A Sitirical Piece - Writers Forum

broadwayenthusiast · 05-08-2007, 07:01 PM

NOTE: This is satirical piece, which means I do not necessarily agree with what I am saying. If you have read "A Modest Proposal" in english class before, you would understand the concept I'm working at, but basically satire is a cross of sarcasm/parody/mocking controversial issues. But anyways, just know I don't really mean what I'm saying, so if you're offended by what I say... well, I didn't mean it.

Criticize, comment, & edit please and thank you!

The Key to Salvation is Segregation

A PROPOSAL FOR SEGREGATING HOMOSEXUALS, THUS PREVENTING HOMOSEXUALITY FROM SPREADING AND CORRUPTING OUR FUTURE GENERATIONS OF CHILDREN

THE youth of our generation are being slowly poisoned by today’s society. Never mind the barely-clad women on television who glorify promiscuity, or the profane violence idolized in pop culture; it is the gay community we must prevent from negatively influencing our youth.

Homosexuals partake in unnatural, vulgar activities that defile the name of humankind. It is evident in the bible that God, bless his holy name, condemns them to burn in the fiery pits of hell for their disgusting behavior and loose morals. We as good, honest Americans must follow suit, for the bible is, after all, the supreme law of the land.

It is thus in the best interests of our future generations that I propose for all homosexuals to be segregated from the rest of the straight population. In doing so, we will contain and prevent homosexuality from spreading and corrupting the precious innocence of our children, whose young minds are naïve and readily influenced by the evils of this world. If acted upon now, this blasphemous sacrilege can be stopped.

A segregation of this magnitude will undoubtedly raise objections from many. I assure you, however, that this proposal comes from only the purest of intentions. If we are to save thousands, if not millions, of souls from eternal damnation, we must eliminate any temptation towards sin. Therefore, we must prevent homosexuality, the aforementioned sin, from spreading and condemning thousands to hell. If allowed to correlate with the pure, it will certainly affect the masses like an infectious plague. But we are the healers, the saviors, the bearers of liberation; we carry the key to salvation: segregation.

I admit, segregation of the homosexuals will be no easy feat, but attainable nonetheless. First, we must build separate facilities to prevent the intermingling of homo- and heterosexuals. Interactions between the two will be greatly looked down upon, if not entirely prohibited. Second, homosexuals will be forbidden to raise children. God purposely intended for them to remain childless because of their inability to procreate, so thus they cannot be allowed to adopt. If a child were to be raised in such an environment, they would surely be influenced by the wickedness surrounding them, for homosexual parents will raise homosexual children, just as straight parents only raise straight children.

One might argue the costliness of this ambitious endeavor. I, however, do not see an argument there, for we are fighting for the salvation of millions of souls. Surely there is no price to such a sacred mission? As to those who question the morality of this matter, we are merely fighting for the common good. By containing homosexuality, we allow it to gradually die out, thus ridding the world of one more sin. How could this be considered immoral? Think of those segregated as the martyrs, ending homosexuality with their deaths so it can no longer be spread to corrupt others.

The decision is now in your hands, dear reader. Will you take action against the homosexuals, the sinners, the desecraters of God? Will you fight for the salvation of millions of souls? Or shall you stand by and watch society corrupt our children? It lies to you, the beholder, to choose.

WriterJohnB · 05-09-2007, 06:49 AM

Broadway,

I found this piece to be chilling. You could plug any race, ethnicity, or whatever and make this work. I mean, you could say auto racing was a sin and all Nascar fans should be imprisoned. This is the same type of hate speech that has been used for centuries, by Hitler against the Jews, for example.

But it's not satire. The very definition of satire is irony, derision or caustic wit used to attack folly, vice or stupidity. - to ridicule. Nothing here showed the stupidity of prejudice against homosexuality; it was an outright comdemnation of homosexuals. You have to take it over the top, show how this prejudice is stupid and wrong. Like maybe: "I say to you brethren, it's not only the homos we must segregate, but also those who commit the sin of using margarine instead of butter." Not all that funny, but it's satire.

