Posts tagged ‘Homosexuality’

January 14, 2013

Gayitism at the 2013 Golden Globes

by MullOverThis

Can somebody “splain to me” why Jodi Foster (one of the most talented actresses of all time) thinks the Golden Globe Awards was the appropriate setting to make her sexuality and privacy concerns an issue while being honored for her body of work as an actress?

Gay folks would be up in arms if any heterosexual took that same forum to announce her heterosexuality and reinforce their privileges and rights to a traditional family.  Do heteros get up an an annual office event and since they have a captive audience, declare and crack jokes about their heterosexuality?

More gayitizing with a grin.  Sheer ridiculousness.Image


June 16, 2011

Weiner Resigns

by MullOverThis


Because of all the hoopla the party now faces, due to Weiner’s sexting misappropriations?  Or, his resignation may be a final breath to the nonsense-turned-fiasco because instead of addressing the mess with a modicum of integrity, the otherwise likeable New York congressman allegedly lied about the incident/s.

Like many of his predecessors-politicians with extramarital or freaky-deak shenanigans gone public-Weiner had to accept responsibility and step aside.  For what, I’m not certain because in the total scheme of things, this kind of stuff seems to be a marital more than a governmental problem.  Yet, the public and party insiders who care about the pressures from constituents seems to expect politicians to take the self-inflicted irreparable damage end and resign.  Expectedly, Weiner, in a brief statement, took the prescribed course and unloaded the continued ammunition the Republicans would have against the Democrats.

What is particularly admirable is that whether or not Weiner is genuine in his apology for the lack of discretion evidenced by the juvenile sexting and online parading or not, he had the wherewithal to know that some acknowledgment and an apology to those who relied upon his leadership was necessary.

The great grand pompous Bishop Eddie Long, who has some rocks that he hasn’t yet slung in his slingshot like David used in annihilating David’s seemingly giant enemy, ought to take some lessons from Weiner.  After lying and running his mouth to the press, Weiner made a public apology to his wife, his family and those who stood with him in his career as a public servant.   While the standard of integrity and accountability in the church should be so much greater, the Bishop Eddie Long who had a sexting component to his scandal and alleged sexual escapades with young boys/men has yet to make any public statement demonstrating any amount of humility or admission that at the very least, Bishops don’t take pictures of their buffed bodies and send them to their parishioners (especially when the men who are supposed to be chaste are married and have children).

The handsome sum in the millions (alleged) for settling the lawsuits-again, millions-is a huge rock in a Bishop Long’s slingshot.  However, Bishop Long’s slingshot seemed to have a boomerang effect.  I commend all of the people with common sense who are leaving New Birth and refuse to sit under a leader who would settle in the millions rather than let the truth be made known. Remember, for those who receive restoration for being overtaken in a fault, there must first be acknowledgment of wrong and repentance.  True repentance means the behavior must change because it is WRONG.  Arrogance and regrets for being busted won’t do.

Nuff said.


November 14, 2010


by MullOverThis

Hello, blogosphere.  It’s been a minute or two, but after seeing the cranky reviews of this film on the Root and other African-American blogs-which I highly anticipated-I had to chime in.  Tyler Perry’s latest film, FOR COLORED GIRLS is based upon  Ntozake Shange’s choreopoem “For Colored Girls Who Have Considered Suicide When The Rainbow Is Enuf.”

This film is not a great adaptation of the original artistic work because the original play, based upon a series of Shange’s poems, depicted her morally decrepit view of the world and life through the Black woman’s experience.  Although Tyler Perry has issues, he is not a feminist and could not have possibly sought to bring a baseless feminist point of view to life on the big screen.  Personally, I’m glad he didn’t.  I remember having to take some Tylenol when studying Shange’s work back in college.  I thought, “Lord, what is this world coming to.”

Of course, this flick is in line with most of Perry’s movies:  It does cater to the same stereotypical Bishop Jakes audience of wailing Black women as an all-inclusive view of the Black family/Black life and marginally includes the Black man.  DADDY’S LITTLE GIRLS presented a story that needs to be told about the single Black male father who is often the “better” parent, and has to struggle to give his children the influence, upbringing and life they deserve. So, although I am not a Tyler Perry fan, he did give some “dap” to Black men.

