![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Aug. 13th, 2003
(no subject)
Aug. 13th, 2003 10:51 amIn response to this editorial, my LTTE:
Kathleen Parker is playing the ‘oppressed majority’ card on the subject of homosexual marriage, but still gives no real reason to oppose it, except for the quaint notion that “that marriage is intended for a man and a woman in order to procreate and raise children”. I guess these activities would not occur without marriage? And if that’s why government supports it, then why does it give tax credits to single parents, or allow me to marry after I’d had a tubal ligation?
She also is “unconvinced by arguments favoring holy matrimony for homosexuals when civil remedies are -- or can be made -- available.” I would counter by asking, are single drinking fountains for people of all races useful to society? I don’t expect that the reason these ‘separate but equal’ facilities have been dismantled is solely because it’s cheaper to have one drinking fountain. With no compelling reason to do otherwise, one has a single drinking fountain, a single school, or a single social institution because it’s fair. That’s reason enough for me.
[my mark and seal]
I dunno if they'll print it, but I feel better for saying it. It's over their 150 word 'suggested limit' by about 25 words, but I condensed it as much as I could.
Next, after I get off shift, I'll be having lunch with my gay, homosexual, lesbian mother-in-law. Then probably a nap (stayed up too late admiring the Moon) and D&D. I'm also going to see about going to the natural science center in Houston Saturday with my gay homosexual brother and his gay homosexual partner. I've been hankering to go there- they have an incredible zoo, planetarium, museum full of pretty rocks, IMAX, and this lovely butterfly-infested greenhouse thing. Tomorrow is business meeting, and Friday is class. I may try to hit the lake tomorrow or Friday.
Kathleen Parker is playing the ‘oppressed majority’ card on the subject of homosexual marriage, but still gives no real reason to oppose it, except for the quaint notion that “that marriage is intended for a man and a woman in order to procreate and raise children”. I guess these activities would not occur without marriage? And if that’s why government supports it, then why does it give tax credits to single parents, or allow me to marry after I’d had a tubal ligation?
She also is “unconvinced by arguments favoring holy matrimony for homosexuals when civil remedies are -- or can be made -- available.” I would counter by asking, are single drinking fountains for people of all races useful to society? I don’t expect that the reason these ‘separate but equal’ facilities have been dismantled is solely because it’s cheaper to have one drinking fountain. With no compelling reason to do otherwise, one has a single drinking fountain, a single school, or a single social institution because it’s fair. That’s reason enough for me.
[my mark and seal]
I dunno if they'll print it, but I feel better for saying it. It's over their 150 word 'suggested limit' by about 25 words, but I condensed it as much as I could.
Next, after I get off shift, I'll be having lunch with my gay, homosexual, lesbian mother-in-law. Then probably a nap (stayed up too late admiring the Moon) and D&D. I'm also going to see about going to the natural science center in Houston Saturday with my gay homosexual brother and his gay homosexual partner. I've been hankering to go there- they have an incredible zoo, planetarium, museum full of pretty rocks, IMAX, and this lovely butterfly-infested greenhouse thing. Tomorrow is business meeting, and Friday is class. I may try to hit the lake tomorrow or Friday.
