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.)
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.
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
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.
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.
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?