Sunday, 28 June 2015

OH, WHAT A GAY DAY...



Y'know, it may never have happened, but then again, it could
have.  For the sake of discussion, let's say it did.  'Twas my brother's
birthday and he had received a present from my parents.  Now if my
bruv was getting a present, I wanted one as well.  "But he's only getting
present because it's his birthday.  You'll get a present when it's your
birthday," said my parents.  "No, if he's getting a present, then I want
present too."  I was big on equality, you see.  Equality asper-
ceived it, that is.  If he got something then so should I.

"Ridiculous!" you say.  "If you get a present on your birthday,
then that is equality.  If it's not your birthday, you don't qualify for
a present, regardless of however much you may want one."  "No," I
cry.  "If he gets something I should get something as well, whether it's
my birthday or not.  It's not fair otherwise."  So I stamp my feet and
sulk and my folks give in and buy me something too.  Now I'm happy,
because, as you can plainly see, I'm one of those people who don't
like to see other people getting something that I'm not getting,
whether I qualify for it or not.

Which brings me to the subject of The U.S. Supreme Court legaliz-
ing gay marriage in all 50 states.  Marriage has always been between
men and women.  In some cultures, it was between one man and several
women, but for the purpose of our discussion, the number is immaterial.
The point is, only men and women got married.  As I've said before else-
where, to be a husband required having a wife (at least one), and being
a wife involved having a husband, and that's the way it was con-
ceived and carried out down through the centuries.

Then one day, society relaxed a bit and turned a blind eye to
same sex couples living together.  Society even decided (after much
bullying and many hissy fits) that gay couples' relationships could have
the same tax breaks and inheritance rights that married couples benefit
from.  Guess what?  It wasn't enough for them.  "If straight couples can
marry, we should be allowed to as well!" they cried.  Even 'though they
didn't qualify because marriage is between  husbands and wives, and
the notion of two husbands or two wives is simply ridiculous and
doesn't meet the requirements of the institution.

But they wanted it, so society caved in and gave it to them -
even 'though they had no real  right to expect it, ask for it, or insist
on it.  It's nothing more than an absurd imitation of an institution that
belongs to others, by a group that want it merely because they object
to anyone else having something they don't - whether they're intrinsi-
cally entitled to it or not.  Equality is only something that applies to
those who meet the conditions.  Same sex couples didn't have the
requisite mix of genders for marriage, so, technically, they just
didn't qualify for it - nothing to do with 'inequality'.

And one thing proponents for gay marriage forget is that, in
a sense, gay people have always had the same rights to marry as
everyone else - to someone of the opposite gender.  That was the re-
quirement under the law that the rest of us were subject to;  the fact
that they may not have felt inclined to avail themselves of that right
shouldn't mean that society is obliged to rewrite the rules to ac-
commodate their wish to impose their view on the rest of us.

Granting something to a group of people mainly because  they
want it, isn't necessarily rectifying an inequality - it's simply giving
in to the demands of those who want the rest of society to dance
to their tune, regardless of how off-key it happens to be.

Next thing we know, people will be wanting to marry their
horses.  Wait, I forgot - they already do that in some parts of
America, don't they?  Saints preserve us!

22 comments:

moonmando said...

Oh dear,...here we go again. Bring on the backlash of dissaproval! Lol

Rainbowdon said...

Your point is only valid if marriage was solely for the purpose of having children. What about men and women who either can't or choose not to have kids? You wouldn't begrudge them being married would you? Gays want to marry because they're in love. Why would anyone resent that?

DeadSpiderEye said...

I think you have a problem trying to reconcile what's happening with the ostensible rationalisation behind events, that being the equality justification. The first thing you should ask yourself, is that do you really believe that any of the institutions involved, ie organs of state authority and political and media influence have any sincere interest in human rights? In the case of the US, do you think the same institutions that have legalised, indiscriminate mass surveillance and the murder of it's own and foreign nationals, is invested in the equality of man, is that consistent at all?

If you think it's just the state engines that inconsistent, examine the media, we all know how terrible it is for gays in Russia don't we? Except that if you look at the legal code in Russia, what you'll find is a rather more consistent and liberal attitude to sexual conduct than is extant in both the UK and the US. Mmmm, how can this be, when The Guardian is full of stories, about what a terrible man Vladimire Putin is? The media couldn't possibly be lying to us, because they always print the truth don't they? They've never indulged in manipulation, like excluding certain events, trouble in Northern Ireland and shootings in London, from national media coverage have they?

So is it a conspiracy? No, not really, it's just plain ol' politics, using subterfuge to instil division and play to the agendas that emerge from those divisions. So why should gay marriage be the topic of the day? Who knows, it could just be a snowball, something that's gained momentum beyond the initial motive or there could be a more covert agenda. What's certain is that human gullibility is a universal constant and the best way to exploit that weakness, is to flatter the conceit of the weak minded by telling them that how maligned they've been or how special they are.

