Saturday, 22 March 2014

A POINT OF VIEW...



I've never met or spoken with MARK EVANIER, although
he's been kind enough to respond to some email enquiries of mine
on a couple of occasions.  Of course, JACK KIRBY fans don't need
to be told who Mr. Evanier is, but he's not just JK's former teenage
assistant, but a writer and humorist in his own right.  (And doubt-
less has many other accomplishments under his belt.)

He also has a fine blog (the link can be found in my sidebar),
and he's posted many entertaining, witty, poignant, profound,
sad and happy pieces for quite a number of years now.  However,
one aspect of his blog I've had problems with is when he seems to
imply that those with moral, religious or cultural reservations on gay
marriage and adoption are all blinkered, homophobic ignoramuses who
don't deserve even to be heard, far less have their 'bigoted' viewpoint
considered.  Reading a recent post of his 'though, I was surprised (and
pleased) to discover that he has a friend who holds a contrary view
to his own on the matter, so perhaps I had a mistaken notion of
the tone of some of his posts.  Whether that's his fault or mine,
or a combination of both doesn't really matter for now.
    
Now, bear in mind that I'm not defending anyone calling
for homosexuals to be shot, whipped, imprisoned, publicly
humiliated or subjected to any form of anti-social action.  How-
ever, those who are uncomfortable with such 'alternative' lifestyles
and whose personal beliefs make it difficult to accept such behaviour
have a right to hold and express their views in a democratic society
(as long as they do so in an articulate, reasonable, and lawful way)
without being pilloried or patronised for it.  (One thing on which I
agree with Mr. Evanier is his take on the late Fred Phelps and the
Westboro Baptist Church, who appeared to be motivated more
by a hatred of their fellow man than a love for God.  I don't
consider it nice to celebrate the man's death 'though.)

I find it unlikely that gay marriage and adoption being 'made
legal' nowadays derives solely from a belief that such behaviour
is entirely 'natural'.  A lot of it comes from opportunistic politicians
trying to curry favour in certain sections of society in pursuit of their
own personal agendas and ambitions, not because they're unstinting
'champions of the oppressed' and standing up for the underdog,
however much they try and sell it that way to the rest of us.

Whatever consenting adults get up to in the privacy of their
own homes is nobody else's business, but let's face it - society has
been bullied and coerced over the years into 'accepting' homosexual
demands for, first tolerance, and now full-blown approval.  The rest
of us have simply thrown in the towel on the issue, not because we've
been persuaded by the argument, but because we're weary of the
subject, or weren't much interested in it to begin with. 

So what are the objections to gays marrying or adopting?
Frankly, that can be difficult to articulate because objections or
aversions often spring from instinctive feelings rather than rationally
considered explanations.  That, however, doesn't automatically mean
that there are none, merely that the subject is being approached
from another (but not necessarily unreasoning) direction.

For example, what's the rationale for not allowing siblings
to marry?  I'm sure there's a reason, but my objections spring
primarily from a feeling that it just doesn't seem right;  I'd have to sit
down after the fact and think about the intellectual argument.  Many
paedophiles can offer a seemingly rational, intellectual justification (in
their eyes) for what most Western people see as a repugnant act.  How
many of us would actually appeal to logical or reasoned argument to
refute their attempts at validating their unwholesome desires?  Very
few, I'd venture.  We'd simply rely on our 'gut instinct' that such
behaviour in a civilised society is just plain wrong.

I should add, before I'm accused of equating homosexuality
with paedophilia, that I'm doing no such thing.  Activity between
consenting adults is patently different to the other scenario, but  the
two topics provoke a similar kind of discussion as both acts were once
considered 'outside the norm'.  (It's to the type of arguments in support
of them that I draw a comparison, not the acts themselves.  What do I
mean?  Merely that proponents of both cases claim that their desires
should be considered as completely natural and in no way
disturbing, as they both once were.)

