Dude, don't be gay
Fuck, man.
I'm still hungover like a bitch. My lack of desire to live is eclipsed only by my lack of desire to discourse. Here's the gist, though.
Marriage is not now, and never has been, simply a mutual attraction or emotional connection protected by law. It is a public vocation, and as such has a lasting and very real effect on society as a whole. I would venture so far as to say that as an institution, it is a pillar of society. Therefore, "proposals that could harm the institution of marriage must be subjected to the same sort of objective analysis that we give any public policy question."
The quote is from this, which says everything I ever wanted to say on the subject, only better than I ever would've been able to.
No, I'm not trying to proselytize. I am chellenging you, however, to practice the tolerance you preach, and read the above piece with an open mind. Sure, it's framing is Catholic, but, contrary to popular belief, that doesn't automatically nullify any truths contained therein.
Oh yeah, I forgot to tell you why I bring this up. Prop 2 is up for vote next Tuesday. I've never voted in my life and don't really plan on doing it that often, but I'll probably hit the polls next week and fill out a scantron or whatever the fuck it entails. It really is that important.
I believe the immortal Virgil put it best. Nay, not he of Aeneid fame, but the Virgil of the Richmond variety. He spaketh, and I quote:
C'mon Beav.... don't be gay, man.
Timeless words, Virg.
Happy reading. May the comments flow like wine. May your wife be like a fruitful vine. May your children flourish like olive plants. May the blessings of.... fuck man. This whole killing off of the brain cells thing is starting to take its toll.
posted by Anonymous @ 10:04 AM
16 comments
16 Comments:
Voting is essential for propositions such as these, even if you are hungover.
Another gem from Virgil. Allow me to set the stage: Cotton Bowl, TX-OU, in the heart of the burnt orange section. Virgil has finished a bottle of Crown on the way to the game. The crowd is silent. Virgil cannot comprehend why. He thinks everyone should be excited, because goddammit, this is TX-OU. His mind thinks, "Texas Fight" and "OU sucks" would be appropriate to scream out. What comes out: "Texas sucks!" The silent crowd turns to stare, only because they were wondering what idiot would interrupt the national anthem.
That is funny story about Virgil. Sounds like a dude I want to party with. Sorry about the hangover Vince. Been there done that. The only cure is hair of the dog, have a red beer at lunch.
You forgot to follow the virgil quote with "what are two things that money can't buy? true love and what?"
Home grown tomatoes.
We miss you, Brother Byrd.
You too, John Denver.
Oh by the way, I'm going to have to download "Sister Jack" from iTunes because it has now become one of my favorite songs.
Ah, the Leak-Tanner initiative ... "LET THEM GAY! LET THEM GAY!"
the video of the week claims its first victim?! fantastic. and who the hell is anonymous, my guess is arfeo, because that quote seems oddly familiar.
So, just because someone is gay, they do not have the right to be married? Since when is it society's business to dictate the private lives of couples in love? God gave us the will to choose how we lead our own lives. Why should that right be taken away from us simply because what some people believe isn't the same as what our religion believes? Judge not lest ye be judged, blah blah blah. And what about pagan weddings that have nothing to do with God at all? Should we vote to outlaw those, too?
Just a theoritical question:
Which would you rather see happen...
A baptized man and a baptized woman get married and have children. The man beats the crap out of his kids every day in a drunken stupor.
OR
Two gay men marry one another. They adopt and lovingly raise a child who grows up to lead a respectful, successful life.
Which couple would you rather see married? The drunken "Christian" abuser, or the loving gay couple who are "harmful to marriage as a public institution"? I don't see the gay couple as harming anything. To each his own.
It is simply not our business to tell people who they can spend their lives with. Aren't we all supposed to be treated as equals in this country?
Oh, and feel free to rip me a new one for my oh-so-liberally-inclined viewpoint, feel free to do so!
-Audra
Hmmm...interesting.
The article claims that single women do fewer stupid things than single men do. I just dunno about THAT. They should meet some of my wilder single women friends. :)
It constantly amazes me how certain inalienable "rights" seem to spring up out of nowhere.
Obviously, the main issue here involves definition. I say again, marriage is not just any relationship. It has its own special nature, properties, and purpose. Until we can all agree on at least that fundamental and elementary truth, any discussion we have on the subject is completely worthless and a waste of time.
Would you rather see a drunk driver kill himself and others in a crash or your wife murdered and raped to save your children's lives? Thank God life isn't as awful and dichotomous as hypothetical situations.
Oh my bad....I forget only certain people deserve the "right" to be married. I'll be sure to keep my opinions to myself next time.
Gay people must not have any "rights," therefore I will not waste my breath defending them anymore.
The point is that gay marriage is an oxymoron. There is no such thing. To attempt to protect it under law is an exercise in absurdity.
Cohabitate at will. Commit yourselves to each other all you want. Just don't try and shake up the structure of society for the sake of a tax break.
oh boy...here we go
Has to be arfeo...I hazed that song into their brains
don't worry, vincent. i still love you. just like to get you all riled up.
Post a Comment
<< Home