There is, says Savage, a "tiny and stable percentage of men who are gay."

So in Savage's bizarre, identity-politics world, there are these two highly discreet populations -- gay men, whose numbers are "tiny and stable";

and the vast, hetero majority.

Is that true?

To figure it out, let's contrast his view with that of the religious right churches like the Latter Day Saints.

Recently, one of our LDS guys talked with a Church elder about the movie "Latter Days," in which a young and presumably "straight" LDS missionary becomes romantically involved with an openly gay man.

Apparently -- I haven't seen the movie -- the gay man "seduces" the Mormon missionary -- a young, attractive, guy.

The elder used this metaphor:

The gay man was like the crocodiles that "lay-in-wait" for the wildebeests that gather at the watering hole. When the wildebeests least suspect, the croc lunges forward and seizes hold of his prey with his jaws to devour the poor naïve gnu.

Think about that for a moment.

The elder is comparing the missionary to a vulnerable herbivore, who, should he get too close, can be snatched and spiritually destroyed by the predatory homosexual.

What's interesting, of course, is that implicit in that assumption is the notion that the missionary, who's supposed to be hetero, has SAME-SEX NEEDS AND DESIRES.

Otherwise, why is he, in the manner of a delicate deer, vulnerable?

Absent those desires, a more appropriate metaphor would be the well-armored rhino who goes to drink at the watering hole.

If he's a rhino, the croc can't harm him.

But he's not a rhino.

He's a guy.

And like virtually all guys, he has homosexual needs and feelings.

What the Church -- in this case LDS -- recognizes, which Dan Savage willfully will not, in large part because it hurts his political case -- is that the missionaries are all inherently BISEXUAL.

That's what we say also.

Nothing else makes sense.

If Dan Savage's worldview were accurate, there'd be no point to the Church's worrying so about homosexuality.

Homosexuality would be, as Savage claims, the purview of a "tiny and stable" minority which cannot possibly affect the straight majority, who are just as locked-in to heterosex as the gay guys are to butt-banging.

The REALITY is quite different.

Human sexuality is fluid, and is vulnerable to *cultural* influences.

Virtually all men have same-sex feelings, and that's why the Church and the Churches worry so about the outcome of the *culture* wars.

I repeat: The Churches fully understand the importance of cultural influences on human behavior -- which is why they're so concerned about the *culture* wars.

The Churches understand that a loosening of strictly hetero sexual standards will make it possible for more men -- not just that tiny and stable minority posited by Savage -- to express their same-sex feelings.

Those Churchmen aren't stupid -- they know about ancient Greece.

Indeed, according to my correspondent, this same LDS elder made the following remark:

He, also, mentioned about the Grecian Empire--and, why it fell. He remarked about how Greek warriors "were paired off" and mated phallically to make them more determined to fight. But, that this led to the DOWNFALL of the Grecian Empire!

In point of fact there was no Grecian Empire.

The phallically-bonded warrior pairs that the elder was referencing were a phenomenon of the free, democratic, and very contentious, ancient Greek city-states.

Those hoplites were citizen-soldiers.

And far from leading to military weakness, it was those same erotically-bonded hoplite pairs who defeated the autocratic Persians -- the mightiest military empire on earth; and, some years later, and in their most intense erotically pair-bonded phallus2phallus form, defeated the Spartans themselves at Leuctra and freed the Spartan helots.

Eventually, however, the independent city-states and their hoplites were conquered by the superior numbers first of Alexander's Macedonians, and then, about 200 years later, of the Romans.

There was however no downfall -- at least not of the pagan Greeks.

The Roman Empire in the West didn't fall till it had been thoroughly Christianized.

And the Greek-speaking very Christian Eastern Orthodox Empire lasted another 1000 years beyond that, well into the Renaissance, when it fell to the Muslim Turks.

Nevertheless, and though his history is a tad off, the point is that even a relatively ill-informed Church elder in one of the prairie states knows perfectly well how common homosex was among the Greeks.

He knows this wasn't a "gay" phenomenon, but a human phenomenon, which could re-appear at any moment.

That's what worries him.

That and his OWN all-too-familiar same-sex needs and desires.

What the Churches refuse to see is that HOW men express those needs and desires matters -- tremendously.

I haven't seen the movie "Latter Days," but I'm told that the relationship which develops between the LDS missionary and the gay man is monogamous and may even be a Frot relationship.

