Recognizing When an Adult has the Mind of a Child on an Issue

You know you're pretending to be an adult on a issue when you merely mimick the tones that adults might make on the issue- your tones will be hollow, and contain the twisted views that an errant or fashion-chasing child would have, the type of views that, with a little thought, would be thoroughly chastised or thrashed in the hands of any competent adult.

Even though you're an adult in most other ways, and equal to any other adult, curiously, on certain subjects, you base your fervent positions on The Encyclopedia of Mindless Clichés or The Everyman's List of Misguided Perversions. In any case, another adult will have to do all the heavy mental lifting encountering you, needing to painstakingly research and think through every minute detail for each newly presented misguided or perverted view, and such new view are endless. Let me change ‘have to' to ‘have the opportunity to', for a real adult would shoulder such heavy mental lifting, given the time.

There is the rub. Time. I feel sorry for the unequipped who must deal with such encounters. Things get ugly real fast. Just visit any forum. The easiest case to counter is that which argues the exception as the rule, but most people don't have the time to equip themselves to even deal with that. How to equip yourself? There is no substitute for thinking things through on your own, but that takes sacrifice and time.

You know that you are a child on a subject when you form your views with a mind towards fashion-chasing or attention-seeking. To argue purely on the merits of the case will be fruitless with you if one does not take into account the current fashions and attention-seeking motivations behind the position.

When dealing with an adult being a child on a certain issue, don't let exasperation get you down- you'll have medium to long-term effects if your arguments are sound. You know you've won when they start getting rediculous, or get off subject and begin to attack you personally, realizing that they've already lost the original case on its merits alone.

Here is an example, an adult response to a childish piece floating around the Internet, a seemingly intelligent piece on the surface, and I emphasize surface- for children are more concerned with image than substance- here the adult-child employs sarcasm to gloss the surface over with seeming intelligence:

Top 12 Reasons Why Homosexuals Shouldn't Be Allowed to Marry (really 12 sarcastic (and childish) reasons arguing for gay marriage):

12 Adult Responses (Rebuttals) by Me:

PreNote: Let me be the first on earth to rebut these statements in their entirety by thinking it through for myself. I'd found a scattering of responses to a reason or two on the Internet, but not a response to all the reasons presented as a whole, and no responses with much substance other then blunt reactions.

1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like left handedness.

Rebuttal: This sarcastic remark, which is attempting to group sexual perverts with left-handers, is most unfair to left-handers. An apology is owed to left-handers right now. For example, when was the last time a deadly incurable disease like AIDS ran rampant through the ranks of left-handers, just because they engage in left-handed activities, like it does gays, just because they engage in gay sex? Is left-handedness a perverse faddish counter-culture lifestyle like the current wave of homosexuality is for 999 out of every 1000 self-diagnosed "gays" (and a higher percentage for the young)? No.

On a civilization level, when was the last time the first signs of a civilization crumbling from within was that of left-handers running rampant, like it has been with gays? The fact is, even today, that wherever homosexuality is running rampant, those people and civilizations are in decadence and decline in morals and in numbers. Many current European countries are a prime example of this- where the indigenous people are dying out due to a self-destructive liberal-elite-wannabe-mentality that eschews wealth and reproduction, though most of the wannabe victims do not have millions of dollars to fall back on when reality strikes, like their liberal elite gods do.

2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can't legally get married because the world needs more children.

Rebuttal: Similar to 1 above, and the response is similar, with an important elaboration or two: This sarcastic remark attempts to group sexual perverts with infertile couples and the elderly, and it an insult to infertile couples and the elderly, for the same reasons as it was unfair to left-handers: When was the last time a deadly incurable disease like AIDS ran rampant through the ranks of infertile couples and the elderly just because they were infertile couples or elderly? Also, infertile couples and the elderly are not a perverse faddish counter-culture lifestyle like the current wave of homosexuality is for the overwhelming majority of its practitioners.

Also, when was the last time the first signs of a civilization falling was that of infertile couples or the elderly running rampant? The fact is, even today, that wherever homosexuality is running rampant, those societies are in decline. Many current European countries are a prime example of that, where the original people are dying out (and due to a self-destructive liberal-elite-wannabe-mentality infused in most people today by God-wannabe liberal elites).

