Voices from the Valley: Debunking views of gay liberationists

Commenting on the guest column by Michael Carley in the Aug. 30 edition of The Recorder concerning homosexual marriage, it appears that he has not kept up with what has already been pointed out in the letters to the editor column on this topic.

Perhaps a review may be helpful. I should point out that for lack of space and time, I won’t be able to dot every “i” and cross every “t” in rebutting Mr. Carley’s arguments, although with more space and time I don’t believe it would be difficult to do so.

First, a notable factor in this controversy is that gay liberationists — and I’m taking Mr. Carley to be one — find it essential to use, as Mr. Carley does, either the church of the government (or both) as something in the nature of whipping boys. If they are discarded as irrelevant to the argument and the gay liberationist is forced to try to make his case on a completely secular argument expressing the will of the populace and simply based on sound reasoning and the facts of the matter — all of the facts — he seems to be left floundering.

Permit me to review the straw men involved in Mr. Carley’s column, most of which have already been addressed in The Recorder.

The first, and so obvious that I’m surprised that a supposedly educated man holding the post of director of research and grants at Porterville College would resort to it, is in regard to Mr. Carley’s fear of being forced to marry a man. As a fear that’s pretty outlandish and seems to be suspiciously close to a phobia. Mr. Carley’s willingness to use such as an example, with the apparent belief that it will be accepted as a fear that is reasonable, also shows the extent and extremity to which gay liberation ideological conditioning has infiltrated our educational institutions.

Second, homosexuals are completely free to and do marry; they simply can’t force the rest of us — setting the government aside — to approve of (institutionalize) such marriages. That’s what the vote in November is about.

Third, polygamous marriages already take place clandestinely and there has been ongoing pressure by small groups for decades to accept them. And why not? I mean we can’t be judgmental, imposing our values on others, right?

Fourth, although Mr. Carley appears to not be aware of it, the bestial marriages that he finds risible already take place complete with marriage certificate. This can be found on the Internet. Again, why not? To paraphrase Mr. Carley, I fail to understand how his marriage or mine is in any way diminished by extending the same rights and responsibilities to bestialists. In addition, he is making himself vulnerable to a charge of speciesism, now in the dictionary, and perhaps zoophobia.

-- Jack P. Owens is a resident of Porterville. Contact him by e-mail at jackowens5328@sbcglobal.net.