Hell Hath No Fury
….like a fag scorned.
With God’s Own Country gearing up for the January 2009 inauguration of the Mutt (his own word), it’s been revealed that a certain pastor has been requested to make an address thereat.
It so happens that this pastor opposes gay marriage and supports stronger action to combat AIDS in Africa. By way of observation, FuelMix agrees with the pastor on these 2 issues, but for different reasons.
Fags of course, take a different view on the propriety of this pastor being allowed to speak at the Mutt’s inauguration. Fag websites are abuzz with inflammable fags spewing outrage, disgust, dismay and – the fag’s favourite word – “betrayal”. Apparently a sizeable number of fags opine that since they voted the Mutt into the house, he is beholden and contractually bound to them in respect of his barking to bring “Change”.
Sadly, these fags require a fire retardant and a mental accelerant.
This post is not about whether porcelain figurines of a same sex couple should adorn the apex of a six-tiered wedding cake. It’s about the obscene assumption made by the urban fag and mainstream fag media – who share a symbiotic relationship – that they should manipulate the freedom of speech and a national event in order to advance their agenda that gay marriage be legalised.
Check the following:
**Mutt is a politician. That means his political instincts come first;
**Whatever promises he purportedly made are not legally binding;
**Mutt has stated his support for gay equality and has made no secret that his gay views are diametrically opposed to the pastor’s;
**If Mutt is indeed a political liberal, where is it written that he should shun conservatives?
**Have fags forgotten that, even if they did vote Mutt into the house, they did so on the strength of his pontifications that he would be “inclusive”?
While no fan of politicians, FuelMix has to hand it to the Mutt. The change that he advocated at the stump, must involve social and political risk-taking – even if that means wheeling out an evangelical conservative. Mutt’s invitation to the pastor to make the invocation is brilliant. It’s like inviting a philistine atheist to a dinner party and asking him to say grace in whatever manner he sees fit.
And therein lies the truth of the fags’ rage. They have a problem in letting an alleged “bigot” speak because THEY don’t like his views. The pastor has an absolute right to speak at the inauguration. It never fails to amaze FuelMix how fags move like greased lightning when the reptilian portion of their brains kicks into reactive mode just because they feel they’ve been slighted – or betrayed – and that every other gay dude should agree with them.
Face it. Neither the mainstream urban fag nor the mainstream fag media will ever speak for the gay man searching for something better than noise and that sinking feeling that he is being imposed upon by a strident, righteous, politically correct (and increasingly drug-fucked) posse of self-appointed moral arbiters.
It’s not the Mutt who flip-flopped. It’s the fags’ hypocrisy that’s been unmasked. Is FuelMix the only one to notice that the average urban fag is a raging fascist masquerading as a liberal? Fags profess diversity, tolerance and understanding. They’ll even wave a Fag Flag in your face. But peel away the bleached smile, the tinted contacts, the highlights and the bronzer and you’ll see their true colours.
The change that the Mutt promised may be the change fags need: the unflinching courage to hear an entirely different point of view, delivered centre stage.
© 2008 FuelMix All Rights Reserved
What I find maddening about men like Warren is that they obsess about denying legal recognition to gay couples, but they have no problem accepting the legality of heteros second, fourth or seventh marriages. Don't those marriages make a mockery of the institution and weaken it? Of course, it's easy and historically very Christian to bully a minority, whereas the hetero majority would never stand for a gasbag like Warren pushing them around.
ReplyDeleteWarren has compared gay couples to child rapists. If he had said something comprable about Jews, Blacks or Czhechoslovakians, you can bet he wouldn't be speaking at the inauguration. But comparing gays to pederasts is still socially acceptable to the mainstream and their media. I think that's a pretty good reason to be pissed off. But what to do?
I suggest that it's time for the gay marriage movement to get married - to an anti-divorce movement. Marriage deserves the gravity of permanance. No one makes a greater mockery of 'til death do us part' than Protestants in the Bible Belt, where divorce and serial marriage rates are skyhigh. These are the last people on earth who should be lecturing anybody on the sacrament of marriage.
In practice, people should be able to split and go their separate ways and find new partners if they like, same as ever, and even have their chapels bless the new unions if they choose to, but one and only one marriage for life should be recognized by the state. Only widowhood should open the door to a second marriage.
Would this be merely a ploy? Yes and no. It would, I believe, succeed richly in exposing the hypocrisy of the right, and lord how rank it is. But it would also argue for lifetime commitments, something which modern marriage has become an empty shell of - it's a conversation worth having, as long as we're talking about it. And honestly, I don't know any gay couples who are clamoring for the right to divorce as it is. Anyhow, just trying to think outside the box here.
The gay community can show it's respect to the institution we wish to enter by advocating the bond be as unbreakable as the vows and Bible say it should be. Then in one fell swoop we would seize the moral highground from the world's Warrens, while they stammer, unable to join the gays in advocating something that might actually strengthen and solemnify marriage - the banning of divorce and multiple marriages.
Swans and Catholics mate for life. It's time that Baptists and Evangelicals learn to do the same, and if they can't, then they should just shut up about it already.
Thanks for the lucid comments, although, with respect, my post was not actually about the Yes,No or How To of gay marriage. It was about the hypocrisy of fags - who loudly bleat tolerance & diversity - attempting to grab the moral high ground by demanding that a third party (the Mutt) bow to their wishes and not allow the pastor in question to speak at the inauguration.
ReplyDeleteFuelMix disdains the Screaming Left and the Rabid Right. Whilst fags find the pastor's views offensive, there are millions who find fags' view on marriage equally offensive.
But that is no ground to launch the presumptuous and utterly uncouth behaviour in which fags are engaging with the full connivance of fag media. From FuelMix's perception, it only shows how desperate and angst-ridden they've become.
Your point about gay marriage / anti-divorce has the potential for a future post since it cuts to core of how fags interpret monogamy.
Thanks for the idea.