Skip to main content

A potential scoop: busing queers around the country will change the weather patterns

Classically Liberal recalls interviewing fundamentalists in the 1970s when Indiana was mooting a law to make homosexuality a felony:

Prior to the Rally the Falwellians rallied their troops of religious Neanderthals and had them march through the streets of Indianapolis. I marched with them, tape recorder in hand...

That year California, and I guess much of the West, was in a drought. No surprises there. California and the West have experienced droughts for as long as history has been recorded. I mention this because of one couple I interviewed. The woman was standing there in her very long dress (anything above the knees was immodest to them). She had a Bible clutched in her hand and pressed up against her breast. Any one in public, with a Bible clutched in full view, is almost always bad news. And, in a sense, so was she. But she was far more amusing that deadly, though I have no doubt she would have happily joined in a stoning of a homosexual or, in times past, happily provided some wood to burn a witch or two.

I asked her why she was participating in this march. She explained that God hates homosexuals and God wants homosexuals punished. If man won’t punish homosexuals then God will punish man. In the deep theology of fundamentalism if you don’t hate the people they hates then their God will beat up your God and hurt you. She then went on to explain that the drought in California was the result of the state being more tolerant of homosexuals than other places in the country. Apparently the drought had nothing to do with the typical climate of the region; it is all based on the whims of her deity.

I asked her: “Are you saying that the presence of homosexuals causes droughts?”

Without hesitation she said: “Yes.”

I couldn’t resist a follow-up question. “Then, if a region is experiencing floods, would it be possible to stop the rain by busing in a lot of homosexuals?”

All right, I knew the question was absolutely ludicrous. Who in their right mind would think you could control the weather by moving gay people around the country? She paused momentarily and then said, “Yes, that would work.”


It appears that homosexuals also have the power to bring rain as well.

Fast forward to today--well, four days ago--to Maine, where the State is currently seeing unusual amounts of spring and summer rain. Here's Michael S. Heath [yes, he actually signed his name to this] writing in The Times-Record:

What is missing is the sun, God’s emblem of cheerfulness and benevolence.

Our crops are faring like our moods. The potato crop is blighted, and corn and fruit fields wither. In one historic building in Augusta, rain flooded the basement, as water from another source poured down through the ceiling and extinguished a century-old chandelier.

Few people would be bold enough to suggest the cause of the endless rain and gloom, that the moral climate in Maine has caused the sun to hide its face in shame.

Worse than the rain is the fact that Maine voted in homosexual “marriage.”

In May, our elected officials overturned a law of nature, and in its place paid honor to evil and unnatural practices. Our leaders allowed a cloud of error to hide the light of reason, and then the rain began. How fitting that this eclipse of human reason is mirrored by the disappearance of the sun!

What darkness equals the error of saying a family should be headed by two mothers or two fathers? What error equals saying that two women can be married, or two men? I am not saying that homosexuals or the gay rights movement are to blame for the weather. Far from it!

The fault lies with a refractory governor and Legislature who imposed an immoral law on our people.


At first I was confused: Sodomites bring both drought and too much rain? Can't God be consistent in His punishments?

Then I re-read the Maine piece, and realized it wasn't the faggots who actually caused the rain, but the people who voted in same-sex marriage.

So the formula apparently works like this:

If you need to have less rain because your potatoes are blighted: import women in plaid shirts covering nipple rings who hold hands in public, and the clouds will dry up.

But...

If you accidently overdo it and get a full-scale drought, then you can make it rain again by allowing lesbians to marry each other.

Who knew.

And, yes, Waldo, I am waiting with bated breath to see how long it takes Savonarola to pick up this one.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...