Important Second Elaboration: as for the 'more children' issue- the sarcastic statement implies that there are already too many children, therefore gay marriages that produce no children are OK. That there are too many children is true for the poor and third-world countries, but the opposite is true for the Western world's liberal-elite-wannabe middle classes who are self-destructing on liberal-elite notions- in this case they are the only class in the free world who are practicing birth control, and their numbers are dwindling compared to the throngs of poor procreating mindlessly in third-world countries and flooding their own and the Western world with unmanageable babies.

3. Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

Rebuttal: Lets first address the issue of giving a gay couple a child to raise. Giving a child to a temporary, small, perverted counter-culture fad like gay marriage is not in the best interest of any child. Further, the child has no say in this counter-culture and counter-nature choice. It is especially unwise in an intolerant, conservative world (especially outside of the now-decadent Western world). Gays are still beheaded in the Muslim world, for example. That, though trivial to the insulated gays in the Western world hiding behind the military shield of conservatism (which they deplore yet owe their twisted existences to) is still something to consider for the future of any child.

4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if Gay marriage is allowed, since Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.

Rebuttal: Britney Spears' 55 hours of fun was a liberal-induced perversion of marriage, just as 'gay marriage' is. To argue that Ms. Spears actions were in any way normal or conservative is childish (and for some self-delusional). As for less meaningful- that is particularly true. Think about the human psyche- the psyche of the homosexual has been destroyed, and is already inclined toward human extinction. To put normal people in with the ranks of such sick minds would weigh adversely upon their own psyches.

5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are property, blacks can't marry whites, and divorce is illegal.

Rebuttal: "Been around a long time and hasn't changed at all"- Yes, ironically that is a fall-back argument for the exasperated when arguing against gay marriage, a weak "just because" argument that does not hold any weight, especially when trying to enlighten people who don't have a clue as to why 'gay marriage' is wrong. "Women are property"? How does that tie in with gay marriage? What's to prevent one gay from owning another? "Blacks can't marry whites"? Not true, and again how does that tie in to the gay marriage issue? "Divorce is illegal"? That is not only false, but an oxymoron- divorce is a legal term, and again, how does that tie in to the gay marriage issue? These sarcastic statement seems off-topic.

Now even among gay marriages you will have perversions (yes, even among the perverse!)- where one gay is the property of another, where certain gays will be forbidden to marry certain other gays- in other words, a gay society will suck in every aspect, and in all the same ways, that a normal society would, so gays cannot sit there on their 'holy-than-thou' pedestals. It becomes a choice between an evil gay society or an evil straight society. With that choice, a straight society has a better chance of prolonging the human race, purely from a reproduction standpoint.

Now let's get into science-fiction to take this further- you could argue that gays would artificially reproduce, but that is not likely- their psyches are already damaged and inclined toward extinction. Now who's to say that all the trials of a heterosexual relationship are not designed to help us survive in the universe at large? You could argue the same thing for gays, but nature, most recently with AIDS, and maybe countless times throughout history and prior, has been trying to tell us otherwise, but history is doomed to be repeated.

6. Gay marriage should be decided by people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities.

Rebuttal: This sarcastic statement makes the claim that the courts represent the people rather than the legislature, and that gay marriage is not being allowed to be decided by the people (via judges), when in fact in the last US midterm elections gay marriage was defeated BY THE PEOPLE in seven of eight states where it was put up as a proposition by small gay activists groups that do not represent the will of the of the people. I will elaborate more when I get to a similar statement in the group of 16 below.

7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

Rebuttal: First, we don't have a theocracy, only a child would make that claim. "Only one religion in America"? Again, only a child would make that claim. So what is the sarcastic reasoning of this statement? It is that if America is not a one-religion theocracy then gay marriage should be OK. The fallacy is that they are unrelated. That is equivalent to saying that if America is not a one-religion theocracy the we can murder our children.

8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

Rebuttal: Comparing social forces with physiology is not a valid argument. Socially we can be easily influenced and changed, physiologically it is much more difficult and expensive; and who's to say that the social pressures of hanging around tall people won't spur a short person to go and get body-lengthening surgery or wear high-heels? (which it already does, to further refute the sarcastic statement).

9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

Rebuttal: First point- I agree with. Second point- I agree with. Third point- a dog signing a contract- that can be worked around, just like the legalities against gay marriage- since it is a pet, it simply doesn't have to sign a contract. We can get an activist judge to illegally make that law. Further, women in other countries do not have the right of consent, a contract, or anything else, including voting, so why should your dog have those rights? Further, since most people are gay for the daring adventure and attention-getting, or simple psychosis, the same will be the basis for human-pet marriages.

10. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

Rebuttal: Once again the sarcastic argument is that of a child's. It is common knowledge (among adults) that most kids from broken homes do terrible in society, or have a hell of a time integrating, and an even worse time integrating among the successful who've had head starts (like a successful family environment). It is also common knowledge (among adults) that married couples who stay together grow richer. Staying together is unlikely for the majority of fake homos who will tire of the cheap thrill. It is also common knowledge (among adults) that single parents are not forbidden to raise children, but their kids do far worse than those from functioning heterosexual families.

These points, however, are not common knowledge among uninformed children (or adult-aged people with the perpetual minds of children). The sarcastic edge here implies that since single parents can raise children, then gays can raise children. Again, a false comparison, as in apples and oranges. Being a single parent is not a passing sick fad like being gay is for 999 out of 1000 people (and higher for young people), where the one is a clinically-certifiable hopeless homosexual, and not some self-proclaimed fad-seeking boob.

11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to things like cars or longer lifespans.

Rebuttal: Gay marriage will make life hell for the extreme minority involved in it, and they will then wish that hell upon everyone else out of spite. That is basic human nature. To call gay marriage a "social norm" is an oxymoron- for if it were the norm it would be the norm of the last generation of humanity due to a lack of reproduction. You could then argue "artificial reproduction" by gays, but this is unlikely, for the gay psyche has been damaged and is inclined toward human extinction, not preservation.

Also, if homosexuality were the social norm, there would be, as with any social norm, a rebellion against it! Good idea for a novel, a heterosexual rebellion within a homosexual society... and who's to say which is better for human survival- this conflict has the tones of a nature vs. reason conflict within it... so far nature, with AIDS, has told us homosexuality is bad. To say we can adapt to homosexuality is to say we can adapt to an extinction mentality, so in a logical frame the word 'adapt' cannot be used here. Owing the the extinction aspect of a homosexual's psyche, it is not my choice for raising children. Also homosexuality, cars, and longer lifespans are not related. Lastly we must use wisdom when deciding what to adapt to. To adapt means choice; the acceptance of homosexuality is being forced upon us.

12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages for gays and lesbians will.

Rebuttal: Another invalid argument which tries to equate apples with oranges, in this case the sociological with the physiological, and social perverts with a race. 'Being' black did not spread AIDS. 'Being' gay did. 'Being' black is not a fad. 'Being' gay is a fad for most participants, especially the young. Now for 'separate but equal'- this is where the argument is trying to equate the sociological with physiology, and is not a valid comparison, just as argument #8. Separation based on social choice is perfectly OK, and is not being argued anywhere, for it is not the same as separation on physiological features that one cannot change and did not choose. Further, sociological choices, like being gay for 999 out of 1000 gays (higher for minors) are easily changed within one's lifetime, while fundamental physiological features are not so easily changed, if not impossible. One cannot base significant social institutions on passing, unhealthy (to the point of deadliness), and just plain dangerous fads, which the current wave of homosexuality is for 99.9% of its participants, higher for the young.

Sixteen More Sarcastic (therefore appearing intelligent on the surface) Reasons Why Gay Marriage Should Be Banned (the sarcasm thereby seemingly adding weight the the childish arguments for gay marriage):

Sixteen More Adult Responses (Rebuttals) by Me:

16. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society, we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

Rebuttal: This is similar to #11 in the 12 points above, an is still an invalid argument, in this case attempting to equate social perversion with mechanical technology, the economy, and physiology. At the very least the last three have not run rampant with AIDS. Further, since only a tiny fraction of people engage in homosexuality (a figure so small as to be totally out of proportion with the clout of their political action groups and media coverage, by the way) that it will not affect the foundation of society, which will remain healthy in spite of the recent wave of fringe perverts and the young who think its cool.

15. There are plenty of straight families looking to adopt, and every unwanted child already has a loving family. This is why foster care does not exist.

