Dujon Russell | Ass talk asinine
I accept the rationale made by the United Nations that unwelcome sexual intercourse by the penetration of the mouth and, more so, the anus, by a man's penis, should be given a broader definition to include the rape of men and boys.
It is obvious that men and boys also have mouths and anuses, thus, the same protection that is given to women and girls must be given to men and boys.
Dr Wayne West reportedly said: "The UN is working an ideological framework that is seeking to remove consideration of the reality of biology in order to advance its political agenda. You don't have to redefine sex from its biological moorings in order to punish people who offend other individuals."
To add insult to injury, the Reverend Peter Garth argued that the widening of this scope, to recognise that anal and mouth penetration of men and boys by the penis is, in fact, RAPE, is a route to legalise same-sex marriage.
With all due respect to Dr West and Rev Garth, their reasoning is asinine and should be rejected!
We are talking about the rights of both genders and the equality and redress that should be afforded to ALL victims of rape in our modern democracy. Those victims are not limited to women and girls. If a man or a boy is sexually assaulted by a man forcing his penis in him, it is unwelcome sexual contact that is defined as RAPE!
How can these two proponents of anti-gay legislation, intolerance and ignorance (West and Garth) reason that these justifiable actions of the UN and other human-rights interest groups are considered an underhanded way in legalising same-sex marriage and to advance a political agenda?
Oh, my, I think I just answered my own question: It is because West and Garth relish promoting anti-gay sentiments, intolerance of the LGBTI community, and ignorance of our people.
If we are to demonstrate equity, and to treat the victims of both genders fairly, clearly the scope must be extended to include the male gender.
Since we all know that sexual intercourse also means penetration of the anus, it should be defined as the penetration of the vagina, the anus or the mouth of one person by the penis of another person.
Whether or not the churches accept this reality, it cannot be the basis on which our legislators act. The more important issue here is that the rape of a woman is not more significant than the rape of a man.
Not only does this objection of the Church to such a serious human-rights issue demonstrate how irascible they can be, but it also reminds me of how selective they are about their stance on justice and equality.
Once it involves a man having sex with another man, despite the egregious and traumatic nature of rape, or the consensual intimacy of two grown men in the privacy of their bedrooms, the Church is against it.
They are not necessarily against gays because of morality and righteousness. They are also against gays because, according to their illogic, different sets of people should be given different sets of rights because some are more worthy than others.
Straight people should be given all rights, while gay people should only be given one or two. Similarly, women and girls should see dog-hearted men who rape them being imprisoned for up to life, while men and boys should just take the up to seven years' prison sentence that their perpetrators would get and be quiet.
So, in essence, according to the self-righteous church lobbyists, they affirm the right to equality before the law for women, but the men should beg for it.
Why would anyone in their right mind even entertain this rhetorical nonsense from people like West and Garth? Thank God they are not the lawmakers and that their crap will be rejected!