But what never fails to amaze me is the construct of these kinds of debates. With liberals it always follows a certain form: Point counterpoint followed by rebuttal for a few rounds and then, invariably, just as surely as the sun will rise, the liberal(s) resort to insults and name calling. This is of course an attempt to intimidate, but for me that's when the REAL fun begins. Just as in a courtroom when the defense introduces a line of questioning hitherto forbidden, the prosecution then has carte blanche on the subject. So after being called hateful, full of hate, really fuqed up etc. etc., I bore in with the pertinacity of a yeast infection. At that point in time I am in a heightened state of Zen, a total focus of body and mind with one purpose; to ramp up the anxiety levels of my opponents to heart attack levels by showing them with every syllable I write that they are naive and gullible fools unworthy of being called AMERICAN! At which point liberals will do anything and everything within their power to shut me up.
Ok, so that being said, what about "gay marriage" or gays in general? Is the Hammer a homophobic bigoted Neanderthal with Victorian values in our oh so inclusive age of Obama? Well no I'm not, at least I don't think so.
Look I'm not a young man and I've been around the block a time or two. Being a student of the human condition I've come into contact with gays (shuddup, not THAT kind of contact) and observed gay behavior over the years (shuddup, not THAT kind of observation). Like anybody else some we very fine people that I liked, some not so much. But what did strike me was the out of control, pedal to the metal, off the charts promiscuity of male homosexuals. When I was in college one of my jobs (I usually had two) was a gopher/flunky at a country club. There was a "restaurant" there and the wait staff was about 60/40 gay guys to hot freshman chicks. So yours truly would sometimes hang around the wait station trying to chat up said chickies (never ONCE successfully I might add) and could not help but overhear some of the conversation. It was like the cheesiest soap opera you ever saw. These guys make the Botox Wives of Beverly Hills seem like a symposium at the Hoover Institute. They were catty, they talked about each other like dogs and keep in mind, they were minding their damn manners in front of me. The girls told me stories they had overheard that would curl any straight man's hair! The bottom line is gay males have all the dog that any male has (shuddup, YOU know what I'm talking 'bout) but all the emotions of females. They are not suited to any sort of committed relationship whatsoever, much less "marriage".
Look, I don't believe gays should be discriminated against, but I do insist on a little common sense. If gays want to serve in the military then fine, I spent a tour in the Army and I can assure you 'don't ask don't tell' has been around a lot longer that the Clinton administration. I would keep them out of the combat arms but apart from that, let 'em have at it. Also if there are tax advantages to married couples not available to gays then go to a consumption tax or something (FairTax) and base the tax breaks on other criteria. Again, gay people are here, they work hard and pay their taxes, they should be accepted in the brotherhood of man as equal members forthwith. Besides, without gay males where would we get our ballet dancers and Hollywood hair stylists?
But here's what gays don't get, marriage. It is no more possible, or appropriate, for same sex people to get married than it is for me to enter the Miss America contest. I don't qualify for Miss America (although I would appreciated a dressing room pass...paging Donald Trump) and gays do not qualify for marriage. It is an age old institution present in every culture for all of recorded history. We know what it means and we know what it doesn't mean. We know its purpose and we know why it must be defended for what it is, the most important and vital societal institution ANY civilization has. I'm sorry but gays need not apply. You can't nail wings to a dog and expect it to fly. It's a farcical, self centered and incredibly cynical proposal by leftist agitators using the issue (and gays) to corrupt Western Civilization and liberal democracy.
So that's the book on gays according to the Hammer, like it or not. And if this is hate, count me in.
Oh, one more thing. Really hot women are not allowed to be 100% gay. No debate, THAT'S IT! Bi-sexual is ok, but to be practiced only in the presence of a male. What could be more reasonable than that(?) and they call me a bigot!
Posts
5 comments:
According to "And The Band Played On" but Randy Shilts, during the early days of the AIDS crisis, researchers were astounded by the promiscuity of the gay male. One of the arguments for gay marriage is the whole committed relationship issue and it's effect on that promiscuity, but who knows what overall effect that actually has.
As far as the tax advantages to marriage, has there ever been a better example of liberals talking out of both sides of their mouths? Why would they want to deprive the government of ANY additional tax revenue based on their relationship status?
When issues like this come up and the slippery slope is pointed out, leftists love to point accuse us of fallacious reasoning. If one asks if gay marriage is OK, what about a union between a man and a boy? Of course, the questioner is immediately accused of being a hate monger, forgetting the fact that pederasty was a given during the times of the famous Renaissance artists. And of course when we asked if the next step after open acceptance of homosexuality in the military was the open acceptance of transsexuals and were called all sorts of names... How are things going with Brad Manning.
But I always go back to the conversation I had with a gay guy about the whole marriage thing and he said to me, "It's the lesbians who are behind that one, you think we want to get married? We're guys, after all".
He also said that if a big party was so important, just throw yourself a blow out on your 50th.
Old men die and the world keeps spinning.
Sorry about the narrow minded way of thinking that you carry Greg, but all I see in this post is some classic whining of an old man whose ideals are dying away slowly.
We don't use names here sweetie, something about the IRS targeting conservatives.
Anyway, do you think this is all new? Do you honestly think you and your ilk are cutting edge hipsters forging a "Brave New World" and old fossil-dicks like me are just soooo, well, OLD. I got news for you kid, ain't nothing new under the sun.
My point is when sexual perversion and other forms of decadence are accepted by a society, be it Rome, Weimar Germany or the good old USA, then collapse and destruction are right around the corner. Oh it might take a generation or two, and thank God I'll be long gone, but you won't.
But regardless, your side won. 50 years from now you'll either be gloating at the genius of your generation...or wearing a burqa. My money is on the burqa.
No, Hammer, they'll be the new fossils left wondering how their grandchildren are now able to go to weekend sleep overs with Manny Pedi and if they try to stop it they might suffer the personal and, likely, professional--even possibly LEGAL, indignities of being labelled 'pediphobes.' I hope they enjoy eating their own slope lube.
Make that "pedophobes"
Post a Comment