******
The concept of 'right' and 'wrong' is a strange one. Is it 'right' to put your pet pig in a dress and take it dancing? After all, what harm does it do? Probably none (though the pig may disagree) - but there are some things which just aren't 'appropriate' and that seems like one of them. Just why the hell would you want to? It would be hard to articulate exactly why you don't think it's a worthwhile pursuit, but that in itself doesn't mean that your reservations about such behaviour are wrong or misplaced.
When it comes to deciding what is seemly or fitting, we usually operate on an instinctive level, then decide on the intellectual justification after the fact. We feel what is right or wrong, and then try to articulate why we feel that way, which can often be difficult. I was once talking with a friend about teenage misbehaviour, like underage drinking and sex (between themselves, not with adults) and he wondered if there was any point in trying to prevent them.
He wasn't proposing that we shouldn't - just pondering, as a point of discussion, whether there was anything to be gained by trying. "After all," he said, "children are there to be corrupted." No, he didn't mean that in a sinister, paedophilic way; merely that, as society is going to allow children to participate in all the things we consider 'adult vices' when they reach a certain age, is it worth preventing them from indulging in habits they will one day embrace when they're 'old enough'? In short, is there a certain level of hypocrisy at work in society's outlook?
Wouldn't it be better (or at least more consistent) if our disapproval of certain kinds of behaviour applied to everyone and not just people of a certain age? After all, if certain practices are considered as not being 'good' for them, surely they're likely to be just as bad for adults as they are children or teenagers? Or do adults not matter so much? However, I'm in danger of drifting away from the main point, which I'll get to soon, I promise. I just thought I'd throw that in there for some extra mental stimulation.
Now, this is a blog mainly about comics - or at least it's supposed to be. However, other blogs often touch on wider subjects so I see no reason why this one shouldn't too, on occasion. And because it's been in the news recently (and even relates to what's been happening in the comics world), the subject I feel obliged to address is the vocal opposition to, and open derision of, opponents of gay marriage. In particular, a certain U.S. blogger's smug, contemptuous and dismissive disdain of any arguments against it.
Not that I'm obsessed with the subject, but other people seem to be. On that aforementioned otherwise excellent blog, the writer is always bleating on about the topic and crowing when yet another state across the pond gives up the ghost and caves in to vocal, militant minorities and votes to allow gay marriage. I feel that someone should step up to the plate and try and provide some balance on the subject. Looks like it's me.
The blogger I refer to claims that there is no logical, valid argument against gays being allowed to marry (or adopt), and that it's bound to be legalized in states all across America before too long. He's probably right on the latter part of that sentence, but I wouldn't assume that it's because cynical politicians necessarily approve of it, but because they're trying to cultivate the 'pink' vote. There does appear to be less resistance to the idea of homosexuals marrying, but I fear that's mainly because society has been worn down by relentless pressure from advocates of gay marriage, and because of a particular perception which has been nurtured over the years.
One of the most insidious insinuations ever to rear its ugly head is the one that seeks to suggest that anyone with a problem accepting homosexuality as a perfectly healthy, natural expression of human behaviour is actually a repressed homosexual. I'm sure you've heard it more than once. "It's a well-known fact that anyone who has a problem with homosexuals is usually one himself."
While I'm prepared to concede that it's probably true in a few isolated cases, it's mainly bunkum. It's simply impossible for everyone who objects to the practice on religious or cultural grounds (or simply a natural aversion to it) to be a great big screaming wooftah in denial of his or her own gayness. However, the idea took root because it silenced criticism from people who simply didn't want to go through the tedious process of having to deny what they're not.
Another effect of this myth was to suggest that, if you're 'cool' about homosexuality, it also means that you're secure in your heterosexuality, so many people overcompensated in their attempts to affirm their 'straightness' by embracing 'gay rights'. I suspect that quite a high proportion of the alleged 'support' for gay marriage and adoption springs from some people either trying to appear 'cool', enlightened, or attempting to deflect potential doubt over their own sexuality. Also, many people just don't give a sh*t one way or the other, and this apathy is interpreted as not being 'against' and therefore 'for'.
It's a simple fact that sexual attraction between men and women has long been considered the norm, and that any other kind - whether it be sexual attraction to members of the same sex, trees, shoes, animals, children, etc. - is outside of the norm. To say that one thing isn't normal is not necessarily to claim that it's criminal, or immoral, or falls into the same category as other things not regarded as normal. Therefore, when one says that both homosexuality and paedophilia are not normal, that is not to automatically ascribe to the former the same degree of 'wrongness' as the latter; one is between consenting adults and the other isn't. However, just because a certain form of sexual expression is consensual, that in itself does not necessarily mean that it is normal - or 'right'.
The jury's still out on whether homosexuality is caused by nature or nurture, or a combination of both. People can develop sexual appetites for particular kinds of sex, whether they were born with an inclination in that direction or not. The amount of same-sex behaviour reputed to occur in many American jails demonstrates that otherwise 'straight' people can develop 'tastes' in that direction. It's therefore too much of a simplification to say that "You're either born gay or you're not!" - though some people do seem to lean more over that side of the fence than others.
