Posted on 08/03/2011 5:41:12 AM PDT by Kaslin
Dear Governor Cuomo: I am writing to express my deep disappointment with your recent decision to push for an expansion of the definition of marriage – one that allows for marriage between a man and a man or between a woman and a woman. Most of your recent critics are writing because they think your crusade on this issue has gone too far. I’m writing because I don’t think it goes far enough. In fact, I think your approach to this issue reflects a fundamental narrow-mindedness that is almost as distasteful as your Pharisaic moral posturing and your constant media grandstanding.
Before I continue, let me introduce myself. I was born in Mississippi in the 1960s. I am a former atheist and Democrat and who voted for Michael Dukakis and Bill Clinton. I also have a younger sister named Jennifer who is single and bisexual. In other words, I have had some exposure to other ideas, cultures, and lifestyles. I’m no bigot. In fact, I was the first kid on my block to own a Flip Wilson record. That should count for something.
But let me get back to my original purpose for writing. In your recent campaign to allow same-sex marriage in New York you presented yourself as one who supports “marriage equality.” But nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, you favor a narrow definition of marriage that is based on your own irrational fears and prejudices. And it is time to show real moral leadership by embracing moral relativism fully, not half-heartedly as you have done so far.
Governor Cuomo, I want to get married. And I want to move my new wife to New York City so we can pursue our respective careers in education and art (she is a painter). But, unless your state becomes more welcoming and affirming, we won’t be able to do that because the woman I want to marry is my younger sister Jennifer.
It may shock you to hear from someone who openly advocates incest. But that is the way people used to react to homosexuality. In the case of homosexuality, the remedy for such a puritanical reaction has not been silence. It has been openness. Just as we talked about homosexuality constantly – beginning in the early 90s – we must now do the same with incest. There simply is no other way to make our lifestyle seem normal.
Under my plan tolerance of incest must begin in the public schools. We must then extend our efforts to the national media. In fact, I envision a day when every Hollywood sitcom will have at least one incestuous couple. But, at some point, we must take the fight into the political arena. And that is why I am writing you today.
When people attack you for your recent success in legalizing same sex marriage they are likely to use scare tactics. They are likely to say that you have opened the door for incestuous and polygamous marriages. I want you to resist the temptation to dismiss their remarks as homophobic. To do so would actually reinforce phobias against incest and polygamy. So, instead, please show some courage and admit that the same logic that allows for same sex marriage also allows for incestuous and polygamous marriage.
Governor Cuomo, once you have committed to the idea of marriage equality you have to see it through. And that means you should do more than simply tolerate my decision to marry my sister Jennifer. You should affirm it with the full force of the law.
Some have asked me whether I am concerned at all about the implications of marrying Jennifer. Specifically, they worry that once married to me she will try to bring a third party – one of her girlfriends – into the marriage. But I am okay with a three party marriage. I’m committed to marriage equality even if it means sharing a lover with my younger sister. Sharing is an integral part of the progressive vision.
In conclusion, Governor Cuomo, I think you have been acting like a real hypocrite. You speak of equality but, in your heart, you consider some animals to be more equal than others. And that is offensive to those of us who crave public affirmation compelled by the force of law.
Note to Readers: The author of this satire doesn’t have a sister. Nor does he own pets. But he does own a copy of A Modest Proposal by Jonathan Swift.
Polygamy, not incest, will be the next big thing...............
The problem is many(!) people will NOT accept this as any kind of satire. There are those who will agree with virtually every idea laid out here.
Homosexuality and Lesbianism went from being “The Love that would not speak its name” to being the “Love that would not SHUT UP!”. Fine, the debate is seemingly over.
I really expect this to be the next “human right” and why not? It seems that anything whatever can be labeled a “Human Right” these days.
Ich bin ein West Virginier!
I want to marry my mother. She’s a widow with a decent portfolio and a large house with no mortgage. There will be no intercourse, of course. I just want to avoid inheritance taxes.
Heh, if it’s all about love why can’t I marry my grandmother? We’ve loved each other for years!
Exactly! Who are they to deny two people, whoever they are, from publicly affirming their love for each other in marriage?
thank goodness you aren’t a philophobe!
Glenn Beck did this same schtik years ago on his radio show, exept he came off as dead serious, was crying, being very dramatic, with a huge build up. The callers to the show who didn’t get it were hilarious. Most people only know Beck from his staid TV shows. The old radio show was extremely funny, it hasn’t been as funny since the TV shows.
That said, if you really want to use the homosexualist strategy the first thing you have to do is get rid of the incest laws, like gays did with the sodomy laws. Some states have already decriminilized it, or only have it apply to parent-offspring, not siblings.
I wonder if homosexualist siblings can marry in the states that allow “gay marriage”.
Freegards
They have obviously never read Dr Adams' columns, which are mostly satire
The gay activists stated goals are to eventually have “polyamory”, or group marriage. This would involve any number of partners, and any gender combination of partners, in a group marriage.
