Saturday, February 21, 2009

Nail

[note: I was going to write about the sermon of the tenth plague today, but this came up instead. I guess I'll cover that sometime this upcoming week.]

I heard someone actually use the word "nail" in reference to sex recently. Can you believe that? This term is such an obvious reference to penis-in-orifice (doesn't really matter which one) fucking that it barely qualifies as a "double-entendre." Then there's the whole gender roles issue. Can a woman "nail" a man? How about another woman? How can we use outdated colloquialisms referencing phalluses to describe an act in which no phalluses are involved? Of course, the answer to this is that it doesn't matter. We're post-modern now. Words mean whatever we want them to mean. It doesn't matter that this expression is another holdover from the era of male dominance over women; an era in which the man is the subject and the woman is the object; not just in terms of sex, but in all areas of life. This is a medieval concept which is just now barely starting on the path to obsolescence.

Here, I also have to talk about gay marriage, at least this one aspect of it. Those who are in favor of prohibiting it (let's call them "fascists," 'cause it's shorter than "totalitarians" even though it's slightly less accurate) would claim that "changing the definition of marriage" would lead to "the destruction of Western Society!" They seemingly fail to realize that "the definition of marriage" even now is not singular. There is the Catholic Church's definition of marriage; each state in America has a definition of marriage that isn't necessarily the same as the others. The list goes on. Marriage used to be a property arrangement: an exchange of a person for property. Until probably the 60s, everyone's idea of marriage consisted of a man who would work eight hours a day and then come home to his wife who would stay at home submissively doing housework, cooking all meals, never allowed to deny the husband sex, yet never allowed to use birth control either... hm... also involved in the marriage were 7.5 children and a dog or whatever. Interracial marriage wasn't even legal throughout the entire country until 1967! You might say "well, the common denominator is that it was always one man and one woman." Of course, polygamy has been common practice throughout history and still is in many parts of the world. But the point is not who is involved in the arrangement; the point is that the nature of the arrangement has changed fundamentally over time and cultures. Legally, in the U.S., marriage is simply a contract (that happens to come with many privileges and responsibilities). I see no reason and can think of no other example in which we deny two individuals the right to engage in a voluntary legal contract that harms no one!

If you are against gay marriage, I have a question for you: do you even know any gay people? They're not Satan. They're human beings. They deserve the same rights as any other human being. (If you call yourself a "Christian") I bet Jesus is really proud of you for using words he never wrote to oppress and demonize people and compare them to criminals. Nice going, assholes!

1 comment :