A kind of gay Auschwitz.

So, watch this:

Then read John Shore’s take on it, because it’s funny.

Then email the good pastor your thoughts at pastor@prbcnc.com. I did:

Hi there,

I just watched your video, the one where you propose building a kind of Auschwitz for homosexuals (did you know Hitler actually included homosexuals in his genocide? You’re in good company, my man).

1. There is an S in “against”
2. Having compassion for the dignity of all human beings including homosexuals does not make a person homosexual themselves.
3. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that gay people are more likely to produce gay children than straight people.
4. You didn’t mention Jesus’ position on homosexuality once in this speech. Why was that? Oh yeah. HE DIDN’T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT IT (neither did he say anything about abortion, for that matter).
5. I suggest you re-read the Gospel of John, then tender your resignation with an apology for your gross misunderstanding of the Gospels, with a confession of having repeatedly committed the sin of taking the Lord’s name in vain.

Kind regards,
Everyone On Earth With Half A Brain.

So Gay.

I got into an argument today (I do that a lot) on someone else’s facebook.

Basically, it went something like this:

My friend posted a link to a FB group supporting same-sex marriage. I thought ‘Onya, Lex, I’ll like that,’ and so I did.

Some hick then starts ranting in comments about how ‘I’m not a homophobe, but I don’t think gays should be able to marry because homosexuality is wrong and disgusting, but I don’t hate them, but they can’t have kids, so why should they get the same financial benefits as straight people, because the financial benefits given to married couples are designed to help them raise kids to make the nation stronger.’

I blinked once, twice, three times. I shook my head, I rubbed my eyes. I stared at his outrageous comments, far more outrageous than the most outlandish Pride Parade. Aside from the fact that his tenuous grasp of politics was just, um, WRONG (not an opinion, a FACT: superannuation has nothing to do with child-rearing, it is something we benefit from on the other side of menopause, and are we supposed to deny infertile couples the right to marry? Or people who just don’t wish to have children? Dipshit), he was also one of those morons who start a rant with, ‘I’m not a homophobe but,’ or ‘I’m not sexist, but women should stay home and raise their babies,’ or ‘I’m not racist, but the Asians are taking over the world,’ or some other bullshit.

Of course, I took the bait. We bit and snarled at each other for a bit until I finally realised that he wasn’t reading my or Lex’s totally reasonable arguments, just glancing over them and then responding with another tirade of the same crap. So, I did something I rarely do: I let it go.

So there I am, thinking I’ve taken the moral high-ground by letting the dog go to sleep and then letting it lie, when all of a sudden another guy starts posting comments on the reasons why he thinks gay marriage is objectionable, except this guy is queer. He thinks gays shouldn’t marry because marriage is ‘hetero-normative’ and originated as a contractual arrangement (it still is a contractual arrangement, really) and he’s so passionate about this that he has started a facebook group:


Now, I’m not sure exactly what HE means by hetero-normative, but I’m guessing the raising of children comes under that broad and undefined title…

Anyway, my own general perspective is this:

I will in principal support any group which is not itself by nature discriminatory, and I will support any person’s right to join that group. What I cannot abide is prejudice or bigotry, and I find intellectual self-righteousness dressed up as socialist philosophy equally difficult to stomach. Opposing marriage as an institution in all forms based on its heritage, whilst consistent (unlike our dipshit homophobe from earlier in this post), is as ludicrous as discriminating against someone based on their parentage. And going to such efforts to encourage people NOT to marry seems like a waste of time, resources and bandwidth to me. Seriously, if people don’t want to marry, they probably just won’t. This group isn’t protesting forced arranged marriages, doesn’t defend anyone’s basic rights, it is simply an outlet for philosophical wanking.

I’d love to see people channel their passion into something that matters. A person’s right to marry, regardless of the gender of their partner, is important. A person’s right to not marry is important, but this right is rarely challenged, and this isn’t what this movement is about anyway: they do not defend a person’s right to pass on wedding bells, they challenge a person’s right to ring them.