Thursday, October 31, 2013

Last post for Oktober

Before this Hallowe'en ends, I have to say something:  Martin Luther can go fuck himself.

Tuesday, October 29, 2013

And Troy would have been a lot gayer

If the ancient Greeks had recognized same-sex "marriage", then Achilles would have had his relationship with Patroclus solemnly recognized and, therefore, would not have been so sore about the loss of his beard, Briseis. Thus, Achilles would not have gone off in a sulk, and the Trojan War would have ended much sooner. And Hector would not have been killed.  And the Iliad would never have been composed and the sequel as well, but that's a bonus:  we would not have had to worry about Homeric authorship!

Monday, October 28, 2013

And why do we let these idiots have guns?

It seems that police are so dumb that they can't even count.  From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch yesterday:


And in one instance, police didn’t even need to examine the fingerprints, just count them.
A vehicle theft warrant should have gone out for William Lamont Willis, who has only eight fingers. Instead, William Earl Willis, who has all 10 digits, was charged and arrested at least three times, despite multiple fingerprint comparisons.

Sunday, October 27, 2013

A question

Is the Wild Side heaven, hell, or purgatory? Recquiescas in pace, Lou Reed.

Dale Carnegie in nuce

"The secret of success is sincerity.  Once you can fake that, you got it made."

Divine Intervention

God made Middlebrooks interfere with Craig. Why? Because Massachusetts recognizes the abomination of same-sex "marriage" and Missouri does not and God will naturally favor the team from the state more in consonance with His law. Sorry, I just could NOT resist.

Saturday, October 26, 2013

Dream of Inadequacy

I once had a dream in which every one in it spoke German.  At the time I was learning the language in college.  I could speak it but only haltingly, and my vocabulary was not even to the level of what could be considered basic.  And, so, in my dream people kept using words I did not know, prompting a desperate search for a Wörterbuch.  I woke up before I found one.

Friday, October 25, 2013

Irony

Evangelical Christians argue that the legal recognition of same-sex "marriage" will trigger the Apocalypse. That means they should embrace it.

Oh, Canada!

I just finished watching a French-Canadian thriller about a deranged and ruthless serial killer who turns out to be a donor baby who resented that her father was a test tube. Gee, I hope Mr. D.'s grandchild does not grow up to be a deranged and ruthless serial killer. Yeah, yeah, I know I'm an asshole.

Money makes Right

Children have no rights whatsoever to genetic ties with their parents. Otherwise, heterosexual relationships would be more important than homosexual ones, and such a notion is just obvious vile bigotry, of course. And yet parents have a right to genetic ties with their kids.

Why is this so? Why is it that adults have the right to be genetically linked to their kids, but not vice versa? Simple. Adults have money to buy manufactured children from the Reproduction Industry, but kids don't have money, and even if they did, one cannot buy a manufactured genetically linked parent.

"Marriage equality" is bullshit.

Thursday, October 24, 2013

What I do for fun

A few weeks ago I was browsing in Left Bank Books and could not help but notice that the store's labeling for its "LGBT" section was out of date. Left Bank had the "G" first and then the "L". So, I explained to one of the clerks that it had been decided since the "L" belongs to two persecuted classes, women and homosexuals, they bear the brunt of societal oppression and, therefore, should lead the acronym. Besides, leading an alliance of the oppressed with a men's group smacks a bit much of patriarchy, the granddaddy of ALL oppression, and just might ipso facto cause cognitive dissonance.

I just LOVE doing this shit.

Indonesia?

Blogger stats tell me that this weblog received forty-two pageviews from servers in Indonesia.  Who the hell in Indonesia is reading this shit?  Then again, the readers may not be from or living in Indonesia but are reading my weblog on terminals with internet connections routed through servers in Indonesia in the hope that, maybe, the NSA has not bothered to spy there.  But such hope is absurd.   Coca-cola (among other U.S. poisons) is sold in Indonesia.  Therefore, the U.S. Government has an interest in what happens in Indonesia.  Hell, the U.S. helped Suharto kill millions of his political opponents, all in the name of keeping markets open, supine, and exploitable.  We've had interests there for many, many, many decades.  So, I can't imagine Indonesian Internet Servers would not be of interest to the prying eyes of the United States Government, everything else is.  But I am babbling.

Terry Eagleton's Review of Jonathan Sperber's Biography of Karl Mark

Eagleton claims that one of the two original achievements of Marx is the historicization of capitalism, and yet Eagleton finds fault with Sperber for his historicizing Marx, totally oblivious to historicist karma.

Wednesday, October 23, 2013

A typical debate on facebook


Status update:


Yes, I know that no one wants to discuss same-sex "marriage" with me anymore because the discussion gets very ugly. Most people would say it is all my fault. Not only because I am an irrational bigot but also because I am a churlishly hypersensitive resentful fuck as well. Fine, see how you like it when you are repeatedly compared to a racist for no good reason at all.

