Gay Marriage is a Human Right!

"...no one but the parties involved know  what happens, in private, sexually – if anything at all, unless s/he is a witness. Therefore, it is no one’s business what two consenting adults do, regardless of gender, as it pertains to their sexual behavior, much less the type of erotic relationship in which they choose to commit themselves, married or otherwise."

Dear friends,

The right to marry someone is a human right NOT a civil one. This is where much of the confusion starts with the issue of “gay” marriage.

The ever-reactionary US government has, conveniently, diminished all movements, along with their activists, that oppose the actions of the aforementioned government to being in the same league as the sterile movement of the Sixties that died with Martin Luther King. For example, today, ridiculous media and other endorsed spokespeople, call the great revolutionary and Black Nationalist Malcolm X, a “civil tights” leader. Huh? To be sure, about that, Malcolm is rolling around in his grave.

But this lessening of human rights just mentioned above can be seen in the ability of African Americans to rink from certain water fountains down South as being called a “civil right”. Being seated fairly on a bus may be a civil right. After all, at least you can get on the bus – or walk. However,  when, in fact, all humans must consume water/fluids in periodic intervals or they will succumb, it is a violation of one’s rights as a human being to not be able to drink from any particular public fountain. . This also applies to public toilets. 

In any case, and unfortunately, the original Gay Liberation Movement that started in the late-Sixties, due to the market, not “sexual”, orientation of so many American citizens has deteriorated into the so-called Gay “Rights” Movement, as folks constantly practice being the most saleable personalities,.

Moreover, aside from the fact that, to me, it is absurd for anyone to make a staunch claim of “sexual identity”, based upon something as precarious, if not frivolous, as the human sexual appetite, no one but the parties involved know  what happens, in private, sexually – if anything at all, unless s/he is a witness. Therefore, it is no one’s business what two consenting adults do, regardless of gender, as it pertains to their sexual behavior, much less the type of erotic relationship in which they choose to commit themselves, married or otherwise.

One Love!

G. Djata Bumpus

Read full post

A Hilarious Video about Marriage/Divorce

One of the problems that most of us have in developing lasting erotic relationships is: the idea of searching for the "right" person.

Dear friends,

One of the problems that most of us have in developing lasting erotic relationships is: the idea of searching for the "right" person.

A lot of that has to do with the silly and childish notion of "falling" in love. Such a feeling is merely a mood. Of course, moods change. Consequently, at least to me, when two people meet and decide to commit themselves to "standing" in love together, as opposed to "falling" in love, ultimately, they have a chance of growing together as life partners. That notion excludes the traditional idea of "marriage".

At any rate, on the link below, you will find a witty, well-produced video about the oldest of social reationships, that straight-jacket relationship which is the basic unit of bureacracy - marriage G. Djata Bumpus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzjpAYwbFQE Read full post

Marriage Equality and the Bush Family

"...everyone should have the right to marry the person that they love."

Dear friends,

It's funny that marriage equality , as it were, has been trivialized to being synonymous with same-sex marriage, just as feminism has been trivialized to "equal pay for equal work". After all, within the context of "rights", where is marriage equality in so-called heterosexual marriages?

Still, on the link below, the younger Barbara Bush, daughter of the former president - a man who I knew when I was a Black Panther some 40 years ago, insists, "...everyone should have the right to marry the person that they love." That's reasonable. I guess. However, the identity issue, at least to me, becomes cloudy, since it begs for the question: How can anyone make such a staunch claim of sexual identity such as being "gay" - or "straight" for that matter, when the human sexual appetite is so precarious, if not frivilous?

It would seem that the only relevant identity between sex partners lies somewhere between two poles. They are: 1) Sexual liberation. 2) Sexual repression. Most people seem to fit somewhere between the two afprementioned poles. Besides, if the significance of a lover's gender is so important to a person in his or her abilty to express himself or herself intimately, then it seems that one is suggesting that s/he is somehow certain to be pleased with another, based solely upon her or his gender (as if all males and females are sexually enjoyable when they are mated with someone of the same gender). That type of reasoning is called "intellectual acrobatics" in the company that I enjoy.

Let's keep it real!

G. Djata Bumpus
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20110201/ts_yblog_theticket/breaking-with-her-father-barbara-bush-voices-support-for-gay-marriage
Read full post