Same-sex activity is considered disordered."

And adds, that "treating" it would be "a wonderful advancement of science."

Sorta the way keeping Galileo locked up for 30 years was a wonderful advancement of science.

Actually, Rev Fessio, only the Catholic Church considers same-sex behavior "disordered."

The American Psychiatric Association tossed that one thirty-four years ago.

But, there's no denying that when it comes to same-sex behavior, the Catholic Church is one of most disorderly places around.

Then there was this helpful tidbit from another savant, Dr Meyers, who said

there could be many genes contributing to sexual orientation and that medical attempts to alter it could be risky.

"If there are such genes, they will also contribute to other aspects of social and sexual interactions," Myers wrote. "Disentangling the nuances of preference from the whole damn problem of loving people might well be impossible."

"the whole damn problem of loving people"

I agree with Dr Myers that you can't disentangle those alleged genes, etc, but to refer to loving people as "the whole damn problem" -- speaks volumes.

LOVE is not the problem.

The LOVE of MAN for MAN is NOT the problem.

Gingrich, Falwell, Fessio, Haggard, Mohler -- they're the problem.

That's why Dr Roselli, whom we talked about in Crimes against nature, is a huge problem too.

The "scientists" doing this "research" need to ask themselves how their "findings" will be used -- and who will suffer.

Already rams who love rams are being killed.

Who's next?

In the meantime, Christian right honchos Dobson, Bauer, et alia have attacked the National Association of Evangelicals -- which Ted Haggard used to head up -- as being too concerned with global warming and insufficiently concerned with sexual immorality.

But ethically, the Bible is not about sex.

It's about the abuse of power.

You know -- the oppression of the weak by the strong.

And at this point, not only are humans abusing the planet, but we've been told repeatedly that the effects of that abuse are going to fall disproportionately on the world's poor and powerless.

That's a legitimate religious concern.

And believe it or not, there's at least one evangelical Christian who understands that.

His name is Matthew Sleeth, his title is MD, and he wrote this brief op-ed for truthout:

Caring for Creation: The Greatest Moral Crisis of Our Age

By J. Matthew Sleeth, MD

t r u t h o u t | Guest Contributor

11 March 2007

Jim Dobson and several conservative Christian groups have sent a letter urging the National Association of Evangelicals to force its policy director in Washington to stop speaking out on global warming.

As a physician, environmentalist, and evangelical Christian, I can state without reservation that global warming is real and that it disproportionately harms our one billion neighbors who live on a dollar a day or less. But, as Christians, our concern should not just be global warming; it should extend to caring for all of God's creation. We might argue about the extent of man's contribution to global warming, but we cannot deny the dome of smog that hangs over many of the world's cities, the thousands of species that are going extinct, and the increasing scarcity and access to fresh drinking water.

The Bible repeatedly commands us to demonstrate our love for the Creator by caring for His creation. We are further told to love our neighbor, particularly the least among us who are hurt most by our profligate use of resources, by stewarding God's blessings wisely.

Until six years ago, I was director of an emergency room and chief of the medical staff of a beautiful hospital in New England. I had all the trappings of the American Dream - a big house in a postcard-perfect village, two luxury cars and lots of stuff. Then in one week's time I admitted three women in their thirties with breast cancer, all to die. I decided that it was time to "stop running for the cure," and to start looking for the cause.

The Bible calls me to take the plank out of my own eye before I worry about the speck in my neighbor's. So my family took an accounting and found that our energy usage was exactly average for America - which is well above the global norm. Yes, compared to other physicians, my family was using less, but the Bible tells us to measure our lives against the example set by Jesus. When held against His humble life of service - Jesus never owned a home, had more than one cloak, or rode except on a borrowed colt - my consumerist lifestyle was indefensible.

Over the next year, my family embarked on a spiritual and environmental journey that resulted in us cutting back our electricity usage to one-tenth the national average and our fossil fuel use to one-third. We gave away half our possessions and moved into a house with the same footprint as our old garage. (Don't feel too sorry for me; we had a big garage.) Along the way, my wife, two teenage children, and I all were born again into a new and better life of service. I quit my job and began speaking, preaching and writing full time about faith and the environment.

