|
|
|
|
|
|
In Support of an Amendment to Ban Fag Burning There's been a flurry of proposed Constitutional amendments of late, and I would like to voice my support for one in particular -- the ban on fag burning. The liberals say that we don't need a Constitutional amendment against fag burning, that it's already prohibited by law in many of the 50 states. But in my opinion, they are missing the point. First of all, with all the debate over the issue of gay marriage, people might get the idea that those of us who support codifying marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman also support fag burning. Nothing could be further from the truth. Just because we believe that homosexuals do not deserve the same rights that married people enjoy does not mean we want to see them burned. Nobody is against the idea of homosexuals being allowed to live – we just don't think they should be living together. That simply reinforces their behavior when the truth is, if they are living unhappily alone, they are more likely to change. If we consider this fact, then every homosexual we burn is potentially one less heterosexual husband or wife, which would be an unfortunate consequence of fag burning. True, fag burning might make it less likely that the homosexual agenda would be achieved, but society really needs to take the high road here, as perilous as it may be. Another reason for a Constitutional amendment against fag burning is the fact that it could possibly generate sympathy for the homosexual lifestyle. It's akin to what we see in the Middle East – when the Israelis kill Palestinian terrorists, more terrorists come forth to fill their shoes. It is quite possible that the sight of burning homosexuals in our cities and towns might evoke feelings of sympathy toward them among the heterosexual populace. It is better that the diehard homosexuals be kept alone and out of public view than suffering in the open for all to see. I also think a Constitutional amendment against fag burning might appease the left wing and the moderates who would then be less likely to oppose any amendment in defense of marriage between a man and a woman. A third reason I support the Constitutional ban on fag burning has to do with America's image abroad. In many countries across the world, homosexuals have been granted special rights and are free to flaunt their lifestyles and spread their ideas. Fag burning in the U.S. would give these individuals an opportunity to further misrepresent American values in their countries at a time when we need to be shoring up our reputation overseas. I don't think that the opportunity to burn homosexuals is important enough to jeopardize our status across the globe. Fourth, in order to commit an act of fag burning, some evidence would have to be offered that the person intended for burning is indeed homosexual. The gathering and examination of such evidence might prove extremely distasteful to the public officials charged with the task. I believe it is best to steer clear of this unpleasant situation. And finally, though I do not ascribe to the belief that global warming is as serious as the liberal media makes it out to be, it is possible that carbon dioxide levels could rise if the exercise of fag burning were to become a popular approach to upholding morality in America. Therefore, on environmental grounds alone, this amendment should be ratified. In summary, I believe that contrary to what many of my conservative colleagues may say, fag burning, for the reasons I've discussed, is not a free speech right guaranteed by the Constitution. That said, the Constitution does not explicitly ban it, which is why I believe we need this amendment. There should be no ambiguity when it comes to the issue of fag burning. There are many, many other ways to fight the agents of the homosexual agenda without burning them. I think the members of Congress and our state leaders should be compelled to figure out what these ways are, instead of feeling that once they are barred from burning fags, that homosexuals will have won their equality. Quite the contrary; given the power of government to curtail their activities and exploit their insecurities, homosexuals, upon passage of this amendment, may very well find themselves wishing they were dead. |
GET MORE MORPHIZM
|
LOAD/STREAM
 CUT CHEMISTThe Audience's Listening DLOAD: "Storm" DLOAD: "The Garden" WATCH: Cut Chemist in Brazil QUICK WIN   MUSE LISTEN: "Knights of Cydonia" QUICK WIN  SONIC YOUTH LISTEN: "Incinerate" WM REAL From: Rather Ripped
|
    
 
|
Boy, is it hot in here!
