Custom Search

Saturday, June 21, 2008

The Mockery of Marriage By California

Cross posted from Miss Beth's Victory Dance here.

From an email by Norm : an illustration of the mockery being made of marriage (all emphasis mine):

In regard to; House Joint Resolution 89,
The Marriage Protection Amendment proposed by Congressman

I'm using a possible scenario in Boston City Hall.

Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license.


Tim and Jim Jones.

Jones? Are you related? I see a resemblance

Yes, we're brothers.

Brothers? You can't get married.

Why not? Aren't you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?

Yes, thousands. But we haven't had any siblings. That's incest!

Incest? No, we are not gay.

Not gay? Then why do you want to get married?

For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other. Besides, we don't have any other prospects.

But we're issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who've been denied equal protection under the law. If you are not gay, you can get married to a woman.

Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I have. But just because I'm straight doesn't mean I want to marry a woman. I want to marry Jim. And I want to marry Tim, Are you going to discriminate against us just because we are not gay?

All right, all right. I'll give you your license. Next!

Hi. We are here to get married.


John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson.
Who wants to marry whom?

We all want to marry each other.

But there are four of you!

That's right. You see, we're all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert, Jane loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves June and me. All of us getting married together is the only way that we can express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship.

But we've only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples.

So you're discriminating against bisexuals!

No, it's just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that it's just for couples.

Since when are you standing on tradition?

Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere.

Who says? There's no logical reason to limit marriage to couples. The more the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Give us a marriage license!

All right, all right. Next!

Hello, I'd like a marriage license.

In what names?

David Deets.

And the other man?

That's all. I want to marry myself.

Marry yourself? What do you mean?

Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to marry the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income-tax return.

That does it! I quit!! You people are making a mockery of Marriage!!

This is just an example of how ridicules same sex marriage is, and the problems that it can create. Does this sound far fetched? Well consider the woman in the Netherlands who married herself. What's it going to be next, a guy marrying a goose?
There are those who have been snarking with me lately, trotting out the same, tired, libspeak of homosexuality is natural (NOT) and the California justices were correct in ruling by judicial fiat, overturning the voices of the people who lawfully voted against same-sex marriage. The same type of people who are tired of their faith being made a mockery of, the same type of people who are tired of things like the Folsom Street Fair, the Gay Pride Parades and the Disney Gay Days. The same type of people who are willing to extend tolerance and really don't care what you do in your bedroom with another consenting adult, but who draw the line at having the gay agenda and gay lifestyle shoved down their throats as if it is something normal and natural while flaunting their lifestyles and screeching we just want to be treated like "normal" people, "WE'RE NORMAL".

No, you're not. And maybe if you kept your mouths shut and your lifestyles to yourselves instead of forcing your views down people's throats, while screeching discrimination, you'd find a lot more tolerance. Not necessarily acceptance, but tolerance. But the militant gay mafia won't do that, even likening the gay agenda to a civil right along the line of the REAL civil rights marches of yesteryear.

Well, guess what. Blacks can't change their color, mankind can't change it's gender (without extreme surgical help)--people can choose their lifestyle. Civil rights had to do with issues not changeable to the victims of the civil rights atrocities. Blacks should be outraged, but at this point in time, they're too busy being outraged by non-existent things propagated by hatemongers Sharpton, Jackson, Farrakhan and Wright (Tawana Brawley, Jena 6, Duke LaCrosse anyone?)

Oh, but the gay mafia says (while stating they have no agenda)--who in their right might would make this choice and risk being a victim? Well, anyone choosing this lifestyle. It's "chic", it's "in", it's the "thing" to be and do. Popularity. More choice of sexual partners (especially for those proclaiming themselves "bi"). To be "cool". That's why (along with any other number of ridiculous excuses).

But it's genetics they whine. No, it's not--if it were genetics, it would have died out in the alleged belief of evolution as a survival dead end. Survival traits not leading to survival and propagation of the species die out. And if one doesn't believe in the fallacy of evolution (show me the fossil record), there are such things as NATURAL ADAPTATION. Again, traits geared toward a dead end of the species die out--such as homosexuality. Traits strengthening and propagating the species continue.

But animals--generally primates--practice homosexuality. Not for sexual purposes. For purposes of DOMINATION in a group, to assert dominance, yes. For sexual pleasure, no. Same with gang members. You don't see the silverback great apes or gang members pushing for gay marriage. You DO see them dominating their "tribes". And the silverbacks who have successfully dominated and asserted their dominance are the ones who breed and carry on the "tribal line"--again, same with gang members.

Granted, there are a few who do not choose their gayness. I can accept that, and I can believe that from some of my friends and their androgynous body types--as if even their body doesn't know which way to go. It's a very specific look--think "Pat" on the old SNL sketches. The rest is choices, pure and simple.

So, now these gays choosing this lifestyle (at alleged risk of becoming like Matthew Shephard and facing discrimination--yet engaging in Folsom and parades to out themselves) think this is a positive step forward. They think overturning the voice of the people is "cool". They shut up those nasty old Christians who believe God made man and woman the way He did for a reason, didn't they? It really is God made Adam and Steve instead of Adam and Eve. At least in their eyes. Never mind all the conflicting, circular arguments they give, never mind none of it makes sense in their smug self-righteousness. Never mind there are millions of gays who would never, ever think about bringing such glaring attention onto themselves and then screaming "discrimination" and "we just want to be treated like everyone else". Never mind all that.

The slippery slope we are now on DOES open the way for the joke scenario. Are these gays going to stand up for siblings/incestuous relationship marriages? How about plural marriages? How about people getting licenses to marry either animals or inanimate objects (I just heard about a woman who married the Eiffel Tower after divorcing the Berlin Wall!)? Don't these people deserve the same "rights" over and above the voice of the people? Don't these people deserve a judicial fiat as well? Or will it be a case of we got ours, too bad about you?

Probably the latter--the gays we meet in our comments sections are notoriously self centered and really don't give a damn about anyone's interest but their own. Just like the majority of the gays I know who are so self-absorbed, the ones who have indeed made this concious choice. Heck, they think the moral degradation of Rome, Greece, Egypt, etc. was all a fantasy lie and had nothing to do with the downfall of those civilizations (the underlying, exceptional self-centeredness and "I got mine" attitude notwithstanding--same attitude rampant in the majority of today's gays). So if they won't even be honest with actual history, how can we expect them to be responsible and intellectually honest with themselves, their motivations and their rampant hatred of themselves which they project onto others and twist into the bastardization of marriage?

We can't. God help this country.