When you're gay

Success at age 8 is: playing a fairy and knowing you are one
success at age 18 is: having sex and being able to get paid for it
success at age 28 is: popping a pill to keep going all weekend
success at age 38 is: having a boyfriend who loves you for your body
success at age 48 is: having a boyfriend who loves you for your mind
success at age 58 is: popping a pill to keep going all weekend
success at age 68 is: having sex and being able to pay for it
success at age 78 is: playing a fairy and knowing you have always been one

Bisexual, bi-curious or bifurcated bollocks?

Mark Simpson wrote a lengthy commentary on American "research" that found males are 27 times less likely than women to be attracted to the same sex. He rightly skewered the report as an outcome of social attitudes rather than actual sexual behaviour, and then goes on to "salvage" male bisexuality from the current trends to make it (males who are attracted to both sexes) disappear into a puff of what is tendentiously called "bi-curiousness" (straight males trying to find out what all the fuss is about they heard of).
As any male knows, only your mates assign you a sexual orientation, based on their perception, your alleged behaviour and, occasionally, your protestations. Women, in contrast, will always be women but men are only socially labelled "real men" after a passing muster with other men. Professing an interest in other males or any kind of "deviant" (i.e. all non-hetero) sexuality will guarantee you the label queer, no matter how many women you sleep with or insist your "deviancy" is out of curiosity rather than taste, or, worse, orientation.
This is a longstanding given in male social history. The ancient Greeks were not "bisexual" but actively interested in fucking epheboi, adolescents in the first bloom of adulthood. They would have scoffed at the notions of our modern gay sexual orientation definitions. Even the label bisexual would have been laughed at as dishonourable for men - if it meant taking the passive female position in sexual intercourse.
This is why in the current fashionable vogue of "bi-curiousness" or bisexual claims by many a straight man isn't really all what it seems. When I meet those guys in a sex club, they are there - dusty boots and check shirts included, straight from the building site - not to get some sweet loving from a male because the girlfriend is unavailable, nor to try out being anally penetrated - you'll get a slap if you suggested it to them - but to get a good blowjob, because they have heard we give them better than their girlfriends.
So I think labelling males who seek out other males to perform sexual services on them they normally expect and get from their girlfriends as bisexual a tad misleading. And they wouldn't describe themselves as such either: recall the many interviews with male hustlers who only take an active role - they never regard themselves as gay.
Top and bottom roles, as this is familiarly known in the gayworld, matter more to the sexual self-definition of the exploring straight male, than labels such as gay, bisexual or queer.
Mark relates an episode from his own sex life - something he does not do enough of, it's all theoretical bones without some hot muscle!:

A separated ‘bi-curious’ fireman in rural England I met a few times before he went back to his wife recently contacted me to tell me something rather alarming. ‘She found out about you,’ he said. ‘She hacked into my Hotmail account.’ ‘Oh, shit,’ I said. ‘What did she do? Did she throw you out?’
‘No,’ he said. ‘She got turned on! She wants to watch.’ The poor guy had to tell her that that this really was a kinky bridge too far for him. That he was too much a traditionalist to go down that path...

But Mark leaves out the most crucial bit of information that would support my argument (or not): did he top or bottom before he went back to his wife? We should be informed! Real bisexuals take it up the arse like a man before they go back to their girlfriend. All the rest is "bi-curious" cant.

Our favourite pastime: fisking Garth "Vader" George

Good ole George is back from his Anzac trip to his heroes' fields in yonder Turkey and it was a pity he didn't take the opportunity to have a look around the bits of Europe he is scathing about in his latest column.

Except for Newstalk ZB's morning host, Leighton Smith, I have never heard anyone predict the eventual disintegration of the European Union, and sooner rather than later.

That's because Leighton Smith talks about everything out of his arse, as is his wont as a talkback radio host, we don't expect anything else. I've never heard much talk about the eventual disintegration of the United States either, blue and red states notwithstanding, but that doesn't mean it's about to happen, no matter how welcome that would be.

Yet for years I have held the opinion that this unwieldy collection of different nations cannot survive as an entity and that the more additional economic, social and political connections that are made, the less likely it is to survive.

Garth, the sociologist and politocologist, swimming against the tide of social progress, peace, tolerance and just plain common sense, obviously prefers the pre-war arrangement, in vogue since the Celts were defeated by the Romans, with occasional bloody wars alternating with tense ceasefires, Inquisitorial screams and the sweet smell of heretical burnings.

The resounding "non" in the referendum on the proposed EU constitution held in France this week is merely the first major breeze through the house-of-cards structure that is European "unity". And at the time of writing it is expected that the Dutch, fiercely protective of the sovereignty of their damp little patch of dirt, will follow suit. That the breach happened in France comes as no surprise, for the French are probably the most nationalistic, insular and xenophobic of all Europeans.

