Monday, August 29, 2011

Johnny Spaghetti Stain

by Tom Wise

"Why is it that Johnny Spaghetti Stain in **** Georgia can knock a woman up, legally be married to her, and then beat the **** out of her, but these two intelligent, sophisticated writers who have been together for 20 years can't get married?" - Seth McFarlane, Family Guy creator

This quote is already a couple of years old but it may be among the most dishonest statements I've ever read, for the following reasons:

(1) Married heterosexuals:

- live in Georgia

- are or have been promiscuous

- are abusive

- eat pasta without a bib

With that image in mind, we are supposed to be outraged. Why? Is it that Mr. Stain lives in a southern state? Is it that he has had sexual relations? Is it that he has taken the pregnant future Mrs. Stain to the altar? Is it that he is messy? Is it that he is abusive? Aha! Without the abuse, Stain is just a young kid with his brains in his pants. So, it is the sneaky insertion of a battered Mrs. Stain (let’s call her Ellen) which is meant to evoke sympathy. Does this mean abusive men do not exist? Of course not. However, McFarlane stilts his language in hopes that the mind will accept heterosexuality as the more abusive realm. Statistically, he may be correct, given that heterosexuals far outnumber homosexuals. But is this per capita? I’m sure McFarlane has these statistics at his fingertips. If he does, why? Is it his intention to bludgeon us with numbers in order to make his imaginary cartoonish beast more real? If, however, he does not have those numbers, I resent his uninformed bluster. But returning to McFarlane’s tale of woe, the chicanery is ongoing, for Stain does not begin the beatings until after marriage. Apparently, something about Ellen has caused Johnny to go off his nut. This is a relational issue, not a heterosexual issue.

McFarlane is, in his own way, a prude by disapproving of Ellen’s promiscuity (at least with Johnny Rotten!). At the same time, he is a hypocrite, championing a class of people whose sole claim to its status is sexuality.

McFarlane is also mean-spirited, giving Ellen no credit for desiring to raise her child in a two-parent household. One might say that McFarlane has only contempt for marriage, this opinion supported by his factual lifelong bachelorhood. But while he without experience clucks over the traditional man-woman family, the not-gay McFarlane promotes himself as an expert in homosexual intertwining.

This, of course, is a ruse. McFarlane could care less about Johnny and Ellen, or for that matter his gay friends. His beef is with the society that permits one such couple to be married but another to be forbidden from marriage. McFarlane has attempted to make society responsible for Ellen’s situation, but also for separating a fine gay couple. It is one and the same for McFarlane, Ellen’s black eye and the rough treatment of the homosexual duo. If only “society” would get itself together.

The Stains are a tool for McFarlane. If Johnny had been a real person, not a McFarlane canvas, he would possess the free will to move out of Georgia, wait until marriage to have sex, use birth control, or have a steak once in a while. McFarlane doesn’t give him this latitude of thought. Johnny is a puppet, scripted to incriminate damnable civilization. In a way, McFarlane plays God by placing them in that predicament. But if he can write it bad, why can’t he write it good?

Underlying all this is a conspiratorial tone, that freedom isn’t for everyone. According to McFarlane, it shouldn’t apply to that dirtbag Johnny, or to that slut Ellen, and not to the legislators who still permit such trash from tying the knot. I suppose in a perfect world McFarlane would have them removed from the city limits, to some “farm” (gulag). I’m not saying that every living person is a bastion of liberty (looks at McFarlane), but what’s the “solution”? Should we decide who gets to procreate? I guarantee you that would bring a resounding “Yea!” from McFarlane, not to mention the Hollywood/New York elite crowd. McFarlane doesn’t like the status quo establishment but he’s not against founding a new power structure to force his own views, however nasty. Is there a man in Georgia right now who fits the description of Stain? Of course. But it neglects the tens of millions upstanding, even-tempered, kind, classy, laundered married couples that live in Georgia and elsewhere. And that seems too much for McFarlane to defend.

