Tuesday, June 21, 2005

GAY MARRIAGE - WILLFUL TWIT #4

Gay Marriage - Willful Twit #4

In any discussion of gay marriage, it is easy to spot the proponent. He/she is the one lying on the floor kicking and screaming. The message they send is clear, "Logical discussion? Not while I’m around."

Rational folks understand that denying gays the sanction of marriage is not discrimination. It is merely a matter of qualifications. Consider: if I applied for a position as a jet pilot or a brain surgeon, I would probably be rejected. I don’t qualify for either. Rational folks recognize that denying homosexuals the sanction of "marriage" is not discrimination. They simply do not qualify.

Who determines the qualifications for marriage? Any and every authority who has addressed the issue has come to the same conclusion. For over 4,000 years (if you are a creationist) or for a billion years (if you of the evolutionist persuasion) marriage is the union of a man and a woman. The ACLU is looking for a loophole, but there isn’t any. Check any dictionary, statute book, holy book. Man and Woman. Homosexuals do not qualify.

Is there a reason for this? Of course. The most important and constant feature of our progress from cave man to our 21st century civilization has been the family. Ane this is not only for humans. If you watch one of the nature shows on Saturday, you will see that every specie that has survived has done so because the parents are willing to make the necessary sacrifices for the children. One of the sacrifices includes shielding our children from predators.

Does any of this register with our twitful friends? Apparently not. Word of caution: do not try to use logic with a gay twit. As the saying goes, "They are neither influenced nor impressed by it".
You must remember that the function of a Willful Twit is to create a problem where none existed before and then cry discrimination when rational persons fail to adopt their self-serving solution.

By now, the twits have run to the ACLU for a little TLC. Let’s you and me take advantage in the lull in the proceedings to consider a rational solution to the faux problem.

We should have the several state legislatures consider the issue. Hold hearings, listen to all interested (and rational) parties, analyze the problems (eg. How do we handle the support and other issues affecting manufactured babies, adoption, inheritance, termination of the union, etc.?), accept input from all interested and effected parties and determine which issues are capable of being resolved by legislation. They would then fashion a statute intended to resolve the problem. When we have realistically considered the matter, we would develop a domestic partnership statute.

The development of a statute has several advantages. It would by its nature require the participation of a variety of people, the consideration of alternatives and a two or three step review process. Future court proceedings could rely on the legislative debate to determine the meaning of the words and phrases in the statute. If a portion of the statute is found to be unworkable, it culd bereferred back for clarification.

On the other hand, if you rely on law suits to decide one issue at a time, you run the risk of having the court decide more on the emotion of the case before them than on the broad picture and future application of a narrow ruling.

Have you ever wondered why the gays refuse to participate in such a standard procedure? Could it be that they would prefer to sneak up on a judge and blindside him with an emotional case wherein the public at large will not be represented?

The procedure suggested herein is simple and reasonable. This is the way that a representative democracy is supposed to work, the way we have addressed contentious issues for centuries. This is the way adults make decisions.

Just one thing is wrong. If you tried it, the gay twits would sic Rosie O’Donnell on you and you would wish that you had never been born. They really do not want a solution. THEY WANT AN ISSUE. THEY WANT A CAUSE. If you do not believe this, try to discuss it with them. They would much prefer to put on a show, to demonstrate, to posture for the cameras, and, most important, to complain. Whine, bitch, moan and complain.

Have you ever known a gay person to solve a problem? It is not in their nature. You can pick up a newspaper and read about all of the problems that they are creating but don't ask me to hold my breath while you think of a problem that they ever solved. Their posture in every problem is, "Let me have my way or I will sue!" There is no compromise ith gays.

I would be ecstatic if they prove me wrong. What odds are you offering?

1 Comments:

Blogger Brad said...

It's simple. Marriage is, and always has been, a matter of religious persuasion. If a church allows two men or two women to marry, it's a marriage. You seem rather lost here...

2:36 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Blogarama - The Blogs Directory Blog Directory & Search engine http://www.blogrank.net/cgi-bin/blogs/rankem.cgi?id=BrianGil
Search Popdex:
Blogarama - The Blogs Directory Free Web Counter
Free Hit Counter