But what's the objection to it? Where's the harm in it? That really depends on your concept of right and wrong, good or bad, appropriate or inappropriate. For example, some people think that there's no harm in swearing or using 'offensive' language. Cuss-words are just words and everybody uses them, so who cares if kids swear? They're going to swear when they're adults, so what's the point in stopping them now? Well, if you really see no harm in swearing, nothing I can say will ever convince you otherwise. It would be like trying to explain colour to someone who is 100% colour blind - it's simply beyond their ability to discern because they lack the necessary optical equipment.
However, if you wince when you hear bad language, if you think it debases those who use it as a matter of course, that it robs human beings of the nobility to which they should aspire, then you don't want your kids to be exposed to it - or use it themselves. Therefore, the more common it becomes, you can see the negative effect that it can have on society as a whole. After all, is society a better, nicer place because people can now freely use the 'c' word on telly? I think not.
But where's the harm you ask? If you really can't already see it, I could never explain it to you. You've either got that sense of 'propriety' or you haven't. Same goes for gay marriage and adoption. Resistance to such notions are felt at an instinctive level, and trying to articulate an objection is often difficult, and even pointless. Frankly, it doesn't matter if I hit you with the most logical, well-reasoned, pertinent explanation of why such changes in society are undesirable, if you don't want to accept that point of view, you never will, regardless of what I or anyone else says.
So how do you convince someone of what they refuse to be convinced by? Are unable to be convinced by, in fact. The simple answer is you can't, but that doesn't mean that you should allow yourself to be bullied into silence.
Once upon a time, gays wanted tolerance - and they got it. Not content with that however, they then started to demand that society bend the knee to their whims and not only indulge their wants, but enthusiastically embrace them. Nowadays, you're not able to express concerns about the creeping onslaught of homosexual propaganda that pervades all sections of society without being labelled a bigot or a homophobe, or regarded as an ignorant, unenlightened savage who is a blight on 'civilization'. There is no tolerance of any viewpoint that isn't in accord with the notion that being gay is perfectly natural, perfectly acceptable, perfectly normal and, seemingly, perfectly desirable. And don't be fooled by those who say that intolerance of intolerance isn't the same thing. It's exactly the same, especially in a case such as this.
Here's why. No sensible, decent person believes that gay people should be taken out and shot, beaten, whipped, imprisoned, or verbally abused in any way. If people of the same sex want to live together, then that's no one's business but their own. Society tolerates such lifestyles. However, that shouldn't mean that it's obliged to endorse them. Marriage is something that was invented for men and women. The concept of husbands and wives is a natural one. The idea that a husband can have a husband, or a wife a wife, is simply absurd. Men marrying men or women marrying women is nothing more than an act of mimicry - like kids dressing up in their parents' clothes and pretending to be adults. Letting them do it doesn't make it so. Gays insist on being allowed to 'marry' because they believe it 'validates' their relationships in some way. It doesn't.
However, that's not the only reason. Gays also insist on being allowed to marry because it's their way of imposing their views on the rest of us; it's their way of clubbing us into submission and rubbing our faces in the fact that they're determined to get their way and make us cry 'uncle' After all, marriage has become less popular over the years amongst straight couples, who realised that they don't need society's endorsement to validate their relationships. So why do gays feel the need to have seeming 'approval' from mainstream society by hijacking a diminishing tradition? "Poor is the man whose pleasures depend on the permission of another" is the message of singer and gay rights supporter, MADONNA, at the beginning of her song, JUSTIFY MY LOVE. It's clumsily worded, because, between consenting adults, sexual pleasures do indeed depend on (mutual) permission, but you get the idea.
Why can't they just do whatever they want to do, without demanding that everyone else must think as they do in order to validate their opinion of themselves? It doesn't matter how many times a husband is placed in the position of having to say "No, dear, your bum doesn't look big in that dress!", the fact remains that a fat arse is a fat arse. It's an emperor's new clothes situation: In a pathetic desire to appear cool, sophisticated, enlightened, liberal, tolerant, progressive, anti-oppressive, people clap and applaud when a man takes a husband or a woman a wife, and think "How wonderful, how brilliant, how lovely!" and feel very pleased about how 'accepting' they are.
Meanwhile, truly sensible people, whose 'bullsh*t detectors are still operational, whose ability to discern what is normal and what is just plain silly, look on, scratching their heads and wondering why others just can't see what a ridiculous situation is being allowed - nay, encouraged - to develop. But how can we explain that the 'emperor is naked' when others are determined to see only the finest, slim-inducing, figure-enhancing garments draped over a corpulent carcass?
No, I'm not a homophobe - nor are you if you share my viewpoint. As I said, if two people of the same sex want to set up house together, then let 'em. We can tolerate that. We don't hate them, nor do we wish them any ill-will. If they want the tax breaks and other benefits that straight people enjoy, then they should be able to trot along to the council offices and declare their partner as heir and next of kin. That way, in the event of death, the surviving partner is protected from the assault of grasping relatives who want him or her to receive nothing from the deceased's estate. Problem sorted.
