All the Gays Are All Lined Up

Recently, and most likely because of the election year, we’ve been hearing a great deal about the debate over legalized gay marriages. It seriously boggles my fuckin’ head that there’s even a debate. Have we not learned anything in our 228+ years as an established country? Have we forgotten the very morals and principles this supposedly “great nation” of ours has fought to protect? I would think so. But, apparently, the anti-gay advocates (and, yes, I consider anyone against gay marriages to be anti-gay) are pulling the same line. Let’s delve into this knee-high shitpile and dissect both sides’ arguments, shall we?

First, I’ll present both sides of the argument, in as few lines as I can.

Against Gay Marriage : (taken from these fuckin’ idiots for the Lord)
Whether it is “gay marriage” or civil unions, state sanction of homosexual relationships:

• Further weakens the family, by creating a counterfeit variety of marriage.
• Entices children to experiment with homosexuality. This puts more kids at risk for HIV, hepatitis A, B and C, “gay bowel syndrome,” human papillomavirus (HPV), syphilis, gonorrhea and other sexually transmitted diseases. Homosexual households are also more prone to domestic violence. For example: “The incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population,” according to D. Island and P. Letellier in Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them (New York: Haworth Press, 1991). A study in the Journal of Social Service Research reported that “slightly more than half of the [lesbians surveyed] reported that they had been abused by a female lover/partner.” (G. Lie and S. Gentlewarrior, “Intimate Violence in Lesbian Relationships: Discussion of Survey Findings and Practice Implications,” No. 15, 1991.)
• Puts more children at risk as adoption agencies decline to favor married homes and place more children in motherless or fatherless households.
• Encourages more people to remain trapped in homosexuality rather than seek to re-channel their desires toward normal, healthy sexuality.
• Pits the law and government against the beliefs of millions of Massachusetts citizens who believe homosexuality is wrong.

For Gay Marriage : (paraphrased from these sometimes-rationally-minded folks, and myself)

• True equality under the law is something that every American yearns for deeply — and is entitled to.
• This would be the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would target a group of Americans for discrimination.
• Gays, like women and black people before them, should not be denied any of their rights as an American citizen as opposed to anyone else - regardless of their sexual preferences.
• As there are already governmental laws prohibiting discrimination against people of color, different ethnicities, religions (which, I might add, is by no means a genetic disposition, it’s 100% choice), and sexual preference, so why would this law not extend to one of the most basic, and sought-after aspects of American life.. marriage?
• Since gay marriages are not currently legal anywhere in the U.S., and no studies have been done anywhere else in the world about married, gay couples - no logical deduction can be made between a married gay couple and what happens to their kids or the society around them. The evidence simply does not exist.

That above covers the basics. I intend to destroy arguments made by the anti-gays by utilizing some (or all) of the arguments that are for gay marriage - whilst using my own arsenal of logical attacks. Let’s pump a round into this shotgun of love, and blow away the bullshit that is the Anti-Gay-Marriage argument.

Bullshit argument #1:
Marriage is a sacred thing, for a man and a woman. Always has been, and always should be

Oh, I love this bullshit. I hear it all the time. I could disprove this horseshit with a dictionary, just to start with. Look it up, anywhere, and you’re likely to see something like this (taken from dictionary.com) :

Marriage ( n. ) -

1. The legal union of a man and a woman.

2. A close union “the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics” (Lloyd Rose)

By definition alone, marriage is not exclusively reserved for a man and a woman. In fact, the term marriage was originally meant as a business term between Kings, wherein they would share land and/or goods - and call it a “marriage”. Later, they’d trade in their daughters along with, or in return for, land and/or goods. So, with time, marriage came to be known as something a man and a woman do. But, in fact, marriage was never originally intended as a term for humans at all - much less the specific demographic of a man and a woman.

Now, if I had unlimited research time, and/or a great team of research professionals, I could probably trace marriage way back to its beginnings when the Christian churches of the time were marrying solely same-sex couples. I have heard this in reference, many times, but in my attempts to uncover it online - I was unable to. If anyone could point me to a reliable source for this information, I will include it here. Nonetheless… the research I have done in the past on the origins of marriage indicate it was pure business, not pleasure, not love, not even “sacred”.

Women were goods, to be traded. Men were princes, to be knighted, and to later rule over a land and its people. The “job” of women was merely to look pretty and spawn good, strong, attractive children for the king to pass his reign unto. Women were even, as I understand it, locked up by a neck collar, and only released into the public alongside the king, who kept a nice, long chain between his hand (or the hands of his loyal kingsmen) and her neck collar. As time passed, this collar was decorated with jewels to show the peasants that this was the king’s woman, and was not to be fucked with. It served the dual purpose, in the event that she was kidnapped or ran away, of alerting people to her, so they could report her. Again, as time went on, the collar of decorated jewels became a ring around the finger - serving the same “This is my woman, no one fuck with her!” purpose. It was only until the last few 1,000 years (maybe even just a few hundred, I’d have to verify) that the man wore a ring, and marriage became a “love” thing. Also, since women were property for breeding purposes, she was not to be having sex with anyone before her marriage. There were no contraceptives back then, so it was pretty well assumed that fucking = babies. And, should she be fit for a king, he would want to be the sole provider of the kingly jizz that was to impregnate her. So, in turn, Christians came along to fuck things up (as they sometimes do) and marriage became some bullshit about “true love” and, since sex and marriage were so interconnected already, sex became love. It still continues to this day with those damn prudes who don’t fuck on first dates.

