The more Lesbians the better, I say.
So I got something in the mail the other day that caught my eye. Usually when I see junk mail addressed to me, I rip off my address and toss it in the recycling bin. This time though, as I said, it caught my eye. On the plain white envelope words, in what I suspect is bold Trebuchet, just above the window where my name and address peek out was the phrase:
Help Defend Traditional Marriage
“Hmmm… This should be good,” I thought. So I pulled out my trusty wooden, hand carved, African Art envelope open and went to town. The header on the letter read, “Campaign Life Coalition” Between the words “Life” and “Coalition” there was a clipart, black and white rose.
The opening salutation reads, “Dear Friends of the unborn and the family,” Nice, I thought, set the tone right away. The first paragraph of the letter went on for forever explaining how the Campaign Life Coalition has been working with the many new prolife MPs who were elected in Ontario. Blah blah blah, realities of a minority parliament… skip skip skip… encourage our polititicians to respond to the urgent need to fill the legislative void that exists in Canada with respect to the unborn… blah, blah, blah. I won’t touch the subject matter abortion with a meter stick, so I’ll keep my comments in that respect to myself.
Reading the first paragraph I wondered if the call to arms on the envelope was just false advertising, but then in the third paragraph I found what I was reading for:
“A less welcome change has been the shocking, quick and sudden gains made by the homosexual movement in its assault against the institution of marriage.” There’s an ass-assault joke here, but I’m mature enough to avoid it. (no I’m not, I’m all about the dick n’ ass jokes) But the image this sentence conjures up is frightening, isn’t it? Gays and Lesbians decked out in matching camouflage khakis, armed with strap-ons and astro-glide tubes, “assaulting” the institution of marriage. THE HORROR.
I’m being facetious, people. I don’t dislike gays, and I find lesbians intriguing, and in certain circumstances quite fashionable. I say I don’t dislike gays, but I’m not fond of them. The fact that I’ve had many “you’re not gay? Well, you can’t blame a guy for trying” instances has soured me on them to a degree.
Exhibit A – When I was 16 I went to the Philippines for my Grandmother’s 1 year death anniversary. While I was ballin’ at the local basketball court a family friend I hadn’t seen in Canada for a while came swaying his hips towards the court. He called out my name as I took aim for a shot. I turned as I launched the ball, which was invariably swatted.
I turned to see Eiking, pronounced, “ee-king”. His hair was shoulder length, blonde, he was wearing tight-ass jeans, his nails manicured, his mid-riff exposed. I vaguely remember his shirt. Black mesh. I must’ve muttered, “Oh shit.” Or something to that extent because my cousins and their friends started laughing as Eiking made his way towards me.
He stuck out his hand and I shook it. All I could say was, “Hey, how are you?” He started talking to me, real comfortably, and within five minutes, he asked me, “Do you accept gays?” I looked at him, his broken English was like a bear trap. How did he mean it? One misstep and I could look like a total pillow-biter. I said, “Uhh, yea. They’re cool.” He smiled.
Later that night my cousin Avel took me to a night club where Eiking and his friends were at. I got SMASHED off some San Miguel, and was feeling good y0. One of Eiking’s boys had been coming to me all night asking to use my lighter. I was like, “yo, sure dude. Lemme light it for you.”
PAUSE
See that, right there? Is that considered an open invitation for gays to start hitting on me? I don’t know for sure, but as I got more and more smashed, the more and more this dude started hitting me. I thought he was being nice, but looking back he was a little too friendly.
Exhibit B – Setting, Glendon. Year one. During an exam the pen of the dude beside me exploded all over his hands. I felt sorry for him so I gave him some tissues and an extra pen. He bounced before I could get my pen back, but it was all good. Next week he came to class with a small, neatly tied package. It was an expensive pen from the York book store. I handed it back to him and said, “Look dude, it’s all good. I can’t take this.” He smiled, and seriously, he batted his lashes at me. He said, “It’s okay, you keep that one and I’ll keep the one you lent me.”
I started to sit way in the front of the class after that.
Exhibit C – Again, Glendon. Cafeteria. I was sitting there minding my own shit when this guy, I can’t remember his name, but called him Barney, like the dinosaur, came over to where I was sitting. He was a big black dude, really nice, but smelled like a hamburger left out in the sun. Anyway, he struck up a conversation about ninjas. Yes, ninjas. I thought it was weird, but I went with it. Hell, who among us doesn’t like ninjas? Little did I know this was his lead in to his pick up line.
“Wanna come to my room and see my sword?”
*Shiver*
Exhibit D – Christmas, 2001. My cousin Jack* is gay. We all know it, while he tries to hide it. The saddest thing I ever saw was when I went to his house this one time years and years ago. All over his house there were copies of playboy magazine, stacks after mother fucking stack of skin books. In his room where Danny and I setup his super Nintendo there were piles of straight porn VHS tapes. I had never seen such an impressive collection of pornography in my life. The sad thing was, Jack was covering up his gayness by piling on the male hetero-spank material.
Anyway, back to Christmas 2001. My cousin Jack’s boyfriend Will* was down in the basement with us kids getting smashed. He was showing off, trying hard to fit in, drinking as much vodka as he could straight from the bottle. I was pretty tipsy. As Will left to go upstairs, he rubbed mine and D’s belly. RUBBED MY BELLY. His hand dipped, I think and I wonder, were we molested that night?
So yes, you can see why I’m a little skittish around gay dudes.
Back to the letter though. In paragraph three Mr. Jim Hughes, sender of the letter I received, explains, “In Ontario, the McGuinty Liberals, with the full support of the PC Party led by pro-same-sex-marriage leader John Tory and the NDP, recently rammed through the legislature a new law, which has now established same-sex marriage as a legislative fact in this province.”
Yes, he wrote, “rammed”
Continuing, “We cannot tell you how each member of the legislature voted on this crucial bill because the three parties conspired to ensure that there was no recorded vote on the issue.”
Yes, a big, GAY conspiracy. That’s exactly what it was, Jim. It’s like those 1950’s movies where the aliens invade the earth and take up political jobs, pretending to be humans so that they can rule the world. But instead of aliens they’re gays, instead of the 1950’s it 2005, instead of the movies it's real life, and instead of the world it’s just Ontario.
Run Jim, run for the hills, the gays are coming.
Through the remainder of paragraph 4, well into paragraph 5, Jim demonstrates his willingness to give Frank Klees, PC MPP for Oak Ridges, a hand job for his valiant effort at trying to keep the gay man and woman down. Jim writes, “Frank Klees stayed true to his word as a pro-marriage MPP and defied Premier McGuinty and even his own PC leader John Tory when he stood in the legislature and asked for a recorded vote on the Ontario Same-sex “marriage” bill. Frank deserves our thanks, gratitude and continued support and respect for this display of integrity and courage.”
Integrity and courage. Yes, it takes a lot of Integrity to be a hate-monger and vote scrounger. And courage? Why, YES. It takes a REAL man to bash a group of people who have been bashed since the Puritans said ass-fucking and beaver pelting (for women) wasn’t cool.
Finally, the last five paragraphs was Jim’s heartfelt plea for help. Here are some more quotes as I’m too lazy to actually form coherent paragraphs and witty verbiage to introduce them.
“These successful ventures have been very expensive for the CLC and have left many of our staff and volunteer exhausted; yet we carry on.”
Yes, it must be very hard to bash gays and lesbians from the comfort of your retirement pension. And yes, keep fighting the “good fight” from your walkers and motorized Rascals.
“We are now just days away from the 2nd reading vote on Bill C-38, the Chrétien-Martin Liberal plan to impose on Canadians a diabolic redefinition of marriage and to destroy traditional marriage and the family.”
How does allowing gays and lesbians to marry DESTROY “traditional marriage”? Let alone destroy “the family”? Is the family and marriage so feeble that a couple of plaid vest wearing dikes with nicely cropped hair hitching the ball and chain to each other some how has an affect on heterosexual marriage?
I don’t have anything witty to say after all that. So I guess the post stops here.
N3Rd-O
Post Script – Hate, even in tidy letters, with roses in the header, sucks.
