Once again those pesky neighbors to our north have gone and done it again. It seems that Canada has done the unthinkable. They have recognized evil, sinful criminals as equal human beings. They have (Gasp!) legalized gay marriage. And no one is more afraid of this than our very own Katherine Kersten.
For those of you who don't know who Katherine Kersten is, she writes a new column in the Minneapolis Star and Tribune. We all know that the Strib is part of that insidious liberal indoctrination machine that is out to destroy our children and so they felt, I guess, they needed a conservative columnist to round out its image.
I was shocked to read Ms. Kersten's column entitled "North of border, gay marriage spurs social revolution" to find out that I am in dire jeopardy should gay marriage be legalized here. Here is the link to the column. Please read.
http://www.startribune.com/stories/191/5711527.html
According to Ms. Kersten, if gay marriage were to be legalized in the US, I would then be a racist. Because of the way the law is written, marriage as defined as "man and a woman" would then be bigoted. Thousands of documents would have to be changed due to the onslaught of political correctness that would ensue. People who believe in marriage between a man and woman would be in legal trouble.
And then, of course, the children would suffer. The end of the article mentions that sex ed classes would have to be changed to include same sex discussions. One can only conclude that after all of this, Ms. Kersten believes that all of us will then fall into hell as the world becomes a giant, boiling pit of sewage.
Once again we see the right using the only tactic they really have to get through to people: fear. It's the same old story with everything they talk about. Fight the terrorists there so we don't have to fight them here. Liberal activist judges are running amok (never mind the right activist judges that are) and must be stopped before they destroy our way of life. And gay people? Well, if they get their way, your life as you know it is over.
Am I the only one out here who can see this?
Ms. Kersten is so incredibly myopic that she doesn't realize the solution to all of this is simple: write a law that makes sense so all people are looked upon as equal. C'mon, folks, we are a smart country. Don't you think we can come up with a law that circumvents these PC snafus?
As far as sex ed in schools are concerned, I think most kids when they reach puberty know what straight and gay mean and they should, if their parents have had frank discussions with them about sex. Most sex ed classes in schools are designed to lay out the basics of reproduction. I think that purient examples of the different types of sex can easily be left out of such a basic discussion of biology. At that point, the parents must take up the mantle of education and answer their children's questions and encourage them to have good sexual health.
Consider this a warning to Ms. Kersten and all like her: I know what you are trying to do, it won't work, and I will stop you. You are using your power as a columnist to drum fear into people who don't have enough exposure to or knowledge of gay people.
I will do everything in my power to educate people and let them know that people of different races, colors, creeds, and sexual orientation are all equal in the eyes of God. If you truly believe in the teachings of Jesus, then you should love and respect all people. You might not believe this but "they" already love and respect you.
Gay people are not any different than anyone else. The American public should know, Ms. Kersten, that they shouldn't be afraid of anyone except maybe a little wary of someone like you.
13 comments:
I love it. No comments as of yet. That's gotta tell you something. Like maybe your wrong as usual. Why cannot kids be kids without being sexualized? There is plenty of time to learn of mankinds perversions as young adults and beyond. Maybe there should be a preschool course on beastiality. That would be fine with you I take it. Find bin laudin and zarkowi? (misspelling intentional) We couldnt even find Ted Kazinsky or Dave Rudolph in our own country. I know its a bad thing in your book that millions are now voting in Iraq ,Afghanistan,Gaza and the West Bank . Women have some rights of their own. Dissent is allowed without losing your tounge or life.
Laura Ingram is spelled as I just did. Not as you suggest with an H in it. Want proof? Go to Barnes and Noble and look up Shut up and Sing which is the title of her latest book. Still stuck on stupid aren't you?
I will take the last bit of mornic idiocy first. I went to the Barnes and Noble site you suggested. It is here.
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=MN61R5dCR7&isbn=0895261014&itm=1
I see an H in the last name of Laura Ingraham. It is the same H that is in her name on her official web site. So help me out here...what are you looking at?
There could be any number of reasons why people haven't commented. People leave comments when they are angry and disagree. If they agree, they are usually less inclined to leave them. Perhaps they are tired from all that turkey.
I still had close to 100 hits on the site on the first day of a new post which means that the same amount of people are still reading it.
Also, what did you not understand about this line....
"Most sex ed classes in schools are designed to lay out the basics of reproduction. I think that purient examples of the different types of sex can easily be left out of such a basic discussion of biology."
