Sometimes the Batt is hilariously infuriating...

Like this article about a sophomore football player:

At first glance, Ryan Swope is the atypical Aggie - with shaggy blonde hair [you know, gay] and an Austin background [see? totally gay], he fits the College Station stereotype of Longhorns [Batt writers don't know how college works. Living in Austin makes you a Longhorn! Also having a particular kind of hair.].

Does this newspaper just not have an editor?

Counter protest at Comic Con; or, God hates Jedi

So, the Westboro Church is protesting Comic Con this year, for "worshipping false idols." You can't make this shit up; apparently God hates geeks. So, geeks, being awesome, held a hilarious counter-protest. From Comics Alliance:

Unbeknownst to the dastardly fanatics of the Westboro Baptist Church, the good folks of San Diego's Comic-Con were prepared for their arrival with their own special brand of superhuman counter protesting chanting "WHAT DO WE WANT" "GAY SEX" "WHEN DO WE WANT IT" "NOW!" while brandishing ironic (and some sincere) signs. Simply stated: The eclectic assembly of nerdom's finest stood and delivered.

Which is the best thing ever. More pictures below the jump.

Have I hugged a Christian today?

This post is written by guest writer Adrienne. She is currently attending Texas A&M in the Ph.D. English program.

I Hugged a Man in His Underwear. And I am Proud.

Are people reading this story? And if so, did they read it (like I did) because a friend posted it or brought it up while talking about how wonderful and truly powerful it is? And am I the only one that is still really upset and horrified by the message implicit in these events?

I like leading questions, don't you?

I get why people like this. I understand that the message people like in this story is that Christianity should love everyone and be inclusive and not judge. And that Christians can apologize and be humble and take responsibility. I can see how people would want to be drawn in and believe in this. The message at the parade was probably more powerful and less upsetting than this article. Or I'm willing to give the original message the benefit of the doubt.

But what I can't ignore when I read the article is that it is saying "I'll hug you even though you're sinful." Nathan writes, "Sadly, most Christians want to run from such a sight rather than engage it" and further "I think Jesus would have hugged him too. It’s exactly what I read throughout scripture: Jesus hanging out with people that religious people would flee from. Correlation between then and now? I think so." Unless we're taking this completely out of context (and even probably then), wasn't the reason that Jesus hung with those people was to help those most in need? Yes, he treated them well and maybe would have even if he wasn't trying to help or save them. But it was always connected to the message of helping or saving. This still sits firmly in the "Love the homosexual and hate homosexuality" area for me. This doesn't support gay rights, and supporting individual gays isn't enough. Yes, everyone should treat everyone else as a human being. It is important to know that the man dancing in his underwear is named Tristan. But unlike the article, we shouldn't know this in spite of the fact that the man is dancing in his underwear. Just stop at the "this is a man." Or he's awesome and great because he's dancing in his underwear. And stop being so proud that you hugged the controversial and icky. Nathan takes great pains to remind us that the man he hugged (that he wants to focus on) was in his UNDERWEAR. Nathan hugged a gay man that was being "flagrantly gay!" Like Jesus washed a leper, this author hugged sweaty abs, nudity, and a penis that was only barely covered. Gay is clearly already gross to the author and the reader. But they love gross anyway. I can't really love you unless I love who you are. I don't support you until I support who you are. To really support glbtia people then support glbtia rights and activism.

And even though he mentions the word a number of time- I don't see any real engagement with what reconciliation is going on here. Seems to me like if reconciliation is necessary then full acceptance isn't possible. Even from a loving Christianity mentality, Christianity is about hierarchy, behavior, and judgment.

I do not see this as a step in the right direction. It's a step "forward" that is still on the completely wrong path. I'm glad he apologized, openly and publicly. I'm really not glad he wrote this article about it.

Turns out that gays don't go around raping people anymore than hetero folks

In the "well, no shit" category, a study shows that allowing gays to be in the military doesn't actually cause a disruption. No decreased morale, no increased harassment(though if the military actually gave a shit about harassment, they'd do something about their rape epidemic). Will this change the Republican party line about how dangerous it is to allow gays to openly serve in the military? Probably not, but now we can back up our claims of how fucking stupid they are with a study.