RECENT  POSTS:  » Idaho wedding venue can be discriminatory so long as it sticks to new business model » Sunday in Houston: Activists mad that churches were noted for their politicization head to a church—to politicize » Lisa Kudrow thinks my website title is modest, at best » Do you take this man to be your lawfully wedded mission of destruction? » MassResistance's hilarious fourteen-point plan for reinstating marriage discrimination: Get really, really nasty » Concerned Women For America finally learns to call out anti-gay rhetoric » 'Rivka Edelman' responds to me via one of the most bizarre comments I've ever read » Just going to another vendor isn't always easy, isn't good basis for sound policy » Pat Robertson: People who believe in fair nondiscrimination law are 'terrorists, radicals, and extremists' » In which another anti-gay group forces politicos to Gladys Kravitz our way into one family's divorce drama  

« 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