More Saturday Male Beauty

U.S. Recruited and Assisted Former Nazis - Another Blow to Supposed American Exceptionalism

I am not anti-American by any means, but it disturbs me greatly when xenophobes Sarah Palin and many in the Kool-Aid drinking Tea Party ranks depict the United States as some type of God-favored nation while glossing over the sordid and often morally deficient aspects of the nation's past. A new report, “Hitler’s Shadow: Nazi War Criminals, U.S. Intelligence and the Cold War,” is anything but complimentary or supportive of America's alleged exceptionalism. Indeed, the report based on materials declassified in the National Archives shows that all too often barbarous murderers were allowed to escape justice or were brought to America if they were deemed to have useful knowledge and/or skills. To me, the only way to avoid repeating dishonorable deeds is to admit that the nation is not perfect and in no wise chosen by God as something special. Such an honest look at our history may not be good for jingoists, but if true morality is supposed to matter, the ugly truth needs to be recognized and never repeated. Here are highlights from the New York Times on the new report:
*
After World War II, American counterintelligence recruited former Gestapo officers, SS veterans and Nazi collaborators to an even greater extent than had been previously disclosed and helped many of them avoid prosecution or looked the other way when they escaped, according to thousands of newly declassified documents.
*
“When the Klaus Barbie story broke, about his escaping with American help to Bolivia, we thought there weren’t any more stories like that, that Barbie was an exception,” said Norman J. W. Goda, a University of Florida professor and co-author of the report with Professor Richard Breitman of American University. “What we found in the record is that there were a fair number, and that it seems more systematic.”
*
“Hitler’s Shadow” adds a further dimension to a separate Justice Department history of American Nazi-hunting operations, which the government has refused to release since 2006 and which concluded that American intelligence officials created a “safe haven” in the United States for certain other former Nazis.
*
Like earlier reports generated by the group, this one paints a grim portrait of bureaucracy, turf wars and communication gaps among intelligence agencies. It also details blatantly cynical self-interested tactical decisions by Allied governments and a general predisposition that some war crimes by former Nazis and their collaborators should be overlooked because the suspects could be transformed into valuable assets.
*
Among them was Rudolf Mildner, who was “responsible for the execution of hundreds, if not thousands, of suspected Polish resisters” and as a German police commander was in Denmark when Hitler ordered the country’s 8,000 Jews deported to Auschwitz.
*
The report cites other cases that parallel the experience of Klaus Barbie, known as the Butcher of Lyon. He cooperated with American intelligence agents who helped him flee to Argentina. One of those cases involved Anton Mahler, who as a Gestapo anti-communist agent interrogated Hans Scholl, the German underground student leader who was beheaded in 1943. Mr. Mahler also served in Einsatzgruppe B in occupied Belarus, which was blamed for the execution of more than 45,000 people, mostly Jews.
*
In 1952, the report says, the C.I.A. moved to protect Mykola Lebed, a Ukrainian nationalist leader, from a criminal investigation by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. He would work for American intelligence in Europe and the United States through the 1980s, despite being implicated in guerrilla units during the war that killed Jews and Poles and being described by an Army counterintelligence report as a “well-known sadist and collaborator of the Germans.”
*
It is not a pretty picture, but Americans need to open their eyes to the truth rather than patting themselves on the back and convincing themselves that they and the USA are special or even favored by God.

Why Tom Brokaw Is Wrong on Covering Antigay Viewpoints

I bookmarked an article in the Advocate earlier this week wherein former NBC Nightly News anchor Tom Brokaw basically said it was fine to continue to air the views of hate groups like American Family Association and Family Research Council. As is typical of the Main stream news media, Brokaw whined about free speech, etc., as an excuse for not monitoring what lies and untruths are being given a semblance of veracity by virtue of being aired on national news shows and other programing. We know full well - as does Brokaw - that neo-Nazi groups, white supremacy groups and the Klu Klux Klan are not afforded similar opportunities to spew poison on network news, so why the exception for Christianist hate groups? Oh, I forgot - religion, especially Christianity gets special rights not afforded to the rest of the public. In my view, a major obstacle to LGBT equality is the continued refusal of the MSN to call Christianist haters out for what they are. Statements based merely on religious belief are fee speech. The dissemination of lies and deliberate falsehoods and fabricated "science" is something far different. If the MSN intends to continue to provide a platform to AFA, FRC, then they need to at a minimum add caveats about their hate group status and propensity to cite utterly discredited statistics and bogus research. As for "cross-examination of anti-gay mouth pieces, it almost never happens in practice. Brokaw needs to get his head out of the sand. That would be journalistic honesty, but I am not going to hold my breath to see it happen. Here are highlights from the Advocate article:
*
The Advocate spoke with Brokaw about complaints against news networks that give airtime to gay rights opponents. “I don’t think you can shut down free speech,” he said. “We’re a free speech society. They’re entitled to their positions however wrong they may be. How do you begin to censor things?”
*
Last month, Dan Savage of the It Gets Better campaign criticized CNN on air for interviewing anti gay leaders such as Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, which the Southern Poverty Law Center has labeled a hate group. He said the attention legitimized the idea that there are “two sides” to gay and lesbian issues.
*
Brokaw argued that coverage of anti-gay viewpoints serves a purpose in that it can generate the kind of outrage that prompts nationwide conversations. He said the issue reminded him of his earlier years reporting on the civil rights movement, although he declined to draw a direct comparison.
*
Asked how anti-gay views should be presented, he said, “You just say that they’ve got strong opinions. You treat like them like anyone else. You cross-examine and ask them the right questions.”
*
Perhaps Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow and a few others seriously question anti-gay bigots, but I'm sorry, I just don't see the CBS, NBC and ABC anchors doing this. Instead, the Christianists get an unchallenged platform which makes them look credible.

