Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
------------------------------------
True believer Guy Crawford steps up yet again to obscure the issues and misdirect.
Read on:
-----------------------------------
I read with interest your recent story in reference to the lawsuit that attempted to overturn Bozeman's LGBT non-discrimination ordinance.
The irony of a group of entitled non-LGBT individuals (The writer assumes they are non-LGBT, but he doesn't know this.)
claiming that they have in some way been damaged by a law that insures (sic) freedom for the LGBT members of our community is breathtaking. (I don't think the lawsuit claimed they had been "damaged." The judge dismissed the case on the grounds that the plaintiffs didn't have standing because they weren't damaged.
Since we're talking damage, shouldn't LGBTs have been required to show specific damage before the NDO was passed? In fact, the City pretty much admitted the legislation was preemptive. They were acting because of the possibility someone might "discriminate.")
These are the same individuals who continually complain that government is too intrusive, and yet they demand that government be involved in our most personal and intimate decisions. (An ironic statement, since the purpose of the NDO is to act against certain behaviors and actions. The City entered the transaction, which means they took sides. The result always is that the losing side accommodates. Thus, government intrudes on someone's "personal and intimate decisions" by involving itself.)
Those personal decisions that conservatives believe should be left to the government include but are not limited to: Whether or not a woman should be able to decide for herself to have a child, (Leftists never tire of regurgitating their talking points. They trot out the same tired tropes time after time, get corrected on their misrepresentations, and the next day they say the exact same thing. I wonder if these phrases are focus-tested, because they reappear verbatim every day.
So let's straighten out a leftist one more time. No one claims that women do not have the "right to decide" to have a child or not. What no one has a right to do is to pretend it's not a child and kill it if they don't want it. There is no "personal and intimate decision" that involves killing a human being.)
whether individuals can decide for themselves who to fall in love with and marry, (Doesn't it seem vacuous? Over and over again, the same casuistry? Once again, we note the no one, NO ONE, cares who anyone falls in love with. No. One. Cares.
Most people just want to live their lives, do their work, and raise their families. They only start to care when they're forced to do something to conform to the gay agenda. See, people are content to let people do what they want as long as it doesn't impinge upon the lives of others.
Which is why people object. We know that marriage is not what LGBTs are interested in. They are interested in bringing society to its knees, forcing the celebration and approval of every part of their agenda. They want to beat down opposition, defeat religion, and destroy their critics. They never were interested in gay marriage, except as a means to achieve submission.
That forces people into a fight they don't want a part of.
Oh, and we really need to find out Mr. Crawford's commitment to love. Does Mr. Crawford support polygamy? Necrophilia? Incest? Bestiality? NAMBLA? If not, why not? Why would he draw the line at any of these parties loving and marrying whom they want?
The question is not out of bounds. Sometimes the slope is slippery. It was only a couple of months ago, hot on the heals of the Supreme court ruling about gay marriage, that a Billings man wanted to marry his second wife. And Salon posted a sympathetic article about a pedophile just a couple of days ago.
Can Mr. Crawford give us a reason to oppose the marriage of a 40 year old man to a 12 year old girl? Said reason would have to be a reason that cannot be used to support the gay marriage argument. For example, if two people should be able to marry who they love, that does not exclude the 40 year old man from marrying the 12 year old.
Otherwise, he too is a bigot who thinks he should have the power to choose who people love.)
whether a person can decide their own time of death, and who an individual can be sexually attracted to. (Let's talk about the "personal and intimate decisions" the Left wants to make for you:
1) How you spend your money (Income tax, charitable giving, causes you support)
2) What you can say about religion and where (speech codes)
3) What you can do with your own body (helmets, seatbelts, sugary drinks, tobacco)
4) How much money you're allowed to make (the eeevil rich)
5) How and when you're allowed to have sex (Campus sex codes)
There are many more things, but suffice to say that it isn't the Right that's interested in controlling you.)
While on the one hand complaining about over-reaching government, these folks are demanding that government be involved in the most intimate and personal decisions that we make. (No, NDO opponents want the government out of their choices. The NDO places government in the position to approve of peoples' choices.)
The judge who dismissed the lawsuit against Bozeman's LGBT non-discrimination suit pretty much summarized this and similar situations when he said, "There is no present or potential injury to the plaintiff's." (Ah, so he did know that it was dismissed because of lack of standing.
But can we ask, is it injury for the government to intervene in the private, personal business decisions of people? Is it injury for government to contravene the US Constitution, which states that "Congress shall make no law respecting... the right of the people peaceably to assemble."? Is it injury for government to tell you what personal behavior you must accommodate? Is it injury for government to assume it has the power to act one way or the other on these matters?)
So, they should mind their own business and let the rest of us live our lives as we see fit. (Irony again. That is exactly what the opponents of the NDO wanted before government came waltzing in telling them what they had to do.)
No comments:
Post a Comment