pariahs.org

Note: I often have links set to open in a new tab & try to indicate that using the mouse hover popup.

Last edited/updated June 19, 2025.

I figured out that this woman is obsessed with that particular scripture verse, Mark 5:9, because she figures she'd be ... ya, know ... appreciated :D ... & I had to, go & spend $14 on this criticism but I see it necessary since it's regarding a pseudo-religious, specifically Christian point of contention which is expressed on social media in a derisive way, at least in the example I have here, that is. The way I was raised I learned that there can be a whole lot more to some particular social group and it's better to learn about people before expressing some opinion regarding how they can be better human beings ... when reality stands that here a person is merely posting memes on social media to prove her awareness of the issues that face U.S. in this world... sure, whatever donut.

Just to give an idea of what this woman, Lydia Gomez, wants to appear to be all about, is the very same kind of woman that required a specific law against "conversion therapy" (Colorado Revised Statutes Section 12-245-224) where the treatment consists of trapping the client-victim under grimy bean-bag chairs (type object... whatever's fun) and then probably nothing more than the ol' tried-n-true fart in the face gag (...me-with-a-spoon-haha) kind of endgame ... well, they can be paid for shit like that, is the thing. Sure controversy exists but getting by with it another day is what that kind of fraud is about ... but there are people who'd defend it, and did, in the degree which it existed in the real world, that might've not been far off my exaggerated description from the client's perspective, is the point.

Seriously though it's just terrible that she makes the association and then merely replies with more of her vain attempts to get me to hate on trauma'd people & fault them for their victimization. Hindu culture labels outcasts as "pariahs" & there's actually more to that where the term also denotes or implies a condition which some humans have endured in this world. Finding a sense of positivity in spite of their loss of ability to experience the expected or traditional (instinctive) lifetime objective of being married & having children & raising a family & making it clear to anyone and everyone that they have it made ... of course sex is all in the package (sorta ... but maybe not even separate issue since bourgeoisie caste of "citizens" in western culture will continuously gaslight or deny people's trauma & be all about how it's a "Just World").

In brief... the position of zealous religious nutcases like this stupid bitch, Lydia Gomez, is that if for whatever reason a human loses the ability to have some normal relationship then not only are they not really accepted by society ... they're naturally jealous afterall, but God will no longer accept them either ... period. If you just consider that in history there are plenty of important people who've contributed to mankind, even dedicating their life to helping in some capacity ... and in many cases it becomes obvious that people have compensated for their lack of normality, or adequacy in that area, by dedicating their life to their work which became extremely beneficial to mankind. Of course idiot bitches like Lydia & her inevitable red-necked gun-nut cultist people don't need to give a flying fuck about anything anybody does because she's preaching Scripture, dagummit! In my very own religious culture, however... (& yes, my personal ancestry is out of "Quaker" religion (or "Society of Friends" ... it was an English judge who first used the moniker, incidently) there's the Public Universal Friend (Jemima Wilkinson), who was androgynous in their day, but fervent to a fault & even comical ... but often what people can do is ignore what a person isn't ... meaning that somebody who wants to be refered to has "them" instead of he or she (where in the latter pronouns there exists implied expectation of adhering to traditional culturally accepted role where a woman can always skirt around some responsibility by scapegoating some man who's not desirable sexually ... and that's just the way the world works, type thing) and younger men in their naivety will feel compelled to sympathize with people who are so satisfied & confident in their self-righteous (vain) feelings of entitlement that they insist people who are disadvantaged must deserve to be (or whatever).

There is also plenty of historical evidence of people who didn't fit in with mainstream society (for whatever reason) that had various places to go and live their lives in more isolated environments but now that's all but impossible, unless a person can survive alone in some wilderness ... but there's human need for companionship and what else then to seek out others who share like circumstances? The adage "there is safety in numbers" but yet there's people who'd like to deny that is relevant for people who are in a different demographic. To sum up here... if it's not yet obvious to the most stupid of hypocritical religious nuts who make a point to expressively hate on LBGQT people ... especially gay men, is that if in this era some man doesn't make it every point to express desire to have sex with women then people would label him as cho-mo. What else can he do if a man understands that for whatever reason he would be unable to maintain a relationship with a woman ... he was abused as a child and is emotional & indignant as a result, but contest to have that part of life handled in a (culturally) acceptable, appropriate way. Of course there are also women in the demographic and those who are androgynous, too ... humans like to be different than other people in some ways and alike in other ways ... it's just this world. If Jesus doesn't like gay people then that's really between Him and those people ... how is it everybody else's business? They're people to treat as inferior, is all. No wonder people can't stand so-called "Christians"!

