Yet Another “Opinion” On Same-Sex Marriage

19 Aug

On the Rotorua Daily Post website (which is clearly the pinnacle of journalism) today, Garth George cannot figure out why homosexuals and lesbians (because everyone is either gay or straight) want to be allowed to “marry”.

And no, I’m not putting those scare quotes there. Garth George is.

Garth George can’t seem to comprehend that adopting as an individual, rather than as a couple, is not actually the best option for the rights of the adoptive parents or the rights of the child being adopted.

Garth George states that “by their very nature, homosexuals and lesbians cannot reproduce, except through IVF treatments or by the use of surrogate fathers or mothers”. He conveniently ignores that, once again, there are people who are neither gay, lesbian, or straight who are in committed long-term relationships. He also ignores the fact that there are plenty of opposite-sex* couples who also cannot reproduce except through IVF treatments or by the use of surrogate mothers or sperm donors (who, FFS, are not “surrogate fathers”), and yet we allow them to get married willy-nilly.

Garth George seems to be under the impression that the reason the nice, normal straighties get hitched—sorry, “cleave to one another”— is to “among other things, have children and to bring them up in a traditional family environment”.

Excuse me while I vomit.

Garth George apparently does not know the meaning of “two freely consenting adults”, considering his now overly-tired slippery slope argument—there is clearly no need to acknowledge that Louisa Wall’s Member’s Bill has specifically updated the schedule that contains the list of forbidden relations to cover non-gender-specific incestuous relations. Apparently, we as a nation are incapable of separating same-sex marriage from incest from polygamy. Apparently all these things are directly comparable.

Garth George would like us all to know that “it is disingenuous to complain about rights being taken away when they have never existed in the first place.” I think Garth George should have explained that to the suffragettes of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, or to those involved in the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 60s. Because, you see, no one can complain about a lack of rights if we’ve never had them in the first place!

Garth George feels that this “is another step in a decades-long campaign to convince everyone that homosexuals and lesbians are no different from the rest of us and deserve all the rights and privileges known to mankind”, which is actually the first correct thing he’s said in the entire article. The difference is, of course, that Garth George doesn’t believe that “homosexuals and lesbians” actually are no different from the rest of us. Garth George doesn’t believe that the queer community deserve all the rights and privileges that we give to heterosexuals.

Garth George has also apparently never met a homosexual who is light-hearted and carefree. I think I can safely say that I would not be particularly light-hearted or carefree if I were forced to have a conversation with Garth George, as it’s surprisingly difficult to remain light-hearted and carefree when talking with someone who sees you as a lesser human being for no other reason than the fact that you sometimes like to sleep with women.

Garth George refuses to wear the appellation of ‘homophobe’ as he has “no phobias about homosexuality, male or female”. And I agree with him; I don’t like the word homophobe, as I have genuine phobias that are not comparable. Garth George is not a homophobe. He is a bigot with poisonous and vile views, who has far too much investment in denying human rights to strangers and far too much interest in relationships that have nothing to do with him whatsoever.

Garth George doesn’t understand male homosexuality. He understands, though, that “it makes homosexuals different from [him] and the rest of heterosexual humanity”.

If the rest of heterosexual humanity is like Garth George, then I want nothing to do with them.

*I hate this term, but I haven’t yet found a better one. If anyone has any suggestions I’d appreciate them.

ETA: New Zealand statistics for the woefully uninformed.


Posted by on August 19, 2012 in LGBTIQQA


Tags: ,

4 responses to “Yet Another “Opinion” On Same-Sex Marriage

  1. Ms Dentata

    August 19, 2012 at 19:08

    This is just f*ckin perfect, MJ. You sum up all of my problems with that depressing article.

    • MJ

      August 19, 2012 at 19:17

      I forgot to put in here that the constant use of “homosexuals and lesbians” squicked me out like nobody’s business. Eurgh.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: