Friday, July 12, 2013

Marriage Word Games

Let's play softball word games with Chrissy.  There are "classic cows" and "new cows."  A new cow can be anything you define it to be.  A new cow could be a cow printed from a 3D printer, or a sea cow, or a picture of two sea cows.  If you don't specify and just order cow in a  restaurant, the proprietor could serve any kind of "cow" he wanted.  Or let's take a man and let him require everyone to call him a "new woman."   Must he be entitled to use any women's facility he desires?  Or let prisoners "marry" one another.  Must the State thus accord them with equality claims for conjugal visits?  Or let a female soldier change her "social registration," from republican female soldier to democrat "new male" soldier.  In the name of equality, must he-she now be entitled to reside in the men's barracks?

What word gamers refuse to acknowledge is that law makers have enacted thousands of secular laws that were meant to apply, SECULARLY, to "classic marriage."  What new marriage proponents want to do is to deny that there could be ANY proper secular purpose to any such a law.  So, if Feds provide for legal incentives, privileges, or protections for "classic marriage," and a State wants to end run such incentives, all a State has to do is to re-define a kind of "new marriage."

Suppose Feds want to incent and fund soldiers to defend the country. Must law makers be precluded from doing so, unless they are willing to "equally" incent every other kind of occupation (i.e., classic soldiers v. "new soldiers")?  Suppose Feds want to incent and fund "classic" families for raising the next generation, many of whom will become soldiers or help support social security. Must law makers be precluded from doing so unless they are willing to equally incent every other kind of family (or "new family")?

Government already does not preclude consenting adults from acting howsoever they wish in games of sexual pretense and fantasy.  But why should fantasists be entitled to "equal treatment" for that which is inherently not equal?  Why should government, if its representative law makers wish to promote domestic tranquility by availing a privilege among spouses not to testify against one another, afford a same privilege to members of a crime club who may decide to enter into "new marriages?"  Must an alien who enters into a "new marriage" with an American citizen be entitled to sponsored entry?  What we have is too many femimen who have been raised as girls to play "let's pretend" at "new dolly tea parties."  This "new dictionary" game is a recipe for requiring Americans to support metrosexuals so they never have to grow up.  By letting pretenders call the tune for word games, adults are letting themselves be mastered by perpetual children.  Indeed, one has now been elected Prezzy.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Sharpton, Holder, Hilary, and Obama seem to think mob persecution (euphemistically called "organizing the community") is the way to have a "conversation about race." Sort of like a sociopathic, window-breaking kid wanting to have a conversation about how soon you're going to give him the boom box on wheels that he thinks he deserves. Somehow, I don't think this "conversation" is going to end well. I think the best end for this conversation is to put the whole lot behind bars. Now that's what they really deserve.