So what is the ethical response to global warming? Christians must start by acknowledging their complicity. The vast majority of our resource consumption does nothing to glorify God. In fact, it does just the opposite.

As in any moral dilemma, evangelical Christians look to the Bible for wisdom. In Christ's most known sermon, given on a mountain, He tells us that "the meek shall inherit the earth." We must set an example by the way we live our lives and steward limited resources.

It is time for Americans of faith to put aside their squabbles and begin working together to solve the greatest moral issue of our day. Future generations will not judge us by our rhetoric or good intentions, only by our faithful actions.

So who do you trust?

Newt?

Ted?

Mohler?

Fessio?

Roselli?

or Dr Sleeth?

There are people out there, Christian and otherwise, who are trying to do the right thing.

But on the whole they're as rare as hen's teeth.

As we discussed in Frot among the animals, same-sex sexual behavior, so-called, which the Catholic Church considers disordered; and which the Southern Baptists want to eliminate by disrupting the sanctity of the womb and the development of the unborn; and which Dr Roselli thinks needs to be controlled; is in point of fact normal and natural and found throughout the animal kingdom.

It's normal and natural and common among human beings as well.

It's part of the scheme of things here on Planet Earth.

Fact is, Planet Earth, animals, human beings, and same-sex sex have been percolating along just fine for hundreds of thousands of years.

Anytime anyone tries to tell you different -- to moralize it or medicalize it -- and it's not surprising that since people like Mohler and Fessio and Haggard have been UNsuccessful at trying to rid the world of homosex via morality, they're now turning to "science" to do the job --

anytime anyone starts doing that --

you know that they're lying, that they're blowing smoke, and that they're the enemy.

Your enemy.

And not just yours.

They're the enemies of the animal kingdom, the human race, and the planet itself.

Dr Sleeth isn't.

Whatever his views about "homosexuality" may be, he's behaving in a moral fashion in his life.

Based on -- and prepare yourselves for a shock -- the actual behavior of the founder of his religion.

He points out that "Jesus never owned a home, had more than one cloak, or rode except on a borrowed colt."

You know what's interesting about that -- and this is just an aside -- is that the eschewing of material goods and the one-cloak bit are actually part of the Eunomia -- the good rule which Lycurgus instituted for the Spartan state.

What's also interesting, is that classicist W. G. Forrest, who disliked the Spartans, was critical of the austerity mandated by Lycurgus and compares the agoge to primitive practices.

And when he says primitive -- he doesn't mean it as a word of praise.

Here he is writing in the year of our Lord 1968:

...almost every aspect of the full Spartan practice can be paralleled among backward warrior tribes today. The age-groups, the communal life, the initiation ceremonies, all had been handed down through generations as have similar institutions among the Masai in Kenya, the Zulus, or the Red Indians.

~ Forrest, A History of Sparta 950 - 192 BC

You can hear Forrest's racism and contempt in terms like "backward" and "Red Indians."

But when he says, "almost every aspect of the full Spartan practice can be paralleled among backward [sic] warrior tribes today. The age-groups, the communal life, the initiation ceremonies, all had been handed down through generations..."

-- my reply is -- Indeed.

That's why it appealed -- and appeals.

That's why it was so effective.

Jesus, as we've discussed, not only had but one cloak, but traveled around in homosocial -- all male -- groups.

While holding a special affection for a guy named John.

In point of fact, the Spartan ideal was well-known among the Jews of Jesus' day.

Greeks had been living in Palestine since at least 323 BC and probably a good deal before.

Indeed, the Maccabees -- ca 168 BC -- had *proudly* compared themselves to Spartans -- as did many warrior bands in the Greco-Roman world.

So: the Spartans aren't the problem.

Dr Sleeth isn't the problem.

Jesus isn't the problem.

But people like Falwell, Gingrich, Mohler, Haggard, Barnes, Fessio -- they're the problem.

They're opportunists and hypocrites.

They're taking advantage of and making money off of American thinking about sex, which is, as Robert Loring has said, PSYCHOTIC.

Don't listen to them.

And don't trust them.