All of this is merely my opinion, of course.

Take care,

JohnB

red lantern · 05-09-2007, 04:56 PM

Your piece reminds me of the WW2/cold war allied proaganda movies I have seen describing the duck and cover method or telling us to watch out for signs of communist inflitrators. Good and satirical in a cold way.

Shawn · 05-09-2007, 04:58 PM

I'm a proponent of Homoism... building a homeland for us homosexuals. Naturally, we'll need to take the land from the Muslims.

Though this was funny, I think it was kind of obvious. Perhaps making it more subtle... Winston Churchill never outright said he hated Communists during the war. I don't think Bible-thumpers will do the same.

mammamaia · 05-09-2007, 07:49 PM

so, why would you write this garbage, if you 'don't agree with' what you're saying in it?

frankly, i can't believe your disclaimer...

broadwayenthusiast · 05-09-2007, 08:33 PM

mammamaia- Frankly, I cannot believe that you would ever call my writing "garbage," or anybody's for that matter. I find that highly offensive. Every piece of writing took devotion and skill, and for you to slam it like that, especially on a writer's forum, is inappropriate and rude.

As I've already explained, satire shows the flaws of society by mocking it in some manner. "A Modest Proposal" is a very famous piece of writing that is an excellent example of that.

You say that I wouldn't have written this piece if I didn't agree with it. That is where you are terribly wrong. I am a passionate advocate FOR gay rights and marriage, and I wrote this piece to purposelly show how preposterous it is that we cannot grant them just that. Furthormore, I am an atheist! I do not believe in God or the bible, so this piece is not written by a bible-thuping gay-hater as you've so crudely suggested.

I am very unhappy with how religion and government is mixing, and how the line between church and state is blurring. To express that, I used the line, "for the bible is, after all, the supreme law of the land." The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not the Bible, but religion has so overtaken our government that I used the Bible as the supreme law of the land instead. This was one of the more obvious hints in my piece that described my disdain of society.

I also used the line " homosexual parents will raise homosexual children, just as straight parents only raise straight children." As everyone knows, many straight parents raise gay children, thus gay parents will not necessarily raise gay children. I used this line to prove that being raised in a gay environment doesn't propel a child to become gay!

I began this piece by saying "Never mind the barely-clad women on television who glorify promiscuity, or the profane violence idolized in pop culture; it is the gay community we must prevent from negatively influencing our youth." This line was used to prove that we should be spending time trying to eradicate the obvious problems of society, not trying to condemn homosexuals.

Need I continue explaining my piece to you?

Shawn · 05-09-2007, 08:38 PM

Perhaps Maia was a bit overextending in her post.

But the point is, this isn't satire. Satire is never straightforward. If you would like to satirize something, put a character in a point of view that allows the reader to see the ignorance for what it really is.

By saying the exact opposite of what you think, you made yourself too obvious.

broadwayenthusiast · 05-09-2007, 08:43 PM

Shawn- Have you ever read A Modest Proposal before? It is a highly exclaimed piece of satire, and I used the same format of it. There are many different ways one can apporach satire.
I acknowledge my piece is controversial, just as A Modest Proposal was when it was first published.

Shawn · 05-09-2007, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by broadwayenthusiast

Shawn- Have you ever read A Modest Proposal before? It is a highly exclaimed piece of satire, and I used the same format of it. There are many different ways one can apporach satire.
I acknowledge my piece is controversial, just as A Modest Proposal was when it was first published.

Never compare yourself to Jonathan Swift, you'll be in line for a swift beating. Have you ever read any George Orwell... or Lewis Carroll, perhaps? This is hardly Swift material. This is simple, and not really all that ironic... obvious.

broadwayenthusiast · 05-09-2007, 08:49 PM

No worries, I'm not comparing myself to him at all. I'm merely saying satire can be very controversial.

