Archive for December 10th, 2009

I have been criticized in the past for my stance on gay marriage.  Usually, it’s because I start talking about the slippery slope and the poor legal reasoning used to justify it, which is generally something like this: 

“the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others. Nothing that “civil marriage has long been termed a civil right,”‘ the court concluded that “the right to marry means little if it does not include the right to marry the person of one’s choice, subject to appropriate government restrictions in the interests of public health, safety, and welfare.” 

-Goodridge v. Department of Public Health. 

Of course, this case cites the cases of Zablocki v. Redhail and Loving v. Virginia, but fails to note that in both cases, the couples were attempting marriage as it has always been defined in western tradition and common law, that is to say between a man and a woman, and in the former, the state was blocking the petitioner’s right to marry based on back child support and in the latter, the state was attempting to prevent an interracial marriage.  When you strip these important facts from the quotations cited, the argument boils down to “I want it.  You say I can’t have it.  That violates my civil rights.” 

Of course, my response was, and remains, “If we are going to grant such rights based on what you want, then we don’t have a basis to say no when in ten years, or fifteen years, or twenty years, we have someone standing in front of us who really loves their dog, and wants to get married, or wants more than one spouse, or wants to marry a child…because after all, it’s what they want, and if it is good enough for you, then it has to be good enough for them.” 

The first response is typically “That’s a ridiculous example.  No one would ever think that such a thing was ok.” 

“Really?  What’s the basis for denying it?” 

“Well, it just isn’t acceptable.” 

“Maybe not, but I don’t have to go back too many years to find a time when homosexuality “wasn’t acceptable”, and gay marriage was unthinkable.” 

“Well, your arguments make it sound like they are perverted or something.” 

“And?  There still are many in society who see it that way also.” 

“You’re a mindless Bible-thumper.  We are building a society that doesn’t make moral judgments.” 

“Baloney.  You are trying to change the moral judgments of society when you try to make the law favor this activity instead of sanctioning it.  Don’t kid yourself.  Your position isn’t moral neutral.  You just want to remove a moral code that is time-tested and that works, and substitute it for one that is untested, but has a boatload of warm ‘n fuzzy feelings and good intentions that you hope will get you past its inherent short-sightedness.” 

“It’s a fundamental right.” 

“It’s a change to a legally defined term reaching back centuries on no firmer basis than “I was made this way, and you have to change who you are as a society in order to conform to my whims.  Frankly, that’s a pretty flimsy justification for a lifestyle choice, especially when on the other hand we are constantly being told that it isn’t a choice, but the ones crying the loudest have absolutely no proof that it is anything other than a choice.  At least in a case like Loving v. Virginia, the denial at stake was based on a provably immutable characteristic.  Everyone can understand that a white person cannot wake up one morning, decide they are now black, and make it so.  The same cannot be proven for gays, and if we are going to institutionalize a lifestyle choice that was hitherto a frowned upon practice in society, then we have no basis for stopping  the next “couple”.” 

“Well, you can’t equate homosexuality with pedophilia.” 


I think that argument just got a little tougher to make with a straight face (no pun intended). 

I posted earlier this week about Assistant “Safe Schools” Czar, and militant gay activist Kevin Jennings, and his connection to the group he founded, the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), and how speakers at a GLSEN conference were talking to young (14 year old) conference goers about sex, and sexual practices…BUT WAIT!  There’s MORE! 

One of the male teachers at this conference decided that this was an appropriate conversation to have with the young students at the conference: 

Male Teacher: … Spit versus swallowing – I don’t know about the calorie count of cum. All right. Is it rude? Let’s ask this question: Is it rude not to swallow? 

Students: No! Oh, no! [Many “no’s” from the children.] 

Male Teacher: No. So it’s in good bedroom etiquette … [unclear] to spit out? 

That’s right.  A teacher.  A public employee, of the type that we used to count on to look after our childrens’ best interest was caught having a completely inappropriate conversation with children (14 year olds) about oral sex. 

Even better?  You can listen to it yourself: 

I sure am glad someone told me it was wrong to think of homosexuality as a perversion, and that there was no reason to put it in the same category as pedophilia.  ‘Cause after all, there isn’t anything creepy or wrong about a public employee, a male teacher discussing whether or not its rude to spit after oral sex with a bunch of fourteen year olds.  Relax, these are just the kind of people President Obama wants to appoint as “safe school czars”.  And it must be working…this pervert felt perfectly safe discussion such things with those children. 

I guess the safety of public school students takes a back seat to tolerance and promotion of perversion.  Once again, “Some animals are more equal than others.”

Nice Deb has more on the perfectly acceptable goings-on… 

H/T Gateway Pundit

Read Full Post »