Sixteen Volts

For all the complaints about political and social propaganda, "framing", brainwashing and other similar often-debated topics, I really have to tip my hat to the way that the gay marriage advocates, during only a few short years, managed to turn something that would have been considered patently absurd anywhere into something that if you disagree with it, you are a very bad person and an even worse citizen. The very opposition of gay marriage is simply out of civilized discourse the same way as, say, the opposition of interracial marriage.

One case in point, let us recall the honorary doctorate that the Ryerson University recently awarded to Margaret Somerville. This was widely opposed for nothing more than the simple fact that Dr. Somerville opposes gay marriage. Put that in your pipe and smoke it for a minute, or send it back in a time machine to the past even a decade ago. This is how unacceptable opposition to gay marriage has become these days. At least among the bunch of loud activists in a few urban centers of a handful of the more enlightened nations. Somebody also wondered if all these trendy activists would still have opposed this if Dr. Somerville had been a Muslim, a group traditionally not known for its love and admiration towards homosexuality. Probably not, and by now it should be needless to explain why.

When you listen to the gay marriage advocates, you certainly get the impression that gay marriage is some kind of universal human right that has always existed in all cultures, and only a bunch of backwards troglodytes and nazis would even think of opposing it. Or even if the people of past were too stupid and prejudiced towards gays to understand what a self-evident basic human right gay marriage is, today this should be obvious to every reasonable person, except for a few nasty reactionaries. Well... in the real world, this just ain't exactly so. According to the Wikipedia page "Same-sex marriage", there are currently only five, count them five, countries in the whole world that legally recognize gay marriage. So, not exactly a massive majority.

Except for the dozen or so countries that recognize some kind of domestic partnerships but not gay marriage, the remaining... however many countries there currently are in the world all pretty much consider the whole idea of gay marriage to be absurd, the same way that it was totally absurd here a few decades ago. So it's not like any nation would become international human rights pariah for not recognizing gay marriage (which is why we just have to legalize gay marriage right now), no matter how the leftists and gay rights groups try to threaten this.

In fact, for the vast majority of the humankind, the currently relevant debate is not in whether the gay marriage should be legally recognized, but whether gays should be allowed to live. A politically incorrect cynic like me might notice a few demographic facts about the handful nations that recognize gay marriage or domestic partnerships, and the vast majority of nations that don't consider gaybashing to be a much more serious crime than marital rape, another crime that is even more absurd than "gay marriage" for the vast majority of humankind. There is a very good reason why the gays are organizing their oncoming pride march in Jerusalem, instead of any other Middle Eastern capital city. Just like everybody else, gays know perfectly well what would happen if they tried to march around in their rainbow speedos and drag queen dresses in the main streets of Damascus, Baghdad or Teheran.

Speaking of which, does there exist a Muslim (or take your pick from other religions that are predominant among the brown people in Third World) equivalent of Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence? For example, ten-year-old girls could participate as "brides" in this comedic troupe using names such as "Zippy bint Hash". If such a group does not exist yet, well, why the heck not, since Islam and most of these other religions are far more hostile towards sex and gays than the Catholic Church or any mainstream Christian denomination, and thus far more in need of limpwristed mockery and totally screaming satire? (Rhetorical.)

Speaking of young girls, another topic that is currently important to many gays and lesbians is the question of the age of consent. So far, the age of consent in Canada has been 14 for both straight and gay sex in perfectly equal fashion. However, anal sex was an exception so that the age of consent has been 18 for both straight and gay sex. But we have been told that this somehow oppresses gays. Baffled about this, I am still waiting for somebody to explain me why this ise so, since as we have been nagged and lectured so many times that I have lost count, anal sex is not in any way a gay activity. Pretty much the same way that AIDS is not a gay disease, I guess, even though for some mysterious reason, it is the gay rights organizations who make the loudest wailing noises for allocating more medical resources to AIDS. How very strange.

All was well in the great nation of Canada until the evil conservative government of Stephen Harper decided to raise the age of consent to 16, for both straight and gay sex. Boo! Hiss! The new law still includes a five-year window so that a 14-year-old can still have straight or gay sex with a 19-year-old, so it cannot be opposed by arguing that it would somehow criminalize the normal sexual experimentation between teenagers. The age of consent for anal sex is still kept at 18 years, however. The Canadian gay rights groups such as Egale oppose this change and demand that the age of consent of anal sex is brought down to 14 years.

