Take it from Snee: If you resent gay marriage so much, why don’t you marry it?

If few people pay attention to the Miss America beauty pageant, even fewer notice the Miss USA one. Miss USA is the Go-Bot version of the Transformer Miss America. (She turns into a liposuctioned has-been.) Hell, Donald Trump sponsors Miss USA, so it’s only slightly classier than the annual Hooters calendar competition.

There are only two times beauty pageants warrant more than a passing mention at the ass-end of the nightly news:

1. When she’s deaf or only has one leg.
2. When it’s funny (which includes scandals, Vanessa Williams).

So, since the Miss USA competition is in the news, and I’ve already explored deaf people and retards in this column, there must have been a scandal. Miss California is in trouble because she responded to Internet symptom, Perez Hilton’s question about gay marriage with:

“‘Well I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. Um, we live in a land that you can choose same sex marriage or opposite marriage and, you know what, in my country and in, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman,’ Carrie Prejean said to a mix of boos and applause. ‘No offense to anybody out there. But that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think that it should be between a man and a woman.'”

Some have argued, including Ms. Prejean herself, that she’s answered an opinion question and, therefore, there is no right or wrong answer. That’s true: there are no wrong opinions … but there are stupid ones.

Why is her and many other Americans’ opinion about gay marriage stupid? That’s this week’s topic.

There are many arguments against gay marriage. I will now run through them to show how staggeringly moronic they are.

God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

Ah, the literal interpretation of the Bible: the realm where the lazy meets the barely literate. Between the Bible and any book by Dan Brown, you’ve found the most sensationalized fiction ever argued about like each is true.

Basically, it’s sadder than when geeks imagine that somewhere there might be another galaxy that is a long enough time ago and far away enough for Star Wars to be real.

I’ll put it this way, even if God only created two human beings to populate the Earth, the likelihood of their names even being Adam and Eve are as likely as the Australopithecus woman actually being named Lucy when she was alive.

If you allow gay people to marry, then you’ll have to allow bigamy and people marrying dogs and pedophilia. It’s a slippery slope.

You know what the problem is with bigamy? Nothing. Sure, it’s a stupid, impractical  situation, as are many marriages between one man and one woman. Bigamy gets a bad name because it’s usually practiced by religious fanatics (see above) who use it as a sanctioned means to rape underage relatives.

As for marrying dogs and children, well, marriage is legally just a contract. As far as I can tell, children and dogs (as well as rocks, elephants and tree branches since we’re hypothesizing) can’t be bound to a contract.

And to go off on a tangent here, what’s wrong with bestiality anyway? If you can screw a Rottweiler without losing your face, I think the dog doesn’t care and might actually enjoy it. Of course, if you kill a chicken by crushing its insides with your giblet-churner, then you’ve crossed into animal cruelty, which is punishable.

Pedophilia’s still wrong of course, but that’s because children are morons.

Marriage laws are based on the premise that it is between one man and one woman. To legalize gay marriages would cause these laws to need correction.

Oh, no! You mean states would have to backtrack on laws based on an assumption made by dead white land-owning guys in the past concerning a minority’s rights? Yeah, I think we’ve managed this before, and those times were to grant all basic rights to a group, not just marriage.

They can’t have children.

Between elderly, infertile and ingenious couples, since when has this been the litmus test for marriage?

Gay marriage will destroy the sanctity of straight marriage.

I could make the same old counterarguments about divorce and abuse rates in current legal marriages, or how many U.S. marriages aren’t sanctified by any church, but to do so would make their “theory” sound genuine.

It’s not a real argument. It’s a beard for straight bigots. Everyone knows it’s a sham. It’s a legitimate-sounding argument that masks one premise:

WHEREAS gay sex is icky, and therefore, gay people are icky, and

WHEREAS gay people are allowed to marry; therefore

BE IT RESOLVED that marriage is now icky.

Remember, “sanctimonious” used to refer to those who possessed sanctity or holiness. It became sarcastic probably very shortly after its first recorded use in 1603.

So, what does this mean about Ms. Prejean? She gave an honest, stupid answer to a question posed by an Internet celebutard. She either believes the above or just anything her parents tell her. Should this have cost her a victory? Nobody says it did, but since the question part is the only “event” in these pageants that display intelligence, she proved she’s an idiot.

Update (4/23/2009):
The Alabama House of Representatives took time out of their busy schedule to pass a resolution that honors Carrie Prejean for her answer about same-sex at the Miss USA contest.

So, in other words, the obviously straight Republican Rep. Jay Love of Montgomery was so emotionally invested in the results of a beauty pageant that he introduced legislation before the end of the week.

Love said Prejean (of California)  is worthy of observation by the Alabama legislature because she “stuck to her convictions even if it meant losing the pageant.”

It’s this continued devotion to family and children (while ranking 48th in public education funding) that has helped me decide to leave Alabama once the wife and I start having kids. God knows what they’d learn here.