Interestingly, Savage says he hasn't seen Brokeback.

He doesn't say why, but it's possible it's because Brokeback is about bisexuality, which Savage doesn't think exists.

Savage is wrong.

On this as on all other points.

Frot is superior to anal.

Most men are bi.

There is no stable population of men who have sex with men, gay or otherwise.

DOES NOT EXIST.

There is rather a fluctuating population of men who have sex with men based upon fluctuations in the culture.

In those cultures which lack a divine prohibition against homosex, homosex is the NORM.

And Savage knows that -- or at least he certainly should.

Our majority culture remains very guarded about homosex, and so it appears to be a minority phenomenon.

That is, to people like Dan Savage.

Not to the evangelical churches, whose leaders -- and congregants -- know perfectly well they've committed Frot in their hearts over and over and over again.

If they would admit that, rather than worrying about crocs and wildebeests, the more appropriate metaphor might be two mighty male snakes who go to the same watering hole -- and end up phallically-mated for the rest of their long, happy, healthy, lives.

Den

Re: Tiny and Stable?

2-15-2006

Large and Fluid

Bill,

Mr. Savage has slapped me and millions of other men in the face. Mr. Savage writes:

"Today, the tiny and stable percentage of men who are gay are free to live openly, and those who want to settle down and start families can do so without having to deceive some poor, unsuspecting woman."

If there is a bell curve of sexuality, there are more ''bi'' men than completely str8 or completely gay and the sexuality of these men are fluid.

There are no figures to prove this of course, because ''str8'' men can't acknowledge their M2M feelings in the dominant culture. Many of these men have satisfying, successful and stable marriages. Look at guys who posted in married cock bonding needs. Most have been married for decades.

Some crash and burn, like the cowboys in Brokeback Mountain. This could be interpreted as their ''deceiving'' their wives, but more realistically their suffering is caused by the BFD position Mr. Savage presents. This is where the BFD gay culture and dominant culture agree. The Brokeback cowboys and all men have to be either straight or gay. This is the tragedy in Brokeback Mountain. Because of fear or guilt, Ennis refuses to move or make accommodations, which would allow him to have relationships with both his wife and Jack and loses them both.

Mr. Savage has a male partner and they adopted an infant. (see "The Kid" by Dan Savage-it is actually a good book about adoption -- but don’t give him money, get it from a library)

I believe they adopted a boy and I know that being gay has nothing to do with their ability to be fine parents. However I would worry about this kid’s adolescence. At what point does Mr. Savage expect his son to decide whether he is straight or gay? He must be one or the other. Adolescence is hard enough for any kid, what if like most men, he has both hetero and homo attractions?

Mr. Savage also seems to imply that if you have M2M desires, you must be gay and if you are married you have deceived some poor unsuspecting woman. And he knows anything about my marriage or me? My marriage is good, I am committed to it and I want a fort bro. Ironically, from reading "The Kid," I know more about him. He deserves to be painted with the same broad prejudiced brush he used in his Op Ed piece. I know that BFD gay culture promotes promiscuity and devalues sexual relationships by promoting painful selfish sex.

Was it really fair for him to adopt? Isn’t monogamy going to be a drag? If one is really invested in BFD gay culture, his relationship just won’t last and this was not fair to "the Kid" (Realize this is a broad and prejudiced statement, his relationship must be shaky -- not the long term relationships of my gay frot brothers.)

Den

DONATE!

FIGHT!

Bill Weintraub

Re: Tiny and Stable?

2-16-2006

Thanks Den.

One way to understand the whole mess and confusion about sex created by contemporary culture both gay and straight is to look at one of the darlings of "psychosexual" theory of my benighted youth:

SITUATIONAL HOMOSEXUALITY

The theory of situational homosexuality, also known as opportunistic homosexuality, was that

1. Straight males (and to a degree hetero women) in a same-sex environment would have sex with each other "faut de mieux" -- for lack of anything better; and that

2. as soon as they were in the presence of the opposite sex, they would revert to EXCLUSIVELY hetero behavior.

So: the idea was that guys in the military, in prison, Boy Scouts, monks, etc. would have sex with each other because there were no women around.

Does that idea make any sense at all?

No.

It does not.

Why not?

Because human beings are sexually dimorphic.

That means that there are, from a human point of view, large and very striking physical differences between the sexes.

