Tuesday, June 30, 2009
|
|
Pride Parades, Mark Sanford and "Fear and Ignorance" (Guest blog by Diane Medved)
|
|
Posted by:
Michael Medved at
8:31 PM
|
(Note from Diane: Michael asked me to re-post this from my blog, www.brightlightsearch.blogspot.com.)
I'm listening to an outrageous caller to my fave radio talk show who says the people who resist redefining marriage are the same as the mullahs and Taliban, because both hold perspectives resulting from their "fear and ignorance," and are attempts to hold back progressive change.
This suggests that those who would stone a woman to death for infidelity are equivalent to those of us who want to recognize there's something fundamentally different between male and female.
Funny, because I'd bet this caller would agree that men and women are not the same or interchangeable, because if they were, then any man could just as easily marry a woman; there'd be no need to insist on marrying one of the same gender. Yet his argument in favor of same-sex marriage is that male and female should be interchangeable as partners--isn't that a huge conflict?
The whole point of marriage is to combine opposites, for the socially important reason of promoting stable, two-biological-parent homes for children. The fact that some couples marry old or can't have children is irrelevant; they're the exceptions, and you don't discard the underlying mechanism and purpose because exceptions exist.
Yesterday, I happened to be in downtown Seattle with my husband, son and a friend, and though the "Pride" parades and displays had concluded earlier, an enormous rainbow flag was still flying, suspended from an apartment balcony across from the Space Needle. This doesn't bother me, though having such a demonstration to flaunt and glorify a certain type of sexuality strikes me as symbolic of a drop in society's general dignity. After all, the only thing that makes gays different from other people, "gaydar" and affectations aside, is what they do sexually. (And what they can't do, which is to have biological children.)
I liked it a lot better (and yes, I know that the toothpaste isn't going back in the tube), when sexuality was a personal thing, not so obvious that it has to be an ingredient in the way individuals are viewed. When I was a kid, it never occurred to me that any particular person was gay or not; you might retort it's because gays were so repressed then that they dared not let on about their preferences, but unlike one's skin color or gender, gayness is a characteristic that can be revealed or not, according to choice. And when it's revealed--"I'm out and proud"--the only thing I learn about a gay person is that he limits his sexuality to those of the same gender. I'd rather not think about his sexuality, one way or the other.
I do resent the talk-show caller asserting my "fear and ignorance" because--yes it's true--I do not want the definition of marriage to change. I resist change in this word because it's not merely change but loss. The language loses its term for the lifetime combining of male and female, with no word to replace it. Under the proposed definition, marriage can be any two people, regardless of gender--with a host of other limits I doubt the caller would say represent "fear and ignorance" --limits on number of spouses together, or incestuous relationships, or supplementary marriages.
Would the caller say it's "fear and ignorance" not to accommodate poor Gov. Mark Sanford, who wants to keep both his wife and present family, and his passionate love for Maria Belen Chapur, who wrote to him last July 4: "You made me realized (sic) how you feel when you realy (sic) love somebody and how much you want to be beside the beloved. Last Friday I would had stayed embrassing (sic) and kissing you forever." It must be "fear and ignorance" that makes the law forbid the permanent expression of such enduring love.
I know gays consider marriage to be their civil right, comparing man-woman marriage limits with previous bans on inter-racial marriage. Their argument is that like skin color, sexual preference is biological and immutable. That argument might work well for siblings who want to marry--it's not their fault they were born with the same parents. But not so much for gay sexual preference, which Jeffrey Satinover, MD, Ph.D. has found often moves to heterosexual: "The desire to shift to a biologic basis for explaining homosexuality appeals to those who seek to undercut the vast amount of clinical experience confirming that homosexuality is significantly changeable.." (p. 114, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth) Anne Heche is quoted in Wikipedia as saying, "Just because I'm married doesn't mean I call myself a straight," despite the fact that she boasts a series of public straight relationships, and only one famed foray into gayness with Ellen de Generes, at which time she vowed she was lesbian "from here on out!"
The caller to the radio show didn't drop the H-bomb--and I don't mean hydrogen--but might as well have. The means used to discredit anyone who wants to defend man-woman marriage is to call him a homophobe. I can insist on my love and friendship with gays till I'm blue, and even my support for their forming lifetime commitments with the benefits of marriage, but under a different term that recognizes the union of a man and woman as unique. Doesn't matter: if I don't support gay marriage, I'm a homophobe. That's the re-definition of that word.
