RECENT  POSTS:  » Video: What does conservative columnist Cal Thomas see as America's biggest threat? Take a guess. » Correcting NOM's fallacious fear graphic » Gee, Bryan, can't understand why federal courts are rejecting you gay = incest view » Former NOM sr. associate admits shift: Moving away from intellectual arguments, focusing on spiritual » Prop 8 defense attorney now planning lesbian daughter's wedding » If you can't afford your event, NOM, perhaps you should just cancel » A hill of beans: 'Ex-gay'-defending legal firm selling coffee to fund discriminatory endeavors » Anti-gay talker Steve Deace lets LGBT movement know: we're about to sue churches, apparently » Audio: Bored on an apparently too factual weekday, Richard Land pushes 'gays are sexually abused' lie » It seems when you equate gay folk with those who sleep with animals, it sticks; funny how that works  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

06/29/2012

Investing in cruelty: AFTAH writer equates Suze Orman's union to human/Labrador marriage

by Jeremy Hooper

An Americans For Truth About Homosexuality writer by the name of Judy Meissner has come up with a new term to define us, in general, and Suze Orman in particular. Take a look:

Aberrosexualists (partisans, whether aberrosexual or not, of the extremist ideology pushing for the “normalization” of biologically aberrant sexual behavior) mock the very notion of equality by demanding “equal marriage rights” for themselves while conveniently refusing it to everyone else in a “loving and caring relationship.” What about those who want to so-call “marry” their blood relatives, minors, multiple partners, or even their lovable, adorable pets? That’s right, Suze! If you can leave your entire estate to your beautiful Labrador retriever, why shouldn’t you be able to marry him (or her?) as well? Shouldn’t “Marriage Equality” apply to these Americans as well?

Aberrosexualist extremists pushing so-called “Marriage Equality” need to come clean. They need to be consistent at the very least! They can’t advocate “Marriage Equality” for a chosen few, while hypocritically denying it to those who may want to "marry” (so-called) multiple partners or their grandma so they can be covered by her insurance or inherit her great pension benefits. Otherwise, they must stop pretending to stand for “Marriage Equality” at all!
‘Aberrosexualist’ Suze Orman Supports ‘Marriage Equality’? Get Real, Suze! [AFTAH]

Because marriage exists as an institution, any single human being can make a case to marry anything he or she wants, human or otherwise. We all have free will. If there is a "slippery slope" of possibility, then it's marriage itself that inclined it, not same-sex marriage.

But possibility does not equal merit. Same-sex couples and allies have more than met the smell test, ably stating the legal reasons why the gender of the taxpayer is not a valid reason to limit marriage. Anyone else wishing to make a case must also form, articulate, build support for, and ultimately prove the case.

So no, we don't have to answer for the limitless possibility that my scratch the human brain. Those of us who exist within LGB realities and advocate for this one specific cause must only answer for what we think, feel, and hope to accomplish. This remain true, no matter which animal you "values" types pull out of a kennel in order to make us gay folk look subhuman.


And with that, I just gave Ms. Meissner's words ten times more dignity than they deserve and twenty times more rationality than the AFTAH crowd will ever process, or at least admit.

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails