HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
By Tom Pain
Nov. 5, 2006 There seems to be a trend among the liberal media to forcefully separate humans from politics. I’m not sure why, except that it results in more votes for liberals. Have any of you noticed that we’re all different? American has over 300 million people and each is different from the other. Of course, there are general characteristics we share, and certain likes, dislike, and pastimes that we have in common, but no two people are exactly alike. How should our government address these differences? Liberals seem to want the government to identify the most popular characteristics and force fit each person into those categories, then award them rights and privileges based on their demographic. Thus, blacks are awarded affirmative action discrimination over more qualified people of other colors. Hispanic criminals are awarded amnesty for breaking our immigration laws while hopeful immigrants from Europe, Africa, and Asia that apply for residence must still follow the rules. While these prejudicial programs are obviously rewards to groups that historically vote for liberals, the liberals try to convince that they are compassionate programs. Unfortunately, those people who are the victims of these prejudicial programs fail to feel that compassion – coincidentally, they happen to be the ones who have led righteous lives: they studied hard to make good grades, they followed the rules when applying for a visa. The latest entitlement program pushed forward by liberals to reward those who vote for their candidates selects the weirdest cross-section of Americans yet – those who only want their genitals to touch the genitals of someone of their same gender. What an absurd characteristic to segment out a portion of the population for preferential treatment? It seems no more pertinent than selecting people who bite their toenails, or part their hair on the right. Why could the government care where any one person places their genitals? Liberals would try to convince you that they are merely being compassionate again. It’s a lie. Discriminatory laws should be repealed, not expanded to include more people in the class given preferential treatment. If a bill were introduced to expand affirmative action programs to include Hispanics, Asians, Africans, Europeans, Native Americans, and every other racial demographic, it would be laughed out of the legislature. If a bill were introduced to encourage illegal immigration by all groups, not just Hispanics, there would be uproar. Yet, there exist laws in every state that are blatantly discriminatory against a growing percentage of the population, and rather than work to repeal those laws, liberals are working to included more people in their preferentially treated class. The number of Americans who are not married is growing as a percentage of the population. Marriage laws discriminate against unmarried people, and in a strange absurdity, they discriminate against married people as well. I can think of no basis for the existence of marriage laws, and despite having written against it several times, no one has ever suggested there is a legitimate basis. Obviously, there is a basis for society’s support of families, but everything desirous can be accomplished just as well through a civil union agreement and maternity/paternity-based child support laws as it can be through government sanctioned marriage. Yet liberals are trying to extend the discrimination that favors married people to this new demographic – gays. What could be their motivation? If they truly cared about people being discriminated against, they would be fighting to repeal marriage laws – those laws discriminate against every single American. Instead, they seek to simply move gay couples from one side of the equation – the single people being discriminated against by marriage laws – to the other side of the equation – the married people being discriminated against by marriage laws. So, why the heck would gays even care from which end their ox is gored? Why wouldn’t they be pushing to end ox-goring altogether? The answer is not the compassionate reason they want you to believe. It is about government entitlements, insurance claims, and pathetic self-esteem issues. If gays can get government recognition of their behavioral quirk, you will start seeing Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, etc. payments going to those who shared genital touching with them. You will see insurance claims to treat psychiatric illness associated with being gay. Maybe we’ll have FannieGay programs to award home loans to gays and affirmative action programs for gay college students. Soon, you would see employers sued for not having enough gay representation in their workforce, or companies being denied government contracts because they do not employ enough gays. How about government contract set-asides for gays? We have them now for minority- and women-owned businesses, and Native Americans, and owners of small businesses, why shouldn’t gays get their share of the pie? This is what the gay agenda is about; it’s not about wanting their ox gored like everyone else. Even the gays who don’t understand these larger issues in play want gay marriage because it would raise their low level of self esteem that results from acting on behavior that 90% of people find repulsive. I’m sorry that they feel so bad about themselves, but it’s not society’s fault. I guarantee that if 10% of society suddenly decided that they just had to eat their own boogers, they would suffer a loss of self-esteem because the other 90% find it repulsive. Does that mean that the 90% should be forced to acknowledge booger-eaters in public? Should restaurant owners be forced to allow a booger-eater to sit next to his other patrons? Why must society be forced to acknowledge gays? The preferred destination of one’s genitals is simply not a characteristic that merits distinction by society. Should schools start teaching children about the many great achievements made throughout history by people who ate boogers? My position is very simple – the government should not allow discrimination against anyone for being gay, but it should also not mandate preferential treatment be given to anyone for being gay. Those same laws should extend to booger-eaters, bad dressers, obese and ugly people, freaks, filthy people, or any of the other demographics that unfortunately are no admired by most of society. Yet, government should not try to force society to accept that which it finds repulsive. You can’t make it illegal to not admire gays. You can’t make people lust after obese people, or ugly people. You can’t force people to want to eat boogers, or want to have a booger-eater sit next to them. The solution is for government to treat everyone exactly the same, as an individual. Yes, there are some distinctions which make sense – it is reasonable to not allow toddlers to drive cars or own weapons. It is reasonable to restrict Social Security payments to those who are unable to work because of disability or age. The government can recognize that there are differences between men and women. Otherwise, I think the government should get out of the classification business. I got on this topic today after reading the liberal media frenzy around Ted Haggard. It seems that a human made the mistake of involving himself in politics, and for that, he will pay the price. Last month, it was the politician, Mark Foley, who was persecuted for being human. What seems strange is that we do not hear of the hypocrisy of the leaders of the gay agenda. How many gay leaders would you suppose have had heterosexual relations? I would guess upwards of 80%. Does that fact mean they are hypocrites? Hardly. Does the fact that Foley or Haggard has had gay sex make them hypocrites? Hardly – as I’ve shown there are many solid reasons for opposing gay marriage. It’s called liberal propaganda. Feed Pablum to those who might vote for liberal candidates. Give tax dollars to those who do vote for liberal candidates. Take tax dollars away from those who might vote against liberal candidates. Persecute those who do vote against liberal candidates. ------------ About the author Tom Pain: Just an American boy with so much common sense, it hurts. Email: thomas.pain@hughes.net Comment on this article here! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com. Please link to this article rather than copying and pasting it onto your site (which would be unauthorized and illegal). |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