Last year, we did happen to catch the Pride parade downtown. Quite a colorful crowd, many wrapped in rainbow flags, with rainbow tie-dye everywhere. Flamboyant costumes and flamboyant people all made the event festive. I love festivities, bright colors, people enjoying themselves. It's just odd to put on such a lavish event not to celebrate history (eg Independence Day) or achievements (Ethnic parades, or for returning soldiers) or a holiday (Thanksgiving or New Years), but sexuality.
I'm far from "afraid" of gays, including those who want to say they're married to each other. And I don't know what the caller would say is my ignorance, either; I've read dozens of books and hundreds of articles on the topic of gay marriage. I'd like each person to feel self-esteem, even pride, if it's for accomplishments or positive attributes, but I think all these rainbow parades aren't as benign as they seem--they're to push a minority's political agenda and non-life-affirming sexuality on the rest of us, and that doesn't seem any more festive or friendly than the accusations and comparisons with the Taliban I heard on the radio today.
|
|
|
|
What the fk are you talking about? Do you know? You rambling on about this and that but never say anything. You said God was socialist and would vote for Obama...then you ask if anyone had "one" thing that would prove you wrong.
Very simply...Abortion!!!!
End of story..you are wrong and I proved it. The rest of your rant is simply Bull sh!t!
Don't run your mouth about there is no alternative and we don't have an answer. Sure we do...DON'T HAVE AN ABORTION....DON'T HAVE CHILDREN IF YOU DON'T WANT THEM......BE AN ADULT...BE RESPONSIBLE.....
Any other solutions you want? |
|
|
then let's talk about your fear of gay marriage. |
|
"And though I wasn't alive then I imagine there were other Maine Conservatives back then who (wrongly) said that blacks and whites marrying would be the end of us all!"
You, sir, are a liar. You are saying that I oppose blacks and whites from marrying? Typical liberal, lying, moron.
|
|
"You tell a person the reason a person can't marry their sister, or a man can't marry 2 women is because those are laws that don't single out certain groups.
In other words (I always have to explain this to you "conservatives")
the law says "We don't care who you are: You can't marry your sister" or "We don't care who you are: You can't marry two women."
Defining Marriage as between a man and a woman takes an entire group of Tax paying, law-abiding Americans and says "You can't get Married because you want to marry someone with your same genitalia." That's called discrimination."
So, wes, if you can say "We don't care who you are: You can't marry your sister" or "We don't care who you are: You can't marry two women", why can't you in turn say "We don't care who you are: You can't a person of the same sex"?
Your argument is really quite stupid. You are arguing that it's descrimination to restrict one group (gays) from "marrying" yet in the same argument saying it's not descrimination to restrict another group (polygamists, family member, etc.).
Also, I actually should probably not have used Anne Heche as an example because I don't even know who she is. I only used her because she was quoted in the article. I have, however, known people who have claimed to be gay at one time, or straight at one time only to have "changed teams", so to speak, later. Doesn't that fly in the face of your "born gay" argument?
And, wes, by the way...what does this discussion have to do with Mark Sanford? Have you seen any of us "conservatives" condone his actions? Thought not.
|
|
Haven't seen you around much lately. Been away?
BM: Most intensive care units restrict visitors to "members of the immediate family." Many of them are reluctant or refuse to accept a same-sex spouse as meeting that criterion. I myself witnessed one such incident when I was visiting my mother in an ICU in Pennsylvania. It's not a matter of "signing in."
MC: Actually, I see and understand this point...and happen to agree with you. I see no reason to restrict this type of access to ones "partner", and am not opposed to making some type of civil union available to give those rights to any "life partner". That, however, doesn't necessitate a change in the definition of marriage. |
|
This posting from a Jewish woman?
According to her faith, she is hardly better than mere property of her husband.
Glass houses, Mrs. Medved! |
|
Really? That's your contribution to the blog?
You're shortchanging all the straight people who have done something stupid in the name of sexual gratification...
Let's see if you can guess who this is:
"I know I might get in trouble, but I think I might fly 19 hours one way to get a little action behind my wife's back. And if I'm caught, I'll just say I'm sorry, and keep my mouth shut while I try to get my "marriage" back together."
"Who cares if I'm the CEO of a company with 4 million people. I don't need to tell anyone where I'm going."
"ON FATHER'S DAY!"