So hurray for the Dutch protecting their polder but boo to the French for wanting to give Chirac a bloody nose.

The court action to suppress courtroom videotapes by the undercover Rainbow Warrior killers, Mafart and Prieur, is simply further evidence - although none is needed - of the selfishness and arrogance of this insufferable race.

Garth couldn't afford the French champagne to celebrate the attack on those horrible, pagan, nay, even godless, green activists? Or was he just not invited to the party?

It would have been interesting if Germany had held a referendum instead of deciding the constitution issue in the Bundestag. But Gerhard Schroeder wasn't as silly as the doddering Jacques Chirac. He probably knew that a referendum would be doomed to failure in a country in which neo-Nazism flourishes mainly as a result of European Union racial liberalism.

Ah, the war and the Nazis, never ending sources for the self-identification of Garth's generation. Everything is frozen since 8 May 1945, Germany isn't really not one of us, there are still all those Nazis under the bed, no wonder referendums are frowned upon - never mind that the Allied designed constitution does not make room for plebiscites, not since the rather unfortunate experience before the war with them (just Google plebiscites, Anschluss, Sudetenland).

And I wonder, too, what the results might have been had Austria and Italy asked their populations to decide. Greece, too, with Turkey knocking on the EU's door. In Britain, which to its credit has remained more at arm's length from the EU than most, Tony Blair seems sure to think twice about the referendum planned for next year because there is nothing surer than that the Brits would deliver an even stronger "no" than the French.

Never you mind that Britain has been the most ardent proponent of EU enlargement - in a thinly veiled bid to dilute a Franco-German axis of power in the EU - and is campaigning for Turkey's entry too.

How anyone can believe that this assortment of nations can form such an intimate relationship and make it last is beyond me, although I'm sure it makes perfect sense to the post-modernist utopianists who devised it and built it. They seem to think that history can be ignored, that nationhood, race, ethnicity and culture developed and nurtured over thousands of years can suddenly be subsumed to a perceived "good".

I often ask myself the same question about the United States, Brazil, India, Russia and China.

They seem to think that in this New Age of political correctness, ancient rivalries - often virulent hatreds - can be overcome and forgotten as if they had never happened. The whole of European history says bollocks to that. But, once again, the post-modernists hold sway, the multiculturalists who believe that all cultures are equivalent and thus can live together in harmony. World history says bollocks to that, too.

The history and unrivalled success of the EU has been about saying bollocks to those irrational "hatreds", which were mostly fostered by religious fanatics such as the Catholic Church, their protestant counterparts and now their Islamist partners in crime. A "Coalition of the Circumcised" (c)Uroskin arraigned against the secular Enlightenment project that the EU is.
Not content with just being a religious nationalist, he swallows whole the pseudo-anti-capitalist line that it's all about the money:

Why have these things been done - the attempts to make Western Europe's disparate nations into one amorphous country, and the attempts to integrate disparate races into one New Zealand? It's all been done in the pursuit of money.

But then, it's not about the money. No, the superannuated mind twists and turns in its swamp of illogicality (will he ever be able to make his mind up about anything?):

Thus are we reduced by the neo-Marxists to the economic units proclaimed by Karl Marx himself. He must be laughing his head off in whatever hell he inhabits to see that what his original philosophies miserably failed to achieve are being pursued afresh by a new breed.

And then Garth fires his moneyshot:

And I'll tell you what: The European Union will disintegrate just as the Soviet Union did. Why? Because the foundations upon which they both were and are built are Godless.

Well, I'd rather be godless than clueless.

Fisking Garth "Vader" George

Good ole doddery Garth is at it again.

The public relations campaign aimed at the acceptance of homosexuals and the homosexual lifestyle as "normal" has been going on for nearly 40 years and it has to be said that it has been the most outstandingly successful example of spin-doctoring in the history of mankind.

And let's not forget that's much faster than the feminist movement, which had to wait 50 years to get the vote and is still waiting for pay equity. And it took 5,000 years for slaves to get their condition abolished (or at least be treated as "normal", see: sex slavery, indebted bondage and people smuggling).

Thus, within a few decades of coming out of the closet, homosexuals are to be found in all areas of life. They are in positions of influence in all the mainline churches, all the professions, in the media, the justice system and law enforcement, healthcare, education, Government agencies (human rights, censorship, Aids), and state bureaucracies in general.

And let's not forget the All Blacks, the armed forces, successful capitalist enterprises, the arts and hairdressing crafts. In the past, which is not a foreign country for our Garth - he fondly remembers and pines for the era when buggery and margarine were illegal - no homosexual person, closeted or gossiped about, has ever held a job, in public or private sectors. No, they lived on eating babies, poisoning wells and consorting with the Evil One.

And in comparatively recent years homosexuals have been elected to the legislatures, not just of New Zealand but of countries all over the world.

Damn democracy, damn elections, damn universal franchise.

