Your Marriage Is Ruined! Ha-Ha!, by Mike Gold – Brainiac On Banjo #274 | @MDWorld
May 14, 2012 Mike Gold 36 Comments
Our President came out in favor of same-sex marriage, and the very next day the nation’s largest bank discovered they lost two billion dollars.
Coincidence?
Some people think there is no such thing as coincidence. Those people are called “Fox News Viewers.” It’s that type of wacky thinking that has been the standard response to the same-sex issue from the gay haters.
Well, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it right now, again, more emphatically: if the availability of same-sex marriage undermines your marriage in any way, no matter how slight, then your marriage wasn’t worth shit in the first place and at least one of you is probably at least bi-curious, and you can’t handle that. Ha-Ha!
The numbers are against you. 51% of Americans polled a few days ago said they support Obama’s statement. Five years ago, almost two-thirds of Americans were opposed to same-sex marriage. What caused such a swift turn-around? A sudden outbreak of clear and rational thinking?
Well, yes. That’s exactly what happened. Folks saw same-sex marriage in New England and Iowa and the District of Columbia and New York State (hi, there, football fans!) and elsewhere and realized that their god didn’t hock up a boulder on anybody. Nobody was turned into a pillar of salt. Tuxedo rentals skyrocketed! Employment went up!
Don’t tell me it’s the kids. Yes, in the past five years we’ve had five years worth of children born and five years worth of old bastards die, but the polling services don’t question four year-olds. Yes, today’s young adults are far, far more likely to accept same-sex marriage and, eventually, their beliefs will dominate even those of the haters in both Carolinas. But this change is too swift to lay off on the young’uns.
This won’t be an issue in the 2020 elections. Even the Republicans will make same-sex marriage a non-issue if they want to get elected, just as they accepted Negroes a generation ago. Just as they accepted interracial marriage… begrudgingly. When was the last time you heard a derisive epithet hurled at a mixed-race child?
I said “child.” Not “President.”
Cynics said Obama made this pronouncement in order to raise funds (George Clooney’s Hollywood party was scheduled months ago) or to get out the gay vote or to suck up to the liberals. Or socialists. Or anarchists. Whatever the Right is calling them these days.
That’s simply stupid. Just as the rabid born-agains are going to vote for a Mormon this November, the lefties are going to vote for Obama. We might not like some of what he did and did not do, but worst case scenario: we’d vote for Ming The Merciless if it kept the ever-flippin’ Patsy of the Tea Party off of Pennsylvania Avenue.
No, Barack Obama made the statement when he did because he was forced to by his vice-president, Joe Biden. A man known for making silly statements.
Sometimes, silly works.
Ha-ha!
Free Speech Huckster Mike Gold performs the weekly two-hour Weird Sounds Inside The Gold Mind ass-kicking rock, blues and blather radio show on The Point, www.getthepointradio.com, every Sunday at 7:00 PM Eastern, replayed three times during the week (check the website for times) and available On Demand at the same place. His less political ramblings are found each Wednesday at www.comicmix.com.
Jonathan (the other one)
May 14, 2012 - 9:34 am
Seriously? The Foxdroids tried to link Obama’s speech with Chase’s massive loss??
(I don’t tend to hang out with the sort of people who watch Fox “News”, so am uncertain if this is true, or humorous exaggeration. Please, God, let this be humorous exaggeration!)
Mike Gold
May 14, 2012 - 10:25 am
One of the Talking Sphincters on Fox Business (they’re the same to me; round, puckered, off-white, and stinky) actually attempted to conflate these two in a promo broadcast on CBS radio.
Meanwhile, the Fox News lemmings were telling us that black people, morally righteous that they are, will not vote for Obama because of his support for heathenism.
Meanwhile Rick Santorum crawled out from under his rock to utter “I didn’t think Obama could get any gayer,” thereby dooming us to another six weeks of climate change.
Meanwhile, Liberty University got their first look at a genuine Mormon whose direct ancestors believe that marriage is a sacred institution entered into by a man and a woman and her “sister,” and her “sister,” and HER “sister” without respect to that “consenting adult” thing. Neither “consenting” nor “adult,” in fact. Consistency is the hobgoblin of the self-righteous.
