Absurd Gribbit is having some difficulty understanding the absurd.  He’s responding to this bill a playfull legislative challenge to the argument that if SSM should not be legal on the basis of “2 d00d’s can’t have kids” than it should be federal law that all married couples have kids. 

Gribble goes apeshit over at StoptheACLU, which at one time was actually a reasonably good site but has since turned into a screech fest courtesy of a lot of the WAR folks.  Gribble challenges the bill, by essentially proving it’s legitimacy despite the fact the bill was never legitimate at all: 

(pssst – Gribbit – it was meant to be silly)

– My opposition to gay marriage has multiple layers. The first being the procreation argument. But the heart of that is the natural argument that gay lifestyle advocates try to make. They have been on a crusade of sorts to make it seen by the public as natural and normal. If it were, how is it that it takes a male and a female to conceive a child?

– Next, my religious teaching is such that marriage is a sacrament reserved for the raising of children in the faith. So in a sense, supporting gay marriage is against my religion.

Along with that are the multiple teachings in the Bible that shows that in the eyes of GOD, homosexuality is a mortal sin.

– Next, gay rights would NOT be equal rights, they would be special rights. We are talking about extending special marriage considerations to fewer than 1% of the general population of the country. As things are, gays are equal in that they are free to marry as all others are – someone of the opposite sex. This is equal. Extending a right to marry someone of the same sex would be a special right that over 99% of the population would have no need of.

I get a kick of out of the psuedo intellectual ramblings of somebody whom admits to having some fairly severe emmotional issues to begin with.  The funny thing is, he’s basically just reiterating that marriage is between a man and a woman because god hates queers and 2 same sex people can’t have kids – it’s funny – because obviously that’s the same argument that this proposal is engineered to beat up.  Instead of actually looking at the issue, Gribble just chooses to repeat what he once heard in Church.

Additionally, there’s a typical display of the moral rights attempt at economics: 

Next, the economic impact to the nation would be such as to put our economy in danger of a recession should employers be forced to extend benefit packages to those who live these lifestyles.

On this argument there are a couple of “outs” for employers. The first being closing up shop and moving off shore to avoid these added “mandated” expenses. The second being no longer covering dependents with health benefits. Only covering the employee would eliminate health care coverage for millions of children. Who would cover them?

We all know how that usually works out

dan l

dan l


Leave a reply