Post Script Script – yes, that’s what P.S. stands for. They used to charge extra for it on telegrams.
*names changed I’m not sure if both still pretend to be straight.
posted by n3rd-0 @ 12:05 PM
13 comments
13 Comments:
fence sitter am i, with modern views and pretentiously valiant religious 'morals'.
my idiotic two copper-coloured coins:
wanna live together? by all means! but, 'marriage' has a distinct definition. can't change it. we can't go changing all the words in the english language, can we?
Jona, Jona, Jona. You'd think with you being an English Major like myself you'd know that the defintions of words are constantly in flux and have been for centuries. You have only to read poetry from any period other than the contemporary to experience this shifting of meanings.
Look at the word "Gay", for example.
A. adj.
1. a. Of persons, their attributes and actions: Full of or disposed to joy and mirth; manifesting or characterized by joyous mirth; light-hearted, exuberantly cheerful, sportive, merry.
b. Of a horse: Lively, prancing.
c. With implied sense of depreciation: Airy, off-hand.
d. In poetry: Applied to women, as a conventional epithet of praise.
f. Forward, impertinent, too free in conduct, over-familiar; usually in phrase "to get gay." U.S. slang.
And the list goes on and on, containing usages currently in vogue to usages long since antiquated! Don't tell me we can't change words, the fact is we can't stop the change of words.
And why should "marriage" be exclusively heterosexual anyway? Don't gays and lesbians have the right to be just as unhappily wed as the rest of us? And it isn't as if gays and lesbians are forcing holy men to marry them.
No, what they want are exactly the same rights and advantages that heterosexual couples already enjoy. This is about marriage on the level of law, not on the level of religion. So many anti-same-sex advocates makes this error, the fear being that "holy matrimony" is some how threatened.
Oh, and before I forget, how kind of you to allow gays and lesbians to live together. How gracious of you, really.
Since you're a moral fence sitter with one leg, it seems, touching ground on the opposition to same-sex marriage answer this: how is it that letting gays and lesbians wed, under law, tears at the fabric of "traditional" marriage?
...now i'm not arguing...
but isn't there a difference between a gradual change in an adjective and say, a noun? a rabbit's a rabbit, and just because it's 2005, it doesn't mean that a definition of a rabbit has changed.
i think there's a grave difference between 'gay' (meaning happy, which is now used for queers because of their stereotyped joyful exuberance) and 'marriage' (a union under God which ultimately is for the sake of procreation).
You’re demonstrating one of my points exactly.
Gays and Lesbians do not want to change the idea of traditional marriage in terms of the religious aspect. The bible says what it says and that, of course, cannot be changed. The only thing that can change is the readers response to it. (this is an entirely different post)
As for the definition of marriage, it has changed and will continue to change. You say there is a grave difference between the changing of the word "Gay" and the word "Marriage". Maybe you see it as that, but I on the other hand do not. They are words and we imbue words with power. To me, "marriage" and "gay" have equally the same weight because I don't believe that the word marriage is exclusively to be used for, as you put it, "a union under God which ultimately is for the sake of procreation". Lawfully, it should mean something entirely different. And this is the struggle that the gays and lesbians are pushing.
Again, while you offer a great definition of marriage, underlying that is this definition: “A vow or contract of marriage.” A vow. A contract. A promise, essentially. Don’t get it twisted, gays and lesbians have been promising to be true to each other forever. If you can’t accept that I don’t know what to say. Beyond that, the question then comes, what is all the hubbub about? It’s about rights Jona, it’s about rights. It isn’t about shaking up the moral ground that religions are so firmly planted in, that is just a result and not the intention of the cause.
God I sound like a militant fag.
More power to gay men & Go Lesbiaaaaans! =)
P.S. If anyone know any gay couples with adopted kids, I offer free babysitting services (just for couples like you!).
*rGina*
hahahahahahahahaha!
Amanda,
Totally truckin'.
hawtness.
Where's Dawn at? Thought she woulda jumped on this by now. The girl's laggin' y0.
-the center piece for the gradation-
you know what i'm sayin'.
wow, that was totally incoherent.
it's too early/late for replies.