So what's worse:
Door number 1: Cheating on your wife with some woman in another hemisphere on father's day when you're governor and father of 4 boys.
Door number 2: Doing gay hand signals to solicit a BJ in a public airport bathroom as a conservative "not gay" senator.
Or Door number 3: Putting something up your butt that wasn't supposed to be there in order to "get off".?
HMMMM. I'm going with door number one, Monty.
|
|
"MC: Every person in America has the same rights to marry. No one is discriminated against. Say we do as you so simplistically suggest and change the definition of marriage to be "the union of TWO CONSENTING ADULTS." How do you then tell someone who wants to marry their sister, or a man and two women, that they can't marry. Aren't you then facing the same "discrimination" charge that you are now decrying?"
Wrong. Your mother couldn't walk into the courthouse and get a marriage license to marry her girlfriend unless she lives in 5 states. (I think it's 5 now... is it 5?)
You tell a person the reason a person can't marry their sister, or a man can't marry 2 women is because those are laws that don't single out certain groups.
In other words (I always have to explain this to you "conservatives")
the law says "We don't care who you are: You can't marry your sister" or "We don't care who you are: You can't marry two women."
Defining Marriage as between a man and a woman takes an entire group of Tax paying, law-abiding Americans and says "You can't get Married because you want to marry someone with your same genitalia." That's called discrimination.
Discrimination is the reason that laws preventing blacks and whites from marrying are long gone. (Get it? You're born with whatever skin color you get. You can't keep people that are born a certain way from having the rights that other people have.) And though I wasn't alive then I imagine there were other Maine Conservatives back then who (wrongly) said that blacks and whites marrying would be the end of us all!
Besides. Isn't marriage about commitment and trust and love? What difference does it make if 2 adults are black, white, catholic, methodist, republican, democrat, straight or gay? Let 'em be married.
|
|
You want evidence that being Gay isn't a choice? You only have to ask Gay people.
I listen to religious radio shows quite often and I love how they talk about atheists and gays, but they never seem to be able to find any of "them" to talk to on the air.
Maine Conservative, you use Anne Heche as an example? You might want to do a little more research on her. I think she spent some time in a mental ward. Other than her, and Ted Haggerty, what have you got? Interview some gay and lesbian people and you'll see a trend develop. You don't need my help, just a little honesty.
For the record, I'm straight. I would love to have some readers who are gay or lesbian chime in here, but why on earth would they read this blog?
|
|
Hmmm, so because of Abortion, he would be a republican or conservative?
I thought he treated the sick for free.
I thought he fed the hungry for free.
I thought he wanted to keep the temple free from politics and government.
I thought he said love thy neighbor.
The anti-choice wing of America doesn't have a solution that would REDUCE the number of abortions in America.
You fight abortion without solving any underlying reason for women to seek it.
You religious people don't even recommend birth control as a way to prevent a woman's unwanted pregnancy. "God says it's wrong."
He said that to who?
|
|
|
The other thing you see is what homosexuals put in their rectums....in the Operating Room I personally witnessed vaccuum cleaner attachments, plaster of paris, and broom handles. Oh, but it's not about the sex, but WHO they are! |
|
"most hospitals have EVERYONE sign in, regardless of stated relationship to patient,and hetero or homo relationship makes NO difference in one's ability to visit. Quit being disingenuous."
Most intensive care units restrict visitors to "members of the immediate family." Many of them are reluctant or refuse to accept a same-sex spouse as meeting that criterion. I myself witnessed one such incident when I was visiting my mother in an ICU in Pennsylvania. It's not a matter of "signing in." |
|
or so the "I'm born Gay" crowd asserts. Yet the same could be said for the "I'm born addicted to drugs..gambeling..booze..wife abuse" crowd. I'm just born that way--right?
People will attempt to justify ANY activity they want, but that does not make it right. Even murderers justify the person they murdered needed to die but does that make it right-NO.
Justify your lifestyle choices if you want but do not claim nor try to convince those in opposition that you were born "that way "as an excuse for your personal choice. Choice--isn't it sad that Choice means murder of unborns in one case and poor lifestyle choices in the other. Neither of which make them right.
Can't wait for the "Tolerance" crowd to unload on this--So much for their being "tolerant" of anyone that knows they have made poor life choices and expect those in disagreement to "accept" their "choice". I know full well that they will never accept my idea of right and wrong, yet they should know I will never accept their's either--on that we can agree. |
|
|
Ladies and Gentlemen, I think it is an HONOR to be in such Distinguished Company. |
|
It's not fear. It's aversion; it's disgust.
