Reader Mail
The Blame Shame
Social conservatism's easy target. Consumed with h8. No 007, he. Plus more.
(Page 3 of 4)
Against nature per Judge Moore? Why, from the reality in front of
you gayness is as natural as an apple.
What is that reason? And why are you not proposing, ever, to find
that reason, so that you might more intellectually argue for or
against us and our claims and desires?
If gays are created by our Creator, then surely we are entitled to certain inalienable rights, regardless of others' repugnance of the acts in bed, on which so many seem to be fixated. And we should be free from all legal penalty and prohibition. If our churches want to marry us, then they should be free to do so. If your church refuses to marry us, then so be it. But to have your religion deny our religion such a right means the state establishment of one religion over another, as if the Catholics could ban Jewish marriage, as the Hapsburgs did.
If gayness is shown to be genetic that would solve a lot of the mush that passes for debate, no? But both sides, and those in the muddling middle, refuse to look for any such genetic component(s) lest they find one, or some, or none.
Now, what if gays are psychological misfits? Then it was our straight parents who started the process, or was it our uncles? or Aunts? Or teachers? Or neighbor down the block? Who knows? But both sides are refusing to look at it in any way, hardly the stuff of intellectual rigor there. But if we are psychologically gay, shouldn't we have the right to sue our parents for depriving us of our "natural" state? Shouldn't there be a law, then, penalizing straight parents who raise gay children to the detriment of the Republic? Oddly, for decades it was said that gays "chose" this psychological imbalance. We self-caused our own psychological problems -- the only known psychological conditon not caused by external factors. Shouldn't you want to know so that you could propose the correct psychological corrective action to rid the Republic of the danger? How's that for a government program, eh?
If gays are psychiatric misfits, then surely that is a proof that we are indeed "natural" -- how else could it be? Does anyone think that gays create their own psychiatric condition? Psychiatry has proven to a rather strong degree that every psychiatric condition is a chemical imbalance. What are gay people eating, taking or ingesting somehow to cause this imbalance? No one will look at that little bit of scientific inquiry either. Oddly, this was exactly the tack taken by so many psychiatrists for years, and it was the only known psychiatric condition self-caused. And if we are psychiatric cases, why are you not proposing to look for the drug or drugs or whatever appropriate therapy would be required to, once again, protect the Republic?
If gays want to use the civil marriage laws, what is the big deal? We don't have children? Many heterosexuals have no children, indeed, are biologically unable to do so, -- are they prohibited from being civilly married? No. Are elderly widows and widowers prohibited from marriage because they are past the age of procreation? No. So that means that not having children is not an impediment to marriage whatsoever.
Is it because divorce is legal? So that heterosexuals wantonly disregard the Creator's commandments? Why don't you argue for the illegalizing of divorce? That would protect marriage far more than preventing gays from getting civilly married.
Want to protect children? Well, gays not having children would surely leave us out of the abandonment problem, the child abuse by parents, the infanticide, the children killing going on around this country.
Is it because gayness leads to the plague of abortion? No, gays, having no children, would of course not be invovled in this discussion at all. Surely we can't be blamed for that slaughter, can we? And surely killing a baby is far, far worse than not having one, no?
Is it because there is an increasing number of gays -- and somehow if everyone was gay there'd be no future generations? No, it appears that the number and percentage of gays in any given population has remained static since time immemorial. The increase in the number of gays is never bandied about by your anti-gay commentators, rather it is a leap from some unknown, but obvious percentage, to the all encompassing "if everyone was gay" idea. And not even radical left-leaning gays have proposed this. The reality remains that all people will never be gay. Only that small percentage will be gay, as has been the reality since humankind began.
Yet, alas, both sides refuse to count the number of gays, or determine our incidence. To the anti-gay people to come up with any number or percentage would perhaps give a number too high for them to contemplate or stomach.
For the gay activists coming up with a number or percentage would perhaps come up with a number too low for them to contemplate or stomach.
So we are left with a vague 1% to 10% range, depending on one's political predilections. And never stated is exactly where the dividing line for counting even begins. Is it at the age of 21? Or 18? Or 10? -- When does gayness manifest itself? No one seems to even want to look for an answer, lest it blow their dreams out of the water.
If gay sex is to be outlawed, as it was for so many centuries, why don't you argue for the recriminalization of it? You don't, for the practical absurdities would manifest themselves. So funny that from the moment of the first gay pride parade in 1970 to 2003 with Lawrence v. Texas, during this time when gay sex was outlawed, the heterosexual police establishment was simply unable to find any gays to prosecute. Odd no, that millions of gays marched, and you found no gay people? Surely you didn't look very hard.
And if gay sex was illegal again, would that mean that the police state, which you so competently rail against in so many instances, would have to go house to house to look for the severe threat to the Republic you seem to think, and certainly imply, we are? Are there even enough cops? Are there enough prisons? Or is the law to be just selectively imposed? Whenever you chance upon two gays having sex in the privacy of their own home you'll arrest them. And since you can't look inside the house this law has all the consequence of a bubble emanating from a child's play toy.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (12) | Leave a comment
Leave a Comment
More Articles From Reader Mail
http://spectator.org/archives/2008/11/18/dont-letem-get-your-goat
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Current Wisdom
- Facing Up to Darwin
- Down in the Desert
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
frost| 11.18.08 @ 7:57AM
Garry apparently has a low opinion of our present president? As do I, and a pretty large bunch of others who see him as a totally inept betrayer of what 'way too many of us voted for; he did cut taxes, appointed a few judges.... and, everything else has been a big far Blah! Couldn't discipline his own party's spending, wouldn't or couldn't shut down the Illegal (NOT "undocumented") Alien crap, allowed even more inane government growth; and, why, pray tell, are we still paying for the Iraqi mess? First, he completely mishandled the war for too many years (until Petraeous) because of the McClellans in the Pentagon and his inability to get Victory, and now he allows the Iraqi government to reap the benefits of oil revenue while we're still paying the freight?!?
