There Is Always Going to be Somebody You Can Discriminate Against

Time To Close the Place Down

Time To Close the Place Down

Don’t worry, Christianoids, even if Prop 8 fails, there will still be a group of people you can discriminate against.   Cheer up, Libertarians, there will remain an entire class of people whom you can still post hate speech against. Once homosexuals have the same rights as white people, you guys can always discriminate against autistic people.  Christianoids can claim that autism is the devil’s mark, or some other god damned nonsense.   Libertarians can post nasty discriminatory rants against autistic people and can claim it their constitutional right.   Well, at least until Autistic people start suing.   Then libertarians can add frivolous lawsuits to their long litany of complaints.   Face it, autism is the new gay.

I noticed this when I was at a supermarket checkout stand and saw an article autism.   In this article the father admitted to wanting to murder his autistic son.  Holy psycho-killers, Batman!  That was right out of an article from the same magazine from back in the Seventies.  Only then the father wanted to kill his gay son.  Jesus H. Christ on a Crutch?  What would these bastards do if their kids were like mine, both gay and autistic?  What a blood bath that would be.

But not to worry, there is no need for violence or bloodshed.  The autistic child can be cured the same way that they used to cure gay kids in the Seventies. Aversive therapy.   Yes, it’s against the law in many states.   Yes it is cruel and unusual, and if you did it to an adult you could be sued.  Still, if you do it to your kid, he will come out cured, and you will be spared the social stigma of having a child who is different.   Isn’t that worth the money you spend and all the agony you cause the child?

Back in the Sixties and Seventies, a parent’s biggest fear was that little Johnny or Suzie would grow up to be gay.  Can you imagine the social stigma?  What would the neighbors think?  They would avoid you at church. Father might not get that promotion.   So it was Dr. Ivor Lovaas to the rescue! Is Johnny lisping? Is little Suzie wearing her hair too short?  Then take your kid to Dr. Lovaas.  He knew just how to cure homosexuality.   Electric shocks! Pain!   “Clinics” opened up all over the country that claimed to cure homosexuality.   They took little Johnny and little Suzie and hooked them up to electric shock machines.   Unacceptable behavior, such as looking at naked pictures of the same sex, is rewarded with electric shocks.

Of course the supermarket check out magazines were full of praise for the Lovaas method.   The authors could not praise Lovaas and his clinical approach to a cure enough.   This is not surprising since the authors of these magazine all work for public relations firms.  Each and every article in the Ladies Home Journal and Good Housekeeping is an advertisement. Companies pay to have their promotional articles carried in those magazines. Pay them enough, and Good Housekeeping would have carried articles praising genocide.  So in the Seventies, we were treated to articles about parents in desperate straits due to the sexuality of their offspring rescued by the brilliant Dr. Lovaas.

Today Gays and Lesbians are on the verge of equal rights and social acceptance.   There are even Gays and Lesbians in the financial industry and in government.   Unless you happen to be a Christianoid whack-job, homosexuality is no big deal.   All these “clinics” with their expensive electric shock machines were threatened with bankruptcy.   Then, somebody got the bright idea of curing autism.   It was almost as good a racket as “curing” homosexuality.  Autism is not really understood by the general public, so it is scary.  Autistic kids act weird, so they are a danger to mommy and daddy’s careers.   Nobody is going to promote somebody with a weird kid.  So mommy and daddy can send their little Johnnies and Suzies to a Lovaas clinic to learn how to behave normally.

The problem is that autism is caused by irregular brain development. Autism may be preventable some day in the near future, but once the brain begins to develop, there is no going back. The kid is autistic. All the quack cures and chelation therapy in the world is not going to make the brain undevelop and redevelop normally . All the Lovaas clinics are going to do is teach the kid stupid pet tricks like ‘smile on command.’ So when you see see Jenny McCarthy on the cover of Us Magazine telling the world that her child has been cured of autism, remember that she is being paid to tell that lie. Here are a few links for you. Remember, only education can conquer prejudice.

http://www.autismvox.com/jenny-mccarthy-autism-mother/

http://mikestanton.wordpress.com/category/autism-rights/

Dr. Ivor Lovaas Curing a Gay Teen

Dr. Lovaas Curing a Gay Teen

Advertisements

10 Comments on “There Is Always Going to be Somebody You Can Discriminate Against”

  1. My best friend of 10 years just had an autistic baby boy. Keep up the work of spreading the truth.

  2. Mr. Chicago says:

    Autism is not a choice, but Gay is, you are talking semantics and 3 wrongs does not make a right. But my position is that there is no such thing as “Gay Marriage”. you can have a civil union, and I, as most of the population are ok with that because of the legal rights that you get for putting up with your partner, get visitation rights if you are hospitalised, and can even obtain tax and other legal status.

    So, why does it have to be called marriage for Gays to be happy? What is the point, the purpose, the Agenda?

    Is it to FORCE your views on others? Then that makes you discriminate against others! Period!

    Marriage was instituted by religions, was brought into laws and they are ALL , without fail between a man and a woman. It is just of recent times that “Gays” say that you can have a “marriage” between same sex partnerships.

    You want to call others “haters” when the hate seems to be coming from the very group that is doing the hating!

  3. billdunlap says:

    First of all, Mr. Chicago, your ignorance is sickening. Gay is not a choice. Nor is Autism. Secondly, there is this document called the Constitution. The Constitution does not recognize religion, nor does your religion have a copyright on the word marriage.

    You are just going to have to get used to the idea that Gays have the same rights that you have, and Gays have the same rights to the word marriage that you do.

    Deal with it or not. If you don’t like the fact that Gays have the same right to use the same words that you do, holding your breath until you turn blue might help.

  4. Andy Garcia says:

    LOL that’s telling him! 🙂

    Thanks for the great article! It’s amazing just how far we have come since the ‘bad old days’.

    Andy x

  5. billdunlap says:

    Thank you for your kind comment, Andy. Thank you also for giving me the inspiration for my next blog.

  6. Siddiq says:

    Hey Bill,

    Wow, you really tore into Mr. Chicago. I feel sorry for that guy. He wont be around here anytime soon. Anyway, as I was reading, I couldn’t help but wonder if you have given any thought as to how you’ll deal with a person who is not so ignorant? We both know that Mr Chicago is a chump compared to a heavyweight like you. But have you prepared for your upcoming bout?

    What happens when “That” person writes in who is able to formulate a solid argument? or a lucky punch? A person who can move with you and cut off the ring in a logical argument? What if a person writes in and brings up something unexpected? The issue of gay marriage and lets say….. procreation?

    Just think, in the very least procreation establishes a difference. Not just in semantics, but a big ol’ fundamental difference. The kind of difference which may gain traction in the courts. So, how about it? A practice round before the big fight?

    How about you warm up by explaining how marriage with the intent, expectation and possibility of procreation is the same as marriage without the intent, expectation, and possibility of procreation. The first thing you’ll have to do is deal with those pesky Heterosexuals and their backwards logic when it comes to defining Marriage. Unless you can take a punch, I would employ a great deal of bobbing and weaving here.

    The tough part about procreation is that the heterosexuals have gotten a head start when it comes to defining marriage. For years it has been the threshold by which society has bequeathed not only the legitimacy of a relationship but the pedigree of an individual’s station in society. For so many, it was and is the honorable thing to do. It’s been used to describe a particular relationship in American society, one between a man and a woman and came with it’s share of expectations, Children being one of them.

    The issue of procreation throws a monkey wrench into the whole argument because it’s politic-proof, race-proof, fire proof, water proof, earthquake proof, hell it’s even religious proof. In the hands of a skilled communicator, or blogger/pugilist it could really blow some holes into the cause. I think that if someone got a hold of this perspective they could use it to establish a credible argument for prop 8.

    Pay attention Bill, one day someone will bring up procreation on your blog, not with a lumbering, telegraphed swat like Mr Chicago, but with the well timed delivery of an Ali jab. How you handle it will tell a great deal of what you’re made of.

  7. billdunlap says:

    Does this mean that a straight couple has to procreate when they marry? Does that mean that a couple who cannot have children may not marry? This is not a procreation issue, it is a constitutional issue.

  8. mrquestions says:

    Excellent head movement Bill. Way to bob and weave, and deflect the question by asking not one but two questions of you own, and following it up with a dismissive none answer.

    Lets try it again, remember, you are explaining how a marriage between a man and a woman, with the intent, expectation and possibility of procreation is the same as marriage without the intent, expectation, and possibility of procreation.

    Bill, not everyone knows what you know. Most people think the way Mr. Chicago does, and some can even communicate their thoughts as well as you. How you gonna make him understand? Hell, his vote counts, if you don’t believe me just look at prop 8. How you gonna win him over to your way of thinking? Now get in there and move.

    Just to be fair, I will answer your questions. No, straight couples don’t have to procreate when they marry but it’s a part of the marriage just ask the people with the right to marry. Nor does it mean that a couple who cannot have children may not marry, in some cases they are married before they find out they can’t have children. And while it may not be an issue of procreation for you, and I can understand why, it may be for some. Keep in mind Bill, it’s not about you or me, it’s about the person asking these types questions, and how well you provide informative answers. One other thing, I have nothing to gain or lose by this issue, it is you and your interest in seeing these rights restored which is in jeopardy.

  9. billdunlap says:

    If one groups rights are in jeopardy, everybody’s rights are in jeopardy. Remember what the neocons did with affirmative action, and they had the balls to do it in
    Dr. King’s name.

  10. 克莱夫 says:

    I’ve just come across this article by accident. I don’t know why it popped up on my search, but I’m glad it did. Please keep up the good work Mr Dunlap.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s