Gay Marriage! What, Are You NUTS?

ChronWatch ^ | 21 June 2003 | Doc Farmer

[DocFarmer]

Gay Marriage! What, Are You NUTS?

Posted by Doc Farmer

Saturday, June 21, 2003

Our neighbours to the North--the Canadians (or, as Robin Williams described them, ''a loft apartment above a really great party'')--have come up with a new touchy-feely (Ick!) concept to make the world a better, if more bizarre place.

State-recognised same-sex marriages.

Now, I want to talk to all of the homosexuals out there reading this article. As a male lesbian, I can sympathize with you. Well, somewhat. And I want to ask you all a very important question.

HAVE YOU LOST YOUR TINY LITTLE MINDS?

I’m not getting on your case about your (im)morality, because others will do that far better than I could. I won’t talk about the fact that marriage has, for over 6,000 years, been the legal and spiritual union between one male and one female for the vast majority of the planet. And for roughly 5,950 years of that, it was usually for life. And I won’t even discuss the sick, depraved and disgusting things you do together--you should be ashamed of yourselves, actually watching Paulie Shore movies.

No, as a veteran of two thermonuclear holocausts (see also: divorces), I can state without equivocation that the last thing you would ever want to do is get married. I mean, according to most gay groups, you folks are already discriminated against, abused, bashed, called vile names and worse. And you want to make a bad situation worse by getting hitched?

Tom Lehrer wrote a song that seems to fit you pretty well. ''The Masochism Tango''.

Listen, guys and gals, trust me on this. Do you think marriage will make you happy? Do you think it’ll solve your problems? Do you think you’ll be accepted by the rest of society if you tie the knot? AAAACCCCCKKKKK! Okay, Don Pardo, tell our contestants what they didn’t win.

News flash. Marriage, by in large, sucks. You go in with great expectations, with love and romance and flowers and candles and trust and faith and hope and charity and a halfway decent stereo system, and you go out with broken dreams, a broken heart and more debt than the federal government.

Me? Bitter? Of COURSE not…

Look, when you live together, cohabitate, shack up, etc., you still retain some of your own individuality. You’re also normally more polite with the person you live with, and don’t take them for granted near as much. Partly because you know he/she can say Hasta La Vista (or is that Huevos Rancheros?) if you act like a jerk too often. Partly because he/she know that you can do that too.

Then, of course, there’s the toothpaste factor.

Do you really want to experience the heterosexual thrill of the 3-day mad caused by where and how you squeeze the tube of toothpaste? And let’s not forget denture disagreements, flossing fights, Water-Pik conniptions and ''morning breath''. Dental hygiene is the bane of many marriages. It’s never an important thing when you live with somebody, but for reasons that philosophers have contemplated for centuries, it becomes more vital than oxygen when you get married.

And what about clothes? The standard male/female married couple constantly complain about who buys too many (or not enough) clothes. Make that male/male or female/female and you’re looking at a whole world of hurt. Oh, I’ll bet you say ''I don’t mind sharing my clothes with my significant other''. Sure. When you’re living together it’s cute. Get married and it’ll be a war zone, complete with the most dangerous anti-personnel mine ever created – the withering stare. Married heterosexual males also know it as ''that'' look. Trust me, either gender can do that (although females are far more adept – something to do with plucking eyebrows, I think). Don’t believe me? Well, get married and rip your spouse’s favourite shirt, pour red wine on a sweater or put a run in some nylons. If you’re single, it’s a short pout and an ''Oh, never mind''. If you’re married, you’ll feel the calcium leeching out of your spinal column once ''that'' look is aimed your way.

The only thing gay marriage will do is provide a lot more business to blasted lawyers. So far, you’ve been able to save tons of money by not having to hire those sorry sacks of slime. Let yourself slip into connubial ''bliss'', and the vultures will start circling before the first handful of rice gets chucked at you. The very slightest disagreement will become (thanks to the creative writing skills of blasted lawyers, which rival the great fictional works of Jayson Blair or Hellary Clinton) worse than the slaughter of a thousand fluffy puppies. Most of the time, they’ll actually claim you slaughtered a thousand fluffy puppies, too.

And as you stand there in the court room while the judge tears you a new one, and the blasted lawyers on both sides are charging you $400 a minute to use a copy machine, just remember one thing.

You asked for this.

And I’ll have absolutely NO sympathy for you.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Doc Farmer is a humorist and freelance writer who resides in Doha, Qatar.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This article was originally posted on ChronWatch at: http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=3185 www.chronwatch.com

[Banjoguy]

This vignette though humorous, kind of backs up my contention that no homosexual really knows what a good long term loving relationship is about. The personality disorders that give rise to the selection of a homosexual lifestyle, will most often prevent individual growth from happening, (e.g. too many unfulfilled dependancy needs, inaccurate role model assimilation, ect.)

In a sound relationship, Doc, which is in reality three entities, I can tell you that the petty living differences that you describe are problematic and have nothing to do with a decisive commitment to love someone unconditionally.

I am not trying to denigrate anyone and perhaps this is an oversimplification. IMO, homosexuals, simply put, just don't get it; as long as they live the 'lifestyle' they won't.

[2Smart2BLiberal]

no homosexual really knows what a good long term loving relationship is about.

You are absolutely right. For years my lesbian SIL has compared her relationship with her girlfriend with that of my husband and me. In her eyes, a marriage is no different than a gay relationship. Now, after multiple incidents of "infidelity" by her "spouse", she has broken up with her girlfriend. We are praying for her and for a complete healing of this disorder.

[Capriole]

I dunno. I'll agree that I never encountered a relationship between two gay men that was nomogamous for a long time. I do know several lesbian relationships in which everybody is faithful to her companion and the relationships have endured through life's challenges for many years. This does NOT mean I support homosexual marriage or homosexual or lesbian relationships; it's only an observation that, as a group, I believe lesbians tend to be more faithful than homosexual men. It's like the old joke:

Q. What does a lesbian bring to her second date?

A. Her furniture.

Q. What does a gay man bring to a second date?

A. What second date?

[xp38]

You're in Doha Qatar? Could be an interesting topic to bring up with the locals.

[Jhoffa_]

I won’t talk about the fact that marriage has, for over 6,000 years, been the legal and spiritual union between one male and one female for the vast majority of the planet. And for roughly 5,950 years of that, it was usually for life.

My favorite part...

We're slouching towards gammorah faster then ever.

[puroresu]

Male homosexuals tend to be wildly promiscuous because there is no female presence to "tame" their sexual lust. Males have a much stronger sex drive than females. That's why you can walk into a newsstand and see 350 porn magazines aimed at men and one softcore one (Playgirl) aimed at women, but bought mostly by homosexual males.

Traditionally, a young woman's weaker sex drive, backed up by her father's determination to protect her virginity until marriage, forced men to restrain themselves and commit themselves to one woman in marriage to gain access to sex. The "sexual revolution", however, turned sex into an area of male dominance and hegemony, forcing women to comply to a larger degree with male sexual demands. But even so, women still act as a restraint on men. Most young men would have sex with a different girl every day if they could get away with it. Imagine how many promiscuous, one-night-stand sex acts would be committed daily if women had the same sex drive as men. Men still have to at least date a girl for a while to get sex.

Homosexual males have no female restraints on them. They are males with wild sex drives, seeking out other males with wild sex drives. This is why the bathhouse culture arose, where homosexuals engage in anonymous sex with dozens of men per night.


Homosexuality, at least the male variety, always ends up in wild and even amazing levels of promiscuity. There are no doubt occasional homosexual male couples who have stable monogamous relationships, but they will always be the exception. It is actually to the benefit of homosexuals to be confined to the proverbial closet. That makes it harder for them to find partners, and forces them to be somewhat more monogamous when they do find one. When homosexuality is "tolerated", the death and disease rate among homosexuals skyrockets, because their lifestyle is inherently unhealthy and "tolerance" only makes it easier for them to engage in these unhealthy acts.

Supporters of "gay rights" whine about so-called gay bashing and drone on endlessly about Matthew Shepherd, yet for every homosexual killed by a "bigot", there have been hundreds of thousands killed by diseases spread by homosexual acts themselves. Supporters of "gay rights" make it easier for homosexuals to engage in these destructive acts. It would not be an exaggeration to say that every judge or politician who supports "gay rights" can personally be held responsible for a large number of homosexual deaths.

[gcruse]

"I'm slouching as fast as I can!"

[2nd Amendment]

I don't care if they marry their farm animals up there in the land of SARS and America hating. I really wouldn't care if all the sodomites would move up their and share their diseases.

[longtermmemmory]

True but when you meet the right woman with the right sex drive, YEEEEEEEEEE HAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

ok i am calm now.

[longtermmemmory]

So when they legalize polygamy, since they legalize same sex marriage. If all the homosexual men decide to marry each other as a National canadian group homosexual marriage then, they will never be cheating since the marriage pool will consist of 1000's.

[kabar]

Gay marriage has more to do with legal entitlements than seeking approval for a different lifestyle. The financial impact on society could be significant. For example, how would such programs as Social Security treat these unions? Divorce and inheritance laws would come into effect. It is all nonsense, but it demonstrates how effective the gay lobby has become.

[Kahonek]

"I won’t talk about the fact that marriage has, for over 6,000 years, been the legal and spiritual union between one male and one female for the vast majority of the planet."

I dunno. There's been a lot of polygamy going on...

[longtermmemmory]

Polygamy was used as a means to ensure reproduction.

[Kahonek]

"Polygamy was used as a means to ensure reproduction."

I see. So if I marry an infertile woman today, should I then be permitted to get another wife who can have my children? Or are you suggesting that the definition of marriage has changed with the times?

[longtermmemmory]

Actually I forgot to ad, seperation was not an option.

Marriage has not changed over the times. The infertility argument is used by homosexuals under the false assuption that one marriage that does not produce chidren negates marriage as a whole. I have no interest in defending polygamy.

Polygamy still followed/s the Man/Woman dynamic. The man and women marry. There is never a two woman only ceremony. Moslems acuse the west of trading concurrent polygamy for serial polygamy. Again all male/female. NEVER female/female.

[Kahonek]

"Actually I forgot to ad (sic), seperation (sic) was not an option."

Sure it was. Plenty of wives were put away and separations occurred (often at God's command), for everything from infertility to miscegenation.

[Kahonek]

"Marriage has not changed over the times."

"Polygamy was used as a means to ensure reproduction."

"seperation (sic) was not an option."

Interesting. These comments seem inconsistent with one another.

[davidosborne]

H.J.RES.56 Title: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage. Sponsor: Rep Musgrave, Marilyn N. [R CO-4] (introduced 5/21/2003) Cosponsors: 75 Latest Major Action: 6/25/2003 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COSPONSORS(75), BY DATE [order is left to right]: (Sort: alphabetical order) Rep Hall, Ralph M. - 5/21/2003 [D-TX-4] Rep McIntyre, Mike - 5/21/2003 [D-NC-7] Rep Peterson, Collin C. - 5/21/2003 [D-MN-7] Rep Davis, Jo Ann - 5/21/2003 [R- VA-1] Rep Vitter, David - 5/21/2003 [R- LA-1] Rep Pitts, Joseph R. - 6/2/2003 [R- PA-16] Rep Bartlett, Roscoe G. - 6/2/2003 [R- MD-6] Rep Goode, Virgil H., Jr. - 6/2/2003 [R- VA-5] Rep Wilson, Joe - 6/2/2003 [R- SC-2] Rep Weldon, Dave - 6/2/2003 [R- FL-15] Rep Pence, Mike - 6/10/2003 [R- IN-6] Rep Istook, Ernest J., Jr. - 6/10/2003 [R- OK-5] Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. - 6/10/2003 [R- NC-3] Rep Ryun, Jim - 6/10/2003 [R- KS-2] Rep Johnson, Sam - 6/10/2003 [R- TX-3] Rep DeMint, Jim - 6/10/2003 [R- SC-4] Rep Akin, W. Todd - 6/10/2003 [R- MO-2] Rep Burgess, Michael C. - 6/10/2003 [R- TX-26] Rep Norwood, Charlie - 6/10/2003 [R- GA-9] Rep King, Steve - 6/24/2003 [R- IA-5] Rep Isakson, Johnny - 6/24/2003 [R- GA-6] Rep Souder, Mark E. - 6/24/2003 [R- IN-3] Rep Kennedy, Mark R. - 6/24/2003 [R- MN-6] Rep Miller, Jeff - 6/25/2003 [R- FL-1] Rep Lewis, Ron - 6/25/2003 [R- KY-2] Rep Hayes, Robin - 7/8/2003 [R- NC-8] Rep Barrett, J. Gresham - 7/8/2003 [R- SC-3] Rep Burns, Max - 7/8/2003 [R- GA-12] Rep Collins, Mac - 7/8/2003 [R- GA-8] Rep Rogers, Mike D. - 7/8/2003 [R- AL-3] Rep Wamp, Zach - 7/8/2003 [R- TN-3] Rep Stenholm, Charles W. - 7/8/2003 [D-TX-17] Rep Hoekstra, Peter - 7/10/2003 [R- MI-2] Rep Brady, Kevin - 7/10/2003 [R- TX-8] Rep Whitfield, Ed - 7/10/2003 [R- KY-1] Rep Hunter, Duncan - 7/10/2003 [R- CA-52] Rep Doolittle, John T. - 7/10/2003 [R- CA-4] Rep Brown, Henry E., Jr. - 7/10/2003 [R- SC-1] Rep Cantor, Eric - 7/10/2003 [R- VA-7] Rep Gingrey, Phil - 7/15/2003 [GA-11] Rep Davis, Lincoln - 7/15/2003 [D-TN-4] Rep Pickering, Charles W. (Chip) - 7/15/2003 [R- MS-3] Rep Wicker, Roger F. - 7/15/2003 [R- MS-1] Rep Taylor, Gene - 7/17/2003 [D-MS-4] Rep Herger, Wally - 7/17/2003 [R- CA-2] Rep Sullivan, John - 7/22/2003 [R- OK-1] Rep Garrett, Scott - 7/22/2003 [R- NJ-5] Rep Tauzin, W. J. (Billy) - 7/22/2003 [R- LA-3] Rep Cubin, Barbara - 7/22/2003 [R- WY] Rep Forbes, J. Randy - 7/23/2003 [R- VA-4] Rep Smith, Christopher H. - 7/23/2003 [R- NJ-4] Rep Schrock, Edward L. - 7/23/2003 [R- VA-2] Rep Pombo, Richard W. - 7/23/2003 [R- CA-11] Rep Hayworth, J. D. - 7/23/2003 [R- AZ-5] Rep Stearns, Cliff - 7/23/2003 [R- FL-6] Rep Cunningham, Randy (Duke) - 7/23/2003 [R- CA-50] Rep Pearce, Stevan - 7/23/2003 [R- NM-2] Rep Hyde, Henry J. - 7/23/2003 [R- IL-6] Rep Barton, Joe - 7/23/2003 [R- TX-6] Rep Boehner, John A. - 7/23/2003 [R- OH-8] Rep Gutknecht, Gil - 7/23/2003 [R- MN-1] Rep Peterson, John E. - 7/23/2003 [R- PA-5] Rep Tiahrt, Todd - 7/23/2003 [R- KS-4] Rep Franks, Trent - 7/23/2003 [R- AZ-2] Rep Carter, John R. - 7/24/2003 [R- TX-31] Rep Emerson, Jo Ann - 7/24/2003 [R- MO-8] Rep Chocola, Chris - 7/24/2003 [R- IN-2] Rep Rohrabacher, Dana - 7/24/2003 [R- CA-46] Rep Crane, Philip M. - 7/24/2003 [R- IL-8] Rep Shuster, Bill - 7/24/2003 [R- PA-9] Rep Sessions, Pete - 7/24/2003 [R- TX-32] Rep Beauprez, Bob - 7/24/2003 [R- CO-7] Rep Ballenger, Cass - 7/25/2003 [R- NC-10] Rep Myrick, Sue - 7/25/2003 [R- NC-9] Rep Toomey, Patrick J. - 7/25/2003 [R- PA-15]

Congressional Directory

David C. Osborne