(2) Gay people:

- are intelligent

- are sophisticated

- are monogamous

- are loyal

- are professional

McFarlane’s strategy is neat and concise. Having delivered the requisite heterosexual product through small-town crazies Johnny and Ellen, it’s time to play up the big-city gay couple who happen to be power players. There’s no contest, of course (any rational being must prefer you-know-who). Again, this is sneaky. It gives us false choices and makes moral demands. “Will it be stupid or smart? Low hairline or digital dexterity?” It advertises gays as more evolved while thrusting heterosexuals to the service entrance.

Are no gays unintelligent? Are none low-rent, disagreeable, multi-partnered? Do they not curse, get into drunken car wrecks, steal and murder? There’s nothing special about gays, whether it concerns success or virtue. McFarlane apparently feels differently. He is the guardian of their galaxy. He must swoop down like Tarzan to rescue them from trampling trailer trash. If you disagree, you are not worthy to join him for cocktails – uh.... – for drinks. Even if you’re neutral, you must be racist (if gay is genetic).

A hard thing for McFarlane to grasp (um...) is that gays are human, not above the fray. The law of nature and the laws of God apply to gays also. This naturally links us back to the Stain family, who in their misery reach for the Scriptures so that Johnny can claim he has the right to make his wife “submit.” This is meant to not disparage Johnny-boy as much as the Bible. Which makes sense, since “thou shalt not lie with another man as you would a woman” is right there in black and white. It’s not only imperative for McFarlane to denounce such “fictional literature” but also to link it with sub-humans. Thus, we are strewn further from reality by the ravings of a self-confessed atheist (McFarlane). Having lost the moral argument from the standpoint of what people actually believe rather than that which atheists claim is “real,” McFarlane is cornered. The only remaining strategy is to attack: “Anybody who thinks the Bible is real is stupid! And probably beats his wife!”

This is the sum of equality for which McFarlane pines: he gets to insult you, and you get to laugh at his cartoons. Meanwhile, hand over your right to free speech because you’re too stupid to use it. And he should know.

(3) McFarlane wants us to treat gays equally but he has created a scenario where gays are superior. And yes, by siding with the gay couple, those upstanding citizens, McFarlane is superior also. The message is: join us or be inferior. Thus, equality is true only when we agree with our adversary. Well, to be fair, shouldn’t gays agree with heterosexuals? No? I didn’t think so. What? You say gays have put up with straights for too long already? What does “put up with” mean? And what is the alternative? Forcing your views down everyone’s throats – uh...

By juxtaposing the gay Cleavers with Mr. Stain, we are indoctrinated. McFarlane uses that pig, Stain, to leverage for Ward and Ward special dispensation for that which society-at-large rejects. McFarlane is playing the victim card for his pals: “Look! These fine folks don’t even have the same rights as that crumb in Georgia!” OK. We will treat your gay friends the same way we would treat Stain – with contempt. I'll tell you what: I'll deny Johnny Spaghetti his marriage (not that it will last) if you will limit your request to the two caballeros. Naturally, what I have just said is inflammatory. This is the danger when analyzing such dishonesty: you find yourself surrounded by land mines placed well in advance. Of course McFarlane knows he’s laid this trap. He’s a scriptwriter!

Note, however, that even calling the union of two men a union of two men is met with a charge of hate speech. There is no equality when dealing with someone who is continually living the victim mentality. McFarlane does a great job positioning the pawns. However, all it takes to defeat him at this game is to call it for what it is – a lie. It’s not chess, it’s three-card Monte. This is not a debate, it’s a scene from Kafka’s Trial. By such maneuvers, whoever rejects McFarlane’s concepts is not just a boob, but a dangerous dissident!

(4) McFarlane’s demand that homosexuals be allowed to marry just like Mr. Stain is actually a compliment. By his proposal, heterosexual marriage is the highest form of relationship. If it is not, why does the very superior gay want a piece of the action? If they’re so smart, why can’t they think of a more clever arrangement than that found in Genesis?