So why shouldn't same-sex couples be allowed to marry?
Sounds like a reasonable question, right?  Well, why shouldn't
siblings be allowed to marry, potential congenital abnormalities in
offspring apart?  Not that I'm advocating such a thing; the very idea is
deep-down disturbing and disgusting, but the point I'm making is that
for almost every reason gay couples can give for being allowed to
wed (inheritance and property rights aside, perhaps), siblings
could give the same argument.  It's still wrong 'though.

Marriage was created by heterosexuals for heterosexuals,
and we shouldn't be ashamed about feeling territorial over it - it's
ours.  If homosexual couples want to celebrate their love for one
another, then that's fine, but they shouldn't be allowed to hijack our
rituals and ceremonies and force us into accepting gay 'marriage' as
'normal' if we don't feel comfortable with the idea.  When it comes to
same-sex unions, while society may be prepared to tolerate them,
that doesn't mean it should have to approve or pander to them,
or legislate in their favour merely so that a minority group
can feel 'good' about themselves.

Why shouldn't gay couples be allowed to adopt then?
Does that make those who disagree with gay adoption bigoted?
I personally question the wisdom of allowing single people (gay or
straight) to adopt, but that doesn't mean I'm bigoted against the un-
married.  I just happen to believe that children, where possible, have
a right to be raised by both a mother and father, as opposed to two
mums or two dads.  Those opposed to gay adoption aren't saying
or implying that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed near children.
Not only is that absurd, it's impossible to enforce even if that's
what they were implying (which they're not).

Gay people have brothers, sisters, nieces and nephews,
and of course no one is suggesting that they should be isolated
from children.  I'm sure there are many fine gay uncles and aunties
who brighten the daily lives of their siblings' offspring.  But to allow gay
couples to adopt is to allow them a role that Nature itself denies them.
It's in the best interests not only of society but also of children to be
brought up (where possible) by 'mothers' and 'fathers' - not by same-
sex couples or single people of either sex who want to adopt.  Let's
put the children first for a change and try and replicate natural
conditions, rather than ones imposed on us by experiments
in sexual, social, and societal engineering.

Now, I'll be amazed if the usual insinuations aren't made in
response to this post, the ones frequently resorted to by militant
homosexuals intent on rubbishing opposition by casting doubt on the
credibility of their 'critics'.  You know the sort of thing:  "Those who are
vocal in their criticisms of 'gay culture' obviously have problems with
their own sexuality."  Although that's bound to be true in a few cases, it
simply cannot account for every instance of objection made on moral,
religious, or cultural grounds.  It's mainly a ploy to silence opposition
and thereby create the illusion that there is none, or that those
who oppose it are an unreasoning minority.

But, the point of this post is not to rail against homo-
sexuals;  I don't have an axe to grind over what consenting
adults may get up to in their own bedrooms.  I'm not on a mission
or a crusade to convert anyone to my point of view.  Nor do I go on
anti-gay marches (if there are such things) or sign petitions calling for
homosexuality to be banned.  For the most part I ignore the subject and
it accords me the same courtesy.  Until, that is, someone implies that any-
one who holds or expresses any kind of reservations on the issue, or with
the infiltration of overt  homosexual propaganda into all aspects of our
culture (movies, books, magazines, TV, etc.) is a hate-filled, ranting,
unthinking bigot who should be ignored and whose opinion (and,
indeed, them) should be held in utter contempt because it's out
of step with current trends in our 'there ain't nothing bad,
anything goes' society these days.

So, finding the idea of gay marriage or adoption difficult
to accept, and wishing that such things weren't so, doesn't in
itself make you unenlightened, bigoted, ignorant, prejudiced or
intolerant - or deserving of pity, contempt, or patronising conde-
scension by those who consider themselves  intellectually superior.
I recall the time I heard BOB HOPE say that he had nothing against
homosexuality being legal - just so long as it didn't become compulsory.
As TV stations announce plans to make more gay-themed programmes
aimed at mainstream audiences, you can be forgiven for wondering if it
sometimes looks like that's the way things are going.  However, as long
as you aren't engaging in any hate-speech, violence or illegal activity in
holding or expressing your point of view, then you have nothing to
feel guilty for, or ashamed of.  Your opinion on the matter is sup-
ported by the weight of centuries - at least in the way such
behaviour was regarded by Western society, even if
not always in the way it was responded to.

Many people will disagree with me of course, and I'm
not perturbed or annoyed by that in the slightest.  I have friends
and acquaintances who don't see things as I do (on a wide variety
of topics), yet we remain friends and acquaintances.  No one is about
to remove anyone from their Christmas card list just because we don't
see eye-to-eye on the matter.  That's the way civilised, sensible people
behave.  I'm well-aware, however, that things often don't operate that
way on the internet.  Those who are intolerant become incensed by
anyone propounding a point of view not in accord with their own.
Then you're dismissed as a bigot because you don't think their
way, and they block you from their blogs and remove
themselves from your list of members.

A true bigot is someone who is determined to isolate you
for daring to have a different opinion to theirs.  Don't be bullied
or cowed into silence by insults or attempts to shout you down.  You
are every bit as entitled to your opinion as they are to theirs.  I'm not
expecting too many insults since disabling the anonymous comments
option (and cowards usually shy away from responding when the
cloak of anonymity is denied them), but it will be interesting
to see just what type of replies (if any) are made.

So, which brave soul - either for or against - is going
to be first to stick their head above the parapet?  Go on -
lead the charge!

******

I see a member has bailed out on me, presumably because he
didn't like this post.  I'm probably a member of his blog (if he has
one), but I'm not the type to cancel my membership just because
someone holds or expresses a different opinion to mine, even one
with which I firmly disagree.  (Not to worry, he'll probably ban me.)
So, if the definition of a bigot covers someone who's intolerant
of another person's point of view, who's the bigot?

10 comments:

Paul McScotty -Muir said...

I am pretty dumb on this issue I think as I (seriously) do not understand is what is it that gays wants AND certain other groups object to them getting re what is called "marriage";

Marriage is "only" a socially recognised union between 2 people (albeit traditionally a man and a woman) which also has a legal contract aspect to it - so as I assume most people have no issues with gay people having a civil partnership (a new form of socially recognised union) then it would seem to me the objection is in the legal recognition and benefits that the term "marriage" brings - surely if that's jut a legal issue then gay couple could have that ( the law can be changed) the social aspect of marriage between a man and a woman can surely isn't diluted is it?

Where I do see an issue is for people of religious beliefs not agreeing to a gay couple standing in a Church and exchanging vows ( ie a "Church marriage") Firstly although I believe there is something more to what we have here I'm not "Churchy" but I do have sympathy with their viewpoint.If as it does say in the Bible that 2 men should not be together (regardless of your views on this - there's lots of strange stuff in that book , lots of lovely stuff as well) I would stand up for that viewpoint.

Personally I have no issues with gay people I feel they (and everyone ...legally) deserves to be happy , find love and treat their partner with respect and compassion and enjoy the few years we have on this planet whether that be being on their on their own , with a member of the opposite sex or the same sex. Obviously some people will be against this, but as you state in your post as long as they are not offensive, abusive etc then they have the right to hold that view and I agree those who do not share that viewpoint should not rubbish those who are uncomfortable with same sex partnerships either.

Kid said...

It sounds pretty straightforward when put like that, McScotty, but I feel distinctly uneasy about repercussions on society as a whole if it becomes a 'normal' part of the culture. If homosexuality is presented as being 'natural' and nothing out of the ordinary, youngsters, who are more easily influenced and susceptible, will be more inclined (or pressured) into experimentation, and - even if some decide it's not for them - others may be drawn into that lifestyle. No big deal if you think nothing's wrong with being gay, but it is for those who do. And sexual behaviour and responses can be learned, it's not as simple as people being just born that way. I'm glad I'm not a parent because the odds are stacked against those who may be prepared to tolerate homosexuality, but don't want their kids exposed to its influence in mainstream culture.