Shawn · 05-09-2007, 08:54 PM

Don't worry, if this were to be controversial with anyone, it would be me.

mammamaia · 05-10-2007, 06:42 PM

Quote:

mammamaia- Frankly, I cannot believe that you would ever call my writing "garbage," or anybody's for that matter. I find that highly offensive. Every piece of writing took devotion and skill, and for you to slam it like that, especially on a writer's forum, is inappropriate and rude.

the 'garbage' i referred to is the content, not the writing quality... i thought that would be obvious... sorry you took it to mean something else...

Quote:

You say that I wouldn't have written this piece if I didn't agree with it. That is where you are terribly wrong. I am a passionate advocate FOR gay rights and marriage, and I wrote this piece to purposelly show how preposterous it is that we cannot grant them just that. Furthormore, I am an atheist! I do not believe in God or the bible, so this piece is not written by a bible-thuping gay-hater as you've so crudely suggested.

i suggested no such thing!... didn't even mention any of the content specifically...

Donald Schneider · 05-10-2007, 07:42 PM

Dear Broadway,

I must agree with the assessment of other posters that your attempted satire fails in its stated purpose. If you had been successful in your attempt, then your opening disclaimer would have been unnecessary.

It has been quite awhile since I read “A Modest Proposal,” but if I recall the gist of it was dealing with the tragic Irish potato blight. Swift argued that since Ireland was (supposedly) suffering from famine and that it was overpopulated, then the logical solution was for the Irish (Catholics, of course) to eat their babies.

Around 1985, I wrote the following letter to a newspaper. This is from memory and not verbatim. It is also abbreviated:

I recently had occasion to inquire of a major health insurance provider as to why it costs more to insure a married couple than it does two single people. The answer provided was that statistics indicate that married people avail themselves more often of medical care than do single people.

As an unmarried smoker, I demand an immediate investigation to determine if married people should be restricted from public accommodations, employment, etc..

With an intensive public education campaign and the subsidization of divorce lawyers, we can nip this insidious habit in the bud and shoot for a marriage-free society by the year 2000!

Although I know your heart is in the right place with your effort, I believe something along these lines would be more appropriate and effective to your stated mission.

--Don Schneider

broadwayenthusiast · 05-10-2007, 08:27 PM

I understand that many people are horrified and disgusted by the solution I offered, but was that not the same reaction to Swift's "A Modest Proposal?"
He, after all, suggested for us to eat babies. (you are correct about that Don)
And no, Shawn, I am not in any way trying to compare myself to Mr. Swift. I am merely pointing out that satirical pieces can have a negative, if not outraged, response.
But once again, I did not mean for this to be offensive in any way! If I have offended you, I am sorry. I'll admit this was not a great satirical piece, but it is satire nonetheless, so please do not take it so seriously!

- Michelle

Donald Schneider · 05-11-2007, 12:07 PM

Dear Broadway:

Thank you, but I was not as right as I would have liked to have been. I obviously should have researched the subject before I last posted. Swift lived considerably before the Irish potato blight, which began in 1845. He wrote "A Modest Proposal" in 1729, but for the same reasons I stated. So aside from the gross historical inaccuracy of my post, it's a point without a distinction. Apparently Ireland had long suffered from overpopulation and hunger. The potato blight just brought matters to a cataclysmic head.

You might be interested in knowing that the reaction to Swift's satire was not all that he would have wanted it to be, by way of understatement! Here is a quote from an article I retrieved on the web:

"So we can imagine that Swift might have liked the "horrified" reaction to his Proposal, but been horrified that many British-leaning wealthy Irish accepted it as a genuine and serious proposal."

Being a satirist, especially being such a good one as had been Swift, seems an often precarious situation.

Here is a link for the work itself:

http://www.pagebypagebooks.com/Jonathan_Swift/A_Modest_Proposal/A_Modest_Proposal_p1.html

--Don