Thursday

Gay? Unmarried? Here's a thought on why.

Should be standard issue for
all politicians in wintery climes.
"Do you want to continue being a bigot?
Or do you want to stay dry?"
This is just a hypothesis...

There is a movement in America right now to restrict the rights a portion of the citizenry to choose who they are allowed to marry. Just so happens these people are homosexual. And those that oppose the idea of two consenting adults being wed to one another are using an ancient storybook to make laws that forbid this.

It's basically impossible to have an argument about how their religion is categorically wrong without upsetting a few folks and I don't want to upset anybody (at least not yet) by informing them of how incredibly stupid they are. I'll save that for another day, maybe.  


 So today I'm not concerned about the dogma involved in these jerkasses' religion. Well, not directly. The point of this rant is about the issue of governance, and the choices made by the governing folk and how that affects the governees.. (that would be me, and you, maybe)

I want to open an argument about what I think the true reason these hate mongers want to restrict the rights any fellow Americans is. Especially since these bigoted fucks pretend that they are the only true Americans and all the rest are parasites and communists who clearly only want to watch this country burn, along with all our rights and associated stuff.

Conceptually this is a weird situation we find ourselves in. Particularly coming from these guys who in one breath will talk about America's great constitution, and in the next, intentionally ignore one of the most important concepts from the founding of this nation. 

The idea that there should be a wall of separation between church and state.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Recognize that? It's copy-pasted right out of the Bill of Rights. See that bit that says that Congress shall make make no law respecting an establishment of religion? The intent of that statement is that religion will never be a mandate of the government. There is to be no national religion, basically.

And that's where the problem lies. These law-makers must clearly know of this. Or at least you'd think they would. Maybe the reason they are attempting to legislate in favor of religious restrictions instead of the freedom for Americans to choose for themselves is because they are grossed-out by butt sex.

That's right, I said it. 

They don't want to talk about any chocolate-covered yogurt-launchers. 

Although they also don't limit their bigotry to a little man on man action. I am sure that even though the idea of a couple of fair and feminine folk having at each other drives blood to their little governor, they aren't happy that said couple might want to commit to each other in a long term sense. Instead they see the whole homosexual issue as being that as one that is completely defined by who a person chows down on. 

It seems though that most of their ire is directed at men, primarily because given a willing candidate to donate, and the judicious use of a turkey baster, women can still bear children. Though of course that causes the  half-arsed argument that ensues on the issue of said child and the perversion that the child is likely to endure as a result of being the offspring of a gay parent. 

Rather than rehash old ground, below is a video that should pretty much cover the gay parenting argument:



Doesn't much look or sound like devil-spawn does he?
Moving right along -

Will politicians ever say what they actually think? No. There's no votes to be had relating this truth. They are using religion as a pretext to hide this fact.

 And that's really what concerns me.

Instead of saying (wrongly) that it can interfere with a person's ability to hold in poop, or can cause significant jaw strain injury, they are saying that it causes the social fabric to come loose.

At least if they were to admit it, we could open up an actual line of discussion with these folks. They are hiding behind a deity, and you can't talk to one of those.

Just think about how wonderful it would be to have an even-toned debate about the real causes of potential social-economic collapse that has nothing to do with homosexuals ruining this country's moral fiber.

Or why the divorce rate is so high without any recitation of their ancient storybook.

As it stands though, they will never admit to this queasiness about the ol' bugger down under. Which is a shame because I think I would have quite a lot of fun being involved in those debates.

“Mr. Romney, why does poking the puckered starfish make you want to evacuate all you ate?”

“Sen. Santorum, how can you be so against hoisting the cabin boy into the porthole when the the same porthole is used by all to create something that is named after you?”

Son of a bitch, that would be the best day of my life by a wide margin.


Jason Zebrowski is just a guy pretending to be a writer instead of being the janitor he was trained to be at his last job. His favorite activities are being sarcastic and never updating his own blog: http://theoriginalxenotaru.blogspot.com/

3 comments:

  1. splendid.
    I live in Australia, which is a large island to the south of the Indonesian island of Bali in the Western Pacific.

    Curiously, we have been hearing a lot in the public arena about the private affairs of private citizens vis a vis their fitness to endure the privations of matrimony just recently also.

    I do believe your points are well made regarding "straight" fascination for physical homosexual acts but I think its core allure lies not in revulsion but excitement.
    Now, stick with me here and I'll try and nut it out on the fly...

    I've caught the Gay for more than a couple of weekends back in my swiving days and, on the whole, I'd have to say it's a grand bit of sport. Sadly, I missed the boobs in the whole arrangement and it never completely took, but over the years, as I may have mentioned my homosexual peregrinations in appropriate forae, I inevitably get at least a couple of blokes saying "yeah, me too." or "well, at boarding school..."

    I had another gay (platonic, for what it's worth) friend who absolutely specialised in seducing footballers, but we'll come back to him in a moment.

    My point at this stage is that there is clearly nothing any more revolting about gay sex than there is about straight sex. This is very simply illustrated to any doubters by taking a good sized common potato and sealing it tightly in cling wrap. Place the potato in a cupboard somewhere and go away for about a month. When you come back, pick up the clingwrapped potato (carefully!) and pierce a hole in one end. Put your lips over the hole and squeeze the potato.

    Now *that* is revolting. You can search for a million years and I bet you wont find ten straight guys who will dig on that.

    But Brendan could turn ten guys in a weekend and I think he had the truth of it; "Society has to maintain some taboo on homosexuality, because once all the straight guys work out they can screw each other, nothing will ever get done..."

    ReplyDelete
  2. I... I think you might be on to something there.

    It is the obvious extension to that age old claim that if guys had breasts they'd get nothing done at all, apart from wish that they had another hand for additional manipulative purposes.

    Well spotted.

    I'll take your word on the potato...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. hmmm,
      I wonder if I had breasts, would I have stayed gay for more than a weekend?

      Delete

Respond? - it's a predominantly un-moderated forum - within reason BUT in order to avoid a lengthy moderation process a profile needs selecting.

Want to be anonymous? Just select 'Anonymous' from the 'Comment as' menu, and you'll be asked for nothing more.

Got a blog? Use the Name/Url function (or whatever rubs your backlinking Buddha).

Rant on people, rant on.

Hyper Smash