“Gay” Fraud

Below, a revision and expansion of a comment I made on Bloggin’ Outloud in a short response to Lyn’s post, Current Argument: Gay Marriage, Part 1. Talk amongst yourselves… *heh*

---

I don’t have any animus toward gay people, but I do very much resent homosexuals attempting to co-opt gaity as their own exclusive province. I am about as completely heterosexual as can be imagined (and I have a very vivid and fecund imagination), yet I have moments, days, even weeks of experience being truly gay. Not homosexual, but gay.

Indeed, I have known very few homosexual individuals who have been gay. Most I have known are–on various three-dimensional axes–as far from being gay as could be imagined. In fact, the homosexual activists often in the news are angry, strident, whiners and moaners and shouters-down of opposing views and altogether unpleasant individuals. That’s about as far from gaity as can be imagined.

That lil idiocy of homosexual activism dispensed with, what about the silliness of homosexual “marriage”?

Oh. Yes. That.

At best it’s an oxymoron.

Optimally, it’s just another way for a miniscule portion of society to blow itself up in importance and whine and moan and shout its way into manufacturing a “right” that makes no sense.

It’s silliness puffed up large. All sizzle, no steak. All hat, no cattle. etc. As ideas go, it’s as profound and worthy of discussion in the marketplace of ideas as the meritorious idea of tainted marshmallows as a steady diet is profound and worthy of debate in the marketplace of ideas.

If homosexuals want to harm themselves by their deviant behavior (and a 2%-4% group deviating from the norm is just that: a deviation), they have that right, but to ask society to place a stamp of approval on it is assinine.

Arguments about genetic disposition toward deviant behavior—even if true—are spurious, as are arguments about equal rights for homosexuals (re: marriage, etc.). Were I to have a “genetic predisposition” toward violent resolution of conflict (and some people do, you know), society would still be justified in censoring my behavior were I to engage in deviant behavior and punch out everyone I disagreed with, no matter how much I whined, bitched and moaned about “equal rights” for a violence-prone minority group.

In fact, what about that hugely-discrinminated-against minority group, cannibals? Where are their equal rights?

Bah. Behavior has always been and always will be moderated, circumscribed and censored or allowed by societies. Civilized society (there has really only been one for the past 1,000 years or so, you know) has always denoted—rightly—that marriage is between some number of men and women (various sorts of polygamous/polyandrous arrangements have been accepted, although monogomy has been the norm for civil acceptance). Changing that for a 2%-4% portion of society is truly allowing the gnats to bridle the horse.

It’s silly, and when society allows the silly to drive public discourse, it’s in serious trouble.

Put the homosexual marriage silliness back in the closet with the other silly season arguments and issues and get on with real issues that affect ALL of society, including the other 96%-98%.

Stuffing the closet at The Random Yak