But marriage? Adoption? Marriage is for men and women, children are the 'product' of men and women, and no amount of social engineering and manipulation, no amount of shifting the goalposts, of gays mimicking centuries-old traditions and ceremonies of heterosexual couples is going to make same-sex 'marriage' truly normal. Any more than kids smoking or drinking, or dressing up in their parents' clothes, makes them truly adult. Like gays who 'marry', they remain grotesque caricatures of the real thing. (To return to my earlier analogy, a pig in a dress with lipstick on is still only a pig, not a woman.)
Note that just because I believe that gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt doesn't mean I'm saying they should be denied access to children. One of the objections that gay people have with an anti-adoption stance is that they suspect it suggests they should be kept away from kids, therefore equating homosexuality with paedophilia. That's not what I'm saying in the slightest. Gay people have brothers, sisters, nephews and nieces, and I'm sure most of them are great older siblings, aunts and uncles, and, of course, babysitters. I just believe that kids have the right to be brought up by a mother and a father, that's all. It's nature's way.
So where's the harm? If homosexuality ever comes to be fully regarded as normal, it's extremely likely that more people will 'experiment' with it when they're growing up. With no social stigma, a drunk youth, having a gay pass made at him or her at a party, may well succumb to such an advance. Even if, afterwards, they decide it's not for them, their heterosexuality has been compromised, whether they even regard it as such or not. Of course, if you see nothing wrong with homosexuality, you won't regard that as a problem, but if you have reservations about such behaviour and don't want your kids exposed to such situations, then you're of a different view. (Sadly though, it seems that you're not allowed to even hold that view, never mind express it, without being labelled a 'bigot'.)
In the end, it comes down to a difference of opinion. Yours may be different from mine, but mine has the weight of tradition behind it and therefore shouldn't be dismissed so lightly, nor should I or anyone else who shares that opinion be dismissed as ignorant or unenlightened, bigoted or homophobic. I don't hate gays, though I do have an acute aversion to LOUIE SPENCE. (Doesn't everyone?) I don't think that's because he's gay though - it's more to do with him being an immensely irritating, overly-camp prat.
I'll leave you with this: Comedian BOB HOPE once joked that he didn't mind homosexuality being legal, just so long as it didn't become compulsory. It may never be that, but make no mistake - society is being reshaped to accommodate gay sensibilities. One day, in the not too distant future, it may well be considered as normal for your offspring to choose the sex of their partners as it is for them to decide whether they prefer blondes or brunettes. It's a toss-up as to whether they'll ever be permitted to engage in sex at thirteen and be allowed to drink and take drugs before or after that happens, but place your bets - it's the world that's coming!
Agree? Disagree! Offended? Delighted? Want to argue with me, congratulate me, insult me - or question my parentage? Or how about a punch-up in the pub car park? I'm game for a laugh. Fire away!
38 comments:
There's a lot of ground here, if I may, I'll just concentrate on the issue of general morality. I might come back later and go over some of the other topics.
You pose the question, about proscribing behaviour deemed harmful to children, for adults. It's a question I can answer with absolute assurance, because we have an historical example, a highly evolved culture that dug it's way, almost back to the stone age, through the overbearing moral 'guidance' of its guardians. It's the paternalistic argument, -I know better, so you do as I say-. It doesn't work for two reasons, the first is that, you're wrong, what I mean by that is that, we don't just make mistakes, occasionally or some the time, we're wrong -most- of the time. That's especially true with questions of morality and if you impose your mistakes universally, things get seriously bad, real fast, that's why so many cultures collapse. The second reason is that once the authority to impose absolute will on a population is enabled, that authority will expand without limit and become increasingly trivial in scope.
That was easy to answer but the implications are more difficult to consider, just what level of freedom are we entitled to? To be honest, I don't know but what I do know, is that a consensus is the best option to proceed from. For that reason, I'm glad the people of Ireland got their choice. They're unique, for the moment, in being allowed that opportunity. Which arose by virtue of their legacy of disenfranchisement, otherwise they'd have been given no choice.
It all depends what that 'moral' stance is, DSE, and whether you believe that 'society' should be run on organized lines for the benefit of the majority. Where things break down is where parents say "Don't do as I do, do as you're told!" Kids find it hard to understand why parents forbid them from participating in the very things that their parents indulge in. That's why example is the best influence. As Thomas Morell said: "The first great gift we can bestow on others is a good example."
However, although democracy is the best choice of some bad options, it doesn't always work to best effect, as people can be influenced by a leading form of question. We now live in an age where too many people don't care what others do because they can't see how it impacts on them - but that doesn't mean it doesn't.
Frankly, the question didn't need to be asked. If two people of the same sex want to live together, most people aren't bothered - I'm certainly not. What does bother me 'though, is the bullying (or disingenuous) tactics used by a minority to impose their will on the majority. Why do gays seem to need my (or anyone else's) acknowledgement to validate their relationship when they're already not being denied anything substantial?
In my book, calling it marriage doesn't make it marriage - it's merely a poor imitation of the real deal.
You put into words what many in society instinctively feel yet lack the skills to express themselves with.There are many changes going on in the world,much of it driven by minority groups,and it's easy to feel overwhelmed by it all.
Good argument,though.
Cheque's in the post, Moony.