The perversion apologists want to make it an issue of fear, because fear is obviously the reaction of an insecure, small mind, and they represent the secure, large mind.
Of course, the reality is just the opposite. They are the intellectual derelicts and emotional cripples. We represent both right reason and the tradition of the ages.
They want to make it look as though it's our Judeo-Christian faith which drives us, but all the pagans of the ages are on our side. Only the neopagans are on their side, but not all of them.
We do not fear homosexuals; we are disgusted by what they do both privately and publicly. We have no "phobia" of them; we are averse to re-ordering nature and ancient custom so as to accommodate them. No matter how hard they work to convince the us that their sexual behavior and desire to enter into "marriage" are normal, they will never succeed. Sure, they will have their legislative and judicial successes here and there, so far gone are we here in the West, but as far convincing the majority of mankind that their cause is right, they will always be pi$$ing into the wind. |
|
BM"..if a guy rushes into an intensive-care unit demanding to go to the bedside of a patient, he is admitted immediately if he simply says "I'm her husband." If instead he says "I'm HIS husband," he probably won't be allowed in. This is less true, but still a problem, in states that have gay marriage, like Massachusetts and California."
BM, most hospitals have EVERYONE sign in, regardless of stated relationship to patient,and hetero or homo relationship makes NO difference in one's ability to visit. Quit being disingenuous.
There is NO difference legally between civil unions that gays are currently priveledged to have and the traditional marriage heteros want to preserve for one man and one woman relationships. Gays are just determined to keep having tantrums about it because they don't have anything better to worry about. |
|
if you're against gay marriage.
Pretty lazy, BM. |
|
"All marriage laws should be abolished. They serve no purpose except to control and destroy individual relationships."
The trouble with that is that "marriage" is shorthand for a huge number of legal relationships -- literally thousands -- between the married couple and between them and the state, other organizations, and even other members of their family. The changes in tax rates are only a tiny part of it.
As an example, if a guy rushes into an intensive-care unit demanding to go to the bedside of a patient, he is admitted immediately if he simply says "I'm her husband." If instead he says "I'm HIS husband," he probably won't be allowed in. This is less true, but still a problem, in states that have gay marriage, like Massachusetts and California. |
|
Before there were marriage laws there was marriage. If two people jumped over a broom, they were married. Marriage was a personal declaration that two people chose to share their lives.
Then the church got involved and marriage became "a man and a woman joined by God". Then the state got involved and marriage became "a man and a woman joined by the state".
A personal commitment became a religious and civil activity subject to societal control by force of law.
All marriage laws should be abolished. They serve no purpose except to control and destroy individual relationships. If two people say that they are married, that's enough. They will get no tax benefits or penalties as a result. If they want religious ceremonies, fine. If not, still fine.
Let people regulate their own relationships. It's nobody's business but theirs. |
|
"The fact that some couples marry old or can't have children is irrelevant; they're the exceptions, and you don't discard the underlying mechanism and purpose because exceptions exist."
So why wouldn't gay couples be just another set of exceptions? Why do you discriminate against one type of exception and not the others? Why wouldn't you demand that the union of an old couple be called something different than "marriage" so as not to dilute the traditional meaning?
There are many more couples that can't or don't have children by reason of age, infertility, or choice than because of sexuality. Why do you choose to discriminate against the smaller group and not the larger one? The reason, of course, is that you're a homophobe (homophobia: "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals"); you're prejudiced against gays. |
|
Wes: "And one more thing. You write: "such a demonstration to flaunt and glorify a certain type of sexuality strikes me as symbolic of a drop in society's general dignity."
Seriously? Being gay isn't about sexuality. It's about who they ARE. If it was about sex, why would they want to get married? They are Americans. They should have the same rights as other Americans.
You're worried that gay marriage would lead to polygamy and child marriage? That's stupid. Just write the law that says: "Marriage shall be the union of TWO CONSENTING ADULTS." There. You happy now? That doesn't discriminate against anyone.
Diane, you are an Idiot."
MC: Every person in America has the same rights to marry. No one is discriminated against. Say we do as you so simplistically suggest and change the definition of marriage to be "the union of TWO CONSENTING ADULTS." How do you then tell someone who wants to marry their sister, or a man and two women, that they can't marry. Aren't you then facing the same "discrimination" charge that you are now decrying?
