Homophobic? Hardly...!

It's kind of hard to fault people for having their opinions, particularly when they're balanced about it, after some obvious personal introspection. I find nothing particularly untoward in the statements made by Republican gubernatorial hopeful Carl Paladino. Whatever his assets as a decent human being and a potential governor of New York State, what he has asserted makes eminently good sense.

For some people public displays of absurd and boorishly insulting behaviour strikes a discordant note; their reaction is visceral revulsion, an assault on their sense of civil manners.

"I'm not a homophobic", he insisted in an interview with ABC's Good Morning America. A Democrat, of course, would instantly bless a rival who clearly states an opinion that would strike many as discriminatory. What's wrong with discrimination, when it helps you sort the wheat from the chaff? Mr. Paladino has hired a gay to work on his staff. He has a nephew who is gay whom he describes as "a wonderful boy".

Ah, but he has said some uncomfortable things about conventions revolving around the gay community. Needless to say, one could safely venture the opinion that there many gays themselves who view with distaste the public displays of flamboyant and rude behaviour demonstrated by gays garishly attired and behaving rather poorly, during Gay Pride parades.

The fact is as many see it, such behaviour is demeaning and it's difficult to see where pride comes in when people deliberately behave in such a scandalously outrageous manner so as to offend others, while believing themselves to be gaily abandoned, and entitled to foist themselves in a public forum as happy hedonists.

Have a party, for heaven's sake, in a large rented auditorium, and be gay. Don't flaunt irritatingly obstreperous and childish behaviour in front of those who have no option but to witness a public spectacle. Of course there are members of the public who applaud such displays, but one must question their ideas of civil propriety.

As for gay marriage, what an absurd contention, that same-sex partners are entitled to the sacraments of marriage. The social purpose of marriage is for procreation; the marriage pact ensures that a man is legally obligated to support a wife and children, not abandon them as many do when they break the compact. The insistence by gays that the public accept them as 'married' couples is sadly juvenile.

There is no reason whatever that gay couples cannot be given social security entitlements. Their gender orientation is their own business and most people are comfortable with that. On the other hand, heterosexuals don't publicly exhibit their intimate and sexually playful overtures, so why should the general public be manipulated by guilt, to assert their support for such errant behaviour?

Gay Pride parades as public performances are precisely what Mr. Paladino describes them as appearing: "disgusting" in character; obviously suggestive and blatantly immature. As self-indulgent theatre, a celebration for gays, and as such they should be kept within the private domain.