Anti-Gay Politician Injures 6 in Drunken Boating Accident

Hrm, seems like some people need to remember that our brains are wired to assume patterns that may not be there.

So, where does the whole "anti-gay" thing come in to play? Because he said homosexuals are a threat to children then accidentally injures four children while boating under the influence? If you're looking for irony here, it's a long stretch. A VERY long stretch.

I agree with CD.

reply to post by queenannie38


OK, the irony thing might be a bit of a creative stretch, however I think this is more about karma than anything else. This guy makes a clear prejudicial judgement about how others should live their lives and then goes out there and acts like a complete imbicile. Got his just deserts I say !

Peace * Ned

reply to post by nimbinned


That's more likely.

Ok, so it was an accident.
Is the Op suggesting he had the accident becasue he is anti gay?
Makes no sense!

reply to post by Alxandro


Very close to saying that God smited him, for one.

Sorry I haven't been able to return and comment since starting this thread...I read the responses but didn't have time to write my own until now.

I first have to say that I struggled with wording a title for this thread...I don't like what I came up with, but I couldn't come up with anything better that would fit in the space provided.

I'm not from Maryland...I found this article looking into recent changes in anti-gay marriage laws and such...Mr. Dwyer has made opposition to gay marriage the cornerstone of his political service/office. Not only is he against Maryland actually performing gay marriages but also completely opposes recognizing any such unions approved and created in other states where the laws allow for gay marriage.

And for anyone who doesn't really understand the issue of recognizing gay marriage as a legal institution...it is NOT about personal sexual preference or morality or even life choices. It simply comes down to the fact that it is discrimination at the base level.

Here is an example that is not at all hypothetical:
If someone is heterosexual and has a partner who is diagnosed with cancer...if they are on their 'death bed' in a hospital (as opposed to at home with hospice)...there are no problems or questions raised about having full access to the patient and their care...in other words, if you are a married heterosexual, it is a GIVEN that you can hold your spouse's hand as they cross over from this life to the great beyond.
HOWEVER, if one is homosexual and married in a state that sanctions same-sex marriages but moves to a state that has made a specific law stating that they will NOT recognize such a marriage as legal in their own jurisdiction...and is treated for cancer in a hospital there...there is no guarantee at all that the surviving spouse is allowed to hold their loved one's hand in the same situation. Because...in the eyes of that state's law...the same-sex spouse is NOT a spouse...is not 'kin' aka immediate family...they are essentially, from a legal standpoint, an unrelated person...a non-family member...and non-family members aren't allowed into the private zone created when someone who is dying is cared for according to their comfort needs and privacy, etc. This is a good thing in health care but not if it is defined by law. And it is.

Another example is healthcare coverage obtained through one's place of employment. If a same-sex spouse is not recognized by state law as being a spouse, then they are not eligible for coverage and that necessitates other arrangements...often at a much higher cost.

A third example is notification in case of trauma or death in an unexpected accident/event. A same-sex spouse that is not granted the rights of a spouse, because of state law, will not even be listed as 'next of kin.' They wouldn't be notified by authorities that their spouse has been injured or killed in an accident but would have to find out some other way.


SO...essentially, Mr. Dwyer's whole political mission (from what I've been able to discover according to Maryland based commentary and blogs, etc) has been to deny these things to gay individuals who seek the sanctity of same-sex marriage and want to live in Maryland. His battle cry against allowing same-sex marriages the same rights that opposite sex marriages are given is that same-sex marriages are a 'threat' to children. I guess he has been heard to say on several occasions that 'it is all about the children.'

Okay...granted, that is his right as a politician and a free American. His opinion is something he is entitled to.

HOWEVER...his opinion and decision in this situation is one that could possibly affect countless people in that state and for subsequent generations...his crusade could result in unnecessary heartache and sadness for people he's never met...and even quite possibly could one day affect one of his children or grandchildren, etc...he can't guarantee that there will never be any homosexual people in his family line...but that is somewhat beside the point.


When it comes to opinions and decisions and judgments, though...making the conscious decision to operate a motor vehicle of any kind, including a speedboat on a body of water used by many for recreation has the same possibility for a possible result of unnecessary heartache and sadness for people he's never met. And in fact, it did.

And while I can never presume to know the progression of his thoughts leading up to his decision to operate that boat while drunk...which he freely admitted without coercion or trying to make excuses...I do think that if he had gone far enough with some sort of self-questioning about 'what are the potential consequences of doing this?' it would have come up in his mind that he could possibly stand to injure other people in a possible mishap, and given the recreational setting, it was more than likely there could be children included in that idea of 'other people.'

continued...

reply to post by queenannie38


And this is a man who put make life-impacting laws into effect based on his own personal opinions...meaning he has an objection to same-sex marriages which he attributes to his primary concern for the children involved...so he claims...yet if his prime concern WAS INDEED for the safety of children, then he would not have made the decision to do something we ALL know is ILL-ADVISED.

So, evidently, his argument against same-sex marriage is rooted in something else...which maybe he even is not aware of...for all we know, he sincerely believes...or believed...that he was motivated by the welfare of children. Maybe now he is having some realization...then again...maybe not.

It doesn't matter...that is all personal and I am not making a judgment on the man...he was injured, too...and injuring someone else in an accident is a horrible thing to have to deal with afterward...even if alcohol is not involved...that applies to all of us. I feel for the man, and I feel for the others who were injured. It was a horrific accident and I say that from experience living in a community where recreational boating/water sports is big as well as the *sport* of consuming alcohol. And in all my life living around the possibility of this kind of thing, I cannot recall anything that devastating happening on our local waterways or lakes. It is an awful thing and I was not making light of it at all or judging anyone for making poor decisions.

But, as someone pointed out already...accidents ARE preventable and even this was no accident in that Mr. Dwyer did not 'accidentally' get drunk and 'accidentally' get in his boat and fire it up to take it out while drunk. He had a choice and didn't make the best choice...if he can't make a sound judgment on an important personal choice such as this, then how can he be expected to make sound judgments on important decisions that will affect many people for many years in a very personal manner?

It IS hypocritical.
What he says and what he does do not match up. In my book, that is hypocrisy.
There is plenty of that around, though, so that's not such a shock.

And it seems to me that if he had not been so loud and outspoken in his crusade against same-sex marriage as posing a THREAT to children, then this probably would not have been newsworthy even in Maryland. If you don't make claims that are framed by personal morality in relation to public politics, then you don't have to worry so much about trying to maintain the straight and narrow you have defined for yourself. But even so, being a public official means that it isn't about your own personal opinions and biases but rather about what the people you represent need and want and could benefit from...

In November, in Maryland, the issue of same-sex marriage is going to be included on the ballot for a public vote. So it is THE big issue in that state right now. And maybe now there is a better chance for it to be sanctioned because of a favorable vote FOR the legislation as decided by the people instead of a handful of equally fallible humans.

Originally posted by Alxandro
Ok, so it was an accident.
Is the Op suggesting he had the accident becasue he is anti gay?
Makes no sense!

All accidents are preventable.
He had this 'accident' because he chose to drive a boat while intoxicated. He knew he was drinking alcohol. He knew that driving a boat while intoxicated is illegal. He surely knew that the possibility existed that he could injure someone....possibly children who supposedly were his driving motivation for legislating discriminatory laws based on sexual orientation...which most people recognize these days as NOT being a choice.

But still he chose to drive that boat, drunk, on a body of water where other people were also driving/riding in boats.

Makes no sense.
You're right.

His campaign against granting same-sex spouses the same rights as opposite-sex spouses also makes no sense.

Ask any gay or lesbian person if they had a choice in being homosexual and see what they say.
Ask anyone convicted of DWI/DUI if they had a choice in getting behind the wheel when drunk and see what they say.

Originally posted by nimbinned
reply to post by queenannie38

 

OK, the irony thing might be a bit of a creative stretch, however I think this is more about karma than anything else. This guy makes a clear prejudicial judgement about how others should live their lives and then goes out there and acts like a complete imbicile. Got his just deserts I say !

Peace * Ned

Well, I dig what you are saying about the karma factor...and while karma is a very deep concept that no one fully understands...on the surface appearance of the issue, I don't see how those kids' karma had to be involved with Mr. Dwyer's karma.

Of course, that doesn't take into account past lives and all that stuff which once again bring personal experience and opinion...beliefs..into play.

I am thinking more on the pragmatic here-and-now level which says that his actions affected people adversely because he made an unwise choice and acted upon it. His choices have the potential to affect all residents of the state of Maryland if Maryland's legislative body acts upon his recommendation. Would he have recommended to someone else, if asked, to go ahead and drive their boat, even seeing for himself that they were quite inebriated?

I think it is more to do with the issue of how our own thoughts and actions affect others regardless of WHY we think what we think and do what we do...the WHY doesn't matter if it causes harm to others. It cannot be justified in any fashion.

Originally posted by Echo3Foxtrot
So, where does the whole "anti-gay" thing come in to play? Because he said homosexuals are a threat to children then accidentally injures four children while boating under the influence? If you're looking for irony here, it's a long stretch. A VERY long stretch.

I agree with CD.

How was it that he 'accidentally' injured four children while boating under the influence?
Is that such an unforeseen possibility that it could be legitimately called an 'accident?'

Irony:

Descriptions or depictions of situational irony, whether in fiction or in non-fiction, serves the communicative function of sharpening or highlighting certain discordant features of reality. Verbal and situational irony are often used for emphasis in the assertion of a truth. The ironic form of simile, used in sarcasm, and some forms of litotes emphasize one's meaning by the deliberate use of language which states the opposite of the truth — or drastically and obviously understates a factual connection.

"serves the communicative function of sharpening or highlighting certain discordant features of reality."

I think irony is the right word to convey my point here. And I didn't have to look for irony...it hit me in the face immediately. Maybe it has everything to do with realism...I don't know.

Originally posted by TravisBickle451
Exactly.

Likewise, if a gay person caused an accident, and a politician used that as ammo to push an agenda, the public would be outraged. Same here. A politician did something bad, but has nothing to do with his views on gays.

I agree...his views on gays had nothing to do with his decision to operate his speedboat in an inebriated state.

And his views on gays, actually, should have nothing to do with whether or not Maryland decides to recognize same-sex marriages from other states as being legal instruments in the state of Maryland.

His decision making skills here, though, have EVERYTHING to do with both his actions with the boat and his efforts in opposing legislation to make same-sex marriage legal in Maryland.

The same-sex marriage issue is NOT about 'gays'...it affects them, for sure...but it affects other people in their lives as well, who are not gay...it is about EQUALITY.

150 years ago, we might have had this same conversation but it would have been about interracial marriage rather than same-sex marriage.

And in Mr. Dwyer's case, his reasons for opposing the legality of same-sex marriage, as claimed, no longer seem valid...such an interest and concern for the well-being and safety of children is not something that only applies in certain situations...if someone cares about children being kept safe....they care about them in every situation in which the question of their safety arises. Evidently, his purported reason is not the true reason...and it is possible that his personal opinion about homosexuality is affecting the legal issue of equality in his state.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Well...but a simple search using the man's full name easily turned up a variety of sources such as local news agencies all the way to personal blogs of people living in Maryland...gay and straight alike...that all have the same complaint and focus...essentially that this guy has been beating the drum against granting same-sex marriages the same rights as traditional marriages BECAUSE (and this is his emphasis, evidently...his whole impetus as he claims) same-sex marriages are a threat to children.

And I think we can all agree that anytime ANYONE chooses to operate a motor vehicle in public while intoxicated...they immediately become a very real threat to children...and adults...but children just the same.

That's true of all of us.
That's every day of the week and can be proven with empirical evidence.

And so most of us, not everyone, but most...choose NOT to do that.
How many gay people choose to be gay?
They can't choose sexual orientation but they should be able to choose marriage.

So how do same-sex marriages pose a threat to children?
I'm not sure what his answer would be, because it doesn't seem to have been something he has been forthcoming with...just the general idea of it being a 'threat' is all I found.

And studies have been done that suggest that the opposite is actually true...that children in same-sex marriage based household/families are doing quite well and sometimes better than their peers in traditional male and female parented homes.

reply to post by Rockpuck


The safety and well-being of children.

In both cases.

According to him, in the former...and according to all responsibly-minded adults, in the latter.

reply to post by Honor93


Yes, thank you.

And thank you, too, to everyone else who *sees* the irony in this rather than whatever else is being seen...or I should say *not seen.*

This being an election year highlights the irony, too, imo.