The question of morality in the context of a -better society-. Personally, I feel, personal liberty and universal respect for individual rights takes precedence over collective will. Which seems contradictory because such rights and liberties can only arise through consensus. My answer to that would be adherence to principle without regard or favour to issues should be the guide. This, unfortunately, is where we've generally taken a huge (and I do mean really huge) retrograde step, with the advent of identity politics. Aggressor and victim status are assigned through association with an identity. You've been subject to this attitude yourself, those who identify, through association as victims, show little or no self awareness over their behaviour, even when they engage in the most repugnant assaults -- it's bizarre.
Bizarre indeed. However, I suspect that, when an individual's 'rights' come into conflict with another's, we're just as likely to get that aggressor/victim situation that occurs in the other context you speak of - perhaps even more so. It's a complex issue, morality. Doh, my head hurts.
In the case of proscribing certain behavior (smoking, drinking) for children while allowing it for adults, I think it can be justified on the grounds that adults are presumed to have experience and maturity that most children do not. Therefore, adults are allowed to make certain decisions for themselves, and to voluntarily assume certain risks.
By the same token, you have to reach a minimum age before you can sign a contract or enter into a contractual arrangement (including marriage), or before you can work in certain jobs.
I've said before that I have no objection to gay marriage in itself, but some people do, and those people have rights, too. But "progressives" have set up a double standard: "You have to accept my values, but I don't have to tolerate your values, because I consider them to be bigoted."
In the recent controversy over RFRA laws, no one was even trying to outlaw same-sex marriage. Some business owners, who were practicing Christians, wanted to be able to refuse to take part in certain activities that would violate their religion (e.g., baking a customized cake for a gay wedding).
No matter. The professional activists were out in force, accusing anyone who disagreed with them of bigotry, intolerance, homophobia, racism, sexism, fascism, and antidisestablishmentarianism.
The real slippery slope, IMHO, is not so much that legalizing gay marriage now will lead to legalizing pedophilia next year. It's that, once something is defined as a right, some people start demanding that it be provided for them, even at someone else's expense. And that others be required to participate in it, even involuntarily. And even if such participation violates their religion.
A lot of gay rights activists are now doing the same thing that they (justifiably, IMHO) complain about when right-wing religious fundamentalists try to do it to them: they are trying to force their values and sensibilities on others.
The US and UK are both becoming nations of bullying spoiled brats who throw tantrums whenever they don't get their way. Witness the various cases of bakeries, florists, and wedding photographers being sued or prosecuted because they did not cater to gay weddings. Having to shop around a little, because some caterers serve same-sex weddings and some don't, is considered a civil rights violation comparable to being denied admission to a hospital.
There was the same-sex couple who took legal action against the Church of England for refusing them a church wedding. My understanding is that gay marriage is legal in Great Britain, but that the law supposedly protects churches from having to perform the ceremonies if doing so would violate their religion. But, when it was suggested that the couple could have had a civil ceremony, or a wedding in a church of some other denomination, one answered, "I still didn't get what I wanted."
(Sigh.)And I've never had a threesome with Xena and Gabrielle. You don't always get what you want. Grow up and get over it.
It is not just gay marriage, either. There was the British woman on public assistance (what Americans call "welfare" and Brits probably call "the dole") who wanted her government "benefits" to pay for her marriage to her boyfriend. "I deserve a fairy tale church wedding in a castle." BTW, she was on "benefits" because she was "too overweight" to work. And her obesity was the result of overeating and lack of exercise, not a glandular condition.
If I seem to be bashing the UK, I would like to point out that that same entitlement mentality is just as widespread in the USA.
Bob Hope's joke about "compulsory" homosexuality was prescient. Many a true word has been spoken in jest.
And it keeps getting worse. A same-sex couple in Canada bought wedding rings from a jeweler, then returned them and got a refund when they found out that he personally disapproved of gay marriage. Note that the jeweler sold the customers the items that they wanted, and then later agreed to refund their money. (From what I heard, the customers were civil and reasonable about it, too.)
But then the professional Social Justice Warriors got involved, the story went viral, and the jeweler began receiving death threats.
It is not enough to do what the pressure groups want you to do. You have to think the way they want you to think, and to believe what they want you to believe.
Always a pleasure to read your comments, TC - they're just so eminently sensible. And I say that as someone who obviously doesn't share the exact same view as yourself on gay marriage.
On your first point about smoking and drinking - I'm inclined to agree (I just thought it was a subject worth examining), but it's surprising just how many adult smokers and drinkers started when they were still kids.
Basically, on the matter of gays (or anyone) imposing their viewpoint on others, I'm in perfect agreement with what you say. In fact, I envy your ability to get straight to the point while covering all the angles. I tend to witter on and use 40 words when four would do.
And don't worry - no one thinks you're bashing the U.K. - the mentality you describe, as you say, is not restricted to our shores, but happens in the U.S. as well.
As for those events in Canada - who's supposed to be the bigots again? Ridiculous, isn't it? I wonder what a well-known (relatively speaking) comics writer would say about that? No doubt the jeweller would be the bad guy.
Thanks for commenting. As I said, always a pleasure.
Kid, your opinions are more balanced and reasoned than I expected them to be. My opinions differ from you in some ways, but there's no need to trot them out.
