subset of freaks: Harry Neuwirth

i tried to get rsls to respond to this, but she bounced the ball back to me---so here goes:

Guest Opinion
Gay marriage threatens future of mankind
HARRY NEUWIRTH
January 19, 2005
Nothing is more important to the future of civilization than man, woman and child. Nothing!
ok, but there will still be men and women and children--so far no problem
Marriage and family have been the heart of society from ancient times. Ceremony and documentation are a recent, civilizing innovation.
gay marriage would provide more ceremony and documentation, thereby providing more civilization
No doubt, most of those ancient "marriages" were cruel by modern standards, yet without them there would be no us: no shopping malls, no symphony orchestras, no Iraq, no America -- no homo sapiens.
so these cruel heterosexual marriages gave us malls and wars, but i seriously doubt that there would be no people if there never were marriages
And to those who rail about it, dysfunctional marriages do not delegitimize family.
why not?
Marriage has had many variants, many innovations, many abuses in its thousands of years of existence, yet it persists as the single assurance of a tomorrow for mankind. No one can make successful quarrel with that.
if it has withstood the many heterosexual variants, innovations and abuses, why couldn't it take just one more?
As society became more successful economically, governments became more intrusive, extorting resources from some to reward others. The institution of marriage has been a beneficiary of such rewards in modern America. Whether or not such benefits are legitimate in a free-enterprise nation is a topic outside the parameters of this discussion.
why bring up something outside your own arguement?
But the existence of such spousal benefits is at the center of a disquieting controversy in America today. The homosexual community, clamoring for social acceptance after centuries of secluded existence, has expanded its demands to include marital similitude in complete disregard of physiological reality. Their purpose is obvious: They want their share, though their relationships can never meet the definition of family.
straights wanting their share of the illgotten gains=good gays wanting theirs=bad
Gays and lesbians will refute this argument, insisting that they love their partners, that they simply want recognition of that love under law, as if law could enforce love. Realistically? Their proclaimed love can exist very nicely under the Declaration's "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" proviso. But love is not the issue here.
LOVE is not the issue in marriage, what the fuck?
Benefits awarded by government are an obvious attempt to strengthen the institution of marriage in recognition of the vital importance of children and family. Gay families, necessarily populated by adopted children, can do little more than detract from the gender balance of genuine family by removing either the masculine or feminine influence from such arrangements, consequently raising children with but half an insight into an already-complex world.
what about single parents, widowed parents? children aren't raised in a vacuum, they would still get the "influences" of the opposite sex from the community--it takes a village, remember?
Certain jurisdictions have extended an ersatz legitimacy to gay marriage. But it must be said that, having once capitulated to deviance, how could we deny the next subset of supplicants -- the woman who would like to marry her brother, or the man in love with two or more women?
at least harry didn't bring pets into it
Many persons of normal sexual appetite have aligned themselves with the gay community out of a misguided kindness. They should reconsider. Gay marriage is a perverted concept. We must say no.
to paraphrase: if you don't want to be in a gay marriage, don't marry someone with the same gender.
Harry Neuwirth of Salem is a retired mail carrier. He can be reached at (503) 585-1640.
feel free to call harry, collect, lol