What a strange world
By Andrew Mell
Western Herald
Just when a person thinks they have a grasp on where this country is going something else happens to throw a wrench in the system. With the dominant presence of Democrats at almost all levels of government across the state and country we’re obviously in the midst of a liberal movement. But that isn’t always reflective of what actually happens.
The current state of liberalism in the country seems to champion on providing equality for all people regardless of any character trait or lifestyle choice they choose to live. Some proposals seem reasonable. Others do not.
For instance, on Tuesday, Nov. 3, Kalamazoo residents will vote on a proposed ordinance to provide “equal rights” for people of all gender identities and sexual orientations. In a city where opinions range all across the board you’ll find people who are heavily in favor of such anti-discrimination laws as well as those who are completely opposed.
Should a person be beaten up simply because of who they choose to have sex with? Absolutely not.
Should a man wearing makeup, a dress, and heels be able to access a woman’s public rest room? Absolutely not.
The simple fact that we’ll see this issue on the ballot on Tuesday is a clear example of the liberal movement that seems to be ever so popular. Regardless of whether or not the ordinance is passed we seem to be moving in the direction where such things will inevitably be passed at some point very soon.
So with a liberal, “anything goes” type of political mentality, you’d think that a mother who allows her child’s classmates to come into her home before school to wait for the bus and after school to wait for their parents, in lieu of being by themselves, would be something that people would consider a good will offering.
Not even close.
Instead a neighbor complained and the mother was informed that she was operating an illegal daycare service out of her home.
If this doesn’t sound ridiculous than there is something wrong with your mental process. Apparently it doesn’t matter that the children’s parents had given their permission for the woman to watch their kids because Uncle Sam undoubtedly knows best.
Perhaps this is a good example of a negative effect of liberalism. About 20 years ago you would have never heard of a neighbor complaining about such a thing. In fact, they’d probably bake a casserole to thank the mother.
Thank goodness legislation was fast tracked through our state’s legislature to provide legalization for responsible parents who care about their children and the children of their friends and neighbors.
Liberalism in terms of research, environment, and education has the potential to be a very powerful thing. Any legislation to advance the field of science, preserve the environment, and progress the education and abilities of our nation should be strongly considered.
When it comes to issues that deal with civil liberties perhaps we should take a step back and reconsider. What happened to doing things for the greater good? Is having your son standing at a urinal next to a cross dressing woman really worth that woman’s self-assumed civil liberties? It shouldn’t be.
What if a person decides that living life as a chimpanzee makes them happy and decides to stop the anguish they’ve dealt with by having to live as a functional human? Should the ACLU start suing zoos to force them to let such people live in the chimp enclosures?
Of course this sounds ridiculous, but when you get rid of the junk and think simplistically, what is the difference? It’s the exact same matter of a person deciding that something would make them happy and demanding the right to pursue that happiness.
And speaking of the pursuit of happiness, doesn’t the happiness of a majority sector trump that of a minority sector? Apparently not. God forbid the day when this issue sparks up over the right to shoot up on hard drugs, or something along those lines.
Sometimes it’d be nice if common sense prevailed whereas it oftentimes does not.
How long until the Catholic Church is sued to force them to allow gays to be priests? How long until Calvin College is forced to embrace the homosexual culture? How long until people are discriminated against for being straight?
Maybe legislation should be passed to force people to keep their sex lives tucked away in the bedroom. It seems like that would get rid of a lot of these issues.
Andrew Mell, a Western Herald opinion columnist, is a senior majoring in aviation, and can be reached via e-mail at melltimejr@hotmail.com.
Short URL: http://www.westernherald.com/?p=11203
Posted by heraldstaff
on Nov 1 2009. Filed under Opinion.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0.
You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
http://HeraldStaff
Loading ...
Ordinance 1856 has nothing to do with bathrooms. It has everything to do with fairness and equality. If passed it will protect people from getting fired from a job because of who they are.
Wow, Andrew, what an amazing straw-man you’ve set up! You spent several paragraphs creating an argument that falls apart with a slight breeze.
Stay classy, Andrew! Keep charging windmills!
I’m starting to understand why people immediately make the jump to think that a transgendered person is simply a “cross dresser” or a “man wearing makeup, a dress and heels.” On the outside, people see someone who is physically male wearing female clothing. I totally understand that. However, to quell the fears that passing 1856 is going to cause men dressing up as women to invade women’s bathrooms, let’s set the record straight (so to speak).
Cross dressing is NOT a sexual orientation, it is a sexual fetish. Most cross dressers would identify as straight (the actual orientation). Therefore, the ordinance would NOT allow cross dressers to get to chose what bathroom they wished to use. Transgendered people, on the other hand, (and in very simple terms, I might add), are people who are born with an internal gender does not match their outward sex. So, a male may feel like he is a female, and vice versa. This is what is considered “gender identity.” Most transgendered persons already find the public restroom quandary hard enough, and I’d argue that an overwhelming majority of them would want their privacy respected just as they would respect other people’s privacy.
Now, what it means to be transgendered is something that most people don’t experience, and I am definitely not an authority on the topic. But, what little I do know, above all I know this: people don’t change overnight. Nobody believes one day they are male and the next day wake up believing they are female. After all, when did you decide to be a man? When did you consciously make the choice that you were attracted to females? It’s the same with everybody else. Nobody chooses to be gay, or transgendered, just like you don’t choose to be black or white. Therefore, one should NOT be discriminated against because of these issues.
I think you have a few good points–there are some messed up things happening in this world. But, this was a hastily written article. It might do you some good to get outside yourself and get other people’s opinions before publishing your own ill-informed one.
Best of luck to you.
“So with a liberal, “anything goes” type of political mentality, you’d think that a mother who allows her child’s classmates to come into her home before school to wait for the bus and after school to wait for their parents, in lieu of being by themselves, would be something that people would consider a good will offering.
Not even close.
Instead a neighbor complained and the mother was informed that she was operating an illegal daycare service out of her home”
What does this story have to do with your point? Was the neighbor who complained about the mother a liberal? I don’t understand the connection of this story with the topic of equal rights concerning employment and housing. Also, thanks for the paragraph with “How long until people are discriminated against for being straight?” At least I got a good laugh about reading this.