For whatever reason, the Press-Citizen decided to publish this editorial by B.P. Waterbury, one of the PC's conservative Writer's Group members... just in time for Christmas.
It seems that a group from the University of Iowa's LGBT student group recently solicited t-shirt sale in preparation for Valentine's Day. He decided to use this sale to denigrate college students, liberals, LGBT students, and married same-sex couples in the name of "discipline."
It seems that he has a problem with slogans. More specifically, he has a problem with simple slogans about same-sex marriage:
Of course, Waterbury wants this "LGBTQA group" to add other symbols to their t-shirt design, which would include "pederasts, polygamists, polyandrists, the incestuous and zoophiliacs." Because you cannot promote same-sex relationships unless you promote child rapists, incest, and bestiality.
(That said, Waterbury himself is in favor of families with "historical merit," so I'm not sure why he wants to denigrate polygamists -- given their prominent inclusion within the Old Testament. But I digress...)
But the lack of "historical merit" of same-sex marriage doesn't define "harm." That makes no sense. Same-sex couples were harmed for thousands of years. Our relationships were criminalized or made invisible. We were attacked and/or killed for our sexual orientation. We were involuntarily hospitalized in order to ineffectively cure our supposed disease. Even today, governments are actively seeking to prevent the legal recognition of our families -- or to reverse gains already achieved.
That is the definition of "harm;" not our families themselves.
But what do I know? I'm just a silly liberal who once attended college. My mind is cluttered by simple slogans.
Here's the deal, when you design a t-shirt, -- to support a liberal cause, or a conservative cause, or just to promote a commercial effort -- your message is going to be reduced to a slogan. You only have so much space. It's not like you have the space contained within a rambling editorial to make your point. You pretty much mix together a small handful of words with or without a simple visual design and, if you're effective, it comes out pretty well.
It seems that a group from the University of Iowa's LGBT student group recently solicited t-shirt sale in preparation for Valentine's Day. He decided to use this sale to denigrate college students, liberals, LGBT students, and married same-sex couples in the name of "discipline."
It seems that he has a problem with slogans. More specifically, he has a problem with simple slogans about same-sex marriage:
Arguing with ethos, pathos and logos takes discipline.Keep in mind that he's upset about a t-shirt sale by a student group.
Arguing with bumper sticker slogans merely requires imbecility...
Celebrate diversity in rainbow colors — the fallacy that race and sexual orientation are "born-that-way traits" and should be considered the same. One might argue we're born celibate and then evolve our sexual preference. Or argue chastity is always a choice in regards to our sexuality. I'm not sure what one would equate chastity with when discussing someone's race.
You can't legislate morality in red, white and blue. Funny how liberals have no problem telling "immoral" Wall Street how they can and cannot buy and sell commodities or spend their money. But once sex and drugs enters the fray, all of a sudden any prohibition is a violation of our basic human rights.
No heterosexual marriages were harmed in the making of these marriages in purple with interlinking male-male and female-female symbols surrounding the slogan. Redefining an institution that predates all law — and transforming it into something that has no historical merit — in order to take away the intrinsic meaning of the institution in both culture and society? That's the very definition of harm.
Of course, Waterbury wants this "LGBTQA group" to add other symbols to their t-shirt design, which would include "pederasts, polygamists, polyandrists, the incestuous and zoophiliacs." Because you cannot promote same-sex relationships unless you promote child rapists, incest, and bestiality.
(That said, Waterbury himself is in favor of families with "historical merit," so I'm not sure why he wants to denigrate polygamists -- given their prominent inclusion within the Old Testament. But I digress...)
But the lack of "historical merit" of same-sex marriage doesn't define "harm." That makes no sense. Same-sex couples were harmed for thousands of years. Our relationships were criminalized or made invisible. We were attacked and/or killed for our sexual orientation. We were involuntarily hospitalized in order to ineffectively cure our supposed disease. Even today, governments are actively seeking to prevent the legal recognition of our families -- or to reverse gains already achieved.
That is the definition of "harm;" not our families themselves.
But what do I know? I'm just a silly liberal who once attended college. My mind is cluttered by simple slogans.
Here's the deal, when you design a t-shirt, -- to support a liberal cause, or a conservative cause, or just to promote a commercial effort -- your message is going to be reduced to a slogan. You only have so much space. It's not like you have the space contained within a rambling editorial to make your point. You pretty much mix together a small handful of words with or without a simple visual design and, if you're effective, it comes out pretty well.