Sunday, May 25, 2014

Hinton: Jayne is confused that we give a rat's ass about HIS "traditional union."

When you're an amoral leftist, it's easy to make this kind of connection when it suits you.

This was the original headline:  Jayne: Gay marriage hasn't affected my traditional union

So what?

Bank robbery doesn't effect it either, right?  Nor does income tax evasion.

Nor does speeding, street racing, plane crashes, anorexia, cheating on math tests, wasting billions on the CRC Scam or a host of other activities that either are... or should be... outlawed.

The people of this state have, of course, spoken.  Democracy enables stupidity: one need look no further than the city council of the Vancouver Soviet, or the morons elected by the people of the 49th District to "represent them" in the legislature.

Morality is an evolving sphere of social mores to be sure.  But at some point, the leftward lurch of this kind of idiocy will swing back as the pendulum of history begins it's inevitable swing in the opposite direction.

There's much more to the matter of morality then how it may or may not impact one facet of American society.  The issue of marriage between the same genders has been distorted and lied about for decades by it's proponents: simple constitutional principles have been bastardized into unrecognizability.

At the local level, it's the idiocy of McCreary and nonsensical threats from an out of control State Supreme Court; at the national level, it is new, evolving and absurd definitions of equality.

In a nutshell:

My take on the Supreme Court's gay marriage decision: why conservatives lost... again.
Is this a bad time to point out that our rights are not determined by our sexuality?

A gay male or female has EVERY right I, as a heterosexual do. He can marry any female old enough, unmarried, of sound mind, etc, etc.... just like me.

So what's the big deal?

Yeah, yeah.... I know... it's not the same thing for those supporting gay marriage.

Unfortunately, however, rights are rights: and applying the term "right" means that while *I* can marry someone of the opposite sex, for example, it only becomes discriminatory if someone else can't do EXACTLY the same thing.

And by "exactly," I mean EXACTLY. If I can't do something, and you can't do something, then it's not discriminatory. If I CAN do something; and you can't do EXACTLY the same thing, then it IS discriminatory.

A case in point was the debate about insurance companies being required to provide birth control because many of them provided viagra or some such.

Women threw a fit. But no one stopped to look at the issue: Viagra or something like it is used to treat a medical condition so that something works properly. Birth control is the exact opposite: it is used as a treatment to STOP something from working properly.

The differences are both clear and obvious... precisely like the issue of gay marriage.

These insurance companies didn't cover birth control for EITHER sex, thus no discrimination was taking place. But, like the gay marriage kerfuffle, politics determined, based on a completely fallacious discrimination argument, that insurance companies would be REQUIRED to provide birth control to women.

Not because it was right. Not because it was Constitutional. Not because it was discriminatory... but because women whined, sniveled and bitched like cut cats until they got what they wanted.

Sound familiar?

Correspondingly, I don't have the non-existent "right" to marry someone of the same sex. That someone gay also doesn't have that right is called "equality."

And that's the problem with this entire argument from the gay perspective.

They demand a right that isn't a right; that is, they demand the ability to marry someone of the same sex, when that "right" doesn't exist.

As a hetero, I have no problem denying homosexuals the "ability" to marry the same sex, since it is not a "right." I don't have that ability... homosexuals don't have that ability... so what's the problem?

And, BTW, I don't need to go to the Bible to determine this... human rights were around, if not in place, before there was a Bible. This is not a moral issue for me; this is a legal issue.

Society makes the determination as to which norms are practiced. If gays want an ability that straights do not have, then they should seek society's approval to gain it. If they can't get our approval, well, that's just too damned bad.  But calling this discrimination?

The military discriminates against a wide variety of protected classes every day without comment by these same cheerleaders.

Women LOVE discrimination when it benefits them (Women are a minority?  Seriously?  Women don't have to register for the draft.... seriously?  Must be that situational equality thing again.)

The bogus nature of the "reasoning" for this is just another sign of "progressive" success in the continuing face of conservative failure.

Socialist/progressives NEVER give up. They believe, rightfully, that time is on their side, as conservatives turn away from the fight.

The left is like a river in a canyon.  Over time, they carve through solid rock.  And over time, the left's attacks cause the right to fold.  Because they are more than willing to do what they must to achieve their aims, while conservatives recoil in horror from the thought of doing what must be done.

There. See? It's easy when you think about it.

There are new challenges and frontiers for those who don't want to let a little thing like social constructs get in the way of what they want to do.

With the advent of gay marriage, all of the arguments against opposing ANY immoral behavior, no matter what it might be, are swept away.

Over time, laws against incest... statutory rape... bigamy... sex trafficking... you name it... all of them have days that are numbered.

Because you know what, Greg?

None of that will have any impact on your so-called "traditional union," either.


Martin Hash said...

You're right about Jayne's comment, but "Gay Marriage," "Drug War," and "Pubic Prayer" are loser issues for Conservatives because it makes them argue against liberty.

Just a guy said...

Well, it's not a political position or issue for anyone to run on. It's only how I see it, and my positions are based not on political outcomes, but my particular view.

Jayne's column was an in your face, those who disagree with me are bigots attack. I merely point out that while it likely didn't effect marriage, per se', that in and of itself is irrelevant.

Martin Hash said...

I agree with you.

Jack Buckmeir said...

it affects all marriages because it changes the definition of "marriage" because if anyone says that they are "married" someone might think it means they are Queer.