Sunday, July 28, 2013

Genesis 18:32 1/2

Abe asked God, "And what if there are only nine righteous souls, O Lord?"

God answered, "Only nine?  Well, fuck 'em!"

Saturday, July 20, 2013

Talking Points

Let me step back and sum up all the arguments we've all heard ad nauseam. The opponents of gay "marriage" say marriage is for having children. The advocates respond, "Well, if that is so, then why does the law allow even obvious barren heterosexual octogenarian couples to marry? Marriage is in its essence is not about children at all. It is about the commitment between two people. That's it." The opponents: "Why two?" 

Some advocates say because it is just natural to have a commitment between two people, while others have no objection to legalizing polygamy (to name just one example, Martha Craven Nussbaum)." The opponents then point out, or at least I do, that if marriage in its definitional essence has nothing to do with children, then why do advocates of gay "marriage" put so much effort in attempting to show that child rearing by homosexuals is just as good (if not better than) as that done by heterosexual couples. Why did Judge Vaugn Walker go out of his way in that now well-known opinion to declare an identity between homosexual and heterosexual child rearing? If the intent to raise children can have no part in the legal definition of marriage, then why the deuce dilate on the subject, as Judge Walker does, in a legal opinion? The reason for this, as Judge Walker makes clear, is that in the social meaning of marriage, children and marriage are inextricably linked.

If homosexuals are to have full equality with heterosexuals, they must be allowed to "marry" and have children just like heterosexuals. And this is the point where I, as my readers (all none of them) well know, just cannot repress the urge to declare that this is simply absurd. How am I not to think that children will be used as pawns to achieve for homosexuals the same respectability that supposedly attaches to normal married couples with children? How am I not to think that this insistence that because basic, fundamental human biology is completely irrelevant to the determination of family law and is trumped by considerations of "equality", that the law in its drive for 'marriage equality' will NOT soon declare all parenthood to be a legal fiction? And how am I not to think that homosexual families will never be the same as normal families because the former can only be adopted? And finally how can I not think that the law is silly and stupid for trying to tell me otherwise?

Thursday, July 11, 2013

A Wedding Card for the Zeitgeist

 Here's to the Happy Couple! May your joint incomes not be so high as to nullify the financial benefits of civil marriage!

Tuesday, July 9, 2013

Political Fiat is Great

As both Andrew Sullivan and Dan Savage and many other homosexuals will attest, the disappointment that parents have when they discover their child is gay usually comes from the thinking that gays cannot marry and give their parents grandchildren. But this thinking, of course, rests on the religious extremist Fantasy that marriage in essence is about procreation. Marriage is in essence about nothing as it is merely a contract and, hence, simply a social construct that can easily be changed by political fiat. Therefore, if parents are disappointed that their gay children can't get "married", they should focus their disappointment on their government and NOT blame their children who are the victims. Similarly, parenthood is also a social construct, and parents who think their gay children can't give them grandchildren have thought so only because political fiat had not extended parental rights to gay couples. But all that has either changed or is rapidly changing. The Sweetness and Light of Equality!!!

And, now, there is an emerging awareness that children of two daddies or two mommies really miss having a mother or a father and thus have an inchoate sense of deprivation. But, of course, that's easily remedied as well. Mother and Fathers are just gender rĂ´les and as such are social constructs which, as we've just seen, can be changed with the wondrous magic of Political Fiat (peace and blessings be upon It). The state can call men mothers and women fathers, and, presto, no child, not even children raised by same-sex couples, will ever be deprived of a mother and a father. But what about single-parent families? The state can call single parents hermaphrodites. Simple. Problem solved!

Now I am waiting for the day when Political Fiat grants my fondest wish and officially rechristens my wanking off as having Incredibly Hot and Sweaty Sex with Keira Knightley.

Sunday, July 7, 2013

Religious Extremism, then and now

The Old Religious Extremism: The victim of rape must marry her rapist. If you don't acknowledge this wafer as God, you will be burned at the stake. Adulteresses must be stoned to death. Witches must be burned. Kill the Amelkhites, and don't you dare spare even their lambs! Let girls burn to death in a garment factory because they are dressed too immodestly to be seen in public.

The New Religious Extremism: Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. To have a mother and a father is normal. Because coitus can have very public consequences, the state has a compelling interest in at the very least encouraging its responsible use. The state has no such compelling interest in encouraging whatever may count as the responsible use of buggery, fellatio, fisting, frottage, cunnilingus, scissoring, cuddling, or really, really profound discussions about My Fair Lady. The use of gendered pronouns.

Yeah, I can understand why people think I am an extremist religious nutter.

Wednesday, July 3, 2013

Canine Equality! Now!


This culture prizes dogs more than cats. Dogs are understood to be loyal, faithful companions whereas cats are held to be self-absorbed, conniving whiners who if you have a heart attack will wait until you die and start eating you. This understanding demeans cats. Therefore, the federal government should define cats as dogs.

I am not disgusted

Opposition to same-sex "marriage" need not have anything to do with visceral disgust for certain acts such as buggery or man-on-man fellatio. I am all too aware that many who oppose same-sex "marriage" do so because they think SS"M" necessarily entails societal approval of homosexual acts. But these people are just wrong.

To include gays in the institution of marriage, it must be re-defined in such a way as to sever all links between it and any particular sexual act. For if we say marriage is about the responsible use of coitus, then we necessarily exclude same-sex couples because they just cannot perform coitus. If we say marriage is about scissoring, well, that excludes male same-sex and heterosexual couples. And so on.

Since the number of sexual acts are innumerable in this age of the Subjective Fetish, a public definition of marriage that aims to comprehend all sexual orientations simply cannot include or even imply any sexual act at all. Otherwise, it might be guilty of irrational, demeaning, and degrading discrimination. And, therefore, the only way to be fair to every single kink out there is to make the public definition of marriage, ironically enough, into nothing more than companionship.

In other words, public marriage becomes asexual, and all sexual activity becomes exactly like religion (should be) in a secular liberal society, a wholly private matter with no public purpose whatsoever. But this is insane. Coitus, unlike any other sexual act, does have a public purpose for without it, we would simply have no public. 

Tuesday, July 2, 2013

A visit to your friendly, rainbow gynecologist (a work in progress)


Dr. Serge Emerson Winchester III: Ms.--

Mrs. Smith: Oh, please, call me "Mrs."

Serge: (a little miffed) Okay, Mrs. Smith, why don't you have a seat?

Mrs. Smith: What is it? Is it bad news, Doctor?

Serge: Well, not that bad, I should think.

Mrs. Smith: What?

Serge: It seems that you are at an above average risk for ovarian cancer. But nothing that a cervix hysterectomy can't get rid of.

Mrs. Smith: (her eyes begin to water) Not that bad?! This is terrible! Just terrible!!

Serge: Oh, now, now, Ms., I mean, Mrs. Smith. Calm down. You don't need a uterus.

Mrs. Smith: How can you say that, Doctor? I just got married. I want to have children! I need my uterus!

Serge: Well, you want ovarian cancer and die?

Mrs. Smith: I always wanted to have children. Get married and have children. That was my dream. (She is now wailing uncontrollably)

Serge: Oh, just calm down, Ms.-

Mrs. Smith: MISSUS!

Serge: Missus, fine. Whatthefuckever. Mrs. Smith, marriage is not about procreation. And, besides, the ability to procreate is not necessary to have children. You can just adopt, hire a surrogate, or pluck a kid from a Nigerian Baby Farm. Easy peasy.

Mrs. Smith: But I wanted to be a mother. I wanted to have my own child, one that came from me. You just don't understand!

Serge: Oh, I understand perfectly, Ms. (overpronounces it and makes the "z" sound linger ominously) Smith. You are a homophobic bigot.

Mrs. Smith: What?!

Serge: Yes, you think just because you are in an opposite-sex marriage, you should have the ability to have children by yourselves, And now that you have found out you won't have this ability, you're sad because now you're in the exact same situation as same-sex married couples. You don't like being gay, Ms. Smith? What, you're too good to be in the same boat with your gay counterparts?

Mrs. Smith: I wasn't even thinking--

Serge: Yes, because homophobic bigots like you do not think. At all. Now, stop your caterwauling. We have some work to do. Not only do we have to plan your surgery, but I have to set up an appointment for you to get reparative therapy to cure you of your virulent, albeit subconscious, homophobia.

"Marriage Equality" and the Brave New World

Proponents of what is called "marriage "equality" would have us believe that all sexual acts are equal in the same sense that religious freedom in effect declares all religions equal. They are all equal in this respect, that no one's private religious beliefs are supposed to matter in the public sphere. But this is madness. Whereas one can argue with some degree of plausibility that the public sphere can function without the guidance of a particular religion, no one can seriously argue that the public sphere exists at all without the work of one particular sexual orientation, namely heterosexuality--unless, of course, one wants to make the case for Huxley's "bottling". And that just vindicates what I have been saying for years and years and years, namely that the Brave New World is the eventual and logical consequence of this absurdity known as marriage "equality".

Monday, July 1, 2013

July First

It was chilly enough this evening for me to pull a long-sleeved shirt over my T-Shirt.  We got the jet stream, and you don't, New Mexico.  Nya, nya, nah, nya nya!