Like this weekend. I open the Forum section to read an entire piece about deliberative polling on same sex marriage that is first of all, dull, and secondly, completely devoid of any actual human terms. Like gay. Or homosexual. Or LGBT.
This pretty much sums up how we can sanitize the whole issue to satisfy the homos without actually having to refer to them:
This Deliberative Poll deserves careful consideration by state legislators as they consider amendments to the state constitution or constitutional referenda. And to those like state Sen. Daylin Leach, D-Montgomery County, who seek to broaden the legal recognition of same-sex couples, it appears that the issue is best framed as one of “civil marriage.” This phrase combines the informed opinions of our deliberations. It draws an important distinction between state and church by differentiating the civil marriage contract from religious marriage sacraments.
As to the polling process itself, an overwhelming majority of participants found the experience helpful, enjoyable and intellectually stimulating. These were not college students, but a randomly selected sample of Pennsylvania voters, with a median age of 54.
Considering that the topic combined sex, religion and politics, perhaps we all should employ the process when our families sit down around the dinner table.
________________________________________________________________________________________ >
For 18+ years, snowflakes, social justice warriors, and the politically correct have built this blog. Help us keep this content free and accessible with a recurring or one-time donation.
GoFundMe ** Venmo ** Paypal ** CashApp ** Patreon
Each donation creates a digital snowflake vis a vis Steel City Snowflakes _______________________________________________________________________________________________
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09179/980133-109.stm#ixzz0Jjjg8CYx&D
My head is going to explode. Seriously. We've spent the last week trying to get Tom Barnes or LA Johnson or Tony Norman to acknowledge that the issue of “allowing us to exist” is newsworthy. Clearly, we would be better served setting up enjoyable and intellectually stimulating experiences to sanitize discussions of homosexuality and make it more appealing by using clarifiers so as not to frighten the masses.
Listen up. Marriae has two meanings. That isn't my fault. The civil meaning has been there since the founding of this Nation and no one saw fit to change the lingo during any other great debates over the Century. So don't cry to me now about how it frightens the little Christians to share their word (and tax benefits) with the queers. That's clear. Let's move on.
If the Post-Gazette thinks this is the news thats fit to print relative to the gay community in Pittsburgh … an entire column about gay marriage without the word gay. Sheesh.
