Besides being clueless, Peter is certain that the statistic claiming that 10 percent of the population is homosexual is a bald-faced lie. More like one or two percent he opines. Peter must have information that we other, mere mortals, do not have access to. Having said that, rather than be disingenuous like Peter, I’ll simply say that the answer is virtually unanswerable for many reasons. But then, does it really matter?
And sorry, buster, the only people claiming that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice are the nutbags on the right…including guess who. But then, I’ve forgotten, Peter knows all and Peter knows best. Not being homosexual, I don’t know the reason(s) for being homosexual. I do know, though, that it is not something you just decide to do one day. Fact is, the only people I know who are trying to have it both ways are conservatives.
Peter goes on to say that he can’t imagine Abraham Lincoln lining up with the homosexual movement. Considering that Abe would have preferred the status quo of slave vs. free states rather than go to war, and the only reason the Emancipation Proclamation was written was for the sake of political expediency, then Peter’s hypothesis about Lincoln is just so much hot air.
Peter whines that people are being labeled "bigots" for supporting the amendment. Boo hoo. Later in his own piece, Peter uses the terms “feminazi,” “militant homosexual movement,” and “black-robed federal mullah.” Can you spell hypocrite, Peter?
My favorite, though, is when Peter states that what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom doesn’t concern or bother him. Then he complains that being told to embrace, celebrate or even sanction their right to privacy…well, he draws the line there. Hmmm. What was your statement about not being able to have it both ways? It either concerns you or it doesn’t, Peter. Make up your mind.
To finish his piece, Peter laments about how awful the left is and warns us that people like himself may vote for the amendment if we don’t start being nice. Screw that. Your piece has already identified you as pro-amendment and anti-constitution. So what’s the difference?
They came for the communists, and I did not speak up because I wasn't a
They came for the socialists, and I did not speak up because I was not a
They came for the union leaders, and I did not speak up because I wasn't a
They came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak up for me.