Oh well, there’s always a wicked porn-style blowjob. I suppose that’s okay, right?

Bullshit argument #2:
Encourages more people to remain trapped in homosexuality rather than seek to re-channel their desires toward normal, healthy sexuality

This self-righteous argument reeks of arrogance and putrid religious filth. It assumes, from the get-go, that fucking another person who happens to be the same gender as you is somehow wrong and evil. Who the FUCK are you to decide that? I think religion, by most means, is far more wrong - and has proven historical fact to support that it can be (and has been) far more detrimental to a society than some flaming glitter-fairy shackin’ up with his fellow ass-pal (I mean that respectfully. If you’re gay and taking offense - realize I’m on your side, so take these words with a grain of salt)

Let’s suppose this isn’t a religious argument, because I will get to the religious bullshit in a minute. Maybe you’re some atheist who, for some (quite literally) ungodly reason, thinks gay = bad. This is, after all, America, right? You’ve got the right to disagree. You’ve got the right to yell “You goddamn faggot whores!” to anyone you’d like. You can go on TV and lambast the gays until you’re blue in the face. Go right ahead. But, now you’re stepping in to support the further suppression of a right that everyone else in the country has (including, I might add - JAILED FUCKING CRIMINALS!) - marriage, all because you don’t like it. Do you see the arrogance in that? How would you feel if there was a sudden law that “You can be whatever religion you want - but you can’t be Atheist or Agnostic”?. Or, how about we ban guys who wear large country-bumpkin belt-buckles and huge-ass cowboy hats from drinking beer? Certainly, I’d like to see a constitutional amendment made to ban Catholic and Christian priests from having alter boys, simply because I believe that they’ve done more harm than good to those poor boys. I don’t care if you’ve fucked them or not - just based on principle (and a mighty blemished, long-standing track-record), it shouldn’t be allowed. But, I digress.

The basic point is made: you, by whatever means you define yourself (this includes that dopey fuck-ass president of ours), should not be allowed to pick and choose which legal American citizens get which legal American citizens’ rights.

Bullshit argument #3:
God doesn’t like gay people. As stated in the bible, many times.

First, let’s quote this bible of yours:

“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”
- Leviticus 20:13

“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.”
- Leviticus 8:22

“Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor HOMOSEXUALS, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”
I Corinthians 6:9,10

Fine. So, the bible doesn’t like it. The bible was written by people. 80+ years after the death of Jesus (so-called “christ”), and therefore it is flawed. Ever played the phone game? You know..

Sally: “I hear John likes bananas, even though they taste like shit! Pass it on”
Suzy: “I hear John likes those brown bananas, cause they look brown, like shit! Pass it on”
Joe: “I hear John likes to stick bananas in his brown-hole, and then shit them out! Pass it on”

… you get the idea. Try playing that game with a 3,000 page dossier from a man who claims to be the Lord himself, and realize that this is to be the last will and testament of a religion for which the world will later crumble underneath. Now, take all those years, all those people, and all that power - and translate it to a book. Now, add in the translations of at least a dozen different languages before it reaches the english language, and factor in the parlance of their times and tell me you can say, unequivocally, that every single word in the bible is absolute fact, from the word of God, passed down to the holiest man of all time - Jesus, The Christ. If you truly believe that, and you believe God, who created all men, women, children, animals, plants, the light, the darkness, and the earth, stars, and universe itself - you leave me with just one argument..

FUCK GOD.

If an all-knowing, all-powerful, supposedly all-loving god would dare stand up and say “And… one more thing - I don’t like those faggots”, then let me and my gay, lesbian, bisexual, and try-anything-sexual friends roast in the burning orgy fires of hell and suck the almighty cock of a blasphemous satan, utilizing his devil-spunk as our new liquor as we inebriate ourselves for all eternity in defiance of your god. Hallelujah.

Bullshit argument #4:
Entices children to experiment with homosexuality. This puts more kids at risk for HIV, hepatitis A, B and C, “gay bowel syndrome,” human papillomavirus (HPV), syphilis, gonorrhea and other sexually transmitted diseases. Homosexual households are also more prone to domestic violence.

Oh really? And, what happens in “straight” homes? Their children don’t get STD’s? The fathers and mothers don’t beat them? All is roses and white picket fences? I don’t even begin to fucking think so.

