Wednesday, March 23, 2005
A comedian can be a columnist?
For all of you liberals out there that had a connipition fit about a blogger being a reporter.
Look at who the Seattle Post-intelligencer put as a columnist on the question of gay marriage.
See:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/saturdayspin/216621_sorbo19.html
At the top it states:
CATHY SORBO
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER COLUMNIST
But at the bottom it reads:
Cathy Sorbo is a Seattle-based comedian; www.cathysorbo.com.
First of all, I find it fitting that she is doing the column. Especially since what she has written was so laughable.
She actually thinks, that this change will have no effect on our society. After all, it is just what two people, who profess to
love each other, want. How bad can that bet?
*****NEWS FLASH CATHY: Ever heard of unintended consequences? ******
If you allow gay marriage what is next?
In Asia, Africa and parts of Europe; the age of consent is 12. Why are we at 18?
Why is it a problem for teachers and their student to be "involved" with each other? (i.e. Mary Kay and Villi)
What is next? Human and non-human marriages, after all she was the best goat I ever had. (joking)
And I have to ask. Where is the outrage from the press? Is she or is she not a journalist.
Can only those who support the liberal point of view be allowed print space in the PI?
A Blogger can write a blog about current events for years and NEVER get a column in the PI.
To put it succinctly. Lady, you are deluding yourself.
- posted by Mike @ 7:15 PM
Comments:
<< Home
She isn't pretending to be strictly a journalist and nothing but. It is stated that she is a comedienne. Big difference. Now, uninteded consequences. Do you think legally wedded gay partners will divorce at the same rate as their heterosexual counterparts and clog the legal system? I pretty much decided the only reason I was against the whole gay marriage thing was because I just wasn't comfortable with it. Therefore, fairness dictates that I am not someone who should deny anyone the opportunity to enter into a legally binding agreement. Live and let live.
# posted by 
: 8:01 PM
: 8:01 PM
Yes, I do think (if allowed) the gay divorce rate would be the same. What makes you think it will not be? After all, people are people.
Please read the previous posts on this subject. There are more "lifestyles" that people are not allowed to live, just because they want too.
Please read the previous posts on this subject. There are more "lifestyles" that people are not allowed to live, just because they want too.
Being colorblind and not being allowed into one profession or another really doesn't have much to do with keeping people from entering into a legal arrangement with whomever they choose. If it is all about biology, are heterosexual couples who are childless not really married? You seem to like apple/orange comparisons. It really doesn't seem rational. (JB)
# posted by : 9:42 PM
: 9:42 PM
A point I failed to touch on....Why does a married relationship between CONSENTING ADULTS mean that the next step is to lower the age of consent to twelve years old, etc.? Why would this throw the doors open to all the bizarre crap I hear suggested by the likes of Rick Santorum with his "man/dog" rhetoric? (JB)
# posted by : 9:47 PM
: 9:47 PM
JB,
What part of "can not enter in to a legal arragement", don't you understand. To be licensed is a legal arrangement. As for "are heterosexual couples who are childless not really married?" NO, for the definition of marriage is not only biology but history as well. (note: you omit part of it, again.)
And who defines "consenting adults"? As late as 1960, the age of consent has been as lower as 12 depending on the state.
What part of "can not enter in to a legal arragement", don't you understand. To be licensed is a legal arrangement. As for "are heterosexual couples who are childless not really married?" NO, for the definition of marriage is not only biology but history as well. (note: you omit part of it, again.)
And who defines "consenting adults"? As late as 1960, the age of consent has been as lower as 12 depending on the state.
So, they had the age of consent as low as 12 WITHOUT gays being able to get married? What caused THAT? I thought you said that allowing gays to get married would have THOSE consequences. (JB)
Post a Comment
# posted by : 8:55 PM
: 8:55 PM<< Home
