The “Ram”-ification of Charlie Butts

Anal ram

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.

The World Health Organization (first base!) has a good page on this:

“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!

21 Responses to “The “Ram”-ification of Charlie Butts”

  1. Arkonbey Says:

    I live in Vermont and man, if our economy is in the crapper. It’s probably gay marriage that has caused family farms to close down, not industrial agriculture or high fuel prices!

    Seriously, as you’ve asked, why do they have a problem with gays? I’ve had gay friends and I’ve met gay strangers and pretty much they are like having straight friends and meeting straight strangers.

    Except for who they have sex with.

    Which, as long as it’s consensual, doesn’t affect me in the least! Not anymore than the fact that some people find certain hair color, body types, or whatever attractive that I don’t.

    Imagine:

    “Russo contends those who endorse [redhead and brunette] marriage do not really consider other consequences.”

    or:

    “According to Russo, legalizing [black and white] marriage would put an additional burden on the budget”

  2. 4ndyman Says:

    Man, I am so freakin’ fed up with idiots trying to argue ethics (or safety, or religion, etc.) through the use of economics! Gay marriage puts a burden on the economy. Abortion puts a burden on the economy. Giving everyone access to needed medical therapies puts a burden on the economy. What’s next?

    I know what’s next: Blogging doesn’t create any flow of money because bloggers just sit around at home instead of being paying consumers; therefore, blogging puts a strain on the economy. If we abolish blogs, people will spend more time shopping and boost the economy.

    Or wait! Some states have considered raising the minimum driving age. I say lower it! Give the federal government control of the national driving age and then lower it to 13! That’ll put more cars on the road and increase the sale of guzzline. More younger drivers means more accidents, which means more money flowing through repair shops, hospitals, and mortuaries. It’s a win for everyone!

  3. mu Says:

    “We’ve got a deficit of nearly $120 billion.”

    Tax the churches like any other business, problem solved.

  4. Robert Madewell Says:

    The state of New York has not yet enacted bills to legalize homosexual “marriage,” but the pressure to do so continues.

    The fundie scare quote strikes again!

  5. Another Steve Says:

    So help me get this straight (sorry for the pun…ok not really).

    I thought the message was that if I accept jebux as my personal savior I’ll be forgiven all of my sins (even the ones I haven’t committed yet) except if I’m gay.

    Did I get that right? Cause now I’m confused.

    So who would jebux carpet bomb anyways?

  6. Jeff Eyges Says:

    Jebux – wasn’t he a friend of Neelix?

  7. Another Steve Says:

    Kneelicks was a character on Star Trek. Don’t confuse fantasy with the holy inspired word of got. One is way more respectable than the other.

    By the way, as an atheist the one really effective argument the fundies could make to me is that: Beer is proof that there is a god, and he wants us to be happy. Why is it they always miss the simple stuff?

    Cheers!

  8. Parrotlover77 Says:

    “We’ve got a deficit of nearly $120 billion.”

    Tax the churches like any other business, problem solved.

    ESPECIALLY the mega churches that have fitness clubs, home theaters, giant screens, recording studios, video cameras, stadium seating, giant useless architectural spires/crosses/etc…

    I can actually live with little cheap churches getting a tax break, such as the ones that operate out of industrial parks and run-down commercial spaces.

    But the mega churchs that operate as more of a country club than a church? Tax them!!!

  9. Jeff Eyges Says:

    Beer is proof that there is a god, and he wants us to be happy.

    Jeff Smith, the Frugal Gourmet, used to point to the fact (he claimed) that yeast exists on grape skins, and quoted Ben Franklin as saying that wine is proof that God wants us to be happy.

  10. KennyCelican Says:

    Leading off, the only gay couple I’ve known (as opposed to gay individuals, of whom I’ve known many) are two of the most intelligent, articulate people I know of. Of course, they’re also the reason that I thought Bert and Ernie were gay since I was around 5, but that’s because they look a little similar. Based on what I know of their income (only a vague ‘number of figures’ guess kind of thing) they also each pay more in taxes each year than I have over the course of my lifetime. Giving them married status wouldn’t break the bank on the state in which they and I reside.

    That said, I would still vote for it if it were up for a vote, because they’ve got kids. That IS the reason we give married couples a tax break, remember? So they have more money to bring up the next generation? So tax the DINKs, lay off the gay-with-kid couples, and things will be in a much happier state all around. Except in Fundie-Land, where glee is only allowed when thinking of sinners writhing in agony.

    I do wish the language weren’t being blurred for the sake of correctness though. Not too long ago, the folks of non-mode persuasion I hung with used ‘gender’ and ‘sex’ interchangably for plumbing, ‘orientation’ for attraction, and ‘identity’ for personal pronoun preference. I preferred that because the usage of each word made sense. Don’t get me wrong – I’m not gonna care of someone fills in blanks two and three with ‘small furry mammals’ and ‘elf’, but blank one is a bio-sciences thing, not a warm-fuzzy feel good thing.

    So, am I horribly non-PC? Horribly intolerant? Or just incredibly rude?

  11. KennyCelican Says:

    GAH! Dangling participle! Noticed after submitting! Must go write better prose now!

  12. Another Steve Says:

    KennyCelican:

    Don’t sweat the small stuff. At the base of all this discussion is the incontrovertible fact that people have the right to be happy so long as that happiness doesn’t impinge on the rights of others.