Saturday Male Beauty

New Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Bill Introduced in Senate

I suspect most readers are feeling wrung out by the disappointing roller coaster of the DADT repeal debacle in the U. S. Senate. One gets their hopes up yet again only to have them slammed down. Now a new stand alone repeal bill has been introduced in the Senate and candidly, I'm afraid to even try to fell remotely optimistic. As the New York Times opined on Thursday in an column entitled "The Senate Stands for Injustice," the lives of LGBT Americans don't seem to mean much to our elected officials. We are mere chess piece to be toyed with throughout the course of political games. And people wonder why gay teens - and gays of other ages - sometimes see suicide as their best option? This borderline contempt towards are lives and equality takes a real emotional/psychological toll. First, here are details on the new bill via the Washington Post:
*
Trying to revive one of the year's most tumultuous legislative endeavors, senators on Friday introduced a new bill -- with significant support -- that would end the "don't ask, don't tell" ban on gays serving openly in the military. The measure introduced by Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) uses the same language authorizing an end to the ban that was included in an annual defense bill that failed a procedural vote on Thursday.
*
Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Mark Udall (D-Colo.) are cosponsoring the measure and other senators are expected to sign on throughout the day, according to Senate aides not authorized to speak on the record.
*
Despite Obama and Reid's support and assurances from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) that the House will also vote on the bill, it remains unclear when or how it will be considered, if at all. Democratic Senate aides suggested a Senate vote could come as early as late Tuesday or Wednesday after senators vote to proceed with tax cut legislation on Monday. But senators also have to vote on a trillion-dollar government spending bill and may also consider the New START Treaty -- a bill that White House aides privately concede holds more priority.
*
Supportive senators insist they should continue to fight in part because Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen want Congress to end the ban this year and allow the Pentagon to phase out enforcement of the ban in an orderly fashion.
*
Naturally, I place no credence on anything Barack "Liar-in-Chief" Obama or Congressional Democrats may say on the issue at this point. As to the disgusting games in the Senate, the New York Times column stated in part as follows:
*
On one of the most shameful days in the modern history of the Senate, the Republican minority on Thursday prevented a vote to allow gay and lesbian soldiers to serve openly in the military of the United States. They chose to filibuster a vital defense bill because it also banned discrimination in the military ranks.
*
The senators who stood in the way of these measures must answer to the thousands of gay and lesbian soldiers who must live a lie in order to serve, or drop out. They must answer to the civilians who will not serve their country when some Americans are banned from doing so for an absurd reason, and to the military leaders who all but pleaded with them to end this unjust policy.
*
The defense bill would also have raised pay for soldiers, improved their medical care and provided troops in Iraq and Afghanistan with additional equipment and support. It would be the first time in 48 years that Congress did not approve such a bill — all because of an irrational prejudice against gay men and lesbians.
*
There is little sign of encouragement, however, for that good cause or others as the 111th Congress expires in the grip of Senate Republicans demeaning public service as an exercise of naysaying.

Hate Group FRC Trying to Make Itself the Victim?

The hypocrisy of Tony Perkins and the haters at Family Research Council ("FRC") truly seems to know no bounds. Rather than respond to FRC's registration as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center ("SPLC") with a simple act of contrition and a disavowing of its past lies, falsified "research," and bogus "experts," FRC seems poised on launching a marketing campaign wherein it will be the victim. The likely name of the disinformation campaign? As Jeremy Hooper reports"Start Debating, Stop Hating." Would that FRC would heed its own advice, but obviously, since that true facts are not on FRC's side, honest debate will never be forth coming from Perkins, et al. I guess Mr. Perkins and company are really worried that the hate group designation might significantly hurt donations and cause even untethered Republicans to steer clear of FRC. For the record, here's a significant part of what SPLC said as to why it considers FRC an anti-gay hate group (somehow, I suspect Perkins does NOT want to debate these facts about FRC):
*
Headed since 2003 by former Louisiana State Rep. Tony Perkins, the FRC has been a font of anti-gay propaganda throughout its history. It relies on the work of Robert Knight, who also worked at Concerned Women for America but now is at Coral Ridge Ministries (see above for both), along with that of FRC senior research fellows Tim Dailey (hired in 1999) and Peter Sprigg (2001). Both Dailey and Sprigg have pushed false accusations linking gay men to pedophilia: Sprigg has written that most men who engage in same-sex child molestation “identify themselves as homosexual or bisexual,” and Dailey and Sprigg devoted an entire chapter of their 2004 book Getting It Straight to similar material. The men claimed that “homosexuals are overrepresented in child sex offenses” and similarly asserted that “homosexuals are attracted in inordinate numbers to boys.”
*
That’s the least of it. In a 1999 publication (Homosexual Activists Work to Normalize Sex With Boys) that has since disappeared from its website, the FRC claimed that “one of the primary goals of the homosexual rights movement is to abolish all age of consent laws and to eventually recognize pedophiles as the ‘prophets’ of a new sexual order,” according to unrefuted research by AMERICAblog. The same publication argued that “homosexual activists publicly disassociate themselves from pedophiles as part of a public relations strategy.” FRC offered no evidence for these remarkable assertions, and has never publicly retracted the allegations. (The American Psychological Association, among others, has concluded that “homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are.”)
*
In fact, in a Nov. 30, 2010, debate on MSNBC’s “Hardball with Chris Matthews” between Perkins and the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Mark Potok, Perkins defended FRC’s association of gay men with pedophilia, saying: “If you look at the American College of Pediatricians, they say the research is overwhelming that homosexuality poses a danger to children. So Mark is wrong. He needs to go back and do his own research.” In fact, the college, despite its hifalutin name, is a tiny, explicitly religious-right breakaway group from the American Academy of Pediatrics, the 60,000-member association of the profession. Publications of the American College of Pediatricians, which has some 200 members, have been roundly attacked by leading scientific authorities who say they are baseless and accuse the college of distorting and misrepresenting their work.
*
Elsewhere, according to AMERICAblog, Knight, while working at the FRC, claimed that “[t]here is a strong current of pedophilia in the homosexual subculture. … [T]hey want to promote a promiscuous society.” AMERICAblog also reported that then-FRC official Yvette Cantu, in an interview published on Americans for Truth About Homosexuality’s website, said, “If they [gays and lesbians] had children, what would happen when they were too busy having their sex parties?”
*
More recently, in March 2008, Sprigg, responding to a question about uniting gay partners during the immigration process, said: “I would much prefer to export homosexuals from the United States than to import them.” He later apologized, but then went on, last February, to tell MSNBC host Chris Matthews, “I think there would be a place for criminal sanctions on homosexual behavior.” “So we should outlaw gay behavior?” Matthews asked. “Yes,” Sprigg replied. At around the same time, Sprigg claimed that allowing gay people to serve openly in the military would lead to an increase in gay-on-straight sexual assaults.

Has Religion Made Useful Contributions to Civilization?

