So, Ann Coulter hates the gay talk, eh? Oh, so do I!

So, I went to to learn all about how Joy Behar – a “friend” of gays, it’s said, but so mush headed I can’t begin to describe (“the nation is about fairness right, isn’t that why the rich should be taxed until it’s all fair?” she addled on … Yeah, sure, and that means the rich will no longer strive to be rich, and the poor will be joined by the less than rich and the newly poor; that’s the way it always works. The clue, Behar, is to make the poor rich – not make the rich poor. Mushhead.) Anyway – so this “friend” of ours has Ann Coulter on the air – and Izzo brings her to me, for I don’t watch bimbos on the air anymore than I espy them in the streets.

So, this unmarried but vixen of a gal, Ann – well, she wants gay men to go straight, eh? Well, then, I’d be glad to marry her! Yes, her and only her; she’s the gal for me. Go for the smart, rich and beautiful – that’s what I think! But would she have me? Aye, there’s the rub – I sincerely doubt it. Why, what woman in her right hetero mind would want some gay guy? Where is this pool of unmarried damsels awaiting the millions of gay men? To be sure, I nor my gay compatriots want any sullied second hand goods; they be sinners, and if I am called to purity and righteousness I shall not befoul my first foray into holy matrimony with anything but a virgin. Ann is a virgin, no? She should be, if she practices what she preaches and be not the hypocrite. Somehow I garner, however, that the woman is fallen.

Shame; ergo, put down that stone, girl. And as for any other women – if their first and second husbands couldn’t take them, I doubt I could either. Whither be the women that are supposedly pining away for the gay dudes in their midst? There are none, that’s the great demographic problem for heteros – and the great demographic proof that there just happens to be a slew of extra guys, aka us gays. Still, since she is so convincing, and I have my heart set on her, once I get Ann as my betrothed, then, well, I shall either shear or truss up the vixen locks and put her in the home, and make a mother of her, and she shall not be on the hustings, for it is man’s work. Oh, let us live the Biblical life, you preachers to me of how I should follow your version of the Bible. No, follow mine – woman are not supposed to be out in public giving opinions, and where’s my martini?

And why have not a one of these lonely gals ever sauntered into a gay bar, where the men be whom are not there for them in the hetero places, and tried to ply their charms, to you know, help us pray the gay away and find out the joys of womanhood? Nor has any preacher ever entered a gay bar to my knowledge, to tend to the flock where they might be found. No, they are there in their pulpits fulminating against the menace of homeowners and businessmen whom they don’t like, like unto Medieval theocrats intent on stopping the Reformation or Jews, or something. They do not practice what they preach, they are like hypocrites – staying away to condemn, but not come to teach. Spare me your nonsense.

And Behar brings up “Ex-gay” – the most pernicious ridiculous nasty lame brained idea ever fostered upon us – and Ann goes for the gusto and says ‘yes, well, the gays should change.’ And why, pray tell? Because you are not gay? And because in your claim for liberty for all to pursue happiness, alone among the people, you want me to change to fit your view of things? My, my, how do we become authoritarian when needs be, eh? All for individualism, except you individuals over there – you be like me. What a plea for control freaks. And of course, all these “ex-gays” want me to “pray” in their churches – and tithe no doubt – for they are money grubbers, changing money in the temples which Jesus set the example to and threw them out – hypocrites all.

So if this preacher is a Catholic he wants me Catholic, and if this one be a Baptist, then that is my new faith, and if that one be a Methodist, ergo I should follow their John Wesley’s word, and if one other be Jewish, then to that faith I must be called I guess. Yah, they are demanding I join their religion, these “ex-gay” people – and they have no right to do so. And I certainly have the right to decline their entreaties. And if I join some other religion, no doubt they will still be unhappy, for I have not “prayed away the gay” in their churches. Balderdash. And Behar the mush head couldn’t elucidate that point of which denomination the “ex-gays” should follow? Sounds like a good question to me. I ask, do tell.

Let us look further into this “pray the gay away” crap – for it is a verity that fully ½ or more of gay men did indeed try the hetero way. I have it on good authority by the testimony of hundreds if not thousands of gay men I have met, that they had a girlfriend in high school, or college, and that they dated, and kissed, and even had sex, and perhaps even married a lady or two – I know several gay men who seemed to not only have been married, but sired children, and are quite the good fathers still. And so what of these men? Are they not “Ex-heteros”? Sure they are. But Behar and Coulter are too mush headed to even contemplate that idea. But what else could these men be? If one “Prays away the gay” and marries a girl, and is thus “ex-gay” – then surely all those gay men who ever but once dabbled in the fairer sex did indeed “crate their straight away” and come on over to … well, now this is where it gets interesting:

Are the “ex-heteros” really “ex” or are they really just guys who tried it, at the request of society, but knew anyway that they were not hetero? And lo, the answer is in their testimony – all of them I have met have said the same thing – they knew they were gay, but they did what they could to hide it, deny it, obfuscate it, and ignore it – but the feelings were so intense that it became impossible. Ergo, they “crated away the straight” because it was a false thing, it was a veneer, or the woman perhaps like a piece of furniture – or maybe, as some tell me, that they realized that ultimately it was unfair to their wives or any potential wife to continue. Indeed it is. Why, many of these “ex-heteros” also turn out to be the “bisexuals” of yesteryear.

