OMG Have you noticed the alarming increase in the number of marriages between one man and five women, one man and a goat, or between ten men, fifteen women, a dolphin, and a television remote lately? Neither have I. Yet as far as Fundamentalist Christian Bigots are concerned all of these things were bound to take place now that same-sex Marriage is legal in Massachusetts. Well Fundies, I don't mean to be a smart-mouthed bastard (it comes naturally) but uh...so...when are people gonna make with the polygamy? And I don't want to gloat (though if I do its only because I was right all along) but you're running out of time for your dire predictions to come true.
"Oh but you forget, rampant homosexuality and same-sex marriage presaged the downfall of the Roman Empire we can't take that risk!" Thou sayest.
Actually I can recall only one "same-sex" marriage that occured in Roman history, that of the Emperor Nero to a slave boy. However as I also recall, anyone who dared defy Nero invariably wound up dead. But same-sex marriage in ancient Rome was actually quite illegal. Ancient Romans in fact placed preminate value on heterosexual marriage and family life. In fact the Ancient Roman ideal of the family unit with the male as the leader of the household followed by the subservient woman (or women occasionally) and Leave-it-to-Beaver children would be something that modern Fundies in the United States could only achieve in their wettest dreams if not for that bothersome notion of "Freedom".
What is the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result each time. That is of course an overgeneralization but I think one that aptly describes the antics of the anti-gay movement in America. If there is one constant in the ever changing dynamic of American politics its that: Fundamentalists SUCK when it comes to maintaining momentum for their cause. This is due in part to their reticence to embrace new ideas of course, but also because of their attitude that the world is organized in sharp contrasts. Black and White, good vs evil, right vs wrong, etc. And while they may have the ability to gain a victory politically what they don't seem to understand is that they have to maintain it.
Examples of ConservaFundie rationale:
- "Well we won the last election, why are you bothering registering Democrat voters? Don't you realize you lost?"
- "Voters passed Prop 22 the Defense of Marriage Act in California in 2000, it doesn't matter that a majority now support civil unions or same-sex marriage. Changing it now would go against the 'will of the voters'".
In the mindset of Conservatives (especially of the Fundamentalist Christian variety) changes in public opinion are irrelevant so long as at some point public opinion happened to coincide with their opinion. Whatever it was then is whatever it is now; it must be because opinions are set in stone...and change is scary. There are of course times when even the most stubborn fundy must concede defeat...at least internally. When that happens the ensuing drama is absolutely delicious.
Consider the screeching drama queens at VoteOnMarriage.org who organized to try and force a constitutional amendment be added to the Massachusetts's state constitution. After failing the first two times to get a majority in the admittedly left-leaning legislature to vote for the ballot initiative they tried a much less common (and more despicable) tactic. First they rounded up enough signatures (through scare mongering, threats, and we found out later: outright lying for Jesus) to require that only 1/4th the legislators vote in favor of the amendment in two consecutive terms for the question to be put to the voters. And: it happened. Oh you should have heard the cackles of sheer hategasm on the Fundie side.
"Now you queers are gonna PAY!" etc, etc. But like the Fundie style of lovemaking (both mostly clothed, missionary style through a hole in a sheet) it was over before you knew it had begun. The amendment failed to get the necessary 1/4th legislature support it needed the second time around. Gasp! Could it be that the legislators involved in the first vote over a year ago had time to listen to some of the concerns of their gay and lesbian constituents, took time to consider the impact of their decision, and accordingly changed their minds? Not according to VoteOnMarriage.org. Nay it was meddlesome outsiders such as Nancy Pelosi who "forced" (I guess through the Imperius curse or something) 11 lawmakers to change their vote.
VoteOnMarriage.org recently decided not to try a third time to gather signatures to bring the ballot before the legislature. Curious because they still claim "vast public support" for their small-penised brand of bigotry. Instead they now threaten the careers of lawmakers who don't vote the way they like. Yeah that always works. Dumbbutts
2 comments:
Actually, homosexuality in Ancient Rome was quite common, and went either 2 ways. Society was big on dominance, including sexual and male. Males would breed to ensure the supply of humans, and then turn around and enjoy the pleasures of prostitutes, younger lower class males, etc. Giving and receiving pleasure was accepted back then. The second course of homosexuality was in the direction of gay relationships, and the rare occurrence of gay marriage. Males would form "intimate" relations with other males, sometimes sexual and sometimes not. Those sexual, well, it was accepted because the Romans adopted that concept from the Greeks. The Roman law of marriage ran the idea that 1) as long as the couple was in love, it was ok and 2) everyone in their families consented. During my research of ancient Roman homosexuality, I didn't get very far as learning accurate amounts of gay marriages that had occurred before Rome's fall. Rome's fall had nothing to do with homosexuality, but with bloodlust, crop failures, alcohol, poverty and disease, and other straight people causes.
I think the main lesson to be learned from Rome (and not to mention all kinds of other empires) is that Empires fall apart due to a variety of reasons. Chief among them in my opinion is a corrupt central government with an over-extended military. Sadly, there are many parallels between our civilization and theirs. I fear we are heading down the same path.
The thing to remember is that in Rome, Greece, and certain other cultures where male homosexuality was tolerated (Japan for example) the relationship between two men usually revolved around the Master and Pupil relationship. As such they were usually typified by a desparity of power and age, older men with younger men. This (despite Fundy protestations of the 'truth' of it) has less to do with the nature of homosexuality and more to do with the nature of their society.
Any fundy will tell you that "Homosexual men are pedophiles that want to rape young boys!" however that is RARELY ever the case. Most gay men are quite happy to have relationships with men close to their own age. Is there a predilection towards older gay men finding 18-25 year old men more attractive? Absolutely.
*gasp* says Fundy, "AHA! So you admit homosexual men are more likely to molest teenage boys!"
Not at all says I. They are more likely in the same sense the straight men are more likely to find younger women attractive, but that's merely a matter of taste.
Post a Comment