I looked at recent debate held in Canada that looked at this issue under a slightly different title where the result was that Christopher Hitchings won the argument that religion was NOT a force for good. In many ways it's not a new debate even though today's Christianists who market hate and divisiveness sometimes may make it seem so. Yes, some good things are done in the name of religion and some denominations in their present incarnations seem to have put aside some aspects of their more violent and unsavory pasts. But in the overall scheme of things, in my view, the scales tip against religion and some of religions more disingenuous current leaders - e.g., Pope Benedict XVI, who I will get to later in this post. Blogger friend Bob Felton of Civil Commotion always takes an intellect/logic approach to religion and in the process spotlights its atrocities and hypocrisy. In a recent post he quoted Bertrand Russell's analysis of the answer to the title of this post written 80 years ago. Some things do not change. Here are some brief highlights:
*
My own view on religion is that of Lucretius. I regard it as a disease born of fear and as a source of untold misery to the human race. I cannot, however, deny that it has made some contributions to civilization. It helped in early days to fix the calendar, and it caused Egyptian priests to chronicle eclipses with such care that in time they became able to predict them. These two services I am prepared to acknowledge, but I do not know of any others.
*
To take the case that is of most interest to members of Western civilization: the teaching of Christ, as it appears in the Gospels, has had extraordinarily little to do with the ethics of Christians. The most important thing about Christianity, from a social and historical point of view, is not Christ but the church, and if we are to judge of Christianity as a social force we must not go to the Gospels for our material. Christ taught that you should give your goods to the poor, that you should not fight, that you should not go to church, and that you should not punish adultery. Neither Catholics nor Protestants have shown any strong desire to follow His teaching in any of these respects.
*
It would seem, therefore, that the three human impulses embodied in religion are fear, conceit, and hatred. The purpose of religion, one may say, is to give an air of respectability to these passions, provided they run in certain channels. It is because these passions make, on the whole, for human misery that religion is a force for evil, since it permits men to indulge these passions without restraint, where but for its sanction they might, at least to a certain degree, control them.
*
There is nothing accidental about this difference between a church and its founder. As soon as absolute truth is supposed to be contained in the sayings of a certain man, there is a body of experts to interpret his sayings, and these experts infallibly acquire power, since they hold the key to truth. Like any other privileged caste, they use their power for their own advantage. They are, however, in one respect worse than any other privileged caste, since it is their business to expound an unchanging truth, revealed once for all in utter perfection, so that they become necessarily opponents of all intellectual and moral progress.
*
The worst feature of the Christian religion, however, is its attitude toward sex — an attitude so morbid and so unnatural that it can be understood only when taken in relation to the sickness of the civilized world at the time the Roman Empire was decaying. . . . . The conception of Sin which is bound up with Christian ethics is one that does an extraordinary amount of harm, since it affords people an outlet for their sadism which they believe to be legitimate, and even noble. . . . Almost every adult in a Christian community is more or less diseased nervously as a result of the taboo on sex knowledge when he or she was young. And the sense of sin which is thus artificially implanted is one of the causes of cruelty, timidity, and stupidity in later life.
*
The knowledge exists by which universal happiness can be secured; the chief obstacle to its utilization for that purpose is the teaching of religion. Religion prevents our children from having a rational education; religion prevents us from removing the fundamental causes of war; religion prevents us from teaching the ethic of scientific co-operation in place of the old fierce doctrines of sin and punishment.
*
In my view, the Roman Catholic Church and Christian fundamentalists (I include Mormons in this later category for convenience) continue all of the evils that Russell outlines. During his recent trip to Spain, Benedict XVI, the Nazi Pope, whined about the progressive reforms in that country which include - of the horror - gay marriage and more liberalized abortion policies. In the process, Benedict said "in Spain, a strong aggressive lay mentality, an anti-clericalism and secularization has been born as we experienced in the 1930s." What God's Rottweiler omitted, of course, was any description of why much of the Spanish populace was anti-clerical: the Church was an active enforcer of an unjust and brutal ruling class. People's World has a good description of what the 1930's Spanish Church did - and it wasn't anything in keeping with Christ's Gospel message - in piece entitled "Spring Time for Franco and Pope Benedict." Here are highlights:
*
He [Benedict] went on to say that Spain was a major center for a return to faith because Spain had played such a central role in "reviving" Christianity in past centuries. He didn't say what he meant specifically. Was it the Spanish Inquisition, Spanish colonialism's destruction of tens of millions of native peoples in the Western Hemisphere, the maintenance of a feudal social order that made Spain by the 19th century a weak backward nation, an example of what no one wanted to be?
*
In the 1920s and '30s Spain was at its core a feudal society without effective civil rights and liberties, a society in which the higher orders of the Catholic Church controlled vast amounts of land and other resources, making the Church a key component rather than a mere servant of the Spanish ruling class.
*
After five years of political struggle, in which the church supported reactionary forces and parties in Spain, a people's front coalition of liberals, socialists and communists defeated conservative and reactionary forces in a national election.
In its 1931 constitution the Spanish Republic established religious freedom, which had never existed in Spain, as well as the separation of church and state and an end to the Catholic Church's control of education, and most importantly, placed restrictions upon church property. It also sought to institute land reforms which would have returned poor church-controlled lands to the poor.
*
The most reactionary sectors of Spanish capital then supported General Francisco Franco's coup against the government. When the coup faltered in the face of worker and peasant resistance, Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy entered the conflict to provide troops, weapons, planes and funds to Franco's forces.
*
The global Catholic Church supported Franco's armies . . . often countering the accounts of the atrocities committed by Franco's forces against workers and peasants with stories of attacks on monasteries and church-controlled feudal estates and the killing of clergy by the poor and other supporters of the Republic.
*
Following Franco's victory in 1939, a single party fascist state was established, property was returned to the upper classes and the church, and civil liberties and religious freedom were abolished (the latter for all non- Catholics, including Protestant Christians). Hundreds of thousands of anti-fascist supporters of the Republic were murdered in the years which immediately followed Franco's victory, when Pope Benedict as a German teenager was a member of the Hitler Youth and then a draftee in the German Army.
*
The Pope's statements in Spain should be seen as an insult not only to the Spanish people but to secular and religious people everywhere who seek knowledge which will help them fight social injustice rather than use ideology to preserve and protect wealth and power.

