Whoops! Just had another accident!

So it’s been done. The perfect argument against gay marriage has been created. The Supreme Court will be looking at the Defense of Marriage Act at the end of March, so of course, arguments against gay marriage are popping up in full force.

But, as I’ve said, the perfect argument against gay marriage has reared its ugly head, and truthfully, I don’t know how we’re going to counter it. Brace yourself…this may bring on the gayest Apocalypse ever… http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/argument-against-gay-marriage-california-hinges-accidental-pregnancies-095158941–election.html

According to Paul Clement, an attorney representing congressional Republicans, we homos don’t qualify for legal recognition of marriage because we can’t accidentally get pregnant. That’s right, because the thought of a penis anywhere near my lady bits makes me gag, I cannot have an unplanned pregnancy, and because I can’t have an unplanned pregnancy, that means I shouldn’t be allowed to marry.

Oh, it gets better. The dissenting justice on the  Massachusetts Supreme Court , who voted against legalizing same-sex marriage in 2003, has chimed in. He has written:  An “orderly society requires some mechanism for coping with the fact that sexual intercourse [between a man and a woman] commonly results in pregnancy and childbirth. The institution of marriage is that mechanism.”

So marriage is no longer a sacred institution between two people pledging their love to one another. It’s a way to cope when a man can’t put a rubber on or when a woman spreads her legs for anyone who comes by. And states are not interested in the people of their state – who they are, what they do, why they’re there. Nope, they’re interested in how many babies this woman can pop out and if this man has enough integrity to stick around and take care of the kid so the government doesn’t have to deal with tracking him down when he doesn’t pay child support.

What they’re trying to do is take the religious aspect out of the argument. The ‘Because the Bible says it’s wrong’ argument is stale, overused, and, well, just doesn’t make sense. But this! This argument that because I can’t have an unplanned pregnancy, and because I won’t be in a relationship that can procreate, I should be denied the ability to enter into a legal marriage with my partner is pure genius! This is brilliant! And then to add the premise that the state is only interested in those unions where procreation is possible…wow, why hasn’t someone come up with this idea sooner?

But what about those heterosexuals that choose not to have children, and take birth control or use condoms or other protection? Should they be denied the right to marry? Or those that biologically cannot have children, because of hysterectomies or medical conditions that prevent the woman from carrying to term or even becoming pregnant in the first place? How about the elderly?

Pffft…who am I kidding? Of course they’d be denied the right to marry. After all, unless a woman is a baby-making machine, spewing out little kiddos that can be influenced by the atrocities that are called politicians, she’s no good to anyone. Unless she can make a killer sandwich.

This actually harkens back to a blog I wrote discussing why gay marriage should never be legal. I talked about how sperm banks and adoptions needed to be done away with because they didn’t encourage natural sexual intercourse and procreation. I didn’t think this was an actual argument against gay marriage, however.

Obviously I was mistaken. I hope the Republicans that are backing this see how ridiculous and insulting this argument is.  I don’t care if you’re against the legalization of same-sex marriage, but you need to have a valid argument. Retorts like, “Because the Bible says it’s an abomination!” are no longer even remotely effective (not that they ever truly were). So of course, the next obvious step is to focus on the dynamic of the couple.

So, if tab A doesn’t fit into slot B, and there’s no possibility of procreation, then there’s absolutely no reason same-sex marriage should be legalized.

Makes perfect sense to me. As long as I don’t trip and fall on any stray penises on my way through the day and become accidentally pregnant. Now I think I’ll go make a sandwich.

Oh, and just for fun, here’s a video!

Tragedy – How do we prevent another rampage?

A shooting, people die, tragedy rocks a small town.

“I never thought it would happen here.”

The sentiment echoed after, as a nation mourns. Thoughts and prayers and photos spread quickly.

And then the debates begin.

“Ban guns!”

“Arm everyone!”

But is any of it truly a viable option? Will any of it work? There is no black and white, no clearly defined solution to this.

If we ban guns, if we tell citizens that any gun is illegal to carry, and a violation of federal and state laws, who would follow that law?

Law abiding citizens, most likely. Certainly not the criminals that have probably obtained their firearm through less than legal means. Banning guns is only going to affect those that were least likely to commit violence in the first place.

And then you’ll have those law abiding citizens that have now become criminals because they refuse to give up their firearms. Whether they ever use it or not, the handgun they keep in the nightstand or the shotgun they keep in the front closet gives them a sense of security. What happens when you take away a child’s security blanket or pacifier away? They react, they throw a tantrum. When you take away someone’s security, you cannot be certain in the way they will react.

Banning guns does nothing but create the potential for a lot of anger, and a possible increase in criminal violence – armed robberies, assaults, shootings – because only those with the criminal ability will have weapons.

So arm everyone! Get people weapons and training to protect themselves! Because that way, no one will know who is armed and who isn’t.

Not a viable option. As humans, we are emotional creatures. We act and react, often times without thinking. The phrase ‘Shoot first, ask questions later’ is one that can ring true in a tense situation. There is a potential for a ‘kill or be killed’ mentality to take over. Do we really want to become a society so on edge that we walk around with our hands on our weapons all the time? I know I don’t want to spend my existence wrapped up in layers of mistrust, skepticism and fear. A reactionary society we already are. Look how quickly we accuse each other of misdeeds. Look how much time we spend removing our feet from our mouths because we overreacted or misjudged. We get behind the wheel of vehicles while intoxicated or high. We get into physical altercations because someone looked at or flirted with the person we’re with. How long would it take before someone pulled a gun in a situation where you might have been more likely to walk away from?

Putting more guns into society allows more people to have access to them. I’m pretty sure we’ve all had a violent thought before – wringing your boss’s neck…one good punch right square in the nose of an ex after an especially bad breakup. Would you be able to fight acting upon those thoughts if you had a weapon readily available? Everyone has a breaking point. What would you do if you reached yours?

What people have seemed to miss is that those that commit these heinous acts of violence, that take innocent lives with no remorse, and then cowardly end their own lives – they’re sick. They aren’t, weren’t, mentally stable. Sociopathic, unmedicated, unrecognized, undiagnosed – they have some kind of mental illness. No amount of gun control or training and arming of citizens can stop these tragedies. These people have decided that they are going to kill, that they need to kill, that it’s the only way to stop the pain or rectify the injustice done to them.

The ones that kill innocent children in an elementary school, or shoot people in a movie theater, they’re sick individuals. We all know that. But what we seem to forget is that something pushed these people over the edge. Something caused them to snap. And no amount of weaponry can combat that. There is a photo going around Facebook, two signs – one says ‘All weapons are prohibited on these premises’ and the other, ‘Staff heavily armed and trained; Any attempt to harm children will be met with deadly force’ – and a question: Which of these signs will prevent another tragedy?

The answer? Neither. Remember, the tragedy was brought on by someone who isn’t of sound mind. In fact, there’s a potential that if you arm people, you’re upping the ante for one of these sociopaths to find another means to take out as much human life as possible – bombs, grenades, chemical weapons – these things are available to anyone with the right resources. And if someone is in the mindset to kill, they’ll find a way to do so, with or without a gun.

We all have breaking points. Some of us can handle more strife in our lives than others. And some can’t handle it at all. Rather than looking at the weapons the individual used to commit such violence, why aren’t we looking at the individual? More often times than not, after such a tragedy, the media interviews those that knew the person, or persons, that committed the act. And nearly every single time, we read words like, ‘troubled’ or ‘loner’ or ‘poor family conditions’. Triggers that should make us realize that the potential for violence exists. But that realization comes too late. They say hindsight is 20/20. Well, we need to start working on our foresight.

We need to start looking at mental health, not gun control, as a solution to preventing more tragedies like this from occurring. Too many people fall through the cracks, either because the health system lets them slip, or they’re too ashamed to admit their own failings. No one wants to be labeled as ‘crazy’, and far too often, any kind of mental issue is regarded as a stigma, and fear of ostracization from society. Medication to regulate mood can be expensive, and many go without because of finances. Why? Why do we let this happen? Our mind can become a very dangerous place if we let it.

I’m not attempting to excuse the acts, or diminish the pain of loss. I don’t want to lay blame or provide excuses for actions. I’m just suggesting that we’re looking in the wrong direction in an effort to take a step towards preventing tragedy like this to occur again.

My heart goes out to the families affected by this horrible event. There are no words to console; there are no actions to undo. But as we come together to mourn, grieve, and heal, let us remember that we need to look towards improving the mental health care in America to truly begin prevention of such tragedies from happening again.