Rebuttal: I did lightly hold this argument in favor of gay couples- adopting orphans. Now let me scrutinize this- shall we send children into a relationship that is for most of its practitioners a passing counter-culture fad at best, or a product of mental psychosis caused by overcrowding or a physical disorder at worse? I think not. Unfit heterosexual couples cannot adopt, therefore 999 out of 1000 self-proclaimed temporary gay-fakers should not adopt either.

14. Conservatives know best how to create strong families. That is why it is not true that Texas and Mississippi have the highest teen birthrates, and Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Hampshire have the lowest. This is a myth spread by the liberal media.

Rebuttal: First, anybody can play with numbers. Notice that the argument only mentions birthrates. Now to play with counter-numbers: 50% or more of teen pregnancies in the blue states of Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and D.C. ended in abortion, not births, hence the low birthrates. Several red states had lower abortion rates than the mentioned New Englanders. Mississippi has one of the lowest birth rates for Hispanic teens. Among black teens five blue states headed the list in teen pregnancies. So this sarcastic statement is not an argument, but a deception. A numbers game. This does not even mention what is more deplorable, a birth or an abortion.

This statement would also be a good example of the bad science that is running rampant today. Obviously there are other factors involved than just conservativism/liberalism, but bad scientists will not test for, admit to, or reveal all possible causes/effects if they are funded by a certain group or other, political as well as business, and furthermore, the current crop of 'scientists' are taught to make a hypothesis, and let someone else disprove them, much like bad journalism today. They all want to be a Niels Bohr and make a great hypothetical leap that turns out to be an adequate model (in his case molecular theory), but instead they end up drawing inaccurate and ridiculous conclusions just as this sarcastic statement does, that are disproved in the next day's headlines.

About the liberal media spreading myths, this is being too easy on them. They are, while under the guise of unbiased news sources, presently engaged in nothing less than mass-brainwashing- just count the tidal-wave of articles and headlines in recent years, perhaps decades, that have favored, consistently made the case for, and have apologized for one major political party and ideology over another, and your will be horrified. At least conservative talk show hosts say they are conservative right up front, and do not pretend to be anything else, as the liberal media does in pretending to be unbiased when they are actually currently engaged in nothing less than mass brainwashing.

13. Marriage is a religious institution, defined by churches. This is why atheists do not marry.

Rebuttal: I don't get this one- how is this sarcastically against gay marriage? This is more about religion-bashing. I guess it is that since atheists marry legally and without religion, so should gays, and that marriage is a legal institution and not a religious one. Atheist are not gays, first of all. Athiest marriages are not recognized by any religion except their own (yes, atheism is a religion because it acts like one- with repression and such), and since it is the legal and not religious aspects of marriage that gays want, which they can get without being married, this is simply a knock on religion, or a filed attempt to weave in religion somehow. Lastly, which mindframe, religious, or reality-based, or a mix of the two, is better for the long-term survival of the human race? It is still anybody's guess. Athiests, being closed-minded, have already made their minds up prematurely (and I emphasize the pre to mature) without much adult thinking.

12. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why our society has no single parents.

Rebuttal: This sarcastic statement is repeat of 10 above, and the response is the same: the arguments here are those of a child. It is common knowledge (among adults) that kids from broken homes do much more poorly in society than those from healthy heterosexual families. It is also common knowledge (among adults) that couples who stay together grow richer as a group than single people or divorced couples. It is also common knowledge (among adults) that single parents are not forbidden to raise children, and their children do poorly in society as a rule. These points are not common knowledge among children, however (or people with the perpetual minds of children, for I believe this argument was put forth by an adult-aged person).

The sarcastic implication here is that if single parents can raise children, then gays should be able to raise children. Again, this is a false comparison, as in apples and oranges. Being a single parent is not a passing sick fad like being gay is for 999 out of 1000 people (and higher for young people), where one out of a thousand is clinically-certifiable hopelessly homosexual, and not some self-proclaimed fad-following boob.

11. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

Rebuttal: This is a repeat of 7 above, and the response is the same: First, America is not a theocracy, only a child would make that claim. "Only one religion in America"? Again, only an uninformed child would make that claim. Now the sarcastic argument here is that since America is not a theocracy based on one religion then gay marriage should be OK. This is the same as saying that just because America is not a theocracy, then all wrong is OK, or worse, that there is no right and wrong, that we are all to just too stupid to distinguish between the two, and should all just become mindless liberals.

10. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

Rebuttal: This argument goes back to whether children should be placed in a perverted environment based on a temporary socio-political fad based on foolishness, and practiced for the most part by fakes and psychotics on the fringe of society. This statement also implies that gays will raise straight children. What would be their incentive? None, especially with chips on their shoulders and axes to grind.

9. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

Rebuttal: This is a repeat of 2 above, and the response is the same, with an important elaboration: Trying to group sexual perverts with infertile couples and the elderly is unfair to infertile couples and elderly, for the same reasons as it was unfair to the left-handers- infertile couples and the elderly do not engage in sexual perversion as a rule, and deadly incurable diseases such as AIDS do not run rampant through their ranks, as it does in the ranks of gays. There is no underlying mental psychosis and social weaknesses inherent in those groups as there are in gays and their emulators due to personal choice or social problems such as overcrowding. Why do I mention mental psychosis and overcrowding? Homosexuality, harems, gangs, and anti-social psychosis have been induced in overcrowded laboratory rats. It doesn't take much to extend it to a large percentage of human gays, and with humans, there are even more problems that rats do not have, such as fashion.

8. Gay marriage should be decided by the people and their elected representatives, not the courts. The framers checked the courts, which represent mainstream public opinion, with legislatures created to protect the rights of minorities from the tyranny of the majority. Interference by courts in this matter is inappropriate, just as it has been every time the courts have tried to hold back legislatures pushing for civil rights.

Rebuttal: I don't know where this sarcastic statement is going- all three branches of US government played their parts in obstructing then abetting Civil Rights. The scene depicted is completely backwards, maybe for the purpose of sarcasm, I can't tell- as the courts do not represent mainstream public opinion, nor do they have elected officials, and yet they are the tool of choice for scheming gay activists. Further, I don't know where this 'people' argument fits. Six of seven states with gay marriage on the ballot rejected it. That is the will of the people. The courts are also an imperfect system as we know, many rulings merely the results of slick lawyers pulling the wool over naïve amateur jury's eyes, or of singular judges with ideological agendas based on imperfect reasoning or focus-group pressures.

It is in fact the legislatures who are directly elected and reelected by the people, and it stands to reason that they have more incentive to represent the will of the people, in order to get reelected. Judges hold their positions until they feel like retiring as long as they 'behave well'. They have no reelection pressure from the people, and can thus be more easily influence by fringe focus groups, personal interactions, and just plain crazy ideas.

7. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

Rebuttal: This is a repeat of #4 in the group of 12 above, and the response is the same: Britney Spears' 55 hours of fun was a liberal-induced perversion of the institution of marriage, just as 'gay marriage' is.  To argue that Ms. Spears actions were in any way normal or conservative is mere folly. More on this in my response to the comic strip below.

6. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because "separate but equal" institutions are a good way to satisfy the demands of uppity minority groups.

Rebuttal: This is similar to #12 in the previous set, and the response is similar, with an important elaboration: Another invalid argument which tries to equate apples with oranges, in this case sociological with physiological. 'Being' a minority did not spread AIDS. 'Being' gay did. 'Being' a minority is not a fad (except with young whites fantasizing that they are). 'Being' gay is just a fad for most people, especially the young.

Now as for 'separate but equal'- this is where the argument fails, and is trying to equate sociological with physiology, and is not a valid comparison, just as argument #8 of the set of 12 above. Separation based on social choice is not contested anywhere, and is not the same as separation on physiological features one cannot change, such as race.

Sociological choices easily change and are quite fickle, while fundamental physiological features are not so easily changed, if not impossible, and are not choices, but given at conception. Being a physiological homo is not true for 999 out of 1000 self-proclaimed 'gays' these days. Therefore, and applying to 'gay marriage', a society cannot create lasting social institutions based on sick, unhealthy, even deadly, fickle fads, which the current wave of homosexuality is for most people, especially with the young.

