I read an article in the Sydney (AUS) Daily Telegraph on Tuesday July 3, stating that British MP Tony Oliver will introduce a bill into the British parliament proposing awards be granted to the partners of homosexual knights similar to the awards granted to the heterosexual wives of knights. I am beginning to wonder just how far down the yellow brick road to fairyland political correctness is going to take western society. And will fairyland ever recover from the handsome prince wedding and bedding another handsome prince instead of Cinderella, Snow White or Sleeping Beauty. I doubt it. Some of you out there will believe that I am trivializing homosexual marriages. That is not my intention. I simply wish to highlight how ludicrous and farcical the concept of one man wedding and bedding another man really is.
To gain social acceptance, homosexuals have used the power of language to redefine themselves as being “gay” with a “sexual orientation,” redefining anal penetration (sodomy) as sexual intercourse and calling it “same sex marriage.” No matter how homosexuals care to define themselves. a spade is still a spade and homosexual is still homosexual. And, what about the possible flow on effects of such marriages? As far as I am aware, homosexual acts were decriminalized because the acts are committed between consenting adults. What about consenting adults in incestuous relationships? In a politically correct world, these people have a much stronger case for discrimination and marriage equality than homosexuals because incestuous relationships are usually heterosexual. Therefore, we may be creating a situation whereby a father can marry his own daughter, a mother her own son and brother marring his sister. Also, these couples do not need to adopt or use rent a womb to have children. The downside of incestuous relationships is that, because of inbreeding, children may be born with mental and/or physical disabilities. However, in my view, this is no worse than homosexuals who are in the highest risk group for becoming infected with the HIV?AIDS Virus through anal penetration. This makes homosexual marriages a public health issue.
What will happen when the politically correct pendulum reaches it zenith (which it surely will) and start it’s downwards swing. History tells us that the swing will travel from one extreme to another, in other words society will swing from political correctness to political suppression. History also tells us that in times of civil unrest and lack of leadership, there are always extremists waiting in the wings to give society the scapegoats and sacrificial lambs that we look for when civiilised society begins to crumble and fall.
Beware the Ides of March
aquarinmist
aquarianmist 
(You deleted this comment. Here it is again)
Uhm…okay, I’m confused now. You asked for debate, but then you ignore my responses, and simply make another post that repeats some of the semantic arguments I already dealt with. You leave comments on other blogs dealing with the same subject, but when I provide you with information that corrects some of your mistakes, it takes you over a month to even click on the link.
Look, I will gladly and happily discuss this with you, and I really don’t mind repeating myself, but are you really sure you even want to talk about this ? Because I’m not getting that impression.
Maybe you’re just waiting for someone to come along who agrees with everything you say ?
*sigh*
Anyway, this new post confuses the heck out of me. You still seem stuck on the whole “anal penetration” issue. I have absolutely no idea why you keep bringing this up in a discussion about marriage, unless you’d like to start revoking marriage licenses of straight folks who like that sort of thing. You bring up the dangers of unprotected sex, yet you fail to explain how this , in your mind, makes only gay marriages a public health issue, or how this even pertains to gay marriage at all. Once again : unprotected anal penetration does not equal marriage, be it gay or straight. Seriously, why do I have to keep reminding you that this is about MARRIAGE, not about the technicalities of gay or straight sex ?
You know how gay marriage becomes a “public health issue” ? In the way that stable, socially accepted, monogamous relationships lead to less STDs. You are once again arguing for the other side. This is what’s so confusing about your posts.
And you do it again in your last paragraph, where you warn how in times of “civil unrest and lack of leadership”, extremists go looking for scapegoats. Remind me, which groups tradiationally get hold of the short end of the stick when things go bad ? It wouldn’t be the minorities, would it ?
Seriously, I can’t tell for which side of this debate you’re trying to argue anymore.
(If I seem at all annoyed or impatient here, I do apologize. It’s just that I’m starting to doubt if talking to people on the internet, even the ones who expressly ask for a debate, is of any use at all. )