Why I’m Not Gay For Huckabee – Seeking Successful Satire

For his inaugural “Better Know A Lobbyist: Gay Agenda” segment, Stephen Colbert brought out his faux-condescending inner pundit to interview HRC (Human Rights Campaign) president Joe Solomonese.

This is a two part series.

In the second installment of “Better Know A Lobbyist: Gay Agenda“, Stephen Colbert once more summons his inner pundit to further probe Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solomonese on the “fightin’ gays.”

Colbert, Better Know a Lobbyist, Part 2 from pica on Vimeo.


And of course, another popular bit of satire:

10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage Will Ruin Society

1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.

2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can’t legally get married because the world needs more children.

3. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.

5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are property, blacks can’t marry whites, and divorce is illegal.

6. Gay marriage should be decided by people not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities.

7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.

8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

10. Children can never suceed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven’t adapted to cars or longer lifespans.

12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a “seperate but equal” institution is always constitutional. Seperate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as seperate marriages for gays and lesbians will.


Where in the world can I get gay married?  Click here to find out.  And for the latest on this battle for civil rights, visit Marriage Equality.



Laura Schlessinger is a US radio personality, who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. On her show, she said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination, according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura, penned by a resident, which was posted on the Internet. It’s funny, as well as thought-provoking. 

Dear Dr. Laura:


Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.


I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God’s Laws and how to follow them.


1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?


2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?


3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness – Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.


4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?


5. I have neighbors who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?


6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination – Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination?


7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?


8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?


9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?


10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16). Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)


I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.


Your adoring fan,


Natalie Vassilaka


And if you’re seeking a fair and balanced approach to understanding the bible on the topic of homosexuality, the BBC asks and explores, “What does the Bible actually say about being gay?


Education Entertainment Gay Gender Politics Lesbian Satire Video

AMY KING View All →

Amy King is the recipient of the 2015 Winner of the Women’s National Book Association (WNBA) Award. Her latest collection, The Missing Museum, is a winner of the 2015 Tarpaulin Sky Book Prize. She co-edited with Heidi Lynn Staples the anthology Big Energy Poets of the Anthropocene: When Ecopoets Think Climate Change. She also co-edits the anthology series, Bettering American Poetry, and is a professor of creative writing at SUNY Nassau Community College.

1 Comment Leave a comment

  1. Very thoughtful, well-written and clever – but a hit below the belt. You see, the whole point in the New Testament was to tell people the old laws are now obsolete (hence the designation: “New” Testament.)

    After reading both the Old and New Testaments, it appears to me the gratitude that people who follow the Judeo-Christian religions should express – is that we are no longer bound by these archaic laws – which many countries (who are not associated in any way with Judeo-Christian values) still follow.

    Quite a few of the “old” laws Jesus specifically mentioned as being obsolete. For example, He said it’s now OK to eat salt-water fish and pigs, and all the stuff the book of Exodus said you weren’t allowed to eat.

    On the topic of Jesus and divorce: He specifically said that Moses was allowed to grant divorces, because the society he lived in, had become “hard-hearted.” This was in no way a compliment – but it fell short of a mandate of “no divorce.”

    Also, on the topic of Paul’s view on taking a vow of virginity: Paul simply said that people are happier in non-sexual relationships – even going as far to say that it’s OK if a married couple never have sex – but he also said that he realizes (and I’m paraphrasing here) that socieities are too sexualized for anyone to take the idea that you can be happier without sex, seriously – and he knows that – and doesn’t hold someone’s inability to see they’d be happier without sex, against them – as long as the sex is conducted within the confines of marriage – it’s OK.

    How the particular denominations interpret this, is what sets them apart. For example: the Catholics have interpreted Paul’s comments on virginity as a belief a priest can’t please a wife “with worldly concerns” and pastor a flock to the best of his abilities, because his wife will always be a distraction (a good distraction – a bad distraction – Paul doesn’t make the distinction.) Paul did make that comparison, but the Evangelicals think that Paul meant you can’t realize your full potential in doing God’s work as a married spouse, because you’ll always be worried about pleasing your spouse – but don’t let that excuse prevent you from at least doing some of God’s work – even if you can’t realize your full potential in God’s work because you have to please your spouse as well. To me, I think this is the most accurate interpretation, because Paul’s comments are gender neutral when it comes to spouses and distractions, meaning to me: Paul thinks that door swings both ways with both genders.

    When it comes to the desire to fulfill sexual desires, Paul specifically says, he thinks people are silly for pursuing such things because ultimately, they’re happier when the don’t – but as long as you’re fulfilling your sexual desires in the confines of a monogomous marriage, it’s OK.

    The difference between Catholics and Evangelicals is very marked in this area. I’ve sat in on “married couple’s classes” in Evangelical denominations, where they openly talk about sex – on Sunday morning! It’s not “Cosmo-style,” sex-talk where they have a woman sit in front of the class in a mini-skirt and no panties while someone demonstrates where the “G” spot is – it’s not like that at all. But they do openly talk about sex – as it pertains to married life. I remember a pastor saying in a married couple’s class: men “want it” all the time and are constantly turned down. But men, when your wife “wants it,” I don’t care how tired you are. I don’t care if you just worked a double shift on two hours sleep and you’re dead tired – give it to her, or risk your wife losing interest altogether.”

    On the topic of sexual variety in a marriage, I’ve heard a pastor say – during a Sunday morning sermon: “What a man and a wife do in the “marriage bed,” is strictly a matter between the man and wife – and is no one else’s business – as long as the sex is between the man and wife – and only the man and wife.”

    I think he was coyly referring to the topic of oral sex, the introduction of sex toys and role playing to keep things spiced up – and heated up – although he didn’t elaborate as you might expect.

    So when people refer to Evangelicals as “repressed,” it kind of cracks me up. It’s like – the last form of acceptable bigotry – because it simply isn’t true. Evangelicals are the least repressed of any of the Christian denominations – and the most accepting of women in authority – as long as it isn’t spiritual authority. But women in the workplace? They practically invented it! Women achieving status and authority? If they were so against it, why are they all for Sara Palin? They couldn’t be against women achieving positions of authority and status in the workplace, and be against Sara Palin – it just wouldn’t make sense.

    Many “core” members of Evangelical denominations are women who hold positions of high authority in the workplace – and the church is openly – and honestly happy for them – and hold them up as examples for other women to follow. Again, the stereotype of churches thinking of women as sexual slaves – busted, as far as I’m concerned. The only place – and I mean the only place – they think authority is the exclusive domain of men – is in the pulpit. Outside of the pulpit, they think women are a man’s equal – and most churches “walk-the-walk” with that one – they really do.

    But this is where Christians give themselves a deservedly bad rap: these “commandments” are specifically for Christians. Jesus said, you can do everything right, but if you don’t believe in Me – it still won’t get you anywhere, so you’d be better off living a hedonistic lifestyle, than being a phony in church.

    So for Christians to shove commandments – that are only for them – onto non-Christians – is stupid. These rules are only for Christians – and that is explicitly clear.

    Concerning non-Christians, it’s clear: live a good, clean life, and that will be the example people will want to follow. When people become curious or even envious, and ask why you have so much contentment, “always be ready to give the answer.” It doesn’t say, “Always be willing to shove your doctrine down everyone’s throat, whether they want to hear it, or not.”

    This is specifically why Jesus said: “Judge not, lest ye be judged.” I think most Christians should really look at that one when shoving their misguided beliefs down everyone else’s throat.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: