I suppose not all those against gay marriage are homophobes. But I suspect the ones who aren't make up a tiny fraction. And others are absolute fatheads. Take state Rep. Daryl Metcalfe of Butler, please. His recent op-ed in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette had the usual asinine arguments promoting a Pennsylvania constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, a so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment."
"Where do we draw the line?" he asks. "Will we allow group marriages? How about marriage between brother and sister? Will minors be allowed to marry without parental consent?"
No one is advocating polygamy, Mr. Fathead. No one is advocating incest or kiddie sex or kiddie porn or bestiality or any other weirdo behavior you can come up with to rationalize your irrational fear of gays.
Man oh man-on-dog, where do you get this stuff? Rick Santorum?
I know the homophobes don't care about whether gays and lesbians have the same rights as the rest of us. Discrimination against anyone different is a grand American tradition. But here's what they should try to understand: There's nothing to "protect." Legal gay marriage will have absolutely no effect on hetero marriage.
You still don't have to mix with the homos. You can still look down your noses at them 'cause "it just ain't natural." ('Course there are millions of them on the earth, you know. God sure must have screwed up a bunch of times.)
Speaking of Gawd, did you hear about this small church in Kansas, mostly consisting of the Rev. Fred Phelps and his relatives? They send protesters to funerals of American soldiers, claiming God kills our troops because our country condones homosexuality. Put aside the fact that if God were really a mean, nasty cat like that I would want nothing to do with him: Don't you think this rabid homophobia is starting to get out of hand?
Then there are the allegedly sensible homophobes. Nancy Staible, the Pennsylvania state director of something she calls the Concerned Women for America, wrote a letter to the P-G asking, "would anyone disagree that the ideal nurturing relationship for raising children, our greatest natural resource, is marriage between one man and one woman?" Actually, I, for one, would disagree. Guess what? Whether a straight relationship is "ideal" depends on the man and the woman.
Do you have any idea, you fathead-ette, how many abusive, alcoholic, dumber-than-a-stump, somebody-call-the-damn-social-service-agency-please, negligent, dangerous, stupid freaks are popping out children for whom they are not, in my opinion, qualified to care? A kid is better off with two lesbians than an abusive hetero couple just as a kid is better off with a single parent who cares more than a negligent hetero duo.
Ms. Staible continues: "We can also agree that we are far from the ideal in this country with more than fifty percent of marriages today ending in divorce." Earth to Nancy! You've just undercut your argument. Divorce messes with your head when you're a kid, yet half of straight people are doing it. What's so great about hetero marriage?
"Marriage," writes Nancy, "is associated with better physical health, lower injury rates, and longer life expectancies for both adults and children." God forbid them homos would be able to enjoy better health and longer lives.
It's much more important that we "define" marriage, as opposed to caring about kids wasting away in a freaking orphanage. After all, if everything doesn't remain the way it always has, pigs might start crappin' out Martians or something.
Rep. Metcalfe tries to paint the other side as trying to confuse the issue. But he and his ilk are the kings and queens of confusion. Something weird is going to happen if same-sexers marry, they warn us. Not sure what it is, but trust us: It's a-gonna happen.
I know people are no longer allowed to be passionate about issues, because others might consider them to be "angry." But these heinous homophobes masquerading as sensible regular Americans are getting on my last nerve.