No One Cares If You Approve Of Their Life Choices

It's pretty common these days to say, "I just don't agree with his lifestyle," as if people are sitting around waiting for your fucking approval.  You usually hear this in conversations about gay people or gay marriage, but I don't see why people even waste time thinking about it.  Gay people haven't gotten the approval of lots of people in human history, and it hasn't curbed the inherent lust for same-sex flesh even a little bit.  So clearly, they're not waiting for you to give the thumbs up. 

In fact, the more people that come out against gay activities has led to a response in the other direction:  More gay people are being openly gay.  The idea that you think your approval is needed has actually drawn more gay people out of hiding.

Back when people didn't talk about gay sex so much, because everyone was sexually repressed, gay people just kept quiet and snuck off to their bathhouses or the Blue Oyster, or wherever gay people got together.  But now that gay sex is on everyone's lips, gay people decided to fight back.  And yes, that particular phrasing was done on purpose.  

See, you don't have to approve of anything, because it's still going to happen.   For instance, I don't approve of bigotry, but it hasn't stopped you from saying stupid shit about gay people, has it?  In fact, to drive the point home, try that strategy in other scenarios to demonstrate how effective it is.  Next time a bear attacks you or a guy tries to rob your house, you should tell them, "I don't approve of this lifestyle choice," and report back here to let me know if it prevented you from getting shot or eaten.  My thinking is that I won't ever hear from you again.


That's why, despite this overt lack of approval, we still have gay people.  The arrogance needed to believe that approval matters is why we still have thickheaded people walking around worrying about cock-ravenous gay men attacking them in showers and alleyways.  I wish bigots understood how funny it is to listen to them fear the lustful urges of gay men without ever considering that:

A: Gay men might also have self control.

B: The bigot in question probably isn't even their type.  

Instead of saying that you "approve" or "agree" with something, you should really ask yourself if you do or don't care.  If you don't care, then you generally don't give a shit, and never think up stupid phrases like, "I don't agree with his lifestyle," or "What if he looks at me in the shower?" If you do care, then you probably give more thought to the activities of gay men than actual gay men do.  At this point, you have to ask yourself why you care so much what gay men are doing.  The answer is either one of those things:  You're fucking ignorant, or you're...you know, curious. 

You probably also assume that your own life is worthy of approval.  It probably isn't.  You probably cheat on your wife, or steal pens from your job, or vote Republican, or contribute to Love & Hip-Hop's ratings.  Maybe you drink too much, or let your kids sag their jeans, or cheer for John Cena.  Any number of things that deserve to be frowned upon.  By my standards, I think that saying kind words about Justin Bieber should come with a mandatory jail sentence.  And if you're thinking right now that it isn't about your standards, but the standards of your religion: I don't approve of your religion.  Odds are, it's a manmade invention designed to placate the masses so they don't attack their wealthy overlords.  It probably has a well-entrenched history of murder, genocide, racism, and misogyny, and in the modern age, does nothing but drive wedges in between people and/or hides pedophiles from justice. 

So instead of wasting all that time and energy being judgmental (because this is a game that we can all play), why not just go live your life and let everyone else live theirs?  All of that focus on manlove is time you could be spending inventing a Fruity Pebbles drink, or an iPad that does more than waste time.  We don't need another person trying to stand in the way of other people's happiness, but we can always use another person who really couldn't give two fucks what's happening in someone else's bedroom.

Trying to solve the "gay marriage" dilemma

Chuck Norris says that Prop 8 wasn't intended to deprive anyone of their rights, but reinforce the belief that marriage should be between and man and a woman. It just so happens to deprive a group of their rights in the process. "Whoops. Our bad." There are other methods that we could have chosen, but we wanted to go with the one that creates more second class citizens. It's kind of like claiming that slavery was merely a way to save the Africans' savage souls: We could have just used missionaries or rational debate, but we chose the method that destroyed the pride and mindset of an entire race of people. And of course...free labor!