"Once I find a way around the whole 'biology issue'"
dink dink!
fair enough. you want to disregard solid, distinct definition? like you said, 'tis your God, 'tis your union, so how about you call it something else? pulling a mel lastmas are we? why go and changing it to 'holiday tree' when it clearly is a 'christmas tree'. we don't go calling it 'holiday candle holder'. with that said, if the union is indeed, in fact between a man, and a woman, under his and her God, then it's a marriage.
Good ol' trusty compare and contrast:
While Mel was attempting to change the noun by which particular pines are referred to during the 12th month of the year, Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, and Transsexuals are asking for the definition of marriage to change, not the name. The way in which they want it to change is that it should includes their unions as well. What is so wrong with that? All they want are the same rights and freedoms that are due all heterosexual, married couples, no matter what colour or belief system. It’s not as if all the dikes and fags are going to start marching into the privacy of your bedrooms and force you to do dirty, dirty things to them.
But yes, that is how the two issues, Christmas Trees and The Definition of Marriage, contrast. The way in which both are comparable is that these modifications of Nouns and Definitions are to the greater purpose of being inclusionary, rather than following the norm of exclusion. Yes, I concede it is stupid to call the Christmas tree a Holiday Tree, but Mel’s intention was to include the rest of the growing metropolis he governed, and, as we all know, the GTA is populated with so many different cultures and belief systems. I guess you just don’t see the boldness through the forest of his stupidity, but think about this
The owner of the Eagle Gas Bar near my house is Punjabi, practicing of course. His children, by default are raised in his and his wife’s belief system, but they buy a Christmas tree. They buy it for the kids, and the tree takes own another meaning for them. The centuries of tradition fall away for them, this is new, and their tradition starts with their children’s generation.
To make one more connection between Christmas Trees and the Definition of Marriage, look at it this way. For my Punjabi Gas Attendant acquaintance, the Christmas Tree, though he may call it that, has nothing to do with Christ or Christ’s birthday. Just as the change of definition that the LGBT community seek has nothing to do with religion. There is a bifurcation of the definition of Marriage. (And really, what the fuck do pine trees have to do with Jesus anyway? Did they even have pine trees in Bethlehem when Mary was popping our Saviour out? While I’m in this parenthetical rant, what the fuck is Pancake Tuesday? When the fuck did Jesus say, “No meat on Friday…. And on… Tuesday…. You shall eat… ummm… PANCAKES!” ????)
On another note, the idea that the LGBT community should have their own definition for their “type” of union is ludicrously exclusionary and bordering on bigotry. That pretty much runs along the same vein of thought wherein blacks are not humans, they are “other”, they are “savages”.
In summation, definitions are great when you’re writing an essay. They give you structure, they give you anchors to which you can tether your arguments and ideas. But in the real world, outside of the references texts and MLA format, you are ultimately responsible for what words mean to you. If it is your fight to keep the status quo, I encourage you to believe what you believe and fight for it as you believe fit. As Voltaire once said, “I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Unless of course you’re being a complete asshole by trying to tell me that you’re right and I’m wrong.
But really, how different are fags, dikes, equal opportunity whores, breeders different from each other? Don’t we all enjoy a good, hardy orgasm every now and then?
in principle. christmas trees are tradition.
you seem to hate this word, yves, so i'll refrain from using it. unfortunately i feel the need to stop using the word 'marriage' for other than heterosexuals. now, as i have stated before, though yves finds it doesn't help, i never was against a union between homosexuals. it was just the term 'marriage' and to be 'married' under God.
i feel like i'm going to keep getting slaughtered and all of our cyclical arguments will get us nowhere.
actually, i like tradition.
tradition can be great. it's just when tradition interferes with human rights that i have a problem with tradition. i also have a problem with tradition when people stop thinking.
people and societies evolve, but traditions stay the same. in a way that can be very dangerous and harmful.
why am I talking like a goddamned didactic phamplet.
need to shut up.
let's just ship all the fags and dikes and trannies and bisexuals out onto an island and call it a day, shall we?
we'll just wait til you post something new:)
Post a Comment
<< Home