Now, in the endless quest for fairness and as the forces of Political Correctness marches on in this country, a debate has opened on changing the definition of Marriage. This isn't about discrimination, or even civil rights. Most opponents of Gay Marriage (myself included) support full and equal rights for domestic partnerships and no legalized discrimination for traditional "rights" married couples have (taxes, visitation in the hospital, etc.). However, once you start changing the definitions of things, you move beyond Civil Rights and towards an activist agenda of changing what is defined as "acceptable".
In order for this argument to be true, you would have to somehow get around the cold logic of evolution. If evolution is true (and ironically almost ALL supporters of Gay Marriage accept evolution as inarguable fact) then how do you reconcile natural selection with homosexuality? If homosexuality were actually a genetic condition, that is therefore something you inherit, by its very NATURE homosexuality would be bred out of the species, since those with that tendency would obviously tend NOT to reproduce.
And if it is NOT an inherited trait, than it must be a lifestyle choice.
And if it is a choice, well, that opens up a can of worms on the marriage front. For example, what would be the logical argument against allowing the following marriages all of which are lifestyle choices?
I now pronounce you Man and Wife and Wife
I now pronounce you Man and Horse
I now pronounce you Man and Duck
I now pronounce you "Sexy Red boots that go with the purse I bought at Stony Point Mall last weekend when I stopped into target to buy catfood with my best friend Julie who also bought a blouse that I think makes her look fat" and Wife
I now pronounce you Man and Trout
You say you are against Human/Trout marriages? Why are you such a fishaphobe? Why are you a hater? Marriage is a Human (and fish) Right!
We should be very careful when dealing with language because once you start down a road, it can lead to destinations you never envisioned.
Posts
17 comments:
Congrats on being a Homophobe. Now your life is complete.
Awesome! Very well done... but why do you hate homosexuals so much? :-)
Don't you mean Fishaphobe?
Paul - da, da, da, do Youuuuu like fish sticks?
No one can say my love for fish is unnatural.
We were young.
She was scaley.
She was delcious in butter sauce.
Ba, ba, ba but do youuuu like fa, fa, fa fish sticks?
Something "fishy" going on here.
Paul - Do you like Fish Sticks?
.
What's your opinion of letting gays serving openly in the military - scrapping the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy?
I say leave it as is.
AFAIC, that was Clinton's most manly thing he did in his eight years, other than leaving the stains in Monica's dress.
I see no reason to change "Don't Ask Don't Tell". People's private sex lives are NOT the business of the military and should be left PRIVATE. That policy seems to be a reasonable compromise.
Most of the top military leaders seem to think that changing this policy will hurt the military and will reduce our defensive capabilities. I see no reason, other than to promote a goofy left-wing agenda, to stir up this hornets nest.
It's amazing how many of your views are changing - you use to be for gay marriage and against Don't Ask Don't Tell.
Ah, but Obama made promises to his homosexual base that now he has to deliver on. Besides, he's not a big friend of the military anyway.
I used to be a believer in accomodation, thinking naively that two side that disagree could come to a consensus that was good for the Country.
I still believe that in theory, except when there is a direct assault on the basic tenets of society and a relentless attack on everything that is actually good and right. Now is the time for Good People to stand up.
Any retreat or accomodation leads to more retreat and compromise. Compromise in the view of the Government and 95% of the media is when conservatives give up and accept the liberal agenda.
That is not accomodation, that is retreat, and it is now time to make the OTHER side start retreating. President Obama keeps referring to people standing in the way of "progress" and they should just get out of the way.
He has that COMPLETELY WRONG. What is going on is not progress, but REGRESS on an mammoth scale, and should be actively resisted.
you. are sick. who are YOU to judge whether two men or two women can get married? they deserve to be happy to? what's wrong with that? what a loser
Humans are overpopulated, we are destorying the earths natural resorces and the species that we havent already caused extinction for. If the debate of natural selection is brought into this argument than its safe to say a homosexual union (with its inability to bread) would actually be better for evolution and for the continuance of any form of life on earth in a global sense.
that ridiculous argument aside. you are a homaphobe and in fact a sexist. to draw a distinction between the capabilities of any person is to be sexist. 'They cannot love because they do not love in the same sense i do.'
i have two questions for you, evolutionary theorist, should infertile women and men be disallowed to have a hetrosexual marriage on the grounds that natural selection has no use for their love?
two: should an orphaned child be denied a loving home and instead be brought up without the stability and personal family love that they need for healthy development because their adoptive parents are gay? this isnt an argument between hetrosexual and homosexual parents, its between a loving home with two dads or a cold upbringing within an institution.
Im so glad to see that the majority of your comments are blatantly pointing out how pointless your ideals and exhistance really are. Your argument of language is disgusting and has nothing to do with gay marriage issues. If you allow two people to show their love through marriage i guarenttee that it wont inspiration marriage between a man and a trout
Post a Comment