Reference this with Brown vs. Board of Education. In this landmark case, the Supreme Court essentially ruled that black people can’t learn unless they’re surrounded by white people. McFarlane’s claim is that gays can’t function in heterosexual society unless they are integrated with straights. But the reverse was never true. The Supreme Court did not assert that whites were disenfranchised by segregation, and McFarlane is not claiming that Johnny Spaghetti beats his wife because of his alienation from homosexuals. In fact, one should think the opposite: that by commingling with whites blacks would become more bigoted, and that by taking on the trappings of heterosexual marriage gays would become more violent and messier.

But the gay marriage “movement” is not a matter of equality, just a weapon with which to criticize heterosexual supremacy. The point is exactly to neuter heterosexuality hegemony. In the same manner, one might say that Brown vs. Board could never elevate blacks but only disempower whites. Have blacks benefited from integration? This is difficult to say since many blacks think not. Will gays gain from marriage rights? Perhaps monetarily, but perhaps not socially except that heterosexual marriage may take a knock. Again, hard to predict.

McFarlane’s statement does not reflect equality. By denigrating Johnny and Ellen, he diminishes heterosexual marriage to the point that no gay should ever desire marriage at all. The Stains are (by McFarlane’s gambit, not in reality) the worst of heterosexuality. By extension, only the most horrid elements of gaydom (don’t ask!) are justified. You can’t claim something is good (gay marriage) by placing it side-by-side with terrible elements (Stain) from the other side of the coin (heterosexual marriage). The coin is corrupted to the point where one must ask, “Why do you want to be on the coin?” A bridge falling down is not confirmation that we need more types of bridges! If heterosexual marriage is so bad, homosexuals should be running for the hills.

(5) Stain’s marriage is by society condoned as marriage because it’s heterosexual. Mr. Stain himself is not admired, and Mrs. Stain is pitied. By the same token, gay marriage is not accepted precisely because it is gay. Gays disallowed from marriage could be the nicest people in the world (nicer than Johnny and Ellen!) but just because they make better neighbors doesn’t mean they are eligible for something heterosexual. This is a simple case of community preference.

Marriage is also religious. Since the majority of communities are Judeo-Christian, it is anti-community to disavow the religious preferences of the majority for the feelings of a few. Churches cannot and should not be pressed to accept gay marriage or gay members. The opposite position (McFarlane’s) is that the majority can go suck an egg because they are bigoted. This does not help the case and loses the argument.

Marriage is also financial. Whether or not we like it, taxes are real. Services derive from taxes. Since the majority of communities are Christian, governmental services should not be appropriated to pay for things which the prevailing religious bloc rejects (homosexuality, abortion, etc). In reality, community taxes are distributed by agenda. It would therefore behoove the gay community to seek office. However, if they are rejected by their openness, whether sexuality or agenda, this is what democracy looks like. Equal opportunity does not ensure outcome.

But if you say, “The government shouldn’t get involved in sexuality and marriage,” I agree! So let’s stop bringing these cases to the Supreme Court! Naturally, I know that this is not the meaning of the plea, which is why “discrimination” is invoked. Philosophically, discrimination is a non-issue. Liberty means the right to deny a person charity. The only other option is coercive charity, which means redistribution of wealth and forced society. Since we all desire freedom, it is not incorrect that a store owner can deny service to a black man. However, the government cannot officially condone that by legislation. On the other hand, the measure to bring National Guard to Alabama to force black-white school integration was correct. Education is not to be denied. The same applies to police protection and street sweeping. Equal treatment by government employees is to be the law. But equal treatment from churches, shopkeepers, and the like is not to be enforced through government means.

