Thursday, March 2, 2017
Insane Liberal Ideas
When they got finished screwing up our health insurance, they didn't have anything else to do, so they started in on our sex lives and our sexuality. They started a campaign to let MEN into women's restrooms and changing rooms if they “identified” as women. No more than .03% of men are this way, but they treated it like it were a large number of people who just couldn't figure out a place to pee. If they felt funny in a men's room (they were men, after all, no matter how they “identified.”) They could always go into a booth and do their business there. There are excellent reasons for keeping the sexes separate when, and where, they “do their business.” Women don't want men peering at them when they take down their pants or raise their dress. Men WANT to be able to look at them for salacious reasons, even if they DO “identify” as women. Then they go after the definition of “marriage” with their campaign to make joining of two MEN or two WOMEN and using that word to describe it.
They don't have to use the word “marriage” to describe their unions, but that's what they insist on. They disdain the use of any other word. What logical man would want to advertise his being gay by “marrying” his sex partner? There's a reason why many gays are “in the closet,” and “getting married” to a member of their own sex destroys that. There's no reason to push these ideas, but that's what liberals DO, mess with our long-held beliefs and practices, whether we like it or not. If we don't like it, they just make a law and FORCE us to like it. It's not about being gay or “identifying” as the opposite sex, it's about the POWER to force people to do their bidding. And that's why I object, in both cases. I have nothing against two men or two women creating a binding union SIMILAR to marriage. But I do object to them destroying the meaning of the WORD “marriage” by using it to describe those unions. (The Blaze)