Homosexual Healing

Allow me to explain the situation.

In Norway, a law was recently passed. It's a nice law, tolerant and soft-spoken, a bit naive perhaps, but hey, we all make mistakes. I won't claim to know the details of it, but I know the gist, and the gist is this: Gay couples are now allowed to get married and have children, either through adoption or artificial insemination. Now, in a sane society, we would all go "gee, that's about time, good for them," and move on with our lives. No big whoop, right? But the keyword here is sane: Houston, therein lies your fucking problem.

Turns out a lot of people are bleeding morons; who would have guessed? But my beef, for once, does not lie with the Christian nutcases who, for some reason or another, don't like gay people or want them in their church: So you hate homos, or blacks, or jews, whatever, I can dig it. You're empty-headed bastards, you have the right to say and mean what you want, and that is, after all, one of the virtues of our society: Assholes have the same rights, the same freedom, as the rest of us.

But the people who really get in my windpipe, the ones who make me choke and spit blood out of sheer rage, are the faux liberals who flatly refuse to have coherent opinions. Those who're blind to the fact that one's opinion is not formed on a case-by-case basis, but as principles. The ones who go "it's not that I don't like gays, but think of the consequences!". FYI, the "consequences" they're talking about are the artificial insemination bit. So their argument is that this should not be a part of the new law, that it should be considered a separate case.. wait, someone's whispering something in my ear. One second. Right. Right. What? That's not what they mean? But what do they mean, invisible voice of fucking reason? They oppose the law based on this sperm-thing? They honestly think gays should not be allowed to have children? But they don't hate them? What? WHAT?

I mean, seriously, not making a joke here, but have these people actually got a brain? In working order? Let's go over that again: They don't think homosexuals should be discriminated, yet they oppose the law. Their reasoning is that artifical insemination is dangerous and unethical. But wait, why do they oppose the entire law, and not just the insemination part? I'm confused. Could it be that they're actually pro-discrimination, I wonder? No wait, that was a lie. I don't wonder at all. These people are so fucking afraid of being seen as politically incorrect, that they make up nonsensical arguments and, in the process, make themselves look dumb as mold instead. Want to discuss the ramifications of artificial insemination (god, I'm tired of writing that)? Go right ahead, but keep the poor fucking gays out of it, m'kay?

Argument: But think of the children! Two fathers? Two mothers? Oh, the humanity!
Answer: I wish people who keep sayng "think of the children" shut the hell up and started actually thinking of the children. A lot of children don't have parents. A lot of children have two dads and two moms, or one mom (alcoholic) and one dad (violent) or only one parent (in prison, perhaps). Besides, two dads are way better than one.

Argument: But it's not natural! There's a reason that only heterosexuals can have babies, you know. Mother Nature / God / Allah / Dreidel / The Big Holy Whatthefuckever intended it that way!
Answer: Man cannot fly. From nature's side, we should stay the fuck away from the skies. But we don't. We never do. We build planes, cars, trains. We make weapons, build skyscrapers, cure diseases. It goes like this: Man sees problem. Man uses technology to solve problem. Any questions? It's in our nature to overcome obstacles. Because of this ability, adaptability, we're the top species of this planet, by quite a margin.
This is no different.

Next week, on "Grow the Fuck Up or Get the Fuck Outta Here": A crash course in discrimination. Or something else. Who knows? Who cares?

Six Degrees of Speculation

I generally don't follow the news. This is not only because I'm some spoiled youth wallowing in my own decadence, but mostly because I think it's badly plotted, the characters are cardboard cut-outs, and there's way too little nudity. Besides, every time I turn the fucking thing on, whatever's there pisses me way the fuck off almost instantly.
Example: The Manuela Ramin-Osmundsen case. Wait, make that: The latest Manuela Ramin-Osmundsen case (there was one earlier, causing her to have to step down from some important job or other. No biggie, really, and absotively, posilutely no connection to this one whatsoever. Seriously. It's not like there's a lot of politicians and media types in this country who dislikes her strongly, or anything. That's crazy talk!). Of course, this is a local case, for local people, so I should probably explain some things first, before diving dick-first into the hay ball of insanity that is: The Media Circus. Here all week!

Here we go: Miss Manuela, who is the minister of children and family (no fucking way am I gonna bother finding the correct English phrases for these people. I may not have a life, but I have movies to watch and commercials to shout at) in Norway hired this lawyer-woman, Ida Hjort-Kraby for the position of children's rights watchdog. Big mistake! Turns out they know each other already! Who'd've thunk it? Women! Lawyers! Knowing each other! In a country wherein lives a massive 5 million! Call the papers! Wait, they did! And so the joke ends and reality begins.

Moving on: Some reports started to surface, the point here being that Manuela was supposed to be close and personal with this beast-woman, thereby making herself inhabile in all hiring matters and whatnot. Anyway, politicians and media alike descended on this rotting carcass of a pointless case like investigative carrion-eaters. The next few days (that is last few days, by the way), Norwegian papers were flooded with headliners like this: "WERE AT THE SAME PARTY IN 1998", "USES THE SAME PLUMBER", "ATTENDS NEIGHBORING MUFF-DIVING CLUBS" and so on. I kid you (almost) not! They had all sorts of charts and shit, reading them was like watching a snake trying to give directions while slowly going insane.

Time for the conclusion: The women know each other, and they have for 20 years or so. They may be friends, but they're certainly not muff-diving together (and we all know that's what true friends are for). Manuela might've known the law-rider as a capable one, maybe even as a pleasant individual, or maybe not. Who cares. Society has been contact-driven for millennia, and so far it's worked out well enough. I mean, maybe we have some clubs of, oh, say, politicians, artists, baby seal washers and what have you, but it's not exactly Eastern Europe, is it? Actually, when I think about it, this is hardly news at all - people in power hiring acquaintances for equally high-powered jobs? Haha, silly, silly media, whatever were you thinking?

Wait a second. You don't think..? No, that's impossible.. isn't it? It couldn't be.. could it?

The reason this case has made such a hot fuzz, there's absolutely no chance it's because they're women, is it? And that Manuela is coloured, and from a country that is not, and never will be, Norway?

...

..no, of course not. That's crazy talk.