Wednesday, July 17, 2013

I Just Pictured The Vikings As A Bit More Butch

When we last saw plucky investigative journalist Gina Miller, she was going undercover to expose the International Lesbian Conspiracy to serve fruit punch and potato salad at the Museum of Agriculture and Forestry in Jackson, Mississippi.  Today she's hot on the trail of the crypto-homosexual content in SkyMall.
"How is everything?  Gay enough for you?"
Iceland is a homosexual role model for America?
I guess that depends how homosexuals feel about horsemeat and liquid cheese.
"Liberal & Proud," Ellen Ratner, writing at WorldNetDaily, paints just about the rosiest picture you can imagine of a country that fully embraces the deviancy of homosexuality and the perversion of the definition of marriage.
How do they stomach it?  Well, let's remember, Icelanders are a robust people who've been tempered and toughed by a harsh climate, a remote and isolated environment, and a lifetime of wearing extremely itchy wool sweaters.
 
"You think the sight of two dudes kissing can irritate me?  I'm not even wearing a t-shirt under this thing!"
She tells all about the fun and wonderful things she experienced there, beginning with the in-flight magazine she saw that showed a picture of two men in tuxedos with rainbow umbrellas accompanying an article titled, "Iceland for All."
[Insert Dramatic Prairie Dog here]
After recounting some of the nice things she saw while in Iceland, she states: 
It is against this backdrop of supporting the individual that gays and lesbians flourish in the society. Gay Pride, which takes place every August, has been known to draw more than 50,000 people to its streets, and most of them are part of the non-gay population of Iceland. The in-flight magazine noted that the straight mayor of Reykjavik was on a float dressed in drag! 
What a sign of modern "accomplishment" to have your male mayor dress up like a woman and flaunt it in your "gay pride" display!
Well, she didn't say the mayor was male, only that he or she was in drag, so it's entirely possible that Reykjavik's municipal chief executive is George Sand.  
Or Rudy Giuliani.
People have to be nice to each other because, in a country where there are just 330,000 or so people, you have to learn to get along. Rancor and political rage just don't cut it here, and neither does prejudice because of someone's being different than the mainstream. 
Of course, Ms. Ratner is dead-wrong in her claim that opponents of the radical homosexual agenda are acting out of "prejudice because of someone's being different than the mainstream."
On the contrary, they are animated by a heartfelt and selfless urge to protect America from divine wrath, which expresses itself through the eruption of an unpronounceable volcano, and is usually triggered by a Norseman slipping on a wig and a pair of Spanx.
"Crap.  Looks like the Mayor's doing his Carol Channing bit again."
But, putting that aside for the moment, the "politeness" of the citizens of Iceland may have to do, in part, with the fact that it is one of the more armed populations in the world, with around 30 percent of the citizens owning guns. Iceland ranks 15th among 178 nations in the rate of private gun ownership, and it has a very low gun death and murder rate. Guns in the hands of law-abiding people tend to make a very polite society.
Well, Iceland is tied with Germany for 15th place, but the U.S. is Number One!  And yet we have a very high rate of gun death and murder (based on recent Florida case law, however, some people who were previously classified as "murder victims" are now considered perpetrators who can be charged with "unlawfully interfering with the flight of a bullet").  More to the point, our stats are particularly impressive when you compare us to Iceland:

And we're a famously rude people to boot, so guns may not be quite the panacea for discourtesy as Gina seems to think. 
"Excuse me!  Do you have any Grey Poupon?"
BLAM! BLAM! BLAM!
Another reason for the "politeness" is likely the fact that, despite official claims to the contrary, freedom of speech does not exist in Iceland. The country has imposed "hate speech" laws on its people, so there is no vocal opposition allowed against the behavior of homosexuals or the shredding of marriage.
So if I'm reading your complaint correctly, Gina, you're saying that America would be as nice and polite a place to live as Iceland, if only assholes like you were required to shut up.  I have to admit, it's a convincing thesis.


While the title of Ms. Ratner's column refers to "gay" bashing, she only makes passing references to "political rage," "prejudice," "rancor" and "culture wars."
Which makes it, I'm sure, extremely unsatisfying for Gina -- sort of like a sex addict trying to masturbate to Twilight
She doesn't actually cite instances of anyone "bashing" homosexuals
So I guess an orgasm is out of the question.
I'm left to guess that by "bashing," she simply means vocal or active opposition to the militant homosexual movement's agenda. That agenda includes the destruction of the meaning of marriage and the trampling of the freedom of speech, association and religion of Christians and any others who oppose it.
Unlike the U.S., the constitution of Iceland establishes a state religion ("Evangelical Lutheran Church is a national church and as such it is protected and supported by the State").  Also unlike the United States -- and somewhat predictably -- "A Gallup poll conducted in 2011 found that 60% of Icelanders considered religion to be unimportant in their daily lives, one of the highest rates of irreligion in the world."