Oh... if anybody ever think that there's something that I don't understand about LBGQT agenda or whatever ... that maybe it's their fault that people like Miki Manigault become victims ... the absolute reality is that there were medical professionals who make money with what they do so why blame their victims & supporters? It ain't so cut & dry, is the point and now it seems obvious that the people who feel the need to advertise Bible verses that reinforce their bigotry while deliberately omitting other verses which reflect a God that is reasonable & understanding of the frailty of human beings (God knows our frailty, [and] pities our weakness. ~ John Locke.) and health conditions affect humans physically, which seems silly to point out, but how exactly is not something that is always commonly known.

One of the common ... uh, (sure) inconveniences I contend with that is common for men (in general) is being (deliberately) misconstrued as being aggressive, or potentially violent. Non-intelectual people like to "project" (transference) what they assume to be some other persons motives or desires, etc. but is directly associated with either violence or sexuality and although it's argued (by them, maybe) that humans' motivation to do anything is related to one or the other (outside of subsidence, etc.) but people wouldn't do anything unless it benefitted them in some way, which doesn't seem to hold true when considering self-harming (& isn't uncommon, and is open to interpretation as to what it consists of, and self-awareness of it too, can be a factor), but commonly it's thought as to seek attention, validation, but also maybe a way to dispel their aggression due to dissatisfaction in other areas of life ... and so like "ah-ha - there, you just proved our point" ... but then by very same token people who make it their goal to help by stigmatizing & generalizing others get benefit of that too. The other motivation is to coerce other people to intervene, and so garners physical involvement in form of intervention (in ideal circumstances, but sadistic people may also like to encourage the self-sabatoging behavior that people exhibit, and definitely comes into play in regards to the demographic that's being targeted in Ms Gomez's post. There's too much tragedy involved to be so cavalier. It's brutish & vulgar (in the philisophical use of the word) to use Scripture verses as means to label other people who've not found peace with their own existence in this world as they were born (or however we could phrase that to be palatable for everyone).

Many people who quote Scripture don't realize that the Apostle Paul was educated in his historical period, but by Romans and he would have understood the existance of philosophy and secular morality, basis of law and the like. "Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way." Romans 14:13, "Do not rejoice when your enemy falls, And do not let your heart be glad when he stumbles" Proverbs 24:17, "But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. Matthew 18:6" ← and the latter verse there is pertinent, I think many people could agree, but my contention is that a "stumbling block" could also be in the form of an ignorant, bigoted, judgemental platform that leaves no room to determine what is acceptable and not ... transgender atheletes and forcing "uni-sex" public restroom facilities in schools is wrong ... I'd be first to admit. The former topic I will share posts on social media acknowledging my agreement with the U.S. president's administration on that issue, but the latter I let go since I don't personally have children in public schools.

Because social groups are not an exact, identifiable, homogeneous, unit of measurement ... there are people that are in need of association with other people and it's not up to everybody who's curious about them to dictate why or what their reasoning is unless there's a threat to the public; and there lies the crux of controversy. What constitutes the threat, exactly? If the answer there is that it's because they have an agenda, indoctrinating youth in public schools, I'm not one to completely disagree with that point ... young public school teachers coupled with pressure from some parents who are able to exert some pressure. The easiest tactic to influence another is to define a common enemy and who else (in relation to this subject) to align against than judgemental, self-righteous types, so always being about being against some other designated community of people is boorish & mean. People can be misguided themselves but forcing defensiveness isn't constructive or pragmatic. There are numerous gay men on social media who post about their disapproval of transgender experimentation ... & since they're open about that it seems reasonable that they don't like being associated with agreeing with the secular ideology and whatever religious beliefs they may or may not have or admit to having, is between them and the Creator. Quaker religion has it that "everybody has spirit of light", or as I put it "a part of God" (spirit or soul), and if they end up in a position to have it better than others do in some way then it's not helpful to gloat, or mock, etc., consider others as inferior (sure, "by grace of God, there go I", type thing) but thinking that it's possible to do a better job at being somebody else than they're doing isn't a reasonable assumption.

In simple way all I can explain is that it's best to not engage in direct disparagement of other groups of people (even who self-identify) ... well, aside from people working in real estate licensed businesses who skirt law while relying on public sympathy that they have a difficult job ... you should see them on LinkdIn (no shame!), but really both property owners (groups) and management companies ← where it becomes obvious that the latter group culturally appropriate the owners (& some do both so no conflict of interest there) ... but I have documented evidence online of people being paid to do a job but instead are purposefully abusive (& I digress), but when there's overall cultural level of dehumanization, & to be realistic with regards to the subject, unless prostitution is legal on federal level then average "Christian" people can't really expect every other adult to either get married or have no kind of sex life at all ... that's unrealistic. Then there's also churches that have hosted group meetings for couple's counseling or either men or women's groups but if sex becomes a topic then the Bible has it that is between married man & woman ... oh, the act itself, that means but discussing it, comparing notes & all that is perfectly acceptable. If somebody doesn't want to get that personal then now let's talk about that ... non-intelectual people are notorious for using the Bible to weed out the trauma'd ... & to cover all angles here, of course I understand that there are people in the class of making everyone aware of LBGQT threat to everything holy & pure in this world who were a victim of some atrocious crime themselves ... of course to stand to contradict my position, people gotta suck it up & be tough & all... keyboard holyroller trolls. ("Trolls" to distinguish the sanctimonious variety.)

