Will You Marry Me, Black and Decker?
When San Francisco began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, I thought that this was a golden opportunity for conservatives to turn the tables on the left, turning the whole affair into a circus. I thought we should have shown up with our pets, our cars, our household appliances, pet rocks, shrubbery, girlie magazines, blow-up dolls, and various lawn and garden tools and demanded the right to marry! It looks like Mike Adams from Townhall.com has borrowed a page...
(Thanks to the Federalist)
"Recently...I heard an especially good idea that will drive liberal administrators—former hippies who stopped supporting campus protest shortly after becoming administrators—absolutely crazy. That idea is called 'Marry Anything Day.' The idea behind 'Marry Anything Day' is to bring an ordained minister to campus to perform marriage ceremonies. But the ceremonies are not limited to unions between a man and a woman, or even a man and a man, for that matter. On 'Marry Anything Day' you can choose your own definition of marriage based upon the most important of all legal doctrines; your personal feelings. (For further elaboration see the opinions of Justice Anthony Kennedy). For liberal administrators who never really considered the implications of changing the definition of marriage—because they suffer from a fear of campus gay activists, which they say is outside the normal definition of homophobia—this should be a long overdue wake-up call. Imagine the reaction of administrators when they see the minister performing a ceremony between a man and several women, or a woman and her cat. Of course, the ceremonies will not be restricted to living entities because that would discriminate against someone who really loves his favorite lamp. By the end of the day, some administrators will be sorry they ever supported the student protest movement. And some, wondering whether they are having a flashback, will be sorry they dropped acid in graduate school."
—Mike Adams
(Thanks to the Federalist)
"Recently...I heard an especially good idea that will drive liberal administrators—former hippies who stopped supporting campus protest shortly after becoming administrators—absolutely crazy. That idea is called 'Marry Anything Day.' The idea behind 'Marry Anything Day' is to bring an ordained minister to campus to perform marriage ceremonies. But the ceremonies are not limited to unions between a man and a woman, or even a man and a man, for that matter. On 'Marry Anything Day' you can choose your own definition of marriage based upon the most important of all legal doctrines; your personal feelings. (For further elaboration see the opinions of Justice Anthony Kennedy). For liberal administrators who never really considered the implications of changing the definition of marriage—because they suffer from a fear of campus gay activists, which they say is outside the normal definition of homophobia—this should be a long overdue wake-up call. Imagine the reaction of administrators when they see the minister performing a ceremony between a man and several women, or a woman and her cat. Of course, the ceremonies will not be restricted to living entities because that would discriminate against someone who really loves his favorite lamp. By the end of the day, some administrators will be sorry they ever supported the student protest movement. And some, wondering whether they are having a flashback, will be sorry they dropped acid in graduate school."
—Mike Adams
posted by Timothy Birdnow | 3:33 PM
8 Comments:
Go right ahead, you two. Marry your power tools. At least you won't have to keep them barefoot and pregnant, eh?
Hey guys, guess what? During the San Francisco ceremonie(s) not one person married anybody but another consenting adult. Looks like your inciteful "anything goes" predictions are a bit off when it comes to reality.
Not so long ago there was a case in Germany in which a guy took out an ad looking for a cannibal to eat him. Eventually he found a man who dismembered him and dined upon his corpse. Guess what, Jeff! not one person ate anybody but another consenting adult! Does that mean we should legalize cannibalism?
Get a grip, Dude!
Why yes, Mr. Birdnow, I will get a grip. If you think that because one person wants to be canniblalized, it automatically follows that we should legalize that, well, you go right ahead and think that. Myself, I'll call it irrelevant (sp.), because it is. You can't escape the fact that in real life, nobody married their dog, or power tool, or sister, as you asserted they would.
Precisely, Jeff! Marriage has a certain meaning-and two dudes do not fit the bill. As to nobody marrying their sister, you haven`t been in the Ozarks lately!
