Showing posts with label Gay Marriage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gay Marriage. Show all posts

Thursday, October 15, 2009

I now pronounce you Man and Trout


Language means something.  How we define things ultimately determines what is acceptable and what is unacceptable.  Marriage traditionally, for the last say 4 or 5 thousand years, has been defined as the union between a man and a woman.  Sometimes it has included multi-women or men in the past, but our modern sensibilities and morality have defined it pretty clearly as One Man and One Woman.

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".


Now, in order for Gay Marriage to have the same status as Traditional Marriage, you have to make the argument that people who are gay are born that way, and thus cannot be denied the rights any heterosexual couple would have. 

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.