Michigan’s Take on Marriage Certificates

So, I know a few people who have gone to states where ‘gay marriage’ has been legalized, and there, they’ve tied the knot. Then, upon returning home to Michigan, where marriage has been defined as being between one woman and one man, and no other forms are considered legal or recognizable, they promptly head down to the Secretary of State’s office, present their marriage certificate, and get their last names changed.

That’s right. Michigan does not recognize gay marriage, but they will allow homosexuals to use their marriage certificate to change their last name.

Wtf? What sense does that make? Can anyone explain this to me? I know Michigan has a habit of doing things backwards, but this…this is over the top. I’m thoroughly confused by this. Back in 2004, Michigan changed the state Constitution to ban gay marriage. It was a big deal in our state, and has brewed controversy ever since. Is this an attempt to placate us?

‘Oh, we really want to protect the sanctity of marriage, but, well…since you’ve got this piece of paper from another state…we’ll go ahead and do you this favor.’

Thanks, Michigan. Let me thank you on behalf of all the gays here in the Mitten State. Thank you for telling us that our desire to get married to one another is an abhorrence to all heterosexual Christians who also live here, but that our want to change our last name after we get married in a far more progressive, diverse state can be granted and will be recognized by presenting the marriage certificate issued in said state.

Thank you for adding a peculiar twist to a controversial situation. But then, you’re good at doing that sort of thing, aren’t you? ‘We’ll go ahead and legalize marijuana…sort of.’ ‘Fireworks? Sure, that old law was archaic, so we’ll change it…kind of.’

Michigan’s lawmakers remind me of that wimpy kid who is excited to go to the beach, then absolutely terrified of the water once he gets there. He runs down to the water, sticks his toe an inch above it, then freaks out and runs away. Or the douchebag that claims to know everything, done everything, and been everywhere, but the minute you try to engage him on the things he’s done, he suddenly pretends to have been struck deaf.

Half-assed. Michigan is quickly becoming the state of doing things half way. I’m not saying that Michigan should suddenly stop recognizing marriage certificates from other states when it comes to changing last names, because that would be a step in the wrong direction. What I’d really like to see is Michigan finally legalize gay marriage, or at the very least, recognize marriages performed in other states.

Placation is the sincerest form of flattery. Wait, that’s not right…but that’s the direction we’re headed in. And why? I haven’t the faintest idea. It’s a practice in futility. We hate gays, but we’ll pretend to like them so they stay in our state.

“Si Quaeris Peninsulam Amoenam Circumspice“– If you seek a pleasant peninsula, look about you; just don’t be queer about it. Okay, maybe that’s not the actual translation of our state motto. But honestly, it might as well be. The residents of Michigan have been on this huge state pride kick lately, and honestly, Michigan does have a lot to offer. It’s a beautiful state, but the lawmakers are seriously jacking things up. Michigan’s actions towards the homosexuals in the communities here is like how families treat the ‘black sheep’ of the family. They don’t like having them around, but they tolerate them because they feel obligated to. Well frankly – fuck that shit. I am not an obligation to anyone. I don’t care if you tolerate me or not, but don’t pretend to care about my feelings because it makes you look progressive and hip.

And either recognize gay marriage or don’t. Don’t tease me by pretending to be okay with it. Don’t go half way with it. Go all the way with it. Obviously not everyone in the legislative body has their heads up their arses, though, because someone did have the idea to recognize the marriage certificate.

So while the process makes absolutely no sense to me, maybe there is some hope for you yet, Michigan…

Hypocrisy in Action

So Michigan has 6 proposals on the upcoming ballot. And as most proposals do, they’re aiming to change our Constitution. Two of the proposals, regarding renewable energy and collective bargaining, have strong opposition by a group called Citizens Protecting Michigan’s Constitution, their rally-cry: “Hands Off Our Constitution!”

Now, I checked out their website, and there isn’t much there. No names, no real substance to back up their claims. Here’s their link, so you can see for yourself: http://handsoffourconstitution.com/

From what I can gather, they’re anti-union, anti-environmentalism, and very Republican/Conservative sounding.

Which makes me wonder…

Were they among the supporters of Prop 2 from 2004? You know, the proposal that changed our state Constitution to effectively ban gay marriage? Because that changed our Constitution, and affected a great number of people.

