I want to know. We're all about "human rights" and justice and all that. I mean, tossing out the longstanding, traditional definition of marriage of the 97% in favor of the 3% is no big deal for us. It's right! It's equality! It's justice! So why is it that no one is standing up for the other little guys?
I know that there is still the National Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) out there although they're pretty quiet and don't appear to be making a stink. But why? Why should one small segment of society get to move the standard for themselves, but not for these? I read that a Clearwater, Florida man was accused of possession of child porn and sex with his girlfriend's dog. Why is the ACLU not moving heaven and earth on his behalf? One would think that, if the gay community can radically shift public opinion to bring about the dissolution of marriage as it has always been defined, they would be willing to help out a bit on behalf of the Mormons for polygamy or the polyamorists who only want to love everyone (or at least a number more than 2). But, no! No one is lifting a finger! We say we're all about the rights of the GLBTQI (and whatever other initial we can tack on), but are we? Where are the court cases for the bisexuals? What if they want to marry another guy and another girl? Why shouldn't they? Where's the call for their marriage equity? Who's making the case for those suffering from objectum sexuality? (In case, like me, you've never heard of it, I just found out that it's a condition where someone has a pronounced emotional and even romantic attraction toward inanimate objects.) There is a woman, for instance, who married the Berlin Wall because of this. Another married the Eiffel Tower after first being infatuated with a bow (as in "bow and arrow") in her earlier days and claims to have a piece of fence at home with which she has a physical relationship. Now, I ask you, who is looking out for her rights? Who is working to insure their marriage equity?
I don't know. It seems a little strange to me. "We deserve our rights, but we don't really much care about anyone else." That what it seems like. I mean, sure, those of us who wish to maintain marriage as it has always been may not be viewed as caring about others' rights, but this seems blatant to me. From our perspective, we are in favor of marriage equity. We can marry someone of the opposite sex; they can marry someone of the opposite sex. We cannot marry a sibling; they cannot marry a sibling. We aren't allowed to marry our pets; they aren't allowed to marry their pets. We cannot marry someone of the same gender; they cannot marry someone of the same gender. How is this not equal? But for those who, still, see it as inequality, I'll believe that when I see their campaigns on behalf of NAMBLA, those who wish to marry their animals, the polygamists and the polyamorists, and those dear, sweet folks suffering from objectum sexuality. When those who are shouting for "marriage equity" actually work toward marriage equity, I'll believe it. Until then, it looks to me a lot like special rights for an extreme minority, which is not "marriage equity" at all.
Update: Oddly, I've already been accused of comparing homosexuals to child abusers and animal molesters. Apparently, that's a valid response from those who disagree. In case it wasn't clear from what I wrote, there is no comparison. There is simply a list of people -- other groups -- who wish to be allowed to love whom they wish to love and marry whom they wish to marry without interference. These groups do not receive the same attention or support from the homosexual community that the homosexual community demands for itself. That's the point. There is no comparison of groups. The only link between these groups and the homosexual community is that each of them desires to be allowed to love and marry as they please.
6 comments:
Excellent post!
I have gotten much hate mail over the years due to the letters-to-the-editor saying the same things you say here. They always accuse me of "comparing" pedophilia with homosexuality when all I do is say the two are "sexual orientations" and if you permit one, how can you logically deny the other. They don't like the fact that our logic is infallible in this situation, because it prove that the homosexualists are not really interested in "marriage equity" but are more interested in destroying the institution of marriage as well as forcing government and societal approval of their sexual immorality.
This is exactly what my friend did (in the post from last Saturday) and has received nothing but hate mail since. No comparison was made. The point is "If you allow this, on what basis do you disallow others?" But, of course, the preconception (called "bias" or "bigotry") is that any disagreement is "hate", so they will (have already) respond with hate.
If you haven't heard from him already, Dan T has a ready list or reasons why all those others do not get to share in the demand for "equity". For example, to him, because of his own vast experience with such situations, there is no such thing as truly consenting incestuous adults. Such relationships can only be the result of one party (the parent or older sibling) manipulating the other. Bestial relationships, obviously (to him) cannot be mutually consenting, though, how he'd know the animal is or isn't enjoying the relationship is anybody's guess.
Of course, these assume all other relationships are abnormal and/or sinful. Ironic, isn't it? Yet, "studies show" that there is no abnormality at work within homosexual relationships.
Frankly, there are some that would prefer no gov't involvement in ANY marital union, hetero (oops! I mean "heterosexual"---don't want to offend anyone) or otherwise. Both perspectives are wrong.
I was fascinated to read that Dan knows that a male dog who attempts sex with a woman (or your knee or your couch or ...) is doing so under duress. He is not consenting. I have yet to determine the motivation of a dog with any certainty; apparently Dan has insights.
But it doesn't answer why bisexuals are not allowed to marry both genders, why polygamists are not allowed to marry multiple wives, or why polyandrists are not allowed to marry as many of both genders as they please. All of these are "loving, committed relationships" by all accounts, and no one is able to suggest duress with any reasonable support. In fact, I'd think that the GLBTQI folks would be seeking to get the "B" out of their acronym since they're being discriminated against without any support from their own group.
You see? That's just it. You try to tarnish the name of pedophiles by comparing them to homosexuals. How are they ever going to get their rights if you keep doing that?
Well, fortunately, I'M not one standing up for their rights.
Post a Comment