You would have to be quite literally 100% intellgence-deficient and/or living under a rock your entire fucking life to completely disregard the 100’s of 1000’s of domestic abuse complaints, heterosexuals with STD’s, and broken homes of heterosexual parents (via divorce or otherwise) that happen every year. Clearly, this argument is not meant to imply that this sort of thing never happens with heterosexual couples as it is to imply that more of this kind of behavior would occur under the roof of a gay couple.

Well, I’m afraid your evidence just doesn’t hold up. First and foremost - there’s not nearly enough legally-registered gay couples that you could directly compare to heterosexual couples out there to make a legitimate point about their behavior patterns or those of their children. Beyond that - why don’t you try being society’s whipped little bitch, wherein no one wants you to have rights of marriage, entire religions claim their most sacred book lambasts you as the ultimate sinner, dipshits hold up signs on the street corner saying (and I’m actually quoting here) “Faggots are the vile stench in the nostrils of a holy God”, and then go home and pretend everything in the world is 100% okay. You’re fuck-ass right that’s going to create some tension in a household. “Daddy… why did that slack-jawed yokel just throw a rock at our car?”. You don’t think that’s gonna fuck a kid up? Goddamn right.

But, is that the fault of gay people? I hardly think so. It’s not their fault you’re two short-sighted and close-minded to just accept people for what they are as people, inside, and not who they’re fucking behind closed doors.

So, when gays are treated with the same respect, rights, and privileges as the other “non-gay” percentage of the country, and there’s enough of them from all over the country to start studies - THEN, and ONLY then, can you start to make up these facts and figures about children.

I’d like to make a personal argument, however. Every year or so, there’s a non-profit organization (who’s name escapes me, but they’re well-respected) that rates cities across America that are “best” for our children to be raised in. They factor in quality of education, safety of the neighborhood and city (based on driving records, warrants, arrests, crime rates, etc), and multiple other factors to give them an overall grade. You know what two cities have gotten consistently high scores over the past 4-5 years (I mean an “A” rating)? Seattle, and San Francisco. You don’t have to have lived in S.F. to know that it’s quite full of gays and lesbians. Also, having lived in Seattle myself, I’ll say it’s the mini-SanFran (and I mean that in a good way, I love S.F., and Seattle’s gay scene is the best part about it, honestly) in that it’s also quite gay-friendly. Now, I don’t claim to be a research analysis expert - but it’s interesting to note, nonetheless.

Bullshit argument #5:
I’m not “against gay marriage”, but I think it should be called a “union” or a “partnership”, not marriage

Fuck that. Why? Maybe Catholicism should be called “The priests who fuck young boys religion”, or Christianity be called “A place where people go to be judged, then accepted, while being judged, as long as they hate all the same people that our little book tells us to hate”. Is that okay with you? No? Why not?

Marriage is a fucking term. A word. It doesn’t exclusively, nor should it, mean ONLY a man and a woman. If you’re not against gay marriage - you shouldn’t be against the wording of it. Get used to it, and move on. To give it a different term is to discriminate, and to discriminate is (ideally) unAmerican. Why have we never called a vote made by a black person a “black vote”? How about women - a “vaginal vote”? No. And, for good reason. A vote is a vote. An American is an American. And, so it should logically follow that a marriage is a marriage - no matter who’s involved.

Bullshit argument #6:
Well, if we allow those faggots to marry - what’s next? Joe-Bob can marry a mule?

Yes, fuckwit. Because, logically, allowing humans with different viewpoints to engage in the same activities as other humans with opposing viewpoints is obviously the exact same thing as allowing inter-special marriage, isn’t it?

I doubt anyone making this argument is 100% serious about it. If they are - they should probably be shot. I’m serious. If that’s your logical deduction from this whole thing - your platform is about as strong and respectful as my little brown eye atop a leaning tower of Saltine crackers.

————————

My closing arguments

Look, no matter where you stand on the issue of gay marriage (or gay people in general), you cannot and should not be allowed by law to make a decision of which is completely unrelated to you. They’re not marrying you. You’re not marrying them. It does not affect you in any more serious of a way than does what choice of clothing I make every morning, or how many cigarettes I smoke on my way to work. If you can argue that - I’d love to hear it. Gay people are here, gay people will have relationships with other gay people regardless of what you think of them. Giving them the right to marry will not radically change that ideal one way or another. It will only make us a more tolerant, and I believe, better society overall. If you are to argue that giving a subsection of the population a right that is given to all others in society - then you’re no doubt questioning the rulings made about equal rights for women and african-americans. If you are to say “yes, that’s right. Those were all bad decisions”, then please leave this country on a small boat and shoot yourself amongst the sharks in the sea so they may have a good meal - giving you at least one purpose for living.

When all legal American citizens have the rights of all legal American citizens - then are we free? I don’t think so. We’ve got a long way to go. But, to even suggest that making a constitutional amendment to ban a given right for one group of people that is freely afforded to all other groups of people, including those whose rights were specifically waived (i.e. jailed criminals) is a “good idea for America” - then YOU, my never-to-be-friend, are a different kind of one-word slur…

FASCIST.

If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.