It's All About Control
Imagine how a gay person might feel living in some state like Mississippi, Utah, or Florida where gay couples are banned from adopting children (until a recent court case overturned the Florida law).
Imagine trying to defend against arguments why you shouldn't have the right to adopt a child.
The people who would prohibit gay adoption, just want to "protect the children," of course. They want to legislate morality and gays have a lifestyle they disagree with. The don't understand the attraction. Besides, male pedophiles who molest young boys are, by definition, homosexuals. They say by putting innocent children in a home with homosexual, you're exposing them to potential child molesters.
The law abiding gay guy is left defending himself with, "But I'm not a child molester. I would never harm a child."
I think that if your first response in an argument has to be "I'm not a child molester," then the other side has put you at a serious disadvantage. The other sides whole premise may be wrong, projecting the intent and criminal acts of the mentally ill (or just evil) pedophile onto you. "Pedophiles like boys, you like boys, so you're the same as a pedophile." It's dishonest. It's a cheap shot. It plays on emotions of protecting the children. It equates a law abiding citizen to a criminal in order to advance a social agenda.
Kinda like the gun control arguments.
These legal moralists want to impose their values on the rest of the country. The don't approve of guns, they don't understand the attraction. They know the some people with guns commit horrible criminal acts agains the innocent. "Murderers use guns, you use guns, so you're the same as a murderer."
Law abiding gun owners stand open mouthed in frustration, crying "but I'm not a murderer, I would never harm a child." Just like a gay guy wanting to adopt a child...
The people who would prohibit gay adoption by a loving couple and the people who would restrict gun ownership by law abiding citizens usually come from two different ends of the political spectrum. But the arguments from both sides are equally dishonest, playing on emotions to advance their view of what a good society should be, imposing their values and restricting peoples liberty through the force of government.
Gay bashers and gun grabbers. I think they have much more in common than they would ever admit.
Imagine how a gay person might feel living in some state like Mississippi, Utah, or Florida where gay couples are banned from adopting children (until a recent court case overturned the Florida law).
Imagine trying to defend against arguments why you shouldn't have the right to adopt a child.
The people who would prohibit gay adoption, just want to "protect the children," of course. They want to legislate morality and gays have a lifestyle they disagree with. The don't understand the attraction. Besides, male pedophiles who molest young boys are, by definition, homosexuals. They say by putting innocent children in a home with homosexual, you're exposing them to potential child molesters.
The law abiding gay guy is left defending himself with, "But I'm not a child molester. I would never harm a child."
I think that if your first response in an argument has to be "I'm not a child molester," then the other side has put you at a serious disadvantage. The other sides whole premise may be wrong, projecting the intent and criminal acts of the mentally ill (or just evil) pedophile onto you. "Pedophiles like boys, you like boys, so you're the same as a pedophile." It's dishonest. It's a cheap shot. It plays on emotions of protecting the children. It equates a law abiding citizen to a criminal in order to advance a social agenda.
Kinda like the gun control arguments.
These legal moralists want to impose their values on the rest of the country. The don't approve of guns, they don't understand the attraction. They know the some people with guns commit horrible criminal acts agains the innocent. "Murderers use guns, you use guns, so you're the same as a murderer."
Law abiding gun owners stand open mouthed in frustration, crying "but I'm not a murderer, I would never harm a child." Just like a gay guy wanting to adopt a child...
The people who would prohibit gay adoption by a loving couple and the people who would restrict gun ownership by law abiding citizens usually come from two different ends of the political spectrum. But the arguments from both sides are equally dishonest, playing on emotions to advance their view of what a good society should be, imposing their values and restricting peoples liberty through the force of government.
Gay bashers and gun grabbers. I think they have much more in common than they would ever admit.
posted by FOD at
9:03 PM
1 Comments:
The proper response to "You're a potential child molester" is:
Most molested children were abused by one or both heterosexual parents. Most of the other molested children were abused by another relative or a friend of the parents. Do you want to ban heterosexual marriage and visits by relatives and friends?
The proper response to "You're a murderer" is:
You are abetting armed criminals in robbing, wounding, raping, or killing unarmed, law-abiding people. Is that your goal?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home