Chuck(le);
Homosexuality is a topic on which most debate is censored. Since there can be no debate when censorship exists and no solution or compromise without debate, logic says that the homosexuals don’t want a compromise.
They are on a do or die political mission. A Political Kamikaze run, if you will. Not sure why, but then again, I’m not homosexual.
I suppose that homosexuals want to replace debate with propaganda, which if they had their own children, they would know doesn’t work. Yet they keep trying. Isn’t that the definition of something?
Don’t ask, don’t tell is an almost perfect solution, but one the homosexuals don’t like. I think that is because homosexuals don’t breed, they recruit. So the DADT prevents them from recruiting (expanding their number, and therefore political power). So the marriage thingie is really about political power, not rights 4 queers, which is what the claim is. Just like using the word “queer” is a right guaranteed by the first amendment. When homosexuals try to ban the use of a certain word or words, they are taking away the rights they claim to be protecting and attempting to control the conversation at the same time.
It is what in military terms is called the indirect approach. Attack one place in hopes that your opponent uncovers you real objective in the process of defending where you are attacking.
“En las mentiras, verdad…. En la verdad, mentiras….
(In lies, truth…. In truth, lies….)”
-Fernando D’Ortega y Muñoz,
1932-1982
