From people that profess sincerity around granting 'marriage equality' to homosexuals, is the implicit suggestion that they are respectful of different lifestyles, and this respect is partly what justifies their support for redefining marriage. And yet, sometimes their arguments reveal a total lack of respect for certain groups in society that shows them up to be hypocrites.Consider Matt McCarten reporting back on a Priest who spoke to him:
The irony of having a young virgin man in a frock, not permitted to marry, employed by what many would say is an anti-women institution riddled with suppressed homosexual men and paedophiles, preaching to me on the threat of gays to heterosexual marriage, was lost on him.Well, the irony of Matt mocking the priest by suggesting that a man wearing a frock is somehow demeaning whilst he professes to stand up for transvestites was lost on him.
The irony of mocking some-one for taking a vow of celibacy, whilst arguing that "each to his own" with regard to anal sex was also lost on him.
The irony of arguing that the Church is riddled with suppressed homosexual men, whilst arguing that there is nothing wrong with homosexual orientation appears lost on him.
Should it really matter what a person choose to wear, where he works, and what his private sex life is about when he voices an opinion? And is it right to make jokes at the expense of transvestites or people who choose to struggle with same sex attraction? Liberals would argue no. And yet, in the final analysis,we see gay rights supporters like Matt often using this line of attack towards priests and the religious. Seems hypocritical to me.
The thing I found so ironic is that they were (are) so fixated on the idea that marriage is between two people - "any" two people (even though that's not what they mean).
ReplyDeleteThey don't seem to get that their "equal" version is not only a mere one criteria different to the real one, but puts marriage in play for anyone wanting to change the others. Bizarrely, I've seen people describe the definition of marriage as "plastic" - no doubt, those same people sneered at Bob describing what we all know will be the next attempts at redefinition.
Matt's statement: "The irony of having a young virgin man in a frock, not permitted to marry, employed by what many would say is an anti-women institution riddled with suppressed homosexual men and paedophiles, preaching to me on the threat of gays to heterosexual marriage, was lost on him." shows no signs of prejudice or irony itself. Re-read it a thousand times and you'll realise that ZenTiger's take on the above is far from hitting the nail on the head - more like winding up with a sore thumb from missing the mark completely. In no way does Matt's statement contradict his sentiments or assertions. I think it's perfectly succinct and worded exactly right to convey what he meant.
ReplyDeleteEverything is ironic. I find it ironic how people that call anyone with a different point of view on the topic of gay marriage "homophobic" at the drop of a hat will carefully explain that when they resort to insult such as "virgin in a frock", it's different, because..well, because.
ReplyDeleteMy thumb is just fine thanks.