Scene: Bachmann being asked about gay marriage by a 16 y.o. at a town hall meeting in an Iowan pizza parlor surrounded by older white people with no sense of individualism in fashion.
Real scene: hatred-fueled campaign queen in a famously red state (Iowa) being celebrated by members of the un-discriminated ethnic-majority (white people) with a collectivistic sub-culture while they belittle the opinions of a perceived hooligan. Oh, and they're old (proven to be most resistant to change).
Fact: I never ever want to visit Iowa (along with VA, IL NE, FL, OH, and NJ). But I digress.
Though I admire the sixteen-year-old's balls (figuratively speaking), I must admit that the conversation was a bit disappointing. The student was obviously dumbfounded against Bachmann's counter-arguments and, I would say, "lost" the debate.
I wish I was there to confront Bachmann myself. But, like I said, I don't ever want to visit Iowa. Anyway.
What Bachmann crucially fails to acknowledge is that homosexuality, like one's sex or the color of one's skin, is not a conscious decision. To restrict a gay individual from marrying, or a black person from sitting near the front of a bus, or a woman from voting, is to oppress the natural follow-up of a trait that an individual has no capability in changing.
But just so we're clear, let me explain that homosexuality, like personality, is indeed a trait. It is a part of one's mental makeup. The fact that it cannot be seen like darker skin or enlarged breasts does not make it any less real or any less permanent. It is clear that the law acknowledges this truth, as insanity is often used as a defense against crime. Clearly, then, the law does not recognize homosexuality as a trait, but rather as a choice. Well, according to this homo, I never chose to be this way. Dare I say that I was "born this way?"
To punish an individual in something they themselves are not responsible for--that is discrimination. Discrimination, if you ain't known, is illegal here in the "land of the free."
Why, then, does the law agree that homosexuals are subject to different judicial treatment than heterosexuals. Answer: because, like the old days of fear of powerful women and African Americans, the majority isn't ready to welcome the minority.
Bachmann is only supporting the majority's ignorance.
For a woman who puts so much consideration into hair, makeup and style, I would expect her to be careful which beauty salons she walks into. Who knows, maybe she'll propose a law that only women can work in the fashion industry? Can I puh-leas get an "Amen?"
, Henry
Fact: I never ever want to visit Iowa (along with VA, IL NE, FL, OH, and NJ). But I digress.
Though I admire the sixteen-year-old's balls (figuratively speaking), I must admit that the conversation was a bit disappointing. The student was obviously dumbfounded against Bachmann's counter-arguments and, I would say, "lost" the debate.
I wish I was there to confront Bachmann myself. But, like I said, I don't ever want to visit Iowa. Anyway.
What Bachmann crucially fails to acknowledge is that homosexuality, like one's sex or the color of one's skin, is not a conscious decision. To restrict a gay individual from marrying, or a black person from sitting near the front of a bus, or a woman from voting, is to oppress the natural follow-up of a trait that an individual has no capability in changing.
But just so we're clear, let me explain that homosexuality, like personality, is indeed a trait. It is a part of one's mental makeup. The fact that it cannot be seen like darker skin or enlarged breasts does not make it any less real or any less permanent. It is clear that the law acknowledges this truth, as insanity is often used as a defense against crime. Clearly, then, the law does not recognize homosexuality as a trait, but rather as a choice. Well, according to this homo, I never chose to be this way. Dare I say that I was "born this way?"
To punish an individual in something they themselves are not responsible for--that is discrimination. Discrimination, if you ain't known, is illegal here in the "land of the free."
Why, then, does the law agree that homosexuals are subject to different judicial treatment than heterosexuals. Answer: because, like the old days of fear of powerful women and African Americans, the majority isn't ready to welcome the minority.
Bachmann is only supporting the majority's ignorance.
For a woman who puts so much consideration into hair, makeup and style, I would expect her to be careful which beauty salons she walks into. Who knows, maybe she'll propose a law that only women can work in the fashion industry? Can I puh-leas get an "Amen?"
, Henry
Amen!
ReplyDeleteAaaamen. First come love, THEN comes the conversation!
ReplyDeleteVERY well said. amen!
ReplyDelete