They're the enemy.

And must be treated as such.

Just as much as the Persians were the enemies of the Greeks and determined to enslave the Greeks, so these people are the enemies of MEN, of MANHOOD, and Natural Masculinity, and of the true and natural love of Man for Man.

Their goal is the psychological enslavement of Men and the spiritual ruin of Mankind.

And while they're at it they're busily contributing to the physical destruction of the entire planet and with it the ongoing misery of the human race.

And let's be realistic -- because they certainly are -- the more people suffer, the more they turn to these charlatans and their fucked-up-the-butt version of Christianity.

But Christianity is not about homosexuality and it's not about gay marriage.

What is it about?

Dr Sleeth quotes the Sermon on the Mount -- "the meek shall inherit the earth."

That's a good beginning.

Jesus, like the Spartans, lived a life which was communal and austere.

There's something about that which appeals to human beings and to their better nature.

Think about it guys.

And

FIGHT BACK.

Bill Weintraub

© All material Copyright 2007 by Bill Weintraub. All rights reserved.

Frances

Re: Serial adulterer Newt Gingrich courted by religious right; leading Baptist calls for butchering the unborn to eliminate "homosexuality"; evangelical MD abandons private practice to combat global warming; is there a SPARTAN connection?

3-21-2008

Can anyone imagine Gingrich, Falwell, Mohler, Haggard, Barnes, or Fessio at Thermypolae among the 300?

Do you think they'd be up at the pass cooly combing their hair while awaiting the crush of Persians headed their way?

When you compare and contrast the qualities of the Spartan men with the men who deem to call themselves leaders in this country, it's little wonder that no true man or woman could stand to live under them.

Maybe we should worry less about homosexuality and more about the spiritual castrations that are performed everyday in our culture amongst our boys so that they too may one day follow without reservation these leaders of ours.

Will the future look back with admiration as it did with the 300, at their likes, or at the likes of any who followed them?

Frances

Michael

Re: Serial adulterer Newt Gingrich courted by religious right; leading Baptist calls for butchering the unborn to eliminate "homosexuality"; evangelical MD abandons private practice to combat global warming; is there a SPARTAN connection?

3-21-2007

Nicely said, Mr. Weintraub, the hypocrisy of the religious right is always painstakingly obvious, especially when it comes to M2M love. The fact that they can forgive Gingrich and not Haggard is a good example of just how hypocritical these people are. If you're going to forgive one of them for their faults then you must forgive the other as well. God's chosen my ass, these men are nothing more than modern day Pharisees and who would, as you put it, kill Jesus when he returns. Men like them should never be trusted on any issue related to M2M love.

The article about "curing" homosexuality sounds like more scientific BS. I'm living a fine life at the moment and I don't need some religious loonies and some crackpot scientists telling me that I'm disordered and in need of a treatment that doesn't, and will never, exist. These guys just won't let it drop, so I'll spell it out for them: WHEN YOU SCREW WITH NATURE, NATURE SCREWS YOU BACK!!! Honestly, whenever science messes with nature, the results are usually devestating or makes life harder. One example that sticks in my mind, since I had been doing a little reasearch on it, is Killer Bees; those bastards wouldn't have even existed if it wasn't for a scientist who breed them with 'Good intentions' in mind. A lot has been messed up in this world due to good intentions.

As for the Dr. Roselli, maybe I should decapitate HIM and disect HIS brain to find out what the fuck is wrong with HIM. Maybe I could find a CURE that will help other people like HIM get over their PROBLEMS. Sure I'd be a killer, but I'd be doing it in the name of SCIENTIFIC ADVANCEMENT. I'm sure the rams would appreciate me for it. lol.

As for Dr. Sleeth, I must say that I admire the fact that he is willing to give up a lot of luxiries for the sake of the planet. He's right that global warming is a big issue and that we humans have to start conserving more natural reasources. it's nice to think that the planet has an infinite amount of resources, but only the truly ignorant would believe that. That's the problem with our society people just take and take and take and don't really give anything back.

