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

subset of freaks: my boss

i am a nanny. i work for a 61 yo woman who adopted a girl from russia when she was 55yo. that alone is enough to qualify her as a freak. but no, there is sooo much more.

for example: yesterday(the holiday, that she wasn't working, and yet i was) 60 dollars and told me i had to take j. to wellesley to buy used ice skates. why she couldn't have done this herself over the weekend is a mystery to me. so we drive out to wellesley and have the very patient kid who worked there fit j. for skates. this isn't as easy as it sounds because she wears a brace on one leg. he finds skates that fit and says they are 90 bucks. for used kid's hockey skates(because of the brace). i don't have enough money and am very embarrassed and promise to return today.

except she doesn't want to spend 90$, and decides she can do better else where. making me a liar. did i mention i had to leave my name and number?

so this morning she calls me and says that she is bidding on a pair of skates on ebay, size 11/12. that is ducky except she wears a 13 1/2. but why would she know that? she is just the mom. anyway, i should also go to another skate store and get her fitted again, and not buy them again, causing embarrassment again.

go to store, get fitted for skates, tell the nice woman we will be back, and after all that when i call to report that j. wears a bigger shoe than she thought, she says that she would like to talk to me about this tonight before i leave because she doesn't want to pay the 52$ that these skates will cost. she shows up one minute before i have to leave, announces to me that i have one more minute, and proceeds to talk for 5 minutes about the pros and cons of buying her kid skates that fit.

jack ass.

i won't even bore you with the side trip to brighton to buy vacuum cleaner bags.

subset of people who are freaks---social workers

here i am, sittting and waiting for our social worker to arrive. so far 37 minutes late. again. the reason she is coming is to update our adoption homestudy because it has been a year since we were approved. A YEAR. now, i don't know that everyone is aware, but the state spends alot of time and money advertising the fact that many children in MA are in need of adoptive homes. many, many, many children. you might have seen the ads or heard them on the radio. the new tv ads are the worst because they actually use the children themselves to beg for familes.

everytime i hear one of these ads i feel sick to my stomach. we have had numerous children dangled in front of us only to find out they were returned to the birth family. or they just never mention them again. or they lie about exactly how disabled a certain child is.

here she is.