Writing for Mail Online, one Simon Heffer spews:
I believe that the only people who should be able to marry and have a wedding are those of different genders.
Well I believe that people should only publish opinions that do not make them look like narrow-minded twits, but you don’t hear me calling for the outlawing of Simon Heffer, now do you.
Heffer further pontificates:
I uphold the traditional idea of marriage and what it has meant since the earliest Christian times. Namely that it is the ultimate recognition of the relationship between a man and a woman, often for the purposes of having children.
Translation: “We haven’t got enough political oomph to outlaw birth control just yet.”
And for the avoidance of doubt, I do not have any prejudice against homosexuals or lesbians, or wish them to be discriminated against. Nor do I hold my views because of any religious objection: I am not religious. It is simply, for me, a matter of common sense.
Ah yes, the old “I don’t want discrimination, I just want to make sure they don’t have the same rights as we do” defense.
We used to be a society where differing views were respected. I respect the views of those who support same-sex marriage, even though I profoundly disagree with them. I would not dream of insulting them or their beliefs.
He just wants to keep them illegal. But never mind such trivialities as denying people the legal right to get married. The real bigotry is when you insult people just for trying to make sure gays never enjoy the same liberty as heteros.
This view is plainly not shared by Lynne Featherstone, the Lib Dem MP who is Equalities Minister. She said the opposition expressed by prominent Christians to same-sex marriage was ‘homophobic’ and belonged in ‘the Dark Ages’. She singled out as ‘medieval’ the use of the term ‘heretic’ by a cleric to describe those advocating a change in the law.
Mind you, it’s ok for Christians to insult people by calling them “heretics.” Insults are only really offensive when directed at the homophobes.
Such blinkered intransigence — indeed, I would go so far as to call it bigotry — does not bode well for the free, pluralistic society that liberals claim to believe in. And it makes a mockery of their much-vaunted virtue of ‘tolerance’.
Oh that’s so true, you can’t have a free and pluralistic society that goes around actually insulting people by telling them it’s medieval and repressive to pass laws that grant inferior rights to people who fall in love the “wrong” way. Anti-gay laws are perfectly fine, but for God’s sake don’t let us have free speech in a pluralistic society.
The slur ‘homophobic’ is designed, like ‘racist’, to shut down any argument — in other words, to censor debate. When a liberal such as Miss Featherstone calls someone ‘homophobic’, the implication is that person is prejudiced and holds views that are beyond the pale.
Because who, after all, wants to publicly acknowledge an aversion to homosexuality, right? You can be anti-pedophilia, or anti-cannibalism, or even anti-war, and there’s no stigma attached to your opposition because all those things really are bad. But “anti-gay” stings just a bit because even homophobes realize, deep down, that there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with people falling in love differently. Persecuting them for how they fall in love is sheer antisocial bigotry.
You should be ashamed, Mr. Heffer, because you are a bigot. And a hypocrite. But you already knew that too, right?