You are right though that we need to keep fighting back. This struggle we are having against the BFD and the Religious Right is looking like the Battle of Guan Du where Cao Cao's (our) smaller force is fighting against Yuan Shao's (BFD and Religious Right's) larger force. We have a few phallically bound warriors and a powerful leader while they have a lot of cross-dressing queens, hypocritical fools, and an arrogant leader who imprisions or executes anyone who give's him advice that differes from what he wants to do (even if the advice is good). The smaller force has been on the defensive against the larger force bidding it's time to strike at the right moment. The smaller force later finds out that the larger force has left their main supply depot inadequetly guarded and decides to strike at it with a small force disguised as members of the larger force. THe attack succedes and the supply depot is burnt to the ground. This erradicates the morale of the larger force. THe smaller force, taking advantage of their weakness charges the larger forces completely breaking them and winning the battle.

The same thing is happening in our situation, we're losing at the moment, but the time will soon come when we will win the day and scatter the enemy forces that lie before us. All we have to do is keep holding out until an opportunity rises that will hopefully cause a chain reaction that will break the power of the BFD and religious right and secure the freedom for M2M love.

However, that will not happen unless you fight back!!!

Bill Weintraub

Re: Serial adulterer Newt Gingrich courted by religious right; leading Baptist calls for butchering the unborn to eliminate "homosexuality"; evangelical MD abandons private practice to combat global warming; is there a SPARTAN connection?

3-21-2007

Hey Frances and Michael,

Thank you both!

Great posts!

Frances:

Maybe we should worry less about homosexuality and more about the spiritual castrations that are performed everyday in our culture amongst our boys so that they too may one day follow without reservation these leaders of ours.

"Spiritual castrations" is right -- and it's a great turn of phrase.

That's what's been going on.

Will the future look back with admiration as it did with the 300, at their likes, or at the likes of any who followed them?

Nope -- clearly not.

Which brings us to Michael:

I'm living a fine life at the moment and I don't need some religious loonies and some crackpot scientists telling me that I'm disordered and in need of a treatment that doesn't, and will never, exist.

Right.

Michael doesn't need the "help" these people are offering.

He's doing fine without them.

What he needs is what all MEN need -- the Freedom to be himself -- the freedom to be a MAN.

Also, that's a great story about the Battle of Guan Du.

And Michael has written a longer version of the lives of some of the heroes involved in that battle and others which I hope will be going up soon.

But, Michael, I do want to say that we're NOT losing.

First of all, this site, just by existing, serves as a beacon of Truth.

And that's why people try so hard to close us down.

Even as I speak, someone's doing just that.

He doesn't like what we have to say, so he's seeking to silence us.

That's just a reality of any dissident's life.

When you're in dissent, and when you're speaking the Truth, people will try to silence you.

Doesn't mean they'll succeed, but they will try.

And that's one of the ways you know you're speaking the Truth.

People try to silence you.

If you weren't telling the truth -- they wouldn't care.

Again, I refer you to the Sharansky model which posits three groups:

1. True-believers -- in this case, primarily, analists -- who, however, flourish in the atmosphere created by the religious right.

2. Dissidents -- that's us.

3. Doublethinkers -- that's everyone else.

And again, the number of dissidents is determined by the price of dissent.

The higher the price of dissent, the fewer the dissidents.

Now, when I say "price," I don't mean money.

In reality, and in our situation, dissenting itself doesn't cost a lot.

At its most basic, you just speak your mind -- which is free.

However, gay-identified men who speak their mind on our issues do "pay a price" -- they're socially ostracized and experience a huge amount of peer pressure to conform to anal -- which in practice means getting fucked.

Straight-identified guys also pay a price -- people suspect they're "gay," their masculinity is questioned, and so forth.

That's why people don't want to dissent.

However, I must say and make clear to you, that compared to the price paid by someone like Sharansky, who spent years in the brutal prisons of the Soviet gulag;

or someone like Rosa Parks or Dr King --

pressure to do anal or having your masculinity questioned -- is nothing.

So you really need to learn to stand up for yourselves.

NO -- I don't do anal.

Yeah -- I'm into guys too -- so what?

What's it to ya?

Now, what I've repeatedly called on you guys to do is donate, so that we can buy advertising.