Anyway, if in the future someone does decide to risk debating this topic with me again, could someone suggest a term for buggery that has no pejorative connotations? This debate is incendiary enough. I don't need to pour gas on the fire by needlessly using terms my opponents may resent. Yes, I know that 'anal sex' is the accepted neutral term but refuse to use it. It's a wild misnomer. 'Sex' is an abbreviation of sexual intercourse, which is the communication between the sex organs. The anus is NOT a sex organ. Ergo, the term 'anal sexual intercourse' is just nonsense. That's why I've been using 'buggery', not to express any contempt for the act, but to avoid using what I believe to be a term of nonsense. But I know that advocates of ss'm' take offense at the word. Fine, then tell me if there is a kinder and gentler word I can use. Otherwise, I'll continue to use 'buggery'.


An Enlightened Woman: "[The] wish for sexual meaning is also behind the common desire for special rules to govern sexual behavior and decision-making. This is an example of the wish, as Fromm called it, to escape from freedom: to avoid taking responsibility for the complex and (it feels) dangerous richness of our sexuality."
-Marty Klein, Ph.D.
"The Meaning of Sex"

http://www.ejhs.org/volume1/mklein.htm

By the way, "sex organ" is not a scientific term. Reproductive organ is the phrases you're looking for. And you're right, anuses are not a reproductive organs. Neither are mouths, lips, tongues, or fingers, but all (anuses included) can be used during sex.

I'd also like to point out that if you're only using sex for reproductive purposes, then you are a minority within our species, and are seriously missing out. I've avoided commenting on your posts for a while, and here I am, finally gave in. I find your views to be misguided and quite frankly, pretty pathetic. Disappointing, as well.

Sorry, I think I may have been wrong in correcting you about reproductive organs and sex organs. I guess I just think of "sex organs" as ones that determine one's sex. The gonads. Ovaries and testes.
Anyway, the "human reproductive system" contains only some of the structures that contribute to pleasurable acts within human sexuality.

Me: Yes, but the reproductive organs differentiate the sexes. Hence, the term 'sex organ'. And to say that sexual intercourse can be performed only by a man and a woman is not to imply that procreation is the only purpose of sex. It is simply to insist on the proper meanings of words.

I am sure kissing is pleasurable, I am sure a blowjob is pleasurable. That does not make those acts sexual intercourse.

EW: Actually, according to many sources, it does!

EW: Or, rather, they do!

Me: Fine, I find playing chess pleasurable. That means that playing chess is sexual intercourse.

EW: Nope. Only if playing chess gets you off. Mental stimulation and pleasure is different than sexual stimulation and pleasure. You can't apply silly logic to an argument like this. Sexuality is a spectrum. Definitions are very limiting.

Me: Fine, so masturbation is by your lights sexual intercourse?

EW: No. Sexual intercourse is... "any physical contact between two individuals involving stimulation of the genital organs of at least one."
That's according to a medical dictionary. I can find lots of other resources that define sexual intercourse similarly.

Look at the meaning of the term intercourse! Interactions, communications, etc. But why the need to define it at all? So you don't offend someone with opposing viewpoints? Paul, if you're offensive to anyone, I'm sure it goes beyond your choice of words to define sexual acts.

Me: Yeah, well every single dictionary once defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman. So, dictionary definitions mean nothing nowadays. Look, what would bovine intercourse mean? Interaction among cows, of course. If "sexual" means "of or relating to sex" then sexual intercourse must mean intercourse between things that are sexually distinctive. An anus is not sexually distinctive. I guess, by my understanding of the constituent words, "scissoring" would be sexual intercourse if bumping counts as interaction. If "sexual" means, on the other hand, "of or relating to orgasm", then sexual intercourse can only happen if both partners are orgasmic things, i.e. achieve orgasm.

EW: Oh you and your search for "meaning." Ha. Good luck with all that.
I don't waste a lot of time worrying about how people define their marriages. I'm getting married soon! You know what I care about? My fiancé and our life together. It doesn't offend me that some people marry for money, or that some marry without love, or that some people have marriages that look different than what mine will. Who cares?

Me: I have to search for meaning. I have nothing else to do.

EW: Well why not search for the meaning of something else? Surely, you're passionate about something other than terminology for anal sex.

Me: I am anal retentive.

EW: I prefer Piaget's developmental stages. In his system, you're stuck at the concrete operational stage.
Me: But it points to a larger issue. If people are conditioned to understand buggery as a form of sexual intercourse, then it is much easier to obscure the unicity of coition and coital relationships and this in turn makes it easier to obliterate in people's minds any qualitative difference between opposite-sex and same-sex relationships. Orwell was right. Language controls thought.

EW: I know a lot of different kinds of families. Two moms, two dads, moms and dads, adopted kids, kids from surrogates, folks that have had trouble with conception, etc. some are married, some are not, some are horrible parents, some are awesome, some have partners, some do not, some have sex regularly, some do not.