Wes, I think the "idiot" charge you aim at Diane may be a bit misdirected. |
|
|
I am sure you will find reading these posts later will have your head spinning. Stupidity is rampant around here. The loony libs are getting nervous. |
|
Ok, I just can't let this nonsense pass without a response:
Wes: "Being Religious is a choice...
... Being gay is not. I know that for a religious person that's hard to swallow, because if God made people Gay, then Gay must be OK because God is perfect and can't make mistakes.
Oh BROTHER!"
MC: Please show some evidence of this. With all of our scientific and technological advances, if there was a gene that existed that determines a person's sexual preference, would we not have found it? How would you respond to those like Ann Heche (whoever that is) who Diane said "despite the fact that she boasts a series of public straight relationships, and only one famed foray into gayness with Ellen de Generes, at which time she vowed she was lesbian "from here on out!". Yet you claim "gayness" is not a choice?
Wes: "Don't forget, Jesus was a socialist, liberal and progressive. If he were alive today, he would have voted for Obama and he'd be in favor of Gay marriage. Give me one real reason to believe that I'm wrong about that. Just One!"
MC: How presumptuous of you. Jesus taught that we should love all people and that we have a responsibility to those less fortunate, or those in need. That is exactly what we, as Christians still teach and strive to do. That instruction He gave was to each individual and is no different today - "Render unto Caesar...".
Statistics show that conservative minded people, who (religious people?) are much more generous with their time and their means than liberals - case in point, look at the charitable contributions of our benevolent leaders Obama and Biden.
Contrary to your opinion, Jesus was not a socialist. Coerced charity is not in any way what he taught.
|
|
|
It appears that the nuts are out early today. LOL I got to be going out so I'm going to miss the action. However, you can still have fun without me. Unbelievable the lack of thought process going on with these Socialists today. We wonder why this country is in such bad shape.......read some of these posts! |
|
|
Wes is really way out in left field with no glove. |
|
Don't forget, Jesus was a socialist, liberal and progressive. If he were alive today, he would have voted for Obama and he'd be in favor of Gay marriage. Give me one real reason to believe that I'm wrong about that. Just One!
_________________________________________________
Oh brother is this a pile of crap. One? Uhmmmm let's see maybe it would be abortion! Ya think? |
|
"Why is it politically correct to bully a
person who believes in marriage as a protective, cultural institution, be it religious or secular, and also believes in civil partnerships for people who prefer gay liasons?
Why is it ever acceptable to name call, demean, punish, berate, and humiliate an American who is law abiding, contributing to society, and also defending the traditional institution of marriage as the union between a man and a woman?"
You know, I bet the Klansman in 1950 thought the same way. I mean, those colored could drink out of colored water fountains that were just as good as the White water fountains... (Okay, maybe they were a little shabbier and weren't given a priority to repair.) What are they complaining about? And, hey, those seats in the back of the bus are just as nice as the ones in front.
Frankly, I get tired of this "traditional" argument. Traditionally, throughout most of history, women were given away as PROPERTY in marriage. Marriages were arranged by families, and fathers had to give away a dowry to get a guy to take his daughter, who was considered less valued than a son. It was acceptable to beat your wife, so long as the stick was no thicker than your thumb (Hence, the term, "rule of thumb"). Women couldn't vote, couldn't own property, couldn't serve on juries, etc. In western society, this was still common as late as the 19th century, and in some parts of the world, it still is.
Now today, people marry for love (although 55% of them pick the wrong person, given the divorce rate), and marriage becomes this big pagent for the women to make all their girlfriends wear ugly dresses.
So until you insist we go back to those bygone days of yesteryear, I really think you need to come up with a better argument than, "Well, it's always been THIS way." Because it hasn't, and thank your Invisible Sky Pixie sensible people said, "Wait a minute, that's stupid."
|
|
How many fallacies can you cram into one essay?
First, the only difference between the American Taliban and the Iranian ones is that you don't live in a society that would tolerate you stoning "sinners". Otherwise, I suspect that is exactly what you would do.
I notice that you make fun of Maria's bad spelling (have you read one of KMC's columns lately?) as a means to dehumanize her. This strikes me as petty because clearly, English is not this woman's primary language. (Not sure what KMC's excuse is.) The sad thing about Sanford is that he was a sensible guy in a party full of religious loons, and sadly, this disqualifies him in their eyes. |
|
Good point, especially this one...