More Friday Male Beauty

Joe Solmonese Needs to Resign

As readers know well, I am no fan of the folks at HRC who are only too happy to suck up LGBT money, describe themselves as the largest LHBT civil rights organization, and then do nothing but ass kiss politicians so as not to get stricken from the D.C. cocktail party circuit list. Oh yes, a "stern" letter or two will be issued on occasion but HRC never moves to attach severe consequences to the failure of politicians to deliver on promises. In fact, HRC's main role seems to be providing cover to lying and disingenuous politicians. And leading this clusterf*ck organization is Joe Solmonese - one of DC's best dressed - who promised back in February that he'd deliver DADT repeal this year Here's the video:


Mr. Solmonese needs to resign if DADT does not occur and I would even argue return his salary since he surely has not earned it. Pam Spaulding has likewise had enough of HRC's and Solmonese's bullshit and lays out the case for Solmonese's resignation. Here are highlights:

*

It's time for the Human Rights Campaign's Joe Solmonese to tender his resignation. By any sane performance metrics, he has failed to successfully lead. Promises like those made in the "This year we are going to bring down DADT" video at the HRC Carolinas dinner on Feb. 27 were used to extract money from low-info, fat wallet attendees. It's rinse and repeat at events like that around the country and there is precious little to show for it in terms of the major promises made by Solmonese -- and this President.

*

Joe Solmonese should do the honorable thing and step down. It is shameful to cash all those checks without the follow through on the job. The White House was never put under serious pressure; the late calls now in the e-blasts for the President to do something ring hollow after the toadying that has gone on for two years.

*

It's a big f'ing mess because there has been piss-poor leadership by those who are lobbied in government. In turn it's the unelected, highly marketed, well-tailored representative of the entire LGBT community, Joe Solmonese of HRC, who also has to be held accountable for these failures. It's clear that those in power had no fear of the vast war chest of HRC being used to turn up the heat. No, the heat came from less well-heeled activists who didn't have the access to power, only voices and fearlessness to call out the purposeful foot-dragging and inaction.

*

[F]or HRC to become the organization the community needs it to be in terms of a lobbying organization with access to our elected power brokers, it will take more than Joe Solmonese's resignation. The organization is multi-faceted and is populated with well-meaning, hard working people who deserve better leadership -- and the buck stops at Joe's desk.

*

It is not divisive to ask what have we gotten for the $80 million that flowed into the coffers of the Human Rights Campaign when it comes to leadership. . . . For those who simmer with anger and immediately call any criticism the "circular firing squad", that's disingenuous. There have been plenty of kudos for what has been accomplished (including those Cinderella Crumbs); but we're talking about a long list of major issues (DADT, ENDA, etc.) that were not seriously pushed after the promises were made.

*

That can only change if there is a thorough shake-up, even if only a symbolic one such as Solmonese's departure, that can signal an understanding of the magnitude of disconnect, discord and failure to lead that needs to be addressed. How that occurs is up to the board of HRC - so my little call for a change at the top is of little significance other than it's just me sharing my two cents and you all reacting to it in the comments.

David Mixner - DADT: The Ultimate American Tragedy

As my post last night revealed, I am beyond disgusted and furious with all concerned in the DADT debacle from Barack "Liar-in-Chief" Obama and his utterly f*cked up handling of the timing of this initiative - he should have acted last year - to duplicitous Senators who play political games with the lives of citizens. Then, of course, there is the utter incompetence of some of the self-styled leaders of the LGBT rights movement who need to collectively fall on their swords for their abysmal advocacy on LGBT issues across the board, and not just in respect to DADT repeal. Those left utterly savaged are LGBT service members who will face continued religious based discrimination - that should be inherently illegal under the U.S. Constitution - and LGBT Americans living in states that afford no employment non-discrimination protections to their LGBT citizens. I'm not alone in my disgust and fury. David Mixner has vented and I subscribe to his thoughts - especially adding DADT to the tax cut "compromise" legislation. Here are some highlights:

*

The failure of the United States Senate to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" yet again is an American tragedy. Yesterday, our elected officials continued their path of shame on this issue by failing to join the rest of the civilized world in allowing members of the LGBT community to serve their country honorably. What a disgrace. Despite efforts to make this vote about procedures and politics, every one of us know this vote was about freedom and justice. Most importantly it was about the right of every American citizen to serve their country with honor and dignity.

*
Absolutely pay no attention to those who talk about procedures and the need for more debate. That is just total nonsense and doesn't hold up no matter how you examine it. These senators have had nearly 18 years and over 14,000 discharges to figure out this policy. They have had their impact study. The Pentagon has signed off in favor of changing this policy. . . . Those who hold up the smoke screen of procedures are hiding behind a cloud of politics are simply cowards or homophobic - or both.

*

First the White House with support of our national organizations have made a horrible strategic mistake in not voting on this issue in the first year of the Presidency. They should be held accountable in some form. We would have not had Senator Kirk (R-Ill), Senator Manchin (D-WVa) or Senator Brown (R-Mass) voting "no" because all those votes would have been "yes" from the previous senators who held those seats. Those votes would have been Bryd (D-WVa), Burris (D-Illinois) and either Kennedy/Kirk (Democrats from Massachusetts). That would have given us sixty and maybe even an extra vote or so.

*

[T]here should be a special place in hell for Senator Brown of Massachusetts and Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine. Both represent states that are overwhelmingly for repeal of DADT. The LGBT community and our allies should throw everything we have to defeat them in the next election.

*

Why don't we add it [DADT] as an amendment to the President's compromise keeping the Bush Tax Cuts and let us filibuster until it is added and passed! Let the Republicans explain to the CEO's why their hatred of the LGBT community is holding up their tax breaks. Let's give them hell. Let's fight back and not roll over one more time and take another blow to our dignity and honor.

