Ex-Gay Shuts Down Horrified State Legislature

It's really weird that the gay marriage debate is being undertaken by temper tantrums, hissy fits, and cries of victimization. Oh wait, it's actually not weird at all. That's how Democrats "argue" social issues.

Some say politics is war fought by other means. But I don't remember Plan B on D-Day being "OK boys if the fight gets too thick, curl up in the fetal position and cry really loud that the Germans are being mean to you."

But last week, a pro-marriage legislators horrified the entire legislature, earning condemnations from both parties simply by bringing a dude who exited the gay lifestyle onto the House floor to discuss why gay marriage isn't such a good idea.

Minnesota Rep. Glenn Gruenhagen introduced a friend on the House floor by saying, "He was active in the gay lifestyle for about 10 years, and then he left it, got married and he now has three children."

Then what happened, according to news reports?

Soon after he made the comment, the House shut down the sound from the floor session, which was near its conclusion. According to legislators who were on the floor, some members were visibly outraged.

“It was a completely inappropriate statement to make on the House floor,” House Speaker Paul Thissen, DFL-Minneapolis, said later. “I also think the content of his statement at that point in time in this legislative session was inappropriate in itself.”

He said he personally found the statement offensive.
Now, to be fair, it's hard to figure out what part was most offensive to the Democrats as many feel equally offended by active homosexuals who became straight as three babies being born. But let's assume it was the now-straight dude.

But then comes the kicker. What always happens when Democrats pretend to be offended. Then Republicans also have to pretend to be even more offended. Because nothing says, "I care" like claiming to be offended.

Republican House Minority Leader Kurt Daudt said: “Rep. Glenn Gruenhagen’s comments today on the floor were inappropriate and it was not the proper use of a point of personal privilege.”

Inappropriate how? I wonder if they would all say it was inappropriate to bring a currently active homosexual in to discuss gay marriage. I'm betting they wouldn't. I'm betting they'd all be falling over themselves to thank him for his moving testimony.

Remember, when Republicans wanted to hold a hearing about religious liberty last year, the Democrats demanded that a law student from Fordham be heard to talk about something completely different - namely her wanting to get it on with men any darn time she pleases without having to pay for birth control.

But when a Republican brings in someone who exited the gay lifestyle to actually talk about gay marriage, that's completely off-topic and the whole freaking legislature must be shut down. Give me a break.

Let's face it, so much of the gay marriage argument stems from the argument that these people have no choice in what they are or what they do. So a man coming in to say they do have a choice is actually kind of a big deal. But remember when Sex and the City actress Cynthia Nixon, who is an active lesbian, suggested in an interview that homosexuality is a choice they came after her in a big way. They called her misinformed. They called her ignorant.

Silence is the pro-gay marriage folks' best weapon. If you're not counting spineless Republicans.

*subhead*Offense.*subhead*

Comments

  1. censorship is alive & well in this republic.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You are an excruciatingly bad writer. Please take a course at your local community college.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Liberals consider truth to be inappropriate unless it has their stamp of approval.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think the law student was from Georgetown.

    ReplyDelete
  5. FWIW 9:40 anon is not the same as anon 8:35.
    I find your blog helpful and entertaining.

    ReplyDelete
  6. We have raised up a ruling class, and they are idiots.

    ReplyDelete
  7. 1st Anon: Stop being a coward, and criticize Matthew with your name.

    ReplyDelete
  8. These two political parties are morons. Bring in a gay who is against gay marriages and a marine who despises the military excess and we can watch both parties feign outrage at their own ignorance.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Absolute ictatorship of relativism!

    ReplyDelete
  10. The USA politicians are now behaving as China's rulers used to.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I find it very odd that homosexuality is viewed as being either one kind of monolithic thing or another: either 'choice' or 'born that way.' I've known a lot of people over the years and I've noticed that homosexuals, like other folks, are not identical. Given that human beings are enormously complex creatures any effort to lump such a varied phenomena as human behavior in that way is ridiculous and patently false. There are probably a thousand factors that influence that outcome in various ways and in differing degrees, and their combination produces an even more varied etiology.

    I have heard it said that 80% of prostitutes were sexually abused as little girls, and the other 20% don't remember. Given the high levels of childhood sexual abuse that actually exists in society, why is this never spoken of as a likely formative element in those who practice a homosexual life style? Of course we would never want to attribute that to the push to normalize sex by adults with children, particularly those advocating lowering the age of consent; why, that would be racist or something. An honest discussion would raise this issue, and others.

    I have known men who practiced elements of the homosexual life style and who were married to women and raising families they loved. These men struggled to remain faithful to their marriage vows and I respected them for continuing to try to live up to their ideals.

    Finally, on 'gay marriage:' If marriage were nothing more than a sentimental fashion accessory to perfectly set off an ideal romance, I would have no problem with 'gay marriage.' Marriage, at least among reasonably mature adults, is not that. Marriage is the far preeminent method by which humans provide a stable environment in which to provide for the physical survival of children and to transmit human culture to the next generation. Homosexual unions are inherently infertile. Further, they are legitimately seen as inimical to normal behavior ('normal' is defined as what usually happens, behavior practiced by only 3.5% or so of the population is legitimately seen as aberrant) because it undermines community standards which require tremendous commitment and ongoing effort to maintain, thus threatening the society as a whole.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment