By NotSoFast, February 10: “...this clip is hilarious.  Didn’t you find it amusing…”

If you are talking to me, yes I did, NotSoFast. Also couldn’t help but notice how Solmonese kept rolling his eyes. And it was he who brought up the subject of marriage…...

Of course, there are childless marriages of different kinds but it is basically a social construct for childrearing (for better or worse). My intention with both that and the male sexuality thing was to put some ideas out for discussion.

After all, this blog has been sitting for a couple of days with hardly anyone game to comment…..... but its not only all about gays. It is also about how straights look at gays. I also posed a question about a perceived “agenda”.

I’m not sure I’m getting your overall point.  Your sweeping generalizations about how gays experience desire differently from straights is wildly speculative and wholly unconvincing.  I know plenty of gay men who seem to be all about appearance and “Its all in their eyes and their hands and their dicks….”  If there is something about your personal sexuality that you find less than fulfilling, I would recommend you look at it as your own issue, and I hope you find more connection, but please be careful what conclusions you draw about whole groups of people. 

Secondly, your desire to equate marriage to children is also puzzling.  I know plenty of married couples who don’t have children.  I think they would find it insulting that their marriage is in some sense less legitimate.

Thirdly, this clip is hilarious.  Didn’t you find it amusing?

First of all, what was the red wrist band about - there are so many reasons? Surely it wasn’t a “Think Red!” one, uhh?

By the time you get through part 2, one finds that Stephen Colbert still defines sexuality as what he is looking at rather than what he feels within himself. That is the usual straight male quandary of objectifying desire with “the other” instead of the inner hormonal responses giving rise to one’s own arousal.

The fact is that they are different for homosexuals, partially different for bi-sexuals and the poor straight male of the species is even less aware then the female of what really goes on in his own body. They just don’t get it, ha ha! Its all in their eyes and their hands and their dicks….....

But there is another side to this interview that is far more serious. It is the intention of gays to become “mainstream”  rather than simply another minority group. This is a known agenda and it is somewhat sinister in the way it has been more or less aggressively promoted.

First some quotes….....

Colbert: “Are you saying that only homosexuals are humans and that straight people aren’t humans…?”

Solmonese:  “I think of it as more wanting to strengthen and expand the institution of marriage…”

Colbert: “You know what…. we’ve been made ashamed of being straight by gay people…”

Its all very well for Joe Solmonese to say that “In this country, all Americans deserve equal rights…”  but is that what he really means? Apparently changing marriage from principally a childbearing and childrearing institution to a ‘male or female’  partnership rather than a ‘male and female’  partnership is not considered to be impinging on the rights of children or of mothers.

Well, perhaps that is OK if people are willing to work through the issue of separating ‘childbearing’  from ‘childrearing’  but it will not really work. The next thing that comes along is artificial insemination and lesbian mothers. The further we move away from the standard sexual functions of reproduction, the more complicated it gets by including parenting roles in other than heterosexual arrangements.

That’s not to say that it should be illegal but there is a lot of ground to cover in order that everyone stays happy. After all, that is the main ideal in life. Our happiness is our joy of living and out longevity. Any negativity deprives us through adverse psychological states and negative endocrine system disruptions. Obviously, not all straight people are very happy anyway so maybe gays can contribute…....

But the real issue of concern is how and when and why a marginal group should become mainstream and to what extent. There were always different groups playing covert games to their own advantage. Outing all gays, so to speak, would remove them from the secretive world that they one inhabited and had to remain in. It really depends on how gays see the extent of their own “agenda”.

After all, they are no worse than other interest groups such as drunken rapacious footballers and other aggressive sportsmen who inflict their presumed straightness upon all in the worst possible ways. It could be that a more general political and legal acceptance of gays would help stabilize a very erratic social mainstream by inclusiveness rather than the customary arrogant but ignorant exclusion.