Friday, November 14, 2008

Propsition 8 My Gay Marriage!

“The sacred institution of marriage!” scream the religious right at the television screen in-between the deafening sound of their fattening guts and asses, and the clinking of utensils on plates. I’ve come up with a new psychological theory. The anger and rage over the idea of same-sex couples getting married is actually a dormant fear that gay marriage means an increase in the breadth of meaningful marriages between like-minded, in-shape, intelligent, egalitarian people. But why would they fear something seemingly so positive?

Well first, take a look at my rigorous, scientific proof to show that the religious right are significantly fatter which correlates with ugliness and stupidity. My tools consisted of misspelled keywords searched and spell-checked by Google’s image search.

A map of the fattest states:


(*snicker* Did anybody else just see Mississippi eat an entire bag of Tostino’s Pizza Rolls?)

Now observe the correlation in this map of the presidential election:

This is my first proof, so keep this in the back of your mind as I continue.

The religious right fears gay marriage because it is a direct attack on their institution of marriage. In the anger that the gay and sympathetic liberal communities have felt toward, what they deem to be, crass remarks and symbolically violent political acts by the religious right, they have failed to step back and look at exactly what the religious right is saying. A gay marriage unhinges the sacred institution of marriage because a strict interpretation of the Bible commands such a covenant must exist between a man and a woman. But, let us stop for a second and think -- are we talking about the same thing here? Yes, the reference back to the Bible and marriage’s long-standing, archetypical tradition are cultural items that we share, but the idea of marriage is constantly evolving as culture evolves. As two distinct cultures have emerged in the United States, so has a distinct notion of marriage. The idea of marriage for the religious right is threatened by a radically different idea of marriage found in liberal-minded communities. What the religious right is saying is true!

Marriage for the religious right is a deeply spiritual experience between a 16 year old girl and an 18 year old man -- both with various undiagnosed learning disabilities and a relationship with their church comparable to their relationship with drinking in the woods. Sooner or later, an abstinence-only sexual program leads to the religious and deeply meaningful desperate act of marriage to either cover up an illegitimate pregnancy or to finally get your rocks off -- like a divine intervention from God and nothing like an accident! There are no accidents in Christianity ever! Marriage then leads to a crapload of children solely out of an inability to find anything better to do in the swamp they call home. The happy couple fail to pursue anything outside of child-rearing, because they got married and had kids before they could develop any significant personal achievements and an interesting personality. The marriage and the children then proceed as a fruitful excuse to get increasingly fat and repugnant, because “hey, I‘m married and fucking retarded, so, I might as well spend my final decades seeing how much processed meat I can eat.”

God’s glinting eyes shine down like the big, old, more muscular, kind-of-hot Santa Claus with significantly fewer clothes. And the Lord says unto them that this is good, this is his sacred institution of accidental impregnation or copulation leading to a generally meaningless pairing of two developmentally-retarded “individuals” that share nothing in common other than the few cultural issues they pick up on by watching the same prime-time television shows together -- oh, and I guess they can bond on the chromosomal damage they share -- never any accidents ever!!! This is God’s gift, his blessing, his assurance to humanity that love is an unending bound between a creator and his creation and when one marries, they engage in this eternal love together.

The gays with their marriages are truly frightening; how could they not be frightening, for their marriages resound the possibility of authentic love between two people beyond the mystical bullshit of trailer park messiahs. Gay marriage, being a phenomenon that can only be viable in a liberal area, will share in the Blue State culture that is also more scientific, pragmatic and generally careful, jumping past the “warm-fuzzies” of religious interpretation, when approaching such a serious relationship as marriage. Turns out putting off marriage to spend time developing your personality, skills and experiences might lead to a better understanding of yourself, allowing for you to make decisions about relationships that will have long-lasting and meaningful consequences. Turns out having a positive relationship with your sexuality, and pursuing the necessary number of partners needed to unravel the complexity of your needs outside of marriage will lead to finding a consistent partner that can meet your analyzed, clearly marked out needs. Statistically, Red States have more divorce than Blue states, and this remains so for various reasons.

As prop 8 came to pass, mainly due to the rednecks that live in California outside of the cosmopolitan areas, the religious right said “No.” to the Blue State’s conception of marriage. They lifted their Bibles and their Tostino’s Pizza Rolls -- their children circling them, covered in sugared cereal -- and they basked in the glory of the divine nature of their communion. For committed love can only exist, and should only ever be recognized by the state, between two aloof lovers with different genitals and unthinking whimsy for the material cosmos. And the sun goes down on the trailer park, the sun moves around the Earth, and the nocturnal dinosaurs come out in shadowy play, and life is as God intended -- good.

4 comments:

Mike said...

this is a grounbreaking new psychological theory. Best sentence:
"And the Lord says unto them that this is good, this is his sacred institution of accidental impregnation or copulation leading to a generally meaningless pairing of two developmentally-retarded “individuals”"

yatpay said...

"They lifted their Bibles and their Tostino’s Pizza Rolls -- their children circling them, covered in sugared cereal -- and they basked in the glory of the divine nature of their communion." was a great visual.

I think the solution to the whole gay marriage problem is to have the government stop giving marriages to anyone. Civil unions for all! If you want to go through some kind of religious ceremony afterwards, that's fine.. but leave the law neutral.

Brandon The Unqualified Critic said...

Yeah, I wanted to talk about that, but I don't want to turn my posts into epic novels. They're already consistently too long.

It's ridiculous that the government has ever been involved in marriage to begin with. Whatever goes on in someone else's church should be their business and the business of their religious community; it's the only way to preserve religious freedoms and control one way the government can overstep its authority. The government shouldn't be involved in recognizing someone's religious commitments; it is of equality, and what you said, neutrality, in government.

Another idea, outside of the government recognizing a secular basis for a commitment through civil unions and allowing whatever religious practices to go on outside of that, is to totally abolish all governmental recognition and rights for any commitment. Instead, the government can give tax breaks or exemptions or particular rights to those raising children -- in a pair, group or as a single parent. This way the government has no say in somebody's choice of lifestyle, but it can still continue to help support children by supporting those who take on the role as caretakers for such children. A large part of why the government recognizes marriages is to maintain the family unit, a primary way our current society functions, through various forms of governmental support. There are further problems though with the family outside of the main topic, so I'll just to leave it at that for now.

Sebastyne said...

Oh that was so good, that commenting on it would require a quote - as done above. I have nothing more to add.

But I do think Yatpay has a good point. Legally the government should seal marriages, to ensure all the legal rights that couples have to each other, to be considered a family regardless of children or lack thereof. (For example, should the other one go into a coma and the other one suddenly been shut out because she or he has no legal relationship with the other partner.) But as for religion, the government really should not have anything to do with it.

I have thoroughly enjoyed your blog - it's so going to my blogroll.