From pamphlet handed out by defendants in Derby (Daily Mail)
I want to address this post to the American gay-rights lobby, which is so wrapped up in calling opposition to gay marriage as a form of gay-bashing and bigotry. The below article in End Times Today reports that three men in Derby, England have just been convicted of passing out leaflets calling for homosexuals to be executed.
http://news.yahoo.com/3-convicted-anti-gay-hate-crime-britain-163510094.html
This is the type of gay-bashing that many people-including American gay activists- do not want to address. Similarly, they don't want to address the hanging of gays in Iran.
Why?
Of course, that is a rhetorical question.
You see, it is one thing to rightfully condemn the killing of Matthew Shepard, which was carried out by a couple of rednecks in Wyoming, but quite another to condemn those who are calling for more Matthew Shepards. This is political correctness in action.
There is noting hateful or bigoted about opposing gay marriage. Killing gays or calling for their murder is definitely hateful and bigoted.
Siarlys will no doubt call me a gay-basher as well as a snide misanthrope, but I will say what I have to say and, being a very sensitive person, try to keep from crying when he does.
ReplyDeleteI guess I just don’t get it when it comes to gay marriage. I am in total agreement with Gary relative to killing gays. They should certainly not be discriminated against when it comes to issues like voting, gun ownership, service in the military or other employment, etc. I believe they should have exactly the same rights as the rest of us, but no more.
The problem, I believe, is when the more egregious forms of affirmative action result in some people being more equal than others. This happens, of course, in areas other than gay marriage. If gays may enter into same-sex marriages, why do all of us, straight, gay, or otherwise, not have the same right??
As a straight male, I can conceive of several scenarios where I could at least theoretically marry another straight male for many of the same perceived reasons/benefits that are now touted as reasons for gay marriage, the sexual (homosexual) component being the only real exception I can think of off the top of my head.
And if the sexual component is compelling/controlling, what happens when any couple, gay or straight, gets too old to be able to physically engage in sexual activity? What about “open marriages” (shades of Newt) and marriages “of convenience”, or people staying married “because of the kids”, where married couples continue to engage in sexual activity, just not with each other? What about separations in lieu of divorce? These are all quite common occurrences. Would all of these people be required to surrender all marital benefits when the sexual contact stopped? I doubt it.
Elwood,
ReplyDeleteGreat point! How about this scenario? Let's say Shifty and Lefty rob a bank. Both get arrested and the prosecutors make a deal with Shifty to testify against Lefty for a lesser sentence. Then, Shifty changes his mind, but he's already spilled the beans. Now he doesn't want to testify against Lefty.
Solution: Shifty and Lefty get married and now Shifty cannot testify against lefty because Lefty is his wife.
Brilliant!!
Gosh, Elwood, I would never want to make you cry. As it happens, I don't much care whether the legislatures of various states choose to license same sex couples or not, but I have argued vigorously against the "equal protection of the laws" argument that a gay couple has a constitutional right to a marriage license. Two men are simply not similarly situation to a man and a woman, or even to two women. And it is rather obvious that heterosexuality is the norm for the human species, although I see no reason to spit at, taunt, beat up, or hang the biologically and mathematically inevitable outliers.
ReplyDeleteGary, there was a Supreme Court ruling circa 1960, that an accused can no longer object to their spouse testifying against them, although the spouse cannot be REQUIRED to do so. If the witness spouse is offered a deal that they won't go to prison for life without parole, as long as they testify, this is called "voluntarily choosing" to testify. You would love Justice Frankfurter's acerbic reasoning.
Gary, thank you for the compliment, even a blind hog occasionally finds an acorn.
ReplyDeleteAnd is that Shifty Henry you are talking about?? Just checking your trivia ability out.
Siarlys, maybe you or someone else can enlighten me, I really do not know what the courts have said as to whether marriage itself, either same or opposite sex, is a right or a privilege. Gotta be one or the other, can't possibly be both at the same time, and it makes a HUGE difference in my mind as to what is what.
I am not necessarily a consequentialist but just for the record,legal recognition of gay marriages, either at the State and/or Federal level,will almost certainly cause an increase in both the cost of health care AND taxes for most if not all of us.
Elwood,
ReplyDeleteWait a few years until we get into gay divorces
Gary--yeah, that will be a scream. I bet you someone makes a sitcom out of it, no??
ReplyDeleteAnd how about my question re Shifty Henry??
Yes, yes, it was Shifty Henry in Jailhouse Rock who said it was time to make a break.
ReplyDeleteOr maybe a reality show?? Can't wait. By the King, of course, just checking on ol' Shifty..
ReplyDelete