But obviously it was perfectly OK to change the Constitution, because gays are horrible people, right? Just like unions and union workers, and all environmentalists.

What I can’t wrap my head around, is why was it okay to change the Constitution then, taking rights away from homosexuals, yet it’s not okay to change the Constitution to protect collective bargaining so big corporations can’t screw over middle class workers? It’s okay to alter our Constitution to single out a group of people and tell them they’re less than equal in the eyes of the law, but it’s not okay to alter the Constitution to shift away from using finite resources and depleting and further destroying the earth.

Hands off our Constitution – but only as we see fit.

Hands off our Constitution, unless it’s to take away rights to groups of people we don’t like. And then we’ll just call them special interest groups, so that we can demonize them for furthering our own agendas.

Hands off our Constitution, because only we know what’s best for the greater good.

It’s amazing how many people think they are capable of making decisions for me, that their opinion truly echos that of ‘the greater good’. No, I’m sorry. You can’t possibly know what I want, because all you seem to be seeing is the inside of your colon.

Take off your blinders. Understand that your ignorance, your hypocritical opinions do not reflect me, my actions, my thoughts, or anything I believe in.

Hands off our Constitution. That includes you, you hypocritical jackasses. It’s our Constitution. Not just yours. It’s not some document to be played with and rewritten when something you see pisses you off. It’s not just for you. It’s for all citizens of the state of Michigan. Including union workers, health care workers, and gays.

So take your skewed propaganda elsewhere, you so-called protectors of the Constitution. You’re no better than the evil pictures you’ve painted of the supposed ‘special interest groups’ you claim to be fighting against.

Sesame Street – Tool of the Devil (and/or Democrats)

Sesame Street. All along I thought Sesame Street was this wholesome, feel good kids show that taught you about diversity, the alphabet, and how to count. I didn’t see beyond the giant yellow bird, the grumpy, green monster in the trash can, the enormous, elephant-like Snufalufagus. All I saw was peace and harmony - multicultural people, different species, different ages – all living together with no judgment, hate, or anger. Now, I understand that in and of itself, the idea of such a diverse group living together with no judgment, hate, or anger is beyond the realm of probability. But I didn’t realize how truly horrible and brainwashing that show actually is. This is my attempt to convey to you, dear readers, the reasons behind why you should never, ever let your little kiddos watch this depraved, perverted attempt at children’s programming.

First of all, they’re puppets! For crying out loud! How dare you lazy parents let some sick, perverted men with fabric on their arms talk in high-pitched, queer voices to your little ones! Grown men playing with puppets? And you let your kids watch this? Second, diversity? More like veiled threats of terrorism and anti-patriotism!

          A yellow bird? More like a brain-washing technique by Japan or China, or one of those other Asian countries. They want your kids! As if they don’t have enough already! They want all of your children as payment for the trillions we owe them.

         And a red….whateverthatis? Oh, that’s not Tickle Me Elmo, that’s really Tickle Me Comrade. That’s right, that fuzzy little giggling buffoon is calling the kids to a life of peace, love, and bread lines.

          There’s a puppet that practices magic! Magic? Now they’re trying to take God out of the picture entirely! The next thing you know, your kid will be running around, wanting to read Harry Potter books. Don’t even get me started on that horrible blasphemy.

         And two male puppets living together? Everyone knows that Sesame Street, in its tricky lies, is passing these puppets off as heterosexual males. Really? You can’t pull the rainbow-colored wool over our eyes, Jim Henson. They’re GAY! Gay, Gay, Gay! You’re showing young, impressionable children that it’s perfectly okay for two grown men to live together. Hell, you’re showing them it’s okay for them to sleep in the same bed! Seriously? What’s next? A pregnant teen puppet? A rehab puppet? Perhaps a 40 year old puppet who lives in his parent’s bedroom. Oh, I know. I’ve got it, a puppet that lives on a farm and ‘loves’ his animals.

      There’s far too many black people on Sesame Street holding good, decent jobs, too. That’s completely unrealistic! Where’s the gang-banging puppet? The puppet on parole? Come on, PBS! If you’re going to portray this so-called diversity, you need to show blacks as they really are, right? If you can have a blue monster with an eating disorder who sings songs about it, then you can have the parolee puppet.