As for COLORED GIRLS, my girlfriends and I all have one opine that cannot be trumped:  We all see ourselves or know someone personally who has the same story as the characters in this film.  So, what is all of the fuss about?

read more »

April 20, 2009


by MullOverThis

Not really.  I don’t believe atheists, agnostics, and people of “spiritual paths” other than Christianity are necessarily fearful of Christians.  But since this “homophobia” inflammatory jargon designed to disengage legitimate opposition to the homosexual/gay agenda is now politically correct, I thought the use of the phobia tactic is apropos solely  for illustrative purposes.

The truth is many homosexuals/gays-and those who are simply perceived to be homosexual–have been beaten, persecuted, marred, murdered and discriminated against simply because they are believed to be  homosexuals.  This denigration of humanity is never acceptable.  We need not discuss the historical and current persecution of Jews, Christians, and African-Americans through mass genocide and the like.  The annals of utter hatred against these classes of people cannot be justifiably encapsulated in one blog post.

Yet, the disdain and intolerance of the homosexual lifestyle and agenda is met with a nifty  “phobia” marking. The connotation is as if the logical one who does not agree suffers from some unreasonable fear of what is otherwise simple or normal.   I think it is safe to say, most people do not have “fear” of homosexuals or homosexuality.  The disapproval, rejection and opposition to a thing are not necessarily synonymous with “fear”.  I can’t stand onion rings.  My personal preference is to never have onion rings.  My failure to order onion rings, or efforts to vote them off of the fast food menu does not mean I fear them.  I have made a valuation and judgment that they are not desirable and are not good, although many people may prefer and love onion rings.  My personal beliefs regarding homosexuality are clear:  it is not a desirable lifestyle.  I’m not scared, nor am I ignorant.  I just don’t agree.

My belief system is firmly rooted in my faith and commitment to Christianity.  Need I be “converted” to another point of reason by one whose belief system is rooted in self by way of intellect, education, philosophical affinity or life achievement?  To another woman’s valuations based upon impulse and present life goals and experiences?  To another person’s values because he is good?  To the current trend of thought because it is increasingly common?  The opinionated Christian—not all of us are this involved—has her right to reason to a final resolve just like the non-Christian. We do not enjoy blanket classifications about how we live and respond to the questions of life any more than anyone else.  Our opinions and right to be involved in the political process is no less weighty because we serve the True and Living God.  We need not cow-tow to those who wake up and go to bed and the world should be as s/he thinks based upon the breadth of knowledge s/he has thusly consumed, or those who heighten the import of the human experience.

There is no civil system of government where the law is not largely composed of moral codes.  However a man identifies his own beliefs and morality, and that system of government employs that man’s belief, it is what it is.  Christians have every right, PARTICULARLY SINCE THE UNITED STATES IS FOUNDED UPON JUDEO-CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES, to stand up for what we believe and what we do not believe.  A crucial tenet of the faith is that God is the Creator and loves all men.  Yet all will not believe what we believe.  We are to share our faith because the relationship with God and benefits of being in fellowship with God are available to everyone.  We are prepared to encounter those who do as we often do to other belief systems:  REJECT the faith. We must simply keep on believing and keep on living.  So then, are we dealing with Christianphobia when some atheists, agnostics, and people of other religions do not accept and conform, form interest groups, create and produce programming released through various media outlets to promote their beliefs, lobby for their beliefs to be encoded as statutory rights, file zillions of frivolous lawsuits, actively discriminate against Christians, endanger the lives of Christians, and fight to thwart the values of Christianity because what they believe should be?



Note:  Not all Christians share this view. The emphasis of the Christian message is that we have all been born in sin, shaped in iniquity, and have the grace of a loving, merciful God to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

August 20, 2008


by MullOverThis

Obama definitely has audacity. 

Senator Barack Obama and Senator John McCain joined host, Pastor Rick Warren, at the Saddleback church for an interview aired on CNN.  Both presumptive Presidential nominees answered the same questions at separate times, one-on-one with Rick Warren, in front of  thousands.   During his interview, Obama sat in a church and justified why he is in support of gay marriage, homosexual rights, and abortion–while declaring that he is a Christian and Jesus Christ saved him by grace.  Watching the Christian rationalize baby killings because to determine when life begins is above Obama’s “pay grade” (his own words) is enough audacity.  But, there is more. 