Oh yeah, when I'm in charge, you're going to able to have as many wives as you like and divorce will be as simple and painless as saying, 'I'm bored now, I want you to move out'.

Irmantas said...

I couldn’t care less about the subject matter but I’ll be damned if I can make any sense of what this DeadSpiderEye guy says in his paragraph about Putin…. I will sit down and read some of the Russian code, perhaps I can find more cool things there. RT is a smashing TV channel, isn’t it? ;)

Colin Jones said...

Oh Kid, I love your blog but why, oh why do you have such a bee in your bonnet about this issue ? I've never been married and neither have you - to be honest I'd rather have my teeth pulled out than be married to either man or woman so I don't give a f*** about who gets married to whom. Nearly half the children born in the UK every year are now born "out of wedlock" - obviously marriage didn't matter to their parents. Two hundred years ago we still had slavery and only TWO PERCENT of the public had the right to vote including NO WOMEN AT ALL - society changes and we become more tolerant, what is so wrong about that ??? The thing that will destroy mankind in the end is GREED AND SELFISHNESS which we see in abundance EVERY F*****G DAY - let's get angry about that !!!!!!!!

Kid said...

Well, Moony, if Mark Evanier can incessantly bang his drum on the subject over on his blog, then I feel I can too. (Different drums 'though.)

******

Rainbowdon, who says? That's not the point at all. And even if it were, there's a big difference between some straight couples being unable to have kids because of some medical condition, and gay couples not being able to have them due to the lack of biologically harmonious anatomy. So kids aren't the issue. Dare I say it, God isn't the issue either, nor are religious rights. The issue is that marriage has always been for men and women, and involved husbands and wives. Gay couples don't fit that requirement and have therefore no automatic right to lay claim to a ceremony created for straight couples. Simply saying they're in love doesn't cut it. Marriage is between men and women, but rather than allow us our own way of doing things, gays demand that they should have what we're having, out of nothing more than a clear-cut case of envy and resentment, and the desire to browbeat us into submission. Next we'll have single people demanding to be allowed to join clubs for couples, on the grounds that they feel excluded, and why should they be barred from joining simply because they can't find or don't want a 'significant other'.

******

DSE, everything you say may well be true, but I wasn't approaching it from the point of view of the state; I was coming at it from a different direction, that of gays' attitude to the matter. My main objection to gay 'marriage' (apart from the sheer absurdity of the notion) is that they already had every concession to their lifestyles that effectively meant their relationships were valid under the law. To insist, therefore, on being able to 'marry' is simply a case of 'monkey see, monkey do' and springs from a bullying desire to make everyone else regard their union as how they'd like to define it, regardless of whether we want to or not. Okay, so they want to live together - check. They want to be regarded as a couple - check. They want to have the tax breaks and partner inheritance rights that straight couples have - check. "But wait a minute, buster, that ain't enough. We also want all these straight couples out there who, while prepared to tolerate such an alternate way of life but don't regard it as 'normal', to be forced, by law, to regard it as such."

I don't like bullies - of any description - and I will never regard a relationship between a same sex couple as a REAL marriage. Know why? 'Cos it isn't. Marriage was never designed for it, and we should be allowed our own way of doing things that is unique and special to us, without being compelled to throw open the doors to those who don't qualify. Marriages and civil partnerships were regarded under the law as equally valid - 'though different - forms of relationships. Being different doesn't necessarily mean (for all practical purposes) not being equal.

DeadSpiderEye said...

That's interesting, '...gays' attitude...' that kinda proves my point, you've endorsed a division there, by making a statement that presumes a consistency in the attitude towards the topic amongst homosexuals. Now I think you're probably smart enough not mean that in a literal sense, ie: everyone who ever donned a brown beret, is desperate to get married to his true love but do you see how the language the dialogue is framed with, reinforces those divisions? Even I'm doing it here, '...amongst homosexuals' as if you could define an individual by their habits, erstwhile or otherwise. That's no accident, it's another facet of the insidious division politicians foster to wrestle power. It's insidious because it's so hard to resist, especially when you have, or think you have something to gain.

Kid said...

I'm with you, Irmy. Truth be told, I don't give a sh*t who lives or sleeps together - none of my business. However, it's the militant aspect that bothers me, the desire to batter the rest of us into submission on the matter, and rewrite society's rules in favour of what is, let's face it, essentially a minority. They already had everything that made any practical difference, but they keep pushing and pushing and making an issue of things as if it's the most important thing in the world. Give us a break already!

What's RT?

