| In light of the recent political jerk-wad-ness of Christian fundamentalist groups, I felt a strong desire to write yet another letter ranting at them, as well as some contact information, so we can all join together in sharing the hate-mail with these people. To read the article that caused the following anger, click here. |
| Wow, I read your article in hopes of finding out why it is you're making such a big deal about two people making a commitment to each other, and the only conclusion I can come up with is that you're an arrogant, bigoted, backwards, inconsiderate ignoramus. And an asshole. |
| As I was reading your "article," I was angry with you. I got to the part where you started in on a homosexual couples right to adopt a child, and I was down-right furious. How in the HELL is it better for a child to bounce from house to house (many of which contain abusive guardians) as is the case in foster care, than for that child to have stability that two people who care about them can provide??? I don't think even you can pretend that it's better, seeing as child psychologists, you know, the ones who actually know what they're talking about, will tell you that a stable situation is better than an unstable one. Not to mention that they say that there is no difference (other than possibly tolerance) in a child raised by heterosexual parents, and a child raised by homosexual parents. In my opinion, I think that the only reason that a homosexual is denied adoption rights in some states is because the "leaders" in those states have forgotten that their religious and moral beliefs have no place oppressing people through the government. |
| Now, as far as the analogy between interracial marriage and homosexual marriage, why is it that that's invalid. The ignorant people of those days were convinced that "God" didn't condone it. And then, they went on with an argument similar to your own ignorant one, that the children of these relationships would be genetically inferior than those of couples of the same race. Still not valid? If you look at it with honesty, rather than bigotry, I think you'll see that it is perfectly valid. |
| As for the part about sex being confined to marriage, I think you'll find if you study ancient cultures, marriage wasn't about just the sex. It was about something more, something we can't even touch anymore. |
| I think you'll also find that a lot of abusive relationships occur with people who do not watch pornography, but instead are rather charming, and even-gasp-Christian. |
| As far as a homosexual person's "functional" heterosexual marriage, what planet are you from? How can you define a lifestyle that makes someone completely unhappy "functional?" And people don't leave heterosexual marriages for homosexual ones simply because they will be permitted to marry. They leave because they WERE born homosexual, and because of assholes like you, they had to hide it most of their lives. |
| If you were to actually ask a member of the american public what a marriage is, they wouldn't be confused if you added homosexuals to the mix. Because the way most people view marriage is as a commited relationship between two people who are in love. |
| And now I've reached your adoption rant again, and I am overcome with the desire to slit your throat, but I have more self-control and compassion, so I understand that you are just a miserable asshole who is so unhappy in his own life he has to try to make the lives of others equally intolerable. Do us all a favor and just kill yourself. |
| And here's another issue that makes me see red all over again. Yes, social security was started in the 1950s (where you seem to still be in terms of intelligence), but interracial couples wouldn't have been allowed to receive the social security benefits of the partner's death, and, as you said, theirs is a "traditional" union. Hmmmm. I think you're starting to contradict yourself. And homosexuals shouldn't be denied social security benefits simply because they fail to adhere to your 1950s bullshit gender roles. Wake up and realize what fucking decade you're in. |
| Have you done any research whatsoever on the "primitive" cultures that you so easily put down? I feel you have a primitive mind, does that mean that your beliefs mean any less to you? I don't think so. The idea that single people would find marriage benefits discriminatory is simply retarded. Single people aren't married. They will, presumably, become married if presented with the chance, but for this argument, they are chosing to be unmarried. A homosexual couple, on the other hand, TRYING to get married has grounds to feel discriminated against if they are denied the benefits of a marriage. People in heterosexual relationships are no happier than anyone else. Period. And children of homosexual relationships are no less happy than anyone else. Period. How is AIDS evidence of a burden that homosexuals place on a society. That is, by far, the dumbest thing I think you've said. |
| As far as your "statistics" on abused women, have you ever been an abused woman? Didn't think so. You don't know shit about them, so don't pretend that you do. And whatever study you got your bullshit facts from, keep in mind that married women are less likely to report that abuse. And yuppie kids in the suburbs raised by TWO parents are just as likely to do drugs as any other group. I went to a highschool in one such suburb and ours was one of the biggest drug schools in the country. For you to say that commitments are uncommon among homosexual people shows just how little you really know about the subject. They are just as likely to commit as a heterosexual couple, and considering that they've had to work against assholes like you to get their right to commit, they're probably going to stick with it a little longer. |
| And you're telling me that lesbians smoke and drink more than other women. HA! You should meet half of the straight women in my life. They smoke. And they drink. To excess. Wanna hear the crazy part? None of the lesbians do. Homosexuals who live in areas that accept their lifestyle have still lived their ENTIRE lives being told that their lifestyle is wrong, that it's a sin. And not all gay people kill themselves. Have you taken a look at the heterosexual suicide rate? Pretty high. OH MY GOD. You didn't just say that homosexuals abuse children more than straight men, did you? You are the most arrogant bastard I've ever heard of. "Despite a common myth, homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are." -The American Psychological Association. Understanding Child Sexual Abuse: Education, Prevention, and Recovery. American Psychological Association Web Site. October, 1999. |
| In truth, it seems that sexual predators show no boundaries in relation to their adult sexual preferences. Just because the acts are a male adult acting on a male child does not make the male homosexual. Many of these men gain access to the boys by forming a sexual relationship with their mother. It seems that the ability to pee while standing is the real risk factor for this crime. "Children of lesbians are less likely to conform to traditional gender norms." Thank God. Because to you, gender norms seem to mean that the woman must be submissive to the man, simply because she is lacking a penis. I am the child of a heterosexual couple and refuse to accept that this that "traditional gender norms" are the way life is meant to be lived. |
| "Children of lesbians are more likely to engage in homosexual behavior." This has been proven time and time again to be completely and utterly false. If you did any research you would know that. "Daughters of lesbians are "more sexually adventurous and less chaste." Ha. I have two cousins who are the biggest sluts you could imagine, they were raised in a Christian home by two loving heterosexual parents. The daughter of a lesbian couple, on the other hand, has vowed to retain her virginity until marriage--to a man. Grow a brain and stop trying to make this lifestyle seem detrimental when it isn't. |
   |