Now for the important elaboration- on 'uppity minority groups'- this is an intended political dig on conservatives which in fact backfires in liberal faces when given a little thought. There is nothing worse to an elite liberal than an uppity minority, for they are the next evil independent middle class whom elite liberals cannot mother-hen and lord it over with dependent-creating, motivation-destroying, cheap-vote-getting handouts. So, since gays are mostly liberals, they cannot use uppity minorities to dig at conservatives, or as an example to further their own cause. Even more ironic here, most non-US-bred-non-ghetto-non-elite-liberal-created-welfare-dependent-vote-bought minorities are extremely conservative, socially and religiously, and abhor homosexuality, to the point of beheading.

5. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

Rebuttal: This is a repeat of #5 in the set of 12 above, and the response is the same: "Been around a long time and hasn't changed at all"? That is a weak "just because" argument that doesn't hold much weight, especially when trying to enlighten people who don't have a clue as to why 'gay marriage' is wrong. "Women are property"? How does that tie in to the gay marriage issue. "Blacks can't marry whites"? Besides being not true, how does that tie in to the gay marriage issue? "Divorce is illegal"? That is an oxymoron- divorce is a legal term, and again, how does that tie in to the gay marriage issue?

If the argument is since these statements are not true then gay marriage should be OK, then that is false logic. Example: Divorce is legal, so gay marriage should be legal. Two unrelated issues, it is like saying "since divorce is legal, murdering your children should be legal".  Ignored also is the fact that even among gay marriages you will have perversions, even among the perverse- where one gay is the property of another, were certain gays will be forbidden to marry certain other gays- in other words, a gay society will suck in every aspect and in all the same ways that a non-gay society would, so gays cannot sit there and be 'we-are-more-holy-than-thou'. It becomes a choice between a gay society with evils in it or a straight society with evils in it. A straight society will at least have a chance to perpetuate mankind, which is an evil in itself in the fundamental liberal mindset.

4. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

Rebuttal: This is a repeat of #9 in the set of 12 above, and the response is the same: First point- I agree with, it will open the door to more extreme craziness. The Roman colesium is a good example of a civilization needing more and more extremism. Second point- I agree with, people will then want to marry their pets. Third point- a dog signing a contract- that can be worked around, just like gay marriage- simple: since it is a pet, it doesn't have to. We can get an activist judge to illegally create that law. also, women in other countries do not have the requirement or even the right of signing a contract, or even to vote or be in public alone on pain of death, so why should your dog? People will do things just for shock and attention, or out of psychosis, just as 999 out of 1000 gays are doing today, so when being a homo loses its attention-getting aspect, such people will begin marrying their pets to take it to the next level.

3. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

Rebuttal: This is a repeat of #8 in the set of 12 above, and the response is the same: Comparing social forces with physiology is not a valid argument. Socially we can be easily influenced, physiologically is much more difficult and expensive; and who's to say that the social pressure of hanging around tall people will not spur a short person to said surgery or height-enhancing aids like high-heels?

2. Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

Rebuttal: This is similar to #1 in the set of 12 above, but I will give a further response here: First, the question is not only natural/unnatural, but healthy/unhealthy. Nature Herself has made her most recent statement with AIDS. How many others She has made in mankind's history is anybody's guess.

There are also social forces and wisdom to consider (which gays don't consider) on what to accept/reject- for example, even though you find yourself naturally attracted to someone of the same sex (and I believe it can happen to anyone), is it then socially and politically wise to pursue that course? In this vein it can be easily shown that gays are mentally and physically unhealthy and do not know right from wrong, and that particularly goes for their young pretenders, if not more so. It is also an argument against allowing gays to raise children in such a gay-unfriendly world, when they cannot apply wisdom to their choices.

Also, placing sexual perverts in the same class with eyeglasses, polyester, and air-conditioning is an insult to all eyeglasses, polyester, and air-conditioners of the world, and they deserve an apology right now. What eyesight was ever corrected by acts of sexual perversion? What deadly disease has been spread by eyeglasses? As for polyester, for the most part I believe it has been rejected, but since it is improving, let me think it through some more- what naked soul has been clothed by an act of sexual perversion? Air conditioning? What act of sexual perversion has ever lowered the temperature of a room, and what deadly disease has been spread by air conditioners? The comparisons are ludicrous, but being from an adult with a child's mind, the attempt is understandable.

1. Meteors and Volcanoes: Gay marriage killed the dinosaurs. If we let liberal activist judges in Massachusetts and California set the course, the blood will run in rivers. Mixed with molten lava.

