The New York Times is in favor of gay marriage. Okay, I get that. The editors of that paper are entitled to their opinions. Others disagree. These folks too are entitled to their opinions. Yesterday, however, the Times published what has to be the kookiest column ever written with regard to same sex marriage. In a piece headlined Nature's Case for Same Sex Marriage, the writer takes on the argument that procreation is an exclusively heterosexual activity. That's right, the reporter disputes that only a man and a woman together can make a baby. You may ask yourself how this could be possible, and here is the answer: in nature, not all reproduction is heterosexual. Some trees and snails are both male and female. Fungi don't have sexes. That's it, nothing more. Some plants and simple animals do not use heterosexual reproduction the way people do, so nature supports same sex marriage.
This is idiotic. Here is just a small note to professor Haskell, the author of the column in question. Professor, snails and trees are not people. In America (at least so far) ONLY PEOPLE GET MARRIED.
One has to wonder just how wacked out the editors at the Times really are. What ever possessed them to run this column?
This is idiotic. Here is just a small note to professor Haskell, the author of the column in question. Professor, snails and trees are not people. In America (at least so far) ONLY PEOPLE GET MARRIED.
One has to wonder just how wacked out the editors at the Times really are. What ever possessed them to run this column?
No comments:
Post a Comment