Saturday, 26 January 2013

Same sex marriage suporters indulge in some gay bashing of their own...

What a display, half a dozen straight, same sex marriage supporters laying into a gay man because he doesn't agree with them.

Before knowing he was gay, they attacked him the same way they attacked me (me being a straight opponent of same sex mariage) - they were throwing around bogus 'equality' arguments, and saying how this is a vital issue that all homosexuals and most hetrosexuals support, and that only a bigot and homophobe could disagree with them.

He stood his ground and produced several great links showing that no serious rights organisation considers same-sex marriage a 'human rights' issue, he withstood the onslaught with style, running rings around his attackers.

Then the bombshell - pointing out that he himself was gay.

Well that was spectacular - the shouts of bigot and homophobe evaporated in an instant. However it was not a knockout blow... his attackers u-turned and pivoted... and launched a new attack from a different angle.

Now they insisted that he was an exception, that he was on his own, that he was misguided and like all gay people he was sorely oppressed and needed their help to be treated equally as a normal person.

He would have none of this - he renewed his counter attack tearing their arguments apart one by one - refusing to let them label him a victim in need of their pity and their help.

Meanwhile, I too had been fighting these promoters of 'enforced victimhood' and 'disparagers of true equality'. As they cowered and failed I gave another tweet of support to my gay comrade 'Good stuff, keep this up and we'll have to start treating you gays as normal people', sarcasticly highlighting the 'we powerful [straights]' vs 'you [dependent on our help] gays' division that these supposed believers in 'equality' are trying to estabish and reinforce in perpetuity. And highlighting that he was already superior to them in his arguments.

What ever the arguments in favour of same sex marriage, the bulk of the noise is coming from mostly straight pro-ssm campaigners, many of whom seem to be genuinely homophobic, who are reacting to this dog-whistle issue as bogus 'proof' that they are not. They know/care little about the issue itself, they just want to be seen to be associated with a 'right on' cause.

So who is it that has little or no respect for gay people? Clearly those who not only think they want/need their help, but will do their best to bully them into accepting it. Me, I have much more respect for people than that - gay or straight, black or white, male or female - to me they are all 'normal people', and individuals,, already.

Monday, 21 January 2013

Would you Adam and Eve it? (#1)

And so the story began.

Adam and Eve lived on a five acre farm with their three children.

Each day Adam would tend the fields and animals, doing whaterver work and tasks the time of year demanded. Eve would look after the house, keep it clean and tidy, prepare meals and have primary responsibility for looking after and managing the children. But in either case, Adam and Eve would help out in any role where it was required.

This was a division of labour that worked very well for the whole family, a bit like governments having different departments for domestic affiars - 'The Home Office' - and for another for non-domestic affairs - 'The Foreign Office'. Or of a company having different departments for managing the internal operations of the company (Human Resources, Typing Pool etc) and external operations (Salesmen, Client Relationship Managers etc).

Adam and Eve were equal partners in their relationship and family, they chose how best to divide and/or share roles - in some cases one of them specialising and building up specific skills, in others (like bed time reading to the children) they shared the priviledge of doing the task.

Being sensible, rational people it never occured to them to split every job precisely down the middle to try to make things 'equal' or 'fair' - that would be inefficent, artificial and childish. Things were efficient, fair and enjoyable as they were.

Thing is, I call them Adam and Eve, but that was just the shortened version of their names - I think their full names were actually Alisadam the childrens mother and Steven their father - but could be wrong... or have them around the wrong way - but that doesn't really matter does it?

Tuesday, 8 January 2013

'Same Sex Marriage' - revisited - still an oxymoron.

I blogged almost a year ago about 'same sex marriage' - having had various discussions, debates and arguments about it I thought it was about time to summarise developments.

One thing that hasn't changed is that 'same sex marriage' is still an oxymoron (self contradicting), it cannot exist.

However the arguments to explain this situation have developed since I last blogged and there is one that is particularly key - so here goes.
The essence of marriage is an exclusive relationship between the two parties. A man and a woman who are married are legally bound to only have sexual intercourse with each other - breaking this exclusivity is 'adultery' and with no further ado is grounds for divorce. In fact the marriage only properly begins when they do have sexual intercourse together following the ceremony and  by so doing 'consummate' the marriage.

Returning to (say) 'an old flame' or having a 'one night stand' even the once is 'adultery' and in itself grounds for divorce. There is no need to demonstrate any particular damage, hurt, reasonableness - the act itself is all that matters.

However, it has been 'decided' that under 'same sex marriage' the definition of consummation and adultery will not be changed to cover same-sex situations. So a partner in a 'same sex marriage' could indeed return to an old flame, or have a one night stand and would not be considered 'adulterous'. For the 'marriage' to be terminated by divorce some proof of 'unreasonableness' would have to be demonstrated by the 'other' partner.

More perversely - if a partner in a same-sex marriage did have sexual intercourse with another person (of the opposite sex...) it would be considered adultery(!). So performing an act with someone that they had never, and could never perform with their 'partner' becomes grounds for divorce, while performing sexual acts they can/do perform with their partner are not!

This isn't a 'new' or 'clever' argument - it is just capturing some essence of my initial objection to 'same sex marriage' - marriage recognises and protects a unique and exclusive relationship between one man and one woman focused on the unique act of creating children together and raising a family.

'Same sex marriage' defines nothing that makes the couples relationship exclusive or unique - the essence of 'marriage' is simply not there - 'same sex marriage' is indeed an oxymoron.