Hate, Hate, Hate, You're a Fucking Hater

Matthew Franck is a hater. I was listening to this wanker on NPR yesterday, while I was on my way to get some delicious Taco Time brand tacos and had one of my what I like to call "yelling at the radio" fits.

His basic premise is that we gay marriage supporters call the haters "haters" because we have no real arguments to support gay marriage. Let's have an honest debate, he says. Honestly, I've been listening to the "debate" about gay marriage for some time, so by default I am thinking that this hater is filled with the hate, so he better start off bringing some serious non-hate arguments to justify his anti-gay equality stance.

Instead, he starts from the premise of gay marriage is just wrong, wrong, wrong. To back this up, he points to the wisdom of the American people. They think gay marriage is wrong, so it pretty much must be wrong, so therefore those opposed to gay marriage cannot be haters. This is when I start shouting at the radio as I drive down the Interstate designated 5.

Matt then bolsters his "wisdom of the American people" argument with the "since the beginning of time" argument. At this point, I begin wondering if I have been so caught up in my own hate that I have missed the fact that I was somehow teleported to Eastern Washington and I am listening to some yokel with four tin cans and a transmitter give me a little God's country education. But no, I am still on 5 and headed to Springfield for those delicious tacos. And listening to the National People's Radio which for some reason decided to give this fuckwit 15 minutes of airtime to spew his wildly ahistorical bullshit.

So, in a short span of time we have the "'Mericans don't like it, so it's can't be good" argument and the "this is how God has always wanted it" argument. My favorite bit came when he had to the answer the dreaded "If marriage is only for the purpose of having men and women fuck so they can make Jesus babies to be raised safely by a mother AND! a father [as God intended. I will give Matt this, he didn't resort to any biological determinist crap, which must be tough, because it's sitting right there] then why do we let old farts and the barren get hitched?" question.

Tears of rage turned to tears of laughter as I took the new Beltline flyway exit to my hometown [former Eugenians would not recognize the Gateway exit anymore. Seriously, when you come back out here you will find yourself paraphrasing Burne with a little "My God, what have they done?"], as Matt combined America and God to come up with the argument that marriage, since the beginning of civilization itself, has been for the purpose of hot man on woman action and, while it might be true that old folk can't produce babies, their sweaty old-person fucking is in line with the "principles" on which marriage is based, so it's okay, but the gay fucking can never produce children, not even in "principle," so cannot be legally sanctioned with society's highest honor. This is the way Americans want it.

This line of argumentation forces me to picture a young girl uptalking her way through this argument.

"Um, like marriage is for, like um, making babies? And, like, my grandma can't have babies? But she should be allowed the legal protections and benefits of marriage because her and Mel, they like, have sex like you would if you were going to make a baby? Or could do it that way? So, like, it's the same principle as baby-making sex? So it's cool. But the gays? They can't make babies? So they shouldn't get be allowed to get married or anything."

So yes, society has decided that the only people who have the right to marriage are those that fuck in the heterosexual style. This is not hate. This is, well, ummm...you see, more than 66% of Americans are opposed to gay marriage, and since the beginning of time...

The tacos were delicious. I had three.

It's the end of the world as we know it

And I feel fine.

For the record, while this may seem to have the trappings of a "personal, not religious" objection to the casting away of traditional marriage party labels, I'm pretty sure it came about after these morons couldn't figure out who was Party A and who was Party B.

Friday Cat Blogging

It's Friday. I'm at work alone. I am going on vacation next week. I had two e-mails in my inbox this morning, both spam. I've got nothing to do but blog. First of many, I imagine.

The local weekly alterna paper runs a column by local funny woman Sally Sheklow called Living Out. The column chronicles Sally's travails living in as a lesbian in what has to be one of the most queer friendly cities on the planet. It's not easy. This week Sally discusses her menstrual habits with us. The pull quote from the column is:

During our moon time we shared our insights about how the patriarchal paradigm was designed to keep us powerless, ignorant and deodorized.

I thought that just about summed it up, too. But what I've come to love about Sally's writing is how often she will say something that confirms the worst stereotypes that conservatives have about the gays or just liberals in general. Let me quote:

Ten years after junior high I learned the truth [that she has hormones that regulate her menstrual moods]. Thanks to the kindly dyke who taught my college health class, I discovered certain aspects of the female anatomy that had been completely obfuscated by the common era’s boys-have-a-penis-and-girls-don’t type of sex ed. I learned lots of things about my body that those lipsticked babes in the hygiene film never mentioned. That led me quite naturally into the world of woman-loving-women. In no time I came out and was living with, working with and processing every aspect of life with lesbians. Needless to say, our cycles coincided.

That's right. College health class equals lesbianism. "Quite naturally." Oy.

Not as Gay as I Had Hoped

Have you all read about this?

An advertising campaign launched on the London Underground during gay pride week earlier this month has caused a political storm in South Carolina.

Posters, displayed at Leicester Square and Covent Garden tube stations in the two-week period surrounding the festival, were designed to promote a gay tour operator and to increase tourism to various US destinations noted for being gay-friendly.

News of the campaign and a poster with the tagline "South Carolina is so gay" reached the state late last week where it was condemned by Senator David Thomas. The state employee who approved the campaign has since resigned and Senator Thomas is calling for an audit of the tourism department's advertising budget, which this year runs in excess of $10m. The tourism department has also refused to pay the $5,000 fee for appearing in the campaign and has asked that the advertising be removed.

I Do Not Think That Word Means What You Think It Means

In an effort to counter-balance the liberal media, some far-right websites run auto-correct on AP articles to change the words "Democratic Party" to "Democrat Party," which is hilarious. Zing!

The American Family Association’s OneNewsNow has taken it a step further by replacing the word "gay" with "homosexual." Speculation could abound as to why they make this change, but I like to believe they are trying to "recapture" the word so that we bloggers will once again have a way to describe weekend outings in the park with our family.

Unfortunately, this is simple transfer of words does not always work out as intended. The readers of AFA's news feed were informed this weekend that American track athlete Tyson Homosexual has breezed to an easy finish in the 100 meters semi-final at the Olympic Trials. Also noted in the headlines were the facts that "Homosexual runs wind-aided 9.68 seconds to make Olympics" and "Close call: Homosexual barely averts major flop in 100."

From now on, the OG will automatically replace all references to "homosexual" with "homersexual."

h/t: Balloon Juice and RWW

The art of rhetoric

You've got to hand it to Wes Vernon - he tells you exactly what he's about in the first two sentences:

First off, this is a column about national security — period.

Wait for it...

It is not about homosexuality per se.

I don't want to know about whatever lawful activity two civilians — in a civilian setting — conduct behind closed doors. It's none of my business.

Wherein the totally not homophobic Mr. Vernon launches into a high-minded discourse about national security (period) that has nothing to do with homosexuality. Except that allowing teh gehys in the military will somehow rapidly cripple that institution, possibly due to the sudden overwhelming influx of toasters.

Won't Somebody Please Think of the Children?

Even I think this is inappropriate.