Yes, while married they cheated on their wives; all of them, as near as I can determined in my unscientific interview methods with cocktail in hand. Why, that’s back when they were “bisexuals.” And you know what today’s “bisexuals” are? Why, they’re the future all-gay men of tomorrow. Because all of them seem to finally end the hetero relationship and come on down for a cocktail, not necessarily in that order. And thus they “crate the straight away” – yes, fully ½ of us have done this (I have not, no, never, kissed a girl.) And so thus it seems quite easy for the gayness to surface, for it is a force strong within. But somehow, the “ex-gay” folks can’t seem to come up with but a few hundred guys, all of whom seem to be from quite Christian backgrounds as it is, and half of them are out and gay again within a year anyway. Short of a lobotomy nothing will work, and I doubt even the lobotomy would either.

But when Behar made a simple statement about changing from hetero to gay Ann rolled her eyes, and flopped her head and hair, and was like petulantly childlike in her “aw shucks, who would ever do that?” Insouciant and condescending, she seemed to have not the mental capacity to conceive of all the gay men who did try the hetero thing – and did forgo the less-than-bliss it was supposed to be. But did Behar pursue this obvious point? No, she did not. And she let the point go away. Why, that was a perfect opportunity to bring up the “ex-heteros” among the gay population. Yes, indeed.

And then, aw, poor Goldilocks Ann Coulter did decry that there is a nation debate about gay folks (I decry it too, for a different reason,) – and that it did consume so much time – and that is seemed so silly – and she wish the entire nation was DADT – or “don’t ask don’t tell” so that she might never have to deal with gay people again. Well, that’s easy to do, Ann, but you’re blaming the wrong people on solving the dilemma you perceive. And I agree with you that the issue is so friggin’ unimportant that indeed there’s no need to be talking about it every day in the public political world. There is no need to have opinions on it, or to debate it, or discuss this reality of gayness. But it’s not gay folks who are doing it. And that’s where Ann is oh so wrong. And so blind. The answer lies in her compadres’ positions on the reality of our existence. They want us gone; we are merely defending ourselves.

She should go talk to Rick Santorum, he on his unholy hateful nastiness to outlaw us once again. Well, that should get our riots in the news, I guess. If the government under the fantasy of Rick Santorum’s new presidency thinks it and he is going to outlaw gay folks – what does he think we’ll do? Stand there mum and apologize in writing for our existence? HA! Why would we care anymore what happened? Why, a good riot always got some liberty for people in this country. We just needed one tiny one to stop the bar raids, and the threat of a few more if they continued.

So let’s go to the streets – after all – if you outlaw us we should demand you close the bars and arrest us all, and stop our parades and festivals, and ban the hanging of the rainbow flag, outlaw the use of the word gay – for that is the point of law, isn’t it? To eradicate fully the harm? You surely can’t outlaw the smooching and then leave us to have drinks at the local watering hole, can you? You can’t outlaw our cuddling and then allow us to meet on the streets, live together, work together, hire us in our own businesses, and comport ourselves in our antique stores with rainbow flags hanging out front, can you? If you allowed it all to continue, as it all continued when you had the anti-gay laws, wouldn’t that belie your purpose of just being a nasty bastard? Why of course it would. That’s why is the only solution. That man must be stopped and destroyed – or come to his senses and he the lion lie down with us sheep. We have implored him to do so, he refuses. Too bad, Ricky, then you are a target on the political hustings.

And then there’s Perkins, Gallagher, Fischer – why doesn’t Ann go tell those children to shush? They’re the ones seeking to end the existence of gay people. We have the right of self defense. We have the right to excoriate anyone who comes after us. We are Americans too. Leave us alone, get rid of the last remaining laws that exist against us – including the odiously unconstitutional bill of attainder like DOMA which is so Orwellian named that it hasn’t defended or preserved or saved a marriage in its entire existence. Indeed, the creep Newt got divorced twice while the law was there to save his marriages. Obvious it has not worked. When laws don’t work, get rid of them.

So, if Ann Coulter wants to stop all the fretting about gays, well, then, she needs to speak to her friends and comrades in the Republican Party, and not a few Democrats, and many a coreligionist and tell them to leave us the hell alone, and figure out a way to include us – if “family law” doesn’t quite fit – then make “gay family law” – can’t be that hard. But if you want to keep bleating about how gays are destroying the family and the nation and are the worst thing ever and sick, evil, demented, and whatever other fine things you say about us in your mad delusion – well then, you surely can’t expect us to quietly sit down and listen to this crap, do you? No, say it ain’t so.

Yes, Ann, the solution to your “too much gay stuff” is to stop the Crusade against us, so we wouldn’t have to defend us as a whole, we wouldn’t have to go to courts, we wouldn’t have to demand action in legislatures, we wouldn’t have to have these silly conversations about our right to exist – and we might go about our lives without worry that the gendarmes at the behest of some crazed religious-political figure is going to come after us like white on rice. Get a grip girl, we’re here to stay – deal with it. Be nice, treat others as you wish to be treated. But you and yours will not. Therefore, I shall either follow you asking for your hand in marriage as you require of me to do – or, as I’d rather, go about my life without worry from one of the NO GAYS! Movement come after me and mine.

But don’t go around the country, Ann, saying “Don’t tread on me” while treading on me.


1 Comment


    1. So, Ann Coulter hates the gay talk, eh? Oh, so do I! « The Daily Mush | MyGaySpot

    Leave a Reply

    Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

    You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

    Google+ photo

    You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

    Twitter picture

    You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

    Facebook photo

    You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


    Connecting to %s

    %d bloggers like this: