More Dirty Work for Money

[Iron Sulfide]

This is an Essay i wrote for hire last night. it's about gay marriage.

seething. y'all might enjoy it. or not.

Gay Love

A straight string walks into a Gay bar and asks the bartender for a rye and coke.
   The Bartender says: "I'm sorry, this is a gay bar, and you seem to be pretty straight."
   Upon hearing this, the string stormed out of the bar, mumbling obscenities.
   Ten minutes later, The string returned, appearing to have suffered an accident. He sat down at the bar, twisted and coming undone, when the Bartender asked: "Aren't you that straight string that was just in here?"
   To which, the string replied: "Frayed Knot..." [Anon.]

   What is the big deal? Opinions are opinions; people are people, but one would assume that sentiment can only be applied so far before it reaches the far off lands of idiocy that can cause a person to question the cognitive capabilities of your average heterosexual person. (For the sake of context, the author will refer to many things with an appropriate corresponding colloquialism, e.g. "straight", "gay", etc...) What, honestly, is all the fuss over Gay Marriage? It seems that most people have an opinion about the subject of homosexuality, and Gay Marriage in particular. Some sway towards the tolerance- even the embracing- of homosexuality and gay marriage. Others, however, seem to be hell-bent on preventing Gay Marriage. Why do these people protest such union so vehemently? Perhaps it's time to search through the possibilities and find the most reasonable answers available.

   When you break down the possibilities, there are three core areas that a person could use as foundation and support for this claim: social, religious/moral and political. (The author would like to point out that an overwhelming majority of the driving anti-gay community falls back primarily on religious reasons for denouncing gay behavior.) Political reasons are weakest, and are usually a front for a deeper religious reason. The reason behind this, one could posit, may be because in the United States of America, there is a separation of Church and State, so laws resounding in religious nature are strictly taboo and unconstitutional. But if one were to say that these values are inherent in one's political affiliation, first amendment rights grant supposition and merit to these "political morals". So there lay the technical defense or premises for holding those beliefs with a political bend.

   The second most prominent area used to support the preferences of straight Americans in a manner that (perhaps) discriminates against gays is Societal Norms. Normalcy; the cry of every conservative social activist. Also a relative term, subject to the terms of the person using it. What really is normal? Conservative social activists against homosexuality and gay marriage would have the masses believe that being Gay is not normal, and in suit, that gay marriage should also not be considered normal. "It's (gay/marriage) not natural," is the basic mentality of many of these social conservatives.

   In a brief interjection, the author would like to address this statement: homosexuality is not natural. This single statement, alone, begs several questions, and on even the briefest of inspection, proves it fallacious. Let's try some basic logic: Humans are Animals; Animals are part of Nature. Now, among humans there are some people who choose, or perhaps are genetically predisposed towards homosexuality. If humans are part of nature, and some of them engage in this lifestyle, how does one come to the conclusion that it is unnatural? It seems to the author that if humans are part of nature and some of them are gay, then "gayness" is perhaps natural, regardless of whether it's a choice or a disposition (it seems more likely that it's somewhere in between.)
   
With all this in mind, though, most (not all) of these social conservatives have, once again, a religious standing behind their social conviction. This brings us to the primary reason, the central hub of anti homosexuality: religion. (Note: the author's aim is not to alienate or attack a particular religion, but the report must go on...) Many major religions do not condone, and even denounce homosexuality and homosexual behavior. The Judeo-Christian faiths seem to have the biggest beef against gays. There is no passage in the Bible that is clearer than, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." [Leviticus 18:22, KJV] It goes on, in chapter 20 of Leviticus, to compare homosexuality (perpetrated by both man and women alike) to adultery, bestiality and incest, with the penalty for all of these being death. [Lev. 20:10-16] Leviticus is also part of the Torah, ergo Judaism feels equally towards homosexuality.
   
Islam is a bit trickier. They seem more confused and ambivalent about what sexuality is condoned. "If two men among you is guilty of lewdness, punish
them both," [Qu'ran 4:16] is written one place in the Qu'ran, yet in multiple other places it uses as encouragement to Muslims "Round about them will serve boys of perpetual
freshness."  [Qu'ran 56:17, 76:19] Homosexuality ("lewdness between two men") is denounced, and then used as an incentive plan? Novice logicians that spent the greater portion of their lives uneducated in a cave can see the blatant contradiction here.
   
It has been established that the three primary religions in the United States all denounce (however ambiguously) homosexuality. It would make sense then that the largest proponents against gay marriage are religious, considering how deeply entrenched religion is in most people who prescribe to a particular faith. (Not all of those religious nuts agree, though, that homosexuality is wrong, or amoral...only adding to the ambiguity.) In the sake of nondiscrimination, though, the author would like to view the situation from these religious presuppositions.
   
God (supposedly) hates gays (or at least gay behavior). It stands out as an abomination of the flesh, the misrepresentation of a holy union between man and woman. (Actually, sodomy of any kind is prohibited by the bible, even between man and woman- man and wife are no exception.) God simply doesn't like it. Even if someone seems to be hardwired and absolutely, unquestionably gay, with not a snowflake's chance in hell of it being a choice, being gay is unacceptable. That's why God tells us not to engage in sodomy.
   
Wait a moment... that seems awfully strange; it looks almost as if two prepositions were made to support each other. Please refer once more to novice logicians that spent most of their lives in caves, ignorant of everything else. This is a fallacious form of argumentation called circular logic; preposition A is made and asserted as a conclusion in and of itself, and when a proof is requested Preposition B is inserted, explicitly or implicitly restating A. When a proof of B is requested, A is restated, and you start back at A: it's circular.
   
But, not willing to deny a person their religious freedom, the author would like to posit a few theories and alternatives for this biblical quandary. Perhaps in such ancient times, when survival was a huge issue, much more important than it is today, and the population wasn't so dense, more importance was placed on the survival and proliferation of the species. In turn, it became incorporated into the dogma that non-reproductive sex was taboo, and therefore "sin." But a glimpse at history shows that all things change through the passing of time; circumstances, environmental conditions, social climate, etc...All effect what is and is not acceptable and tolerable. And as times have changed, to coin a phrase, so maybe should the paradigm of sexual sin.
   
Even assuming that the Jewish-Christian God (even assuming that Judaism or Christianity are valid) does not condone, and in fact condemns homosexuality, and the transgressors will be punished by God in the afterlife with an eternity in hell, that still begs the question, "So what?" Assuming all this is accurate- that is, God, Heaven and Hell, as well as God's position on homosexuality- what about any number of possible responses that exist to rebut this notion? Such as: God grants humans free will to determine their own fate, and hell may be the result of some of those actions, but that's their free will; or contrary, God's plan (Christian Determinism) may include certain people being gay (hey, why not? God has made certain people Saints and Martyrs, Saviors, Prophets, Etc...Why couldn't he have intended for certain people to be gay?) This is all not to mention all the subtle arguments of grey area between these two polarized rebuttals.
   
The moral and religious element has been addressed. Ultimately, it is up to the individual to determine whether they think/feel that homosexuality is good or bad (or, perhaps, neutral?) The conflict, the author is certain, will never be completely resolved. Perhaps it will improve, if people smarten up. Even though something as similar as racism, for example (something that used to be very rampant in American Culture,) has vastly improved in this nation in less than a century (a respectively short amount of time, compared to generations upon generations), racism still exists. There stands no legitimate or logical reason for racism to exist, but it does none the less. The author, for the record, attributes this to an aspect of the human condition called "Excessive Habitual Ignorance".
   
To draw a parallel, Even though Racism still exists, great measures have been taken to improve the overall situation surrounding racism. But what of Homosexuality? We can't decide, once and for all, if it's "okay" or not, but why can't we do something about the situation in the mean time? What really is the problem with Gays being able to marry one another? Another exercise in perspective may be helpful.
   