That would accomplish two things:

1. We would reach the literally millions of other dissidents who are out there, but don't know we exist.

jrocker is one of those people.

Someone sent him an email about us.

If that person hadn't, he still wouldn't know about us.

That's the reality.

2. We would begin to educate the public about our issues.

Such as:

1. Not all "men who have sex with men" do anal.

2. Efforts to reduce HIV by using non-anal alternatives have been successful.

3. There's a lot of pressure and coercion among gay men to do anal, and the AIDS Prevention Establishment refuses to address it.

4. Bisexuality is the norm, not the exception.

5. It's normal, natural, and common for men to have sex with men -- and when they do have sex, the vast majority do it phallically -- not anally.

Just getting the first of those points before the public would enormously improve the lives of EVERY ONE of YOU.

That's the truth.

It would help you tremendously.

But you won't donate.

Because you won't, our progress is extremely slow.

And all you're doing is impeding yourselves.

So: I've called for one hundred guys to donate $20 a month.

That would be a start.

And at the end of a year of donating, you'd be significantly freer.

Now, let's say you don't donate and you keep that $20 -- which is a good bet.

What will you spend it on?

Let's say you use it to pay half your cable bill or -- to buy one DVD per month.

What will you have at the end of a year?

You'll have watched a lot of crappy and completely forgettable and forgotten TV.

And you might have one good DVD out of the twelve.

The rest will be junk.

And as to the rest of your life:

You'll still be ENSLAVED.

Just as you are now.

In terms of health, as I've patiently explained to you over and over and over again, what's happening with both HIV and anal HPV is that prevalence is rising.

So that over time, every gay man who can get infected -- will get infected.

That's called "saturation," and it poses an enormous threat to YOU.

Because it means that over time, you're more and more likely to be having sex with guys who are poz.

And infectious.

And given also how vulnerable most of you are to peer pressure -- you'll acquire the virus.

What about other diseases?

There are a LOT out there.

Including a new kind of EXTRA DRUG RESISTANT -- XDR -- TB.

To me, the big joker in the deck is global warming.

It's proceeding far faster than I thought it would -- or almost anyone thought it would.

And what that means is that before any of us know it, diseases that were once tropical will now be hanging out in our neighborhoods.

Tropical diseases are, on the whole, fearsome diseases.

So: it's in your interest, psychologically and certainly spiritually, to donate and get this show really moving along.

It's also in your interest in terms of health.

I've seen how quickly an epidemic can move through a community.

I've seen it.

Don't think it can't happen again.

Everything's in place -- the anal, the promiscuity, the tropical diseases, the drug use -- for exactly that to happen.

Michael:

All we have to do is keep holding out until an opportunity rises that will hopefully cause a chain reaction that will break the power of the BFD and religious right and secure the freedom for M2M love.

Michael, I don't know -- that could happen.

It's just not predictable.

What's more likely is that we'll have many years of fighting ahead of us.

But again, it's not predictable.

What IS predictable is this:

Do nothing, and nothing will change.

If, by contrast, you act, not only will you help to bring about societal change, but you'll bring about change in your own life.

It's like Michael says,

However, that will not happen unless you fight back!!!

Right.

Nothing will happen unless you fight back!!!

And I want to come back to what Frances said:

"spiritual castration"

That's what's going on, and that's what you really need to worry about.

Because it's your soul which is being destroyed.

Your spirit which is being broken.

And eventually there'll be nothing of YOU left.

You'll look in the mirror and wonder what happened to that little boy who had such great hopes and dreamed such heroic dreams.

Dreams of Men.

Dreams of Masculinity.

Dreams of Warriors.

Dreams of Love.

Still and nevertheless, you can have your Hero.

If you will Fight for Him -- and for Yourself.

Ultimately, it's your Hero who's being killed bro.

They kill Him first.

And then they leave you alone, knowing you'll eventually be broken by their indifference and your grief.

You have to FIGHT BACK.

Whatever you may think, you don't have a choice.

Thank you Frances and Michael.

You're both true Warriors.

Bill Weintraub

© All material Copyright 2007 by Bill Weintraub. All rights reserved.