Gay Intolerance Sucks

The media is making much of Kim Davis and her old Kentucky homeland refusal to put a legal stamp of approval on “same-sex marriage.”  The U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year ruled what her legal duty should be, but she refuses to recognize her constitutional duty, claiming it violates her moral principles.

Some Republican candidates for President already jumped on this illegal bandwagon, and their agendas pander to fear, hatred and ignorance.  Christians have become split about the validity – and wisdom – of Davis’ behavior, and some officials call upon Davis to resign her $80,000-a-year job, because she chooses not to fulfill the duties of office.

In tear-filled statements, Davis addresses the news media portraying herself as torn between moral conscience and duty.  Is she right to stick to her guns (so to speak)?  More importantly, her professed dilemma personifies the underlying conflict I thought the judicial system had supposedly answered once and for all: That it’s okay for two men to marry.  Or two women.

It’s time to debunk the myths about what’s going on here once and for all.

Men vs. Women

What is a man?  On a scale of 1 to 10, how much masculinity must a man display to call himself a man?  Is it the image portrayed by the former advertisers of Marlboro cigarets?  Is a man entitled to be strong-willed and, in a disagreement with a woman, always right?

Must a man always behave as a 10 on the masculine scale, always ready to do battle?

And what about women?  Is there a similar scale of 1 to 10 whereby women must ultimately judge herself?  Is a woman supposed to behave vacuously, without any principles other than what her partner defers to her?  To call herself a woman, must she eschew intellectual pursuits in lieu of putting makeup on and finding ways to enlarge her bust?

Of course, we know the correct answers, but that’s only because of this time in history.

Sexual politics and religion

Across the ocean, fundamentalist Muslims require women to wear head scarves and cover up any bare skin, thereby obeying Sharia law.  Women in mostly Muslim countries are viewed as subservient to men.  And that, I think, is how civilization may have been once upon a time, or at least that’s the attendant fictional legacy.

In America and other forward-looking countries, women are no longer required to be – or act – submissive.  And men are free to become submissive and adopt what traditionally were thought to be feminine traits.

I believe that when two individuals with identical genitalia share intimate contact, one of them is behaving more like a male, and the other like a female.  They may sometimes switch roles, but that’s the exception rather than the norm.  Identifying two men or two women as a homosexual couple is nothing more than a label to help the rest of the world understand what looks like a same-sex relationship.

Considering the nature of my own relationships with women, I can hardly put myself on the Marlboro scale of a “10,” but neither have I become a “1” either.

People like Davis think they walk a higher moral ground, but I disagree.  Instead, they’re the epitome of intolerance and bigotry.  They justify this aberrant behavior on “moral values,” but it’s more the practice of a longstanding justification to be close-minded and impersonal based upon outward appearance.

Leadership requires courage

We need to stop coddling public servants who are supposed to lead by example, not by ridicule.  I see no love or responsibility in her obstinance.

As men and women, we exhibit different forms of transgender tendencies.  For most of us, it’s not as blatant as those who are identified as the LGBT community at large.  But our affinity to one type of behavior has changed and is more diversified than we realize.

That’s why there’s such a fear of homosexuals or transgender people.  They remind us of dark places inside our own identities or past experiences that cause severe discomfort.

In this country, public officials are here to serve all the people, not just the ones who resemble them.

5 thoughts on “Gay Intolerance Sucks”

  1. Tolerance is just that, tolerance. Tolerance is not embracing. Why does it always have to be bigotry and hatred? One can be passionately against something yet TOLERATE it. Many seem to think that if you don’t embrace anything and everything, it is because they hate something. Now that is intolerance. You seem to sweep aside someone’s genuine religious belief and demand their homage to that which they disagree. They could have solved this problem by assigning marriage licenses to someone else, which they finally did. But no, they have to make an example of her. As far as “its the law of the land”, at one time prohibition and no voting rights for women or negroes was “the law of the land.” That doesn’t necessarily mean that is the end.

  2. One doesn’t have to be an Edward Gibbon or a Christian to know that when a society accepts pederasty as a normal expression of love, society has entered into a state of decadence. My concern is that the resulting societal and cultural decline leads to a lack of discrimination between the differences in races and sexuality.

    This, in turn, breeds a lack of respect for inherent differences, commonly practiced as the delusion of equality. In his Gettysburg Address, Abraham Lincoln noted it was “dedicated to the PROPOSITION that all men are created equal” (note it is a proposition, not a fact).

    Intolerance is a bias used for causes ill or good. I believe that the toleration of institutionalized gay marriage is part and parcel of a general decline in Western culture, and speeds up the process.

    I have no argument with homosexuality being a natural human condition for a very small part of the population, which, from all historical accounts, has existed since time immemorial.

    I do make distinctions between homosexual anal intercourse and heterosexual vaginal coitus, with its capacity for reproduction. To postulate that these two forms of physical love are equal is ludicrous. This is a distinction with a great deal of difference; one being sterile, the other fertile.

    As Groucho Marx said, “Marriage is a wonderful institution, but who wants to be institutionalized?” Obviously, most of the gay community do.

  3. I believe that the duty of a civil servant is to serve the public. As with police officers, social workers, teachers and other professions, there are always going to be portions of the job that go against what a person believes. The “professionalism” part of civil service is doing the job regardless of one’s personal beliefs. If someone disagrees with the government’s policies, then that person should not accept money from an agency that supports an unsupported policy. If my job is to perform an abortion, but I disagree with abortion, I should probably do something different. Not all policemen believe that marijuana should be illegal, but if they live in a state where it is illegal, then they are obligated by their oath of office to uphold that law. Mrs. Davis is in a similar situation. I believe also that this woman is hurting the public’s belief in their local government also. It’s not like the government needs help in hurting its image.

    I think Mrs. Davis could be facing some serious charges should she choose to continue to defy the SCOTUS. She will not only be found to be in contempt of court, possibly because of a position of authority or power above those that she serves. She could face stiffer penalties much as a teacher or police officer might for abusing power over others. She wants to scream about her belief in the sanctity of marriage, yet her divorce/marriage record seems to say something else.

    Mr. Georgeson commented, “To postulate that these two forms of physical love are equal is ludicrous. This is a distinction with a great deal of difference; one being sterile, the other fertile.” This implies that love (or sex) between a sterile woman and man or even one that does not result in offspring is not capable of being an equivalent love to one which is capable of producing offspring. This implies that the quality of the love has nothing to do with the sexes involved in the act of intercourse, but rather the production of children.

Comments are closed.