Un. Freaking. Believable.

Charles, over at NoVA Townhall, just made the following astonishing statement:

[I]f society has a right to group people to avoid groups where there is sexual attraction, how would you EVER put together a group with ANY gay or lesbian people in it without destroying the right of society to prevent it?

Gee, Charles, I guess you wouldn’t. Apparently you would have to exterminate us in order to secure your “right” to never have a group with any gay or lesbian people in it.

He then goes on (and on, and on) explaining that he’s “not homophobic.”

This entry was posted in Commentary and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Un. Freaking. Believable.

  1. C’mon, David. I realize that whole thread is WAY too long for any visitor to be expected to read the whole thing, but Charles was talking about this in the context of a larger argument, which he did not get to finish. He also said explicity that if his primary contention in support of the Virginia Marriage Amendment, that government has a unique rationale to provide incentives for heterosexual marriage, was knocked down by information he did not yet have, he would drop his support for the Amendment.

    In case any of your readers have not noticed, I am the blog’s “resident homophobe,” as some of our disingenuous opponents have determined, and I have also said I’m willing to drop my support for it if the harm the Amendment would cause to those opposing it is shown to be more significant than the positive things I believe the Amendment would accomplish. I will unfortunately be very busy the next two days so I can’t continue any discussion here, but there will likely continue to be a debate at the novatownhall blog, and I will get back involved toward the end of the week.

  2. David says:

    Hi Joe, thanks for the response.

    Actually, I did read the whole thing (don’t you folks have jobs? 😉 What Charles said, I believe, is that the statement I cited is a foundational argument underlying his opposition to not only marriage equality, but to the legal recognition of any unmarried relationship. And that foundational argument is that Charles’ right to have the kind of world he wants to live in is violated merely by the fact that gay people exist.

    I consider that to be anti-gay animus.

    I don’t think that just because someone is viscerally repelled by the idea of gay sex (whatever you imagine that to be..) that they are expressing anti-gay animus. That’s just an artifact of your own orientation, and not under your control. People like what they like.

    It’s still not clear to me what you folks think would be gained by the passage of this amendment. It won’t provide any positive benefits to marriage (such as requiring people to get pre-marital counseling so they don’t marry the wrong person). All that it will do is invite busybodies or family members with an axe to grind to use the courts to intrude on people’s private lives and challenge their contracts. It’s the dead opposite of leave-me-alone conservatism.