Tuesday, November 22, 2005

They Should Change the Rules of Major League Baseball to Accommodate Double Amputees

Self absorption alert! And really, I'm beginning to think that's all the push to legalize gay marriage is about:

Designed to endure

A Pastors Summit met earlier this month to discuss preserving marriage as they know it. It has been pointed out many times that can only be done by addressing the problem of divorce.

Well, let me suggest a way to reduce divorce in heterosexual marriages. Legalize same-sex marriages! Many of us who attempted traditional marriage would not be increasing the American divorce rate if we had the opportunity to love and unite our lives with the person we were intelligently designed to love.


You'll be surprised to learn that Rev Lovejoy (not his real name) is not a Unitarian. I checked.

So if we read between the lines here - hell if we read the lines themselves - we learn that the good reverend 1) knew he was gay; 2) married a woman anyway; and 3) divorced her when he finally recognized that being married to someone who attracts you in the same way a dead raccoon might isn't all its cracked up to be.

I find that Nancy Pelosi is an unattractive, annoyingly vile harpy woman. But since there's no one else around, I think I'll marry her! Because the law provides for marriage so, dagnabbit, I'm gonna use it!

Abject. Drooling. Stupidity.

Let's face it: advocates of same-sex marriage really want validation, not equal rights. It becomes more apparent when you tick off the canards that they pass off as arguments:

We want/need health care coverage for our partners.

Well, the health care industry already is getting the piss regulated out of it. What's one more rule? Does this merit destroying a cornerstone of our society (more about the cornerstone thing in a minute).

We want to visit our partner in the hospital.

See immediately above.

People should be able to marry the person he or she loves.

This will be a shock to those of you who think that "emotional intelligence" is on a par with "rational intelligence," so duct tape your heads so they don't explode before you read the following.

Marriage isn't about love. At least as far as the law is concerned. Sure, it's necessary to make a marriage last longer than your typical Hollywood PR stunt, but, oddly enough the state doesn't require it. Take a gander at Minnesota's marriage statute:

Marriage, so far as its validity in law is concerned, is a civil contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of the parties, capable in law of contracting, is essential. Lawful marriage may be contracted only between persons of the opposite sex and only when a license has been obtained as provided by law and when the marriage is contracted in the presence of two witnesses and solemnized by one authorized, or whom one or both of the parties in good faith believe to be authorized, so to do. Marriages subsequent to April 26, 1941, not so contracted shall be null and void.

For those with a short attention span, here's a breakdown. To get married there must be 1) 2 people; 2) of the opposite sex; 3) who are capable of, and do consent to marry (unless exceptions found here or in other sections apply); 4) a license; 5) two witnesses; 6) solemnization (by wedding, judge, etc.) (Note: the consanguinity proscriptions are contained elsewhere, so all you pervs out there that want to marry your grandmother are not off the hook).

Note the absence of a "love" requirement. Or a "fondness" one. Or even a "doesn't make one vomit by his or her very presence in the same room" requirement. In fact, the statute even labels it a "contract". I don't know about you, but the very invocation of that word, which calls to mind similar unarousing things as the Parol Evidence Rule and the Statute of Frauds, is enough to make this blogger flaccid for a long time.

The horse is dead. Let's move on.

We want to be able to have the intestacy laws account for us too, so that our property goes to the correct people when we die.

It's called "a will".

In the same vein, the estate tax laws (specifically the marital exemption) don't apply fairly to same sex couples without a legally recognized marriage.

Oh, so now the estate tax is something that's bad, and to be mitigated and avoided? Aren't you the same people who typically want the estate tax to be as high as possible since dead rich people make the easiest targets for taxation?

Sorry about the broad generalization.

A two sentence amendment to the Internal Revenue code could fix that if the interest is there.

Society benefits from stable relationships.

True. You got me there.

But since when is state sanction necessary for the existence of a stable relationship? You people really need to be able to cut the cord and do something without a government program.

Divorce harms marriage more than gay people would.

This is like saying that I harm the institution of baseball because I can't hit a slider. This is the most retarded trope I have ever heard. If drooling doofusses like the Reverend actually engaged their brain before screwing up their lives (and typically, as in the Rev's case, an innocent third party too) there'd be less divorce. See the problem isn't with the law. The problem is with the people who misuse it. Like Reverend Lovejoy.


The purpose of marriage is this and nothing more:

To propagate the species, and provide a basic social unit conducive to the successful production and care for children.

And gay couples can't make babies.

I understand that that's a rather "evolutionary" perspective - after all I'm a theocratic wingnut, right?

[Rereads entire post] Huh. How about that? Not one religion-based argument. Fancy that.

RYAN RHODES INTERRUPTS: This post is missing one thing...

LF: What's that?

RYAN: A "booger" or "poop" reference.

LF: You got it!

Reverend Lovejoy's letter was so sickening, that it made me poop boogers!

RYAN: Yay!

No comments: