If you’re remotely non-white, just don’t go there. You will be harassed and given special attention by law enforcement. You will be pulled over as much as seven times more often as white people. Your processing through the system will be extra thorough and take much longer than if you were white. All pretty much documented occurrences in Maricopa county at this point.

Most of the rules are totally ludicrous for today’s society, and almost all fail to make sense. Last I heard, the book had been picked up for a movie, but is stalled in production

most just want gay sweaty sex themselves. It’s been my experience that when I meet someone who is homophobic, my gaydar goes off big time. If they were attractive, that was a good reason to do a little pursuing, if you know what I mean. I must admit, I haven’t met very many homophobic men who didn’t turn out to be just a big homo like myself.

As far as the bible, if the people who are always spewing out verses from books like Leviticus and Deuteronomy actually had to live by all of that law, they’d all have a change of heart.

“…she shall be called ‘woman, ‘ for she was taken out of man.”

That makes no sense when you know something about the history of the English language. The notion that the word “woman” derives from “man” in that sense may sound reasonable, but it’s a false etymology. Sit back and prepare for a lecture in language history.

In Old English, the language which provided most of our most basic words (ninety percent of the hundred most commonly used words come from Old English), the word for a female human being was “cwæn” and the word for a male human being was “ceorl”. There was a word “monn”, but it was an indefinite term for a human being equivalent to the modern pronomial “one” as in the sentence, “Unless one is a bigot, sexual orientation is not a source of offense.” In modern German, the word “man” is still used in this sense. “Man sagt” is the German equivalent of “people say”.

There was also an Old English word, “wifmonn”, which best translates as “wife-person”, i.e., a human being whi is, or could be, a wife. it is this word which comes to modern English as “woman”. I suppose it is sexist in a way, since it implies that the person to whom it is applied has no other function than to be a wife, but it in no way is derived from “man” as described in Genesis.

There is also the fact that the Hebrew words for male and female human beings do not have a similar apparent relationship that they do in English; he is an “adam” (???) and she is an “ischah” (???)*. The logic that the English version of the verse applies there does not hold water in the source language.

Since this verse is the wellspring of most biblical claims to male superiority, it should be noted that it doesn’t hod water in that respect.

And what happened to the Old English words “cwæn” and “ceorl”? Well, the former came down into modern English as “queen” and the latter as “churl”. So for all of those who claim that English has an inherently anti-female sexist bias, I ask you – who got the better treatment: the queen or the churl?

*While linguistics is my field of study, I am not that well versed in semitic languages and their transliteration. If I erred in my interpretation of the Hebrew here cited, I apologize in advance (and will welcome correction). I am only as competent in that area as my sources, and I did not have ready access to someone fluent in biblical Hebrew.

If you want to find out more about the nice things the bible has to say about rape, visit The Evil Bible.