Bachmann Continues to Explore New Ground

Evil Greeks, like Socrates, who were always orgasming in sheep and 
young men, have made God's plan for heterosexual families much harder 
to accomplish.
As I note at the Examiner today, Michele Bachmann is ceaselessly inventive when it comes to exploring new, ill-advised, ground for political debate. America certainly needs to discuss a lot of things, a lot of important problem, in this presidential campaign, but perhaps the very last thing America needed to discuss, at least as a relevant political issue, was anal sex.

But Bachmann introduced that topic by signing the infamous Marriage Vow, or Marriage Dependency contract, or whatever you wish to call the document issued by the Christian conservative group, The Family Leader. Bachmann was quickly reviled by the usual mass suspects on the left, because the Marriage Vow includes a comment bemoaning the alleged fact that black children actually had it better (in the sense of having 2-parent families) during slavery than they do now.

Of course, one of the chief features of slavery was its devastating impact on the ability of black slaves to keep their families together. Since every slave was considered a piece of property, no slave was protected from being wrenched from his family by being sold. Historical context and research, and reasonable conclusions about these, are not exactly a strong suit of politicians in general, and certainly not one for the goofy rabble who have seized the reins over at the GOP.

But, what Bachmann stumbled into by signing the Marriage Vow, turned out to be even more ridiculous than she may have imagined—I will do her the courtesy of allowing perhaps she did not read the fine print of the document, although her "people" certainly should have done so.

At one point, the Vow lists all manner of evil behaviors, mostly "gay" practices, which the Christian authors of the Vow claim do nothing good for marriage or public health. Included in the list of questionable practices is one that many heterosexuals may have heard of, and may even practice themselves—anal sex.

Now, why is anal sex bad? Because Christians of the sort who worry greatly the "family" is being assaulted by too many rights for gay people, also worry that too many straight men (particularly) are wasting precious seed in all manner of unhelpful and even sinful ways. Most laws prohibiting "sodomy" were not aimed merely at gay people, but at any people practicing sex (like anal or oral) that was clearly incapable of producing a child.

That is in fact what being focused on the family really means to conservative Christians—being focused not just on promoting and protecting family values, but on outlawing the use of male orgasm for any application save that of producing more Christian-Republican babies.

One might have thought an orgasm was the property of the individual experiencing it, but at least with respect to men—and any woman enabling a man's errant spurts—the orgasm is believed by conservative Christians to belong to God, who naturally issues them only for the purpose of procreation.

So, as we might say, conservative Christians want men to put it in the Jesus hole, not the man-hole.

Comments