******

Actually, I don't have a bee in my bonnet about the subject, CJ - more the smug, pompous, bullying attitude displayed by those who are for it. That's what sets me off. And you know you're only saying that as payback for me pointing out the bee in your bonnet over religion. However, if I didn't have a blog, I wouldn't be seeking to express my opinion over the matter. A requirement of having a blog is needing things to write about, and the subject is a topical one at the moment. I read other blogs, you see, and when I see Mark Evanier (who I'm sure is a fairly decent guy) bleating on about the subject all the time (and I suppose he needs things to write about, too), then I'm prompted to put the other side of the argument, which is often suppressed, or ignored, or dismissed with a contemptuous snort. As for society changing, not all changes are good ones, as you'll see when they eventually lower the age of consent yet again, or make drugs legal. And you're missing an important point, CJ - society was already tolerant of gay lifestyles. Tolerance I can live with - a bullying coercion to accept, approve and endorse something with which I disagree (and for which there is no real need for) is another matter.

******

Not so much endorsing a division as recognizing one, DSE. And I'm sure you're smart enough to know that I was referring to the vocal, militant gays who share that particular attitude, not suggesting that all gays have the same attitude.

Hey Gringo - why you no speak Engleesh?

Joe S. Walker said...

Thanks for posting this. Seeing the bien-pensants have a group orgasm of self-congratulation was nauseating.

Kid said...

And no wonder they were congratulating themselves, Joe. They've conned the rest of society into giving them something that was never created for them, something which, traditionally, they didn't qualify for and therefore had no right to expect or demand, and something which will make no appreciable or practical difference to their lives. Husbands have wives and wives have husbands, and without husbands and wives in a marriage, it isn't a marriage - just a grotesque facsimile of the real thing. No one was denying them their relationship, but a different form of relationship should have a different description. However, they've managed to pull the wool over politicians' eyes with this 'inequality' nonsense, hence their celebrations.

Irmantas said...

RT is a TV channel that I’d rather not promote but I am sure you can easily find it if you bother to run a quick search. What amazes me is that there are people in the UK who fall for the cheap propaganda. I am not sure if DSE watches the channel but judging from the comment he is a regular viewer. I’m lost for words… DSE, if you wish to drop me a line at irmantas.po@gmail.com, be my guest because that paragraph about Putin is just about the most ridiculous piece of writing I’ve read recently outside of official Russian media or sick peoples’ comments on the web - and I’m fluent in Russian!n
Kid – I said nothing about militant aspect or anything in that category – I honestly don’t give a sh*t, be they militants or whatever. It’s the "expert" of the Russian legal code and the naïve anti-West Putin-fan who really annoyed me here. DST, If you are so oppressed by your government and media, why not hop on a plane and visit the marvelous country, perhaps you will find it good enough to relocate?? Like that famous French drunk Depardieu??

Kid said...

I love a good rammy - I'll hold the coats. Here are the rules - no bitin', scratchin', spittin', swearin' or screamin' like a b*tch.

Irmantas said...

I knew you will like it, Kid. No "rammy" intended but it's the first time I really got annoyed on a blog, so bring it on, GST... Or f*ck off and d**. Or go to R*ss** because the G**rd**n has it all wrong!

Kid said...

Your English seems to be expanding, Irmy, to include words that I never thought you'd know. However, don't get rattled - DSE speaks very highly of you and is only expressing an opinion - even if you think it's wrong. Remember, no gougin' or punchin' below the belt - just the facts, ma'am. (Er, I mean 'gents'.)

Irmantas said...

What words did you think I wouldn't know, Kid? Aren't they just about the most popular English words in the World..? :)
If he has expressed an "opinion", can you ask him to quote the paragraph of the famous legal code for me please?

Kid said...

Amongst the English, almost certainly, but I didn't think a nice lad like you would know them. Irmy, I don't actually know what either of you are talking about, so I'll let DSE answer for himself - if he wants to.

Irmantas said...

You're not alone here - I don't know what he's talking about either...

Kid said...

Ah, but surely if you don't know what he's talking about, you can't be annoyed at it. Don't you have to know what someone means in order to disagree with it? (I'm just holding the fort here until DSE arrives to defend himself.) DSE - where aaaare you?

Irmantas said...

He's busy reading the Russian law code - the one that's more liberal than those in the UK and the US!

Kid said...

Oh, Irmy - I hear DSE's huge and very light on his feet. Better get the mouth shield in. And I hear Vlad is looking for you, too. Ding, ding!

Irmantas said...

oh, please....

Kid said...

Well, it sure sounded like Vlad on the 'phone. I'm afraid it's not to be, Irmy. DSE has seen your comments, but they fail to stir him. Perhaps you could explain - in detail - exactly what riled you up so, the better for me to understand it?

(Fight's off, guys. No refunds.)

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...