ASS FUCKING IS LOVE

ASS-FUCKING IS LOVE

In Defense of Marriage

Matt Cale tells it to the mountain…

In terms of the debate over gay marriage, my position is clear – consenting adults, even those deemed sinful and perverted by the same Christians who touch their children’s naughty spots almost daily, can have sex with, shoot loads on, shove assorted tools up, and yes, marry whomever they choose. And it’s not merely the case that I’m not freaked about by gay people in love; it’s a matter of the Constitution. As we all know, that’s why the enemies of compassion and equal protection want to forever tarnish our sacred text in order to prevent the current law from being enforced. At bottom, the right-wing in this country, and just about everyone who worships Jesus Christ, hates homosexuals, perhaps because they seem to get laid at will and what’s more, actually enjoy sex. It’s not so much homophobia as it is jealousy.

But I’m also here to say that I am consistent, heading off those silly and inevitable “slippery slope” arguments that so often drive thinking people crazy. “If you allow gays to marry,” they argue, “where do you draw the line?” Actually, that’s quite easy. If you are at least eighteen years of age (an arbitrary number, I realize, but we can accept that it signifies adulthood), your sex life — and as a result your married life, if that is what you choose — is of no business to the state. Am I endorsing bigamy, polygamy, harems, or marrying one’s mother? In all cases, yes. In my world, which happens to coincide with the now all-but-forgotten 14th Amendment, no law may be passed which infringes on the right of adults to do as they please, so long as the unwilling are not affected. If two people come together and want an official recognition of their union, even if that union entails the attachment of six hundred other adults, that is a legally recognized marriage. No church has to endorse it, bless it, or do whatever it is they do when people want God’s protection; but the state cannot discriminate.

And then there’s the belief that we’d be one step from a man walking down the aisle with a horse, or three of his loyal German Shepherds, if we went so far as to say gay people are also citizens. Again, for all those who move their lips when they read, what about consenting adults do you not understand? As much as you might think that your pet understands the English language, no animal is ever in the position to provide permission. If you slip your rod into the backside of a giraffe, it is the same as pounding a pre-schooler. Yes indeed, both are rape. It’s so clear and obvious that the conversation should be over tomorrow.

In the end, these debates always come back to the children. “Won’t they be confused?” Now I realize that conservative folks have no desire to explain love and commitment to their children, as that might necessitate a long, involved dialogue about daddy’s mistress or mommy’s pill-popping melancholia, but their neglect should not prevent others from getting on with their lives. Hell, people shouldn’t even have to love each other to get married. No explanation is required, only the legal understanding that all married couples are equal in the eyes of the Constitution.

I’ve always believed that each couple (or trio, or whatever) should define marriage for themselves, and the only thing standing in the way of this “radical” notion is the Holy Fucking Bible. I’ve gone on record numerous times with my belief that no more offensive and destructive book has ever been written, and I have decided that beginning in 2005, my National Day of Prayer will be the counter-demonstration of taking a collective crap on the good book. While the rest of America prays, I will be sending steaming piles of hot shit onto the pages of history’s most deplorable screed. Won’t you join me?

If we’re being truthful, gay marriage only remains an issue for those who don’t believe in love, or freedom, or any of America’s actual values. It is telling that James Dobson of Focus on the Family — an institution that is waiting for your parcels of anthrax, dear readers — is not willing to state that a child is better off with two loving (but gay!) parents than remaining in a hateful, abuse-ridden house of horrors, which happens to feature a heterosexual union. For Dobson, it is preferable that a child witness verbal sparring, punches to the kidneys, and shots fired at all hours, so long as a cock is inserted into a vagina at the end of the day. It seems to me that these people, even more than the alleged “perverts,” are the ones obsessed with sex.

And what about the idea that marriage has been the “bedrock” of our culture for thousands of years? Despite what these uninformed cretins might believe, marriage, up until the last century or so, has almost always been a case of alliance rather than romantic love. One chose a partner (or had one chosen by the family or community) based on political affiliation, property, survival, or security; only in the modern era has personal affection even been a factor. So what indeed are we preserving that is so bloody sacred? That women are chattel and “belong” to the lord of the manor? That a man and a woman are necessary to ensure the safe transfer of bloodlines and family wealth? For if it is the bind between people — the compassion, the joy, and the thrill of partnership — that “haven in a heartless world” that so many cite as the comfort of family, then gender, or biology, or sexual behavior simply cannot enter into the debate.

If marriage is about love, Christians and conservatives lose every ounce of their credibility, which takes very little in any case. If what we (and they) are discussing is the preservation of a historically sexist institution that is about power, control, and subservience to the guidelines of religion, then we have reached an understanding. And if we pause, read between the lines, and examine other aspects of their position, it becomes clear, clean, and obvious. Whenever the church is in trouble, they re-charge the engines, put on their Sunday best, and hunt for willing brains to be scrubbed clean. Change, then, breeds the resurrection of tradition. Not for any value it might hold, but for what Woody Allen once said is “the illusion of permanence.”

About Matt

Matt is the site’s Longest Serving Critic and chief misanthrope. He divides his time between classics of cinema and the most ridiculous movies he can find on Redbox.
Follow Matt: @mattcale52