I actually am in agreement with you and think that just the basics of reproduction should be in sex ed and the rest should be left up to the parents. Some may want to talk about gay sex. Others may want to talk about abstinence. It's their choice after all because it is a free country.
I find your comment equating gay sex to beastiality to be quite offensive. Maybe you might want to take the time to be a little more understanding of people. After all, didn't President Bush himself say, when asked if he thought homosexual sex was a sin, "I think we all need to be tolerant of everyone since we are all Americans."
As far as democracy goes in the Middle East, I think it is great. How we got there and why we are actually there is at best pretty muddied.
I am not so sure we will be happy with the results. Look at what's happening in Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood is winning many local elections. They are an Islamic extremist group that wants to destroy the United States.
Power to the people, right on!
Markkkadelphia, I think your interpretation of Ms. Kersten’s article is a bit off. First off, she didn’t say you would be a racist, she quotes Bishop Frederick Henry who said that, in the eyes of the law, people would be deemed racist and looking at the situation with the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal the Bishop has a point. Secondly, according to her article you wouldn’t be the racist. The racists would be people who promote traditional marriage (again, those people who are being hauled before the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal according to the article). I wonder what the uproar would be like if they hauled someone up before the tribunal for promoting gay marriage. How would the Hollywood community react to that potential atrocity? Would there be angry protests? Candlelight vigils? Outraged letters and columns and articles? Demands for justice and equality? Calls for protection of free speech? It’s a pretty safe bet that there would be all of the above and much more. And all of the anger would be absolutely justified in the eyes of leftists everywhere.
Talk about a free speech issue if there ever was one. People who disagree with same-sex marriages and talking about it in public charged with hate speech? I think you’re fighting the wrong battle here.
I don’t think Ms. Kersten took it as far as you did. There's tolerate and accept. While everyone should be tolerant, nobody should be forced to accept something they don't buy into or be shunned for not accepting it.
I really don't give a crap one way or another if Neal and Bob want to get a marriage license. Far more damage has been done to the institution of marriage by the heterosexual divorce rate, divorce courts, and the whole ethos of instant gratification than could possibly be done by letting two gay people get married. If the society wants to save the institution of marriage, it needs to worry more about those things that clearly have been damaging it than those things that they only theorize could.
So there is going to be a vote next year on a gay marriage referendum in Minnesota? Good. I'll be voting in favor of it. That is “power to the people”, not power to 1 judge (the way the left prefers to get its agenda through nowadays). For the record, you mentioned GWB’s approval rating over the weekend along with the latest poll numbers with regards to the Iraq war. Have you seen the poll numbers on gay marriage? Did you see the results of the referendums last year that failed miserably in each state that voted on them? What’s with the different standards?
For the record – Laura Ingraham’s name has an “H” in it you anonymous dolt. Check her official website address.
I find it interesting that in a country that was conceived in the spirit of individual rights and freedoms that in this day and age there are people who want to be involved in some way in everyone's private life.
I look at the situation from my own perspective which is simply that gay people being married has no bearing on anything in my life whatsoever. If gay people are allowed to be legally married, I will still love my wife and kids. It does no harm to me as a person, does no damage to my morals or ethics and as far as I am concerned, marriage is a private matter of the heart and has nothing to do with a piece of paper that I signed. Gay couples that consider themselves in committed relationships are already married in my opinion.
For those that find it an abomination, I wonder why that is. If it is because God dictated to someone that it was the case, then I guess the matter falls into the category of God's business with that person. Let him/her/it deal with the problem as is inevitable (according to the doctrine).
I would like it if people would mind their own business when it comes to matters of sex, marriage, love, sexual reproduction and personal relationships. How about if everyone agrees to take responsibility for their actions and then we don't have to create oppressive ineffective social legislation to deal with non-existant problems. Maybe then we could focus on real issues like clean air, education, healthy food, health care and the general well-being of the citizens of our country and the world.
It's all building up to something...something that can only be redeemed by fire.
I look forward to that referendum in MN next year. I also will be voting for it. Unfortunately for me, my position has aligned me with the churchies again. Man I hate that. (With friends like that....)
For the record, my adamant opposition to gay marriage has nothing to do with religious principles. Tolerance has nothing to do with it, even though I don't want gay people touching me because I don't want them to give me gay. I totally buy into the notion that a loving, committed union of gay people is every bit as positive, if not more so, than many hetero marriages today.
