I've stepped into the fray once again at John Dvorak's blog, in the comments on a post about same-sex "marriage" being legalized in California.
I don't think I've touched on this issue here, although I may get around to it one of these days. My position on the matter is pretty much what you'd expect if you've been reading this blog for more than a couple of minutes. Hint: note the quotation marks in the previous (and next) paragraph.
Anyway, par for the course on Dvorak's blog, anyone who has any hesitation at all to jumping up and down and applauding gay "marriage" is being attacked. Here's a sampling from what's being said about those of us on this side of the fence in the comments:
- "the Founding Fathers would have applauded"
- "disproportionally vocal minority of biggots and hate mongers" (sic - twice)
- "It is still cute, if not anachronistic , to see the usual crowd of breast-beaters for 'freedom and liberty' - trot out the centuries-old range of excuses for 2nd-class citizenship. You clowns should just join the KKK and admit your bigotry"
- "(this decision) will eventually benefit society by according equal legal status to people I believe have been improperly discriminated against"
- "I’ve got no problems with polygamy either!"
- "So you didn’t like seeing black folk get married to white folks, or Jews move into your Christian neighborhood, or the Irish take your jobs."
- "You racist bigots were wrong then, and you’re wrong now…you’re always wrong."
- "I’m sorry you don’t get your all white society free of gays, Jews, blacks and immigrants."
- "That’s why they condemned rock’n roll - too many black-and-white couples."
- "the only reason not to call what gays and lesbians do when they tie the knot “marriage” is to placate a minority of hatemongers and xenophobes."
- "It’s self-evident that these anti-marriage folks are homophobes"
- "gay marriage sure seems to whip up a frenzy among the wide-stancing right-wing homophobes."
Of course, there still are those who think second-class citizenship is OK - for someone else. Someday, their children and grandchildren may forgive them. It’s the “Christian” thing to do. Right?
Here's what I posted. This was going to form the nucleus of a new post here anyway, linking to the same article. I might as well be lazy and just report it here rather than write a whole separate entry:
Quick question: are all the enlightened folks who are name-calling and flinging hyperbole on this issue (Eidard, #7, and #23, I’m looking in your direction) going to go argue with anyone opposed to polygamy, too?
Check out this article:
Here’s the money quote, from that article (words of the prosecutor in the case):
“the degree of harm, social harm resulting from polygamy per se - not just in Bountiful - is such that criminalizing it is justifiable in a free and democratic society.”
Clue: “polygamy” and “same-sex marriage” can be used interchangeably in any argument for or against either that I’ve ever heard.
Anybody going to hurry over and call that prosecutor a hatemonger and a bigot?
If not, why not?
If so, well, then, I at least admire your intellectual integrity.
The only direct response to me - so far - was when an editor of the blog stripped out the link to the National Post article and replaced it with this:
[edit: pls learn to use tinyurl}
(For the record, I deliberately didn't use TinyURL, a service that changes long addresses you can read to short ones you can't. I never will. Websurfing 101: never click on a link blindly. If you don't have at least some idea where you'll wind up, stay where you are. There are too many people out there who think it's funny to redirect links to porn sites or sites that will silently install malware on your computer to ever click blindly.)
So, no responses to the actual question I raised. I don't expect any to show up, especially now that the article's been pushed off the front page over there.
Enough rambling. Here's a picture of the sky and A Bit Of Finger.