Somewhere Over The DOMA

Social upheaval continues in this United States with the overturned Defense Of Marriage Act. I’ve always been liberal and more tolerant than most “traditional” southern thinkers when it comes to alternative lifestyles, however, I think overturning DOMA was a mistake.

The discussion over Sodom and Gomorrah is as old as the ages. Cultures and societies swing first one way and then the other. And maybe that’s the point. It seems obvious that for some reason humankind always ends up grappling with the question. I don’t believe in genetic homosexuality, except maybe for a very small percentage of those practicing homosexuality. I believe that the large majority are a matter of choice, or conditioning. Both reasons seem to explain the cultural cycle whereby the overpopulated human rat race starts to incidentally, or deliberately, push more into what is a subjugated psychological response, thereafter larger droves follow as they determine they intend to do something for the overall betterment by engaging in an activity which would inherently reduce the desperation of overpopulation.

And so the cycle has continued throughout the ages. But while the alternative lifestyle community believes they are finally gaining ground once and for all, it is in fact very, very unlikely that the equation will stand into the far distant future. Since I say I have been tolerant, I also say that pushing the envelope too far may actually accelerate the eventual, inevitable, backlash that reverses what is in vogue or politically correct at this time, ultimately bringing on a cycle of universal ridicule and condemnation for the gay lifestyle.

advertisement

One of the factors of my opinion has to do with the current upheaval in socialized medicine and genetic profiling and engineering. The evils of genetic profiling are a very taboo subject because there is so much money riding on the bet. The trouble is, the evils are ultimately even more evil, as genetic engineering will reduce the future propagation of mankind to a gender imbalanced business machine. We foolish and naive in this country are so secure in our entitlement to decadence, we don’t seem to realize that the cycle of eugenics and slavery is also replete in our inhumane history.

It’s not really a matter of if or when. The when is actually already occurring. It’s really just a question of how long until and to what extent will human engineering go. The character on the popular primetime show declares as he ogles the sultry petite blond woman that when cloning is perfected he’s gonna “put in an order for a dozen just like her.” I.e. he figures he’s gonna get to own a few whores based on his personal order for keep in the backyard, I suppose. Oh but it won’t be that bad, we’ll just end up with a bunch of very gorgeous Stepford wives who retain independence, right? But, you forgot the cycle of enslavement. It’s not exactly a secret that the selective breeding of slaves was a part of producing the best suited characteristics for the newborn’s predetermined job description. Only with genetic engineering, they can do it better, gaining the upper hand by fully dumbing down the slave caste forever and beyond a comprehensive understanding that would lead to dissent and the expectations and demands of human rights. Most well bred and carefully trained dogs are absolutely gleeful with their masters. Genetic engineering makes that possible for humans, but with the promise of more specialization. Now there’s some money to be made!

Homosexuality is good for this equation. First, you end indiscriminate breeding. To complete that loop, however, it will become necessary to genetically define homosexuality. So, maybe they will claim there are several combinations of genetics and then haggle over where to draw the line. Then, they draw the line. When you are born, your indiscriminate breeding will be stopped, by force, based on the line. Then, based on the need to further control behaviour and procreation, the line moves a little bit more to broaden the margin of designated homosexuality. And so I wonder, is forcing the issue of gay marriage really worth the longer term benefit of loosing your right not to be homosexual? It reminds me of the question of abortion. Abortion is no longer a question of choice to have an abortion, but also under universal healthcare, it will become a question of the choice not to have an abortion.

There are other troubles with gay marriage. I can’t comprehend that gay couples believe it best for a child to be raised by two same sex parents. That’s not teaching respect and tolerance, that’s a process of indoctrination. So they might say what’s the difference, because isn’t being raised in a heterosexual family just an indoctrination too? Yes, it is. But it just so happens that most people have a heterosexual orientation to begin with. Tolerant though I be, I just can’t agree with gay adoption. It’s selfish and not fair to the kid. And so, would the purveyor of homosexual marriage agree and therefore be the first to rush to get kids genetically tested, profiled, to see if they are on the homosexual side of the line to start with?

And what about the bisexuals? If someone claims to be bisexual, then by current politically correct reasoning, aren’t they entitled to marry both of their other partners? Next thing you know, the Mormon’s will chime in wanting to have several wives, and of course then some of them will be gay, or bisexual, and then they will want to marry several same sex partners and maybe some opposite sex partners all at the same time. At some point, you have to wonder whether what you have is a Roman orgy, or maybe it’s just a universal healthcare insurance co-op. And really, while I believe there are gay folks who really love and want to love one another, and being tolerant as I am not to stand in their way on the way to their own bedrooms, isn’t a lot of the discussion really just about health insurance?

Here’s a radical idea that might just be the best solution. Marriage should have no legal standing what-so-ever. Because, if homosexuals are being discriminated against on the federal level based on marriage and benefits, then aren’t single people also being discriminated against when it comes to discounts and accessibility also? If two people want to buy a house together, they don’t have to be legally married. They just need a legal contract that spells out their joint ownership. Why not just do away with the legalization of marriage completely? People who want to get married by their Church or Cult can do so, and they can print out a neat little certificate using Microsoft Works to put on the wall.

advertisement

When it comes to insurance, you buy yours, I’ll buy mine. Isn’t that fair and equal? That does beg the question of how to insure all those people who are only married and/or not working. They’re deadbeats. If they want insurance – they can get a job! Or better yet, universal healthcare could become truly universal provided by the government for every individual from the day they are born. Fair and equal coverage for everybody. Richer people could buy Cadillac plans if they want to.

Now, all I need is catalogue to pick out a couple of dumbed down petite blond ho’s for fun in the sun, and maybe a servant just barely more than a chimpanzee to bring me my beer. Could be the same things. Wonder how much that will cost?

rssrss mailFacebooktwittermailFacebooktwitter
Nearby Links
  
Responsive Menu Image