Conservative Christians like Gina make a career of bringing the same powers of mistranslation they use on the Gospels to bear on modern language by interpreting any disagreement as oppression -- even the mildest rebuke has them falling to the grass, clutching their shin and howling histrionically like an Italian soccer player.  But they spend so much time fighting the battles of the past that they never ponder what the future will look like once they finally throw off the yoke of the Homosexual Hegemony and don the sequin-spangled yoke of Baptist theocracy.  Unfortunately for Gina, history suggests that once Christ is in the Oval Office, all those churches currently packed with anti-government firebrands eager to stick it to the Man (or at least the Gay Man) will be empty except on Bingo Night.
She wraps up her piece with her wish that we could just move past this thorny issue: 
In reflecting on our culture wars and the rancor we live with over just this one issue, I find it hard to believe that we can't move beyond it. Iceland has. No one cares if you are gay or gay married, and the country moves ahead with trade, tourism and tolerance. 
Wouldn't it be nice if we did too? 
I would advise Ms. Ratner that as long as homosexual radicals are hell-bent on destroying Christian business owners who refuse to violate their conscience by baking a "wedding" cake for same-sex couples, and as long ashomosexual radicals viciously assault those who disagree with them
Gina salted a bunch of links in here to sites I don't care to touch with a ten-foot hypertext, but just to give you an idea, the first appeal to authority invokes well known truth-allergen Peter LaBarbera, who talks up an incident where "the homofascist element...sexually molest[ed] and chas[ed]" Christians out of San Francisco, and posts pictures proving his point, such as this one:

Actually, the "mob" doesn't look all that "angry," I don't see any police officers at all, and rather than sexually molesting or chasing anybody, the guy in the center looks more like he's calling to a friend across the street:  "Hey Bob!  It's your turn to bring the rainbow cupcakes on Tuesday!  We're gonna kick your ass in Dance Dance Revolution!"
and as long as homosexual radicals are fighting to impose an impossible definition of marriage on the people of the United States, and as long homosexual radicals are aggressively indoctrinating the children in our public schools with the lies of the homosexual movement, we will stand in opposition to this unhealthy, unnatural and immoral behavior and the hellish movement spawned by it.
Well.  Fine.  No rainbow cupcakes for you then.
While Ms. Ratner may regard Iceland's embrace of all things homosexual as worthy of emulation, homosexuals in Iceland are no different than anywhere else, and they will invariably experience much higher rates of disease, depression, substance abuse, suicide and domestic violence than non-homosexuals. Homosexual apologists claim these glaring statistics are due to discrimination, but that's not true. 
Except your own link -- a British article from 2006 -- says it is true.  Isn't citing a report you claim is "not true" in order to prove your point sort of counter-productive, unless what you're seeking to prove is that your point is bullshit? 
Whenever we behave in a manner contrary to God's design, we will suffer all kinds of ill effects from it. Sin is bad for our health, period.
On the other hand, while living your life in a constant state of spitting rage and boiling frustration may not be heart healthy, it does provide a great aerobic workout for your spleen.
No, we are not doing homosexuals any favors by moving to embrace their sinful, self-destructive behavior. Encouraging homosexuals in their sin does them no good, and a nation that moves to force the mainstream acceptance of such deviancy will pay a terrible price for it. We can already see the awful results of the imposition of same-sex "marriage" on Massachusetts.
Gina's link goes to a 2008 masterpiece of slippery slope tobagganing by Brian Cameker.  Yeah, this guy:

18 comments:

Carl said...

You what makes for a polite society, Gina?

Garter belts. Everyone should wear garter belts and stockings: men, women, children, dogs...but not cats. They'd think it beneath them.

No, I'm serious! How can you possibly get angry with lace and silk hugging your undercarriage?

Li'l Innocent said...

I have great respect for your intellect and general ethos, Carl, but I can tell you've never worn one.

A serious, functioning, daytime garter belt ain't no pansy froth-up of lace and silk, believe me.

What we should all be wearing are crepe de chine teddies.

Li'l Innocent said...

Addendum to the above: "... and stockings"!!! ???

Dear sir, a garter belt is bad enough, but you add actual stockings to it... the torsions and tensions involved are enough to make a large proportion of the populace something more than irritable.

In "Niagara", there's a scene -- pure, deep 1950s it is -- where vacationers staying at a cheesy little motel (the kind with cabins IIRC) outside Niagara Falls gather outside one hot evening to drink beer and play records on a Victrola. The nice young honeymooners who are the sort-of protagonists join the group. Then everything snaps to a halt as Marilyn Monroe, in a spectacular red sheath dress and white high-heeled sandals, comes undulating across the asphalt. A little later the young husband says to his wife, "Why don't you try wearing a dress like that?" She gives him an amused look: "Darling, wearing a dress like that takes years of planning!"

Back in those days - the heyday of garterbeltandstockingss - inconvenience and discomfort were part of a Woman's Lot if she wanted to be in style. You learned that at your mother's knee by the time you were 12.

ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said...

So if I'm reading your complaint correctly, Gina, you're saying that America would be as nice and polite a place to live as Iceland, if only assholes like you were required to shut up. I have to admit, it's a convincing thesis.

And I am also convinced. Make it so.
~

Carl said...

Innocent,

Pics or GTFO

Li'l Innocent said...

Of me or Marilyn?

KWillow said...

Libertarianism means letting people be as mean and vicious as they want, unless they want to have an abortion or marry someone of the same sex.

Anonymous said...

Lil has, if anything downplayed the horrible discomfort of suspender belts and stockings, except possibly on the ultra-thin.I finished High (Catholic) School and they were mandatory.Every winter day an agony.
The only thing worse, comfort-wise, were the little elastic belts to hold one's Kotex pad in place. The person who invented wings and sticky patches on pads deserves a freaking medal and the gratitude of all women.
Trust this is not TMI about female discomfort.We were not allowed to use tampons because our virginity might be compromised. True Fact.
Suezboo

Scott said...

I have to say, and I mean this in all sincerity, that I couldn't be happier about the way this comment thread has evolved into expert testimony on the horrors of obsolete foundation garments. Not only is it highly educational (at least for me), and a delightfully rational response to Gina's ravings, but we're suddenly getting a ton of Google hits for "Vintage Negligees."

I love you guys.

Carl said...

Innocent, you, of course.

As for the comfort of garter belts and stockings, may I simply observe that I've never minded that as much as the heels. I have shortened Achilles tendons now...

Li'l Innocent said...

Well, Carl, at least you apparently have been able to benefit from new, revolutionary pantyhose technology. I suggest the Downward Dog pose for those tendons.

Jeezleweez, Suezboo, I'd clean forgotten those sanitary belts, OMG. Not being Catholic, I updated to tampons as soon as humanly possible, but you have my retrosympathies, believe me. Were you in the game early enough to experience the delights of scratchy crinolines?

Hey, Scott, let's see if you get any "Scratchy Crinolines" hits (& thx for the encomiums, we luv u 2).

I doubledog-guarantee you there are some pervs out there who are into scratchy crinolines on women, the sandpaperier the better. There was a special kind of '50s heavy duty nylon net, invented by some closet Nazi, that was utterly unbearable to wear, but it held your circle skirt out in the required conical shape.

Anonymous said...

Oh, Lil, I remember those G-ddam petticoats. For my "prom" I wore a blue dress which spun out in a complete circle. The real problem was keeping from flashing your naked thighs above the stockings while boogeying hard and having your dress fly up over those net things.
Were the flat ballet slippers also de rigeur for you at that time? My teenage heroine was Brigitte Bardot, the Nymphette from France.
Hugs to you as a fellow sufferer and Scott for letting us relive some dreadful times.

Li'l Innocent said...

Ah, ballet flats. You know (and this may have been a regional thing in the suburban NY metro area), there was a definite, morality-based "class distinction" about those shoes, for a period around '57 or so. Girls who wore them with nylons (that's what we called stockings in them days, boyz), sometimes with a "slave bracelet" around the ankle *under* the stocking, were signalling that they were sexually aware and even a bit tough, right on the edge of being bad girls. (Which was a serious game in those days, but we all had to play it in one directions or another.) A variation, oddly enough, was to wear flats with nylons under heavy bobby sox, which by that time had evolved into thick, white ribbed numbers that rose halfway up the calf. Because skirts were long, you really had very little leg showing. But there was something about the mixing of kid-wear (the sox) and adult-female-wear (the stockings) that was felt to be daring. Remember the stockings had seams!

Determinedly nice girls wouldn't have gone that far into experimentation. They either wore flats with stockings, or sox with oxfords or loafers, or sometimes sox with flats.

Brigitte came along just at this point, 57 or 58, and was, with her long loose hair and un-confined little bod and her nature-girl sexuality, a harbinger of things to come.

Anonymous said...

Ya know, Lil, I really thought I had that whole Good/Bad Girl dichotomy via clothing thing whacked; I mean I was a hippie for fik's sake,until I realised one of those rules has stuck with me for 50 years.
When wearing jeans, only sandals or boots are appropriate.
I mean, if I saw some woman I respect, like Sen Warren or Graca Machel, wearing heels with jeans - she's a slut.It appals me that this rule clings to me but (shrug) c'est la vie.
Suezboo

Weird Dave said...

Aaaahhhhhhiiiieeee....autoplay!!!

Weird Dave said...

Uh, sorry about that.

Anyway,
from obsession about hair to high heel shoes the indignities and insanities foisted the females of my species in the name of beauty, fashion, and conformity, well, I have not a clue.

My empathy (as best as I am able) to you all.

M. Bouffant said...

Here's hoping Gina never finds out what else goes on in Iceland: Sexing It Up w/ Elves!!!

Stacia said...

Isn't citing a report you claim is "not true" in order to prove your point sort of counter-productive, unless what you're seeking to prove is that your point is bullshit?

Nooooo they do this on purpose, knowing 99.44% of the people who read the post will hover over the link and see it going to a legit site and assume they've summarized it correctly, and/or whoever clicks over won't actually understand what they've read.

I have nothing to add about garters, except for short people, they are completely damn useless. The elastics stretch until they're down to your knees.