Yet all the best and most objective evidence suggests that they compose a maximum of 2 per cent, and probably less, of the population, in this country at least.

2%? We surely have enough firewood to build the stakes for all of them. While we're at it, why not proscribe any religious adherents (a lifestyle choice if ever there was one!) of sects, nay, cults, that represent less than 2%? Their lifestyle choice is not a valid one so their religion should not deserve the recognition of the true path laid out by the bishop Garth.

It is an astounding story of success for what was a seriously disadvantaged minority group and just goes to show what can be achieved by single-minded effort, sacrifice and perseverance.

Yeah, see if you can top that effort, ACT members. 2%! 2%! 2%!

As I have said before, I am prepared to bet a year's pay that if the Civil Union Bill and its much more sinister sister, the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill, were put to secret ballot by referendum, they would be soundly defeated.

And we're willing to bet Garth's Herald writing fee that if a referendum was held to decide on whether pensioners should be paid out of current worker wage packets (especially when said pensioners are drawing a nice packet from writing moralistic sermons in the local daily about how said workers should lead their lives and organise their relationships), or whether Viagra should be classified as a class A drug and condemned as a lifetyle choice because said pensioners use it as part of their hedonism without leading to conception, there may not be much doubt about that outcome either.

So I will simply sit back and take comfort once again in those wonderful and eternal words uttered by our Lord Jesus Christ just minutes before he died hanging on the Cross

If only Mel Gibson had taken Garth's advice instead of lumping us with such an interminable dirge.

I will simply sit back and take comfort that Garth George uncannily resembles one of those dinosaurs looking anxiously up into the sky at that flash of light 65 million years ago.

Fisking Garth "Vader" George

The Herald's resident old doddery Garth was at it again this week, a few choice extracts:

Most New Zealanders are uncomfortable with the idea of giving an unnecessary legitimacy to same-sex relationships.

It's only a hunch of his, though. He probably did a straw poll in his Avondale Heights RSA.

There are only 10,000 New Zealanders in such relationships - less than a minuscule 0.25 per cent of our entire population.

There are only 10,000 New Zealanders in Gore. Shall we use the last of the Kupe gas to get rid of them and thus remove the hillbilly stain it smirches on our national image?

There is no need to give same-sex couples a status in law similar to that of married couples, because a few minor changes to existing law would overcome the most often trotted out excuses.

Which is exactly what the Omnibus Bill does.

The spearhead of opposition to the Civil Union Bill has come into the hands of the Destiny Church, whose leaders have never learned the lesson that it's not what you say but how you say it that counts.

And Garth has mastered that art so well he is allowed spout his opinion in dulcet tones in the biggest newspaper in New Zealand; gets paid for it; and gets readers to pay for it.
Geez, that's one better on Brian Tamaki (but our Brian is on the main television channel, he doesn't need newspapers - the image comes before the Word at the Destiny Church).

It's a pity that Destiny has received so little support from other church groups and denominations.

Another reader of the newspaper suggested the reason for this: "With all this business about civil unions, I am just thankful that the Anglican Church's founder, Henry VIII, and his wife Catherine of Aragon, and his wife Anne Boleyn, and his wife Jane Seymour, and his wife Anne of Cleves, and his wife Katherine Howard, and his wife Catherine Parr are no longer here to suffer through this assault on traditional Christian marriage." Nuff said!

The heterophobic homosexual community [...] is geared to react at a moment's notice to even the mildest criticism of its lifestyle and aspirations.

Oh George, don't do yourself down! "mildest"? You disappoint me. Give me some vitriolic criticism! Maybe you amuse me then.

Poor Whakahuihui Vercoe, the Archbishop of the Anglican Church in New Zealand, who gave from his heart his view of homosexuality.

That poor old senile sod was dealt with by the gay mafia ages ago.

I would bet a year's salary that if a referendum were held tomorrow on whether the bill should be passed, the answer would be a resounding "no" by a huge majority.

If you held a referendum to bring in stringing up all those promiscuous non-procreative gays, or all those promiscuous and very procreative other minorities, or just to get rid of Asian drivers, you'd get an easy majority too. Nice to see George spelling out that he's in favour of majoritarian rule rather than democracy. Our society and politics are in safe hands with pensioners like George who have nothing to do all day but think up the latest thing that might frighten their horses.

This is not a human rights issue, not a moral issue, not a religious issue: it is simply a physical issue [...] to ensure the continuation of the human race by the procreation of children.

Can I be the celebrant presiding over the dissolution of Garth George's marriage, since his wife, being post-menopausal, is incapable of doing the proper physical thing and breed? Their marriage, by Ol' George's logic, is a sham and can't be legally recognised anymore as his couplings can't result in any breeding.
My guess is that this "biological" basis of marriage laws is just a ruse by dirty old men who want to shack up with younger women, since there is a better chance of procreation.