« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »
05/13/2009
Video: Oh for duck's sake, Bill!
We LOATHE when conservatives use the anti-intellectual "slippery slope" argument to denounce equality for gays and lesbians. Why? Well because:
(a) If there is any sort of slippery slope, it exists because marriage itself exists! As long as there is a system, people of their own free will are allowed to propose alterations, regressions, or advancements of the in-place system.
(b) Every single change is to be judged on its merits. Gays and lesbians have more than ably made their case. Other groups, from the benign to the shocking, will have to make their own cases if they wish to advance their case. The success/failure rate does not depend on the gays' own victories -- it depends on the demonstrated merits!
(c) Same-sex marriage is not a system-rocking change that can reasonably be compared to some of the others. We are talking about two grown tax-paying citizens who wish to enter a civil marriage. Citizens who make up a major part of America's fabric, contribute greatly to society, and have met all the same requirements as heterosexual couples. There's no change of the core structure. There's not change of the participants' species. We are talking about fairness for all of the sexual orientations that make up humanity.
(d) The slip-slope argument is sheer political opportunism that's meant to confuse and scare voters. That's why they routinely throw polygamists, pedophiles, animal-f**kers, etc. in the mix: Because they know that those unrelated concepts scare people far more than homosexuality. If they can marry these groups to gays, then they think they can more successfully divorce gays from their deserved rights!
(e) We gay folks are not slipping marriage down any sort of slope. We are pulling marriage up over an obstacle that should have never been in place! The very idea that our love is a downward descent is itself enraging!
Okay, now you can go watch Bill O'Reilly intimate that this writer's June wedding is just a hop, skip, and a quack from a dude marrying a duck:
*On a side note: These insane claims always remind us of the time Pee Wee Herman married his fruit salad:
Your thoughts
So, which one of you is the duck in the relationship?
Posted by: Lane | May 13, 2009 12:16:19 PM
That they always somehow manage to jump from marriage between two men to marriage between a man and some random animal really shows how twisted and screwed up their minds are. If anyone says anything about sex with chickens I'll know that they're getting their ideas from South Park.
Posted by: RainbowPhoenix | May 13, 2009 12:40:04 PM
What an asshole. I swear if I saw O'Reilly on the street he had better run.
Posted by: John Ozed | May 13, 2009 1:07:13 PM
The slippery slope argument infuriates me for two reasons:
1. if their is a slope why do none of them acknowledge that interracial marriage is just alittle bit farther up the hill?
2. The idea that the incestious and polygamous *I wont bother with pedos and doghumpers, anyone who needs it explained why that is dumb is a troll or a fearmongering bigot* have never before attempted legal recognition, that they're just waiting in the shadows for us to get equality, that us getting married somehow makes their arguments undeniable, that if we took rights away from gays the polygamous and incestious would never ever raise their heads again...
Posted by: Penguinsaur | May 13, 2009 2:38:21 PM
Bill O'Reilly inspires nothing but disgust and loathing in me. I was watching another clip from the Factor about a school who had the temerity to put in the yearbook a lesbian couple in the "cutest couple" section (voted for by the kids, mind you!). http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3fnu7_bill-oreilly-lesbian-cutest-couple_news
Every minute of this video, he says something so horribly offensive that I can hardly believe that people take this man seriously. Then he goes on, and says something even more horrible. It's like this man is a wellspring of nothing but the worst of affronts.
Posted by: fakeplants | May 13, 2009 3:46:39 PM
Canada, bitches.
Marriage equality. No animal weddings.
Nuf sed.
Posted by: unclemike | May 13, 2009 8:04:09 PM
Gretchen Carlson is a slippery dope.
Posted by: Owen | May 14, 2009 1:16:21 AM
Bill, when a turtle has a legal standing and can sign a marriage contract, then I see no reason it can't get married.
Posted by: Callie | May 14, 2009 8:34:21 PM
Ok here is the thing all gays leave out. Equal means what is on one side of the equation must be the same as on the other side of the equation. Now can a gay relationship reproduce? It’s a yes or no question. If no then the two relationships are not equal period. Why do gays want to be considered equal to a man and women anyway? Marriage since time began has been between a man and women so for some people they feel gays are trying to steal something from them. Gays have gay pride well heterosexuals also have heterosexual pride and do not want to be associated with a gay life style. Since a gay relationship has never been the norm why not just accept your civil unions and shut up. I promise no man and women marriage will try to compare or push that they are equal to your civil union. Many here seem to take offence at being compared to animal lovers, so I ask you how would you feel if animal lovers started comparing themselves to gay couples and then claiming almost forcing gay couples to accept and say that an animal relationship is equal and the same as a gay relationship. Would you find that offensive? Well guess what many heterosexuals feel that same way when gay couples say their relationship is equal to a heterosexual relationship. Now if you want to go further, I'll take it there. The way the tax system is set up depends/requires a growing population- hence each child born represents a future tax base, and every time the federal deficit increases it is this future tax base (child) that will pay it. Now gay relationships can't reproduce, which means if they are given the same rights as a married man and women, the gay couple will collect federal benefits, but never put back a "future tax base". They can vote for a bigger deficit because who cares it won't be their children paying for it. Now if you like I can take this even further and show why marriage was created in the first place and why its importance and benefits’ are strictly between a man and women just ask. On a side note I don't know but think the reason people compare gay relationships and animal sex is because once you push the line it just keeps getting pushed further and further every generation. Example 50-60 years ago no one thought about gay marriage, it was unacceptable and few would have thought it, but today the boundary has been pushed and I think people realize this and say what is next? They then jump to what is unacceptable in today’s standards will be where the line gets pushed next generation.
Posted by: sumday | Jun 9, 2009 1:36:05 PM
Oh, sumday. Please expand your horizons.
Posted by: G-A-Y | Jun 9, 2009 1:44:03 PM
comments powered by Disqus
