OH, WHAT A GAY DAY...

Y'know, it may never have happened, but then again, it could

have.  For the sake of discussion, let's say it did.  'Twas my brother's

birthday and he had received a present from my parents.  Now if my
bruv was getting a present, I wanted one as well.  "But he's only getting
a present because it's his birthday.  You'll get a present when it's your

birthday," said my parents.  "No, if he's getting a present, then I want
a present too."  I was big on equality, you see.  Equality as I per-
ceived it, that is.  If he got something then so should I.

"Ridiculous!" you say.  "If you get a present on your birthday,

then that is equality.  If it's not your birthday, you don't qualify for

a present, regardless of however much you may want one."  "No," I

cry.  "If he gets something I should get something as well, whether it's

my birthday or not.  It's not fair otherwise."  So I stamp my feet and

sulk and my folks give in and buy me something too.  Now I'm happy,
because, as you can plainly see, I'm one of those people who don't
like to see other people getting something that I'm not getting,
whether I qualify for it or not.

Which brings me to the subject of The U.S. Supreme Court legaliz-
ing gay marriage in all 50 states.  Marriage has always been between

men and women.  In some cultures, it was between one man and several

women, but for the purpose of our discussion, the number is immaterial.

The point is, only men and women got married.  As I've said before else-
where, to be a husband required having a wife (at least one), and being

a wife involved having a husband, and that's the way it was con-

ceived and carried out down through the centuries.

Then one day, society relaxed a bit and turned a blind eye to

same sex couples living together.  Society even decided (after much

bullying and many hissy fits) that gay couples' relationships could have

the same tax breaks and inheritance rights that married couples benefit

from.  Guess what?  It wasn't enough for them.  "If straight couples can

marry, we should be allowed to as well!" they cried.  Even 'though they

didn't qualify because marriage is between  husbands and wives, and

the notion of two husbands or two wives is simply ridiculous and

doesn't meet the requirements of the institution.

But they wanted it, so society caved in and gave it to them -
even 'though they had no real  right to expect it, ask for it, or insist

on it.  It's nothing more than an absurd imitation of an institution that

belongs to others, by a group that want it merely because they object

to anyone else having something they don't - whether they're intrinsi-
cally entitled to it or not.  Equality is only something that applies to
to those who meet the conditions.  Same sex couples didn't have
the requisite mix of genders for marriage, so, technically, they
just didn't qualify for it - nothing to do with 'inequality'.

And one thing proponents for gay marriage forget is that, in
a sense, gay people have always had the same rights to marry as
everyone else - to someone of the opposite gender.  That was the re-
quirement under the law that the rest of us were subject to;  the fact
that they may not have felt inclined to avail themselves of that right
shouldn't mean that society is obliged to rewrite the rules to ac-
commodate their wish to impose their view on the rest of us.

Granting something to a group of people simply because  they
want it, isn't necessarily rectifying an inequality - it's simply giving
in to the demands of those who want the rest of society to dance
to their tune, regardless of how off-key it happens to be.

Next thing we know, people will be wanting to marry their
horses.  Oh, I forgot - they already do that in some parts of
America, don't they?  Saints preserve us!

Posted in: Cartoons