Redefine Marriage? Let's Redefine "Gay"!

Thursday, March 04, 2004 | vanity

[I'm ALL Right!]

They're all Deviants!

So another rogue judge/official is "run amuck" with non state-endorsed "same sex" marriages. I'm in a politically incorrect mood.

I propose a national campaign by heterosexuals to redefine gay to mean "a state of happiness".

When was that word redefined by the homosexual agenda? Where did the word "homosexual" go? Now it's "same sex".

It's ludicrous to me that we are going to redefine traditional words because of the agenda of less than 3% of our population. What's next, a marriage between 3 people? How about a marriage between an adult and a consensual child? Why not let marriage also represent the love between a man and his best friend, a dog, as long as the dog doesn't object?

We have to draw a line somewhere people, and it's not "intolerant" to do so. It's wise to make words mean one thing, if possible.

I politely suggest to homosexuals that they work on insurance policies, state rights for death/survivor benefits, and those policies to accept "same sex unions" or "civil unions", or call it what it is, "Homosexual Unions". Or, why not just have a really good will drawn up?

While I'm on a rant. I noticed changing the name "pornography" is next. Actually they have almost succeeded in naming porn "Adult" material. If anything, it should be called "Adolescent". That immoral agenda is much more formidable in size than "same sex" activists. Janet Jackson exposing her breast was porn, by a traditional definition.

As long as I'm campaigning for changing words, I'm going to start calling pornographers and homosexuals, "Sexual Deviants".

A deviant is defined by Webster as: One who turns aside or wanders from the common or right way, course or line, either in a literal or figurative sense; as, to deviate from the common track or path, or from a true course.

[observer5]

"a marriage between 3 people?"

what's wrong with that?

[Adder]

Or 4 people and their dogs? Why stop there...and we won't...to say that if you are just living together, thats close enuff to get your insurance and the rights of survivorships.

What an absurd farce, funny if it wasn't so serious.

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Aganda Ping -
A Fight Back Alert.

YES! And Take Back the Rainbow! Rainbows DON'T MEAN SODOMY!

[Just mythoughts]

Perverts, works for me.

[Living Free in NH]

I have a really hot sister. Can I marry her? That can't be any more offensive than groping another man's hairy a$$, can it?

[Hillarys Gate Cult]

Or a CEO, heading for serious criminal charges marrying his whole staff so they can't testify against him.

[Unassuaged]

Wait, and then ask your Two-headed child ;)

[prion]

This came out of Seattle?

[Aeronaut]

I'm with you on this. I will not be refering to a homosexual as a gay, but as a homosexual.

[boxerblues]

This came out of Seattle?

There's hope yet for this country.

[garylmoore]

Really, lets go back to calling black, black and white, white.

[BushCountry]

I said this on another thread, but think it is worth repeating.

I noticed that the media is in favor of gay marriages (no surprise), however they will not show two men kissing at the alter on the news. Every kiss is between two women, which I have seen hundreds of times.

They are hypocrites, again showing their lack of conviction in a cause they are forcing upon every America through the promotion of their liberal values! They also realize that the public would be inflamed about the issue if the pictures of men kissing were shown as frequently. Somehow, they realize that men kissing at the alter is indecent!

[anniegetyourgun]

I'm all for taking back the language. And frankly, the country needs to start with lesson #1: FORNICATION

[Adder]

Excellent point and one sure to be exploited somewhere sometime.
Where are the articulate ones from "our" side deconstructing the "civil rights" argument?
Marriage, in my view, is NOT a civil right. There is no guarantee that everyone and anyone who wants to marry can do so, which is what a civil right does[thinking of voting rights here for example]. The act of marriage requires discrimination as both partners individually discriminate against others before settling on each other.
If it were a civil right, then someone not selected as a partner could sue a previous suitor for denying them the "right" to be married or could sue the gov't. because they can't find anyone who will marry them and their "rights" are being denied.
These arguments are no more specious or far-fetched than the ones I am hearing in favor of 'mo marriage.
To me its very much like blind people suing for the "right" to have a driver's license.
Why are we even countenancing this argument in the first place?

[JesseHousman]

Rainbows DON'T MEAN SODOMY!

For the homosexual gaggle that isn't a pot at the end of their rainbow; it's a can!

[bk1000]

"Where are the articulate ones from "our" side deconstructing the "civil rights" argument?"

Perhaps it could be said better, but IMHO, Many people do not make the distinction between a right and a privilege. "Rights" is another word that has had its meaning compromised.

[Adder]

"Rights" is another word that has had its meaning compromised."

Agreed! Yet it is that compromised definition that the courts seem to be using, to the detriment of this culture.

[Liberty Valance]

Bump

[longtermmemmory]

or as the L*g C*bin "republicans" say a cozy cabin.

(group is not affliated or sanction by the RNC.)