To finalize here, this person friended me (I won't send friend requests unless it's someone who knows that I'm extremely sensitive in regards to vilifying other people) and then proceded to post bigotry where she associates evil with a person who doesn't want to be refered to as "he" or "she", for whatever reason. Although I've never personally knew anyone who insisted on that (but may have some social media connection to someone who fits that category), I do know of people in the general LBGQT culture, and consider them friends, and all might not agree comepletely with what's presented as their idealogy & agenda. In any event, somebody who does want to be called they/them instead of he/she has enough difficulty ... maybe they were victims of atrocious ritualistic child abuse ... & the ritualistic part is to acknowledge that it could've been a purportedly religious group (cult) and how else are those type of people going to get away with getting rid of their trauma'd family members than to disown & disparage anything that could be encouraging and cause victims to feel accepted & validated.

It also occurred to me that the selection of "they/them" may simply mean the person doesn't care really, meaning that they're fine with that in business messages & whatnot. In writing the use of they/them is efficient in the way people's typical thought process goes when referencing other people since the topic is often independent of people involved. If the writer's objective is to explain circumstances in generalized way then using they/them when refering to those involved is natural, I'd say, & some people on social media sporting the "they/them" tag may be the same to be commonly writing business correspondence and so are familiar with the controversy & they're not going to worry about it if somebody refers to them in gender neutral way.

I've mentioned this elsewhere but just to be clear, I think that the majority of people are against the most radical of LBTQ causes, such as supporting transgender surgeries, transgenders in athletics, and gender neutral restrooms in schools. Especially for the latter two issues it seems like the topics invite discussion of social issues, more specifically gender issues (or appearing to be the focus, at least), but in truth it's about b-laming "the man" ... oh! I wanted to include that I can't help but to associate the subject with the idea of charging minors as adults when they've allegedly committed some horrific crime. The majority of adult citizens (voters) may not agree with that practice but would be labeled as "clowns" (seems to be a popular epithet, lately) or weak in the realm of public opinion. "Tough" (apparently) is being comfortable with treating other human beings as inferior and deserving of such treatment... no matter their actual experience. People are to adhere to their designated stereotype to the best of their ability or risk being executed (or whatever), it's all on "the man", a.k.a. God... it's all His damned fault & shit! Oftentimes people like Lydia purports to be speaking out of God's will and be all about capital punishment & charging minors as adults since it seems to strict & tough & badass & shit & those bleeding-heart types get all upset because they're compassionate and Christians are compassionate too (dagummit!) but only if the other person first joins the right-winger, gun-nutty, hate-everybody-not-exactly-like-us cult.

When these religious types are all uptight because of "sinful" people & couldn't care less about wealthy white people abusing people of color, it ain't their business & shit ... it really is the epitome of what "taking the Lord's name in vain" really means where the point is to use the power of divine (as it were) to exclude people from His grace, and in His name, when it's really not the place of the person to make that specific proclaimation. Associating demon possession with the cultural (worldly) use of the "they/them" pronouns, citing Bible verses as a way to prove the point, like it's an "ah-ha gotcha" moment (admitting to being evil, or whatever), like it's some sort of parapraxis (oh! one of those devil-words!) is childish. I can't be expected as a Christian to agree (or "Like & Share", as it may be) to such labeling that's intended to be stigmatizing and even physically threatening, if some crazed vigilante wants to make a name for himself or herself. The Quakers used to use the word "thee" instead of "you", even when the latter was popular among English speaking Americans. Maybe not pertinent to the subject at hand, but then again maybe it is but how exactly is lost with antiquated tradition (of a persecuted religious community) being culturally discouraged in contemporary times.

Here's a copy of Holy Bible, King James Version. Be sure to compare Mark 9:29 (& Matthew 17:21) of King James Version to New International Version (the word "fasting" was omitted in the latter version).

Please take a look at Miki Manigault's commemorative webpage, offscour.net

"Because it is a distortion of being more fully human, sooner or later being less human leads the oppressed to struggle against those who made them so. In order for this struggle to have meaning, the oppressed must not, in seeking to regain their humanity (which is a way to create it), become in turn oppressors of the oppressors, but rather restorers of the humanity of both."
~ Paulo Freire

"To impede communication is to reduce men to the status of "things"—and this is a job for oppressors, not for revolutionaries."
~ Paulo Freire

"Accordingly, this admittedly tentative work is for radicals. I am certain that Christians and Marxists, though they may disagree with me in part or in whole, will continue reading to the end."
~ Paulo Freire" (pg. 37)