Anyway, I'm all about just getting past this whole fucking issue, because gay people marrying each other doesn't threaten anything I do or imagine doing. No one should be throwing up these tremendous roadblocks to stop happiness, because that's what's being done. You're assaulting happiness, which is something I joke about people doing, but I never thought I see actually happen. You're trying to prevent someone from being happy or willingly shackle on the ball-and-chain, depending on how you view marriage. That's what it all boils down to.

But like i said, I'm all about moving past this, so I'd like to just ask two questions; one to people who are against gay marriage and one to gay people, because the second it stops being a semantics argument, the easier it is to fix and get everyone to shut the fuck up about it. I'm tired of talking about gay marriage. I want to talk about shit that matters, not wondering what my two male neighbors are doing in the bedrooms. And in truth, if you're that worried about what two men are doing in their own bedroom, it says more about you than it does about them. They could just be playing XBox, but your deep interest might just mean that you're gay. But I digress.

The first question is to all the gay people in America. If you know any, ask them this question and get back to me. I'm so serious about this.

"Does it have to be called 'marriage?' As long as you get all the rights of marriage, can it just be called something else?"

The second question is to all people against gay marriage:

"If it wasn't called 'marriage,' but it provided all of the rights of marriage, would you shut the fuck up?"

Because to me, that seems to be the entire argument right there, and what a stupid argument it is. People for claim to want to get married and not completely destroy the underpinnings of society. People against claim to want to simply define what marriage is. If gay people are willing to go along with the first question, then logically speaking, everything should be cool, right? Idiots get to keep their definition of marriage and gay people get to experience the soul-crushing death march to the grave known as (word that we will formally replace "marriage" with in the future).

Embracing the term "civil union" should take care of all of this mess. I mean, religion has claimed marriage as God's creation even though marriage predates all of the modern religions. So let them have it, gay people. Let them have marriage. Run with "civil union." They shouldn't have any reason to stop you on that one.

Stuff I Saw in the News

I was watching The Matrix Reloaded when I came to that really boring part where Neo was talking to the Architect. It was then that I remembered something that I saw on the news late last night. There were two women who wanted to be married and the place that they chose to hold their ceremony refused to allow them to marry there. They filed a lawsuit on the grounds of discrimination. But here’s the catch: The facility that they chose was a church.

Now, I’ve got no problem with gay marriage. I see no reason why I should care what two people do in the privacy of their own home, if it’s not hurting anyone. Hell, I believe that life is short and that we should have just a little bit of happiness in that time. If the person chosen happens to be the same sex as they are, so be it. I truly do not care.

Also, I am no fan of the church. I think that organized religion is an oppressive practice, more often that not used to divide instead of unite. I think its purpose is to control who we are and what we think. There is no such thing as freedom when it comes to the church, and if the church had its way, we would be back in the Dark Ages, when no one could read, no one ever questioned the church, and the church was the only connection between man and God.

However, if you’re gay, why would you expect a church, of all places, to allow you to use their property to perform your immoral, hell-worthy, ceremony? These aren’t my words. The church says that gays are immoral, etc, etc. I think gay people are the most fun one can have without having to put your dick in something.

Let’s be real here. It clearly says in the Bible, the book that is the be-all, end-all as far as the church is concerned, that homosexuality is a sin; an abomination before God. It says it in multiple places, so it stands to reason that a church would likely see a gay person dead before it allowed them to hold a ceremony there. Wouldn’t be such a bad thing as far as the church goes, because that’s two less gay people sucking and fucking their way into Hell.

The women contest that they’re being discriminated against, and they’re right. The church in question makes no secret of that fact. The women also contest that the church is public property and anyone who wants to should be allowed to use it, but it isn’t. The church isn’t public property, because it’s a church. They don’t receive public monies; they are run completely on donations. They can allow you to use it, and they can refuse you. Churches are privately owned and they can kick you out as they see fit, much like Burger King, country clubs, or my apartment.

I don’t see why these women would want to use a church for their ceremony, and upon being refused, I don’t see why they would want to take this matter any further. This is what’s known as “rabble-rousing.” The church has no obligation to these women, because these women are not members, and they are gay, but the women start raising sand, anyway. It would be nice if the church let it go down, but they aren’t, so let it go. It would also be nice if Arabs found a way to express their anger that didn’t include burning something down. We can’t always get what we want.