People who dislike homosexuality (homophobes) would say that gays (widely considered "non-traditional") shouldn't be afforded the privilege of marriage, because it violates the "traditional" definition of a marriage. Perhaps homophobes are really just looking out for homosexuals: the leading cause of divorce is, after all, marriage. Some of them say that marriage wouldn't work for gays, anyway, because "gays have a natural tendency for promiscuity." [Weintraub] Says what definitive sterotyper? Heterosexuals are any less promiscuous? What about a bunch of college guys out on the weekend, looking to "get some?" What about the rising trend of teenage pregnancy? Those girls aren't lesbians (embryonic conception requires a female egg and a male sperm; girls don't have sperm...One can't deny mathematics.) [Blamire, 3]
   
On a slightly more serious and less playful note, what really is the problem with marriage among gays? Anyone who is married or is planning to be married, or was once married, will likely tell you that a lot of things they expected or wanted in their partner were things they never found. They'll also likely tell you that none of that was as important as they thought it would be, what mattered was the love. Isn't Absolute and Undying Love for your partner supposed to be the cornerstone of marriage? If two men or two women possess that love for one another, who is who to tell them that they shouldn't be allowed to marry? Their marriage in no way affects any other marriage, the same way that no heterosexual marriage affects any other marriage. The marriage itself is a self contained social contract that affects only the people who entered into that contract. Just like ever other contract in existence, practically. So what does it matter if Sally and Susan, or Peter and Paul, are in that state of absolute undying love for one another? It concerns them and only them, and their getting married doesn't threaten anything else, anywhere, in any way. So what's wrong with love?

[Horab Fibslager]

i ahve nothign agains tgay people

my former general manager is gay. he'd make fun of me for being straight. i'd make fun of him for being gay. we had alot of good laughs, and he';d regualrly trheaten to take me out back and have at me if i didn't do a good job.

of course he was the coolest gay guy i'd ever met. the first one who was openly gay and didn;t try to convince me i was actualy not stright and didn't liek boobies.

further, i'd liek to say, what wrong with making love to an animal?

or loving small childreN?

when does one draw the line on what kind o flove is appropriate?

persoanlyl i don't think gay love is natural, btu that's me.
at the same time i have no problem respecting gay people, as long as they can take a joke. i can take jabs at my sexuality.
i also have no problem beating child molestors/pronographers within inches of their lives and leaving them permanently disabled.


as for marriage. i think they msut be nuts to want to join an institution that's in such disarray. aside from that, gay people are just as abd at it as straight people. one of the first gay marriages in ontario has already ended in divorce, no doubt more to follow.

marriage is gay..,. :P

[Wishfarple]

As a former SubG, I have very, very little respect for the idea of "marriage" at all.  I've personally married a former roommate to his playstation, a forum member here to a picture of a band in her sig, and been married to a piece of buttered toast.  Oh, and I was listening to a radio show Jesus was on where he married everyone in the audience to whatever they wanted to get married to, which turned out to be my laptop at the time.  Sad part is it's all "theologically" legit, since SubG ministers are channeled through the Universal Life Church and could actually perform a "normal" marriage, if any of them liked normals enough to do so.

Marriage is an outmoded concept, and sucks pipe.  If there were any good reason in a modern, Westernized country to need to be with one and only one person forever-and-ever-amen, then I'd support it.  There is not.  The societies we've built here are safe to exist in as a single person of either sex, more or less.  There's enough open-minded people that companionship and intimacy are not very difficult to get outside of marriage.  

To hell with marriage.  If Fundies want to keep it all to themselves and only marry their little boys and girls to each other, let them.  I could give a shit.  I'd much rather just be with someone I want to be with for the rest of my life than have to throw a big-ass, expensive, BORING party over it and deal with a lawyer if I want to leave.  Yeah, it's not as "stable" as a marriage, maybe, but fuck it.  Stability is an illusion, anyway.  

</end rant>

[Horab Fibslager]

you forgot venreal disease, but whatever.


i'm married to the acid in my brain.

MY BRAIN!!!!!!

:P

[East Coast Hustle]

if you wanna convince the meatheads that they should be OK with homosexuality, just show them this equation:

IF: more gay men = less competition for the girls at parties

and IF: more gay women = more getting to watch two gay women

THEN: gay people are teh win!

[Horab Fibslager]

you've never been around gay people have you?

gay people are the ultimate cock block at parties.

first it starts out by engorossing the ladies in conversation.
then i t degrades to full out mockery of the hetero sexual male.

after that they're giving tips on didlo use and lesbian sex.

[Wishfarple]

horab's right.  There's apparently nothing funnier than making sure heteros aren't getting any, or mocking them for being too "vanilla" if they are.  

