08 August 2012

Chickenshit Protests

Having been busy with starting up my own business over the last week and a half, I’ve been out of the loop when it comes to current events.  When I saw this story, though, I can’t say that I regret my ignorance.  It seems that the owner/president/whatever of Chik-Fil-A said something to the effect that “one man, one woman, for life is what God intends for marriage.”  Chik-Fil-A dude’s statement pissed off the gays, and the gays getting pissed off pissed off religious conservatives.  I guess this prompted conservatives to organize a day to go out and buy a ton of food at Chik-Fil-A.  The gays then decided to organize some stupid stuff as well, which I found out first-hand when I went to Chik-Fil-A’s on Friday.

I was meeting up with some friends and was in the process of finishing up my meal when some brave queer walked in the door dressed in queer pride clothing (basically, rainbow socks, short shorts, and some gay pride shirt and Mork suspenders), sporting a look of proud defiance on his face, as if he was about to be accosted for entering a restaurant and drinking from the straights-only water fountain.  This modern MLK Jr. was accompanied by two women who I assumed were lesbian because they were so ugly and mannish.*  They were basically in love with his bravery, and he could have had a ménage a trois with them had he been interested.  After enduring numerous epithets and threats of violence, he nobly took his seat and ate his meal with dignity.  Just kidding, the staff took his order while  everyone ignored him, and he ate his meal free from harassment.  As he was leaving, he classily shouted “Gay Pride!” and went on his merry way.

Anyhow, this whole Chik-Fil-a brouhaha with religious conservatives and gays got me thinking.  My main thought was, “both sides are incredibly stupid.”

Conservatives:  Gay marriage is not ruining this country.  This country is already ruined.  Gay marriage is simply a symptom of the underlying pathology.  The social fabric of the county is already in tatters, and hating gays isn’t going to fix that particular problem.

Furthermore, gay marriage isn’t even ruining marriage.  Feminism, coupled with no-fault divorce and a misandrist family court system have done more damage to the social institution of marriage than Adam and Steve ever could.

Finally, note that the legal institution of marriage is not the same as the religious institution of marriage.  The government can use as much ink on as many sheets of paper as it so desires, yet God will never be bound to recognize that Adam and Steve are husband and husband.  God is not bound by the laws of man; quit acting like he is.

On a side note, the religious institution of marriage has been radically undermined by its main nominal proponents (religious conservatives) by decades of false teaching, most notably the teaching that conflates moral laws with legal laws.  There has also been quite an absence of proper teaching on theology of marriage, on the theology of divorce (hint: God hates it, Mal. 2:14-17), and the role of husband and wife (leader and helpmeet).  This has done more to undermine marriage than to two lesbians kissing in front of a fast food joint.

Gays:  The majority of the people that hate you do not hate you because you are gay.  They hate you because you are assholes.  Most straight couples have the common courtesy to not kiss in public, or make awkward public displays of affection.  This is because most straight people are well-adjusted, and not delusionally narcissistic.

Get over your martyr complex.  Your inability to not get a couple of extra tax deductions (and the attendant risk for alimony, should things go south) is not comparable to blacks being deprived of their natural rights.  And seeing as how you don’t have a couple hundred years’ worth of slavery in your history, the comparison is even more ludicrous.

Also, the constant need to publicly remind everyone of your homosexuality is annoying, just as it would be if straights went around reminding everyone of their heterosexuality.   Constantly reminding everyone that you’re here and you’re queer is getting old.  Right now, it just sounds a little try-hard, like you have an inferiority complex, and so you constantly have to have validation from other people.

Furthermore, if you really want to force the issue of the gay lifestyle with conservatives, you would do well to remember that they love guns.  It’s also good to remember that people find it easy to rationalize killing assholes who cross them.  Don’t tempt fate is what I’m saying.

When I stop and think about it, this whole issue is nothing more than a pissing contest between two incredibly annoying groups:  ignorant So-Cons and annoying queers.  One group is too narrow-minded to see the actual problem, and the other group just completely lacks perspective.  It’s a match made in heaven.

* When I worked at Wendy’s back in high school, I had the dubious privilege of working with an actual, out-of-the-closet lesbian.  She was fugly as all get-out, and was taller and heavier than me (I was 6’ and 185 at the time), and had a deeper voice than me, though I think that was because she was a smoker.  The other lesbians I’ve met over the years have also been ugly, though not as Hagrid-esque as my former coworker.  The idea of a beautiful lesbian couple is mostly a porn fantasy encouraged by pop culture and manipulative girls.  Most true lesbians are ugly.  I suspect that’s because ugly chicks know they can’t pull men, so they instead settle for fellow she-beasts.


  1. On a side note, the religious institution of marriage has been radically undermined by its main nominal proponents (religious conservatives) by decades of false teaching, most notably the teaching that conflates moral laws with legal laws

    Brilliant post Simon. Once again, I was hoping you would get more commentary on this post but I think the "theology of divorce" cuts close to the bone for a lot of people in the conservative fold.

    From a Christian perspective, there is no such thing as a valid "legal" marriage. A union not sanctioned by God is simply sinful in His eyes. End of discussion. Gay marriage is but one of the inevitable conclusions which arise form a conception of marriage which sees it as a vehicle of hedonic satisfaction devoid of a religious dimension. What's to stop three people getting married if they all love each other? Or five? Caligula provides the best example of the power of the state carried to ludicrous degree. He made his horse a senator, and by the same logic, there is no reason why he couldn't of made his praetorian guard his wife.

    Once the state gets in the business of marrying people there is no limit to what sort of idiotic relationship it can sanction. Theoretically it could outlaw normal heterosexual relationships if it wanted to.

  2. I have the dubious privilege of working with several lesbians and gays (I'm beginning to hate the life sciences). You are right about the lesbos' natural ugliness. I mistook one of them for a man until she opened her mouth.

  3. Borepatch sent me.

    I didn't care what the man said, I cared that government officials threatened to limit his ability to run his business based on their personal dislike for his political and religious beliefs. That's a Constitutional issue even if he was quoting the Invisible Flying Spaghetti Monster.

  4. @SP- The lack of commentary doesn't bother me. I would suggest that you try not to let it bother you.

    You should like my new post on marriage and divorce lol.

    I agree on the marriage issue. I just don't understand why conservatives care so much about what the government says about the marital status of two (or more) people.

    @Lord Blurst- Yeah, porn was very misleading about lesbos. I don't think I've ever met one that was better than a four.

    @ASM826- Yeah, that's the more disturbing aspect to me. The gay movement is pretty totalitarian, which makes it hard to be reasonable with them. It often seems like if you give them more rights, they will simply suppress more of yours, which doesn't help their cause. If they were willing to act in good faith, perhaps we could get somewhere. But if they want to suppress others' property rights, I don't see much reason to treat them nicely.