(no subject)
i was reading the newpaper looking for articles for my press clipping thing i do. and i found this one letter to the editor. this woman is so stupid. ill go through and argue what she says later. but here is the article:
Because they cant procreate, homosexuals have no right to marry
To the editor:
I agree with a recent letter to the editor that said an editorial cartoon on gay marraige "Keeping the Sactity in Sanctimonious" published on Jan. 3 was in poor taste and furthers the pc agenda on homoesexual unions.
It merely conformed to the weak through broadly bandied about agruement that if so many normal marriaes are bad and violent, then gay couples should also be allowed a chance to adopt and raise children.
The inference is that gay couple can provide children with at least as stable an environment -- maybe even more so -- then the more then 50% of couples who marriages in divorce. The natural conclusion of this line of thinking is that many people should not be permitted to have children -- maybe those people should consider becoming homosexuals?--which swings so far left it begins to touch the National Socialist rigt.
The statistics regarding marriage failure are always twisted to suit the writers purpose, or often simple accepted as true. No statistics are ever presented on survivability of homosexual relationships, which are far more likely to a few minutes after they start then "straight" ones.
Furthermore, those arguements are based on despair about the efficacy of marriage and display more bitterness and cyncicism then any healthy relationship could sustain. The arguements focus on how unhapy many marriages are, implying that homosexual relationships are generally stable.
Besides disregarding the far greater number of "normal" marriages [i have to add something. could the "far greater number of 'normal' marriages" be because homosexual marriage is only legal in what? one state?], the assumption that many homosexual relationships are stable is unrealistic at best. probably people feel that way because homosexuals are called "gay" and therefore should be happy.
Marriage is an institution which includes children. Since homosexuals cannot, by defintion, have children, naure suggests that homosexual coupls are not suited to raising children. Otherwise, homosexual mammals of all kinds would be multiplying around the world (except for the fact that there are no other homosexual mammals.)
And no, this does not imply that a couple who cannot have children because of medical reasons shouldnt be premitted to adopt. Nor does a bumper crop of foster children call for relaxation of these basic principals.
if a behavior merely mimics normal life, but cannot sustain itself, it should be permitted to die off. Like MULES, homosexuals cannot create, let's not give them the idea that they're entitled to act otherwise.
Land of the free?. Everyone is equal right?
Because they cant procreate, homosexuals have no right to marry
To the editor:
I agree with a recent letter to the editor that said an editorial cartoon on gay marraige "Keeping the Sactity in Sanctimonious" published on Jan. 3 was in poor taste and furthers the pc agenda on homoesexual unions.
It merely conformed to the weak through broadly bandied about agruement that if so many normal marriaes are bad and violent, then gay couples should also be allowed a chance to adopt and raise children.
The inference is that gay couple can provide children with at least as stable an environment -- maybe even more so -- then the more then 50% of couples who marriages in divorce. The natural conclusion of this line of thinking is that many people should not be permitted to have children -- maybe those people should consider becoming homosexuals?--which swings so far left it begins to touch the National Socialist rigt.
The statistics regarding marriage failure are always twisted to suit the writers purpose, or often simple accepted as true. No statistics are ever presented on survivability of homosexual relationships, which are far more likely to a few minutes after they start then "straight" ones.
Furthermore, those arguements are based on despair about the efficacy of marriage and display more bitterness and cyncicism then any healthy relationship could sustain. The arguements focus on how unhapy many marriages are, implying that homosexual relationships are generally stable.
Besides disregarding the far greater number of "normal" marriages [i have to add something. could the "far greater number of 'normal' marriages" be because homosexual marriage is only legal in what? one state?], the assumption that many homosexual relationships are stable is unrealistic at best. probably people feel that way because homosexuals are called "gay" and therefore should be happy.
Marriage is an institution which includes children. Since homosexuals cannot, by defintion, have children, naure suggests that homosexual coupls are not suited to raising children. Otherwise, homosexual mammals of all kinds would be multiplying around the world (except for the fact that there are no other homosexual mammals.)
And no, this does not imply that a couple who cannot have children because of medical reasons shouldnt be premitted to adopt. Nor does a bumper crop of foster children call for relaxation of these basic principals.
if a behavior merely mimics normal life, but cannot sustain itself, it should be permitted to die off. Like MULES, homosexuals cannot create, let's not give them the idea that they're entitled to act otherwise.
Land of the free?. Everyone is equal right?