Today, at about 4:30 pm pacific time, he made a status update.
The aforementioned status update:What the homosexual activists seek is not the much ballyhooed "redefinition of marriage." It can't be, since the activists have offered up no replacement definition for the institution's traditional understanding. Indeed, they can't offer one.
Then, not one minute later, made this comment on his own status update:
The moment homosexual activists define marriage (in other words, place parameters defining what constitutes marriage and what does not), they would be guilty of the very act of moral exclusion they condemn in others.
For instance, if they se ek to redefine marriage to mean the union of two human beings (regardless of gender), they have excluded from their definition those whose preferred sexual expression is polyamory or polygamy. At that point, the very arguments they have leveled against proponents of "traditional marriage" get turned around on them. They become the bigots, the haters, the narrow-minded. Therefore, they will offer no new definition for marriage...thus "un-defining" it.
But un-defining the nucleus of the family is tantamount to saying the family is insignificant and unimportant in the preservation of society. Reason and experience both tell us otherwise.
Though I do like the word ballyhooed ...
He's using a logic argument to say that homosexuals don't want exactly what they say they want. Classic. No, Donald, they want what they say they want: a redefinition of marriage to include them. And if they get it, no one is going to feel left out.
They just don't feel they need to spell it out for you millimeter by millimeter since it's not that difficult a concept to understand. In a nutshell, if I may, my homosexual bretheren: Let Them Marry.
Donald was my 10th grade English teacher.
Are we now worried about those who practice polygamy and polyamory? Have we heard any polyamorists or polygamists trying to defend their right to marry legally within the U.S.? Polyamorists don't want to have necessarily marital relationships--just a lot of them. And polygamy in the U.S. is relegated mostly to fundamental Mormonism, and they can practice that within their own religion, so they're covered. Neither group has anything to lose from a redefinition of marriage to mean the same boring legal union between two individuals, regardless of gender, the same one that breeders currently get to enjoy.
Mind you, I've been with my partner now for over seven years, we have a lovely family together, and marriage is not a looming weight on us.
It's only a minor one.
It certainly was not going to be what kept us together. It was love. Marriage is indeed about love, and also the nice tax breaks involved. Our gay brothers and sisters want to be able to share in that love. And tax reduction. And if we breeders truly loved ourselves, we would let them. Because they're not going to hurt it. When they are able to marry, only then will I feel good enough about marriage in this country that I would want to marry my love. We feel the same way about this. People keep referring to Megan as my wife anyway, so it's practically like she is my wife.
Isn't homosexuals' struggle to gain the right to legal marriage in the U.S. related less to morals, than to simple legality? I guess it is both a moral and a legal issue. The moral majority in this country does have more muscle than the moral minority, so homosexuals do face an uphill battle. It's a battle akin to that of women and blacks. You know who they had to fight every time? White men. I'm amazed some white men (DONALD) *ahem still put up a fuss about it to this day.
You know, some of those blacks and women were (gasp) gay. You've already helped gay people. Help the rest.
It's not about "un-defining the nucleus of the family." In no way does the right of homosexuals to legally marry in the U.S. threaten anyone's family life, married or otherwise. Go ahead--name one way. Easily debunk-able, I'm sure, but go ahead with your petty argument.
It's about giving homosexuals equal rights. They're not lesser than heterosexuals, yet they are treated as such. It's shameful. I'm embarrassed on the part of my fellow straight men who make these arguments. I want the old racist generations to lose their grasp on power to make room for accepting new ones.
Please don't ask me "What's next? Marrying animals?" Don't be juvenile. That's insulting. And yes, apparently that argument has been expressed in popular media as of late. And again. And again. To insinuate that homosexuality is remotely tied to bestiality is beyond wrong and your maker will hold you accountable.
ARE YOU INSANE PAT ROBERTSON? YOUR SOUL IS FORFEIT
I see no one has given you any response how homosexual marriage will create problems/destroy life as we know it. Marriage is between/among adults. Family is defined by the love the members have for each other, and doesn't have to include marriage. My lesbian friends shouldn't have to go to great legal lengths to have the right to be with their mate at the hospital as I do when Joe goes for surgery tomorrow. "What's next?" Unless people really change with the new technology and become people who don't need other people, things will probably go on much the same as they do now. Some people will want the closeness that having a mate gives, some won't. Legalness doesn't make a marriage, love does.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment, Mom L. I like your perspective. It just occurred to me that Donald has indirectly, and probably unintentionally, claimed that anti-gay-marriage people are bigots, haters, and narrow-minded. Somehow he doesn't realize that that makes him a bigot, a hater, and narrow-minded. The haters will try any argument they can grasp, even if it is self-refuting. Their ship is going down in flames.
ReplyDelete