    If in the process of getting through life 2 (or more people for all I care) find someone that they want to spend the balance of their lives with and maybe raise some kids and do their best at that rather arduous task… power to them. I wish them the world of happiness that they so richly deserve.

    If they want to call themselves married: GREAT!

    If they want a piece of paper that has the seal of the state on it that says “married”: GREAT! they should be able to get that piece of paper.

    In the final analysis all the fundies have ever been after is power. Religion is all about power and imposing your will on others. Gay marriage is all about power. Not just about power over gay people but power exerted by fundie leaders over their flocks. If there wasn’t a focal point for their hate, the leadership would loose power.

  13. Another Steve Says:

    Reading that last paragraph, I have to say that I screwed up one sentence. “Gay marriage is all about power.” Not what I wanted to say at all.

    The gay marriage issue is all about power for the fundies. To disenfranchise a group of people in a public way increases the power of the fundies as a group. It puts other groups on notice that they can and will be next if they don’t cow tow to the fundies.

    In addition to power for the fundies as a group, it’s about power for the fundie leaders. It gives their rank and file a focal point, and it give the fundie leadership something to bang the drum about. Be afraid of all those scarie gay people. They want to *fill in the blank* and infringe on your personal rights. Follow me! Together we can stop them.

  14. Jeff Eyges Says:

    Another Steve, it isn’t solely about power; it’s about protecting their belief system. Fundamentalism is a form of addiction, no less that any other form of compulsive behavior. I often say here that I think there’s a neurological component; however, leaving that aside, they cling to it tenaciously – it’s the only thing that gets them through life. That they’re required to abandon billions of their fellow humans for all of eternity, in order that they can have the ontological security blanket while alive, bothers them not at all. Which leads me to –

    Except in Fundie-Land, where glee is only allowed when thinking of sinners writhing in agony.

    This is the single most important thing to remember when dealing with them. It’s who they are.

  15. KennyCelican Says:

    Jeff, Based on what I’ve seen personally, the rank-and-file Fundies are as you describe. They have a belief system, one key point of which is that it can NEVER be wrong. If it is, in any way, the entire edifice crumbles. Therefore they’ll go to any length, even 1984-ish ‘war is peace’ cognitive dissonance, in order to avoid admitting the slightest imperfection in their belief system.

    For the leaders, they combine some of that with a lust for the power Steve referenced. The big reason they want it, however, isn’t for personal aggrandizement. They want it to silence any opposition to their line of thought. The aggrandizement just happens to some of them as a side-effect of having that much power and a particular set of personality flaws.

    There is actually a fairly quick way to identify if you’re dealing with a Fundie or a garden variety theist. It has to do with that need for absolute perfection of belief. If you hand them a valid argument and they say ‘ok, you’re correct, but I choose to believe anyway’, you’re dealing with a garden variety theist. If instead they lash out, attacking you like you’ve threatened their loved ones, you’ve got a Fundie.

    I said it was quick, not safe.

  16. Jeff Eyges Says:

    Kenny, I agree for the most part, but I do think it’s about personal aggrandizement as well. There’s a large dose of narcissistic personality disorder in the mix.

  17. Another Steve Says:

    The belief system is flexible up to some poorly defined multidimensional limit. For example: feed the poor, but not the gay poor. Thow shalt not kill unless it’s an abortion doctor. Tend to the sick, but not to those sick infected with HIV.

    It’s the skill of the leader that permits the flock to move the centroid of their belief system around in belief space. Once the leader begins to understand the power that he wields with the flock he starts to abuse the power for the sake of the power.

    We have a guy here in the Cleveland area named Ernest Agely. Watching this guy, I some times get the feeling that when he says the goofy stuff he puts forth for his followers it’s all a test to see just how far the sheep will go for him.

    Jim Jones had several mock koolaid drills before the final test that killed everyone in Jones Town. All the while, building the obedience of the flock to his will.

  18. Parrotlover77 Says:

    KennyCelican – The marriage tax provision was put into place to encourage couples to get married and then further tax breaks awarded for each child to encourage birth to grow the population, since that used to be very desirable to a young country. It has nothing at all to do with giving them the resources necessary raise the children.

    I personally feel that tax breaks for kids needs to end. We don’t need to encourage a larger populous anymore. We’re overpopulated as it is.

    But I digress…

  19. Parrotlover77 Says:

    P.S. I’m a DINK, yes, it is true! :-)

  20. KennyCelican Says:

    Parrot – I wasn’t so much referring to the rationale of why it was put in place, but rather the reason why any given society / government would give a tax break for being married or for having kids. As it is, though, gay couples can surrogate / adopt, and they certainly can cohabitate, so there’s no real reason to deny them the priveledges.

    On the digression, you’re right, the way the tax break is structured now encourages couples to link and breed, not to put any money, time or effort into any individual child. That was a point that I had overlooked.

    However, it doesn’t invalidate the idea of having some form of tax break for families based on how much they invested in their kids. You’re absolutely right, we don’t need to encourage random shack-ups or brood-mare behavior. We need to encourage parents to spend more money, time and energy raising each child they do have.

    Now, I’m not sure how to do that, and at any rate, we’re digressing. If we keep talking about over-large families, this thread is going to reference the… Let’s not go there.

  21. Parrotlover77 Says:

    Agreed. We should quit while we’re ahead. :-)