Wednesday, April 06, 2005

The Kansas gay marriage ban passed, as expected.

I work in Kansas and live in Missouri. Recently, on my drive home, I've been eyeballing a particular yard-sign advocating the ban. It reads "Protect Marriage" and depicts a minimalized bride and groom -- what you'd expect the top of a wedding cake to look like if designed by the folks who produce public restroom plaques.

The unspoken, driving fear seems to be that, in some day not terribly removed from the present, a small but vocal coalition of gays, acting as a sort of marital Gestapo, will bodily separate married couples -- at gunpoint, if necessary -- and drag dissenters to concentration camps to await extermination. Finally, gays will have triumphed over the smug legions of their hetero oppressors. (Insert evil laughter.)

If that's not it, what is? I guess I'd be pretty scared, too. "Protect marriage," indeed.
Posted by at

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Mac -- sounds pretty much (and appropriately) like the anti gun-control lobby.

jason -- Hell, marriage IS a concentration camp!
--WMB

3:48 PM
Ken said...

Mac,

Gays taking over the world (muhahahaha!) sounds like a great idea for a satirical film on homophobia!

7:22 PM
Ken said...

jon,

I'm not particular for or against gay marriage (in fact, I find it a bit comical that gays would want to get *married*; seems like they've joined the legions of those now stomping their little feet and clamouring for arbitrary rights - just because they can). What I'm against are whitewashed bigots who so vehemently oppose gay marriage without taking even a moment to seriously (and honestly) consider the implications of their actions. There is a word for such people: it is called "mob".

2:27 PM
RJU said...

Well marriage isn't exactly a concentration camp... more like a prison... and usually you have to pay to get out, so why are gays so eager to get in? I have heard their reasons- the legal benefits of marriage and so forth, but I am not too sure the benefits outweigh the associated problems. I think mainly they just want to be treated as "normal" which is understandable, but are they "normal"? Should they be able to easily have children even though through natural means it is not possible for them. Is it really good for the children they might have as opposed to a heterosexual couple? Is there really any reason for marriage if you are not going to have children? To me the purpose of marriage is to provide a stable environment for children and that is why it is in society's best interest to promote and support it. I don't see where gay marriage really serves this purpose- that is why I am against it.

4:30 PM
Anonymous said...

I think a gay couple, if they want to, should be allowed to raise children in a stable, marital family environment. You can't make generalizations about this. A lot of heterosexual marriages are dysfunctional to the point of screwing their kids up good for life. In contrast, SOME gay marriages provide a loving, caring, educational environment for children that produces socially committed intelligent adults. To repeat, you can't make generalizations based on sexual preference. And a lot of heterosexual relationships are pretty perverse too when it comes down to it. People are, by and large, getting all worked up over a set of labels.

7:17 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)