Friday Male Beauty

Catholic Church Freefall in Europe

Even as the bitter old queens in dresses at the Vatican and bishoprics around the USA continue their anti-gay jihad and work to deprive LGBT citizens of civil legal rights, the Church is spiraling downward in Europe where more and more details of the toxic cesspool which is today's institutional Church come to light. The irony is that Benedict XVI supposedly had a goal of reviving Catholicism in Europe whereas in fact the lies, cover ups, and enabling of predator priests in which he played such a considerable part may well be the death knell for the Church in Europe - and deservedly so. The New York Times and Rueters both have coverage that shows the extent of the moral decay in the Church's leadership and just how vast the sexual abuse of children and youths was and is by corps of pedophiles who found refuge within the ranks of the priesthood. First, details from the New York Times on a new shocking (well, shocking to some, but what I expected) report from The Netherlands:
*
The Roman Catholic Church, battered by sexual abuse scandals from the United States to Belgium, is facing a new set of damaging allegations in the Netherlands. Figures released Thursday by an investigative commission showed that almost 2,000 people had made complaints of sexual or physical abuse against the church, in a country with only four million Catholics.
*
Asked in March on television about the hundreds of complaints already surfacing, one of the church’s most senior figures, Cardinal Adrianus Simonis, shocked the nation by replying not in Dutch but in German. “Wir haben es nicht gewusst” — We knew nothing — he said, using a phrase associated with Nazi excuses after World War II.
*
[A] commission headed by Wim Deetman, a Protestant and former education minister, said it had received roughly 1,975 reports of sexual or physical abuse, some directly but others through a body set up for victims, called Hulp en Recht, or Help and Justice. One central accusation in the Netherlands is that, as in other countries, known abusers were simply transferred to new parishes.
*
But the rot, moral bankruptcy and pattern of cover ups and utter disregard for the weebeing of children and youth extends well beyond the boundaries of The Netherlands. Here are higlights from Rueters:
*
Here are some details of the major developments in the Roman Catholic Church scandals in Europe this year.
*
* AUSTRIA:*
-- Aug 10 - A record 100,000 Austrians expected to leave the Catholic Church in 2010 because of sexual abuse scandals rocking the Church in Europe, a newspaper reports.
*
-- June 28 - Pope Benedict rebukes Vienna Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn for accusing a senior Vatican official, Cardinal Angelo Sodano, of covering up sexual abuse cases.
*
BELGIUM:
*
-- Sept 10 - Widespread child sexual abuse in Belgian Church drove at least 13 victims to suicide, a Church commission reports. Of the 475 cases it recorded, two-thirds of the victims were male, with boys aged about 12 most vulnerable.
*
-- April 23 - Bruges Bishop Roger Vangheluwe resigns and goes into hiding after admitting he had sexually abused his own nephew for years.
*
* BRITAIN:
*
-- April 22 - Bishops in England and Wales apologize for abuse cases worldwide, saying "terrible crimes" had been committed and Church response has been mostly inadequate. The local Church had a series of scandals about a decade ago but introduced reforms since then.
*
* GERMANY:
*
-- Dec 3 - Munich archdiocese inquiry reports that at least 159 priests were involved in or suspected of sexual abuse cases from 1945 to 2009 and 26 had been tried and found guilty. It says there were probably more cases that had been hushed up or whose files had been destroyed.
*
-- June 24 - Former Augsburg Bishop Walter Mixa gives up his fight to be reinstated after resigning in April amid allegations of physical abuse of minors, homosexual advances to seminarians and misusing Church funds. Mixa accuses fellow bishops of tricking the Vatican into accepting his initial resignation.
*
-- May 27 - Jesuit investigation cites 205 allegations of sexual abuse against priests at Jesuit schools in Germany, revealing decades of systematic abuse and cover-ups by the order.
*
* IRELAND:
*
-- Pope Benedict holds crisis talks with 24 Irish bishops at the Vatican after two government-commissioned reports in 2009 exposed widespread physical and sexual abuse of minors in Church-run institutions and systematic cover-ups by the local hierarchy of abuse by priests.
*
* ITALY:
*
-- Italy has had dozens of cases of clerical sexual abuse involving about 80 priests over the past decade, a priest who runs an anti-pedophilia organization tells Vatican Radio
*
* SWITZERLAND:
*
-- Swiss bishops say they received reports between January and May of 72 perpetrators abusing 104 victims, up from 14 perpetrators and 15 victims in 2009.
*
Indeed, sexual abuse and cover ups prove to be a systemic pattern all across Europe - and indeed the world. Why does anyone continue to give an ounce of deference to the morally bankrupt monsters who comprise the Church's leadership?

Another Reason to Avoid Donating to The Salvation Army

People are sometimes aghast when they hear me advocate not donating a single penny to the Salvation Army ("SA") and need to be educated on the intense homophobia of that organization's leadership and policies. In truth, the SA is an extremist religious organization as further demonstrated by the news that it throws away donated toys it doesn't like. Two specifically targeted groups of toys are those that pertain to Harry Potter and Twilight. It seems the godly Christians at SA cannot differentiate between simple childhood fun and fantasy and and serious demonic ritual. This obsession says far more about the mental instability of the SA leadership than it does about anything else. One would think the SA would show some respect for toys donated after being purchased with someone's hard earned money, but such is not the case. Rather than give the supposedly objectionable toys to a not nutcase charity, the SA sends the donations to the garbage and landfill - a destination more appropriate for the SA itself. Bob Felton at Civil Commotion aptly describe the situation this way:
*
Bottom line: Some well-intended fool wastes his money on gifts destined to never even be opened, the kids go without — but some pole-up-his-butt soldier for Jesus gets to celebrate his own stringent virtue.
*
Personally, I see the increasing insanity of the Christian Taliban as a clear and present danger to a rational, future embracing society. Here are highlights from the Edmontson Sun:
*
The Salvation Army says it refuses to distribute Harry Potter and Twilight toys collected for needy children because they're incompatible with the charity's Christian beliefs.
*
The policy has alarmed a Calgarian who volunteered to sift through a southeast warehouse full of unused, donated items and was alarmed when he was told by Salvation Army officials that the two kinds of toys are "disposed of" and not given to other charities.
*
"I was told to withhold a six-inch Harry Potter figure, but when I picked up a plastic M-16, I was told, 'That's for the 10-year-olds,'" he said. "I was shocked...war-themed toys and toys from TV shows and movies with far more violence than Harry Potter and these were considered appropriate toys?" The Sally Ann refuses to distribute the Twilight and Harry Potter toys because of their wizardry, vampire and werewolf content, said Capt. Pam Goodyear.
*
The world will be a better place when ignorant and bigoted organizations like the SA wither away and die. There's more than enough hate and bigotry in the world without it being further propagated by religious extremists like the SA.

