This is an old issue that they've gone down to defeat on. Perhaps even Delawareans are not degenerate enough to agree with "liberals" on this.
The editorial is here:
Gay marriage means equal access to law
By Thomas A. Foley, Wilmington
They run this editorial, but it is their view too. Perhaps there is a self defined gay working in the news room or perhaps they know someone who self defines as gay. In their simplistic thinking then they think, "He is a nice guy. Therefore, same sex marriage would be good, so good...." That's about it for them.
Foley states,
"If we truly are the land of the free, where every person is equal under the law, one wonders why people really give a hoot about two people of the same sex getting married, given all the other problems facing our nation. "
Perhaps it is because when more people have viruses growing in their butts, that has to be payed for. If there is to be free caring for your health for all and so on. Also, on a whole host of issues this will come into play. The Boy Scouts, then the argument would be, "Everyone approves of homosexuality so the only reason you will not let your children be mentored by a gay is your prejudice and bigotry!" Etc. Then, you have more boys being mentored into homosexuality culturally. The historical patterns indicate that adolescent boys camping together who want to have sex with each other and/or their mentor, is not such a good idea. It is not a good situation. This is why men are not mentors in the Girl Scouts. This sort of simple common sense is what is being referred to as "prejudice" by Foley.
"...the question is whether homosexuals should have equal access to state laws governing marriage. "
Everyone does have equal access to marriage. The question is whether or not his recommendation to change what marriage is, should be followed. Also, the structural way that "liberals" went about this was fascist. They tried to establish an oligarchy in the Courts. Indeed, they still may have one. They still may rule, by the mere diktats of an oligarchy.
The real question asked and answered was whether or not Americans are degenerate enough to cease to be their own rulers and allow the Courts to make all their basic discriminations in life for them.
"As Britney Spears proved...."
Things get a lil' dicey when you start saying things like that. You should know that your case must be pretty weak.
"It's no secret the institution of marriage has a lousy record in this country, given the high divorce rate. "
That's a great reason for following France in weakening the distinctions of marriage further. This guy sure has a lot of facts and evidence to his case. You know, Britney Spears is even proving things for him.
But the bigotry of disagreeing with him!
"....red state voters would agree that it would be un-American to deny homosexuals the right to vote, serve jury duty or run for public office. So why should two homosexuals who love each other be denied the right to make the same legal commitment to marry like the rest of us?"
No "group" of "sexual desire people" are being denied anything. No objective group of people who are defined by their sexual behavior are being denied anything, either. Everyone can vote, etc., there is no lil' test that they put on your head to check what sexual desires you have.
Now, if you self define as gay and "come out" as a statement of what "living a lie" vs. a life of truth and dignity is then people might have different views about what "truth" and "lies" are.
It is especially telling that anyone is degenerate enough to argue, "My sexual desires define who I am. They define what a true life is for me. So anything less than living by my own desires is living a lie!"
If all men who desired to have sex with more than just their wife did that, things would get interesting. They are oriented, you know. "I was living a lie! You know, because I wanted to have sex with another woman. If only I could marry more than one, then all would be of truth and dignity! For the tolerance of it all!"
"Homosexuals are either equal citizens or they're not."
Well, do not worry your lil' head about that Foley. Because that group, like the "I want a twinkie, right now!" group and the "I want to beat your head in!" group are all just a bunch of equal citizens under the law.
If the law is defined by people's appetites, then you will have problems. The law is designed to limit and guide human appetites, not be defined by them. You pass laws to define right and wrong, not to define people by their "sexual orientation, " i.e. sexual desires. It is not as if it is even possible to define people by their sexual desires. That is the material of satire. "So, what sexual desires do you have? Okay, now I will protect you from such and such discriminations based on whatever you desire."
"I'm proud to be among the minority. Let's hope the voters in the heartland start asking themselves tougher questions."
He reminds me of a journalist I once debated on this. Here is what he said, "I am open minded about this."
".....my mind is made up!"
I think it was the same paragraph. It is a self-refutation.
Like Foley, he never does ask his retarded self any hard questions. He has is prejudices, his heart is unrepentant and hardened. Perhaps he knows a nice person who proselytizes the gay identity and its religious hedonism. Therefore, he agrees with religious hedonism. For the nicety of him! That's about it for him.
These journalists and the like are such critical thinkers these days!
Another example from the same cite:
"About 3,000 innocent people were killed in New York City on 9/11. The election of George W. Bush virtually guarantees that the United States will be the recipient of future terrorist attacks. The difference next time will be that 51% of those who voted on Election Day are no longer innocent Americans."
Ken Sutton, Arden
Ummm, leftist degenerates already thought that. That was their main argument, in fact. 9/11 was all America's fault, etc. If only we sat down and did some therapizin' with the terrorists. If only we hadn't supported Israel. Etc..
I guess a lot of American's disagreed.
These retarded Delawareans are just now realizing that they are in the minority. Fortunately that seems so, I did not think they were. But apparently they are.
One more degenerate Delawarean....because well, this is actually pretty fun!
Cathy DeBovis, Woodbrook
"As I fixed breakfast, my son and I looked at the front-page headlines in The News Journal. He asked me what one meant: "Bush to use vote as mandate for change." I explained to him that President Bush was going to make every effort to address all voters' concerns in his next four years of office, especially those who voted for John Kerry.
"...Mom, didn't President Bush have the same opportunity at the end of the last election to do the same for all voters?"
Everyone, all voters, union, merging! I guess a retard would have their children shape their political philosophy. Yes, but of course, Bush is supposed to represent the people who did not elect him, especially. For these are the special mental retards. So, they especially need some special representation.
I'd suggest this, represent these lil' ones by doing the exact opposite of what they want. This can be their special type of representation. That is generally how people being childish must be dealt with.
No comments:
Post a Comment