"Being gay isn't about sexuality. It's about who they ARE. If it was about sex, why would they want to get married? They are Americans. They should have the same rights as other Americans."
This is a very important observation. The choice isn't between being gay and not being gay... A gay person who never has sex with a member of the same sex is still gay.
Had a friend who was a lesbian, we all knew she was a lesbian, but she pretty much slept with every guy she knew trying to convince herself she wasn't. Then she came out, surprising no one.
|
|
... Being gay is not. I know that for a religious person that's hard to swallow, because if God made people Gay, then Gay must be OK because God is perfect and can't make mistakes.
Oh BROTHER!
That's the key isn't it? The God you all believe in is the one who made you feel "icky" about gay people? Don't forget, Jesus was a socialist, liberal and progressive. If he were alive today, he would have voted for Obama and he'd be in favor of Gay marriage. Give me one real reason to believe that I'm wrong about that. Just One!
And one more thing. You write: "such a demonstration to flaunt and glorify a certain type of sexuality strikes me as symbolic of a drop in society's general dignity."
Seriously? Being gay isn't about sexuality. It's about who they ARE. If it was about sex, why would they want to get married? They are Americans. They should have the same rights as other Americans.
You're worried that gay marriage would lead to polygamy and child marriage? That's stupid. Just write the law that says: "Marriage shall be the union of TWO CONSENTING ADULTS." There. You happy now? That doesn't discriminate against anyone.
Diane, you are an Idiot. |
|
Yes, it has been noted before that marriage neutering advocates usually face a paradox. Many of them argue that men and women are interchangeable, and thus two men or two women is the same thing as a man+woman. Yet, they insist that they could not marry someone of the opposite sex. Children don't need both a mother and a father, because there really is no difference... yet the difference matters enough to the activist that he can't be happy with a woman.
Either there is a difference or there isn't. Either the difference matters or it doesn't.
http://walrus.blogtownhall.com/2009/05/26/handy_dandy_marri age_neutering_plea_repellant.thtml |
|
Who is "bullying" you? As far as I can see you've got it pretty good - you can pass judgement on what you believe is "traditional marriage" resting assured that no one will rescind or deny your right to be "traditionally" married. Lucky you!
And just what the heck does this mean?: "Why does our President castigate American citizens who cherish their personal freedoms of religious beliefs and practices as somehow out of step with the times? What happened to his speeches about openness and tolerance."
---Since when have the religious zealotry in this country found themselves 'oppressed'?
I'd cry for you wise woman, but I'm plumb out of little violins to accompany me. |
|
person who believes in marriage as a protective, cultural institution, be it religious or secular, and also believes in civil partnerships for people who prefer gay liasons?
Why is it ever acceptable to name call, demean, punish, berate, and humiliate an American who is law abiding, contributing to society, and also defending the traditional institution of marriage as the union between a man and a woman?
Why did the tolerant gays publish the names, businesses, and addresses of Californian's who dared to vote for Prop. 8?
Why does our progressive media aggressively target American citizens who work to protect and defend families with fathers and mothers as somehow unpatriotic?
Why doesn't tolerance extend both ways: acceptance of civil partnerships and acceptance of traditional marriages? How can you demand fairness in one direction and not in the other since both conditions exist legally in America?
Why does our President castigate American citizens who cherish their personal freedoms of religious beliefs and practices as somehow out of step with the times? What happened to his speeches about openness and tolerance?
Why are we silent as if there is something inherently wrong or uncomfortably old fashioned (read 'wrong') in exercising our freedom of religion - the right to believe as we choose?
Why do we hang our heads as if guilty as charged as homophobic when we are not, but are overly polite, trying to avoid contention?
I'm a nice person, a patriotic citizen, a Christian, and a strong supporter of the traditional family with a father and a mother who are married to each other. I'm equally a strong supporter of legal protection at work for gay people and a strong supporter for them to engage in civil partnerships if they so desire.
No need to any to bully anyone with a different set of norms or beliefs.
|
|
than reading a wingnut's column convincing us he isn't a homophobe. Never mind that he does so while adding a few lines of "poor" Sanfords 'need for privacy' so that he may continue to proclaim his love for his wife while revealing how much he's lied (so far) about his "passionate" love for....(pregnant pause)....Maria.
Something tells me Michael has a little secret he wants to share! |
|
|
|