More Thursday Male Beauty

DADT Vote Fails Because of Partisan Political Games

Shortly before I headed out to tonight's hugely successful HRBOR networking event I received an e-mail from Heather Cronk of GetEGUAL advising that the vote to bring the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) up for conversation, which includes DADT repeal had failed. Ironically, I had been on an organizing conference call with Heather and Robin McGehee during which the discussion focused on the need to establish a national grassroots organization to change the equation on the battle for LGBT equality inasmuch as the current approach is broken - as is the U. S. Congress where supporting the equality promised by the Constitution, the good of the nation and the long term good of the U. S. military have been thrown aside by disingenuous and - in my view - whore like behavior by some of this nation's senators who increasingly demonstrate that they don't give a rat's ass about the country and are more than willing to sell themselves out as the equivalent of cheap whores for partisan gamesmanship. I share Heather's feelings:
*
For now, we mourn for the LGBT servicemembers serving each day in silence -- some of whom will lose their lives without ever tasting equality. We mourn for the lack of courage shown by our elected leaders to put an end to needless discrimination.
*
The Senate's behavior is beyond disgusting and, to me, is further proof that this country is quickly heading down the path of ancient Rome insofar as many in the political class having forsaken the good of the country, not to mention demonstrating that they care absolutely nothing about the lives of ordinary citizens. As happened with Rome, at some point the rank and file citizenry will simply decide that the system does so little to serve their interests that it might as well collapse. As one blog noted:
*
Carnal whores have over the centuries caused far less damage to civilization, ethics, and morals that have another class of whore—the POLITICAL WHORE!!!
*
And the U. S. Senate seems to be the center of political whoredom in Washington, D.C. Newsweek has a piece that looks at the utterly broken Senate. Here are some highlights:
*
If you think the Senate is broken, today's vote to block a defense appropriations bill that carries the repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" law provides certain proof. And if you don't think so, you might want to reconsider. By a 57–40 margin, the vote to repeal the bill failed; 60 votes were required for passage.
*
Pundits and politicians throw around the accusation of "playing politics" so frequently that it's become nearly meaningless. But if there's a case where it's warranted, it's here. Most Americans support repeal of DADT. The secretary of defense, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and a majority of members of the armed services back repeal. In fact, more than 60 members of the Senate support it. And yet the bill couldn't get 60 votes.
*
There's almost no one who is immune from blame. First, the White House probably erred in giving in to demands months ago that the military be surveyed for its opinion. . . . senators themselves deserve the most blame. Several Republicans who have publicly backed repeal—in particular Lisa Murkowski, Scott Brown, and Dick Lugar—did not vote for cloture.
*
Even before the vote had ended, DADT opponents began calling for President Obama to take action to prevent the expulsion of gay soldiers, sailors, and Marines—a "stop loss" order that bans discharges, perhaps. With Republicans set to gain seats in the Senate and take over the House in the new term, the chances of Congress trying again on repeal are slim to none.
*
[I]t's a disappointing day for all of them when legislation that a majority of Americans and of senators support fails because of political cowardice.
*
I say a pox on both parties and I hope the courts will do what these gutless, lying bastards refuse to do - end DADT and prove that the U. S. Constitution's promises of equal protection under the law and freedom of religion are not a lie.

HRBOR Networking Event TONIGHT!

I hope local readers will make an effort to attend HRBOR's December networking event and take advantage of the opportunity to visit Norfolk's newest highrise office building. The details for the function are as follows (Note: my office is one of the food sponsors tonight):

Who: Hampton Roads Business Outreach
What: Third Thursday Business Net-working Event (** Second Thursday Dec 9th for December only**)
Where: Wells Fargo Center, Wachovia Bank N.A. - A Wells Fargo Company (host)
440 Monticello Avenue - 11th Floor, Norfolk, VA 23510

The Wells Fargo Center is one of the region's largest office building that is LEED-certified, a green building standard that sets guidelines on everything from construction materials to window tinting. It commands some of the region's highest rental rates.

The views from this building are some of the best in the area. Come enjoy and evening of business networking, see this wonderful new building and take in the holiday lights on Norfolk's Downtown buildings from above.

When: Thursday, December 9th, 2010 from 6 p.m. - 8 p.m.
Parking: Best option would be the Wells Fargo Parking Garage, entrance on the left side of building. The City of Norfolk Parking Authority has a $3 Parking Fee Collected on entry for after-hours parking beginning at 6 PM.

Food Sponsors: Equal Spaces (Martin Borger and Christopher Bridgeman) and Michael B. Hamar PC (Michael Hamar)
Featured Non-Profit: The Virginia Stage Company
Event Cost: Free to Members

**Guest Fee: $15 **

Attention Members & Guests: the Southeastern Virginia Foodbank is in dire need of Food. Please bring canned food items to help re-stock their empty shelves.

Thursday Male Beauty

HRC to Move Into [Desecrate] Harvey Milk's Camera Store

Almost as worthless and disingenuous as the Liar-in-Chief when it comes to the betrayal of rank and file LGBT Americans, in my opinion, are the self-important boot lickers at HRC - e.g., Joe Solomnese - who are more worried about "access" and remaining on the cocktail circuit invite list than advancing the rights of the rest of us. EVERY time I have reached out to HRC for help on a gay rights issue, they have been more worried about "offending" this politician or that politician than about helping a LGBT citizen who was screwed over by the bigoted system. Now, HRC has announced that it will be moving into the location of Harvey Milk's camera store in San Francisco. I view the move as something obscene given HRC's continued spinelessness and unwillingness to hold politicians accountable for their lies and continued bigotry. I'm not the only one outraged. Dustin Lance Black, author of the screen play for the movie Milk had this to say:
*
"Harvey Milk spent the last years of his life fighting not only for rights for gays and lesbians across the nation, but also against the idea that the only way to achieve those rights is to lobby the government and financially support so-called 'straight allies'.
*
For the HRC leadership, which still advocates a piecemeal, wait-and-see approach to try and co-opt and profit from Harvey's legacy is an outrage."

*

HRC sucks up a disproportionate amount of LGBT activism dollars, grossly overpays its leadership, and delivers little or nothing to average LGBT Americans. Donations to HRC ought to be redirected to organizations Lambda Legal and AFER that are actually doing something win equality for LGBT citizens. HRC's main activity seems to be providing political cover for do nothing "allies" such as the current occupant of the White House.

Where Do We Stand on A Vote on DADT?

Yesterday there were rumor that the Senate might take a vote on cloture to move the process closer for a vote on DADT repeal. It did not happen and, based on the lies and games we have experienced to date, who knows what to believe. Last evening I received a call from the DNC/Organizing for America seeking to assure me that all stops were being pulled to get the 60 votes need to move DADT forward. The caller was some one I've met personally in the past and who has heard my tirade on my disgust with Obama, a/k/a the Liar-in-Chief. I told the caller that I appreciated his efforts and those of his organization, but that I had a simple message: if DADT repeal did not pass this year, I was DONE with the DNC and Obama in particular and wanted all of my contact information deleted from their files. I went on to add that I truly was hoping for a primary challenge in the lead up to 2012 so that I could work for whomever the challenger might be since I would no longer lift a finger to help Obama in any way whatsoever. So where are we in terms of a vote? America Blog Gay has this which relies in part on information from Politico:
*
Josh Gerstein and Scott Wong have a very good summary that goes along with what we've been hearing. In a nutshell, Collins seems to be trying to please both sides. Negotiating with Reid, while using the tax cut as an excuse to placate McConnell, who surely doesn't want her helping the DADT legislation pass. Depending who you talk to, we're either screwed or hopeful. I don't think this is over, and Collins still has a chance to be the hero. Possible vote tomorrow, Thursday, so stay tuned.
*
This comports with what the DNC caller related to me and the effort to lock up the need 60 votes. The Advocate is also reporting that Sen. Collins is a sticking point and here are some highlights:
*
On Wednesday evening, Senate majority leader Harry Reid postponed a full vote in the Senate on the bill that includes language to repeal the military's ban on openly gay and lesbian troops. The roll call vote is now scheduled to take place around 12:00 p.m. Thursday, shortly after votes on the DREAM Act and the 9/11 firefighters health and compensation bill.
*
Collins declared, before the postponement, that she would not vote to bring the bill to the Senate floor if it were scheduled to take place Wednesday night, as earlier reports had indicated. Instead, the senator from Maine said Republicans would block the legislation until Congress formally addresses whether to extend the Bush-era tax cuts.
*
Since the defense bill vote is now scheduled before the tax package will be considered, it's outcome is highly unpredictable. Capitol Hill insiders generally believe it could fall either way. A successful vote on the motion to proceed Thursday, however, would only be the first step in the process of considering the bill and would not guarantee final passage of repeal.
*
The fact that we find ourselves in this back to the wall timetable is the direct responsibility of the Liar-in-Chief who dreamed up the f*cked up plan of setting the stage for delaying final action until after having the Pentagon report was release at the beginning of December knowing full well that the Democrats would be likely then be positioned to be blackmailed by GOP Senators. One would think that even a 6th grader could have predicted the current mess, but apparently not the Liar-in-Chief.

More Wednesday Male Beauty

Do Personal Mental/Emotional Problems Drive Gay Haters?

I have personally interacted with a number of the leading anti-gay mouth pieces such as Robert Knight and Peter LaBarbera (I still have our e-mail exchanges) - who strike me as extreme self-loathing closet cases who have transferred their almost violent self-hate to other gays who have resolved/accepted their sexuality - and closeted politicians like former Congressman Ed Schrock who I outed to Mike Rogers. The boyfriend and I even had a face to face confrontation with Operation Rescue nutbag Randall Terry (who has a gay son) at the National Equality March in Washington, D.C., in October, 2009. In every case, these individuals have displayed a bizarre level of hysteria over homosexuality and same sex relationships that suggest that they all have serious emotional/psychological issues that that need resolution. Unfortunately, rather than seek appropriate mental health treatment, they cling desperately to simplistic, rote religious dogma that causes them to lash out and attach others. It's a case on their part of doing anything else rather than deal with their own screwed up emotional/psychological issues. Maggie Gallagher (pictured above) - the former unwed mother, now married to a non-Christian - who has decided to wrap herself in the garb of the Christian guardian of marriage (enriching herself financially in the process). Jeremy Hooper at Good As You has an interesting take on Gallagher which may explain some of her irrational aversion to gays and gay marriage. Here are some highlights (Read Jeremy's full post for numerous Gallagher quotes):
*
I recently heard a theory about Maggie Gallagher, which suggested that the the National Organization For Marriage doyenne is super-obsessed with marriage matters because she believes, based on her own personal experience, that men are generally/ genuinely terrified of marriage. The theory went on to suggest that since Maggie has her own Catholic views on homosexuality, and since she holds a belief that most straight men are repulsed by gay sex, she in turn surmises that same-sex unions do and will serve to further alienate heterosexual men from matrimony.
*
The theory could be right or it could be off-base. But it does actually make a lot of sense. Maggie has talked at length about how the father of her oldest child, a fellow Yalie who Maggie describes as having had a "troubled past", abandoned her and her unborn son in 1982. . . . Maggie directly ties this recollection in with her burgeoning Catholic faith and conservative consciousness, so there's no doubt that it was all highly formative. . . . It seems a focal point was born right alongside the son.
*
Then couple this view with what we know to be Maggie's views on gays in general (or at least the view she wishes to stir up among her supporters). ...and you'd seem to have a perfect storm for turning conservative game-playing into a career. A perfect vehicle for making good money as a public intellectual. A perfect scapegoat for Maggie's own experiences with marriages and straight men. A perfect psychological catharsis, played out at the expense of gay people's own lives and loves and associated rights.
*

Maggie, please do us all a favor and get some serious, legitimate mental health treatment and stay out of our lives (we will gladly steer clear of yours) and stop trying to conflate your own psychological/religious demons into the nation's civil laws.