While this is a conservative writer writing a satire, some of the points are well taken. The laws against incest were put in place in part due to concerns about inbreeding. Inbreeding is not an issue with same-sex close relatives in a partnership, so there’s no reason not to allow it.
Gay activists sometimes say that they are consenting adults in a loving relationship. And who are we to say anything about what consenting adults do? The same legal reasoning on same-sex marriage can and will be used in a court eventually with concepts which would shock us, such as polygamy, group marriage, or even incest type relationships. The key here is that we are supposed to accept anything that consenting adults want to do.
And to hear the liberals say that “any two people should” belies an underlying idea that the number of people in a marriage should be two, when there is a long history of polygamy in the world. The liberals are discriminatory limiting marriage to two people. Especially since the gay activists stated goals are to move on to polyamory eventually.
The gay activists want to move the goalposts on marriage. If we ever get to 50 state same-sex marriage, the activists will NOT say that their lives are now complete, and end it there. It will simply set the stage for new demands.
The goals of these leftists is to establish the legal concept of homosexual marriage, the concept that the sex of the people involved doesn’t matter. Then, once the legal concept of same-sex marriage becomes ingrained, then they will move on to the the polygamy/polyamory issues.
ping
I have to admit that I had to laugh at the literary genius behind this piece.
The Onion and Scrappleface have met their match and maybe it’s time for them to hang it up.
OTOH, it is a sad testimony to our society that this is not so farfetched as it seems.
Alas for our brave new world.
The two people who are in charge of writing HBO’s “Big Love” are a homosexual male couple. Shouldn’t be surprised about that. The big issue is about getting the benefits, adoration, etc. that they can get forced out of people with the threat of a lawsuit, a.k.a. narcissism
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
A much needed laugh from Mike Adams. Funny - in a way - but dead serious as always. If the perversion promoters were honest (which of course they are not), they would be saying exactly what Adams says in his satire.
Actually, the real reason the homosexual activists want same sex marriage is not “equality” or even really the financial or legal benefits. It’s much more insidious than that. The following quotes are a bit lengthy, but well worth reading.
The real reasons, in their own words - simply put, destruction of real marriage, the natural family, and social morality:
From LA Times of March 12: ...
“Divided over gay marriage” by Roy Rivenburg Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor who runs the International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission, recommends legalizing a wide variety of marriage alternatives, including polyamory, or group wedlock. An example could include a lesbian couple living with a sperm-donor father, or a network of men and women who share sexual relations.
One aim, she says, is to break the stranglehold that married heterosexual couples have on health benefits and legal rights. The other goal is to “push the parameters of sex, sexuality and family, and in the process transform the very fabric of society.” ... [snip]
An excerpt from: In Their Own Words: The Homosexual Agenda:
“Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile, who writes periodically for The New York Times, summarizes the agenda in OUT magazine (Dec/Jan 1994):
“A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes, but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution... The most subversive action lesbian and gay men can undertake —and one that would perhaps benefit all of society—is to transform the notion of family entirely.”
“Its the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statues, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into the public schools and in short to usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us.”
Chris Crain, the editor of the Washington Blade has stated that all homosexual activists should fight for the legalization of same-sex marriage as a way of gaining passage of federal anti-discrimination laws that will provide homosexuals with federal protection for their chosen lifestyle.
Crain writes: “...any leader of any gay rights organization who is not prepared to throw the bulk of their efforts right now into the fight for marriage is squandering resources and doesn’t deserve the position.” (Washington Blade, August, 2003).
Andrew Sullivan, a homosexual activist writing in his book, Virtually Normal, says that once same-sex marriage is legalized, heterosexuals will have to develop a greater “understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman.”
He notes: “The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal; and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness.” (Sullivan, Virtually Normal, pp. 202-203)
Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor and homosexual activist has said:
“Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. . Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family; and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. . We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society’s view of reality.” (partially quoted in “Beyond Gay Marriage,”
Stanley Kurtz, The Weekly Standard, August 4, 2003)
Evan Wolfson has stated:
“Isn’t having the law pretend that there is only one family model that works (let alone exists) a lie? . marriage is not just about procreation-indeed is not necessarily about procreation at all. “(quoted in “What Marriage Is For,” by Maggie Gallagher, The Weekly Standard, August 11, 2003)
Mitchel Raphael, editor of the Canadian homosexual magazine Fab, says:
“Ambiguity is a good word for the feeling among gays about marriage. I’d be for marriage if I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of ‘till death do us part’ and monogamy forever. We should be Oscar Wildes and not like everyone else watching the play.” (quoted in “Now Free To Marry, Canada’s Gays Say, ‘Do I?’” by Clifford Krauss, The New York Times, August 31, 2003)
1972 Gay Rights Platform Demands: “Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit.”
[Also among the demands was the elimination of all age of consent laws.]
Well done, Mr. Adams.
Polygamy may be next but I will bet it will also coincide with an attack on ‘age of consent’ laws. Polygamists are also known for disregarding morality in regard to ‘age of consent’ already and I honestly believe that has been the major goal behind the sexual rights movement anyway.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.