If ever words were redundant, then this is surely
such a case. Gentleman - BRIGITTE BARDOT!
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 a 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 a present too." I was big on equality, you see. Equality as I perceived 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 then 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 recently legalizing gay marriage in all 50 states. Traditionally, 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 elsewhere, 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 conceived and carried out down through the centuries.
Then one day, society relaxed a bit on the matter 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 still 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 intrinsically 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 requirement 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 accommodate 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!