Yet More U.S. Catholic Bishops Hypocrisy

For an institution whose top leaders worldwide ought to almost all be under prosecution for the obstruction of justice and/or as accessories to the sexual molestation of children and youths, the Roman Catholic bishops in the United States continue to display unbelievable hypocrisy and disingenuousness. Two news stories display the warped values of these nasty old men: (1) the USCCB is promoting a new anti-gay statement entitled "The Protection of Marriage: A Shared Commitment," and (2) a Yahoo News story with the headline: Top Catholic educator concealed abuse knowledge." In the later story, the cleric involved is currently the second highest ranking member of the De La Salle Christian Brothers. The forcible raping and molestation of children is fine with the U.S. Catholic bishops - unless, of course, the secret gets out to the media - while committed consensual same sex relationships between consenting adults are not. It's beyond f*cked up!! But sadly, that is the reality of the Catholic Church even if millions of sheeple want to close their eyes to the truth. First, details on the latest USCCB bullshit:
*
In an open letter released today, entitled “The Protection of Marriage: A Shared Commitment,” leaders from Anglican, Baptist, Catholic, Evangelical . . . . in the United States affirmed the importance of preserving marriage’s unique meaning.
*
“The broad consensus reflected in this letter—across great religious divides—is clear: The law of marriage is not about imposing the religion of anyone, but about protecting the common good of everyone,” said Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York, newly elected president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) and one of the letter’s signers.
*
Today is the moment to stand for marriage and its unchangeable meaning. We hope this letter will encourage just that,” Archbishop Dolan said. “The Protection of Marriage: A Shared Commitment” is being circulated nationwide.
*
OK. Committed, consensual adult same sex relationships bad. But the rape of children and youths? It's apparently okay, unless the media gets wise to the story, based on these highlights from Yahoo News:
*
Kevin Price was struggling with memories of the sexual abuse he says he suffered at the hands of a high school teacher, so he reached out to the religious order that runs the Catholic school he attended.
*
De La Salle Christian Brothers, which educates more than 1 million students around the world, apologized for Price's pain and sought to reassure him. The order's Midwest leader said the brother in question had been forbidden from contact with anyone under 18 and was working in a prison.
*
But in a 1995 letter obtained by The Associated Press, the leader neglected to mention something: The prison was for males from age 10 to 21. The writer of that letter, Brother Thomas Johnson, is now the second-ranking official in the worldwide order. . . . In fact, 21 men have filed lawsuits against Rose in cases dating back to the 1960s. Four of the suits were filed last month.
*
[T]his much is certain: The order was well aware that Rose was not supposed to be working with children — which is more than Minnesota prison officials said they knew when they hired him a year before the letter was written.
*
[Brother Thomas] Johnson is now the order's vicar general and is based at its headquarters in Rome. He did not respond to an e-mail from the AP. The man who succeeded him as the order's Midwest leader, Brother Francis Carr, said Johnson and other Christian Brothers could not be interviewed.
*
Many of Rose's accusers say the order responded to sex-abuse allegations simply by shuffling him from job to job — at Catholic high schools in Minnesota, North Dakota, Wisconsin and California.
*
The Christian Brothers in 2004 paid $1.1 million to a former student at De La Salle High School in Concord, Calif., where Rose taught in the early 1980s. The student was among several at the school who alleged molestation by Rose. The $1.1 million was part of a $6.3 million settlement that also involved allegations against two other former teachers.
*
Most of the plaintiffs interviewed by the AP declined to discuss their settlements, though Paul Mehl of Fargo, N.D., said he got $50,000 from the Christian Brothers. Several said they were disappointed the settlement didn't include a strong statement of responsibility from leaders of the order.
*
The prison fired Rose days after learning of previous abuse allegations against him.
*
It's an indictment of the Church and the Christian Brothers order that the prison immediately fired Rose while the order never did so - nor did they report the known abuse to the criminal authorities. Why does ANYONE continue to give any deference to this morally bankrupt monsters?

Wednesday Male Beauty

The Bible and Homosexuality

The Christianists and other opponents of full civil legal equality for LGBT Americans - as LGBT individuals across the globe - love to cite the Bible as the justification for their efforts to denigrate us and keep us second or third class citizens. Indeed, they disingenuously claim that they have no choice but to follow the Bible's dictates. Never mind that they selective pick and choose which Bible passages to apply literally and which to ignore, especially if the passages are inconvenient in their own lives: bans on lying and bearing false witness; bans on divorce; bans on greed and a love of money. The passages that are ignored seems at times endless. The Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson, Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire, has a column in the Washington Post that looks at the issue of homosexuality and the Bible. Needless to say, his reading is not in keeping with that of the professional Christian/hater set. Here are some column highlights:
*
First, and most famous, of the scriptural texts used to condemn homosexuality are the two references in the Holiness Codes of Leviticus: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." (Lev. 18:22) and "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them." (Lev. 20:13)
*
The context of these two passages are the holiness and purity codes set down for the people of Israel - rules set forth both to define what was clean and unclean before God, as well as what set the Hebrew people apart from their heathen neighbors who worshiped gods other than the one true God
*
Now the assumption here is that to be a man is to desire women. Anything else is acting against one's nature. Thus when a man lies with another man he is acting contrary to his own nature. It was inconceivable in this context that a man could be genetically or biologically predisposed to desire other men. To be engaged in homosexual activity therefore was to do what one was literally not inclined or predisposed to do. Thus it was acting against one's own conscience and predispositions. This is what made it unnatural and therefore a violation of nature."
*
This is an important point, difficult for the modern day mind to grasp: homosexuality as a sexual orientation was unknown to the ancient mind. Same gender, intimate physical contact was not unknown, of course, but everyone was presumed to be heterosexual.
*
[T]he biblical writers in each instance were speaking of homosexual acts undertaken by person whom the authors presumed to be heterosexually constituted." Therefore, any man who lay with another man as with a woman was considered to be a heterosexual man acting against his true nature.
*
The psychological construct of a homosexual orientation was not posited until the late 18th century . . . Such a possibility was unknown to the ancient mind. And so, these verses from the Leviticus Holiness Code must be read in the context of the assumption that everyone was heterosexual by nature, and acting contrary to that was not "normal," and outside the will of the Creator.
*
We cannot, then, isolate these passages about homosexual acts and impute to them the kind of enduring authority which we ascribe to nothing before or after these passages.
*
One other guiding principle in these codes which I presume most modern day Christians and Jews would not espouse is the bias against women. Women are generally regarded as problematic, less worthy, and more unclean than men. A man who had a discharge of semen was ritually unclean until sunset, but a woman who menstruates was unclean for a week. When a woman gave birth to a boy, she was unclean for a week - but when she gave birth to a girl, she was unclean for twice as long!
*
Finally, there is the context of the "science" of conception of that time. Male sperm was thought to contain all things necessary for procreation. Women contributed nothing but a place for the nascent life to incubate. Therefore, the "spilling of seed" (male sperm) on the ground was a kind of abortion, the killing of life. . . . Oddly enough, we have relaxed these "rules" against a man "spilling his seed" through masturbation and birth control, yet we hold onto "a man shall not lie with another man as with a woman" as if it were eternally binding on believers. Such an inconsistency simply does not make sense.
*
Given these changes in our modern understandings and contexts, it is no longer appropriate for us to condemn men who have intimate sexual relationships with other men based on this proscription in the Leviticus Holiness Code. Either all of these proscriptions must be tossed out as binding on us, or they all must be adhered to. Biblical "literalists" cannot have it both ways, picking and choosing which proscriptions are still appropriate.