Irrational Hatred from the Left

I've been told my writings often come across as "harsh", because I'm honest, blunt, and to-the-point. And I admit that sometimes, especially when I'm in a bad mood, my writings can come across as harsh, though I think it's because people aren't used to hearing some of the things I say. I'm just not "politically correct".

Often I get accused of being a "woman hater" because I advocate for equal rights and equal responsibilities for men and women. I say things like, "Men and women are equally human, and each are equally capable of evil and mean things towards each other". I'm all for women and men having equal rights and equal responsibilities. That also means that men should get the same rights that women have, and women should have the same responsibilities as men have. And neither gender should have privileges that are not given to the other gender.

On the Topeka Capital-Journal site (http://www.cjonline.com/), I often butt heads with certain commenters who disagree with my views. However you'll note that there are often as many people who DO agree with me and what I say.

One commenter in particular, named "TopekaVoter", takes the "hate Thomas" line a bit further in the comments section on Kathleen Parker's latest column, "Domestic violence requires new approach". (For the record, I am a big fan of Kathleen Parker and I respect her views very much. And I agree with her take on the domestic violence issue).

This "TopekaVoter" is a big pusher of gay marriage. His site is http://www.kansasequalitycoalition.org/ (because I believe in showing all sides of a disagreement).

I honestly don't care about the gay marriage issue. As far as I'm concerned, heterosexuals and homosexuals are both equally human. There should be no laws specifically discriminating for or against anyone based on sexual orientation. (Which is why I think most "pro-marriage" legislation is unconstitutional, if it specifically states that homosexuals cannot get married).

If gays want to marry, I say, "more power too them". Though I think they should be aware that marriage is no longer the commitment it once was, but is instead a potential trap, especially if children are involved. But IF we expand marriage beyond its current definition of one man and one woman, then we also have to allow polygamy, harems, and any other form of "marriage" - because if it's called "discrimination against gays" for marriage to be only one man and one woman, then it's also discrimination against other forms of marriage. You can see a better description of my views in my blog post about Gay Marriage "Rights".

Yet TopekaVoter will have NONE of that logic! So now he says I hate gays, women, and however many other groups he could think of. And he goes beyond the limit of "just plain ignorance" in trying to explain himself. Read our disagreement for yourself on CJonline's site, here <http://cjonline.com/stories/062708/opi_296139446.shtml>.

What is your take on my views, or about that discussion? I'm curious what you think.

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

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/
-----------------------------------