Like I say, from a human point of view.

Perhaps to a grizzly bear, we all look alike -- though I doubt it.

But NOT TO EACH OTHER.

Does anyone really think that a male soldier with a hard-on is confusing the guy in the next bunk with a woman?

He's not.

Because it's not possible.

The guy in the next bunk doesn't look like a woman, or smell like a woman, or -- in all likelihood -- act like a woman.

He's a guy.

He has narrow hips, broad shoulders, a deep voice, an Adam's apple, no breasts, and external genitalia.

And the other guy knows it.

To understand this better, let's look at two sets of two males engaged in homosex in the heydey of situationalism -- the 1950s.

Set #1 consists of two rough and tough prison inmates who've spent the day on the chain gang bustin rocks and who go back to their cell to get their rocks off with each other.

Set #2 consists of two nelly New York queens who work as window dressers (it's the 50s remember) and who go back to their apartment to get their rocks off with each other.

According to the theory, these two sets of men were totally unalike.

In point of fact, however, that's not true.

In both cases -- the hardened criminals and the tender queens -- the men were getting aroused by each other and achieving orgasm with each other.

Even as a callow and cowed youth, thoroughly taken in by the neo-Freudians, that similarity bothered me and rattled around my brain.

Because: if all four guys were getting hard and getting off with each other -- wasn't that a rather striking commonality?

Yes, Bill, it was and is.

You could have saved yourself a lot of time on a chair across from your dozing psychiatrist if you'd trusted your intellect and your instincts.

So: the theory of the day -- and I might as well have fun with my adolescent fantasies -- was that if you took Mickey Mantle and Roger Maris and caged them up with each other for a sufficient length of time, they might have sex.

But that if one day you tossed Marilyn Monroe into the cage -- they'd instantly drop HIM for HER.

Is that so?

Not necessarily.

They might for example have chosen to double-dick her -- what now is called co-ramming -- two dicks in one vagina.

That's a very common male fantasy.

Which enables the guys to have cock2cock contact in a hetero setting.

And in point of fact what we now know and recognize is that guys released from same-sex environments such as prison will very often continue to have sex with other males even when re-united with and having an active sex life with women.

EVEN THOUGH THAT SAME-SEX SEX IS THOROUGHLY AND UTTERLY DENIGRATED BY THEIR CULTURE.

Fact: the theory of situational homosexuality is utter bunk and pure hokum.

Guys have sex with guys.

In all-male environments.

And in mixed environments.

The theory of situational homosexuality was useful to people in the 50s because it maintained the line between "homo" and "hetero" even when the line had disappeared.

As it did in prison and the military and so forth.

But the theory itself was dopey.

Dumb.

What it really did was enable folks to ignore, as Orwell says, what was in front of their noses.

A case in point: My husband Patrick

Patrick is, to my way of thinking, a fairly typical straight male.

Except he's not straight.

Which is typical.

Patrick first "boinked," as he puts it, a woman (actually of course a teen-aged girl) just two weeks after his fifteenth birthday.

And he regrets to this day that he didn't succeed in doing so when he was fourteen.

Yet not too long thereafter he was rolling around on the floor, rubbing cocks through his jeans with his hard-ab'ed buddy.

Was Patrick mistaking his buddy for his girl?

NOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Patrick in straight mode, like virtually every other straight guy I've known, is very into breasts.

Just as the Inuit are said to have many, many words for "snow," so can you tell a straight guy by the number of words he has for "breast."

If he has about twenty -- which most of them do -- you can be sure he's "straight."

Did Patrick's buddy have breasts?

No.

He was, like Patrick, a skinny, surly, mean-spirited teen-aged boy.

Mean.

Male.

Great abs.

NO BREASTS.

And Patrick was getting aroused with him at the same time -- not at the same moment but in the same time period -- as he was industriously and whenever he could, boinking a large-breasted female.

So: there is no "tiny and stable" population of gay men.

There is a fluid and fluctuating population of "men who have sex with men."

All of whom, by the way, are MEN.

Not pseudo-women, and not intergendered or intersexed beings.

They are MEN.

At various points in cutural history, some of them may identify as gay, some as straight, some as bi.

Throughout most of history, however, they identified as NONE OF THE ABOVE.

There was no such thing as gay or straight or bi.

There were just guys.

Guys had sex with guys.

Guys had sex with girls.

