Skip to content

You call that defense?

July 8, 2009

If there was ever anyone worthy of having Bob Knight sling a chair at them, it’s gotta be the fool referred to in a recent post on Dan Savage’s blog.  I’ll never understand how yet another idiot so obsessed with gay men thinks heterosexual marriage needs to be ‘defended’ by keeping gays from getting ‘married’ (or whatever we call it these days).  Are these marriages really about loving their opposite-sex spouses and caring about families or about acting like they belong to some elite social club? I’d be rather insulted if I simply must someday belong to this social club to really be approved by society and earn government benefits while how much I’d care about my family depends on how certain groups I’m told to fear can’t join the club. In that case, let’s just say it: fuck marriage, I’d rather love my family.

As an invisible heterosexual man, I take enough offense to the societal norm for sale that I have to make a big deal out of continuously chasing women to fuck and demanding my peers give a damn about it all.  Unfortunately, in addition to that, there’s bullshitting ‘Christians’/people with ‘morals’ expecting me to buy the bullshit that as a man, my heterosexuality must be maintained by constantly denouncing anything that supposedly reeks of (male) ‘homoeroticism’ or homosexuality.  Too bad for them though…we’re in a recession now and I’m limiting what I buy – and when there’s no longer a recession, I’ll buy more of the things I can’t buy now before even considering this bullshit.

While you can say that this particular argument against gay marriage is based on historical anecdotes, it also needs to be mentioned that unless I am to think humans have learned comparatively little in the past 1000 years alone (let alone 2000), this doesn’t mean that not threatening men with suffering for being gay will make large numbers of men become gay just because.  It also doesn’t mean that there’s only 1% of gays in this country and everyone else is perfectly heterosexual until they magically convert into non-perfect heterosexuals to attack this country’s morals.  It doesn’t even mean I give a damn about how many gays there are.  What it means is that some people messed up bad a long time ago and we don’t have to make the exact same mistakes. We don’t have to feel compelled to throw the baby out with the bathwater just to keep it from drowning. We can take the baby out and then leave the water there or throw the water out or turn it into a carnival game where people pay to dunk the heads of people making stupid arguments against gay marriage.

So, what have I learned after reading the above linked defense of marriage panic of gays?

  • They treat heterosexuality like a blinged-out car (don’t get it dirty!) (everyone has to see it and be jealous!).  I treat it like the sky outside (it’s just there, no big deal).  If my heterosexuality is like a blinged-out car, I wouldn’t waste time trying to keep it looking perfect and making others jealous.  As long as it drives well and the interior’s clean, I’m cool with that.
  • They believe homosexuality is natural when it suits them, and heterosexuality is natural when it suits them, but not both, and not when one will hurt their ability to scare insecure men.
  • They think isolated historical data is enough to make sense.  Going along with this idea, I’ll note that men once wore high heels and tights and didn’t turn into total fags  (This in a time period where they weren’t threatened with death like they’d be now no less), nor do I think they’d turn into total fags in this day and age, though lots of scared men and women act otherwise.  Going against the idea, I’ll note that slavery (like opposition to homosexuality) was also once considered okay according to the Bible and has since been overturned any-fucking-way.  There’s other examples besides slavery, but I’m lazy and this list item is getting too long…
  • They think sexuality is essentially a game, and that winning is all that matters.  Heterosexuals have to compete with homosexuals, marriage is a goal that must be ‘defended’, and endorsement deals matter more than how you play the game or how much fun you have.
  • I bought Star Ocean: The Last Hope, Tales of Vesperia, and Devil May Cry 4 for XBox 360 yesterday.  No matter how cliche these games and their characters turn out to be, I will hold Tri-Ace, Namco Tales Studio, and Capcom in higher regard than David Klinghoffer and Joshua Berman.  Not because Motoi Sakuraba’s soundtracks pwn.  Not because there’ll be enough polygonal women to ogle.  Because neither video game developer tries to constantly insinuate that my heterosexuality is under attack, and I respect them for that.
  • I could’ve bought Blazblue: Calamity Trigger yesterday instead, and I’m a bit pissed that I didn’t, but that’s okay. I may escape the lesser anguish of not playing it before the year is over. I may not escape the greater anguish of having my heterosexuality treated like a fragile fashion accessory before my life is over. As a result, I hold Arc System Works in less contempt for charging me $60 to Rebel while The Wheel Of Fate Is Turning and people like Klinghoffer & Berman in more contempt for demanding free space in my head to play scare tactics in. Also, the price will eventually drop, but will the “defense of marriage” idiocy drop?
  • Advertisements
    No comments yet

    Leave a Reply

    Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

    You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

    Google+ photo

    You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

    Twitter picture

    You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

    Facebook photo

    You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


    Connecting to %s

    %d bloggers like this: