On the Non-Issue of Gay Marriage

It really irks me when people try to foist their morals and opinions upon me. My parents tried and, God knows, they failed. I turned out the liberal, cynical, borderline atheistic individual I am today, not the God-fearing, conservative, mild and studious offspring they tried to train. Individual, you say? Insofar as it is possible being a consumer of mass-produced goods in a crowded urban area, yes, I am an individual. Individuality goes beyond what you wear, motherfuckers. It's what goes on inside the peanut.

Anyway, what makes ol' Dubya think he can convince me, with his poor pronounciation, that allowing gays to attain basic civil rights is a "violation of the sanctity of marriage"? Let's talk about the vocabulary used:

sanc·ti·ty
n. pl. sanc·ti·ties
Holiness of life or disposition; saintliness.
The quality or condition of being considered sacred; inviolability.
Something considered sacred.

5 words: separation of church and state. Sanctity (holiness/saintliness/quality of being sacred) has fuck-all to do with a legal union between two individuals who are willing to devote their lives to each other. At least someone's willing to love each other these days. Hey, Republicans, if you're so interested in protecting marriage, you might want to start conducting relationship counselling en masse to repair that 40% divorce rate. Not to mention the guys who just, you know, kill their wives a la Scott Peterson and Mark Hacking.

Homosexuality, contrary to what many people think, is not a fad or a cultural phenomenon. Being gay has only recently started being anywhere close to generally acceptable in recent years. With a cultural history like being burned at the stake in the 17th century, gassed in concentration camps during WWII, suffering through the anti-gay backlash in the eighties, and innumerable acts of hostility and violence throughout the years, would you have willingly come out? Why do you think that a homosexual lifestyle seems to be more prevalent nowadays? It's not more prevalant. It's just that it's because they are more accepted and feel that they can be true to themselves instead living as social fugitives.

And why is this? Because we live in an information age and people are more educated. Yes, that's the reason - because, guess what, prejudice is stupid. Backward. And for those of you who don't understand that, discrimination is, like, so passe.

As for those who say that gay marriage is "unnatural" because the union does not produce offspring, I say if that's your logic, why don't we outlaw marriage between post-menopausal women and Viagra-users?

Then there's the argument that legalizing gay marriage opens the door for other possibilities, such as marriage between a human and a dog. The problem with that argument is that a marriage between a human and a dog would be impossible, as there would be no way to prove that a dog was consenting to marriage or, for that matter, even understood the concept of marriage and what it entails.

Also, the institution of marriage as we know it is a strictly human construct. We are one of the few animals that have (theoretically) long-term monogomous relationships (and even we have trouble doing that, it seems). We are certainly the only animal that grants special rights to those who participate in formalized, (theoretically) long-term, monogomous relationships. And we are most definitely the only animal that deprives sectors of its own population of said relationships because of archaic social ideas.

Since when did we start taking shit from nature, anyway? Now is not the time to invoke the terms "natural" or "unnatural." Look around you. Look at your house. Is that natural? Look at your computer, your television, your pet fish in it's aerated tank. Look at your cars and your immaculately planted flowerbeds, your McDonalds hamburger. Are any of these things "natural"? Hell no. We've been kicking nature's ass for millenia, and now is not the time to turn around and pretend that you give a shit about nature and what's natural, Mr. Corporate "I'm a self-serving motherfucker" Hardline Republican.

Religion has no place in modern politics, I'm not sad to say. I'm all for Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Falun Gong, what have you - you live your life, I'll live mine. But all I have to say is that as a holiday-Christian, neither Hinduism nor Voudou has any place in my life. And for many atheists, Christianity has no place in their lives. Let's say, hypothetically, that Dubya was not, in fact, an overprivileged, inarticulate, cowardly, WASP, but was an intelligent black man who had struggled his way out of the streets and into politics strictly on his own merit but who happened to also be a santero - well let me tell you, all them good Christian midwesterners would be up in arms if he tried to tell them what to do. So don't you try to foist your fucking morals on me, you bigoted prick. Leave me alone and leave gays alone because you have no place in my life or theirs, you big fuck-up.

My God, the God I believe in, is chill and takes responsibility for those who created, including gay men and women, and Jerry Falwell. He loves us all because he made us all, and if he's my heavenly father, he gave me my beliefs and my views, so can I really be wrong? Well, if I am wrong, I'd rather fry as a fag-hag in hell because hey, at least the parties will be fun and how bad can Satan be if he's willing to take in the children of a hypocrite?

And if you still don't believe me, I can invoke my favourite saying: your country, not mine.

Listening to: "The Last Broadcast" by The Doves