Colin Jones said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kid said...

I'd politely take issue with you about 'ranting', Col. Your comment actually falls more into that category than anything I've said. Sexual responses CAN be 'learnt': no one is born a sado-masochist or with a fetish for wellington boots or dressing up as a baby.

Further, many ('though not all) abused people become abusers (which doesn't excuse it, but helps explain it), clearly because their sexual responses have been shaped and influenced by their experience. Unless you're seriously telling me that EVERY single abused person who DOES become an abuser would have been so anyway even if they hadn't been abused, which is clearly unlikely. And once again, I should point out that I mention that merely to demonstrate sexual responses can be learnt - not to compare acts between consenting adult couples with those of paedophiles.

As for the word 'homophobe', it is an invented word created merely to deflect criticism by those who insist in trying to reshape society in their image. Did you know that lesbian couples demanded the removal of the words 'mum' and 'dad' from an NHS book on childbirth because they claimed it made them feel excluded? So far 'though, no one has invented the word 'heterophobe' to describe them.

And you've roped in a whole load of subjects which aren't directly linked to the topic under discussion. And you'll find that I made no mention of the Bible or religion in my response to McScotty. Know why? It's not just religious people who object to the way society is going, so your rant (I can call it nothing else) against them is really neither here nor there. You've clearly got issues with religion - does that make you a 'religiophope'?

But thanks for commenting anyway.

Paul McScotty -Muir said...

You will always get people who pray on those weaker , more susceptible or unsure of themselves, sadly that happens in all aspects of life . I can't see once gay marriage etc becomes the "norm" that schools will be saying to kids you can choose your partners sex like a smorgasbord of sexual options - if they did that ok I see your point 100% . Young folk annoy the bejeebers out of me (Im a kranky old git) , but they're not stupid they will make the right decisions for themselves (whilst protecting the vulnerable, as you rightly note)

There's no doubt about it, its an awkward time for people who hold opposing views (not the manic ones) and Im not going to be a hypocrite I do find it "awkward" seeing 2 men kissing in public but its time to move on and we can do that and respect others valid viewpoints that have issues with these changes but both sides need to change a bit. I agree 100% parents have the right to ensure their kids are brought up the way THEY want them and to me they way to do that is to parent, talk to your kids on this and other issues. Kids cannot be hidden form the "influence" of mainstream culture in today's society, but like Colin I think there's more of an issue with borderline porn music videos showing young women as sex objects and in racism etc.

Kid said...

Oops! That was meant to be 'religiophobe' in my last response.

Like you, McScotty, I feel awkward seeing men kissing, either in real life or on TV. I simply couldn't watch Torchwood because of the gay agenda it was attempting to propagate. However, I even cringe when I see straight couples indulging in 'heavy petting' in public places. Some things are 'unseemly' and people behaving like animals on heat is one of them - men kissing is another. I agree with you about music videos, but I'd say it works both ways - those designed for a female audience are also indulging in that game.

I just think society, despite its many past failings, at least once aspired to be better than it was; now, however, it's an anything goes scenario and there doesn't seem to be a recognised concept of what's right and wrong anymore. It's difficult for parents to bring their kids up with traditional values when those values are under siege from different groups determined to undermine them. I often see young teenage girls snogging the faces off one another in public displays of 'mock' lesbianism, no doubt because of what they've seen on Coronation Street or Emmerdale on TV the night before. What's insulting is when these programmes try to justify their gratuitous titillation by having a voiceover at the end saying "If you've been affected by any of the issues in tonight's programme, etc...."

There has been a concerted attempt by some groups over the years to erode the fabric of society (to use a cliche) and supplant it with their own vision of how they want the world to be. Calls for the legalisation of drugs, prostitution, lowering of the age of consent, etc. It will not make society a better place, only an easier one for certain groups to exploit for their own ends.