If the dinosaurs did marry and they all opted for gay marriage, the would have indeed gone extinct in one generation. The sarcastic argument here is that gay marriage didn't kill the dinosaurs, and won't kill off humanity. That is not proven. I have in fact warned otherwise- homos do not reproduce, and homosexuality damages the human psyche by creating a contagious tendency toward self-extinction, a self-depreciating psyche already embraced by liberal fundamentalists.

Responses to Ward Sutton's Comic Strip "George Bush, the Pope, and Other Conservatives Explain "The Sanctity of Marriage"" (and note that Ward Sutton is an adult for the purpose of this article)

First Frame- shows a shotgun wedding, with the sarcastic caption: (that marriage is a sacred institution) "between strangers who had sex once."

Rebuttal: The unintended alternate argument here is that irresponsible sex and pregnancy then abortion is an OK alternative to shotgun weddings.

Second Frame- shows two drunk people in Las Vegas getting married, and the girl is so drunk that she doesn't even know she's getting married.

Rebuttal: This is not a Catholic wedding, so the Pope is out; it is not a Conservative wedding, so Conservatives are out, Bush was not married while drunk in Las Vegas, so Bush is out. That leaves Liberals. This is a liberal wedding, just as gay marriages are.

Third Frame- "between two reality game show contestants."

Rebuttal: Same as that for the second frame: This is not a Catholic wedding, so the Pope is out; it is not a Conservative wedding, so Conservatives are out, Bush was not married while a contestant on a game show, so Bush is out. That leaves Liberals. This is a liberal wedding, just as gay marriages are. Last, a game-show marriage is an invention of liberal media.

Forth Frame- "between celebrities looking for some extra publicity."

Rebuttal: Same as that for the prior two frames: This is not a Catholic wedding, so the Pope is out; it is not a Conservative wedding, so Conservatives are out, Bush's was not a marriage between celebrities, so Bush is out. That leaves Liberals. This is a liberal wedding, just as gay marriages are. Celebrities are created by Hollywood, which is a liberal enclave.

Fifth Frame: "between wealthy, elderly men and shapely young women." Picture shows boobs on the old man's mind and money on the young woman's mind.

Rebuttal: I see identical gay relationships- between young and old- lust vs. security. Also this old-man-young-woman example is a perversion of marriage, and I would say a liberal perversion. In fact, in ancient Greece where homosexuality was common, and a common argument for gay marriage today, love between a man and man was always between old and young, the old in that case nurturing the young. Young-young or old-old was considered vulgar. The uninformed should read Plato's Symposium, it philosophizes on love, and, though such man-mentor/young-man love was used as the ideal, it shaped Western thoughts on pure vs.vulgar love for two-thousand years, up until the current liberal affliction in Western society, which the ancient bisexual Greek philosophers would have considered vulgar.

Sixth Frame: "between elected leaders and whomever they leave their spouse for."

Rebuttal: Divorce is taboo for Catholics, so the Pope is out; Bush is still on his first wife, so Bush is out; Conservatives more than Liberals? I don't think so! Conservatives gone bad, Liberals in their norm.

Seventh Frame: "between repressed self-hating gay men and oblivious women."

Rebuttal: Sanctity? Yes, once the repressed, self-hating gay man says "I Do." If they divorce, the oblivious women gets half his fortune and he pays child support.

Eight Frame: "but it's clearly not meant for loving, committed same-sex couples."

Rebuttal: This is a good example of 'begging the question'- making false presumptions to get a certain answer. Who says gays are loving or committed, especially considering their various psychosis such ans fad-chasing and attention-seeking? Are they statistically any more loving and committed than straights? And given the perverted nature of their union, which has been accepted as wrong for thousands of years (and thereby the reasons forgotten) who in their right mind would do it? This whole comic is also a good example of brainwashing- depicting one side as wholly bad, and the other as wholly good. Now in my opinion it may be that there will be a few gay exceptions who are actually loving and committed, but most are fickle fake fad experimenters and cheap-thrill seekers, certainly nothing to give custody of a child to, whether homo or hetero, and certainly nothing to create laws that force its acceptance on the vast majority who see it for what it is- color-splashing on a gray society, which brings us to the point of boredom. Should people who add color to a society be allowed to exist, or further, be forced upon us? Sure, if there are not ill side effects like psychosis, self-extinction, and deadly diseases!