Well, the Ozark thing is what I call a "localized effect". Nice comeback, however. :)
More to the point, however. . . I think it's a pretty undeniable fact that marriage has certain benefits in society today. Taxes are usually lower, insurance less expensive, etc. Don't you think, in all fairness, that gays should be allowed those civil benefits when they cohabitate? Or, perhaps, to be fair to everyone (including single people) to do away with any civil benefits for marriage, altogether? Now, I'm not talking about children here, just marriage/civil unions in and of itself. Either way, it strikes me as being a little more fair than the current system. I mean all of that in a strictly nonsecular way, also; what churches do is bound by what churches decide to do. I'm definitely not one to interfere with religion on religious matters.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Call me Tim, Jeff; we needn`t be formal here, and, although we may disagree-sometimes strenuously-there is no reason we can`t do it on friendly terms.
Jeff, the whole purpose of those societal benefits is for the creation and maintenance of strong families. If homosexuals want marriage for this purpose, why shouldn`t polygamists insist on the right to multiple marriage? Historically, they have a far stronger case. Today Moslems are allowed 4 wives in Islamic societies, and Mormons practiced polygamy in the past. Gay marriage was an alien concept until the Swedes instituted it in the 1970`s. Your point on the unfairness of marital benefits is valid, but will hurt society in the long run because it will reduce the number of stable, married families.
For that matter, there really is no PRACTICAL reason to deny adult, concentual incest. The only practical purpose for banning brother-sister (or other) such unions is the danger of inbreeding. (Granted, they don`t worry much `bout down in them Ozarks.) This could be remedied by issuing marriage licences which require that either the man get a vasectomy, or the woman have her tubes tied, then the couple could adopt children. Beyond that, what`s the harm, eh?
Certainly, a consentual, incestuous relationship is less destructive than a homosexual one. AIDS is only the most apparent disease which is linked to homosexuality. There is a parasitic illness colloquially refered to as ``Gay Bowel Syndrome`` which results from the constant tearing of the rectum/colon tissue. There are numerous illnesses transmitted from gays putting their faces in places never meant for faces. (Need I elaborate?) There are terrible psychological disorders associated with the lifestyle, and suicide is a primary cause of death. Also, because these individuals have crossed the Rubicon, so to speak, they tend to have a bit more ``freewheeling`` of a lifestyle-which includes many more partners than the average heterosexual. As a result, the normal STD`s run rampant in the homosexual community. I once read that the average lifespan of homosexuals is somewhere around 48 years. This alone suggests that society should discourage homosexuality as much as is practicable albeit as kindly as possible.
Above and beyond this, the spiritual and moral implications simply cannot be ignored. The Spiritual, because 1.if you are religious then you are standing idly by while someone destroys their souls and bodies 2.the psychological suffering will not go away from societal acceptance, nor will the suicide. The moral dimensions are important, too, because they tie directly to the vigor of a society. Marriage in Sweden is down to somewhere around 15%. Why? Because marriage has ceased to mean anything. This weakens families, which weakens society.
If you look through history, you will find that virtually few nations have indulged an easy acceptance of homosexuality. The great exception was Classic Greece. I would like to point out that the Classic period lasted only about a century, and the fall of Greek civilization was dramatic. In fact, the Romans and other neighboring peoples despised the Greeks, whom they said were shifty, conniving, thieving, immoral, and lazy. You see, these were the post-classical Greeks, the ones who reaped the benefits of easy morals. Societies with loose morals tend to collapse; it becomes too easy to seek after your own enjoyment rather than the welfare of your nation, and when the dark times come the society no longer has any firm roots. We are seeing that today in Western culture. Why are we retreating before the Islamic world, the Chinese, Latin America? Because we have become immoral-and are reaping the whirlwind.
I'm tryly sorry, Tim, because up until now I had you at an advantage, you don't know my last name to be formal - I appreciate your call to be less formal. My last name is Olson. You can call me whatever you want, however; I'm pretty easy with that. :) Well, within reason, that is. :)
You make some good points, with only a few misconceptions. AIDS is a disease that is certainly not confined to homosexuals, but I don't think that's quite what you meant. Also, the Romans were quite famous for encouraging homosexuality amoung the legion forces because they felt that it helped develop what is known as "esperit de corps" among the troopers. But we all know that Rome also fell. :)
Oh, and one point of my own in your favor - I think that changes in the marraige codification are a bit "too much" for society at large; most large radical changes like that tend to, historically, not work well. There are, of course, exceptions (this country's constitution is one of them). The hate laws already on the books seem, to me, to be enough of a step in the right direction to end antihomosexual bigotry (which I despise - primarily because I despise ALL bigotry).
Post a Comment
<< Home