Young Conservatives Lecture Us On Gay Marriage and Stuff
There were some great comments to the "Real Victims" item from a couple of days ago (the one discussing the column TownHall column where Doug Giles wrote, "Christians know what Jews go through regarding persecution," and noted how Hollywood, the media and educational "elites", and the secular left all "trash" Christians whenever said martyrs "pray over their lunch at the Olive Garden." Anyway, I suggest you read all of the comments, some funny, some serious.
The one by glenstonecottage particularly tickled my funny bone because I'd just read the item being parodied a couple of days before at the domain of Young Conservatives; somebody had emailed it to the editor, and he wanted to share it with us all.
You might have already read it; it's been around since April of last year. It's the story about the military wife who tells off the women in the next booth (they are badmouthing President Bush, opining we'll never find any WMDs, and dissing the "professional baby killers we call a military"). You can also read it at Snopes. Since the horrible women in the next booth use rhetoric similar to that employed by the hippies in the 70's version of Jack Webb's Dragnet, it's no wonder that people wondered if the piece, which now appears all over the internet, was genuine. Snopes indicates that the item originally appeared at the Washington Dispatch, and the author is Lori Kimble, a real person, but one who never responded to questions about the piece. The Washington Dispatch removed the article from their archives because "questions have arisen regarding its validity. The author has been contacted on numerous occasions but has refused to provide any material that could resolve the issue." So, I think it's pretty safe to say that Lori really didn't get that free dessert, so you shouldn't go around eavesdropping on private conversations, and then publicly berating people for holding unpopular views in the hopes of being the hero of the Hamburger Hut.
I'd write and tell the Young Conservatives about having been taken in by probable fabricator, but since young Judson Cox's article about the cool dating online dating site he just discovered appears in this week's issue, I don't know if they could cope with learning that nobody is to be trusted.
And speaking of the Young Conservatives, one by the name of Amy Gordon made her first contribution to the site in this week's issue. Since she's probably the most annoying young conservative since Meghan Cox Gordon . . . um, Gurdon, I decided to mock her now, in the hopes she never pundits again.
Amy is going to make it clear, even to idiots like us, exactly why conservatives are against gay marriage (hint: because it's WRONG):
It's about what AMY thinks is right and wrong.
Geez, and I thought what Amy was going to whisper in our ear was what the man and woman do to make the child. What a rip-off!
Anyway, assuming that Amy is right when she says, "A child should be raised by a father and a mother," then instead of worrying about gay marriage, she should be telling us that divorce is WRONG, and advocating that it be made illegal. And doing something about all the single mothers -- I don't know quite what. Maybe they could each be assigned a mandatory husband -- if there weren't enough good fathers to go around, perhaps polygamy might be the answer. After all, a shared father for those kids is better than none, right?
Just two men, together? Hmm, with the advent of human cloning, I'll guess 666,666 (because about then, the ice age comes and the clones can't adapt, and they get conquered by the pandas, like Judson taught us a couple of months ago).
Well, that was my second choice.
Well, bad for OUR species, but the pandas might consider it a good thing.
Ready! Um, mountain apes, penguins, dogs, guinea pigs, orangutans, whales, warthogs, fruit bats, chaffinches, flamingos, geese, and more. So I'll guess, oh, 50?
You mean, our definition of marriage is based on the fact that animals have sex? That doesn't seem like anything worth bragging about.
I give up -- why couldn't it be? I mean, what about all those single mothers and the lack of suitable husbands for them?
And what if that cocker spaniel is one of those gay animals? Could it get anymore depraved?
Well, I guess it can. Especially if one of those guys is a CORPSE!
Does this "only-attracted-to-dogs-and-the-three-neighbors" sexual orientation have a name yet? If not, I'm going to propose "CockerFoursomeSexuals"
Okay, now I'm starting to get confused. Because if, as Amy told us earlier, the purpose of marriage is procreative sex, why can't the woman marry the three guys next store? She would probably have more sex this way, thus resulting in more children (because having sex for just for pleasure is wrong, so she wouldn't be using birth control); and, given the divorce rate, it gives her children a better chance at being raised by a mother and at least one father.
And since when have we used the "matching sex organs" theory to formulate our tax codes? That would make it really creepy for parents to claim their children as deductions.
Yeah, they have an unerringly tendency to believe in god, but said god has an unerring tendency to be mammon.
We didn't discuss Genesis in my health class, so I'm going to ask Amy to clarify this for me.
Oh, okay. Now I get it!
But Armstrong Williams told us that gay sex was "insipid," so how pleasurable could it be?
Well, they accept that you believe that same sex marriages are WRONG because that's what you learned in Bible class, but they don't see why your religious beliefs should determine the laws of this country.
We get it -- you think same sex marriage is WRONG. So, here's the deal: if such marriage becomes legal, nobody will make you join in. Happy now?
The World O' Crap Archive
Welcome to the Collected World O' Crap, a comprehensive library of posts from the original Salon Blog, and our successor site, world-o-crap.com (2006 to 2010).
Current posts can be found here.