Yeah, Dubya ranks right down there with Jimmy Carter as the All-Time Worst Ever -- his (and Bush-the-Elder's) hairbrained "Compassionate Conservatism" is nothing more than Liberal Lite. His ethanol/lack of ANWR-offshore drilling ('til oil topped $100-a-barrel) was yet another miserable exhibition in his lack-of-leadership.
Face it, it's been an awful president, and I haven't even scratched the surface!
Democrats HATE Dubya with a passion – we Independents and conservatives bash Bush for a reason! Incompetence cubed, and the rest of the party ('cept Ron Paul and a very few others) also sucks. Guess that about covers it -- for the moment...
There's plenty more, but now, think I want to throw up...
frost| 11.18.08 @ 8:01AM
That "far" in the 4th line should'a read "Fat," okay?
Appleby| 11.18.08 @ 10:23AM
For those who hate President Bush more than they hate the Mommy who would not let them wear hot pants to church, I advise that you get back to me once bin Laden has blown up the Sears Tower and King O stands wringing his hands and crying in the ruins because he can't believe they don't love him unconditionally the way his handlers told him everyone in the world was now required to do.
In six months you will be looking back on the last eight years and wondering how you could have been as stupid as you were before the firebombing of daycare centres started and King O did nothing ...
garry greenwood| 11.18.08 @ 12:09PM
I sincerely hope "frost" is not referring to me in the first line of his comment. If so, he is sadly mistaken. Although I have many problems with what President Bush has done (e.g., amnesty for illegal aliens and out-of-control spending) I honestly find little fault with his actions against islamofascism. My family has not been attacked since 9/11; neither has "frost".
What is also sad is the obsessive and pathelogical hatred the left has for President Bush. It will be interesting to see how history records the contributions of the Clinton administration and the current democrat leadership in congress versus that of President Bush in the war against islamofascism. Somehow I don't believe it will come out the way "frost" would have liked.
frost| 11.18.08 @ 3:11PM
Sorry Garry. You're correct in that we haven't been attacked, but, all things considered, my guess is that that's because of the various failings by the world-be terrorists -- not anything Dubya's done (look at the TSA next time you're in an airport for an illustration). Mine isn't hate, and, God knows, I'm sure no leftist! But I sure do feel betrayed by a guy most of us thought would do a whole lot more to secure this once-great country.
There are two quotations that express those feelings rather eloquently: "We have a two party system. The evil party and the stupid party."
Annnnd, "I don’t trust the GOP; most politicians are pandering whores. BUT, the Republican Party contains fewer certifiable maniacs."
Those pretty much say it all. Hate saying this, but, when it comes to our not having been attacked, two things come to mind: (1) we lucked out; their ineptitude is worse than ours, and (2) in this age of Political Correctness, they're winning without any shots being fired -- Minneapolis foot-baths anyone?
Marc Jeric| 11.18.08 @ 3:12PM
"Liberal elite" (oxymoron, with the stress on moron) ridicules Sarah Palin as a non-believer in evolution. No, Sir. Evolution exists perhaps, even though its proof is a logical idiocy: the variant of a specie survived because it was fitter - this can be also stated as the variant was fitter because it survived. Aristotle warned us against such circular reasoning. Quite another matter is the creation of a single living cell out of that darwinist primordial soup; that has been shown as a mathematical impossibility by various scientists - not once could such a cell, however simplified, be created in the whole known universe by however long it could have been tried, to and including the infinity.
ruth| 11.18.08 @ 4:20PM
The Bush hatred in this country is off the charts. So much so, that he isn't even given credit for his courageous and brilliant national security strategy which has protected us from further horror. Such a fool's errand; it is also sick and ungrateful. I worry for our future.
Quartermaster| 11.18.08 @ 8:01PM
Alas, Lincoln was not a product of the Great Awakening, nor was he a product of the second great awakening. The man was a screaming infidel. The only thing that saved his political career was Herndon, his law partner, seizing a manuscript mocking Christianity from Lincoln's hand and hurling it into the stove. Herndon said that Lincoln lived and died an infidel, and John Hay stated that Lincoln did not change his religious opinion after he came to the District of Corruption.
As to him being the greatest President, I'll allow you your delusions. He refounded the country, destroying the Republic that was founded in 1787, which led directly to the serious problems we have politically today. Without the unitary Federal Government, paying only lip service to the constitution or the position of the states, the left would be completely irrelevant.
If you don't like what the left has been up to these past 70 years, just remember, Lincoln made it all possible.
ruth| 11.18.08 @ 9:50PM
As a social conservative I am not going to accept responsibility for the 2008 election debacle. BS! If a strong, articulate conservative had run, I believe he/she would not only have won the nomination, but would have had a real chance to win the election.
David Govett| 11.19.08 @ 1:39AM
Imagine, some people want to preserve the lessons of 8000 generations of Homo sapiens society. How silly of them.
Michael L. Hauschild| 11.19.08 @ 7:57PM
I would vote for Sarah Palin in a second. She could be the perfect candidate; leading by example, not governmental fiat, would probably satisfy the Social Conservatives, and her simple approach to cleaning house with a partisan broom would satisfy many like myself.