I'm sure you guys will be getting a flood of these. Todd's article was amazingly bogus. Please read this, I think i handled the problem pretty well. Below is my reply to the article: I've numbered and ""ed the quotes from his article, which probably should be italicized
Hello Todd!
1.) "Most people I know do not consider same-sex marriage to be a big issue."
Becareful of the company you keep, they maybe idiots. Moral/religious issues like gay rights were ranked above the war in Iraq among issues of importance among voters (is war more dangerous than being gay?). The nation we live in, is very much in-tune with the issue of same sex marriages. Perhaps, as a columnist, you shouldn't only consider "the people you know." I believe that's Bias! And that's a fact you can look up.
2.) "There is a higher rate of promiscuity, which has leads to a higher rate of contracting STDs for homosexual males."
I would love to see where this fact came from. Its really interesting to me. How do you define promiscuity, and who answers this question seriously: I am a.) Very promiscuous, b.) Kind of promiscuous, c.) Not promiscuous or d.) No comment.
3.) "If just about any other activity had this level of risk and just about everyone who was involved with it claimed that they had no control over their desire for this activity, then probably most would agree it is an unhealthy activity or a disorder."
How about alcoholic beverage sale, or cigarettes? These are activities with a MUCH greater risk (another fact you can check) that the Government gains from (you cannot tax being gay... yet!). The Religious Right was so much more entertaining when they fought against these activities. Now you guys are getting scary.
4.) "Because homosexuals are much more likely to have more partners throughout a lifetime, they would be more likely to divorce and would, as a result, weaken the definition of marriage. This weakening would then make it psychologically easier for heterosexual couples to divorce."
Oh Shit! You've Dropped the "D Bomb," the old stand-by for the religious right. However, in this day in age, you made the wrong move! The divorce rate in America is booming, now nearing 56%. And this isn't including those horrid, terrible, devilish-homosexuals!
5.) "One may even make the argument that some of these activities are far less harmful to individuals than homosexual activity."
Homosexuality harmful? Not if you use Lubricants! Here's a puzzler, do you think that if Darwin was alive today would make one of them silly monkey charts that show that's by being gay, men and women actually evolve to having sex with animals? I mean, I'm sure he couldn't get "science" to back that, but who cares what "science" says, right? Maybe the gay's will eat the wrong fruit from the "Weird Sex Tree!"
6.) "In the past some have done horrible things to homosexuals."
Don't forget the future, and present, McFly!
7.) "The only reason I am writing this article is because I really do believe people are harming themselves by giving into these habits when it would be better for them to be chaste."
Now this applies just to the gays, right?
8.) "By allowing same-sex marriage, the government would be publicly condoning a practice that I have already shown is harmful to the people involved and to society as a whole.
Allowing it would not be helping anyone involved."
The kick, ITS GOOD! HOW ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT ENDORSING TERROR? HOW ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT PUBLICLY ENDORSING OCCUPATION OF FOREIGN COUNTRIES, THE ONES RICH WITH OIL!? HOW ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT PUBLICLY ENDORSING WAR??
I have nothing against you as a writer, or a person. But I really wish the religious community in this country will start paying more attention to the issues that really matter, the ones that are really killing people.
Thanks for the laugh todd, the true heir to the Andrew Dice Clay Throne!
--Joe Moore
