How homosexuality is destroying the English-speaking world
August 19, 2011 6 Comments
Cultural anthropologists have observed that a language and culture are keenly intertwined – language being a centrepiece and primary medium of culture – and that as one decays, so too does the other. With this in mind, I come with a warning:
***homosexuality is eroding English-speaking civilizations***
Marcus Bachmann was right for calling them "gay barbarians"
Don’t say another word before you learn about how homosexuality is tearing down our civilization one word at a time
Morphemes are the semantic atoms of language. They are the smallest units of meaning within a community’s lexicon. Homosexuality has gone atomic in its culturally deleterious effects, morphing our morphology.
To demonstrate, consider a hypothetical parallel culture wherein homosexuality never appeared. Lets say that I exist in this culture – a parallel me. Maybe one day I ponder to myself “hmmm, I wonder what a penis tastes like…”. The inquiring individual that I am, I attempt to taste my own. This inevitably is an unsuccessful effort. So, naturally I go out and try to avail myself of another strapping young chaps junk. So there I am, on the street, stooped over with an inquisitive look on my face as I taste a cooperative inquiry-supporting fellow’s third leg.
As this happens, an onlooker says “Oh, isn’t that queer”. But they don’t mean queer as in homosexual, but as in peculiar.
Now what if by chance I find that the penis tastes rather good – an entirely possible outcome. Maybe a smile comes across my face as I have my mouth full. Then another onlooker says “Oh, look at that gay guy”. But they don’t mean gay as in homosexual, but as in happy.
Do you see what has happened here? Homosexuality as a cultural phenomenon has changed how we use words. What is more, this supposedly benign influence is not limited to North America. When was the last time that a British man has been able to say “can I bum a fag” in polite conversation?
And homosexuals are not the only ones causing problems – though they are clearly the worst. What about prostitutes? Because of them, I can’t go up to another fella and say “Hey, lookin’ for a good time?” without him assuming that I’ve got something inappropriate in mind. Seriously. Who isn’t looking for a good time?
I’m with Republican Presidential candidate Michele Bachmann’s prey-the-gay-away husband, Marcus: we need to stop this gay barbarism. Lets reverse the course. From now on, gay only means “happy”, queer only means “peculiar”, there is nothing inappropriate about bumming fags every once in a while just as long as you let others bum your fags, and “lookin’ for a good time” is treated once more as a legitimate inquiry.
It’s time to take back the words.
About Ron Brown
Enjoy your homo milk.
LOL
Winning.
Pingback: Posts from the current blog: Death By Trolley « The Frame Problem
As a straight guy of relatively advanced years, who found this link on MyDD, I found it fortunate that the web page is illustrated with the cable car of my favorite American city, lest I might have wondered if this was a serious bit of satire or just serious. Excellent bit of keeping tongue in cheek or whatever.
I have a slightly peculiar habit of reading very old texts and damned if I can remember what, but there was in a 200+ year old text concerning Dr. Johnson and a reference to his relationship with a “very gay” young Hussar or whatever. It could have been read in either a modern or contemporary way. I suspect some of the good doctor’s definitions of gay might after some permutations be seen as a root of the current usage, but who knows. A bit of etymological research suggests the usage dates from perhaps 1893, but it was a concurrent usage at least through my youth in the 50s and 60s. I think that queer may still have a considerable amount of concurrent usage, with a tilt in straight circles, at least of a certain age, it still follows the old style.
We could put all of this category of decimate or decimation, all of which I would prefer as a punishment inflicted on a tenth (however many times or by what manger) as opposed to wanton and near total destruction. I apparently lost that war 500 years ago.
But the question you raise elsewhere about what are progressives to do about Obama is more interesting. I don’t know, given the alternative. He has a mixed record on LBGT issues, but more through a lack of courage or grit than obstacle. I’m ambivalent. To the extent there is progress, it’s been accomplished by very subtle politics — and who’d have thought Mormor Harry Reid would be tweeting Lady Gaga about DADT. That guy’s older than me by several years, okay by four.
I made a promise to myself I wouldn’t vote for anyone who voted to make cuts or damage Social Security, Medicare or make unnecessary cuts in either SSI or Medicaid. It sounds like a weasel on the latter two but it’s not. My trip mark is hair trigger. Those might not seem important to some, but as someone who’s already retired, 70 is too old to retire for people after me, Medical care for the aged is critical but rather than limiting it to the very old, we should expand it to everyone, an dbefore that to those who are critically ill or soon to be. No one should die for a lack of available drugs.
Even absent marriage, anyone should be able to designate who is responsible for authorizing care or visits or whatever. I might trust a close friend before I trust a family member. This is not a preference for civil unions over marriage, but a recognition that non-familiar relationships sometimes transcend familial. It isn’t just a a question of LBGT rights, but beyond that, that we have many non-conventional, non-marital relationships that are important and involve people we trust.
But my real question for Obama is this. What are you going to do about the tourists grabbing all the seats on the cable cars around the BV turnaround and what are you going to do about the lack of cabs? Do we have a choice.
My initial inclination was to say “I think that Obama has been an abysmal failure”. But then I remember that I no longer think that he ever had real progressive intentions. He’s been incredibly effective at neutering progressives and bolstering various American Upper Class serving agendas – sometimes better than any Republican could have; It’s hard to imagine how he could have accomplished so much in this direction by a series of accidents. He’s clearly complicit.