Bottom line: People who believe this can lead to a person marrying a ham sandwich will believe anything Roger Ailes tells them.
Rick Oliver
May 14, 2012 - 11:14 am
What Romney’s great grandfather did is irrelevant, except in the event that we need to repopulate the planet, which was Romney’s explanation of his ancestor’s actions.
I think it’s worth noting that for the first half of the Catholic Church’s existence, the church was not in the marriage business, and that if the early Christians had taken Paul’s advice, there wouldn’t be any Christians today since they would have died out after one generation of no sex at all.
David Quinn
May 14, 2012 - 11:15 am
Politically expedient, yes. More than that, the right thing to do. That’s authentic leadership.
Jeremiah Avery
May 14, 2012 - 11:42 am
When someone says that the “tradition” of marriage should only be defined one way, I can’t help but wonder if they prefer the marriage of centuries past – where women were basically the property of her father and then husband?
Word was that some of the President’s top donors were making it clear that unless he took a more solid stand, they’d be withholding donations. Looks like that helped jumpstart his “evolving” position to its conclusion.
When someone is parroting the bigoted talking points, I sometimes wish their parents had been pro-choice.
I do think it really odd and screwed-up how a large percentage of minorities were voting for the bans. There’s a disconnect somewhere.
Martha Thomses
May 14, 2012 - 12:36 pm
Jeremiah: pro-choice people have children all the time. The difference is, we want ours.
Neil C.
May 14, 2012 - 12:41 pm
And of course the true winners are divorce lawyers: it grows their potential client base.
Mike Gold
May 14, 2012 - 12:58 pm
Rick — Those godless Chinese commies have been trying to do the first half of what Paul suggested, and the Christians are all up in arms about that. This makes no sense to me. No, not China’s massive overpopulation problem (with respect to arable land); I’m as big a Charlton Heston fan as the next science fiction geek and I believe in natural selection. If China is godless, with the Christian’s historical track-record of eliminating competition, you’d think they’d want the Chinese to disappear.
“No, no, that’s genocide,” sayeth the Christians who conveniently forget the Inquisition, the Crusades, the de facto ban on building new mosques in the United States, and other such acts of religious freedom.
I don’t care if anybody’s church is in the marriage racket. You don’t have to belong to that or to any other church. I DO care if the government, state or federal, is in the marriage racket. It is not the government’s place to tell anybody who they can or cannot marry.
Christians beware: state and federal control of marriage is simply the next step down the slippery slope to conception permits. We’ve already got pre-marriage blood tests and pre-license inquiries that really are an invasion of one’s privacy, and that license is just a fancy way of imposing a marriage tax anyway. Marriage, divorce, co-habitation, and sexual practices among consenting adults (oh, okay, make that consenting adult humans if you MUST) — none of that is any government’s business.
See. Once again, I take a nice, reasonable old-time conservative position.
Mike Gold
May 14, 2012 - 1:04 pm
Martha: Pro-choice advocates don’t necessarily want their children. Many pro-choice advocates are personally opposed to abortion. They just don’t want to ram their philosophies down other people’s throats.
And the way things have been going lately, if you’re opposed to abortion EXCEPT in the case of incest and/or rape, then it seems that today you’re Pro-Choice-Lite. Less filling, more babies.
Personally, I’m certainly in favor of abortion in the case of spontaneous generation. If you want the fetus, come up with a better excuse than “the hoary thunderer raped me.”
Jeremiah Avery
May 14, 2012 - 1:37 pm
Martha, I meant no offense. Just got a bit angry and thought certain parents should have made a particular choice concerning certain people in the world.
I’m all for smaller government, just not so small that it controls what goes on in the bedroom (or wherever else such activities occur).
George Haberberger
May 14, 2012 - 2:35 pm
Martha wrote: “Jeremiah: pro-choice people have children all the time. The difference is, we want ours.”
And when they don’t want them, well I guess they were never children at all.
Mike Gold
May 14, 2012 - 2:47 pm
“And when they don’t want them, well I guess they were never children at all.”
