It seems that sumd00d got all up on his "moral high ground" hobby horse somewhere on the Internet (this is admittedly shocking and unexpected). It seems that if you favor lower taxes rather than Gay Marriage* you're just like people who voted for George Wallace.
Or something.
Midwest Chick takes him to the woodshed for the most satisfying thrashing I've seen in quite some time.
* ObDisclaimer: I actually support Gay Marriage, because I don't think that the business of government is telling folks what they can't do with their personal life, and that the 50%-plus-1 portion of the population has no business doing it either. Get offa my lawn.
But that said, the Gay community needs to realize that when you package your stuff with a whole bunch of big-government, high-tax, industry killing regulatory policy (not to mention a whole bunch of government getting up in your private business stuff like "speech codes"), well, you lose a bunch of support. I mean when you mix your yummy ice cream with a mess of dog turd, your yummy ice cream really isn't particularly appetizing. Just sayin'.
4 comments:
This goes along with something I've been thinking about for a long time. I think the environmental movement jumped the shark when they started using man-made global warming as the reason to do things. I won't go into the arguments for or against it. But, they were winning on arguments based on cleaner air and water, and increased efficiency. Hardly anybody argued with that. But, when you start saying a gas that all mammals exhale is causing a problem, you get people digging in their heels.
Hey, if that's what "Gay Marriage" meant, I'd support it too. Two guys or two gals want to rent a function space, invite a bunch of their friends over, dress up, have a little (or big) ceremony of their own design, and call it a "wedding", I don't see how it's any of the State's business.
Hey...lookie here. Seems they can already do that, in any of the 50 US states or the District of Columbia.
Know what's the only thing they CAN'T do, except in those states where they've already gotten the courts on their side? Use the State's privileged access to coercion as a club against those who disagree with them, whether that disagreement takes the relatively insignificant form of refusing to hire out one's space or services for the ceremony, or the more serious form of refusing to put them at the top of the list for adopting children.
And lookie here...suddenly we're right back to "government telling folks what they can't do with their personal life", except with the "Gay Marriage" activists on the other side.
I actually had a long smack down over that very post on the Book of Faces myself. Under my real name so no linkies. But my "foe" is a lawyer who declares himself Libertarian and never espouses any viewpoint other than big government. I'll have to see if there's some way I can clean up the exchange enough to print it.
Now he's talking down to me and accusing me of just spouting talking points, even though I drown him in links.
Up here in Canada we have been much more tolerant of gays than you have in America from the gubbermint/legislation angle.
If you libertarians think you have an ally in the gay community...you might want to take a closer look at them. They will happily use gov't to shove their sexuality down your throats the way Christians used it to promote religion - and they will do it on your front lawn too!
In any event I will happily stare any liberal twit in the face and tell them that lower taxes are far more important to me than gays and sham marriages. My rights are not affected one iota because some queer is unhappy and has gender issues.
Post a Comment