If parents love their children and do a good job of turning them into thoughtful, productive citizens, then who cares where their children came from? And who cares what kind of sex they have behind closed doors? Not me! I have my own relationship to worry about.

Love is love.

Me: Well, actually, and this may surprise you, I really don't care about what consenting adults to behind closed doors. What I care about is the relativization of coition as just one random act of intimacy among many. Coition alone among the acts of intimacy can and does have very public consequences. In fact, it's because of coition that we have a public in the first place.

EW: I'll tell you one thing, using the term "coition" is not helping in continuing our existence as a species. Hahaha. Vaginal sexual intercourse is also not exclusively used for reproductive purposes, so why not define it as just another random sexual act? Sure, sometimes that results in conception. But conception can happen through different means, as well.


Me: And cars are not exclusively used for driving. Sometimes they are used as random shelters for making out. So, let's define them as that. Of course, this is vulnerable to the objection that whereas most of the time cars are used for driving, coition is not used mostly for procreation, it is used for pleasure, and we should define a thing by what it used for usually. Fine, but coition resulting in conception is a pretty damn usual thing, no? It happens all the time. No other act of intimacy can replenish the population but coition. That alone makes it unique among the myriad of intimate acts. And to say that conception can happen by other means (e.g. ivf or artificial insemination) hardly gainsays this point.
Besides, coition is far and away THE most popular way to replenish the population. The last statistic I saw about this put the percentage of people conceived through IVF or Artificial Insemination at around 2%. To call an act that is still responsible for 98% of the people on this planet merely a random act of intimacy is, with all due respect, simply risible.

EW: I don't think you get to define what vaginas are for. You didn't mean to start a discussion of the anthropology of sex, anyway.


This is getting wildly off topic. You asked if there was a better term for anal sex than buggery. Anal sex is the proper term. Anal sex is a form of sexual intercourse. No, it does not lead to conception, but it does contribute to intimacy.

Human beings are one of a handful of species that use sex recreationally. Vaginal sex is used as a means of recreational intimacy far more often than simply for procreation. If you have a vagina, then you can let me know how you use it.

Very little of your logic is actually sound. And this debate transcends logical discourse because it's about feelings, politics, biology, deep metaphysical mystery, etc.

Anyway, I believe I answered your question. "Sexual intercourse" is not synonymous with reproduction. Anal sex is a form of sexual intercourse according to many authorities and dictionaries and much social science research.

And I grow tired of this. I'm going to try to stay away from your Facebook soapbox from now on. Over and out.

Me: If I thought for even so much as a picosecond that I somehow had the authority to tell you how to use your vagina, I assure you that I'd have something far more particular, specific, and immediate in mind than global population statistics.

A note to my fellow religious extremists

Get this through your skull: Same-sex "marriage" has NOTHING to do with the celebration of sodomy or mutual masturbation. At all. The redefinition of marriage required to accommodate same-sex couples does NOT entail a celebration of particular sexual acts. Remember, religious extremists, the re-definition of marriage is an inherently gnostic project and because gnosticism is indifference to the corporeal world, a gnostic conception of marriage cannot be tied to any particular bodily act or acts. What constitutes gnostic "marriage" is not the marital act (in the traditional, bigoted sense of coitus) but some really vague notion of intimacy, and the "married" couple now is free to do anything to achieve that intimacy. They could choose coitus or sodomy or mutual masturbation, true, but it need not be an orgasmic act. It could be cuddling, holding hands, playing gin rummy, or a really deep conversation about the spiritual dimensions of Joseph Beuys' Installations. In another words, the consummation of a gnostic "marriage" happens when this intimacy, whatever it may be, is achieved and not when a particular bodily act is performed. Therefore, the suggestion that there is a necessary connection between same-sex "marriage" and sodomy is simply false.

I should make one very important qualification. The couple is free to express their intimacy in any way that is legal. Obviously, the preferred way of a necrophiliac couple to achieve their intimacy is legally prohibited. We're gnostic, true, but not quite THAT gnostic. Not yet, anyway.

Also, since intimacy is what is crucial to a marriage and NOT the particular act done to achieve it, there can only be a marital privilege to intimacy and not to any particular bodily act. If the state wants to ban coitus for various health reasons, it can do so without trampling upon marital rights. If married couples object, the courts can just say that marital intimacy does not depend on any particular bodily act. This means, of course, that the legal prohibition of sodomy is perfectly compatible with the legal recognition of same-sex "marriage". And, no, I am NOT saying that either coitus or sodomy will be outlawed. Please, do not misunderstand my point. I am simply saying that certain definable bodily acts cannot be counted among the rights in the new, gnostic conception of "marriage".

