Monday, May 05, 2008

Gay Marriage "Rights"?

I got into a debate with a local "Gay Rights" activist on our local newspaper website over the "Gay Marriage" issue. I really don't care what consenting adults do, and I don't care if someone is gay or not (as long as they don't shove it in my face). Because honestly, the more guys who are gay, the less competition there is... DUH!

However, the issue of "gay marriage" interests me because I see the much of the same hypocrisy, distortions, and victimology from the "gay rights movement" as I do from Feminists and other "professional victim" groups.

First, there is no "Right to Marry", just like there is no "Right to have sex" or a "Right to drive". Marriage is only a government-granted privilege (not a human right). Marriage was originally a religious ceremony meant to symbolicly unite a man and woman in a committed relationship. Unfortunately the Government took over the power to grant marriages. We ALL know that when the government gets involved, bad things happen. So what was originally a religious ceremony has now become a potential gold mine for one partner, and a trap for the other. Government has no good reason to get involved in marriage, but they did it anyway and made a mess of it!

Second (and my main point) is that, IF traditional marriage (one man and one woman) is considered discrimination against gays, then doesn't it also discriminate against bigamists, polygamists, and guys with large harems? Thus, if we expand the definition of "marriage" to include homosexual couples, then don't we also have to expand marriage to allow bigamist, polygamist, plural, and any other type of marriages that aren't considered "traditional"?

(After all, would it be fair to discriminate against polygamists, and not allow them to marry the way they want to, simply because they aren't gay?)

One commenter responded by saying that we could write the laws so that any two (and ONLY two) people could marry. He obviously ignored or didn't see what I was getting at.

The gay rights activist, however, responded to my question with hostility, basically making false assumptions about me and my intentions. The interesting part was where he said, "I will not be derailed by your weak attempts to compare my committed loving relationship to any other controversial group. I.E. What's next people... robot marriage?"

In other words, he believes it's discrimination to not allow "his people" to marry the way they want to marry, but he believes it's okay to use that same "discrimination" against other groups that aren't like his. And even though he calls it discrimination, he still used the same type of argument that his opponents use against his cause. (His "What's next, robog marriage" is too similar to the "What's next, do we allow beastiality marriages" argument I've seen other people use to argue against gay marriage.

His response is comparable to a Jew arguing that it was ok for the Nazis to murder Gypsies, Gays, Poles, and other groups because they aren't like his people. It's exactly like feminists, who argue that gender discrimination is wrong, but only if it's against a woman because they think it's okay to discriminate against men.

Just like feminists and race-baiters, this guy is so stuck on seeing himself and "his group" as a victim class, that he can't see his own bigotry and hypocrisy and thus becomes what he accuses his opponents of.

Respectfully,

Thomas Lessman
Website: http://www.thomaslessman.com/
Blog: http://www.talessman.blogspot.com/
-----------------------------------

2 comments:

Charlotte said...

I agree. Marriage is a basic civil right that should be attainable by all Americans if they choose. For the truth about gay marriage check out our trailer. Produced to educate & defuse the controversy it has a way of opening closed minds & provides some sanity on the issue: www.OUTTAKEonline.com

Miguel Balderrama said...

Gay marriage is way more comparable to inter-racial marriage than it is to polygamy and harems. Still, the day a sultan and his harem (all of its members) present a case where they all feel the need to legalize their union in order to avoid law to act against their own life, then I would absolutely support them, and honestly I don´t see why anyone shouldn´t, or at least why anyone should act against it. I ended up here because I love your maps. But it was quite a deception for me to see how narrow minded you can be. respectfully, Miguel