Actually, that is pretty funny if it's not directed at me.

[East Coast Hustle]

you've never been around gay people have you?

gay people are the ultimate cock block at parties.

first it starts out by engorossing the ladies in conversation.
then i t degrades to full out mockery of the hetero sexual male.

after that they're giving tips on didlo use and lesbian sex.

dude, I lived on Capitol Hill in Seattle...it's like, the Gay capital of the world...and I used to get invited to a lot of lesbian parites becaue my next door neighbors/co-workers/really good friends were lesbians...it worked out to my advantage quite well....

[Horab Fibslager]

horab's right.  There's apparently nothing funnier than making sure heteros aren't getting any, or mocking them for being too "vanilla" if they are.  

Actually, that is pretty funny if it's not directed at me.

i think it's jsut as funny if it i sdirected at me, cuz i go to parties to be get drunk have conversationa dn be a male chauvinst pig.

i start making fun of buff ginos by telling the laides "you need a hairy man, a real man. what kind of man has no body hair? a girl. that's what kind."

[DJRubberducky]

further, i'd liek to say, what wrong with making love to an animal?

or loving small childreN?

when does one draw the line on what kind o flove is appropriate?

Currently, what is wrong with the above two activities is that minors and animals are considered legally incapable of making binding decisions or agreements, such as consenting to sexual activity.

This is what I find so distasteful about people who try to lump homosexuality in with pedophilia and bestiality - either they're ignoring that legal distinction, or quietly stating that gays and lesbians are/should be similarly incompetent.

[Horab Fibslager]

yeah i spsoe you're right. i actually knew that before hand.

however i still want to marry myself.

i love myself, and we've already agreed that if we divorce, i get everything.

[DJRubberducky]

There's a Barenaked Ladies song that kind of deals with that topic.  It's called "It's Only Me (Wizard of Magic Land)".

I'm the "me" in "monogamy"...

[agent compassion]

persoanlyl i don't think gay love is natural, btu that's me.

Neither is aspartame or nuclear weapons, but people have no problem having those around.

[Wishfarple]

persoanlyl i don't think gay love is natural, btu that's me.

Neither is aspartame or nuclear weapons, but people have no problem having those around.

Actually, I have a problem with both of those.  Nuclear Weapons have the nasty tendency to want to get used, and aspartame also maeks yuo dies if you eat too much of it.  Whereas two dudes humping each other has no effect on me whatsoever, unless I ask to participate.  

I guess that's the thing.  You can drop a bomb on my head without my consent, and you could slip artificial sweeteners in my coffee when I'm not looking, but there's pretty much no way to end up with a guy fellating me unless I was looking for that to happen.

[EraPassing]

My only objection to the idea of gay marriage is a legislature being drafted forcing the churches to recognize it.  What will that mean?  Some asshat gay activist is going to sue a Church for the minister declining to marry him/her to his/her partner, since it is against the Church's doctrine.
Somewhere in Europe, there's a gay man suing the Catholic Church for not allowing him to be a priest.  So it's not like it won't happen.
And I'm not cool with that.  Freedom in this country shouldn't mean only freedom for the minorities and everyone else has to suck it up.  The right to hate should be a right for everyone, and not just those minority haters who declare "down with whatever we're protesting today!"

The ban, however, is completely bullshit.

If there existed someway of drafting a law that would allow gays to marry without permitting them to abuse the legislature, then I'm all for it.    They need it, they want it, there's no real reason to deny it to them.

Still, what I want to know is - what are the gays doing?  What steps are they taking to get their rights?  Why aren't the gays doing something about their own rights before Bush manages to sodomize them all with his proposed Constitutional Amendment?
I hear a lot of "Oh, boohoo, I'm never going to be allowed to marry someone I love!  I'm going to cry, and maybe make a bumpersticker protesting the injustice!"  But I don't hear any "They chose the wrong people to mess with!  This is what we're going to do about it and they'll back off or regret it! RAH!"
WTF is up with that?  They've got the numbers, and they have several extremely slick organizations in place, so where's their oomph?  Their solidarity and forward-movement?  Doesn't a hand fight better as a fist?
They're here, they're queer - I don't see too many people getting over it, though.