Apologia

I am sorry that I am so very obsessed with the matter of same-sex "marriage", but I am still dumfounded that people (Chris O'Leary, in particular) SERIOUSLY think my opposition to the legal recognition of same-sex "marriage" makes me as vile a bigot as a racist or anti-Semite. Yeah, I predicted nine years ago that the analogy between the fight for ss'm' and the struggle for racial equality would lead to this. I just thought it wouldn't happen because the analogy is just obviously false. Racial equality is premised on the notion that the difference between whites and blacks is nugatory, i.e. skin color. For the analogy to hold, then the difference between straights and gays must be as trivial as skin color. The difference between straights and gays is that the former want to engage in an act that very often does (but not always) create more people while the former do not. How the devil is that as trivial and nugatory as the accident of skin color? How? Answer me this! Please! And how does my refusal to acknowledge the triviality of this difference make me as evil as someone who wants to deny blacks the right to vote or who wants to gas Jews? How does this refusal commit me to endorsing something as heinous as White Supremacy or its pseudo-scientific justification, eugenics? Explain this to me. Please!

People can say, I guess, that I want to deny gay people the right to marry just like the law of the antebellum south did not acknowledge the right of slaves to marry because they were mere pieces of property. But I have NEVER denied the right of anyone past majority to enter into a legally recognized marriage. NEVER. Gays have always had the right to enter into legally recognized marriages. Always. "Yeah, sure, as long they marry someone to whom they are not and will not be sexually attracted," would be the boilerplate reply. This right to marry almost surely dooms gays to lives of unhappiness. Three things must be said in response. 1) marriage laws have never been about personal happiness, rather they've been about the regulation of coitus as even that Religious Nutter Bertrand Russell admits, 2) the opponents of the legal recognition of same-sex "'marriage" NEVER have said that gays are property and, therefore, not fully human, and 3) as most of the Great Philosophers will tell you, the notion that marriage leads to happiness is at best dubious.

If the general culture thinks marriage is synonymous with happiness, fine (but I am dubious. I wonder how many husbands, after getting their heads yelled off for one too many poker nights, would call marriage happiness). The law is not the general culture. There are many things that are essential to personal happiness, which the law does not formally recognize. The happiness one receives after hearing a really good joke. Or friendships. Or do you really think that for citizens to be truly happy, the state must recognize everything anyone might do in the pursuit of a smile? What? Is the state everyone's Mommy who will put all our crude crayon drawings on the National Refrigerator? Do we really want to make our happiness contingent upon the state's approving recognition of everything we do and everyone we talk to, play with, and are happy with? Wouldn't this make the state the source of all eudaimonia? Wouldn't this make the state into a god, who can deny us happiness simply by ignoring our pleas for attention? Geez, the advocates of ss'm' routinely accuse us their opponents of wanting to impose our religion upon the secular state, and yet for them the state is a religion. Who's the theocrat now, eh?

The law recognizes marriage not because marriage is a thing for self-fulfillment or self-actualization but because it has a compelling interest in encouraging the responsible use of coitus, not the happy or thrilling or fabulous use thereof, merely the responsible. This because coitus, again, can and very often leads to new citizens which the state would much rather not spend public funds raising. Marriage has traditionally been the way for the state to privatize dependency, in other words. 

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, I know, I KNOW, that this does not explain why sterile couples, couples who don't want children, or obviously barren octogenarian couples are allowed marriage licenses. Well, it doesn't if I stated that marriage is about responsible procreation. But I did not. I said that marriage is about the responsible use of coitus, and sterile and octogenarian couples can still set good examples of sexual fidelity to the community. And couples who marry with the intent of not having children may change their mind. It happens all the time. Furthermore, the responsible use of coitus, as Planned Parenthood groupies would hasten to remind us, sometimes includes its sterile use. Do we really want marriage laws to encourage a seventy year old man to marry someone thirty-five years his junior or younger because all the women his age are barren? That would lead to fatherless children. Tony Randall's kids are fatherless, for instance. (This pains me to say because I would not mind marrying someone twenty years my junior.)

In short, marriage (from the perspective of public policy, at least) is simply about coitus. Same-sex couples cannot perform coitus, however hard they might try. Therefore, same-sex couples cannot marry. Period. My reasons for why marriage is the union between a man and a woman are based squarely and exclusively upon the unicity of the coital act. It is not based on any animus towards homosexuals or upon disgust at anything homosexual couples might do to express intimacy. It is not based upon any notion that homosexuals are somehow subhuman and, hence, less worthy of the respect and dignity accorded to heterosexuals. It is, I repeat, based ONLY on the idea that the sine qua non of marriage is the coital act, and if this can never ever be performed, then marriage is simply impossible. I defy anyone to tell me how what I have stated here is irrational bigotry on par with racism or anti-Semitism or how this puts me "in the same basket" with these bigots.

Tuesday, October 22, 2013

Consummation


Another "conservative case for same-sex 'marriage'"  This one is by a certain Mr. Hinkle, who thinks he can convince conservatives in his Commonwealth of Virginia simply by using the same words they use such as, say, "virtue" and "monogamy".  But nowadays what words mean is up for grabs.

