"It's a turn-off for me, so it's wrong"

Today I was listening to the Randi Rhodes Show on A.M. 1150, and she made a mistake. She said on the air that the California supreme court had declared that same-sex marriage is legal, that Proposition 8 had been overturned. "Great!", I exclaimed. Then after a commercial break, she said that she had read the wrong news flash, that it was a news flash from 2008, and she apologized for getting her listeners' hopes up.

Too late. Dudes were already calling. Randi's audience is primarily liberal, but the gay marriage thing gets the straight dudes a callin'. The first straight dude said that he doesn't like being called a bigot just because he's against gay marriage. He said that he was in favor of civil unions, but not for marriage, because male-female marriage is a tradition that goes back for thousands of years.

For some reason, that reasoning doesn't irk me so much, especially since he said he was for civil unions. I disagree with his reasoning, but it doesn't irk me at all. He wants to keep the tradition he values. Not that letting gays marry would keep him from partaking in that tradition, because he can still marry a woman, but fine. It makes no sense to me, but fine. To him, it's a tradition that he does not want altered.

What DOES irk me, big-time, is when he said that he thinks that homosexuality is wrong, that the behavior of it is wrong, that it's just, by his standards, WRONG. He claimed that he is not a bigot just because he thinks that gay sex and gay relationships are wrong. And the reason he is not a bigot is.... because he's for civil unions! He thinks gays should have civil rights, even though he thinks that being gay is wrong, so he CAN'T be a bigot!

Now: why IS gay sex wrong, according to him? I didn't hear him quoting the Bible or giving other religious reasons, so here's my theory: because it doesn't MAKE HIM HORNY. The idea of two dudes getting hot 'n heavy under the sheets is a turn-off for him. The idea of performing fellatio, and kissing a man, and having anal sex with a man is repulsive to him, so it's wrong.

Randi kept asking him WHY it was wrong to be gay, and he kept talking around her questions. He should have just been honest with himself and said, "It's wrong because I think it's gross." That would have been a good reply. This one would also have worked: "It's a turn-off for me, so it's wrong."

I don't understand this way of thinking. I don't think that any sexual activity that two, sane, CONSENTING adults do is wrong. As long as they are both adults, and no one is being coerced, or being taken advantage of for whatever reason, it's okay. Above all else, as long as it brings them both sexual gratification, then it's not wrong. It may be DISGUSTING to me, but it's not WRONG simply because I find it gross.


This made me think of my previous post here, about the Wall Street men who go to a dominatrix to get sexually aroused by her insulting them and humiliating them and abusing them. They get turned on, for example, by having her brush their hair severely, until the hairbrush makes their scalp sting and burn.

Do I think it's bizarre to get turned-on by getting your hair brushed until it causes scalp pain? Yes. Do I think that getting flogged is a weird way to get an erection? Absolutely. Does the idea of getting tied up, gagged and blindfolded make me shudder rather than make me horny? You betcha. And I won't even go into sexual defecation, because I may vomit. But I don't think it's wrong.

Whatever turns people on, turns people on. Whatever floats your boat. Just don't force someone to do it. Do it only with someone who is really willing. Do it in private if you think it'll scare the horses. And don't do it with kids. That's all. Otherwise, it is not wrong.

So why do these straight dudes think that homo sex is WRONG and hetero sex is RIGHT? Other than the fact that they are turned-on by hetero sex, I think...

...it's because they must feel a bit god-like, subconsciously.

I mean really, they DO, no? Deep down inside, I mean. They may not REALIZE that this is the reason, but it IS, isn't it? If you think your standards are universally right, then you must think yourself to be a bit god-like.

I was thinking this as the NEXT straight dude called the radio show and told Randi that gay sex is wrong because it's not natural. She told him that it's perfectly natural, that there is homosexuality in Nature, that many non-human animals have gay sex, and that people who are gay, are gay by nature. He said, "No, it's a FREAK of Nature".

Well, Randi went off on him for using the word "freak", and I started thinking, "Hmmm... this guy thinks he can proclaim what is a freak of Nature and what isn't. Subconsciously, he must fancy himself to be a bit god-like, too, huh?"

You know, I think that homosexuality is SO natural, SO a part of Nature. I think gay men and lesbians are Nature's way of trying to slow down population growth. Really. I do.

The population of the world doubled from 1960 to 20o9. Think of it. In a little less than 50 years, we produced the same amount of people that it took from the dawn of humanity all the way to 1960.

In 50 years, we did in population growth what took 400,000 years. WHOA.

So maybe Nature will produce more and more homosexuals as the years progress, in an attempt to slam on the brakes on over-population, and as a by-product, make the world more FAB-u-lous! As Rosalind Russell said in Auntie Mame, "What could possibly be more natural than that?"

Hmm... but maybe I'm subconsciously thinking myself to be a bit god-like, too... to think that that's case in Nature, just because I believe it. Maybe I'm no different than those bigoted dudes calling Randi's show...

Men: We're incorrigible.