.
[something to keep in mind while reading the following post: if all the faggots i'm about to rail against were like me, we would probably all still be hiding behind our closet doors--don't think i don't know that, ok?
as always, i seek the elusive middle ground.]
until now i've been uncharacteristically silent on the issue of prop 8 (the california proposition to strip gays of their judicially-granted right to marry), not because i don't have an opinion, but more because (1) i see things different; (2) like not being able to get married should be my biggest goddam problem; and (3) having been preoccupied with other, more pressing things, i haven't been in a sufficiently shit-stirring mood since the whole thing came up to comment.
this has changed. in the aftermath of the election, i have sat and watched in disgust as self-righteous gays-on-the-warpath have (a) characterized any position other than theirs as nothing less than "hate" and "homophobia;" and (b) undertaken a witch-hunt to flush out and attempt to ruin the lives of anyone who dared contribute even a dime to the passage of prop 8 [and jesus god, spare us all if these seekers of "tolerance" and "diversity" ever fully gain the reins of power, because their recent actions make it clear that anybody who doesn't fall into perfect lock-step with their views will be burned at the stake--and this no doubt includes me].
in other words, here's the new thing: anyone who objects to any aspect of the gay agenda, for whatever reason, is now routinely branded a homophobe and a hater, whether it's true or not.
and you know what? this is one faggot who is goddam sick and tired of it.
as always, i seek the elusive middle ground.]
until now i've been uncharacteristically silent on the issue of prop 8 (the california proposition to strip gays of their judicially-granted right to marry), not because i don't have an opinion, but more because (1) i see things different; (2) like not being able to get married should be my biggest goddam problem; and (3) having been preoccupied with other, more pressing things, i haven't been in a sufficiently shit-stirring mood since the whole thing came up to comment.
this has changed. in the aftermath of the election, i have sat and watched in disgust as self-righteous gays-on-the-warpath have (a) characterized any position other than theirs as nothing less than "hate" and "homophobia;" and (b) undertaken a witch-hunt to flush out and attempt to ruin the lives of anyone who dared contribute even a dime to the passage of prop 8 [and jesus god, spare us all if these seekers of "tolerance" and "diversity" ever fully gain the reins of power, because their recent actions make it clear that anybody who doesn't fall into perfect lock-step with their views will be burned at the stake--and this no doubt includes me].
in other words, here's the new thing: anyone who objects to any aspect of the gay agenda, for whatever reason, is now routinely branded a homophobe and a hater, whether it's true or not.
and you know what? this is one faggot who is goddam sick and tired of it.
when prop 8 failed, i wasn't angered, nor was i in the least surprised--in fact, i wish it hadn't come up at all, because the last time this issue reared its ugly head, it put george fuckin' bush in the white house for a second undeserved term.
simply put, this is an issue whose time has not yet come.
a little history: faggots have spent the last 40 years rubbing in straight america's face the fact that they're here, they're queer, and to hell with tradition; it's their right to fuck anybody and everybody they want whenever and wherever they want, and if strait-laced straight america doesn't like it, they can eat shit and die--oh, and while we're at it, how dare you straight homophobic assholes imply that AIDS is a behavorial disease?
and then, all of a sudden, a left turn: now we wanna go all traditional on your ass and get married just like you (not monogamous like you, of course--we still reserve the right to fuck anybody and everybody we want--we just want the perks). and we wonder why joe and ethel in toledo (or in this case, temecula) have a problem with this scenario.
do you see what i just did? i just compressed the entire post-stonewall history of the gay movement in america up 'til now into a couple poorly-written paragraphs--a bit jarring to read that way, isn't it?
a little history: faggots have spent the last 40 years rubbing in straight america's face the fact that they're here, they're queer, and to hell with tradition; it's their right to fuck anybody and everybody they want whenever and wherever they want, and if strait-laced straight america doesn't like it, they can eat shit and die--oh, and while we're at it, how dare you straight homophobic assholes imply that AIDS is a behavorial disease?
and then, all of a sudden, a left turn: now we wanna go all traditional on your ass and get married just like you (not monogamous like you, of course--we still reserve the right to fuck anybody and everybody we want--we just want the perks). and we wonder why joe and ethel in toledo (or in this case, temecula) have a problem with this scenario.
do you see what i just did? i just compressed the entire post-stonewall history of the gay movement in america up 'til now into a couple poorly-written paragraphs--a bit jarring to read that way, isn't it?
well, just imagine how jarring it would be to live, especially if you're a clueless traditional-values straight person born, say, pre-1964, who doesn't understand any of this shit--i mean, what the fuck do you do?
what do you do? hell, you do pretty much exactly what i (and any rational, thinking person) would've expected you to do--you vote "yes."
does your "yes" vote on 8 automatically mean you're a loathsome, disgusting, homophobic hater, as the leftist-faggots would have the world believe? maybe--but the more likely explanation is, you're just some schlub who can't wrap his/her mind around this much radical change in his/her lifetime this fast; i.e., you're human.
look at it this way--can you imagine if the civil rights act of 1964 had come up for a vote in, say, 1904 (i.e., 40 years after the emancipation proclamation)? of course not, because it wouldn't have happened--and if it had happened, not only would it have not stood a chance, but nobody woulda been surprised at its failure.
understand: social shifts of the swiftness and magnitude we've undergone in america in the 20th century are unprecedented in the history of mankind--shit like this has never happened this fast before.
and if it took a mere 100 years for america to grant constitutional parity to black folk (and another couple generations for it to actually start to take), are you faggots really expecting it to happen for us in a mere 40, especially with the way we're carrying on?
bottom line: at least one generation of old people--maybe two--will have to die off and be replaced before gay marriage will be readily accepted in america. and it doesn't necessarily mean they're evil; it just means they were born in a different time and place, and have different values than you do.
deal with it and shut the fuck up, ok?
sober update: pugnacious last night, wasn't i?
sober update: pugnacious last night, wasn't i?
