Monday, January 12, 2004
Support the Dysfunctional Family Amendment
Family.org - CitizenLink - FNIF News - Statistics Show Declining Interest in Civil Unions0 comments
I love these people. They're incredibly entertaining. Or, they would be if they weren't also so damned scary.
Despite my being a happily married, straight white male, I can see I need help and counselling from the congregation here.
I would like anyone out there to explain to me how two people—incapable of creating life as they may be—who want to bond together for the rest of their lives in loving support and mutual respect, pose any kind of threat to ANYONE at any time in any place. In essence, just how is state-sanctioned marriage between homosexuals, who wish to commit to each other in a legalistic way, a threat to the institution of marriage?
To the Insurance companies? Yeah, I can see that gay marriages are a threat to them, due to the higher survivor benefits payouts they'd incur. You'd just be dumping thousands of people into the risk pool. So, yeah, I'd expect them to attack gay marriages.
But, where is the threat to everyone else? Hmmm?
Are gangs of gays lurking outside of the gym, waiting to jump Annie's boyfriend Brad, and make him gay??? Oh noooo! And just before the wedding, too??? Poor Brad! Poor Annie!
Are legions of lesbians infiltrating the Republican Women's Association, and seducing its members—making them forever dissatisfied with their husbands?
Cheeeeesh...
More to the point:
How does a gay couple in Indiana, who insure their cars, decorate their home from the Home Depot, mow their lawn, pay their taxes, and maybe even adopt a parentless child no proper straight couple ever got around to adopting, have ANY impact on some plumbing supply salesman and his family in Arizona, or those lovely folks down at the American Family Association in good ol' Tupelo, MS? Hmmm? Anyone have a clue about THAT one?
And just how would a homosexual marriage demean the institution of marriage, exactly?
I thought straights had already done that long ago.
That divorce rate that's constantly up over 51%, now that's between a man and a woman, right? I mean, usually?
Now, remembering that holy, sacred unions between a man and a woman have also given us your typical proper, loveless, sexless, patrician country club marriage—which has produced people like the current U.S. president; as well as the typical trailer trash marriage—where Henry throws down enough Jim Beam to float a boat, screws anything that can stand to touch him for five minutes, then goes home and beats the living tar out of Helen—this, this is what you aspire to? This is your defense of the prototypical "sacred marriage"?
Or, possibly, are those straight The Batchelor-type shows your cup of tea? I'm so moved by the depth of commitment and sacred love shown by couples born from a television producer's staff meeting and a casting call. This is bedrock stuff, here folks. For any part of the state of Matrimony that society hasn't already trashed, TV is happily filling in the gaps.
Currently buried in a piece in something called Family News: In Focus, which seems to be a subset of something called Focus on the Family (at the family.org web site), lies a quote from some previously unknown person named Glenn T. Stanton, who bills himself as "senior analyst for marriage and sexuality" (whatever that means; does sounds racy, though) at the above-mentioned Focus on the Family (that's some very incestuous journalism there, boy—a publication quoting from its own staff to prove its own point. My! But then, incest is one of those by-products of marriages between a man and a woman, so it becomes a rather learned trait after a while). Sexuality Analyst Stanton writes:
"Every society needs a very clear and precise definition of what family is,..."
Oh. And Sexuality Analyst Stanton obviously feels he's JUST the man to take on the task:
"...and it is in every place confined to men and women linking together in permanent relationships to raise their kids together."
Thank you for clarifying that for us, Brother Sexuality Analyst Stanton. But, sir, what can we do about all this?
"... This year, Congress likely will debate the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would codify the legal definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. ..."
Or one man and one goat.
Or four men and a sheep.
Or perhaps, Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) and his dog. Or his neighbor's dog. Or any dog, actually.
"... men and women linking together in permanent relationships to raise their kids together. ..."
No matter how ill-suited they may be for the task, of course. Or how dysfunctional or violent or poverty-stricken the household becomes. Or how psychologically or physically damaged the kids become.
But, all of that is still better, obviously, than simply minding your own business, turning your back on two people who love each other and deciding to just leave them in peace.
Because that's the crux of the entire matter, actually. Correct?
Just like every other couple, it's merely Love the gay couple is after.
That's their sin.
And this is all about Hate, isn't it folks?
And the Right to Hate.
The Hatred of Morons for things they don't know or understand.
Which is plenty.
posted by Gotham 7:44 PM
0 Comments:
