Changing Definitions Doesn’t Change Reality
by: the Common Constitutionalist
I’ve decided to change the name of some words and thus their meaning. Anyone having a problem with it or tells me I can’t is a bigot, racist, homophobe, etc.
From now on, the word dog will be asteroid, because I’ve always wanted to walk an asteroid. Wow, that was easy. Let’s do another. I will change the word walk to can opener. Why? Because I want to. Ok, this is working so well, let’s do one more. Let’s change crap to Obama. Now let us use them in a sentence. “Son; make sure when you take the asteroid out for his can opener, you pick up his Obama. I like it.
But, you may say, the old words perfectly describe the act and objects quite well. They’ve been called dog, walk and crap for a long time. Everyone already knows and accepts them as their original names. It’s tradition. Why change them now? Because I want to and if you don’t let me I’ll sue to get the names changed.
Well, obviously that scenario is ridiculous, but is it anymore absurd than changing a tradition that is thousands of years old?
Of course I’m speaking of the term homosexual marriage. I believe the reason homosexuals wish to marry, is not for love, but due to the tax code. Now, don’t you your panties in a bunch. I’m not saying that two women or two men or six men and three women or five men and a penguin can’t love one another. I suppose they can and frankly it’s none of my or your damn business.
What I am saying is that marriage is a tradition reserved for the union of one man and one woman. That’s what God intended and far be it from me to countermand his desire. Men and women have been marrying for thousands of years and not until relatively recently has that marriage had to be sanctioned and interfered with by the almighty government.
I contend that without government meddling in every facet of people’s lives, this would not be an issue.
We all realize that government, through the tax code, have been picking winners and losers. Through tweaking the code they are able to grant favor to one group while disenfranchising another.
What do homosexuals really want? Is it really about the love or is it the benefits? Is it the hospital visitation rights, the transfer of wealth free of taxation or the many other government giveaways that benefit those who have married, have children, day care, own a home or the dozens of other tax breaks.
As if no one would have children, buy a home, or select the correct beneficiary for their estate without financial coercion of the state. Ridiculous!
It is my contention that homosexuals would have never made such a fuss over marriage if the government hadn’t stepped in long ago to promote what they felt was beneficial to society.
It’s like virtually everything else that is wrong with this country. Progressives in government meddle in private citizens’ affairs, attempt to legislate the perfect society and voila, we get the housing collapse, banking problems, gas prices, CAFE standards and on and on. And now we have homosexual marriage. To find the genesis of any problem this country has faced just look back to when our federal government initially involved itself.
Civil Unions, ok, but marriage, no. That’s one tradition that should be upheld for as long as we inhabit this earth.