And in most societies and most of the time, NO ONE THOUGHT A THING OF IT.

Guys, you need to get clear about that.

Dan Savage is lying to you just as much as the LDS elders and the old-fashioned neo-Freudians like Bieber and Socarides.

The Greeks didn't divide men into gay and straight.

Neither did the Bible.

In point of fact, no one did that prior to 1869.

That's why Abe Lincoln was able to bunk with Jack Armstrong all those years without anyone worrying about it.

Yes, intermittently, and over the centuries, some people did get into trouble for taking part in same-sex sex.

Although people also got into trouble for taking part in hetero sex.

Does anyone remember The Scarlet Letter?

That was the point scholars made in "friend of the court" briefs filed with the Supreme Court at the time of Lawrence v Texas:

That anti-homosexual persecution, far from being part of the warp and woof of Western civ, has been intermittent and sporadic.

But that persecution was very intense during the the latter half of the twentieth century.

When "gay" came into being with a vengeance.

Gay culture, analism, and the views of guys like Dan Savage, can best be understood as a dysfunctional response to that very terrible but also atypical historical experience.

Which has led to a radically distorted worldview.

That's why I so often quote from this letter from David Winnie Hayes:

The Sacred Band of Thebes was not known for casseroles and folded napkins nor did the priests of Apollo create a leper colony of sexually transmitted diseases... It is difficult to know at this time what it might mean to be gay. We have been bent out of shape by centuries of persecution and our true profile is only beginning to re-emerge. This process is one of the great adventures of our time and we are all invited to participate in it - to be responsible to it and to each other.

David is right.

All men -- not just "gay" men -- have been bent out of shape by what has happened.

"Our true profile is only beginning to re-emerge."

Guys have sex with guys.

MEN have sex with MEN.

That they do so is not important.

HOW they do so is what matters.

Chris M

Re: Tiny and Stable?

2-25-2006

Interesting note about the LDS minister who sees gay men as predators who attack the innocent who come unknowingly into the croc's path.

Having been a member of three branches of the Christian church during my 45 years I was taught that mankind and his nature "suffers" from "original sin". It is believed by these churches that all men are naturally base and sinful. The church uses this concept to condemn sex, lust, and a list full of activities, some vices some not. But church elders use this concept to specifically make us feel shameful about sex. That is why the LDS minister describes the straight boy as a wildebeest, his original sin makes him vulnerable to attack. Presumably, only the church can "save " him from his "weakness".

Most organized church's I have dealt with are about control and power, they are a vestige of earlier times when mankind needed the church to organize and "civilize" human communities. It is a pity that the Christian church hangs on to these out-dated notions of control instead of simply teaching men (and women) to be free to explore their spirituality and their direct connection to god. I personally have had some of my most intense spiritual experiences of my life at the height of orgasm while doing frot with a loved one.

Frankly, I pity these supposed religious persons who have no connection to the spiritual side of sexuality in it's many forms.

Chris M

Jim

Re: Tiny and Stable?

3-30-2006

When I read this post (and later, the original article), I was reminded of a brief conversation I heard between Mr. Savage and the host of that NPR current-events show "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me". Savage was calling in as a contestant (a regular show segment), and the host, as per the formula, asked Savage what was new. Savage starts in about the adoption and the resulting increase in the domesticity of his life. Then he made the comment that he and his partner were essentially living a "straight" life (meaning, I assume, married couple with a kid). Then he says that his brother and his girlfriend were the gay ones in the family. Why? Because they met at a museum or art gallery, travel when they feel like it, go to concerts, plays, art shows, etc. Then he caps it with the comment, delivered like a punch line, "How gay is that?" Everyone in the studio apparently broke up.

The comment bothered me then, and it still does. It doesn't reach the enormity of his comments in the Times, but it is just another example of cramming people into a Procrustean bed of preconceived, prefabricated classifications that - and this is the part that gets me and has since my college days - is used by people - and usually well-educated and supposedly intelligent people - as a substitute for real analysis and thought. It's the sort of thing the NPR and Times crowd seems to eat up (which doesn't say much for me since I listen to one and read the other, LOL). Part of it is this "lifestyle" thing that in truth doesn't really have anything to do with who you are attracted to, but it's also another aspect of the issue you were writing about. It's an easy shortcut that let's people avoid the true ambiguity of so much in life - including sexuality. It's easier to hide behind the duality and pick your side - or let it be picked for you. I think that's why the churches are so popular. It's pretty lonely standing on your own, with your own internalized sense of right and wrong and of who you are - which to me is the essence of being a man. And that's something I think most of the guys on this site - the ones that post anyway - feel the same way about.

Back in 1980, The Atlantic Monthly reprinted an article it had published in the late 1940's by a man named Archibald MacLeish entitled "The Conquest of America". The essay was primarily about how we were becoming obsessed with being against the Soviets to the point of forgetting what we were for - and who we were. In the essay, he wrote about his sense of the evolution of human culture towards greater individual autonomy, to the point of what I said above, of a man standing on his own before God and the world, taking action and making decisions based on his own conscience without hiding behind social expectations or the approval of some church body or other hierarchy. He also admitted that that was a very scary thing to most people and that their instinct would be to run and hide from it (very prophetic in many ways). He also thought it was inevitable regardless of how many generations - or centuries - it took. I feel this site is part of that struggle.

Jim

Greg Milliken

Re: Tiny and Stable?

3-30-2006

Your post reminds me of a quote, Jim:

"If people do not believe that mathematics is simple, it is only because they do not realize how complicated life is." -- John Von Neumann

Anyone can live life by someone else's conception of how they should live. Anyone can think and act a certain way because gay culture says they are supposed to. But to stand up and live life on your own terms with your own rules and taking responsibility for your actions is something only a true man can do. As such, it's something a male within gay culture can never do, since gay culture tells men they aren't real men. I may be gay, but I'm a man first. How I define myself as gay is dependent on how I define myself as a man. Therefore anything gay culture tells me I should be is meaningless, except if it fits my conception of myself as a man. Beyond that, gay culture is overstepping its bounds and needs to shut the hell up.

Greg Milliken

Jim

Re: Tiny and Stable?

05-11-2006

Greg,

I've been thinking about your post the last few weeks. It has hit me, on an emotional level, with how absurd, limiting and almost insulting the labels that society tries to force on us are. Like you said we are men FIRST and, to take your comment one step further, any labels we CHOOSE to use are on our own terms and are really just a convenient shorthand. Gay, straight, bi, whatever, what we really are, or are striving to be,are normal healthy men - which may be the rarest thing in the world these days.

Jim

Robert Loring

Re: Tiny and Stable?

05-14-2006

The labels that others or society place upon us are only as valid as WE ourselves make them. If we deem them invalid then the labels mean nothing and society is WRONG! And "yes" society can be wrong and, in fact, society is OFTEN WRONG! Society is not some god who is always correct contrary to what some seem to think. As for our modern society it is often WRONG because it is a FREAK SOCIETY! It's a society that in historically and traditionally the EXCEPTION and NOT the norm! It is a society in which the members are forced to wear masks and be something that they are NOT and will never be. Modern society is a parlor trick, a play of nothing but light and shadow glued together by a good dose of deception and self-deception. Modern society is a LOST SOCIETY that has severed connections with the past, with the ancestors, and thus it has severed all ties with traditional and historical NORMALACY. Society can label all they want BUT society does NOT have the final say so. WE the individuals DO!! So, SCREW society and their labels!! Their labels ONLY work if WE live up to those labels they force upon us. If we don't then their labels are MEANINGLESS.

Most labels are, in fact as Jim says, absurd, limiting, and "almost insulting." In fact, they ARE INSULTING! Insulting because labels thrown upon another person are labels that usually come from IGNORANCE! No one has to live up to the labels society has cast upon them. We always have the option of NOT living up to those labels!

I think it important that we realize that before anything else WE ARE MEN. Everything else including labels are SECONDARY to the FACT that we are MEN! And not only are we men but we are MASCULINE MEN.

As for the churches what we have today is SELECTIVE Christianity that has become EXclusive and rather ARROGANT. Jesus did not come to destroy masculinity or manhood. He came to boost it up! He did not come to disempower men but to EMPOWER us! Yet, many Christians today have missed that point completely. Most have missed the fact that the MOVEMENT founded by Jesus was and is suppose to STILL be a MASCULINE WARRIOR movement and faith! There IS a reason why the New Testament is OVERFLOWING with WARRIOR and MASCULINE imagery and symbols. Symbols such as eagles, swords, shields, armor, mounted warriors, etc. are not contained in the New Testament by accident. Those images were put in it ON PURPOSE and for a REASON. Modern Christianity missed the boat when they de-nutted the Christ and turned him into something between other than a masculine man EVEN though Christ was a perfect example of a MASCULINE MAN in my opinion.

