I ran across this blog post on Blue Collar Muse:
Gay Marriage Doesn’t Involve Rights …
In which the American author responds to this statement in a post:
“You’re talking about being against basic civil rights [in regards to gay marriage].”
He or she then proceeds to justify the conservative view on the topic, which contains this gem:
I do not mean to make light of the feelings and desires of homosexuals who find themselves in the unfortunate situation of being unable to marry. But twisting the argument into a civil rights case in order to acquire a non-existent right for themselves is not something I’m prepared to participate in. It seems likely supporters of gay marriage will respond they are not talking about a right to marry but about discrimination. In which case I must respond in order to be discriminated against, there must be something you are able to do which you are being prevented from doing because you are gay. Thus there is no discrimination here since homosexuals are unable to marry.
The tortured logic of this paragraph is painful enough, but if brave, try reading the whole thing here. There are many more painful examples where that came from.
Nutshell arguement: Cultures [and the author of said piece, nose held firmly in air] have traditionally been able to discriminate against homosexuals, so how dare they now ask for that to stop. Really, some people are so uppity...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Knowledge is power. For the truth about gay marriage check out our trailer. Produced to educate & defuse the controversy it has a way of opening closed minds & creates an interesting spin on the issue: www.OUTTAKEonline.com
The truth will set them free…
Thanks for stopping by over at my place and taking the time to read what I wrote.
Unfortunately, you seem to have missed my point. Contrary to your summary of my position, I do believe that homosexuals have been discriminated against. Where that has happened, I clearly stated that I supported their efforts at obtaining their rights.
I also stated that marriage, of any type, is not a right, Civil or otherwise. My final point was that society recognized heterosexuality as the norm and chose to honor that. It was not an intentional slap at homosexuals.
I am disappointed that you chose to address none of those statements. You simply dismissed my points gratuitously and called me arrogant and a prick. Isn't that the sort of behavior you are incorrectly accusing me of?
If you'd like to talk to me about what I wrote and why you disagree with me and think I'm wrong - that's why I write the stuff I do - to engage others who disagree.
If all you have is name calling and irrational denial and dismissal, I suppose that is argument enough for the validity of your points.
Your thoughts?
Blue
My country has given us our rights. Yours has a long way to go. You argue from a point of view that is retrograde to my thinking.
Post a Comment