Hmmm. I gotta think on that one. Back in Wasteland #1, my pal John Ostrander (educated by Jesuits) postulated a society where it was okay to retroactively abort children up to age 8. This magic thriller, drawn by William Messner-Loebs, managed to royally piss off both people who were pro- and anti-abortion. John and I took that as a sign of success. My publisher said she’d never read another issue. John and I took that as a sign we could get away with anything. And so we did.
But, really, when it comes down to retroactive abortion, why should only the government have all the fun?
Neil C.
May 14, 2012 - 4:42 pm
Mike,
I can think of plenty of candidates!
Jeremiah Avery
May 14, 2012 - 5:05 pm
Mike, did you ever hear Christopher Titus’ bit about how parents should have the option of aborting the kid up to 22 years old (figures give them to 21 to see how they handle their alcohol)? Joked how you’d see a whole more lawns mowed and homework done.
Mike Gold
May 15, 2012 - 7:56 am
Sure have, Jeremiah. And I’ll bet all of us with kids older than 22 did the math, too. “Let’s see… how much would I have saved if…?”
Jonathan (the other one)
May 15, 2012 - 8:11 am
I do object, strongly, to the fact that my religious faith (yes, Mike, I have a religious faith – hope you’re not too disappointed in me) has been co-opted by zealots who claim to be “Christian”, but by their actions demonstrate that they’ve never actually read the Gospels.
Here’s a challenge for the next “Christian” bigot you meet – ask them what, exactly, Jesus had to say in the Gospels about gays. Chapter and verse, please. Then, after they’ve spluttered for a while, ask them what He had to say about judgmental people (key phrase: “the speck in your brother’s eye”), and about those who insist on spilling their own religion all over everybody else (reference: Matthew, chapter 6).
(I’m also annoyed by those who want to treat the Bible as if it were a literally-accurate history text, even though if taken literally it contradicts itself in several places, but that’s a rant for another day…)
George Haberberger
May 15, 2012 - 8:16 am
“Back in Wasteland #1, my pal John Ostrander (educated by Jesuits) postulated a society where it was okay to retroactively abort children up to age 8.”
I’m pretty sure I have that issue somewhere in my Vast Accumulation of Stuff™ (™Tony Isabella). It is not a story easily forgotten.
And now it appears to be a situation of fiction becoming reality because back in February a pair of British bioethicists, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, proposed the idea of after-birth abortion. Their premise is that newborns are “morally irrelevant” so killing them is no different than abortion. “Because newborns are no more capable of valuing their own existence than fetuses, they argued, newborns qualify only as ‘potential persons’ whose interests are ‘always trump[ed]’ by those of the ‘actual persons’ such as ‘parents, siblings, society.’ ”
The concept has been decried by both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice factions. When I read about in an article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch I posted that it almost seems like a stealth Pro-Life argument, carrying the idea of abortion to it’s logical conclusion and forcing people to face the reality.
But no. Apparently ethics means something entirely different to Giubilini and Minerva. Here are a couple of links that indicate that John Ostrander’s story is not so far-fetched.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2012/03/after_birth_abortion_the_pro_choice_case_for_infanticide_.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html
Rick Oliver
May 15, 2012 - 8:29 am
I want to know what Jesus said about co-ed high school baseball teams, which apparently represent a moral breach of some kind in the eyes of the Catholic church.
Jonathan (the other one)
May 15, 2012 - 10:44 am
As I recall, Rick, it was along the lines of, “As you have done to the least of these, so you have done to Me.”
I think He would have disapproved of the actions of the team that was afraid to play against a girl.
Rick Oliver
May 15, 2012 - 1:29 pm
Jonathan: I think they were afraid they might get pregnant.
Reg
May 15, 2012 - 1:42 pm
“…and that if the early Christians had taken Paul’s advice, there wouldn’t be any Christians today since they would have died out after one generation of no sex at all.”
Rick, it’s clear that you (and a few others) have a fair amount of animus with regard to the Christian faith (which is of course everyone’s prerogative). As I’ve stated here before, I too am often pissed off at the religion…but NEVER with the relationship.
