"As autism increases, block gay marriage"
Jun. 23rd, 2005 03:57 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
conuly
I'm not kidding, that's an actual headline.
Clicky!
Editor, the Advocate:
I read recently that autism in children has risen dramatically. According to the June issue of the Life and Family Advocates of Victoria newsletter, less than 20 years ago cases reported were one in 10,000. Now it is one in 166 children. It seems that mercury found in vaccines that are mandated under the government's vaccine program are causing the problem. One of my own grandchildren has been so diagnosed.
I'm not going to get into this old argument again. Oh, I could, but I'd rather get to the gay marriage part.
I am not writing this on the subject of autism but to point out how many times I have observed something that was to be a boon when it came out years ago has now been problem to be defective or even deadly.
Here it comes....
Our socialist government has intruded into many areas of our private lives, always in the interest of improving our existence, but many of those liberal ideas have had unforeseen consequences.
Wait, wait, wait. Preventing two people who love each other from getting married is intruding on "our private lives", but allowing them to get married isn't? Does anybody else have a headache right about now?
Liberalism, after all, tends to try out many new, unproven things, while conservatism tends to stick to proven, workable methods.
Liberalism, after all, tends to move away from systems that don't work, while conservatism tends to stick to old methods out of fear and apathy.
My reason for this letter is to wake up our people to the dreadful experiment that is now being hyped by the liberals and the gay community toward homosexual marriage. This is a social experiment that must be stopped at all costs. Huge numbers of thoughtful people see a disaster looming.
I don't. Really. No disaster whatsoever.
We are not against gay people, but the lifestyle must not be legitimized. Homosexual marriage would not be a marriage of real commitment. Partners would try to adopt children, putting those children at risk; furthermore, if the "marriage" dissolved, what would happen to the children?
*%^(*#$&~@!!!!!
Excuse me? Who the fuck are you to talk about "real commitment"? And how is adopting a child who needs a home putting that child at risk? As for if the "marriage" dissolved, guess what, sweetie? Marriages dissolve all the fucking time. The the children survive. (Well, except when the marriage dissolves because of murder, but that's a rare case, thankfully.) Fucking idiot.
Baby "manufacturing" clinics would thrive with a donor female egg being fertilized by one of the partners. Go figure how this would affect the relationship of the two men. With a newfound sense of legitimacy for the homosexuals, schools and media would be awash with propaganda promoting that lifestyle. Actually, some schools are already promoting it. There is more, but space does not permit.
Yeah. They already thrive. Because there's a market for them from both gay and straight couples. You moron! How would this affect the relationship of two men (or women, you little twit)? Well, it would make them parents. I don't know. How did it affect your relationship with your sweet hot mama of love when you got her knocked up (at least, I assume it was you)? Propaganda promoting "that lifestyle"? Perhaps. But it's sure as hell a lot better than propaganda promoting intolerance and hatred.
America has fought wars and survived, but this cultural war is one we may not survive. The family as we know it hangs in the balance.
No, it really doesn't.
I ask that concerned citizens voice their opinions to Congress and the president, but above all, please become informed. This is not a decision to be taken lightly. The White House opinion line is 202-456-1111
Can we inform you, you insane little homophobic cretin? I notice you didn't post your own phone number (well, I wouldn't want you to, but that's really beside the point here, I'm in a rant).
Clicky!
Editor, the Advocate:
I read recently that autism in children has risen dramatically. According to the June issue of the Life and Family Advocates of Victoria newsletter, less than 20 years ago cases reported were one in 10,000. Now it is one in 166 children. It seems that mercury found in vaccines that are mandated under the government's vaccine program are causing the problem. One of my own grandchildren has been so diagnosed.
I'm not going to get into this old argument again. Oh, I could, but I'd rather get to the gay marriage part.
I am not writing this on the subject of autism but to point out how many times I have observed something that was to be a boon when it came out years ago has now been problem to be defective or even deadly.
Here it comes....
Our socialist government has intruded into many areas of our private lives, always in the interest of improving our existence, but many of those liberal ideas have had unforeseen consequences.
Wait, wait, wait. Preventing two people who love each other from getting married is intruding on "our private lives", but allowing them to get married isn't? Does anybody else have a headache right about now?
Liberalism, after all, tends to try out many new, unproven things, while conservatism tends to stick to proven, workable methods.
Liberalism, after all, tends to move away from systems that don't work, while conservatism tends to stick to old methods out of fear and apathy.
My reason for this letter is to wake up our people to the dreadful experiment that is now being hyped by the liberals and the gay community toward homosexual marriage. This is a social experiment that must be stopped at all costs. Huge numbers of thoughtful people see a disaster looming.
I don't. Really. No disaster whatsoever.
We are not against gay people, but the lifestyle must not be legitimized. Homosexual marriage would not be a marriage of real commitment. Partners would try to adopt children, putting those children at risk; furthermore, if the "marriage" dissolved, what would happen to the children?
*%^(*#$&~@!!!!!
Excuse me? Who the fuck are you to talk about "real commitment"? And how is adopting a child who needs a home putting that child at risk? As for if the "marriage" dissolved, guess what, sweetie? Marriages dissolve all the fucking time. The the children survive. (Well, except when the marriage dissolves because of murder, but that's a rare case, thankfully.) Fucking idiot.
Baby "manufacturing" clinics would thrive with a donor female egg being fertilized by one of the partners. Go figure how this would affect the relationship of the two men. With a newfound sense of legitimacy for the homosexuals, schools and media would be awash with propaganda promoting that lifestyle. Actually, some schools are already promoting it. There is more, but space does not permit.
Yeah. They already thrive. Because there's a market for them from both gay and straight couples. You moron! How would this affect the relationship of two men (or women, you little twit)? Well, it would make them parents. I don't know. How did it affect your relationship with your sweet hot mama of love when you got her knocked up (at least, I assume it was you)? Propaganda promoting "that lifestyle"? Perhaps. But it's sure as hell a lot better than propaganda promoting intolerance and hatred.
America has fought wars and survived, but this cultural war is one we may not survive. The family as we know it hangs in the balance.
No, it really doesn't.
I ask that concerned citizens voice their opinions to Congress and the president, but above all, please become informed. This is not a decision to be taken lightly. The White House opinion line is 202-456-1111
Can we inform you, you insane little homophobic cretin? I notice you didn't post your own phone number (well, I wouldn't want you to, but that's really beside the point here, I'm in a rant).
no subject
Date: 2005-06-23 07:40 pm (UTC)I think that there is a genuine danger that the USA may become too hard-line, insular and iliberal that it could slump an awful long way in the next 30-50 years or so.