I just want to focus on Mr. Hinkle's second point:

"Social conservatives believe sexual promiscuity is bad for the body and corrosive to the soul — that the sexual revolution’s encouragement of licentiousness has degraded social norms and debased our common virtue. If they are right about that, then allowing homosexuals to enter lifetime monogamy ought to be altogether desirable — just as it is desirable for heterosexuals, and for the same reasons."

The re-definition of marriage required to accommodate homosexuals necessarily unties marriage from any bodily act.  It must do so to satisfy the demands of "equality".  If you make coitus the act that consummates a marriage, then you exclude homosexuals, and doing so is bigotry.  But if you make any act between two people that leads to orgasm as what consummates a marriage,  then you have just excluded the asexuals, and that also is an outrageous injustice.  Furthermore, given that there are as many kinks as there are fantasies, it would be impossible for the law to acknowledge every single potentially orgasmic act.  What?  Two dacryphiliacs request an annulment because of Sjögren's Syndrome?  Can an autagonistophiliac marriage be annulled because of stage fright?  In short, what constitutes consummation becomes hopelessly subjective, thereby making it impossible for the law to acknowledge any objective or coherent concept of marital consummation.  Thus, the law will have to jettison it altogether and therewith the idea that marriage has anything at all to do with sexual activity of any sort. And if marriage has nothing to do with sex, it can no longer be used as a way to discourage promiscuity.  Hinkle's second point, therefore, fails.


Sunday, October 20, 2013

Quota Time

Ms. Prince does not want same-sex "marriage" on the ballot because minority rights should not be at the mercy of majoritarian rule. Interesting. Yet another gay rights activist who is skeptical of the numerous polls that show that the majority has suddenly become enlightened about same-sex "marriage". Yeah, okay, cheap shot. One can oppose putting rights up for a vote on principle, regardless of what the polls may say. Yet, no one has explained (to me, at least) why same-sex "marriage" is a fundamental, inalienable right. Assertions that it is abound, no doubt, but assertions are not explanations, much less arguments. Goebelian Propaganda? Yes. Arguments? No.

In fact, most of the people with whom I have debated this matter either cannot tell me what a right even is (much less tell me why the legal recognition of same-sex "marriage" is one) or discard rights talk altogether in favor of very nebulous discussions of "equality".  Actually I am being charitable by suggesting that a discussion about equality takes place, and it almost never does.  Rather, it seems S.O.P. for ss'm' advocates to assume, not discuss, equality between gay and straight relationships , and doing so, although proponents of ss'm' either are not aware of this or are aware but choose to ignore it, simply begs the question of the entire debate.

The bottom line is that it has not been established that ss'm' is a fundamental, inalienable right, whatever that may be, and until it is, one cannot argue that the fundamental, inalienable "right" to legal recognition of same-sex "marriage" should be like all other such rights protected from the vagaries of public opinion.

But Ms. Prince's other objection to putting ss'm' on the ballot is far more interesting. If it were on the ballot, then she would have to inform her kids about the vote, and doing so would make her kids realize that she and her partner are not "married" but actually living in sin. This would humiliate the kids because all of a sudden they would feel abnormal because their guardians are not "married".

This implies, of course, that kids of divorced, co-habitating, or single parents should feel shame, but let's leave that aside. If Ms. Prince is worried about her kids feeling abnormal about having unmarried parents, then you would think she would also be worried about her kids asking her why they have two mommies when every other kid has just one mother and a father. That may very well cause humiliating feelings of abnormality as well, you know? But Ms. Prince somewhat surprisingly is not too worried about this and explains why:

"We are fortunate to live in Maplewood, N.J., an exceptionally progressive and diverse town, where two-mom and two-dad families are almost as common as opposite-sex households. Our kids don't think our family is strange; to them it's just one more example of a family, as worthy and as beautiful as any other."

So, because they live in a town that has almost as many same-sex as opposite-sex households, her children do not feel abnormal at all. Well, what if they lived somewhere where the overwhelming number of households are opposite-sex? Wouldn't this cause her kids to feel strange and abnormal? Does this mean that in the name of equality and fairness we should gerrymander neighborhoods across our fair land so that each one has a number of same-sex households with children sufficient to ensure at least the appearance of their quotidien commonness? Ms. Prince's anxiousness about normality for her kids does logically lead to such an absurd proposition: neighborhood quotas based on sexual orientation.

This is insane, but I only think so not because of anything that used to be called "logic" or "common sense". No, I am just an irrational bigot who wants to gas Jews.

Saturday, October 19, 2013

A Geek Trying to Fit In

"Go, Ordinals!  Er, wait."

Overheard in a Locker Room Yesterday

"And you know what's worse than a cold shower?'

"What?"

"The reason for having to take a cold shower."

