Agen-duh? My Ass
"Nothing is more threatening to the foundation of our country than the radical homosexual agenda and its assault on marriage and the family," said Sadie Fields, president of the Georgia Christian Coalition. (quote from Village Voice)
Oh, really? Let's go out on a limb and assume that the Constitution is the foundation of our country. Which part should we test to see how much it's at risk thanks to the perfidious radical homosexual agenda? (I'm guessing that Fields uses "radical" for emphasis, and not to distinguish 2 separate homosexual agendas, like a Lieberman-wing versus a Boxer-wing of Democrats, say.)
Here's the Preamble, if you don't still recall it from when they made you memorize it in fifth grade:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
OK, so Fields might have us on that "people of the United States" phrase, given our Founding Fathers thought some of us were 60% people and all of us were men (at least for voting). Let's risk she might agree people=homo sapiens, if that doesn't give her probably anti-Darwinist brain the willies.
"A more perfect union." Hmm, that's about striving for improvement, and anyone can do that, supposed sinners even moreso. Seems we're OK here. As long as her mind doesn't immediately run to sexual union, and my money is that it's butt-sex that has most Christians freaked-out about gays, anyway. After all, in Georgia you're only supposed to do that to barnyard animals or Ned Beatty.
"Establish justice." Homosexuals seems pretty just to me, even if some can be horribly cutting about breeders' fashion sense.
"Insure domestic tranquility." Fields might be onto something here. After all, it's the very existence of homosexuals that lead non-homosexuals to beat them up. But I'm going to say that gay-bashers might decide to beat up someone else if homosexuals weren't around.
"Promote the general welfare." Oh-so liberal Bill Clinton was the one who "changed welfare as we know it." Bill Clinton is not gay. Therefore all gays promote welfare.
"Secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves...." And who cares more for the liberty to just be left alone than gay people?
"...and our posterity." Unless Fields really assumes gays want everyone to be gay (and then how special would that be?), and thereby merely play with posteriors so there can be no posterity, she doesn't have a leg to stand on here.
"Ordain." Where better than the Catholic priesthood to shelter homosexuals? C'mon, Sadie. (Of course, as a leader of the Georgia Christian Coalition, she probably rates Catholics somewhere between library-users and homosexuals.)
So, add it all up, even without running through the Bill of Rights (yes, there are more than that second one), it seems that homosexuals are very little threat to the Constitution, the foundation of our country. The defense rests its posterity.
Oh, really? Let's go out on a limb and assume that the Constitution is the foundation of our country. Which part should we test to see how much it's at risk thanks to the perfidious radical homosexual agenda? (I'm guessing that Fields uses "radical" for emphasis, and not to distinguish 2 separate homosexual agendas, like a Lieberman-wing versus a Boxer-wing of Democrats, say.)
Here's the Preamble, if you don't still recall it from when they made you memorize it in fifth grade:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
OK, so Fields might have us on that "people of the United States" phrase, given our Founding Fathers thought some of us were 60% people and all of us were men (at least for voting). Let's risk she might agree people=homo sapiens, if that doesn't give her probably anti-Darwinist brain the willies.
"A more perfect union." Hmm, that's about striving for improvement, and anyone can do that, supposed sinners even moreso. Seems we're OK here. As long as her mind doesn't immediately run to sexual union, and my money is that it's butt-sex that has most Christians freaked-out about gays, anyway. After all, in Georgia you're only supposed to do that to barnyard animals or Ned Beatty.
"Establish justice." Homosexuals seems pretty just to me, even if some can be horribly cutting about breeders' fashion sense.
"Insure domestic tranquility." Fields might be onto something here. After all, it's the very existence of homosexuals that lead non-homosexuals to beat them up. But I'm going to say that gay-bashers might decide to beat up someone else if homosexuals weren't around.
"Promote the general welfare." Oh-so liberal Bill Clinton was the one who "changed welfare as we know it." Bill Clinton is not gay. Therefore all gays promote welfare.
"Secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves...." And who cares more for the liberty to just be left alone than gay people?
"...and our posterity." Unless Fields really assumes gays want everyone to be gay (and then how special would that be?), and thereby merely play with posteriors so there can be no posterity, she doesn't have a leg to stand on here.
"Ordain." Where better than the Catholic priesthood to shelter homosexuals? C'mon, Sadie. (Of course, as a leader of the Georgia Christian Coalition, she probably rates Catholics somewhere between library-users and homosexuals.)
So, add it all up, even without running through the Bill of Rights (yes, there are more than that second one), it seems that homosexuals are very little threat to the Constitution, the foundation of our country. The defense rests its posterity.
posted by George at 11:55 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home