Wednesday, March 27, 2013

Barbara Kay on the Gay Marriage Coup d'Etat

Yeah, you read that right. From the National Post's Barbara Kay:
Gay marriage — not civil unions for committed partners conferring entirely equal practical benefits, which all fair-minded people approve — implies a radical redefinition of marriage: From its universal role as society’s stabilizing intergenerational mortar, to the celebration of all private erotic and romantic attachment separate from procreation. Nothing could be more socially seismic in its implications for children, or more worthy of long and careful deliberation.
 ... this is stupid, offensive, and just on all possible levels, wrong.

The main idea of the whole article is that Kay is upset because, apparently, gay marriage was thrust upon the Canadian population - and soon, upon 'merica - without any sort of careful, slow deliberation on the part of politicians, or the populace.

'Cause you know, at least 30 years after gay rights blipped onto the radar, we still haven't had enough time to fully examine the issues. Not at all.

Its a stupid argument to begin with, but Kay takes it to a whole new level by apparently never getting over the fact that same-sex marriage is a settled debate among the majority. Even in the United States, the collective move has been towards supporting same-sex marriage because people are realizing that keeping people apart from each other on the basis of gender is stupid, just like keeping them apart on the basis of their skin colour or the basis of their class is stupid. Of course, you'd never see Kay say something about those terrible discriminations we did away with - gay marriage is a special case, don't ya know.

Why? Kay's argument is that same-sex marriage changed the definition so radically, from one of a "stabilizing" influence, to one that's apparently all about erotic and romantic attachment which does not include procreation.

So the obvious follow-up question to Barbara Kay should be whether or not she will tell post-menopausal women or couples with a sterile partner that they can't marry. 'Cause you know, they can't fulfill marriage's goal of promoting procreation. Do you think Kay would ever be so logically consistent?

Of course not! She would never even think of saying something like that. Why? Because its a straight couple, that's why!

Ugh. I could go on, but I refuse to. This issue was settled for most of us a long time ago, and its been eight years right? So why are they acting as if same-sex marriage, the second its implemented, will destroy Western civilization? Why are people like Kay so hung up on the "procreation" aspect of marriage when we live in a society today where women do not need to put out 20 kids to help with the family farm (and expect about half to die)? Do they not understand that today's society is a lot different from their precious "traditional" societies?

Yeah, they probably do. But Kay and others like her still see homosexual couples as icky, and thus will find any excuse in the book to stop them from "forcing" same-sex marriage upon society. What a bunch of disgusting wastes these people continue to be.


  1. Government should get out of the Marriage business altogether.

    Benefits should be tied to "unions" between two people, and those "unions" should be allowed to be applied to gay couples.

    "Marriage" should be a word distributed by religious institutions. Whomever they want to "marry" can get "married".

    Not everyone who is married needs to be in a union and not everyone in a union needs to be married.

    Problem solved

    1. I've heard that argument before, and I'm definitely partial to it. If traditionalists want to keep "marriage," then they can - I assume most people will continue that tradition of getting married in the church and so on. But government shouldn't be in the business of recognizing "marriages," just as you said, "unions," which have obvious benefits tied to them.

      But, I have no idea how palatable an idea that is to the wider population. Someone should do some polling.

    2. The left does not like it, because they argue that unless you call it "Marriage" it is meaningless, and, the right does not like it, because they argue that being gay is icky.

      So it's hated by both the left and the right. A familiar place for a Liberal to be IMO.