Thursday, October 17, 2013

A Primer on the New Bigotry

Every one should know by now that if you do not support the legal recognition of same-sex marriage, then you richly deserve the ignominious title of "bigot".  If you do not know this, then what is wrong with you?  Have you been under a rock since 2004?  Are you Amish (silly question--if you were Amish, then you could not be reading this unless you chose to spend your  'Rumspringa on the Satanic Internet, but even then I would think pent-up desire for Forbidden Fruit would hardly lead you to the dyspeptic ditherings of a pathetic and paunchy middle-aged lout)?  Or are you so devoid of civic-mindedness, so trapped in your couch potato bubble of junk food and NASCAR that you could not be bothered to pay attention to The Civil Rights Issue of Our Time?

If this is so, then shame on you and let me bring you up to speed for you are clearly in desperate need of education.  Back in 2004 it was still respectable to be against the legal recognition of same-sex marriage.  But that was pretty much the last gasp of our petty childhood.  Those were the days when the accusation of drinking a latte could irrevocably damage a Presidential Campaign, but since then the American Public has put away such childish things, and among other childish things we've put away is the notion that marriage can only be the union of a man and a woman.

It was argued again and again that marriage had to be such a union because only such a union could procreate.  But, I repeat, that was a time long ago when drinking a latte could disqualify someone from the presidency.  We've grown up since then, and just as we should by now be mature enough to understand that drinking a certain kind of coffee is utterly irrelevant to the ability to lead the Free World, we should also be adult enough to know that if marriage were about making babies, the state would never have allowed elderly couple marriage licenses and would have made the issuance of said licenses conditional on the passing of fertility tests.

And now it is 2013.  The Childish Debate over same-sex marriage is so over.  It has been demonstrated over and over and over again ad nauseam that there is no rational reason to restrict the institution of marriage to heterosexual couples.  Same-sex marriage is as obvious and as indubitable as 2 + 2 = 4, and anyone who still doubts this refuses to grow up and learn.  It is that simple.

But, of course, doubters of basic arithmetic are just stupid; doubters of same-sex marriage are not only stupid but filled with hatred against Gays and Lesbians.  They believe that only Straights are capable of love, that Gays and Lesbians are interested only in their own selfish orgasmic gratification and therefore incapable of the loving, self-sacrificing commitment that marriage calls for.  And thus these childish bigots dehumanize our Gay and Lesbian Brothers and Sisters.  This is hatred on par with racism and anti-Semitism.  If these childish bigots had been alive in the South between 1865 and 1965, they would have been Klan Members.  And there is no doubt in my mind that had they been Germans in the 1930s, they would also have been rabid Nazis.  I don't think even Descartes could have doubted that.  Hatred is hatred, and de-humanization is always de-humanization.

Ergo, if you oppose the legal recognition of same-sex marriage at this stage of Historical Maturity, you have no excuse.  You've had nine years to grow up and learn, but you chose to stick your fingers in your ears and listen to nothing but your own hatred.  You deserve nothing but scorn and contempt, and if you are a wedding photographer or a florist who refuses your vitally essential services to brides and brides and grooms and grooms, then on top of that scorn and contempt, you should be fined and, perhaps, even jailed.

So are we clear now?  Opposition to same-sex marriage is nothing but vile bigotry.  If you don't want to be as evil as the KKK or the Nazis, you must embrace same-sex marriage.

But that's not enough.  Not by a long shot.  Accepting same-sex marriage means only that you are eighteen, old enough to be held responsible but still not wise enough to know everything that responsibility entails.  There is still more growing up to do.

For instance, you may support marriage equality but still think that having a mother and a father is somehow normal.   But if you do, then you have wittingly or no committed yourself to a most ghastly bigotry, that having two mothers or two fathers is somehow abnormal.  This demeans and, hence, de-humanizes the many Lesbian and Gay couples who are raising children, whom you are also demeaning and de-humanizing.

You may think that adopting is a good and even noble way to spare a child of the horrors of the foster care system and give him or her a good, loving, stable home, but even so you take it for granted that this is not the normal way to have a child, that the normal way to have a child is for a man to impregnate a woman and then together raise that child.  This is nothing but heterosexist delusion and is a demeaning (and de-humanizing--from now on whenever I use 'demeaning', please understand that I mean 'de-humanizing' as well for it takes too long to type out every single time) insult to Lesbian and Gay Couples who can acquire a meaningful family life only by means of what you consider to be second-rate, namely adoption.  You are consigning Gay and Lesbian Families to second-class status, you infantile Nazi.

Equality means equality.  That must be burned into our hearts and minds and skulls if ever we are to deepen our maturity and transcend our late adolescence.  If heterosexual couples get to find self-fulfillment in having children, then Lesbians and Gays must have the very same opportunity.  And no one way of having children, despite what you may remember from your high school biology class, can be singled out as "normal'.  Otherwise, equality is simply meaningless rhetoric, and we might as well return to the Era of Auschwitz.

