So you may have seen that, recently, right here in Seattle, Dave Mustaine of Megadeth (and formerly Metallica) was asked his thoughts on gay marriage (why I'm not sure, but asked he was). His response, in essence, was that, as a Christian, he didn't support it. But he also said something else that was, to my mind, both very interesting and very dumb (and I mean separate from his "citizens better start prepping to wear red as long as George Soros is Obama's mentor" comment (bonus clue - Commies wear red)). In answer to a question about whether he supported the new marriage law here in Washington State he said, and this is a direct quote, "Since I'm not gay the answer to that would be no." To which I have to say (and this is also a direct quote), "Huh?"
I mean let's say that somebody doesn't support gay marriage because they believe that gay marriage is against a tenet of their religion. Okay, I can understand that even if I disagree with it; and, of course, I'm going to do my part to make sure that a particular religion's particular views on certain social issues don't deprive some American citizens of their fundamental equal rights. But "Since I'm not gay the answer to that would be no"? Why is one thing pinned to the other? ("Since I'm not gay the answer to that would be yes" would make as little sense to me.) I, personally, am not old or disabled, but I certainly want to make sure the elderly and the disabled are treated fairly within our society. Am I supposed to believe that Dave Mustaine of Megadeth (and formerly Metallica) would be against legislation geared toward protecting the equality of these (at times) vulnerable populations simply because Dave himself is neither disabled nor old? Truthfully, I have no idea; maybe he's a raging, selfish asshole and that's exactly how he'd answer. But I'd be willing to bet that, if not speaking up in support of such legislation, he certainly wouldn't be as vehemently opposed to it as he is toward gay marriage. More pure conjecture on my part - he might even site his Christian faith as a reason why he supported these other pieces of hypothetical legislation.
Everybody in, nobody out...
IBL:mm
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I may have a clue to this conundrum. I was in conversation with a friend's son-in-law. Somehow the talk touched on race and society. He posited in a sort of #at-least-half-of-us-must-think-this-way# attitude that "Every race thinks they are superior."
ReplyDeleteThat really gave me pause. What an elegant concept. Not one I can embrace but I can certainly see the attraction. It gives me permission to be a racist. It's OK because EVERYONE is racist. Holy jeepers. Which ties into:
1) Everyone in it for themselves.
2) Everyone in it for their designated group.
3) Zero sum game, dog eat dog, Freidmanite economics.
4) I don't know a homeless person personally so why should I have any compassion?
5) I don't know a person who speaks Spanish so I'm going to exclude them.
6) The whole Derrrida/Rousseau/Hegel/Taoist line of thought.
OK. I've gone too far. There is a point in there somewhere. Thanks.
Me me me to the exclusion of others. I got no truck with that...
Delete