The Christian Church suffers from a psychotic form of SEXUAL SHAME AND GUILT! Notice any and every form of sex is a SIN? The Church ASSUMES that Adam and Eve fell from the Garden of Eden because they had sex with each other! The Church ASSUMES that the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by God because they were full of men having sex with men. But, NONE of these things are BIBILICAL FACT! Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the cities were destroyed because men were having sex with men or women with women. In fact, in Eziekel the sins of Sodom are sighted as LAZINESS, INDIFFERENCE, GREED, and unconcern of people for other people! Sounds pretty much like today! Sounds like the whole world today is SODOM REBORN!

Christianity in it's modern form have cast MALES into the role of evil, dirty, vile creatures full of sin and error. That is NOT biblically accurate. God gave men manhood and masculinity to be PROUD of not ashamed of. As for ancient warrior societies falling because men started having sex with men that is COMPLETELY INACCURATE! That is just one more SOCIAL MYTH created in modern times out of FEAR by the bible totters who are overwhelmed by their OWN sexual guilt. It's just one in a long list of EXCUSES and false justifications that promote the false idea that MEN must not be allowed to be MEN!! It is one more guilt-trip to make and keep men as BOYS! Shame is a powerful weapon and Christianity uses that weapon as much as they can especially against men. Sex and Men are NOT EVIL, NOT SINFUL. It is those who are trying to destroy men that are the truly EVIL ONES! It is those who have castrated the Christ that are the truly evil ones!

Jesus has been portrayed as some sort of guru walking to and fro speaking of peace and love like a flower child from the 1960's. He has been portrayed as some BOY in a man's body who will allow others to beat the hell out of him without fighting back. Christianity does not really want to discuss the times that Jesus WENT OFF in the TEMPLE at Jerusalem and boy was he PISSED OFF! His public display of AGGRESSION is a taboo subject. Why? Because it reflects his own maleness and innate aggressiveness and does not fit into the myth that Jesus was a castrated wimp BOY.

Some are beginning to think that Jesus was anything BUT a flower child guru with limp hands. Some biblical scholars are considering that Jesus may have been something more akin to a WARLORD trying to lead a mass rebellion against Rome. Gee that would be an excellent justification for the Romans having executed him and deeming him as a CRIMINAL.

In many ways Abraham is cast into the same flower child myth that Jesus is YET from the Old Testament itself it is apparent that Abraham was a TRIBAL WARLORD AND WARRIOR! The man led an ARMY! The man engaged in BATTLE! He was anything BUT the flower child of 5000 years ago!!

Then we come to the image of Jesus' coming again in the Book of Revelation. It's pretty blunt fact that he's coming again NOT as a wimp but as a WARRIOR mounted on a war horse with SWORD drawn! And it's fairly blunt that he is leading an ARMY of WARRIORS! Sorry but this does NOT sound like a limp handed pussy boy to me! Christianity and Christians need to REALLY READ the FACTS in the BIBLE ITSELF and STOP assuming! Of course, that IS the problem. Most do NOT read the Bible! Instead they simply believe what some preacher tells them is so. Have they never heard of deceiving demons in the pulpit? Have they never heard of Antichrist-S?

Sorry for the raging here BUT I'm sick and tired of watching Christ being CASTRATED by the arrogant, exclusive, self serving masses who simply CONFORM to what the alleged "church" tells them is so. The masses are being led to the slaughter like BLIND AND IGNORANT SHEEP! That is now about to cost EVERY one of us because the mentality is that we coware down, stick our thumbs up our butts, and refuse to fight back or take a stand as militant Muslims begin to assert their own sense of masculinity. Yeap! That's right! Muslim males still have their sense of masculinity and they view God as a POWERFUL and MASCULINE Creator not as some wimped out, castrated boy or man-woman! The image of Christ as weak boy is about to cost ALL OF US no matter what we believe. Thank you SISSIFIED Christian Church!

BTW I'm sick of watching my faith be HIJACKED by the BFD and the feminists! And YES I'm fucking PISSED about it!! JESUS had BALLS and SO should YOU Christian!

Sir Robert