To be sure, coitus is the cause of the existence of at least 98% of the earth's population.  Even so, it is first and foremost merely an act of intimacy just like anal sex, frottage, fisting, cunnilingus, et cetera.  It is merely an accident of nature that coitus sometimes has a reproductive aspect, and accidents are no obstacle to equality.  Skin color is an accident of nature.  Does this mean we should not have racial equality?  Only someone who wants to resurrect Jim Crow would think so.  Coitus, therefore, must be considered to be just one act of intimacy among many.  Otherwise, you are a heterosexist supremacist, and it should go without saying that that is the very definition of bigotry.

But someone may say that something that is responsible for the existence of at least 98% of the people living today cannot simply be just any act of intimacy.  It must be instead Nature's way of ensuring the endurance of humanity.  This particular form of bigotry assumes that Nature is a vile bigot that has privileged heterosexual activity for the perpetuation of the human species.  But nature is not a homophobe.  Otherwise, we would not find homosexuality in more than 400 species.

Nature really doesn't care about us anyway.  If it did, do you really think Nature would periodically send us typhoons, earthquakes, plagues, et cetera to wipe us out? And why does Nature give us life only to let us die?  Nature is indifferent to our fate and, hence, indifferent to our sexuality.  And if you think that Nature somehow intended the specifically heterosexual act to be special, then not only are you a homophobic bigot, but you might also be a male chauvinist pig who is arrogant enough to believe that he has the authority to tell women what they should do with their vaginas.

When we finally learn to appreciate the indifference of Nature and by extension the universe, that nothing matters to it, not heterosexuality or homosexuality, not our births or our deaths, not anything at all, then we are finally free of all bigotry and at long last at the final stage of the Maturation Process, or what a Hegelian would call the End of History when everyone and everything is completely equal because nothing matters.

In other words, nihilism cures all bigotry.

Ten Virgins

The morale of the parable of the ten virgins is that one must be prepared for eternity, not that time is all we have. I am really having trouble distinguishing the message of this homily, despite its religious trappings, from the classic atheist injunction to make the time you have worthwhile because it's all you have. Am I missing something here, or has this priest lost his faith?

Tuesday, October 15, 2013

By the way

I am a Godfather.  Even though I never even met my Goddaughter.  I was not even present at her baptism.  I was the Godfather by proxy.   Or so I was told.

Anyway, needless to say, I am a lousy Godfather.  I never communicated with my Goddaughter, did not send her even one Birthday Card.  The only thing I ever heard about her was her marriage to a Protestant, whose father was a Protestant Minister and in that capacity officiated at their wedding.  The father pronounced 'asunder' as two words.

Not only did my Goddaughter marry into a Protestant Family, she married into a particularly stupid one.

Like I said, I am a lousy Godfather.

There's an absurdist play here somewhere.

Amazon.com

When you buy a book on Amazon.com, Amazon keeps a record of your purchase forever and that means the NSA has it as well.  Well, I've bought many, many books from Amazon, most of which tell me how evil foreign policy of the U.S. Government is or how destructive American-style capitalism is or how the U.S. is rapidly becoming a police state, etc.  And it's hard not to read this stuff and avoid the occasional treasonous thought.   And now the NSA has a record of all the anti-American diatribes I've ever bought online.  I am really, really stupid and probably fucked.

Yeah, well, there is one good thing in all of this.  The NSA makes me feel 16 again because that's how old I was in 1984.


Wednesday, October 9, 2013

The Amish Moment

If the Amish sent out missionaries are the Mormons do, they would have one hell of a selling point for their particular version of the Christian Faith:  "The Amish cannot be wiretapped."

Monday, October 7, 2013

Bishop Berkeley, call your office

If there is a relationship, and there is no state around to recognize it, is it really a relationship?  "Marriage Equality" takes Berkeley's notorious conundra to hitherto unknown depths of absurdity.

Sunday, October 6, 2013

A Short Fable by Franz Kafka

"Oh," said the mouse, "The world gets narrower with each day.  At first it was so wide that I had anxiety.  I ran further and was happy that I finally saw walls to my right and left, but these walls came together so fast that now I am in the very last room, and there in the corner is the trap, into which I'll run."  "You must merely run in a different direction," said the cat and gobbled her up.

The Dreidel by Franz Kafka

A philosopher was wont to hang around where children played.  And he saw a boy, who had a dreidel.  So, he waited in ambush.  The second the dreidel started to spin, the philosopher followed it, intending to catch it.  That the children screamed and tried to keep him away from the toy did not bother him.  He had caught the dreidel, and as long as it kept spinning, he was happy.  But only for a blink of an eye.  He then threw it to the ground and walked away.  He believed that the knowledge of every triviality--even that of a self-spinning dreidel, for instance--sufficed for the knowledge of the general.  Therefore, he did not trouble himself with the big problems--that seemed to him too uneconomical.  If the most trivial triviality was known, then everything was known, therefore, he troubled himself only with the self-spinning dreidel.  And every time the preparations for the spinning of the dreidel were made, he had hope that it would succeed, and as the dreidel spun itself, in the breathless chase after the toy, the hope for certainty emerged as something palpable.  But then he held the stupid piece of wood in his hand, he felt sick and the angry cries of the children, which he had not heard until now and which suddenly penetrated his ears, drove him off.  He wobbled like a dreidel ineptly whipped.

