« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »
02/05/2008
Tony Perkins: An unnatural obsession
Speaking about the recent NY appellate court ruling that said the state must recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, and specifically the part where the court found that such marriages are not "contrary to the prohibitions of natural law," the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins today wrote the following:
"It's hard to think of what could violate "natural law" more than same-sex "marriage," but the court ruled that this exception applies only to incest or polygamy."
We reply:
OOH, OOH, OOH -- we can think of something more in violation with natural law that two dudes pledging a life of monogamous love together. Like, say, a gay person entering into a sexless marriage with someone of the opposite gender just so as not to upset the heterosexist paradigm. Or maybe trying to "change" gays' biological truths so that they fit the religious right's idea of normal. And of course let's not forget about grown adults who spend their days shunning their fellow man and fostering an environment of bullying and harassment. All of those things seem dreadfully unnatural to us. Two dudes or ladies following their hearts and minds, however -- well, that behavior is as real and true as death, taxes, and the historical abomination that will be George W. Bush's legacy.
Tony, same-sex marriage only goes against your ideas of natural law because you have chosen to embrace the contrivance of learned bias rather than embracing the organic, pure, inherent desire to accept. You have chosen to cull your knowledge about "nature" solely from one-sided interpretations of a multi-translated, man-transcribed work, instead of letting your views be informed by nature itself. Unless you're having more homosexual intercourse than this writer and therefore know something I do not, you have no right to sit here and tell me that such a pairing is not a natural fit. Unless you've ever tried and failed to get it up while being intimate with a female because you have not one ounce of desire for that particular gender, then you really shouldn't inform us gays about the nature of our attractions. And unless you've ever loved another man as passionately, achingly, deeply as myself, than you really need to shut the f*** up about how native and real those feelings are in the mind of a gay person!
Unnatural Law Governs New York Court [FRC]
Your thoughts
Tony Perkins = pretty-boy closet case
Posted by: Scott | Feb 5, 2008 6:26:57 PM
These boyos really are infuriating. What bothers me the most is what you point out - how the heck do they know anything about what a gay person thinks or feels or how we love our mates? Their inability to move beyond a cemented preconceived notion shows how tepid, unreasonable and illogical their arguments so often are ...
Posted by: Shane | Feb 6, 2008 11:21:15 AM
OOH,OOH,OOH, Mr. Kotter, Mr. Kotter!
I can see him now. Arnold Horshack!
(sorry - I couldn't resist)
db
Posted by: dave b. | Feb 6, 2008 2:34:08 PM
Despite his constant anti-gay remarks, does anyone else find Tony Perkins kinda cute?
Posted by: stojef | Feb 6, 2008 3:55:37 PM
That's what he hopes you will feel about him... so that the one head can conflict with the other head and undermine your opposition to his harmful rhetoric. Also works on a lot of insecure, easily gullible women who might start adopting his views, going on for a bit not even knowing what they're talking about, until someone comes across them and sets them "straight".
Posted by: Homo Ffectional | Jun 26, 2008 5:11:36 PM
comments powered by Disqus