I just know that any social group, small or large, is made up of individuals—some intelligent and reasoned and some stupid and unreasonable. The loudest ones are many times the latter, and somehow become 'spokesmen' for the rest of the group.
Fundamentalists (those whose opinions are unchangeable) of any religion, philosophy or way of life can ruin the reputation of the rest of the group. Stupid gays do stupid things, as do stupid people in general, but it shouldn't curtail the goals and aspirations of the less stupid ones just wanting to live life in reasonable pursuit of happiness.
A complex issue with many differing opinions and viewpoints. But one thing we can all agree on is the annoying uber dampness of Louis Spense!
Ken.
I'd agree with that, Thom. However, pursuing happiness shouldn't involve making others miserable by insisting they see things in a certain way at the expense of their own views.
To my mind, gays already have everything they need to be happy, but, seemingly, it's not enough for them until society has been reshaped to accommodate their views as the 'right' ones. As witnessed by TC's Canadian example related in his above comment.
It's like a fat wife insisting on her husband telling her she's thin, and not letting the matter rest until she forces that 'admission' out of him.
I love superhero comics, but I don't need the rest of society to abandon their widespread notion that comics are infantile distractions for the feeble-minded in order to validate my reading tastes. If only gays (and others) would adopt the same philosophy.
Nice hearing from you.
******
And ain't that the truth, Ken! My entire being is repelled at the sight of him.
I've read your various posts on this subject but I still don't understand your rationale against gay marriage and/or adoption. So what if people have the choice between straight or gay marriage partners? You might not like gays having the equal right to marriage as straight people but it's not doing anyone any harm is it?
Gay people want the right to marry for the same reasons as straight people. They see it as a commitment. Those who don't need a bit of paper to affirm that commitment will, like straight people, just live together but at least they have the option of marriage.
Them gaining equal rights don't affect you one iota. Live and let live, man, live and let live.
And I still don't understand Algebra, but that doesn't mean that the principles behind it aren't sound. And I doubt that you'll ever understand my rationale, because I'm describing a 'colour' that you're simply unable to discern.
Marriage is a centuries old tradition for heterosexuals. It represents the union not only between two people, but between two different genders. What makes a man a husband is having a wife, and what makes a woman a wife is having a husband. Therefore, the idea that a woman without a husband can be called a wife, and that she can marry another single woman who can also be called a wife, resulting in two wives, is simply ludicrous. Same goes for husbands. That's why relationships between same sex couples don't, can't and shouldn't fall under the description of marriage.
An apple is not an orange, nor an orange an apple, but they're both still fruits (no pun intended). A heterosexual couple can be in a relationship, as can a same sex couple, but while both are described as relationships, they are somewhat different - but being different doesn't necessarily equate as inequality. Because one couple qualify for marriage (if they want it) and one doesn't (not the requisite genders), that doesn't result in inequality because same sex couples simply do not have an automatic, inherent right to be married.
It's a bit like a man saying he's being discriminated against because he can't use the women's toilets (or vice versa), even 'though he has men's toilets to use if he wants to. To each their own, you see? Heterosexual couples have THEIR way of doing things when it comes to relationships and same sex couples have their way - and if there happen to be some differences, that's just the way the cookie crumbles. Their envy of how things are done on the 'other side of the fence' doesn't entitle them to the same fruits in that garden.
Equal rights only apply in equal situations - and a relationship between two people of the same gender isn't exactly the same thing as a relationship between two people of a different gender. It IS a relationship, but it's a different kind of relationship. Gays already had the relevant recognition they needed under the law to be happy. To insist that WE must do things THEIR way before they can feel content with themselves is just putting the boot in after the other side had already conceded. (Not because they were wrong, just for the sake of a bit of peace.)
And 'them' gaining equal rights (to which they aren't intrinsically entitled) DOES affect me - and everyone else who feels as I do. It makes society a different and far more difficult place for people to bring up their kids in a heterosexual environment, away from the influence of those who would introduce them to other possibilities.
It used to be called 'the love that dare not speak its name' - now it's 'the love that just won't shut up'.
I hear what you're saying. You believe marriage is an invention for a man and a woman. That's your right to believe that, and people like you have had your way for a long long time. Now things have swung the other way, pardon the pun, so I guess that's only fair.
What I'm not following is why you think the people who only want to bring their kids up "in a heterosexual environment" are not bigoted. So what if their kids have friends who have same sex parents? It's not a threat to anyone. If by "introducing them to other possibilities" you mean making kids TOLERANT of the idea of same sex parents, that's a GOOD thing to teach them.
You hear what I'm saying, but you're clearly not listening - or are simply trying to wind me up.
You haven't made a case that parents NOT wanting to bring their kids up in an increasingly homosexual-orientated environment ARE bigoted. So they prefer their kids to grow up as heterosexuals - you shouldn't have a say in the matter.
And again you've missed the point. In a world where homosexuality comes to be regarded as normal (when it isn't), there's more of a chance of people who might not otherwise participate in a spot of 'brown-box boogying' getting led in that direction. If you think there's nothing wrong with gay behaviour, then you won't see a problem - but to those who think it's wrong, it doesn't make them bigoted, it just makes them concerned for their kids.
