Cheers, caution over gay marriage

Thanks for visiting The Daily Sentinel

Subscribers and registered users, log in to continue reading for free*


Forgot your password?    

Register to read for free! Become a subscriber

* 7-day subscribers have unlimited access to online content.
Registered users may read 12 articles per month.

COMMENTS

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

PART 1: As a self-ownership activist and free-speech absolutist, I believe in equal rights (including equal protection of law) for every human being. But, having said that, I must also say I have seldom seen the level of intellectual dishonesty which surrounds the so-called “gay marriage” so-called “issue.”
“Gay marriage” is a self- evident oxymoron, like “homosexual heterosexual” or “hot cold”. I blame heterosexuals for its existence, just as I blame arrogant paternalistic men for the existence of the man-hating “Feminazi” movement. If significant numbers of arrogant paternalistic men had not been hell-bent on keeping women disenfranchised, women would not have had to fight desperately for their suffrage. Analogously, if significant numbers of heterosexuals had not been so hell-bent on depriving homosexuals of equal rights and equal protection of law, the term “gay marriage” would not exist, because the attempted (and dangerous to the First Amendment) redefinition of the word “marriage” is nothing more than a deceptive propaganda tool used by intellectually short-sighted manipulators to get their way in a “political” struggle which should never have existed in the first place.
All human behavior, including heterosexual celibacy, is a CHOICE. Skin color and eye color are not behavior. They are physical traits. The intellectual lie is pretending that “choice” means the same thing as “trait”. That lie is also bad science.
One of my favorite writers, Camille Paglia, who has been very critical of the gay propaganda strategy leadership, has defined homosexuality – (remember she is a lesbian) – as “an ADAPTATION that works for some people”. I agree.
Paglia has also expressed concern that combative militancy in insisting that homosexuals are born that way imposes a dangerous chilling effect on the freedom of scientific inquiry into the development of human personalities. In other words, scientific investigation into the subject of what causes some people to be homosexuals (and others heterosexuals) is considered by combative control-freak gay propaganda zealots (who, just like the so-called “religious right” they hate, want to use the power of government to cram their views down everybody else’s throats) to be “hate”, “hate crimes” and/or “hate speech”.
The only real result from all this brouhaha is the ruining of a couple of perfectly good and useful words such as “gay” (as in “don we now our homosexual apparel”) and “marriage” (which is nothing more or less than a heterosexual “civil union” generally recognized by society as important in the raising of children).
No doubt I will be viewed by a few low-information folks as a “hater” even though I always thought the U.S. Supreme Courts decision in Bowers v. Hardwick (upholding a Georgia anti-sodomy statute) was wrong on the grounds it violated the sacred principle of self-ownership.

PART 2: Any political success which the gay propaganda strategy leadership has had can be attributed to rhetorical brinksmanship. Most passive and benign individuals are not comfortable using language with the same blunt combativeness which the gay propaganda leadership uses as a preferred strategy. I don’t mind engaging in rhetorical tit-for-tat, so let me demonstrate what I’m talking about.
What exactly is “sodomy”? It’s sticking an erect penis up another person’s rectum – a rather primitive act which is not remotely honorable, noble or uplifting to the human spirit. It’s something most “respectable” people don’t even want to mention because it falls into the category of “too much information.” The First Amendment allows an individual to say things such as, “I sincerely believe rectums were designed for the expulsion of waste, not the expression of romantic love,” or “I sincerely believe smearing feces on my urethra would be disgusting and medically risky.” Gay propaganda strategists would call the previous four sentences “hate speech” and want to use the power/violence of government coercion to ban it. Some anti-self-ownership speech-police Nazis want to pretend that the Bible constitutes “hate” and want to ban it. That’s how any tyranny operates: kill the intellectuals, burn the books, and punish disapproved speech.
Personally, I think so little of the variations in human sexual behavior and preferences that I don’t want to know. When I see a person, I don’t wonder if that person is heterosexual or homosexual, I just notice if they look happy or surly and might say something like “Nice day, isn’t it?” I see nothing wrong with “don’t ask, don’t tell”. I don’t want to know how many sheets of toilet paper you use to wipe your butt. Nor do I care.
MLK dreamed of a society where people were judged by the content of their character instead of the color of their skin. Why wouldn’t it be just as good if people could be judged by the content of their character instead of their sexual preferences? Why isn’t is it good enough for some folks on both “sides” of the so-called “gay marriage” issue that a person’s sexual preference should be irrelevant?
Why do some folks insist on destroying perfectly good (and heretofore generally understood) words such as “gay” and “marriage”? Why can’t judges see that when they get tangled up in these kinds of propaganda manipulations they only disgrace the integrity of the offices they hold?