So it is that spirit that I say that your continuing to hold onto and disseminate a totally (and demonstrably) false assignation to the Apostle Paul does not lend to either a good look or argument on your part.
Reg
May 15, 2012 - 1:47 pm
JToO said…
“…has been co-opted by zealots who claim to be “Christian”, but by their actions demonstrate that they’ve never actually read the Gospels.”
You ain’t never lied, bro. It is exactly this aspect that drives me up the wall.
Mike Gold
May 15, 2012 - 7:37 pm
Jonathan, I’m not the least bit upset by your faith structure — or anybody else’s, as long as they don’t hold those with other structures as lower life forms. Everybody’s got their beliefs. My animus (Hi, Reg! Are you also a Nero Wolfe fan?) is directed strictly to those who ACT as though theirs is the only true faith and everybody else is therefore a dick. And, yeah, I save a bit of animus for those who approach their beliefs without any humor at all. This applies to religionists, atheists, political wanks, comics fans, and most particularly to music lovers. It’s all Tanalorn to me.
Rick, Jesus doesn’t care about baseball. Everybody knows he’s a football fan.
Neil C.
May 15, 2012 - 8:22 pm
Jonathan,
I’m reminded of an episode of Firefly, when River Tam went through the Bible and ‘corrected’ it because of all the contradictions and things that didn’t make sense.
Rick Oliver
May 15, 2012 - 11:04 pm
Reg, from First Corinthians:
“Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband. 3 The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 But this I say by way of concession, not of command. 7 Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that.”
I interpret this to mean pretty much exactly what I said. He didn’t condemn marriage (or sex within marriage), but wished that “all men were even as I am myself.” That is, unmarried and celibate. You may interpret this another way, and there are almost as many interpretations of the bible as there are people who read it, which is one of the reasons the Catholic church was not overly enthusiastic about translating the bible into languages that people could actually read.
If my statement is “demonstrably false”, please demonstrate how it is false. Maybe you can cite some other passage in Paul’s letters that contradicts the above passage. If so then we can agree that Paul contradicts himself. God knows there are plenty of other contradictions in the bible — which in general don’t bother me if one assumes the bible shouldn’t be interpreted literally. But in the case of Paul’s letters, it’s sort of hard not to assume that much of what he wrote was intended to be taken quite literally. And it is demonstrably true that the Catholic church has traditionally taken a rather dim view of sex except for procreation, in no small part due to Paul’s views on the subject.
I have no major quarrels with the gospels. It’s Paulism I don’t care for very much.
Rick Oliver
May 16, 2012 - 7:10 am
I will concede that Paul did not expect members of the church to practice complete abstinence. My original comment was a sarcastic oversimplification. Paul makes a “concession” that marriage is an unfortunate necessity to constrain the “immoralities” of sex. He viewed complete celebacy as the ideal.
George Haberberger
May 16, 2012 - 7:33 am
Yeah Paul is a bit hard to get your head around. He was one of those kinds of characters who having had a change of heart, (like ex-smokers, former fat people, former addicts of one kind or another), now feels qualified to lecture everyone. And he wasn’t even one of the original 12 apostles. He never met Jesus personally. I’ve read, (and I don’t know how this could be verified), that Paul expected Jesus to return within his current generation. He didn’t conceive of thousands of years going by before the final judgement.
As for as Paul’s opinion on marriage: he contradicts Jesus’ own words from Matthew Chapter 9:.
“He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?”
Incidentally, this passage is often overlooked when people claim Jesus didn’t say anything about gay marriage. This isn’t a condemnation of homosexuality but it is a validation of heterosexuality.
Jonathan (the other one)
May 16, 2012 - 8:21 am
Mark Chapter 10, actually – 10:7-8, specifically.
And that was in a passage that forbade divorce and remarriage completely. That’s another of those things where I can point out that the Bible, taken literally, contradicts itself, as in Matthew 5:31-32 says it’s okay in cases of one spouse being unfaithful. They’re all the Literal Word of God? Okay, which Literal Words did He really mean?
The usage of terms was because it was a reference to the commandments of Moses, who wasn’t exactly open-minded about gays (check Leviticus and Deuteronomy for details). Then again, he wasn’t open-minded about bacon, shellfish, blended fabrics, or nearsighted priests either, so make of that what you will…
Mike Gold
May 16, 2012 - 9:18 am
Wow. I never thought one of my columns would generate so many bible quotes — particularly one where religion was at best a subtext.
Bill Hicks used to argue religion with his father, who believed every word in the bible was the Absolute Truth. “Go get your copy of the bible,” Bill said to his father. “Now read what’s on the cover.”
“Holy Bible,” Dad responded.
“Now read what else is on the cover,” Bill demanded.
“King James version,” Dad responded.
“Ah ha!” Bill ejaculated. Dad didn’t get it. “Version.” Of the Absolute Truth.
Personally, I was amazed when I discovered there were so many different versions of the ten commandments. Clearly, Mel Brooks got it right — there had to be at least 15.
George Haberberger
May 16, 2012 - 9:23 am
Yeah Mark Chapter 10 is also a similar passage. I meant Matthew Chapter 19.
Rick Oliver
May 16, 2012 - 1:31 pm
Paul never met Jesus. Neither did Mark or Luke, and Matthew cribbed a lot from Mark, correcting some of the errors along the way. This does not necessarily invalidate what is attributed to them in the bible, particularly if you accept the “divinely inspired” argument, although it’s something of mystery why the divinely inspired Mark made mistakes, and the divinely inspired Matthew found it necessary to plagiarize him. Or Luke. Possibly both. Or possibly all three borrowed heavily from some unknown fourth source, also no doubt divinely inspired. I’m really not making this stuff up.
As I said before, I have no major problems with the gospels. But it seems to me that church doctrine was influenced far more by Paul’s writing than by the gospels.
Mike Gold
May 16, 2012 - 4:44 pm
“I’m really not making this stuff up.”
Okay. I believe you. You’re not the one making this stuff up. You’re way too young.
Reg
May 16, 2012 - 9:27 pm
@ Mike with regards to whether I’m a Wolfe fan…
Nah. He’s too upbeat for my tastes.
😛
Reg
May 16, 2012 - 10:02 pm
@ Rick…
First… I appreciate your bringing your rebuttal in this manner and tone.
Secondly, I want to make it clear that it is not my intent to thread jack this into a theological debate as it’s simply not the appropriate forum.
Third, I think I’m pretty safe in stating that virtually all arguments/debates are framed from a personal point of bias, but in such instances I strive to shape my argument from the core heart of the matter being discussed or person whose position I’m either defending or rebutting. Respecting and respecting the full context of what’s being debated is of utmost importance.
So to address one of your main points regarding the Apostle’s statement of his desire that all believers would live a life of celibacy and total commitment to living a life of dedication to Christ would be the ultimate contraception method…please consider this…
I’m a vegetarian. Tons of evidence that this foodstyle lends to healthier people, reduced disease, and increased life spans. So I can easily say that I wish that all people would forego meat and be like me. Problem is…I know that ain’t gonna happen. Not only do I not wield the Force with sufficient power to perform the Jedi mind trick on the entire world’s population, I also understand that such a transition would also result in significant impact to the world economy as a whole lotta folks would be out of jobs. Paul, being a pretty smart man , was not saying this as a commandment to Christendom. Your bias was evident by initially omitting the key part of Paul’s letter…”But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.”
However, respect for immediately addressing same in your followup post.
Just to close, I often find it surprising that the heartbeat of the one Apostle whose writings were in total contradiction to many aspects of the culture of that day with respect to the acknowledgement and treatment of women is so completely misrepresented.
Reg
May 16, 2012 - 10:12 pm
Mike said…”Wow. I never thought one of my columns would generate so many bible quotes — particularly one where religion was at best a subtext.”
See Bro…He works in mysterious ways.
;-D
Reg
May 16, 2012 - 10:15 pm
I seem to recall another ass being used once to great effect.
Rimshot!
🙂 😀 😛