Well, my my my...

Everyone's just posting like mad tonight. Stephen wants to play, too.

This isn't nearly as deep or meaningful as the other things that have been posted tonight. I'm feeling a little bit ornery, though. Working two 16 hour days in a row will do that, yeah?

Why is it that no one can have a decent, rational discussion on this gay marriage topic? It really would be beneficial for those of us who are still trying to decide if it's something to get upset over or something to not lose sleep over (I don't think I'd ever support such a proposition, but that's just me).

But no. Instead, any time a "journalist" brings the subject up, they parade out the same "Who's Who in American Imbeciles."

Oh, look, here's James Dobson telling me how gay marriage will undermine the ENTIRETY of the social fabric that our society has been built on. Sorry... I don't buy that argument (and I use the term "argument" liberally). Does this guy ever say ANYTHING different? Every pet issue of his is what's finally going to do our culture in! We might as well start praying for mercy now, because it's only a matter of time before 1) meteors hit the earth, 2) we're taken over by barbarian germanic tribes (because that's what happened to the Romans when THEY allowed gay marriage!) or 3) they start stamping our right hands and foreheads! As Homer would say, "Run for the hills, Ma Barker!"

Oh, look, here's the Mayor of San Francisco, telling me how he's upholding HIS version of the Constitution, even though the people of California, for the time being, have already stated that they wish to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. Look, I understand that in order for the Supreme Court to review a law, the law has to be tested. Sometimes, this is done by someone breaking the law. But elected officials should at least feign respect for law and work to bring the review about another way. Two things are clear to me about the Mayor of San Francisco after watching him interviewed. 1) He's a smart-alleck prima-donna, grandstanding in the limelight of media controversy (but what should I expect, right?). 2) He obviously has little regard for the opinions of the people of California. I, personally, think the guy should be impeached.

I just love hearing people gripe about how the media portrays Christians as being hateful and closed-minded, unable to argue reasonably. Unfortunately, we do a good job of looking that way without anyone's help, thank you very much!

Look, people, if we're really concerned about defending marriage, and want to use the Constitution of the United States to do so, then you'd better include something about divorce and adultery. Heterosexuals have done a fine job of sullying the institution of marriage even without including homosexuals.

At the same time, the advocates of gay marriage can dance around the question all they want, but they have to face the fact that we are talking about a major re-defining of a long-time institution. Once the definition of a word like "marriage" becomes arbitrary and open to interpretation, then it's difficult to re-draw lines without looking like a hypocrite. When asked on a Sunday talk show why polygamy should not be allowed, Congressman Barney Frank said that it would create societal instability, possibly be harmful to children, and undermine the structure of a time-honored institution. Hmmm... those arguments sound familiar.

So I suppose I'm going to have to look elsewhere for a decent discussion of this topic. Obviously, the American media is more intent on feeding us low-level bickering than honest dialogue (which, in my mind, says far more about the addicts who consume the product than the pushers who sell it).
posted by Stephen at 11:26 PM | |