Translate

Sunday, October 29, 2006

Obsession

ClownHall raver Kevin McCullough is a notch above (or beneath, if you prefer) the usual level of knuckle-dragging nonsense his associates engage in. McCullough's specialty seems to be what gets loosely termed as "social issues", but the seething pathology informing his toxic schtick appears to run somewhat deeper.

Normally you could just chalk it up to their usual tendentious hackery, and there is plenty of that, but McCullough strives for so much more than just hacktastic shit-shoveling.

Despite of all that their angry-mob front groups argue for in front of television cameras to the contrary, radical homosexual activists despise the institution and more importantly the sanctity of marriage. That is also the fundamental reason why they are seeking to destroy the institution.


How many flat-out lies are in just that introductory paragraph? What "angry mob" has accompanied any of these purported "front groups"? I think the activist groups have been pretty honest about their agenda, and I have yet to hear of anything but peaceful -- if perhaps colorful -- protest.

Next, there is nothing terribly "radical" at all about the desire for equal treament under the law, and if they "despise the institution" and want to "destroy" it, then why are they trying so hard to participate in it? Finally, there is no such thing as the "sanctity of marriage". There, I said it. This a weird fiction that just needs to be put down, once and for all.

Marriage is a great arrangement to help ensure the economic and social stability that a productive family unit thrives on -- which is all the more reason to allow gay couples to participate in it. But these evangelical nuts with their "sanctity" this and "sacred institution" that -- bollocks. As far as governmental entities are (and should be) concerned, it's an arrangement to facilitate certain rights of inheritance, transference, and custody and familial stability for young children.

But the goofballs who constantly fret over "protecting" their sanctified institution (yet for some reason don't say shit about the countless straight people, famous and not, who abuse and defame it on a regular basis) always, always default to their natural law/God's will redoubt. This displays a manifest understanding of the totality of human history, as civilizations existed for thousands of years before sanctified marital writ came about, and most had no significant hangups about sexuality in the first place. Not that these folks are about to let silly facts get in the way of their frantic rhetoric.

Still, it's useful to consider, in addition to the utter lack of factual data to support any of their assertions, the tone and content of their argument.

But why? What's the real goal of the activists, the judges, and the radicals who seek to subvert a moral world view?

The answer is simple, no longer satisfied with practicing the unspeakable perverse sexual pleasures that their hearts seek in private bedrooms, they wish to be able to do so in public. They are also suffering from such immense guilt over the actions of their sexual behaviors because they know inherently that the actions they perform are in fact unhealthy - that they will go to any means necessary to try and shut down the voices in their heads that tell them it is wrong.

They wrongfully believe that the guilty voice within them is an echo of a prudish state that seeks to limit their freedoms. They wrongfully believe that the judgment they feel is emanating from "bible thumpers." And what they fail to ever admit is that the voice that condemns them the loudest, is never a human voice - but in fact the voice of their own conscience informed by the truth of the God who created them.


It goes on like that. Sure, it's hateful and arrogant and ignorant and all that, but what it really is is obsessive, to the point of being a textbook instance of the psychological projection of a closet case. Really, nothing else makes sense -- because, let's face it, letting Rosie O'Donnell marry her girlfriend has no greater or lesser effect in the aggregate than allowing Britney Spears to marry two guys in the same year. It's nonsense, of course, but if God really does have as much of a problem with it as His presumptive mouthpieces claim, then He will take it up with the people He created. Either way, it's out of your hands and none of your damned business, Jethro.

And it's exactly what I was referring to earlier in pointing out the retarded hypocrisy of Dennis Miller's nonsensical plaint of Nancy Pelosi being "the nosy neighbor from Bewitched". What on earth could be more nosy than constantly worrying about what consenting adults are doing behind closed doors? The Republicans have chosen to align themselves with these crazy bastards, and hopefully they -- much to McCullough's chagrin -- go down together.

No comments: