Republican Wet Dream

Pretext: this is something I've written for class. The subject was about Andrew Jackson's presidency and his policies, namely that of the rights of Native Americans (or lack thereof, in this case). All that being said, you should still take offense to this.

I believe the action (the Indian Removal Act) of the Government is for the good of the people? Why? Because the addition of another group of peoples would only make things more complicated.

First of all, that's another group that demands right. I mean, c'mon! Another one? Women and slaves are bad enough, but another group of people who should justifiably get the same rights and equal treatment; that's so sensical, I can't help but deny it! If we let them keep their land and become actual citizens of these God blessed United States, what's to keep them from getting their fully endowed Constitutional right? Like marriage or voting? They'd already get their right to follow Christianity, and hold it as the ultimate Truth and foundation this country was built on -- but legal recognition? Then we'd get slightly less tax money!

And another thing: they follow their own belief system. Who does that? Not real Americans, that's who! We fought them Brits for the right to do things out own way, and because of that, we have our own country. A country where we do things democratically and everyone (as long as they're white and male and straight) gets an equal voice! A country where we do our own thing. A country so great, everyone should follow its example. I fact, we should go help all those other countries, even if they didn't ask for our help. We love Jesus that much! Imagine if we ever accepted another belief or value as our own? That'd be like the president -- our dear King Jackson -- changing colors or something.

Finally, they're always fighting one another. There's, like, a dozen different tribes. None of them get along. It sounds more like the tagline for a reality show. But here in America, it's a mandatory to get along. That's why they have to be kicked out: they aren't like us, and slightly altering anything so it's mutually beneficial is too much work. No one in the 50 (or about that, what time period is it again?) has ever has a disagreement, discrepancy, debate, dissented, or differed on any issue. Ever. That is a fact. No need to look it up. That whole "Civil War" thing was just over which side toast lands on when dropped. And it wasn't so much of a war as it was a "Nation Wide Tea Party" where all the tea got switched for black powder and the cups switched for rifles. That's all it was.

I support equality. I support Jackson.

God bless America.

What might cause others to hesitate, might stimulate others to ejaculate.

As the wise words of Anon have requested, this rant shall be about gay marriage. And I'll be good Guy Kyle and tell you this now: there probably won't be anything here that hasn't already been used in an argument before. And yes, this title was totally stolen from Daniel Tosh.

"So what is your stance on such debauchery, Kyle?" You will ask from your shallow, Republican face-hole. Personally, I think they should be given equal rights.

"Are you sure, Kyle?" You'll tempt like devil-spaw. See below image for just how sure I am.

Just how sure I am.

Message across? Good. Now let's start with actual supporting evidence.

The Constitution.

This is mostly thrown towards American, my home land. I'm not quite sure about other countries (except for Australia, which allows it. Woo Aussies!), so best not to even go there. 

Anyway, the central document of our country says some pretty cool stuff (even thought there are plenty of typos) that lets us -- as legal citizens of the country -- do some pretty cool stuff. Some examples are:

• Not to be killed
• To express your opinion
• To practice your religion
• To pursue happiness, unless you can't be taxed for it
• And a bunch of other things

Now, I've actually found something interesting on that page I linked. I'll quote it here so you don't have to look for it: 

Note that there is no right to marry or bear children included among any of the rights listed above. It is not a "natural" right, because natural rights are only rights of individuals, and exercise of a "right" to marry, without the consent of the other, would be an assault. Since consent is required, it is a matter of contract, and contractual rights are created by the community, even if it is a "community" of only two persons. Since the community is normally a larger polity, and since all legal contracts are agreements not only between the contracting parties, but also with the entire community, therefore the community has the power to regulate marriage and childbirth, and has exercised that power since time immemorial, for the benefit of the community.

Quite a mouthful, correct? Not that your moth can fit a lot; as specified before, it's quite shallow and Republican.

"Ha!" You shout at your monitor, thinking you have foiled me once more. "It says in there that the community can regulate marriage!" Congratulations, you're correct!

And congratulations, you don't understand what a community is! It is not, and I can't stress this enough, it is not the government or judicial system. You see how big and bold and italic and underlined that word is? Let is burn itself into your mind for a moment. Go ahead, I'll wait.

Took you long enough. Thoroughly implanted now? Good.

"But just what is a community then, Kyle?" You'll ask me, finally realizing the futility of arguing with me through the internet and my own post. Well, it could be as little as only two persons, as said in that paragraph. Of course, it could also be a neighborhood, or a church or something. "But wait!" Your morale has risen. "Jesus will save us!" And again, you get another point. Damn, you're on a roll today.

A church, no matter how large or small (see those dirty Catholics), does have the right to regulate who marries who within their boundaries. Fair enough, the independent beliefs decide who they wed in a spiritual sense. That all makes good sense. However, religion does not rule law. Or at least not anymore. Thus, though separate belief systems may prohibit homosexual unions, there can be no justifiable reason to discriminate the right to marriage (an extension of "Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness") on legal grounds. And yes, religious nut-jobs, a judge can marry you. To another person, that is. Though don't let that stop you from marrying a judge.

Family Matters

Here's another big one: how homosexuality would re-define what a family is. As always, I'll be trusting dictionary.com for all of my definition-y needs:

fam·i·ly

[fam-uh-lee, fam-lee]noun, plural fam·i·lies,adjective

noun

1.

a.

a basic social unit consisting of parents and their children,considered as a group, whether dwelling together or not:the traditional family.

b.

a social unit consisting of one or more adults together withthe children they care for: a single-parent family.

2.

the children of one person or one couple collectively: We want alarge family.

3.

the spouse and children of one person: We're taking the family onvacation next week.

4.

any group of persons closely related by blood, as parents,children, uncles, aunts, and cousins: to marry into a socially prominent family.

5.

all those persons considered as descendants of a commonprogenitor.

Check out that first one there. Mm. Sure doesn't seem to include anything about heterosexual couples only. But that's not even the tip of the ice berg. Oh no, some people have gone so far to say that "children do better in a heterosexual parent household," to which I just have to drop the science on and prove everyone wrong. That's just what I do.

Another argument on this matter is as thus "Then why can't I marry my dog? I love her a lot, so why can't I?" Not kidding, a friend of mine said that. I pray to Cthulu he was only kidding. But my response is -- and this is earth-shockingly devastating, so I suggest sitting down if you aren't already -- dogs don't have legal standing! That's right, they can't agree to any form of social contract, which marriage is! Mind blowing, right? this also applies to any non-sentient beings and objects.

Finally, people claim that legalization of gay marriage would lead to group marriages, which doesn't really make much sense, and actually commits the slippery slope fallacy.

God said so!

No. No he didn't. In fact, if we were to take a literal interpretation of the Bible (which a lot of people seem to do for some reason), we'll get the several verses about homosexuals, a good bit of which seem to actually condone such relationships an encourage them.

And the ones that do talk negatively about the subject, are ever only about gay sex. Big difference between marriage and sex. Pretty sure about that. HIV positive about it.

And the point about how "God made Adam and Even, not Adam and Steve" is possibly one of the most ridiculous and idiotic premises I've ever heard. I mean, really? You think the creator of everything ever doesn't know how basic biology works? Seriously? At this point, it's pretty safe to call you a dumbass for saying that. How the hell else were they supposed to reproduce? It's basic fucking math, for Christ's sake! Get that shit right!

Sorry, got a little heated there. Anyway, this was for you Anon. Hope you enjoyed.