My Conclusion on the Comic Strip:

Do the faults of one institution negate the faults of another, which is the whole argument of this comic strip, even though it tries to whitewash the faults of the other with 'loving and caring'? No. Do a few deplorable conservatives define all conservatives, as do a few loony liberals define all liberals? After all, we are talking about people who are into politics, who are impossible to defend no matter what their pursuasion. There does seem to be a difference here- since loony liberals are worshiped and made into cultural icons, while deplorable conservatives are just disgraced and sent away to prison... (my definition of a loony liberal, from people I've encountered: "Mankind should just die." "My concern is not for the economy, my concern if for the birds." This is noble, but self-destructive and automaton, which begs the question, "What kind of a human is this, an eco-Nazi just obeying orders? A guy just doing what he's paid to do?)

My Basic Assumptions:

AIDS is rampant among gays.

Common knowledge that it spread among them first, not an original assumption.

Gays dies of AIDS just because they are gay.

Common knowledge, but not emphasized so clearly. This implies that gays engage in gay activities. I knew of two gay guys living together around the block. In two years they were both dead, of AIDS, and just because they were gay.

Gays have mentally and physically problems, the worse physical problem being AIDS, the worse mental problems being the pretending to be gay, and the other the damaged to the human psyche, pushing it towards self-extinction.

The AIDS is not an original observation, the psyche problem is an original observation, as is the 'pretending one is gay' statistic and problem, especially among the young. This is emphasized here for the first time anywhere. The extinction mindframe is not only common among liberals, it is welcomed among mankind-hating liberals. Perhaps it is only an attempt to come to terms with our eventual extinction- where a whole gene-pool is born, lives, and dies out like any individual organism; but why welcome it, why hurry it along, why make it inevitable, why wish for it?

999 out of 1000 'gays' are fake, and it is just a counter-culture fad, or an attention-seeking act. Pure genetic gays who cannot choose otherwise are extremely rare.

A likely reality not readily admitted, brought to light, or emphasized.

Being certifiably gay or pretending to be gay puts one at a disadvantage in society.

Not an original observation. But what is original is the realization that there are a few people who need a challenge and a good fight in life, and this cause will do (though it is not a worthy one). For most, however, being gay is a disastrous choice socially and for the psyche.

Gays are an indication of civilizations failing, and infest a culture during its decline.

Probably only a parallel observation. Look at it alternatively- where were gays during the rise of civilizations? Contrary to history revisionists and distortionists, it was present perhaps in isolated perverse cases, but not generally condoned. This leads me to believe that there were gay-related diseases throughout history, repeatedly reinforcing the anti-gay tradition, the roots of which are now forgotten, and must be relearned.

Gays are not holier than thou, though they think they are.

Personal observation, and apparent in their attempts at deception and in their arguments.

My Stance:

If forced to take a stand on the issue right now, completely, one way or the other, without further thought, I'd be against gay marriage- half out of reason, logical deduction, ancient wisdom, and science, the other half out of social and religious politics- for, sorry as they might be, religious and political pressures still need to be given their due weight in any socio-political decision such as becoming a society that approves of gay marriage.

On Lesbians:

That is a sticky detail- are there any distinctions? YES! I AM NOT AGAINST LESBIAN MARRIAGES.

Here are my three reasons: (1) Lesbians are completely different than homosexual men. The psyche of a women favors the continuation of humanity, referred to as a 'motherly instinct'. Men on the other hand will just as soon destroy themselves and everyone with them. There are of course exceptions to every rule, but you cannot argue exceptions as the rule, at least not with anyone equipped to recognize it. (2) It was the act of male sodomy that initially spread the AIDS epidemic among gays and now the rest of the population, where it spread through bisexuals and into the casual sex scene. in the Third World, reusing needles (saves money) is now the main instrument of infecting people). AIDS was not spread by sexual acts performed by lesbians (go ahead and argue your exceptions).

(3) There are more women than men in the world. What are all those extra women supposed to do in a monogamous society? If they get together, support one another financially and emotionally, and raise children half their own or from others, that is great; and if not great, at least it alleviates some of the pain of not being a lucky member of a heterosexual union- which most likely evolved into the best way to raise children successfully (which takes years) and inhibit individual social conflict (read 'promiscuity') among neighbors.