Smoking Fags

I don't understand many people's irrational fear of everything homosexual. I should, for the record, establish that I am quite straight and have no desire to engage in various acts of homosexuality (unless lesbians are involved), but I have no qualms about letting other people do whatever their hearts and crotches desire. It seems, though, as if many people blanche at the thought of homosexuals (unless, of course, they are lesbians) copulating. That's okay. If you're disgusted at what goes on behind closed doors, that's your prerogative. It may not be the right thinking, but it is your thinking, and as long as you keep it as thinking, I don't and, for the most part, the homosexuals don't give a shit.

The problem begins when people's irrational fear leeches out and becomes irrational words. I've listened to and have read some of the most vitriolic, virulent, hate-filled attacks against homosexuals, and I still can't figure out what motivates these people to write and say such things. So homosexuals like their own gender. So fucking what. As long as they're not trying to rape you, what issues have you against them? Let's suppose that the speech directed against homosexuals were, instead, directed against other targets. Would the same speech be tolerated? I've heard the words gay, and fag tossed around as euphemisms for something less-than-cool, or as a substitute for degratory intentions. Let's play around with that.

"Dude. That's so fucking gay."
"Dude. That's so fucking nigger-like."

"Oh, I don't know. This whole thing seems so gay."
"Oh, I don't know. This whole thing seems so kike-ish."

I would dare anyone to say the first example in front of my friend R. I can promise you he wouldn't take too kindly to it. I probably wouldn't like the second, and neither would the Anti-Defamation league. The odd thing is that neither example is tolerated, yet we condone the use of the words fag, gay, queer, faerie, and other "special" words to describe homosexuals, in vernacular.

A lot of people I talk to are afraid that the homosexuals want them in ways that is immoral, un-holy, and painful. That kind of logic surprises me. Most of these guys can't get laid by women. If they're too ugly to get laid by a woman, what makes them think that a homosexual man wants them? These same people are also afraid, I guess, of being raped by rampaging homosexuals looking for their ass-fix.

I'm not too sure that homosexuals have ass-fixes on a scale that merits or demands random raping. I've had some serious cravings for female ass, but never to the extent that I've taken to the streets, looking for the first sight of a slight ghetto-booty (although I have been known to hop from party to party and bar to bar, swiveling my hips and leering gracefully). And, after having lived with a gay man for a few months, and a slutty gay man at that, I've come to the conclusion that homosexuals are, by large, harmless. Then again, H. was a skinny fuck, and crazy at that. Living with him was really no different from living with a straight guy. There were occasions when I walked in on him doing shit to his lover, which I've done to straight roommates as well. H., however, was better dressed, more meticulous about his appearances, and brutal with his cologne. I haven't had another roommate like that since, although my current one, Kapo, comes close.

Normally, I can ignore cases of causal anti-homosexuality. Most people who use the terms gay in wrong ways don't intend to do so, and popular vernacular is hard to eradicate. But extreme cases make me mad, as extreme cases of any other hate does. The "fag"-basing of the last election drove me nuts, but that's for another blog. My anger had largely since subsided, but today, I came across this article.

What fresh hell is this? A mother is complaining about a harmless tradition because she's afraid that the so-called homosexual overtones might turn some sweet straight crooked? Never mind the fact that statistically, most cross-dressers are heterosexual, the homosexual agenda must be prevented from corrupting our innocent flowers.

The homosexual agenda? I've seen that term bandied about before. Apparently, there's a large group of homosexuals who meet in the back of various designer clothes stores and plot the systematic faggination of the straight sexuality. They aim to do so through comedy sitcoms, metrosexuals, and puffy shirts. I guess they're running out of ideas because now they're trying to attack our little ones through subversive cross-dressing days. Yeah, that's it.

I noticed a lot of guys dressing up as women this past Halloween. In fact, some of my frat brothers were dressed up as various kinds of women. It makes me wonder, you know, if they're going to start packing fudge. Should I worry? Should I avoid contact with them? Would I want them in a foxhole next to me? Because, you know, while we're being shot at and shooting back, he might be coveting my pasty, hairy ass instead of covering it like he oughta.

So, the kids don't dress up as women and men, and instead dress up as soldiers. I've nothing against soldiders. In fact, some of the best people I know are soldiers. Many like their jobs, and it's one hell of a job to do. But, I don't understand why she would have issues with something as harmless as dressing up as a girl, as if dressing up as a girl for one day in 365 induces homosexuality, but has no problem with people dressing up as professional killers. Soldiers are professional killers. Yes, they defend us and all that, but for the most part, defense comes at a price of lives. Isn't the mother worried that dressing up as soldiers will train her children to kill? I don't know about you, but I'd rather more homosexuals than trained killers. In fact, I'd love to live to see a world where soldiers aren't needed. Isn't that all lollipops and sunshine of me?

Come on people. This is ridiculous.