Not for whimps or pantywaists.
A humorous introduction that leads into some very serious points.
I seem somewhat provincial to many people and, while I try, I don’t always keep up with current events the way I should. For a long time I was unaware there was a Gay Agenda. I would actually ridicule the term when I heard or saw it being used. I was unaware that me, being a homosexual, required a specialized agenda. I knew at some point I was supposed to get a toasteroven but other than that, it was news to me. I was intrigued.
Someone once asked me ‘What do you mean by gay rights?’
After fumbling around in my book bag for a moment and then presenting my pocket Constitution I replied, ‘The ones in this.’
Later I discovered I believed in all sorts of things, which was a surprise to me. I learned that I wanted to destroy civilization as we knew it and remake it in my Gay Image, that I wanted to teach anal intercourse and lesbianism to school children, and the absolute worst, that I wanted to make everybody practice socialism. I knew I had flaws but this was pretty bad. I needed to take action.
First I renounced my evil ways and all ties to these despicable activities. My only exceptions were drink special nights at the bar. Like most Americans I was only willing to make so many sacrifices. Next, as penance, I decided I would try to formulate my own helpful suggestions concerning the fair treatment of citizens who ‘Like doing their own kind’ as we say here in Texas. Actually we have lots of colorful words and phrases for gay stuff, but more on my national dialect at another time. What I managed to come up with is something no one will agree on and will provoke disagreeable reactions to many who read it. It runs as follows:
My position - a crime against any person should be investigated and prosecuted without consideration of the demographic group or groups to which either the victim or the perpetrator belongs. The same should apply to sentencing.
More commentary - The two most important questions should be these; Was it intentional or not? ‘What did you do?’ The question ‘why did you do it’, to me, is irrelevant.
My position: I believe marriage is a religious rite not a civil right. I believe government should not generally be involved with regulating or performing weddings. The exceptions would be regulations for those deemed by law incapable of informed consent by applicable law and also registering when a marriage starts and when it ends. Judges and Justice of the Peace (Because it’s a legal contract) and Sea Captains (by ancient tradition) should be the only government officials allowed to perform weddings.
More commentary – In my view marriage is a form of legal contract limited to only two people. It is considered a binding agreement to those who practice it whether as part of a religion or as a civil arrangement. If practiced as a civil contract it is subject to government regulation. All citizens are equal before the law. Therefore I support legal same-sex civil marriages identical to traditional civil marriage. This must and can only occur simultaneously with a rock solid exemption for religious institutions that profess a conflict, for any reason, with such a marriage, with no exceptions.
My position - Sexual orientation should not be a consideration in determining fitness to serve in the military or in the accommodations necessary to serve.
More commentary - Some folks just need to grow up about showers and who’s bunking with you. You’ve been around us your whole life, even if you haven’t snapped to it yet.
I always found the restriction on homosexuals in the military to be highly illogical. How much sense does this make. “Let’s send out our best young breeders into battle first then, after they been maimed and killed, we’ll get desperate and send you!” Think about it. Plus we have much better ideas for uniform design than you do. Get real! The American ideal for ‘cannon fodder’ has always been baffling to me.
My position - Criteria for adoptions should be determined by the agency handling the adoption. Some mandated follow-up is probably desirable.
More commentary - I would like to point out, to my knowledge, private adoption has few restrictions.
Vague, yet controversial, rambling - Reproduction is a very personal matter and I am hesitant to make pronouncements in this area. I do have a very strong conviction that every person does have the right to the full knowledge of their biological parentage and of close genetically related people if such person chooses. I personally am against the use of anonymously donated genetic material for many reasons. Reproduction rights is an area best left to the individuals involved regardless of the potential tragedy that may or may not ensue.
My position- The observable fact that some people have sexual attraction to their own or both genders should be recognized without performing moral or sociological analysis or evaluation. The policy should be to tell students that there are and have been persons like this throughout human history and for more information consult a parent or legal guardian. A reminder that the same set of school guidelines and local criminal laws apply to everyone, equally would be advisable.
More commentary - If we had more home schooling, private schools, and the correct incentives to make this the voluntary norm, you could teach kids whatever you want. As far as it goes if there is a positive historical figure who had same-sex orientation, like the guy that lead the charge on the 9/11 plane over Pennsylvania or Nicola Tesla, then go ahead and mention it, otherwise just drop it. As far as the fact some people are primarily attracted their own gender being taught to students so what? It is an observable phenomenon not a political ideology. Recognizing this fact is probably not going send anyone careening into a state of uncontrollable, raging, homosexual lust. This is real life not some propaganda flick from the ‘30’s like ‘Reefer Madness’. Once again, get real.
The rest of the Gay Agenda is kind of fuzzy to me. If someone has figured it out please let me know.