Tuesday, June 8, 2010

"Uncharacteristic" Anti-Gay?

Rush is getting married, again. The author of this article points out that it is uncharacteristic of the "anti-gay" Limbaugh to invite (and pay) Sir Elton John to sing at his wedding. Unfortunately, this is where society has come. If you say anything derogatory about homosexuals (such as "they're permiscuous lifestyle leads to a higher incidence of HIV than the general population") then you are labeled as anti-gay. So, if you support marriage between one man and one woman, you are anti-gay.

Does this work the other way also? If you support marriage between two men, are you automatically anti-heterosexual? Maybe we should just say that we are anti-polygamous (except when we get our kicks watching "Big Love" on HBO). If I like vanilla, does that mean I am anti-chocolate? What about those who like neopolitan?

Just because someone doesn't support marriage between two men or two women does not make them anti-gay. Government sanctioned marriage in western culture is an outgrowth of the church weilding power over the state during the dark ages and middle ages. You didn't go to the Sheriff of Knottingham to get married, you went to the Friar Tuck. But then I guess, those people must just have been anti-government.

Perhaps, Rush Limbaugh likes Elton John as a singer in spite of his political views. Perhaps Elton John likes Rush Limbaugh as a person, in spite of his political views. Either that or Sir Elton can be bought for $1 million. If Rush were really as "anti-gay" (whatever that means) as the reporter believes, then perhaps Elton wouldn't be willing to sing at his wedding for any amount of money. Can you imagine Rev. King going to a KKK rally to give a motivational speech? Not me either.

No comments:

Post a Comment