"Poor is the man whose pleasures depend on the permission of another" said Madonna, obviously speaking about consenting adults. The Gay Brigade had already achieved their main objective, it seems to me. They were no longer prosecuted or persecuted (in the main) for their lifestyles, but it seems that wasn't enough for them. They had to make the rest of society bend the knee and kiss its...er, let's go for 'hand', and dance to the tune of its wishes and whims.

The weight of centuries regards such behaviour as outside the norm, but in our desire to be all encompassing to all aspects of society, we have put traditional values at risk. People are entitled to think what they like of course, but that doesn't make what some people think right. For gays to feel 'good' about themselves shouldn't require the rest of society to feel good about them too, but we're slowly but surely being herded in that direction.

Simply put, some things were taboo for a reason and I for one don't see society being a better place for the disintigration or forced removal of those taboos.

On a lighter note, lesbianism is okay when indulged in by fit burds who look like page 3 models, but not by women who look like Jo Brand or Ann Widdecombe. Then it's disgusting and shouldn't be allowed.

moonmando said...

So,are you up for that shooting weekend next month with our old pal Vladimir,Kid. Weather should be a bit warmer,so should be ok for a bit of bareback riding. Lol
Seriously though,perhaps everyone could agree to having a bit more of a live and let live approach to life.
We are not all extremists simply because we have a different viewpoint.Just simply people with a different viewpoint.It is still possible to love and respect one another,but still have a different point of view to them.

Kid said...

The live and let live approach we already had, Moony. However, seems that's not enough for some people unless we also agree to let them set the agenda. The words 'mums' and 'dads' removed from NHS handbooks on childbirth because gay couples don't like it? Madness. Of course, we're not allowed to say so because that makes us 'bigoted'. I could crush a grape.

baab said...

I have waited to comment on this post because I did not want to be misunderstood.
I agree with your last comment Kid.

I listen to a lot of comedy audio,mainly from the fifties, sixties and seventies.
Granted there were a lot of stereotypes,but these were not just stereotypes of gay men. Bigots were stereotyped also.

Round the Horne featured Kenneth Williams and the palari (I think thats right) in the Julian and Sandy sketches.
There are many others we could list,John Inman and Frankie Howerd.
Who could forget that catchphrase "Shut that door!"Larry Grayson presented the Saturday night slot for years.

Growing up I felt as if there was a live and let live attitude and it would have become more relaxed through time.

There is an agenda at play and the next step(of many) is to be tolerant of paedophiles.
I know this because I used to work for Social Work around about ten or so years ago.
And I noticed that social values were being filtered through government employees.

The last few training sessions,or 'indoctrination' was based on 'Understanding the Paedophile'.
I was pretty vocal in my opinion and when I decided to leave shortly after I sensed a bit of relief on behalf of my managers.

I must share with you an ironic incident that happened during one training session.
One woman who lived in a different town commented on the high amount of known paedophiles in the area we were based in.
She said,"Im glad I don't live here'.
I replied,"Thats what they are saying in the social work department where you live'.

Live and let live is good enough for me.

Can we get back to the reminiscing Kid.
The good stuff.

Kid said...

Thanks for your comment, Baab. It's interesting what you say, because there are vocal groups and individuals in political circles who are calling for the age of consent to be lowered to at least 13. Naturally, they're all adults - I don't see any 13 year olds calling for such a change.

One thing I want to reiterate, is that this wasn't so much a comment on homosexuality as it was on the smug, patronising, contemptuous attitude held by many of its proponents. According to them, anyone who has reservations about such alternative lifestyles is an unenlightened, backward, ignorant, bigoted 'homophobe', whose views should be completely disregarded. Consequently, many people are then afraid to express their view on the matter for fear of being regarded as some kind of intellectual retard, and pilloried or vilified for holding (never mind expressing) such views. It's the bullying, swaggering attitude of those determined to make society cater to their ways which I object to more than anything.

Right - back to the 'good stuff'.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...