Obama unleashed more of his glaring introspective thoughts when asked which United States Supreme Court justices would he not have appointed.  Obama didn’t hesitate or stutter.  Clarence Thomas. Here is the reasoning Obama stated, “”I don’t think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation, setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretations of a lot of the Constitution.”  This, off course, is coming from a former editor of the Harvard Law Review and a corporate attorney.  Obama has wet his feet in the practical legal and political world compared to the Senators who were on the confirmation committee and thinks he is qualified to judge the competence of Justice Clarence Thomas’ jurisprudence.  Interesting.  Especially from a man who wants to be President of the United States, with only one full-term as a US Senator under his belt, and eight years as an Illinois Senator.  Compared to his colleagues and competition, Obama needs to sit down and say “sike” (slang for I was only playing) by his own standards. 

Here are some facts:  At the time of Justice Clarence Thomas’ Supreme Court appointment, he had already been confirmed by the US Senate (many of whom have law degrees and legal backgrounds) for appointment to the US Court of Appeals for the  D.C. Circuit, one of the most honorable court appointments in the land.  Thomas wasn’t appointed to the Supreme Court from being a traffic court judge, or a scripted court television judge.  Prior to the Circuit Court appointment, Thomas-a Yale law graduate- also worked in an attorney general’s office, was an Assistant Secretary of Education, and was the  CHAIRMAN of the  Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for almost eight years.  Justice Clarence Thomas already had experience as a jurist on one of the most esteemed courts of the land when he was appointed, yet ankle-deep Obama cited Thomas wasn’t strong enough. 

So then, we are to believe that Obama is strong enough to be PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, while Thomas wasn’t a strong enough jurist or legal thinker to be onemember of the highest court in the judicial branch of our government.    Obama better be careful before his house negro mentality yields trouble for him during the rest of his campaign, and if elected President, when he gets into office.  He has obviously been in the house so long that his vision is tainted.  Obama’s candidacy alone suggests that he sees himself as capable and his experience on the Presidential track is not even comparable to that of Thomas’ on the judicial track at the time of Thomas’ appointment to the US Supreme Court.  Obama’s grossly skewed assessment of Thomas is not only condescending, but completely inappropriate in light of the increasing hostile climate (based upon beliefs that Black people are unqualified and given free-bees) pro-White extremists have towards Black Americans because of our insurgence in politics, education, business, ownership, religion and otherwise.  Hopefully Obama’s deep musings will reveal his own audacity to try to discredit the qualifications of the only Black justice on the Supreme Court.


With the God of the Heavens as my judge, after writing the above post, I searched for other opinions on this topic, and found the following link:



June 29, 2008

Nader Accuses Obama of “Talking White”

by MullOverThis

Here we go again.   Every now and again, I cannot contain my ability to allow Whiteys to brief themselves and simply mind my business. 

Although they may be polar opposites, Pat Buchanan’s fellow Blackman Detective Ralph Nader, accused Democratic Presidential Nominee, Senator Bararck Obama of “talking white”.  It is important to comprehend the context of this remark to fully appreciate what Nader is communicating.

Apparently, Nader is miffed by Obama’s political agenda because it does not include–or at least has not widely pushed–the issues that plague the abject poor.  Although I wholeheartedly and cannot emphasize enough how much I agree, I cannot side with Detective Nader this time.  Predatory lending, payday loans and the like should be addressed by the Obama campaign along with a number of other issues that plague, transcend and certainly is not limited to  the Black community.  However, Obama is not the candidate of the Black Community and never has been.  This is what distinguishes him from the Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons of the political world.  This is what may even get Obama into the White House.  He is not alienating white people because he is not a crusader for Black people.  White people don’t have to feel threatened by Obama.  Obama is not “talking White”.  He is talking what he so-called believes in.  If what he believes in is “white”, then remember, Nader said it first.   We just may have to accept that White talk is non-Black community, non-poor or working class talk, according to white political detectives.  By the way, who gave Nader his detective badge and authority? Whoever credentialed him in this regard is a target for citizens arrest.

