Surely it's all about equality?
Surely it's simply human nature?
Surely it's...
Isn't same-sex marriage part of a 'progressive' society?
A progression towards... where? Is it really a step towards utopia?
So when Bermuda returns to traditional marriage...
Read about it here.
And here.
And here.
Firstly, no major newspaper is reporting on it. Why? Because it obviously doesn't further the LGBT agenda... can't have that, now, can we?
Secondly, those who are reporting on it are filled with comments such as:
"This is a human rights issue. We are taking away marriage equality rights from the LGBTQ community."
"I don't like to accept that it is OK to treat our sisters and brothers differently, whether fair or unfair, to treat them differently under similar circumstances."
"The fact that no country in the world has ever done this should give us pause. We will look foolish and oppressive..."
(That's one comment from each of the articles above, respectively.)
Thirdly, no one seems to be talking about why they've decided to do it. It's all about the bashing of the traditional marriage view.
Aren't we meant to be the most educated people in history? So what can't we apply reason and understanding?
- The reason "no country in the world has ever done this" is because same-sex marriage is rather new. One country has to be the first, just like UK was first to try to leave the EU. It's a non-argument.
- Is same-sex marriage really equal with heterosexual marriage? Of course not. Heterosexual couples, if all parts are working correctly, can produce offspring naturally. Homosexual couples cannot. Is a child brought up with two parents of the same sex as equally balanced as one brought up by one male and one female parent? There's clearly a difference.
Alas, no. It's just another chance to try to bash people into submission by name-calling: you're "foolish and oppressive"! So childish. That's the real 'progressiveness' of society.
UPDATE:
Now, a few days later, some of the more major news organisations are covering the story:
The Guardian
BBC
New York Times
But the question still remains... since it was such big news to allow same-sex marriage, why didn't the big corporations jump at the opportunity to report on another story on the same issue?
The answer should be obvious: the corporations are in support of same-sex marriage and don't want to give the public the impression that there might be something wrong with that ideology.
Surely it's simply human nature?
Surely it's...
Isn't same-sex marriage part of a 'progressive' society?
A progression towards... where? Is it really a step towards utopia?
So when Bermuda returns to traditional marriage...
Read about it here.
And here.
And here.
Firstly, no major newspaper is reporting on it. Why? Because it obviously doesn't further the LGBT agenda... can't have that, now, can we?
Secondly, those who are reporting on it are filled with comments such as:
"This is a human rights issue. We are taking away marriage equality rights from the LGBTQ community."
"I don't like to accept that it is OK to treat our sisters and brothers differently, whether fair or unfair, to treat them differently under similar circumstances."
"The fact that no country in the world has ever done this should give us pause. We will look foolish and oppressive..."
(That's one comment from each of the articles above, respectively.)
Thirdly, no one seems to be talking about why they've decided to do it. It's all about the bashing of the traditional marriage view.
Aren't we meant to be the most educated people in history? So what can't we apply reason and understanding?
- The reason "no country in the world has ever done this" is because same-sex marriage is rather new. One country has to be the first, just like UK was first to try to leave the EU. It's a non-argument.
- Is same-sex marriage really equal with heterosexual marriage? Of course not. Heterosexual couples, if all parts are working correctly, can produce offspring naturally. Homosexual couples cannot. Is a child brought up with two parents of the same sex as equally balanced as one brought up by one male and one female parent? There's clearly a difference.
Alas, no. It's just another chance to try to bash people into submission by name-calling: you're "foolish and oppressive"! So childish. That's the real 'progressiveness' of society.
UPDATE:
Now, a few days later, some of the more major news organisations are covering the story:
The Guardian
BBC
New York Times
But the question still remains... since it was such big news to allow same-sex marriage, why didn't the big corporations jump at the opportunity to report on another story on the same issue?
The answer should be obvious: the corporations are in support of same-sex marriage and don't want to give the public the impression that there might be something wrong with that ideology.
No comments:
Post a Comment