Tag Archives: consensual

Where There’s A Will

Stop, gather round and listen!

Stop, gather round and listen!

I find myself thinking about recent comments by George F. Will regarding the topic of rape. Don’t worry. I have a barf bag handy. Thank you for your concern.

First, I have to ponder: How much consideration are you supposed to give comments from a grown man in a bow tie?

In case you missed it, much of the social media world has been in an uproar because Will wrote a piece that implied being the victim of rape and/or sexual assault is now a “coveted status.” (If you’re curious to know more you can google it up. You’ll likely find more information than was lost in the Library of Alexandria.)

For his part, the very next day Will was quippishly waxing poetic that “intellectual whiplash” from “crimson liberals” is an “occupational hazard.” Oh, boo hoo! Yes, he’s saying he’s the pundit equivalent of Emperor Palpatine. “Everything is proceeding exactly as I have foreseen.” And no, these aren’t Will-ish air quotes, these are damn real quotes.

Ah, to be insulted by such a wordsmith. I was going to be offended but then I noticed the elegant use of language. You! Now I’m just happy about it. What an exhibition of rapier-like wit. Why, what a privilege and honor to be skewered by the likes of you!
Continue reading →

The Butt Crack of Don

Here is the audio track for this post. Listen while you read! ๐Ÿ™‚

You may not have heard about it in the major news outlets, but earlier this week there was another skirmish in the battle to “defend” marriage.

On December 6, 2010, an “open letter” was signed by 26 religious “leaders.” But let us not divert from the discussion to consider the pompous sanctimony of “open letters.” Perhaps another day.

The letter was entitled “The Protection of Marriage: A Shared Commitment” and is significant because of the broad spectrum of religious beliefs held by the signers. A press release from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops sang the praises of the diversity of the signers that represented “Anglican, Baptist, Catholic, Evangelical, Jewish, Lutheran, Mormon, Orthodox, Pentecostal and Sikh communities in the United States.”

As I read the letter, I couldn’t help but wonder: Who out there watches over us atheists? Where is the leader of my flock?

Here’s the text of the letter:

Dear Friends,

Marriage is the permanent and faithful union of one man and one woman. As such, marriage is the natural basis of the family. Marriage is an institution fundamental to the well-being of all of society, not just religious communities.

As religious leaders across different faith communities, we join together and affirm our shared commitment to promote and protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman. We honor the unique love between husbands and wives; the indispensible place of fathers and mothers; and the corresponding rights and dignity of all children.

Marriage thus defined is a great good in itself, and it also serves the good of others and society in innumerable ways. The preservation of the unique meaning of marriage is not a special or limited interest but serves the good of all. Therefore, we invite and encourage all people, both within and beyond our faith communities, to stand with us in promoting and protecting marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

The press release talks about the “unique meaning” of marriage and the letter speaks of the “unique love” between husbands and wives. Logically speaking, what does “uniqueness” prove? Absolutely nothing.

The letter says that marriage is something “permanent.” Ever heard of a little something called the divorce rate? Have we ever seen such a concerted effort to “defend” marriage against that?

The letter says that marriage is the “natural”ย  basis of a family. How is that statement, beyond religious beliefs, proven in any way?

Let’s say you have a family consisting of one man, one woman, and two children. Now, let’s say one of the parents dies. So sorry, family. According to our nation’s religious leaders your family is no longer “natural.”

Personally I think the letter is an insult to anyone who ever grew up in a family without one or both of the “natural” biological parents, or one where the “permanent” marriage was ripped apart by divorce, and let us not forget everyone who was ever adopted. If we accept the argument that the act of procreation is what makes marriage “natural” then by logical extension anyone not raised by their biological parents is in an unnatural family.

You'll never find a more wretched hive of scum and villany.

Not too long ago there was a person on craigslist in the “politics” section. He was making reasoned arguments that homosexuals were “shit eaters” and “pedophiles” during the act of defending marriage. He even posted appalling pictures of scatological sexual activity (between two men) as his “proof.” How he came into possession of the image one can only wonder.

I don’t normally engage on craigslist, but I decided to take a shot. I knew it would be waste of time, though, especially for one anyone who expressed such illogical thoughts. Call it an “open letter” of my own, if you will. Here’s what I wrote:

There is a person trolling here using homosexual bashing as bait. If you can’t recognize the pure unabashed trolling for what it is then perhaps you have a problem as well. Trolls are best ignored.

Sexual orientation is NOT the act of having sex or engaging in a particular type of sexual activity. The picture of scatological sex that was posted recently falls into the category of deviant behavior, i.e., it violates our society’s cultural norms. It would be equally deviant if it was two men, two women, or a mixed-gender couple. Therefore you can’t simply show the same picture where one of the participants is female and declare, “See! Heterosexuality is sick!” It doesn’t work that way.

You can have a sexual relationship between two gay men that doesn’t involve anal sex. That doesn’t mean the men are straight.

You can have a sexual relationship between a mixed-gender couple that does involve anal sex. That doesn’t mean the people involved are homosexual.

Orientation is what you are. It is a preference. It is how you feel and what you are attracted to. It is not what you do. Or don’t do.

Naturally my post was flagged down and removed from craigslist in record time. Luckily, as the author, I was able to preserve a copy.

I had a friend named Klaus. One time he expressed this thought: “I don’t believe you can find love in another man’s hairy asshole.” Yes, Klaus was an eloquent fellow. And that opinion fit his worldview and beliefs. But I think it’s safe to say that the opinion is not universally shared. And that’s what makes freedom so special. We each get to make up our own minds.

To me, the big travesty here is a simple one. It is the fact that so many spend so much time and effort try to legally control and quarantine the actions of other people. Adults engaged in mutually consensual behavior should leave each other the fuck alone.

If you leave faith and religion out of the equation, what proof remains that supports the “defense” of marriage?