Anyway, I've already said all this, and your points have already been covered and dealt with, either directly or indirectly. All that's required is for you to read what I've already written and apply a little thought and contemplation.
Society already accords a level of tolerance to your side far beyond what it merits - and it's still not enough for you. Your point is therefore fatuous.
Anyway, I'm not going to be led 'round in circles over this for your amusement so there's no point in you responding further. If you can't see, appreciate or understand my point of view, then I can never imbue you with the necessary qualities of discernment that would enable your comprehension.
I'm sorry if it come across I was winding you up. That's not my intention. I see there is no point in my continuing this debate because you think being gay is "not normal". Don't you get it? It IS normal for them! It's how they are, not a choice. This conversation can't go anywhere because you have that prejudice against gay people so I'll leave you to your Babes of the Day. Thank you for allowing my opinion.
Despite your polite words, your disingenuity is all too apparent - as is your attempt to paint me in the way you wish me to be seen.
Just because some people with alternate sexual tastes may regard them as normal, that doesn't mean they ARE. And a person is defined not by their impulses but by how they respond to them, so, in a sense, it IS very much a choice.
Prejudiced against gay people? Then can you explain my liking for the music of Tchaikovsky? My admiration for the intellect of Stephen Fry? My enjoyment of Graham Norton's chat show? My regard for the acting talent of Nathan Lane? Where's the prejudice you accuse me of?
There are many types of behaviour that I'm not too keen on - prejudice isn't the word I'd use to describe my opposition to them. So your sly attempt to portray me as a bigot falls at the first hurdle. (I'm also not too keen on extra-strong curries, but I wouldn't say I'm 'prejudiced' against them - more a case of them being prejudiced against me, I'd say.)
And the reason that this conversation can't go anywhere is because much of what I'd already said which anticipated your points went right over your head. Your main concern seems to be that gays get their way at the expense of everyone else. Time to look beyond the frame and see the bigger picture.
Back to work, eh?
Okay I'll clarify what I meant. You are prejudiced against gay marriage and gay parenting because you don't think it's "normal". Am I correct?
Gays getting their way at the expense of everyone else? In what way? If gay people get married it's none of your business. It doesn't affect your life unless you let it bother you. If a gay couple adopt a child, why is it your concern? It doesn't intrude on your life. It doesn't hurt the child.
It's people like you thinking that gay marriage is wrong is what's not normal. If two consenting adults want to marry and adopt kids, it's none of your business. You don't have the right to tell them they're not normal. If you think you do, then you have issues you need to deal with. Your problem, not theirs. Sort yourself out before you cast stones. Savvy? Thank you and have a good evening.
Ah, one mild little prod and you reveal your own prejudice against those who don't agree with your point of view.
I don't want to be rude, but I'm clearly not dealing with a profound intellect. Every point in your rant has already been addressed (more than once), yet still you seem unable or unwilling to grasp what I'm saying.
Marriage is and always has been for heterosexuals. That's a fact. The goalposts are now being shifted to accommodate the demands of a minority, the only result of which is that a few gays will now be able to say "we're married", which will make no appreciable difference to the quality of their lives, apart from them being able to feel good at having 'got one over' (oo-er) on the rest of us.
Given enough time, I might be able to convince (or bully) a few people into acquiescing to my assertion that I'm as handsome as Brad Pitt, Johnny Depp and Keanu Reeves rolled into one, but even if they caved in and agreed with me, it wouldn't necessarily make it so.
In the natural world, males can't have babies with males, nor females with females - that lies solely in the province of heterosexual relationships. So to let same sex couples adopt is to deny a child the RIGHT to be brought up by a 'mother' AND a 'father'. A child's rights should always trump the wants of same sex couples who insist on (artificially) being accorded the same 'rights' that naturally fall to heterosexual couples. You may think that the gender of 'parents' makes no difference, but nature disagrees with you.
If two people of the same sex want to live together, THAT'S none of my business, but when they want to rewrite society's rules in such a way that affects the world in which I live in what I perceive to be a negative way, then that's VERY MUCH my business. And when they deny a child the right to be brought up by a mother and father (according to the laws of nature) and thereby potentially influence future generations into thinking that all kinds of sexual expression are equally valid, then that should be EVERYONE'S business.
Anyway, I've accorded you more courtesy than you deserve. You clearly don't fully understand the issues (or the possible ramifications), so I'll let you get back to your body-building mags.
A world where anything and everything goes, is a world that's going in the wrong direction. Trust me, I'm (in need of) a doctor.
"Kid",
If we follow your logic that a child should only be brought up by a mother and father then what about single parents? Are they doing wrong in your eyes as well? If so tell that to the people of your parents generation who lost husbands and fathers in the war and see what reaction you get. Some of those children were raised perfectly well by women who never remarried. How is that any different to two women or two men raising a child?
If you're really offering that as a serious 'point', then it's clear that you don't do 'joined up thinking' very well. You're not following MY logic, but some skewed version of it. What I said is that children have the right to be brought up by a mother and father - obviously that applies where possible. In cases where a parent has died or done a runner, that's NOT possible and is clearly not an IDEAL situation. Just ask any single parent who has lost a partner just how difficult it is to raise a child or children on their own. So, only an idiot would hold up a less than ideal model as a pattern to follow in the raising of kids. Experiencing the love of two parents is always better for a child than only the love of one, but those two parents should be male and female. Much as you may protest, that how kids come into this world, and in most cases, unless the parents are inept, stupid, criminal, or negligent, that's the best environment in which they should be nurtured - where possible.
