Rainbows? 'Gay'? Pete apparently holds the deeds
We're all human beings, most of whom have the ability to speak and write words, perceive and create colors, and decide for ourselves what does and does not constitute equality. So when certain sects within our shared humanity utilizes things like language or creative hue employment to represent their niche within the world, are they really "stealing" anything? Aren't we all entitled to create terms and symbols that represent our lives? And can't we all express our own cognizant ideas without that expression being seen as some sort of a hijacking?
We ask all this after seeing the following quip on Peter LaBarbera's Americans For Truth site:
We can’t let the homosexual activists steal the rainbow just like they stole the word “gay” and are trying to steal “equality” by applying it to counterfeit same-sex “marriage.”
Annoying, right? At the very least Pete could hyperbolically accuse us of renting, leasing, or maybe time-sharing the terms and concepts for a period of time. But STEALING them? It just sounds so criminal.
Look, we understand why Pete wants to make us look like we are snatching both color and vowel-consonant combination from the warm confines of hetero-only usage. The writing is on the wall, and it doesn't say nice things about his life's work. So he and his buddies are pulling out all the stops as they desperately try to keep their anti-gay gravy train on the rails. However, by resorting to these deeper and more clearly identifiable bouts of verbal extremism, Pete is not prolonging the time remaining on his "I can claim to be on the side of decency and morality without an overwhelming amount of the population laughing out loud" clock. Instead, he's more rapidly leading us to a day wherein it's quite apparent which side is truly trying to rob humanity of its full potential, and which is merely trying to live their lives.
Pete, more than most, would know about hijacking words. Just look at "Americans For Truth." He has stolen and recodified the meaning of the word "for" to mean something other than "in support of." Either that, or the word "Truth" such that it means whatever he wants it to mean - but definitely not the honest telling of the facts.
Who do you think these guys will go after when it becomes less politically expedient for them to gun for us? Here are a couple of suggestions:
AFT About Extra Terrestrials
AFT About Scientists
AFT About Polar Bears
AFT About Religions We Don't Like
AFT About Foreigners (or furaners)
Posted by: Dick Mills | Jun 10, 2008 6:00:39 PM
Babs has to scare up enough $$$ to afford to buy his updated video cameras to secretly film men having sex with men, somehow.
Posted by: Scott | Jun 11, 2008 2:08:40 PMcomments powered by Disqus