The “Ram”-ification of Charlie Butts
I don’t know what is with these fundies and their fascination with the mechanics of homosexual sex. That makes me think there was some sort of weird subconscious expression going on when Charlie Butts titled one of his recent articles “The Financial Ramifications of Same-Sex ‘Marriage’”. Or maybe I’m reading too much into it in an anemic attempt to get a clever title for my article. I’d be perfectly willing to blame the latter if the fundies really would stop talking about mechanics. If they’re so repulsed by it, why do they spend so much time imagining what it must be like?
Let’s ram some logic into Butts for a change and analyze his article:
The state of New York has not yet enacted bills to legalize homosexual “marriage,” but the pressure to do so continues.
Before New York licenses gay marriage, they need to license the use and operation of quotation marks. Charlie is clearly in violation.
The New York Bar Association’s House of Delegates has endorsed homosexual marriage and recognition of same-gender marriages that are legal in other states.
OK. Time to tune out, folks. I’m going to turn into a pedant for a moment. Charlie is committing the sex-phobe’s crime of confusing sex and gender. Lots of people substitute “gender” when they mean “sex”, because (if you’re Charlie Butts) they think sex is that creepy thing gays do with body parts that God didn’t make to be used in those ways.
“Male” and “female” are sex categories, while “masculine” and “feminine” are gender categories.
Aspects of sex will not vary substantially between different human societies, while aspects of gender may vary greatly.
Some examples of sex characteristics:
• Women can menstruate while men cannot
• Men have testicles while women do not
• Women have funbags
OK, OK! I made up that last one.
Speaking of funbags, Ray Comfort completely blew his banana argument for intelligent design. If he had simply stated that the man’s hands are perfectly sized and shaped for grabbing breasts, he would have sold that argument in a second!
Where were we? Oh, that’s right. Taking apart another miserable example of fundie stupidity. Do we have to get back to that? I’d rather talk about breasts.
Anyway, Charlie’s article continues:
Frank Russo of the American Family Association of New York…
Because what’s important when discussing any important social issue of the day is to only ask the opinion of fundie nutballs.
…opposes it on the grounds of God’s Word, that homosexual conduct is an abomination to God.
Then it’s a good thing we live in a secular society that specifically excludes laws based on one religion. End of argument. Boy, that was easy!
Hey, wait! The article continues beyond that point! WTF? Stop, Charlie, stop! You’ve already lost your argument!
Russo contends those who endorse same-sex marriage do not really consider other consequences.
Such as sore assholes, santorum-stained sheets, and less resistance during prostate exams.
Oh, sorry. I was imagining what Russo must really consider to be the consequences. Let’s see what he says publicly:
“I don’t think they’ve amply thought out all of the ramifications.”
Again with the ramming! These guys really need to stop fixating on this subject.
“There are economic penalties,” he notes. ”Here we are — New York state, right after California, is probably in the worst fiscal status of any other states with a $70 billion deficit in our pension funds for the state employees and a $50 billion unfunded health obligation for retired employees. We’ve got a deficit of nearly $120 billion. Mind boggling.”
What’s mind boggling is that with all of the economic problems facing New York, all this dipwad can think of is how anal sex makes it all worse.
According to Russo, legalizing homosexual marriage would put an additional burden on the budget.
What he’s saying is that granting the tax benefits of marriage to gay couples keeps money out of the treasury. He’s perfectly willing to take their tax money, he just doesn’t want to extend to them the rights and privileges that go with it.
Furthermore, the logical conclusion of Russo’s argument is to remove the tax benefit of marriage from heterosexual couples. That will go over big in fundieland. Way to think through your argument, dipshit!