Didn't think it through, did you? Any more ridiculous questions?
If there has ever been a threat to the great tradition of marriage, then it hasn't come from homosexual couples. The current divorce rate in the UK (gathered from statistics BEFORE the same-sex marriage legislation was passed) stands at a rather staggering 42% - that's almost half of all marriages coming to a premature end. It ain't homosexual couples making a 'mockery' of the institution of marriage, Kid. Heterosexual couples have already gone and messed it up before them, it seems, and aren't really keeping to that whole 'til death do us part' thing. If same-sex couples want a part of an increasingly shaky and irrelevant ceremony, then let 'em, I say. What's the worse that can happen? Nothing. Literally nothing. You won't be forced to attend any gay weddings, Kid, it's okay. The world will spin on.
I never once said that homosexual couples were a 'threat' to marriage, so the point you're trying to make is redundant. My point (or one of them) was simply that they have no automatic, intrinsic 'right' to it just because they covet the idea of it. And, to be slightly flippant, as marriage traditionally 'belongs' to heterosexual couples, it's theirs to 'mess up' if they want to. You're also missing some wider points - read TC's comments above for a fuller understanding. I won't be publishing any more anonymous comments - pick a name and stick to it if you want to say anything else. First, 'though, it might be wiser to familiarize yourself with what people are actually saying - then your comments might have more pertinence.
They have the right to be treated as equals to straight people, so if they want to be married so be it. It might annoy you if two gay people you've never met get married but it doesn't change anything in your life or the lives of anyone else who doesn't know them. Youll just have to put up with that minor irritation to your worldview, or perhaps be nice about it and wish them a healthy and happy married life.
'Peter Griffin'? Oh dear. You seem to think that saying the same thing over and over again makes it so. They may NOW have been accorded the 'right' to 'marry' - that is, to mimic the way in which heterosexual couples have traditionally celebrated their union - but it isn't an inherent right on account of the nature of a homosexual relationship. Marriage, since its inception, has always been for husbands and wives, and was never designed for 'husband and husbands' or 'wives and wives'. It takes a wife to make a man a husband, and a husband to make a woman a wife, and without those two elements, a so-called 'marriage' isn't a marriage, whatever gay couples insist on their union being called. Calling a pineapple cake an apple tart doesn't make it one in the absence of the proper ingredients. That's a subtlety which is lost on you. Gay couples simply don't qualify for marriage on account of not having the required two genders. Calling fat people slim doesn't make them lose weight, however good it may make them fell about themselves. A gay union not being called marriage doesn't necessarily represent 'inequality', any more than a hammer not being called a screwdriver makes either of them any less than what they are. Difference does not automatically denote inequality.
And, quite frankly, you're talking nonsense. Any change in the way society is run affects every individual in some way to a greater or lesser degree, whether in an obvious way or not. Just because you can't see or appreciate that, doesn't make it NOT so.
Anyway, your little ploy of saying the same thing over and over again in order to make me do the same is obvious, so in light of the fact that you're bringing nothing new (or interesting, or intelligent) to the discussion, your tedious little run is now at an end.
Marriage at its heart is a submission to a socially defined norms and as such it can only be equitable. For those who such norms might be inappropriate, marriage is just not an option, equality in that context would be submission to those norms, you know, like -what- everyone else does? Now you can debate what those norms should be, I haven't got a clue myself, I've always maintained that if I found the right girl I could settle down with her and six sisters but that just wasn't to be. So this cry over equality of treatment, which is continually raised, is -utter- nonsense. OK so you wanna redefine the parameters of marriage, go ahead please enlighten me but if you think pulling the wool over my eyes with that equality thing, think again.
Never mind all that, DSE - gimme that bit about six sisters again. Can I hold the camera?
******
I'm still receiving anonymous comments after saying I wouldn't publish any more without a name to them. Firstly, I wonder why they don't have the courage to identify themselves (embarrassed by their own opinion perhaps?), and secondly, I now know why I have to keep explaining things more than once - some people are simply too thick to comprehend what they read. No anonymous comments from now on - that option is only there for people who don't have Google accounts and who are prepared to put a name to their views.
It was a wonderful night Kid but it was a doomed relationship, scorned as we were by a world unforgiving of those who transgress conventional morality. Oh, if only we could be treated equally -- sigh. I think there are some photographs somewhere, a couple of the girls were taking snaps, I didn't, I was er -- busy.
Now you're confusing me, DSE. I thought you said it was an ambition of yours that 'wasn't to be', now you're saying it actually happened? Well, I suppose that's true equality - saying opposite things at the same time.
(Er, I'll buy the negatives.)
Equilibrium would be more apt, a body is said to be in that state when the forces acting upon it cancel each other out, for example: a body being prodded at each end. I'm not tempted to try that particular one myself.
If you're saying what I think you're saying, neither am I.
Kid,
As a man who seems to know all the answers I'm hoping you can help me with these?
Where do you stand on transgender people who choose to get married? What would you think of a man who has a sex change and becomes a woman, but he's not gay, would she be allowed to marry the man of her dreams?
And what if it was a transgender couple? A man and a woman who used to be a woman and a man decided to get married, would you forbid that, even though neither of them is a gay?
Also, what about hermaphrodites, where would you stand on them?
Finally, I think you should seriously stick to starting your more contentious posts (all those that aren't about comics) with a 'I don't mean to be a homophobic bigot but...', in the same way racists who swear they aren't start their rants with, 'I don't mean to be a racist but...'.
It's not that I have all the answers, it's just that you don't ask the right questions. As in sensible ones.
Have you read any of the previous comments and my responses? Certainly doesn't seem like it. Perhaps you have comprehension issues?
I'm not the slightest bit interested in what transgender people do, or hermaphrodites. Do they want to live together? Not interested, doesn't concern me, not my business.
(And how do you know that a man who wants a sex change ISN'T gay and just can't admit the fact to himself, therefore seeking refuge in the delusion that he was born in the wrong body? That would make him a 'homophobic bigot', would it not?)
What I object to however (and how many times now have I explained it?) is when a minority group insists that the rest of society must not just tolerate their alternate lifestyle, but that legislation be introduced to compel others to regard it in the same way as they do themselves. That WE must call it by the name on which THEY insist; that they get to call the shots and that we must accommodate their demands which spring from nothing more than having a chip on their shoulder over not 'feeling' included. The 'norm' is defined by how things are usually done. That is why 'marriage' between heterosexual couples is the norm - why should gays be allowed to rewrite the rules for the rest of us to alleviate their low self-esteem?
Finally, I think that you should stick to beginning your more ridiculous comments with, "I don't mean to be a thicko, but...", in the same way that thickos who swear they're not begin their verbal diarrhoea with "I'm not a thicko, but..."
Bernard Manning's Beergut
'The 'norm' is defined by how things are usually done.'
You know, slavery used to be 'the norm'. Nah, don't abolish it - it's normal! Give women the vote? Pffft, it'd be a mockery of the voting system, everyone knows it's just for men!
Do you yet understand how ridiculous you sound? I can only imagine you'd have been against those reforms as they were against your notion of 'the norm'. That's how progress is made, Kid - people look at current institutions and laws and think 'hmm, that's probably not fair' and amend them accordingly. In this case, people decided that maybe homosexual couples should be allowed to marry, as - SHOCK HORROR - they are also people with hopes and dreams and desires.
Also, if you want to be considered as not bigoted, probably best you don't use phrases like 'great big screaming wooftah' or 'brown-box boogying' which make you sound like a schoolchild who has just tumbled, sniggering, out of 1973.
On the contrary, the fact that you're still pursuing this in such an uncomprehending manner, with such feeble thinking, demonstrates that it's you who doesn't realize how ridiculous you sound.
Here's why: Just because some things once considered 'the norm', but were obviously wrong, were changed, doesn't mean that everything once considered the norm is wrong and needs to be changed. At this moment, there are people doing their very best to bring about the lowering of the age of consent to at least 13. The argument is that children are much more mentally and psychologically mature nowadays than they once were, and that as some of them already engage in sexual behaviour, why not let them do so legally. That's when the predators will feel emboldened; if kids can legally consent to sex at 13, what's to stop them consenting to doing it with an adult? If such a change ever comes about (and there are those who feel that it's inevitable), will that be 'progress'? Will that be a good thing? Will that mean that we were wrong for all these years in trying to stop predatory adults exploiting kids in a sexual way? That seems to be the 'logic' of your argument.
Therefore, your point is redundant. "Something that was considered the norm for years was eventually changed, and because it was a good change, then anything that was once considered the norm MUST likewise need changing." Are you an idiot? That's not an argument.
The point that you're still missing is that any consenting adult in this country (and America) is now allowed to live with whomever they wish and no one turns a hair. However, that's not enough for some people, who insist that everyone else has to regard and describe their union in the way that THEY wish, whether it's appropriate or not. I also have hopes, dreams and desires; namely that one day feeble-thinkers like you will sod off and pester someone else, with your woolly 'reasoning' and ridiculous assertions.
And, if you don't want to be considered as a thicko, best you actually read and digest what is actually being said before you comment on something that has already being addressed and dealt with several times by more than just me. Making ridiculous non-points makes you sound like someone who has never even been to school - in 1973 or any other year.
For the gays, social progress means them telling themselves how wonderful they are.
You're right, Joe, but it's more than that. For them, it's also about forcing the rest of society into telling them how wonderful they are.
******
Okay, peeps, I try and give the other side a fair crack of the whip - that's why I publish dissenting opinions to my own. However, it's clear from the puerile and uncomprehending comments I'm still receiving that some people are either incapable of grasping what I and others have already written - or simply haven't bothered to read it, resulting in tedious repetition of what's already been discussed and dealt with. If anyone who has actually bothered to read the previous comments submits an interesting, reasoned observation that adds something to the topic, without merely going over ground we've already covered, then I'll publish and address it. Those who are merely attempting to provoke me haven't a chance.
Post a Comment