Friday, October 4, 2013

How I'm feeling today

"There will always be men who will revolt against a state which is destructive of humanity or in which there is no longer a possibility of noble action and of great deeds. They may be forced into a mere negation of the universal and homogenous state, into a negation not enlightened by any positive goal, into a nihilistic negation. While perhaps doomed to failure, that nihilistic revolution may be the only action on behalf of man's humanity, the only great and noble deed that is possible once the universal and homogenous state has become inevitable."

A Question about the New Wedding Etiquette

Can a man sue if he's not included in the bouquet toss?

Addendum

I should explain my last post.  I was surfing Amazon.com (which I really should stop patronizing because the company relies on slave labor--the slaves are called 'interns'--, supports the abolition of heteronormativity, and is hellbent on burning the book--the name of 'Kindle' is no accident) for films starring the lovely Karine Vanasse.  I happed upon a few, one of which was Polytechnique, a film about the 1989 massacre at the Montréal university.  Amazon itself did not have a copy, but it was available through Amazon from various vendors, one of which was some place in Japan.  That vendor had a Blu-ray disc of the film for over $110,000.  I forget the exact amount but do remember it was over 110 grand.

Since my last posting, either someone has agreed to blow enough money to feed several starving families in Africa for decades on a disc or Amazon has removed the offer.  In any case, it's gone.  Replaced with one offer for 200 dollars.  Still pricey, but severely discounted enough to obliterate the extremity of understatement I had intended with my last post.  Oh, well.

Why the deuce would anyone pay over 110 grand for a Blu-ray disc of anything?  And why would anyone think that anyone would?  Well, maybe, maybe, if it were the only recording available of, say, the only clear footage of the Second Gunman on the Grassy Knoll.  But the film Polytechnique, even though it seems to be out of print, is readily available on DVD for under thirty bucks.  Is the picture so much better on Blu-ray that it's worth mortgaging your house and wiping out your Kids' college fund for?  Geez, it might just be cheaper to hire the cast of Polytechnique to come to your house and do a dramatic reading of the script.

Does this particular Blu-ray version of Polytechnique have some really rare manufacturing glitch that is irresistible to collectors of really rare manufacturing glitches?  And who in their right mind would collect manufacturing glitches as a hobby?

Or was it just a weird typo?  Did the guy responsible for entering the information of this offer spill his drink on the numbers keypad just before he was to enter the price and unwittingly pressed eight digits plus the enter key as he wiped up the mess?

Or was this Japanese vendor selling something else under the guise of offering a Blu-ray disc.  Sarin Gas? Anthrax?  A snuff video?  Heroin?

And why the fuck am I wondering about this at all?

p.s.  According to Wikipedia Article, the film grossed only 1.66 million dollars.  The film had a budget of six million.  Thus, the amount of money this Japanese Vendor wanted for this disc was roughly 7 percent of the film's total box office gross and two percent of its budget.

Tuesday, October 1, 2013

The Kids are Alright

Oh, by the way, I actually own a copy of The Kids are Alright, you know, that most ballyhooed Hollywood film that supposedly shows the normality of a Lesbian Family. Like hell it does. The very first scene shows how the kids are smothered by two worrying moms. The son begs his sister to petition to unseal their donor's records the second she turns eighteen. In other words, this hagridden son has been for some time wanting to know who the fuck his father is. The moms' movie night consists in watching hardcore gay porn. I am really at a loss to know how that could betoken anything but that these two women secretly pine after dick.

Anyway, the children contact their sperm donor (i.e. FATHER), and he is eventually introduced to their moms, one of whom starts fucking him regularly. Perfectly natural thing to do, right? Having sexual intercourse with the father of your children, but in this supposedly normal context, it counts as betrayal. The other mom finds out about this wicked affair, and there is screaming, and everyone is glum for a while until the scene of the Family Reconciliation Dinner, in which apologies are finally accepted, transgressions forgiven and normality is supposed to have settled back in again. But then the sperm donor shows up at their door, wanting to join in. But the "horned" mom will have none of him. She tells him to leave, angrily calling him an interloper, and then, in what has to be the most unwittingly ironic line in cinematic history, she tells him, "if you want a family, then start your own!"

This is supposed to be a ringing endorsement of same-sex "marriage"? Good Lord, the National Organization for Marriage should buy up thousands of DVDs of this film and distribute it to its base as proof that even a serious attempt at depicting same-sex "marriage" can't help becoming a grotesque farce.