Friday, February 27, 2004
There’s been a great deal of discussion these past few months in the Federation of America about gay marriage. What is the topic? According to CNN & NBC & CBS & any other “respectable” media outlet, the question is should gays, lesbians or otherwise be allowed to get married. The question has quickly developed into a hot election year topic. Bush & Co. are trying to push through a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. This solidifies a voter base, the religious right, to vote for Bush. In local & state elections, in which the Republicans are pushing through similar laws & amendments, it could help. But in the Presidential election? Were these people really not going to vote for Bush? Doubtful. It makes little difference for him & his administration.
The Liberal capital of the country, San Francisco, has an outlaw mayor (by definition) who has ordered the issuance of licenses. Other liberals around the country have been pushing for this as well. It’s the exact same situation. It’s a hot topic, but none of the people whose votes they are really trying to win were ever going to vote for anyone other than a Democrat. Maybe a Green here or there, but really, again no difference has been made.
Of course, you couldn’t find 3 people in 100 to tell you the real issue. Most people think it has to do with allowing gays to marry. It doesn’t. They can get married. Remember Ellen Degeneres and Anne Heche? Their marriage was well publicized. Disregarding the fact that they are now not married, there was no law to prevent them from doing so. The issue, of course, has to do with marriage licenses…
Allow me a bit of disgust right now. Why the Fuck does the government have any say over marriage? If Jane wants to marry John, or Susan, is it anyone’s business except for those parties involved? The government needs to get out of the bedroom, out of the house, and out of my life. Period.
There could be supposed negative consequences to allowing gay marriage, I’ll admit. Where do you draw the line? If Jane wants to marry Susan, fine. But what if they both want to marry John as well? I’m sure a dildo can get old, and what rational male wouldn’t like that situation? Or if Billy Bob wanted to marry his sister Susie Lee? I suppose that’s a rub for many. It’s not for me. I don’t think the government should have any say over things like this…
All of this has got my mind churning over things. The whole idea of being gay, the arguments in favor of gay rights, the arguments against. For some, it’s a question of choice. For others, it’s a question of morality.
I don’t have a problem with people believing homosexuality is wrong, if it follows their beliefs, and those beliefs are consistent. They have no right to impose their beliefs on others, but that’s a whole different problem.
What has been bothering me is the question of choice. The gay rights supporters argue that “People don’t choose to be gay. They are born that way, or through some other influence became that way.” On a superficial level, I find it hard to argue with this thought. In this society, being gay is not the greatest thing in the world. To have to admit to your parents, your friends, and to yourself that you’re gay, and to make the commitment to “being gay,” is a difficult road to travel. I’m not gay, but it doesn’t seem like a fun thing to do. Things won’t change in this respect, at least not in the foreseeable future. So why would anyone “choose” to be gay?
They don’t. Very simple, and the gay rights lobby’s argument seems to be okay. But when you take a deeper look, the trouble with gay rights deepen and question marks about the idea of choice get bigger.
The gay rights activists want society to annex gays, lesbians, transsexuals & the transgendered into the mainstream. Full & equal rights have been demanded. All on the argument that being gay is not a choice. What does that mean, if we do delve into this?
Take the case of the fictitious Joe P. Joe P. awoke one day and discovered a deep and dark secret inside him. It disgusted him. He fought it, for awhile. But he, like many gays or lesbians out there, eventually gave in to his sexuality.
Two years later, FBI agents bust through his door, seize his computer and several CDs lying on the desk. He is brought in to the police station in handcuffs around a media circus. It’s a big story in the small town he lives in. Turns out that this once respected businessman’s last name was Pedosexual.
The trial comes. His attorneys are well-prepared, and they file a not-guilty charge on behalf of their client. Their argument? He didn’t choose to be attracted to young girls. He fought it. How can this society purport to know what it is like to be a pedosexual in today’s world?
Of course, we can still find him guilty, on the grounds that a child is not a consenting adult. But how can you sentence a man who was simply “born” like that? It would be difficult. And what about necrosexuals or those out there who prefer sheep to men and women? It’s pretty hard to convict people if their sexuality is not a choice.
Of course, as my computer has been kind to point out, pedosexual is not a word. We have pedophiles & pedophilia. Nor do we have homophilia; we have homosexuality. Society, based on our dictionary, has already accepted it, in a small way.
In this debate of debates, the one constant is this: You cannot argue that heterosexuality is a choice. We are born, we are designed in that manner, consistent with animal life. Everyone is a heterosexual, whether they like it or not. And that’s the difference. A man or woman may not be attracted to the opposite sex or to people their age or otherwise. This has only to do with sex, which can only be defined (in terms of homosexuality) as a recreational activity. One must, at some point, make the choice to be this way, or rather, one must make the choice to not practice heterosexuality.
As has been stated, what two (or more) consenting adults do in their bedrooms or kitchen tables or anywhere else is their own business. Most beds aren’t big enough for the government, so they should get the hell out. And our Supreme Court has dictated as much. Conversely, if they have no place in our bedroom, there is no need to sanction what goes on in the bedroom. Gays have long advocated the former, and if they would like to be consistent in their ideology, they must find the same to be true.
It is a dangerous road to travel when the government sanctions certain behaviors. With every behavior, it will open a Pandora’s box. The whole problem began when they began to sanction marriage between a man and woman by issuing licenses, providing tax breaks, etc. Gays began to want those rights. And if we give them to gays, who is next?
Let people be who they want to be, and so long as they don’t cause anyone else injury, let them do what (or who) they want.
The Liberal capital of the country, San Francisco, has an outlaw mayor (by definition) who has ordered the issuance of licenses. Other liberals around the country have been pushing for this as well. It’s the exact same situation. It’s a hot topic, but none of the people whose votes they are really trying to win were ever going to vote for anyone other than a Democrat. Maybe a Green here or there, but really, again no difference has been made.
Of course, you couldn’t find 3 people in 100 to tell you the real issue. Most people think it has to do with allowing gays to marry. It doesn’t. They can get married. Remember Ellen Degeneres and Anne Heche? Their marriage was well publicized. Disregarding the fact that they are now not married, there was no law to prevent them from doing so. The issue, of course, has to do with marriage licenses…
Allow me a bit of disgust right now. Why the Fuck does the government have any say over marriage? If Jane wants to marry John, or Susan, is it anyone’s business except for those parties involved? The government needs to get out of the bedroom, out of the house, and out of my life. Period.
There could be supposed negative consequences to allowing gay marriage, I’ll admit. Where do you draw the line? If Jane wants to marry Susan, fine. But what if they both want to marry John as well? I’m sure a dildo can get old, and what rational male wouldn’t like that situation? Or if Billy Bob wanted to marry his sister Susie Lee? I suppose that’s a rub for many. It’s not for me. I don’t think the government should have any say over things like this…
All of this has got my mind churning over things. The whole idea of being gay, the arguments in favor of gay rights, the arguments against. For some, it’s a question of choice. For others, it’s a question of morality.
I don’t have a problem with people believing homosexuality is wrong, if it follows their beliefs, and those beliefs are consistent. They have no right to impose their beliefs on others, but that’s a whole different problem.
What has been bothering me is the question of choice. The gay rights supporters argue that “People don’t choose to be gay. They are born that way, or through some other influence became that way.” On a superficial level, I find it hard to argue with this thought. In this society, being gay is not the greatest thing in the world. To have to admit to your parents, your friends, and to yourself that you’re gay, and to make the commitment to “being gay,” is a difficult road to travel. I’m not gay, but it doesn’t seem like a fun thing to do. Things won’t change in this respect, at least not in the foreseeable future. So why would anyone “choose” to be gay?
They don’t. Very simple, and the gay rights lobby’s argument seems to be okay. But when you take a deeper look, the trouble with gay rights deepen and question marks about the idea of choice get bigger.
The gay rights activists want society to annex gays, lesbians, transsexuals & the transgendered into the mainstream. Full & equal rights have been demanded. All on the argument that being gay is not a choice. What does that mean, if we do delve into this?
Take the case of the fictitious Joe P. Joe P. awoke one day and discovered a deep and dark secret inside him. It disgusted him. He fought it, for awhile. But he, like many gays or lesbians out there, eventually gave in to his sexuality.
Two years later, FBI agents bust through his door, seize his computer and several CDs lying on the desk. He is brought in to the police station in handcuffs around a media circus. It’s a big story in the small town he lives in. Turns out that this once respected businessman’s last name was Pedosexual.
The trial comes. His attorneys are well-prepared, and they file a not-guilty charge on behalf of their client. Their argument? He didn’t choose to be attracted to young girls. He fought it. How can this society purport to know what it is like to be a pedosexual in today’s world?
Of course, we can still find him guilty, on the grounds that a child is not a consenting adult. But how can you sentence a man who was simply “born” like that? It would be difficult. And what about necrosexuals or those out there who prefer sheep to men and women? It’s pretty hard to convict people if their sexuality is not a choice.
Of course, as my computer has been kind to point out, pedosexual is not a word. We have pedophiles & pedophilia. Nor do we have homophilia; we have homosexuality. Society, based on our dictionary, has already accepted it, in a small way.
In this debate of debates, the one constant is this: You cannot argue that heterosexuality is a choice. We are born, we are designed in that manner, consistent with animal life. Everyone is a heterosexual, whether they like it or not. And that’s the difference. A man or woman may not be attracted to the opposite sex or to people their age or otherwise. This has only to do with sex, which can only be defined (in terms of homosexuality) as a recreational activity. One must, at some point, make the choice to be this way, or rather, one must make the choice to not practice heterosexuality.
As has been stated, what two (or more) consenting adults do in their bedrooms or kitchen tables or anywhere else is their own business. Most beds aren’t big enough for the government, so they should get the hell out. And our Supreme Court has dictated as much. Conversely, if they have no place in our bedroom, there is no need to sanction what goes on in the bedroom. Gays have long advocated the former, and if they would like to be consistent in their ideology, they must find the same to be true.
It is a dangerous road to travel when the government sanctions certain behaviors. With every behavior, it will open a Pandora’s box. The whole problem began when they began to sanction marriage between a man and woman by issuing licenses, providing tax breaks, etc. Gays began to want those rights. And if we give them to gays, who is next?
Let people be who they want to be, and so long as they don’t cause anyone else injury, let them do what (or who) they want.