Therefore the only possible logical conclusion is that these people really want the adult gay men to be legally allowed to have anal sex with 14-year-old boys.

To hear the gay rights groups tell it, these young boys often seek adult queer men for sex for some, uh, "hands-on mentoring", and being buggered by older men is a wonderful educational experience for those boys on their way to become queer men confident in their sexuality. If you want to retch, you can read the article "Age-old questions", in which one "older audience member" is worried that the new law would criminalize the sexuality of gay teenagers. Sure thing, you nasty old chickenhawk (this is what this oft-used word originally meant), I am sure that you are worried and concerned, your heart just beating for those boys who are mercilessly oppressed by not being allowed to bend over in front of you and then cuddle with you afterwards, gently and lovingly licking the Santorum off your quivering body. Another audience member informs us that "You can't treat young people with fully functional sex apparatuses and hormones in overdrive as children". Well, any straight man who has been caught with a jailbait girl could try that argument and see how far it flies.

Oh, and even though I have been talking about gay men so far, I am sure that fat trucker lesbians with shaven heads also enjoy seducing and fingering those nubile teenage girls, as a subversive kickass strike against patriarchy. For example, we have seen this vividly in Sweden in the famous "Könskriget" documentary. Or in this side of the pond, we have the famous play "Vagina Monologues" or the writings of Andrea Dworkin. Lesbians are made, not born, and as most lesbians openly admit, they have chosen to be lesbians as a protest towards men and patriarchy. For gay men it is different in that they are born to be gay, but then again, as Steve Sailer has pointed out in "Why Lesbians Aren't Gay", many things tend to be different for gays and lesbians.

But whatever else you might say about gay men, they certainly have balls. I am talking about huge. I don't think that I'd have the sheer nerve to go and proclaim that 14-year-old girls often come and seek me out for sex so that they learn to become women by the wonderful experience of me banging them in the ass. Let alone to accuse some summer camp for teenage girls of illegally discriminating against me for refusing to hire me to work as a camp counselor. It's showertime, girls!

More seriously: if I was a father of a 14-year-old boy, I don't think that I'd feel very comfortable sending him to a summer camp that employs gay men as camp counsellors. A gay man has no more place to lead and sleep with a bunch of teenage boys than a straight man should lead and sleep with a bunch of teenage girls, for identical reasons.

Of course, the gay rights groups have the advantage in that they get to operate under friendly media that keeps their more... extreme demands in wraps far away from the unenlightened masses of rubes who might not be... enlightened enough to really understand them. All this is necessary at least until the revolution comes. For example, I had to actively search the web for the gay rights groups own statements about this issue, since none of the major media outlets that I follow ever seemed to consider their demands newsworthy, even during the time that this new law was otherwise widely discussed. Not even during the Toronto Pride Week, when the transgressive sodomites otherwise filled every television screen, there was no mention whatsoever about their demands about the age of consent. I guess that all these merry gays wouldn't have seemed quite as jolly and nonthreatening to the viewing audiences.

We all know perfectly well what would happen if some gay rights activist, perhaps sounding like that NAMBLA answering machine guy from that classic Howard Stern show audioclip, had announced in some national newscast that the rubes actually watch that he is "proud to be a boylover". That would have basically marked the end of the whole gay liberation movement and undone everything that they have achieved over the past few decades. (That was a free hint to all you anti-gay bigots there, in case you missed it.)

And yes, the term "boylover" is totally appropriate for men who want to have anal sex with 14-year-old boys. As we have learned from that recent rape case in Iraq, 15-year-old females are not women but "girls". So certainly 14-year males are not "men" but "boys", yes? An adult man who wants to have sex with 14-year-old boys is a boylover, plain and simple. And an organization that supports him in this task is an organization of boylovers.

But perhaps I am now being totally unfair to the sodomites. Surely the vast but silent and invisible majority of gay men in Canada are good solid citizens and hardworking taxpayers, and not some scummy boylovers lurking near schools and public bathrooms. Perhaps these men also feel deep shame for the totally gay demands made in their name, demands of allowing adult perverts to violently stick their penises into the delicate rectal tissues of teenage boys, so that they can use these boys as nothing but soft and wet holes for their filthy and perverted pleasures. One would certainly hope this to be so. But in that case, pretty please, could somebody point me to the organization of gay men that supports the Harper government's raising the age of consent?

In other words, where is the voice of the rational gay community in Canada?

Posted by Ilkka Kokkarinen on Friday, July 21, 2006 at 3:09 PM