Obama is the people’s candidate.  Folks, Obama wants to see everybody happy and fusion in the melting pot of America.  Can’t we all just get along?  In Obama’s world one day we will all–the teenage mothers who kill unborn babies without parental consent, along with the conservative Christian right, human beings with male genitalia and female breast implants who are a man on Monday and a woman on Thursday, Black militant leaders (at least until they become too vocal and threaten his popularity), with young KKK prospects, skinheads, aryans, Farrahkhanites, and Oprah along with her occult spiritual advisors, the Bible toting believers and all, rich and poor, gun control advocates and right to bear arm purists–live and be free, free at last, from and bounds of human decency and morality all with an occasional Obamian attempt to abuse the Bible to justify this unity. 

Let’s be excited about our Country and the opportunity for Obama, a Black man, to finally be President.  But let’s not forget to be excited about the ideals of faith in the God of the Bible as a Christian nation.  And let’s certainly not forget that Obama is a man who happens to be Black and is free to be who he is.  He should not be held to represent a community that he does not, simply because he is Black.  White talk is not serious Presidential talk.  Obama is talking competent candidate talk.  Obama is simply being a man who reflects his earnest convictions, much of which I adamantly disagree with. 

So Nader has done as Whitey always does.  “Missed it” because he is clueless.  Once White men learn that they are not Black, and can never speak for a Black man or the Black community, they will stop trying to tell Black people how Black they are, and are not and what their speech is, and is not.  The Naders of this world will realize that–after they just may have to be treated for shock–the Black community is not homogeneous, and every successful Black person does and may not relate to what a white man thinks should be important to our community.

I’m sure Nader has good common sense but this was just a glitch in his pompous brain.  An inverse analysis would suggest that golfing, badminton, the prime rate, Haliburton, and private banking is appropriate talk for white politicians.  Or better yet, Nader “talks Black” by his own standards. 

Moderator’s Note:  I do not believe that Nader is a racist, or a white man oblivious to what concerns many in the Black community.  He is simply engaging in Whitey behavior by suggesting that Obama’s decided calling card during his campaign should emphasize the poor.  

January 3, 2008


by MullOverThis

…So the Philadelphia branch will have to pair fair market rent and lose the privilege of city subsidies OR BE EVICTED because it will not accept “avowed homosexuals” or openly gay scouts or troop leaders.  The National Boy Scouts of America maintains that openly gay men are not suitable role models to represent traditional family values.   Boy Scouts pledge in part “…to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight”.  Apparently heterophobic people, largely homosexuals, feel that their sexual orientation does not violate this pledge.  The Boys Scouts of America maintains that homosexuality does.  In 2000, the US Supreme Court did not find their policy unconstitutional.  The First Amendment afforded this private organization the right to exclude gays, much to the dismay of heterophobes.

Although the Philly chapter says they adopted a non-discrimination policy in 2005 akin to one the New York chapter has, they still have not been able to simultaneously please the mother National Boy Scouts of America who made them revoke one in 2003, and the local city laws which do not permit discrimination against homosexuals.  By the way, the current  City Solicitor,  Romulo  Diaz, Jr.  allegedly is reputed to be gay (we can’t make conclusions), but of course his pursuits against the local branch is not biased. He is just “doing his job”. The prior City Solicitor worked in conjunction with the Philly chapter to author the 2005 anti-discrimination policy.  Allegedly, there have been no reports of discrimination since then, no incidents, yet the language is not clear enough for Mr. Diaz.

The Philadelphia chapter had been enjoying a $1 rent for the scouts office building but since they are violating the City’s anti-discrimination policy by banning openly gay participation, the current City Solicitor who claims he has made continual efforts to bring the troop into compliance, is holding them to a $200,000 tab.  Now isn’t homosexuality supposed to be a person’s sexual orientation?  A homosexual  can be a troop leader or boy scout if he really just wants to be a Boy Scout.  The Boy Scouts is not the place to affirm the moral acceptance of this lifestyle.   To the  extreme,  Boy Scouts do not pledge to be heterosexuals.  Are there no traditions or even new alliances where heterosexuals are free to just be people and do not have to be stampeded by heterophobic people who fear the lifestyles of people who agree to obey natural laws? 

 What are these boy scouts to do? Pay up. As many corporations, religious organizations and public interest groups that have withdrawn their support because of the anti-gay discrimination policy, there are so many groups that don’t want to see flagrant homosexuality as an ideal presented to boys as a model of family values.  Surely, there must be homosexuals within the ranks of the Boy Scouts. They just comply with the don’t ask, don’t tell culture. 

Local chapters need to get subsidies from elsewhere and keep these issues in mind when voting instead of trying to comply with growing pressures for private organizations to dilute their core values and treat homosexuals as a protected class.  Remember, 2008 is an election year and candidates who support gay marriages, unions and have opened up to the heterophobic agenda need to hear from you at the voting machines as you overlook them on the ballots. 

For more info on this story click the links below:,2933,303420,00.html

January 1, 2008

THE UNTOUCHABLES Part II: No Gay Funerals Here

by MullOverThis

images1.jpgimages1.jpgimages.jpg                 It is the wee hours of the early AM, January 1, 2008.  As I reflect on the great things I heard of around this country last year, one of the most impressionable has to be of the stance the Arlington, Texas High Point Church took in refusing to funeralize a gay man in the sanctuary.

It is an arduous task to be objective, not merely malleable, on a day-to-day basis as it is.  When death appears sometimes that is a high time to live solely in our emotions because we can barely handle the reality that a loved one is no longer with us in this in this earthly life.  During these times we must attempt to manage the trips from the conscious to the sub-conscious and back, and still exist with gaping voids that come with the territory of denial, shock, grief and mortal death.

So it is not without compassion and understanding that I reflect on the decision that faithful church made.  It is with agreement with their audacity to stand for principle and not cow-towing to public opinion, nepotism, or possible attacks from one of the most unrelenting public interest groups in refusing to allow the lifestyle of homosexuality to be part of a celebration of any person’s life, dead or alive, in the house of God that I reflect. The Word of God and the Truth does not operate according to our feelings or thoughts. Our thoughts and feelings should be framed by the Word of God. (Romans 1:24-28; 1 Cor 6:9,10; 1 John 2:15-17; 1 John 4:11-13; 2 Peter 1:3-4; 8 Chap. Romans)

According to a number of reports, the Highland Church agreed to host the funeral as one of the decedent’s family members attended the church (and if I remember correctly, worked on the staff).  Upon learning of the family’s funeral plans in detail, amidst the fact that they wanted to highlight pictures of intimacy between two gay  men at the funeral, and have adulations from gay friends, the church made a decision not to permit the funeral.  During the time of this controversy when I read the church website statement the High Point leadership stated they did not just leave the family with no alternatives.  They provided food for the entire family, found an alternate location for the funeral, and offered to pay for additional expenses.  That is truly the love of God, because I would not have even done that.  The world has got to be crazy to think that they should be able to have gay lovers and cohorts stand in the house of God and reflect and celebrate their lives based upon what the Bible considers to be a sinful lifestyle.  While we do have a flood of homosexuals in mainstream churches across this land, enough of them realize the truth to the degree that they don’t expect the church to celebrate their lifestyle.  The ones who insist on gayitizing David & Jonathan, Jesus, their pet, the spaghetti dinner, plants and the newspaper have enough good sense to join gatherings of people who go for sin and the lifestyle (cause there are no gay churches of the Lord Jesus Christ) and give that a name. 

So while this was a sticky situation where many might find it untouchable, in this blogosphere we are enthused beyond words that this church upheld the banner of righteousness and demonstrated love towards the family at the same time.  In a world where cowards consistently do what is easier as opposed to what is right and difficult, thank the Lord for the High Point Church and others like them who are committed to letting the world know that the church of the Lord Jesus Christ understands true righteousness before the Lord: where our duties are our rights NOT our rights are our duties (we are supposed to be/do what we are entitled to through the “rights” from the Word of God, not have rights based upon what we do/who we are). The High Point Church were not popular in their position but neither was Jesus Christ. 

I pray and look forward to more of these stands this year.  It is a new beginning, and I hope that the Body of Christ will continue to live, breathe and exemplify the heart of God while NEVER compromising to the pressures from those who have a deaf ear to the Word of God.  We must live and cause others to see God, not allow their lives and worldly desires to influence and convert us. When we love God, our loyalty is to Him, not people who want to throw the “love” blanket over every abominable thing and try to bring it to God and expect Him, or His people to bless it. True love is telling the truth and establishing limitations even when it hurts.

For news coverage of this story click link below:

High Point Church website click link below: