Making a Dent!


In my searches today, I found that this site comes up rather prominently when people search on the subject of gays against gay marriage. I didn’t expect that when I began it, but there it is. Apparently my essay made such an impression upon one guy that he was moved to make a short YouTube video questioning his previous unflinching assumption that all gay people must be for legal gay marriage.

As this Salon column (which links to us!) points out, gay marriage is in fact a threat, but not to families or straight marriage. It’s another nail in the coffin of outwardly acceptable gay sexual freedom. I say outwardly, because we all know boys are gonna have their fun anyhow — they’ll just feel worse about it. Society has been moving toward greater freedom in many social areas: girls are now more empowered to be sluts if they so choose, homosexuality in general is more accepted than ever, fetishes of all kinds are quite legally represented in pornography and more openly spoken of in public and media than ever before. Many people see this as a threat to Out Christian Culture, and I agree and cheer as all us deviants should.

But now some gays, because they grew up with the ideal of the white wedding (despite the fact only girls wear the dresses) and religion-based monogamy, want to stomp on the brakes of all this progress. Let’s drop all this wonderful freedom and mimic the ceremonies that celebrate the ancient, oppressive domination of the Church over men, and of men over women.

I say all this because of the big deal made over the difference between civil unions and “marriage.” Gay activists are rejecting civil unions that are literally identical to state-enforced marriage contracts except in name, on principle. This is because they want to mimic the religious heterosexuals that hate them. It’s also to send the message that gays can be just as boring and domestic as religious weirdos; a desperate desire to be seen as a “traditional family.” Sorry, honey, as long as your junk don’t interlock, you’re not. This has transcended mere legal equality and the convenience of standard-form contracts and crossed into ceremonial jealously.

Knock it off. You’re a queer. Get used to it. And go suck a few dicks.

The fresh gay-marriage debate in NY and other states has rekindled our interest in making fun of goofy faggots who want to have little princess weddings. But blogs can be so static and boring, and really, our one-liners are what we’re most proud of. So follow us on Twitter at @gayvmarriage — we’ll be poking relentlessly at the gay establishment that pretends to speak for all of us.


…on your recent affirmation of the creepily baroque institution of marriage for homosexuals. Because organizing the most important affairs of your life is best left up to some standard-form, all-encompassing contract drafted by a bureaucrat.

It’s clear to me that eventually men will be able to marry men and women will be able to marry women in all of the United States, it’s just not clear exactly when. It’s just that I am not very excited about the prospect. In fact, even being homosexual, I actually oppose gay marriage. Not only that — I oppose it as a gay person.

I am most annoyed by straight people’s calls for it. These people who postpone their own marriages until same-sex couples can be married are just being abysmally silly. Their gay friends must love the drama of it all. I have been noticing more discussion of this lately, and now with the passing of Proposition 8 in California and the lesser known Proposition 2 in Florida, both of which enacted a constitutional ban on same-sex marriages, the outrage has reached a crescendo. Finally, Keith Olbermann forced my hand — I can no longer keep silent on the issue of gay marriage and why it is stupid, awful, and undesirable.

I don’t understand the reasoning behind the suggestion that civil unions or some other marriage equivalent, with all the benefits of traditional legal marriage, are somehow not good enough. Olbermann seems to be saying that it is only the exact legal label applied to heterosexual unions — actual “marriage” — that will do. But why? What is the reason that it’s not good enough? Allow me to put my Freud hat on.

For gay supporters of marriage, this may be an attempt to force society to recognize and, well, love their love. It’s a way to make up for the rejection many of them felt by their hick Christian families, or their meathead peers in school as a child. The fact is, they will hate you even more if you are allowed to get married. Now, I don’t deny that it is hilarious and delightful to make bible beaters uncomfortable — the idea of a religious government official forced to legally refer to two men as “husbands” puts a smile on my vindictive face — but inflicting pain on one’s enemies alone is not reason to call for gay marriage.

Gays want to be accepted by society broadly. Usually they demand that they are accepted as they are, and that society’s expectations morph to accommodate their lifestyles. But in rejecting civil unions as insufficient, they are revealing their hand — they don’t just want acceptance as they are, they want to mimic heterosexuals. Instead of being, to paraphrase from the last century, “different but equal,” they actually want to take part in the identical goofily baroque sacraments as the straights they often ridicule. Why in this instance would homosexuals want to be just like heterosexuals? Are you loud and proud or not? You’re queer — get used to it.

A straight friend noted that gays insist on being married in courthouses, and not merely churches, many thousands of which will and do marry same-sex couples. After decades of fighting the state, it seems homosexuals have now made it their god.

The way I see it, rings and ceremonies are for females, so they can show off to their female friends, and so their female mothers can show off to their female friends and relatives. You know what I want? A TAX BREAK. That’s what would make me misty-eyed. I don’t need anyone to morally “recognize” or “celebrate” my partnership.

Indeed, it seems to me that liberals shouldn’t be so fast to agitate for gay marriage — after all, it often (but not always) comes with tax benefits, aka, tax BREAKS, the evil boogeyman of the economically ignorant liberal mainstream. Considering how much more in taxes homosexuals pay due to their generally higher incomes when compared with heterosexuals, gay marriage might actually endanger the ability of the groups who hate our guts to get food stamps. Oh, what a dilemma! Warm-fuzzy feeling from same-sex marriage or warm-fuzzy feeling from lazy bums getting free shit?

Actually, all relationship-based tax breaks should be abolished. Then we can end school taxes. If you have kids, YOU pay to educate them. If you can’t afford it, don’t have kids. If you were too irresponsible to use birth control or too religious to have an abortion, you deserve to be poor. Really, if you’re that irresponsible, your kids are unlikely to turn out very much better with a crappy public education. Either way, it is none of my business or responsibility to educate something that gushed forth from someone else’s innards. But I digress.

In closing, nobody needs state-recognized marriage for any reason at all. All the arrangements of marriage can be duplicated with contracts, and you do not have to choose the one-size-fits-all bundle that marriage forces upon couples. Even if gay couples do want that bundle, civil unions with the exact same provisions as legal marriage should be good enough for those not so desperate for society’s moral approval.

I do not need the state to recognize my love, thanks Keith. Now I’d like at least all heterosexuals, if not their loudmouth gay friends, to shut the hell up on the matter. It does not impress me that you have compassion for gay people; I simply do not think you are a mouthbreathing dingbat for finding anything at all wrong with homosexual behavior. That’s the expected default, get it? Now stop trying to force your oppressive, frilly, and boring traditional institutions meant to ensure monogamy on my hot, promiscuous, anonymous gay sex.