Seems to me that the fundamental issue at hand isn't that gays cannot marry....it's that they are not receiving the benefits that come from being legally married. So my opposition boils down to this. (I've asked Markadelphia for responses before and didn't get any. Maybe he'd like another crack?)
With our newfound enlightment and acceptance of gay marriage, what exactly are the new boundaries of marriage? Can brothers marry? Can best friends that aren't poking each other marry? Can Cletus marry his dog Rufus? Can I take on a second wife? If not, why not? Each of these can be described as a loving, committed relationship that offers just as much to society as a gay relationship. For all the reasons upheld by supporters of gay marriage we should be supporting these marriages as well. If that's what they want to do, great...let's get on with it. (What a dark time for actuaries that would be.) If, as I suspect, they don't support those marriages, then they are just being arbitrary, and I will not support their cause.
Understand that I'm not running around proclaiming that chaos will ensue....I just want to know the answers to those questions.
Frankly, I'd just as soon see the laws changed to take away the financial and other benefits of being married. Then the churches can decide to discriminate however they want and marry whoever they want. Minus financial, social, healthcare, and next-of-kin considerations, there's no argument for gay marriage. Not any worthy of discussion outside of a church, that is.
Real quick, PL is voting for a gay marriage ban...that much is clear.
Crab you are in favor of a ban or against it? I'm not clear on your position.
After re-reading my first post I could see where one would be confused as to which side I was taking with regards to the referendum. I betta specifi yo.
If the referendum bans gay marriage, I will vote against the referendum.
PL is right. You need to draw the line somewhere. Apparently that line is right before gay people, and that's because, if you follow PL's logic, gay marriage is closer to a union between man and beast than it is to a union between man and woman.
Is that really the argument gay marriage opponents want to make? Are we really to believe that if we pass legislation to end discrimination, we've slipped down the slope towards seeing Bev Cleaver and Mr. Ed holding hands at the movies?
Maybe PL just can't think of a good justification for his prejudice so he, following in his infallible administation's footsteps, has resorted to scare tactics. Shame on you, PL.
Can brothers marry?
No, that is incest
Can best friends that aren't poking each other marry?
Yeah. Don't understand this one
Can Cletus marry his dog Rufus?
No, that is beastiality
Can I take on a second wife?
I think people should have three wives actually like Dr. Phlox on Enterprise but that's just me. For this country, no.
Seriously though,by asking the questions you are asking you are equating gay marriage to incest and beastality. Look at this way. Do gay men like women? Do they feel that hetero marriage is unnatural? Yes.
So imagine how you would feel if Neal and Bob came to you and asked you all the same questions. Because you see, in their eyes, they might look at hetero marriage as akin to beastality.
My answer to your questions, in the end, is very simple. If two consenting unrelated adults of any sex want to get married, they should be able to in the eyes of the church and the state. The law, as it currently stands, means that if a gay couple has children and one member of the coupling dies than the other has no spousal rights. Grandma can take the kid away.
The remaining spouse also receives no benefits as a hetero spouse would. There are companies, like Target Corp for example, that are being progressive in their benefits packages but they are few and far between.
It all comes down to what Mr Waxey has said: what business is it of yours? How does it affect you personally if gay people marry?
Ghost Rider, I don't know what to say about the degree to which you missed the point of my posting. Prejudice? My infallible administration's footsteps? I'm not sure what posting you read, or how on Earth you ever reached the conclusion that I think the Bush administration is infallible, much less that I'm even a supporter. You can continue to go on reading other people's postings and drawing invalid conclusions if it makes you feel better about yourself...I'd never take that right away from you. Rather than respond with the derision and scorn that your ill-conceived posting deserves, I'll humbly suggest that you learn to read what somebody actually writes before you attempt to join into an actual discussion with them.
Now, on to somebody who was capable of understanding what I posted. Markadelphia, am I equating homosexuality and beastiality? To a certain degree I suppose I am. But only with respect to the notion that, if we're not to discriminate against gays, why would we discriminate against somebody who prefers the company of sheep? Yeah it's beastiality....so what? According to whose law and on what basis is that "wrong" with respect to being married? Isn't it a little arbitrary to say that's not OK, or polygamy is not OK? Far from being prejudiced, I'm trying to point out that it doesn't make any sense to be open to one community yet shut out others.
For the record, nowhere did I even suggest that I consider homosexuality to be unnatural. Personally, I don't see that issue (right or wrong) as even being relevant to the discussion. If you want to get into that issue, start another thread.
Your conclusion re: the lack of benefits for gay couples simply restates the final point of my posting. Thank you for driving home that point, because that leads into the answer to your final question.
In response to how does it affect me personally.... I would simply reiterate that I am opposed only to the idea that anybody and everybody could now be "married" and receive the benefits afforded married couples. If two college buddies are allowed to marry, which you deemed to be OK, they can now share in health benefits, they get tax benefits, they get legal benefits, etc., etc. That's a violation of the intent of all of the laws currently in place to handle married couples.
Such a situation directly affects me because of impact to insurance rates, impact to tax basis, impact to the legal system, and impact to pertinent laws. Before Ghost Rider and other read what I want to read-types start bashing me for spreading fear or calling gays high-risk or anything like that, understand that:
1) I did no such thing
2) The impacts of which I speak are fact, not fiction
3) Some of the impacts of which I speak likely would be positive in the long run
My entire position (to be very clear for the benefit of some readers) is that I simply want to know what the rules are going to be so that we, as a society, can attempt to take adequate steps to manage the change. My perception of this drive for change is that, much like a great deal of the left-wing agenda, it's being done with blinders on. Gays are being discriminated against, so let's right that wrong. Good thought. Let's just be sure we don't break too many other things.
To take a very specific instance....We all can agree that the divorce rate on herero marriages is ridiculous. Why exacerbate the divorce problem by now allowing additional marriages that serve no purpose other than to take advantage of legal and financial benefits? Frat brothers Smitty and Jonesy get married to take advantage of the benefits, but then get divorced after college once they return home to live in their parents' basement. This is a losing situation for everybody, especially if (god forbid) they adopted a kid for an additional tax break. (Lest you think that nobody would try to do this, there are instances already in Canada and the UK.)
Rather than worrying about drawing the line between groups of people, it makes just as much sense to me to eliminate the need to draw the line.
Being the survey hound that you are, you probably know the percentages. I personally do not. But I'd be curious to know:
a) What % of gay people support gay marriage. I suspect it's close to 100%.
b) What % of gay people wouldn't care a lick (so to speak) about gay marriage if there were no financial, tax, or legal incentive for getting married. I suspect it's pretty low.
Either way we go, I'm not supporting gay marriage until more level-headed backers assure me that the impact of the change is being managed.
< sarcasm>So I say "Yes" to Referendum 'Keep MN Safe From Homos'. < /sarcasm> If that makes me a prejudiced SOB, then I guess I'll just take solace in the fact that I've been called worse.
I think PL has some interesting points, but I think the situation is clouded by our own relationships with other people. I know at least one gay couple who would love to get married simply because it satisfies an internal desire to be on par with other members of our culture/society. The benefits are an issue and lots of gay people I'm sure have this as a big priority. But can we overlook those people who simply want public acknowledgement of their commitment? I guess we'll find out.
PL asks about the ramifications to insurance rates etc. I think this is a very valid concern, but I think it raises a larger issue which is why on earth one of the richest nations on earth doesn't provide universal healthcare for all of its citizens. What if we all could benefit from the riches of this country when it comes to healthcare insurance? Pipe dream I know, but it might be interesting to consider that 50 years ago, almost nobody had health insurance. Healthcare was affordable and not owned and operated by large corporations who take their lead from mega-insurance corporations. Doctors, (by and large) were interested in really helping people and less interested in contracting affluenza.
Soooo, hows about considering that? Instead of keeping certain classes of people down in our society, we consider a more beneficial wide scale improvement that would include benefits for everybody? Just a thought....
John, I agree. The discussion should head down that road. Personally, I'm not interested in fulfilling the need of some people to, putting it crassly, keep up with the Joneses. So if you're waiting for my support of a measure to ensure public acceptance of gay marriage simply for the sake of social fulfillment, you'll be waiting a while. That sense of social fulfillment will change or will stay the same completely independent of any legislation. I'm significantly more interested in making sure that people who are just like you and me are not deprived of privileges that the rest of us have.
Completely off topic, can we throw an * on the benefits for everybody clause? There has to be a limit in situations where somebody habitually abuses their benefits. The person who repeatedly jabs a sharp stick in their eye, for example. At some point you gotta say no to that. Oh yeah, to blacks, foreigners, and gays, too. (just kidding)
Post a Comment