Why Gays Get Special Treatment

I was reading another brilliant editorial by my hero, Dr. Mike Adams.  Mike and I would get along.  We believe the same things and have a tendency to argue things exactly the same way.

I recently had a debate with another blogger about a range of topics but gay marriage came up.  I tried to use the same technique that Adams uses in his editorials, and as usual, the technique failed, even though from a purely objective stance, the logic of the argument is foolproof.

This particular editorial covers the unfair termination of a relationship counselor because her religions beliefs concerning homosexuality rendered her incapable of establishing a proper doctor-patient relationship with a lesbian.  Adams used what could technically be described as a “slippery slope” approach in which he suggests that next, counselors who disapprove of binge eating will be summarily fired when they refuse to treat a patient who beligerently declares that they love to eat, are genetically predisposed to binge eat, and have a constitutionally protected right to binge eat.

Defenders of the gay marriage/gay rights crusade immediately cry foul to this line of reasoning, claiming that it’s comparing apples to oranges (”slippery slope”) and this somehow invalidates the argument.

The reason they do so is because of how very obviously stupid it makes the entire thing.  Why does a lesbian’s unwillingness to date a man trump a counselor’s unwillingness to counsel a lesbian?  Why is one belief system better than the other?  Your answer to that question is your rationale for invalidating the substitution of “fat” and “overeating” for “lesbian” and “has sex with women” as “not the same thing.”

You could argue that people who let gay rights get special treatment while ignoring all other rights, such as fat rights, are just too smart for all of those backwards, anti-progressive bible thumpers such as Dr. Adams and recognize a slippery slope for what it is and don’t fall into that trap.  However, I think you’ll find that virtually every gay rights activist not only doesn’t understand what you mean when you say “slippery slope” but will also both allow and apply “slippery slope” reasoning to any other argument in which doing so would favor their position.

The truth, I have concluded, is this: people put sex and love on a pedestal, above all other things.  They will abandon truth, reason, logic, the good of society, God, and anyone else who might interfere with their choice in who they want to screw.  Gay rights activists can’t imagine the horror of homosexuals being deprived of sex and love, and thus are willing to ignore everything in order to support it.

This is why I frequently bring up bestiality and pedophilia instead of overeating and drug use when attempting to argue this point, but even though those arguments attempt to hurdle beyond the barrier to logic and reasoning erected by sex, gay rights supporters will come up with nonsense like age of consent, a rule which is as arbitrary as any other age limit such as drinking, gambling, or voting.

But it doesn’t work.  Gay rights supporters are so much more interested in the freedom to screw who and how they want that they refuse to even entertain the idea that some people might be as appalled at the idea of a gay relationship as they are of cannibalism or human sacrifice.  They immediately chalk that up to a “bigoted” belief while in the same breath claiming to be open minded, without even considering the legitimacy of those feelings.

This, of course, necessarily requires a libertarian worldview.  In order for a gay rights supporter to categorically support the gay’s individual freedom to marry other gays while categorically opposing the majority of society’s opposition to gay marriage, they have to fall back on the “it doesn’t directly affect you so therefore it must be OK” argument.  They must then start sliding down the slippery slope of believing that doing drugs like heroin and cocaine is okay because it doesn’t directly harm them – in other words, take an absolute libertarian stance on personal freedom.

Except they don’t do that.  I’ve heard people tell me that yes, gays should get married because their doing so does not negatively harm me, but they should not be allowed to chase the dragon on their gay honeymoon.  When I suggest that doing so does not harm me (or them), if they are smarter than the average dufus gay rights activist (which doesn’t take much), they might say, “but it harms them!  And self harm should be illegal!”

Really?  And you know this how?  Do you have a crystal ball?  Why is your belief that heroin harms a gay married couple more valid than the majority belief that gay marriage itself harms gays (and everyone else?)  Because you read some “studies” that say heroin is bad?

My problem with gay rights activists is that they cherry pick which social conventions to be libertarian on and then act baffled, or offended, or down right hostile that the rest of the country doesn’t cherry pick the same conventions.  In fact, they act so surprised that they are in the habit of firing their subordinates who disagree.  Their libertarian attitude toward gay marriage doesn’t extend to the examples that Dr. Adams discusses concerning something like drug use so they cry “slippery slope!  apples and oranges!”

The truth is, it isn’t a slippery slope or apples and oranges, it’s just good, irrefutable reasoning, the belief in which is suspeneded by gay rights activists so they can maintain a worldview that was established by an emotional attachment to the issue, not a rational evaluation of what is probably best for society.

But then again, that’s how it almost always works for everyone, but liberals in particular.  Welfare?  Who in their right mind could rationally conclude that giving vast numbers of Americans something for nothing would improve their lot in life?  Anyone who voted in 1968 and is also alive now should remember how totally wrong they were then.  Do we really have to wait 40 years for another entire segment of the American culture to be subjected to another failed social experiment?

Sometimes I wish progressives would learn from the mistakes of the past.

But then I remember that if they did, they would be conservatives.