PART3: I like to think of words as units of measurement of human ideas. As such, their definitions should be as clear and specific as possible. The ability of the human species to develop and achieve its full intellectual and spiritual potential depends upon open and honest communication and sharing of ideas which, in turn, are expressed in, and depend on, words. That is why oxymoronic words and expressions such as “hot cold”, “light dark”, “gallon pint”, “pound ounce”, “red blue”, “good evil”, “freedom slavery”, “fat thin”, “rich poor“, “black white”, gay marriage”, ad infinitum are meaningless and useful only for perpetrating the destructive spiritual and intellectual evils of deception and manipulation.
In his essay “Politics and the English Language”, George Orwell said, “In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible…The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink. In our age there is no such thing as ‘keeping out of politics.’ All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia.”
There is no right way to do a wrong thing. Anti-self-ownership tyranny is always implemented under the fraudulent rubric of “good ends justify evil means”. Isn’t it long past time for a little more person-to-person kindness simultaneous with a serious society-wide backlash against all the manipulative intellectual dishonesty? With all due respect to those self-absorbed, low-information individuals who would call me “hater” merely for writing this opinion, it IS possible to give homosexuals 100% the same legal rights as heterosexuals without destroying words such as “gay” and “marriage” in the process.
So the question I have for both “sides” of the so-called “gay marriage” so-called “issue” is: why not do that? Why not do a more intelligent job of picking the “political” hills we want to die on? Seems to me the preservation of our precious First Amendment requires that. The unsustainable and unacceptable alternative is for my words to be “free speech” while your words are “hate”.

PART 4: For individuals who have enough intellectual curiosity and honesty to want to see past all the various intellectually dishonest manipulations of the gay propaganda strategy leadership, see such as:
The Book of Matt: Hidden Truths About the Murder of Matthew Shepard http://amzn.to/1r8pJ8o
No H8?—Bombshell Book: Matthew Shepard Tortured, Murdered by Gay Lover http://bit.ly/1igJjpj
‘Uncomfortable truth’ in Matthew Shepard’s death http://bit.ly/1dJtjvH
Matthew Shepard Murdered By Bisexual Lover And Drug Dealer, Stephen Jimenez Claims In New Book http://huff.to/1lLeu2O
Obviously the death of Matthew Shepard was tragic and unnecessary (in addition to being cold-blooded murder), but it doesn’t deserve to function as moral and/or political support for the so-called “gay marriage” manipulations.
I turn 70 in a couple of months, and will, therefore, be an “at risk” person. To me, it is morally and intellectually anathema (not to mention unequal protection of law) that it should be a graver crime to assault, beat up or murder me than to assault, beat up or murder any other human being. Yet that is the unsustainable point to where the morally and intellectually fraudulent “hate speech” and “hate crimes” manipulations have taken us. It IS long past time to stop all the * and restore the U.S. Constitution!



TOP JOBS
Search More Jobs





THE DAILY SENTINEL
734 S. Seventh St.
Grand Junction, CO 81501
970-242-5050
Editions
Subscribe to print edition
E-edition
Advertisers
Sign in to your account
Information

© 2014 Grand Junction Media, Inc.
By using this site you agree to the Visitor Agreement and the Privacy Policy