I also do not believe that this church should be forced to allow these women to use their facility. If it’s against their religion to accept gays, then gays need to go somewhere else, simple as that. All places are not all-inclusive, like gay clubs, for instance. They’re not inclusive to men who don’t like swallowing cock. Sure, they’ll let you in, but at some point, you’re going to be asked if you’d like to smoke some man’s meat cigar, and that’s when you need to ask yourself just what the fuck you were doing in there in the first place.

It’s time for people to understand that things aren’t always going to be what they want them to be. All arenas of life are just not fair, but this isn’t about fairness. A church cannot be made to kowtow to a group that they publicly abhor. If these people get their way, what’s next? Is the Klan going to be forced to accept black people and Jews? The Legion of Doom taking on the Superfriends as members? My mouth accepting swordfights? Sure, it would make them all-inclusive, but it would also just make everybody miserable and someone’s likely to die during the transition. Which isn’t to say these women want to be members of this church; they just want to rent it. But the church publicly hates gay people, so it’s insane that gay people would even want to use church property for anything.

Speaking of churches, in Saturday’s paper, I read about the pastor who attacked his wife. Sad situation, but what there was a part at the end of the article, where one of the parishioners said that she wasn’t going back to the church in light of the pastor’s actions against his wife. The lady was engaged and was about to be married. She claims that it wouldn’t be in her best interests to take relationship or marriage advice from a person who was going through the marital problems that he was having.

I say, all the more reason to listen to him.

At the very least, one should take the opportunity to pick his brain to see what led him to making the decisions he made. I’m only suggesting learning from his mistakes. It can be done from afar, but to truly see what led him to do what he did, it would have to be done face to face. Assuming he’s willing to talk openly and honestly about it. Even if he hasn’t come to terms with what he’s done, he’s still got an experience under his belt that can be learned from. If I was thinking about jumping my wife in a parking lot, I’d probably go talk to a guy who already did it so I could see what I’ve got coming.

And perhaps, the day will come when he sees where he went wrong. When that day comes, he will be able to steer others from making the mistakes that he made. At the very least, he’ll have an entertaining story about life in jail.

My point is, just because someone is making or has made the mistakes that you are trying to avoid doesn’t mean that they can’t be a source of wisdom. If someone has had a failed marriage or birthed a child out of wedlock, it doesn’t mean that you can’t go to them for advice. People believe that going to people who are having relationship troubles or aren’t in relationships themselves is stupid. I say listen to them, because their stories can keep you from punching your wife in the face for putting socks in your underwear drawer

Lastly, there was something else that I saw in the paper, some letters about the specter known as global warming. I’ve wanted to say something about this for a while, but I kept writing blog entries about the Falcons or some crappy movie I saw.

Some people believe that global warming is caused by man. After all, the levels of pollution during the last 100 years is higher than at any other time in human history, mainly because we’ve got smokestacks and nuclear power plants, and so far archaeology hasn’t shown any evidence of an ancient Sumerian rubber factory.

Some people believe that global warming is a buzzword created by liberals and environmentalists and that global warming is a simple climate shift caused by an earth whose temperature ebbs and flows over the millennia. What we’re experiencing is simply the same thing that our distant ancestors went through just before the last ice age that brought us to the brink of extinction. Nothing to worry about.

Personally, I believe that there’s a kernel of truth in both sides. Yes, the temperature of the earth changes over the years, and eventually, the polar ice caps will melt, which is going to start the chain of events that will bring us back to an ice age. I mean, I saw “The Day After Tomorrow” just like you did. At the same time, I don’t believe that it was supposed to happen anytime soon. Our species was supposed to be destroyed by pole reversal or a meteor, not a new ice age. Because regardless of what the Bush Administration or oil companies will have you believe, breathing bus fumes or cities covered in smog is not a natural or healthy thing. Your eyes aren’t supposed to burn when you drive into downtown. The ancient Sumerians didn’t have air quality advisory warnings. I don’t think they had skin cancer, either.

My point is, no matter which side you’re on, I’m sure both sides can agree that all the crap that America puts into the atmosphere can’t be a good thing.