Isn’t the marriage bureau a government agency? Yes. Isn’t the tax collector a government agency? Yes. Isn’t the distribution of collected taxes accomplished through government agency? Yes. Then why isn’t gay marriage legal? Because it interferes with freedom of religion. The same logic should say that guns may be regulated through governmental agency even if it interferes with the Second Amendment. Whether you are for or against guns, you must agree both in theory and practice that the inability to defend oneself by the same means as government may oppress (guns) is morally wrong and unconstitutional. Gun regulations are not Constitutionally correct, only legislated. The same is correlated to marriage: if enough regulations are enacted, the Constitutional liberty of individuals to live as they in the majority desire (short of infringing on actual rights, as construed through the Bill of Rights) and to restrain against intrusive government may be circumvented to benefit a minority. In other words, the only way gay marriage will be strictly observed is if government forces it on society.

(6) Another farce is equating homosexual “rights” with black civil rights. A black man is a black man wherever he goes. The bias is ready as soon as he is visible. A gay does not have any proof of gayness except a confession or, more convincingly, a photo. What sort of ID tag is that? Furthermore, the slavery of gays is not well-known. Please enlighten me. Blacks everywhere should be insulted that the rejection of gay marriage is upheld as an example of civil rights violation.

Then, there is the twofold “genetically gay” ploy. First, this is used to prevent anyone from saying that gays can be turned. The fact that gays turn straight every day doesn’t seem to make a ding in the “intelligent” minds of gay defenders. “Turned” gays are not only ammunition against “scientific theory” but also unhooks the moral argument. If gays can change, it is behavioral, which in large part supports the Biblical commandments against that behavior. Second, genetics is employed to equate homosexuality with skin color, that is, a black/gay connection for the sake of getting sympathy. One may as well say, “We all bleed red.” A chipmunk bleeds red, so the link is not made. Chipmunk rights don’t move me.

In any case, the idea of “DNA gayness” works in the opposite direction. If gays are genetically different from heterosexuals, there is no reason to assume that gays need, or even desire, anything heterosexual. Yet, many do. True, some gays don’t care or find such a thing demeaning, and still others would like straight society to be more “queer,” but I think a majority want social acceptability without hostility from either side. This yearning puzzles me.

Why do gays really want marriage rights? The best guess is that the monetary benefits are so attractive. Since we know this to actually be the main bullet point in any impartial list of gay marriage objectives, it boils down to extraction of funds by means of verbal coercion (whether pleading or shouting), dishonest moral imperatives (whether in the name of fairness or by insulting religion), and legal bullying. In short, it is nothing more than a shakedown. Their best deal is that straight society bestows equal treatment and gays remain aloof. Their worst offer is full-blown violent revolution. Google it.

One might think this parallels the black experience, but only in the most superficial manner. Blacks can’t hide their blackness. Gays, whether they like to hear it or not, have the ability (even if not willingness) to blend into straight society without recognition. No, I don’t fault the openly gay man for being beaten. All violent criminals need to be locked up. However, would you wear a yarmulke in an Arab slum without expecting some trouble? Would you as a white man walk through East LA on a dark night? We all have the right to expect protection but not when we ignore peril.

The expectation of morality, on the other hand, is a different story. Where is this morality? What is its makeup? What is its source? Can you dilute it by your personal preferences? And so on.

(6) McFarlane is a typical progressive. Find a victim. Make yourself a martyr for that cause. Cite a personal example to give yourself credibility. Make a louder noise than the actual offended party. Heap guilt upon the supposed oppressor. Claim to be a victim yourself when your position is challenged. Attend parties where like-minded progressive cry about their burdens, in the same way old people sit on the porch comparing aches (at least old people have aches). Use the money you accrued from entertaining the same people you propose to despise in order to foist a new paradigm on your bread-and-butter. Cry more when you fail. Propose some radical form of protest to announce loudly how well you’re failing. Trumpet every judicial win that had no consensus of the population. Drop your equality stance as you realize that you have cheated your way to some legal foothold. Cry when the conservative backlash eventually comes.


Write that, Stewie!

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.