      Then you’ve got another puppet that lives in a fantasy world. How can you possibly think it’s okay to teach children to expand and explore their imagination? When they start doing that, then they think they can graduate high school, become president and even vote Democrat. God forbid we encourage a child’s imagination. It will lead to absolute destruction and chaos, and will destroy the sanctity of marriage. Oh wait, that’s homo marriage, but well, you get the idea.

So when viewing the show in the future, please know that commie loving hippie Democrats are to blame for our children’s education. And now it’s obvious to see why we must pull the plug on PBS funding.

7 foot tall birds should never be accepted into society.

A Practice in the Ridiculous

Politics is the ultimate practice in hypocrisy.

“Keep your hands off our guns, but we’ll mandate laws that ban abortion.”

     Really? Tell me how that works. I have the right to carry a gun, a weapon that is often used to kill innocent people, yet I wouldn’t be able to get an abortion because that would kill an innocent baby? You want to protect the right for a person to possess and carry a weapon, concealed even, with little to no restrictions in the types of weapons possessed, but you want to create laws to take away the right for a woman to do what she wishes with her own body?

     So in other words, it’s a practice of ‘do as I say, not as I do’.

     I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that no one needs an AK-47 to fend off the Jehovah Witness door-knockers when they come up to your house. A life is a life, right? What’s your justification for arming common citizens with weapons to actively and quickly take someone else’s life, but taking away the ability for a woman to have an abortion when you can’t even decide on when that life actually begins? I wonder if the manufacturer of wire hangers is a Republican?

“We need to protect the Constitution, and uphold the religious sanctity of marriage.”

     So let me get this straight (Haha, see what I did there? That’s punny.), the Constitution, a document created to state and protect our rights as citizens of the United States of America, needs to be amended to keep certain groups of people from sharing in those rights duly noted in said Constitution. You also want to ‘protect’ the religious sanctity of a union between one man and one woman. Whose religious sanctity? Certainly not the Mormons, who often practice polygamy. So you’re willing to discriminate against multiple groups of people, including religious groups, to protect something you claim is religiously based? Okay. So the United States wasn’t originally created because people wanted the ability to choose which religion they practiced, because a monarchy was forcing them to practice one religion and one religion only. Whoops, my bad. I suppose you’d better find funding to go and change all of the American history books for the little kiddos in school.

I can see it now: General George Washington standing at the helm of his boat as it crossed the Potomac under the dark cloak of night as he rode to fight the battle against the British troops in the Revolutionary War to save the colonies from fabulous interior decorators.

The Minutemen, ready at a minute’s notice, to assemble and defend their villages from flannel wearing lesbians who want to teach their little girls how to play softball. Paul Revere, waiting for the signal from the church steeple, “One if by land, two if by gay pride floats.” Patrick Henry shouting, “Give me liberty, or give me a tasty Cosmopolitan made by that cute queer in ass-less chaps!” Good luck with that.

“We’re energy conscious! Go Green!”

     From what I’ve seen the only green you’re interested in is the kind you can line your pockets with. When will you realize that the current forms of energy that are widely used are not limitless? They’re finite resources, meaning that at some point, we’re gonna run out. Don’t tell me you’re just going to leave that problem to future generations, because that’s not only unfair, but cowardly.

Coal-fired plants. That’s your answer. And how are you going to keep them regulated? You’re going to have to use a governmental agency, which then counters your policy of smaller government. Is there such a thing as clean burning coal?

Oh, and be damned the wildlife refuges, yes? Let’s go drilling wherever the hell we please, right? Because obviously you’re going to keep all that endless oil you find within the confines of our borders, right? Wait…what’s that? You’re whispering. Secrets don’t make friends, ya know. Oh, you’re going to sell the oil, because you’ll make more money that way. Of course! That’s why we don’t use any of our own oil now anyway, right?

Besides, we all know hydroelectric power is too clean to possibly work. And the wind never blows, so using wind turbines are out of the question. Hell, the world is supposed to end in December, so why not pollute it as much as we possibly can?

“Down with Collective Bargaining!”

     Right, I think I can draw a correlation here – collective sounds like commune. Communes are where hippies live. Hippies are anti-government, and they’re dirty.  They think we should rule with love instead of an iron fist. And free love means no condoms, more pregnancies, which will lead to more abortions, and for those children who aren’t aborted, they’re far more likely to grow up as homos and want equal rights and to be able to get married and all that other crap. And the rest of the hippies will be busy chaining themselves to trees, preventing forward progress for oil drilling. So…down with collective bargaining.

Well, there you have it, folks! I’ve managed to come full circle in only 900 words. I’ve summarized a party’s platform with all the logic and finesse of a gnat. Really hard to believe that anyone would willingly admit to those lines of thought.

But it takes all kinds, right? After all, America is a melting pot. I just hope it doesn’t melt away into oblivion…

Reasons Same-Sex Marriage Should Never Be Legalized.

So I’ve written about same-sex marriage before. I’ve given it a lot of thought, and I may be having a change of heart. After listening to the other side talk, I’ve come to some conclusions:

1. The purpose of having a mate is being able to procreate. After all, if heterosexuals didn’t bump nasties, there wouldn’t be any homos. Therefore, we should not only not legalize same-sex marriage, but also immediately cease the following:

• Sperm Banks – God never wanted this for us. If you take a hard look at the Bible, I’m sure there’s some kind of verse that says, “Thou shalt not jerk off in a sterilized container.” It’s glaringly obvious that this isn’t right. It’s just simply not natural. Besides, insemination doesn’t necessarily require one to knock boots with someone else, so it can’t be considered an acceptable form of procreation. And if you can’t have your own kids, well, you must have done something to piss off the Big Boss Man, so you don’t deserve one via artificial means.
• Adoption – This one’s obvious. It goes against all religion. Shame on people for taking the easy way out and adopting. You don’t have to do the horizontal polka to adopt. You don’t have nine months of bloating, cravings, etc., to adopt. You don’t even have to add water! Seriously! Don’t be so lazy! If it’s all about procreation, how can someone possibly justify adoption? It’s like hiring a maid or landscaping service. Do it your damn self!
• Daycare – I know, I know. How is daycare bad? Well, first of all it shows that the parents of the children aren’t really committed. “I totally porked my wife, and now we have this miniature person. He just gets in the way, and he’s not very smart. I know, let’s let someone else raise him!” See? No commitment whatsoever. Secondly, it allows a child to experience diversity. And bad things always happen when diversity occurs. You suddenly have to answer awkward questions like, “Why does that kid look different than me?” or “Where’s Sally’s pee-pee?” And you shouldn’t have to put yourself through that.
• Single parents – How is this even possible? Everyone knows that kids grow up better when they have a mom and a dad, regardless of how well mom and dad get along.  So it’s obvious that this has to stop. Single mothers should be forced to marry single fathers, thus eliminating this issue.

2. Gay never really meant ‘happy’, but in actuality has always been a code word for ‘sin’.

• Think about it… “Don we now our gay apparel.” What does that mean? I’m sure it’s not that we should put on our happy clothes, or wrap ourselves in rainbow flags. I think it’s more referring to putting on the skimpy red negligee with the white fur trim. “Don we now our sin apparel.” That sounds better. After all, why else would the sex stores have clothing designed specifically for the Christmas Holiday?

3. If we legalized gay marriage, we’d have to legalize gay divorce, gay custody, gay alimony, and a bunch of other really gay stuff.

• Homosexuals should be thankful to those that vote against same-sex marriage. I bet most of them vote that way not because of a religious belief, but because they don’t want homos to have to go through all that paperwork. It’s not oppression or discrimination, but considerate forethought.

4. The Bible says it’s wrong. And since the Bible was written by man, it must be true. ‘Nuf said.

5. We shouldn’t give homos special rights.

• It’s only fair. Why should homos have all the same privileges as heteros? What have they done to earn what heteros have? They haven’t been fighting nearly long enough or hard enough to earn these ‘special rights’ they’re seeking. How dare they think that they deserve equality.  How dare they ask for special rights! Equality in the workplace? They got a job, didn’t they? Protection against discrimination? Suck it up! Life’s a bitch! And why should we give them special rights? Because if we do, we’ll have to recognize polygamy and other unsavory ideas. This brings me to my next point

6. Bestiality. Because of course, that’s the next logical step. First, it’s same-sex. Then, it’s man on horse and pig-spanking and all kinds of crazy stuff. And sexual deviancy is bad.

So, it’s now obvious to me that same-sex marriage is not only wrong, it should never be legalized. I wonder why it was never this clear to me before.