own house, like at LI 87326, where the mom knits and the dad
plays guitar and the little kid works very industrious with his Speak
& Spell, and when we talk, it will make total sense, and when we
look at the stars and moon, if choosing to do that, we will not think
of LI 44387, where the moon frowns down at this dude due to he is
hiding in his barn eating Rebel CornBells instead of proclaiming his
SnackLove aloud, we will not think of LI 09383, where this stork
flies through some crying stars who are crying due to the baby who is
getting born is the future Mountain Dew Guy, we will not think of
that alien at LI 33081 descending from the sky going, Just what is
this thing called a Cinnabon?
In
terms of what we will think of, I do not know. When I think of what
we will think of, I draw this like total blank and get scared, so
scared my Peripheral Area flares up green, like when I have drank too
much soda, but tell the truth I am curious, I think I am ready to
try.
ii.
They
will attempt to insinuate themselves into the very fabric of our
emotional lives, demanding the dissolution of the distinction between
beloved and enemy, friend and foe, neighbor and stranger. They will,
citing equality, deny our right to make critical moral distinctions.
Crying peace, they will deny our right to defend, in whatever manner
is most expedient, the beloved. Under the guise of impartiality, they
will demand we disavow all notions of tradition, family, friends,
tribe, and even nation. But are we animals, forced to look blankly
upon the rich variety of life, disallowed the privilege of making
moral distinctions, dead to love, forbidden from preferring this to
that?
— Bernard
"Ed" Alton,
Taskbook
for the New Nation,
Chapter
3. "Are We Not We? Are They Not Them?"
my amendment
Mt. Terence Rackman
Leadville
Courier-Examiner
Leadville, PA 13245
Re: "Not in This
Town, Friend," June 15 issue,
"My Turn"
Lifestyle Section
Dear
Mr. Rackman,
Very
much enjoyed you recent article and wish to weigh in with some of my
thoughts on this troubling matter. I agree with all you had to say.
Like any sane person, I am against Same-Sex Marriage, and in favor of
a constitutional amendment to ban it.
To
tell the truth, I feel that, in the interest of moral rigor, it is
necessary for us to go a step further, which is why I would like to
propose a supplementary constitutional amendment.
In
the town where I live, I have frequently observed a phenomenon I have
come to think of as Samish-Sex Marriage. Take, for example, "K,"
a male friend of mine, of slight build, with a ponytail. "K"
is married to "S," a tall, stocky female with extremely
short hair, almost a crewcut. Often, while watching "K"
play with his own ponytail as "S" towers over him, I have
wondered, Isn't it odd that this somewhat effeminate man should be
married to this somewhat masculine woman? Is "K" not, on
some level, imperfectly expressing a slight latent desire to be
married to a man? And is not "S," on some level,
imperfectly expressing a slight latent desire to be married to a
woman?
Then
I ask myself, Is this truly what God had in mind?
Take
the case of "L," a female friend with a deep, booming
voice. I have often found myself looking askance at her husband, "H."
Though "H" is basically pretty masculine, having neither a
ponytail nor a tight feminine derrière like "K,"
still I wonder: "H," when you are having marital relations
with "L," and she calls out your name in that deep,
booming, nearly male voice, and you continue having marital relations
with her (i.e., you are not "turned off"), does this not
imply that you, "H," are, in fact, still "turned on"?
And doesn't this indicate that, on some level, you, "H,"
have a slight latent desire to make love to a man?
Or
consider the case of "T," a male friend with an extremely
small penis. (We attend the same gym.) He is married to "O,"
an average-looking woman who knows how to fix cars. I wonder about
"O." How does she know so much about
plays guitar and the little kid works very industrious with his Speak
& Spell, and when we talk, it will make total sense, and when we
look at the stars and moon, if choosing to do that, we will not think
of LI 44387, where the moon frowns down at this dude due to he is
hiding in his barn eating Rebel CornBells instead of proclaiming his
SnackLove aloud, we will not think of LI 09383, where this stork
flies through some crying stars who are crying due to the baby who is
getting born is the future Mountain Dew Guy, we will not think of
that alien at LI 33081 descending from the sky going, Just what is
this thing called a Cinnabon?
In
terms of what we will think of, I do not know. When I think of what
we will think of, I draw this like total blank and get scared, so
scared my Peripheral Area flares up green, like when I have drank too
much soda, but tell the truth I am curious, I think I am ready to
try.
ii.
They
will attempt to insinuate themselves into the very fabric of our
emotional lives, demanding the dissolution of the distinction between
beloved and enemy, friend and foe, neighbor and stranger. They will,
citing equality, deny our right to make critical moral distinctions.
Crying peace, they will deny our right to defend, in whatever manner
is most expedient, the beloved. Under the guise of impartiality, they
will demand we disavow all notions of tradition, family, friends,
tribe, and even nation. But are we animals, forced to look blankly
upon the rich variety of life, disallowed the privilege of making
moral distinctions, dead to love, forbidden from preferring this to
that?
— Bernard
"Ed" Alton,
Taskbook
for the New Nation,
Chapter
3. "Are We Not We? Are They Not Them?"
my amendment
Mt. Terence Rackman
Leadville
Courier-Examiner
Leadville, PA 13245
Re: "Not in This
Town, Friend," June 15 issue,
"My Turn"
Lifestyle Section
Dear
Mr. Rackman,
Very
much enjoyed you recent article and wish to weigh in with some of my
thoughts on this troubling matter. I agree with all you had to say.
Like any sane person, I am against Same-Sex Marriage, and in favor of
a constitutional amendment to ban it.
To
tell the truth, I feel that, in the interest of moral rigor, it is
necessary for us to go a step further, which is why I would like to
propose a supplementary constitutional amendment.
In
the town where I live, I have frequently observed a phenomenon I have
come to think of as Samish-Sex Marriage. Take, for example, "K,"
a male friend of mine, of slight build, with a ponytail. "K"
is married to "S," a tall, stocky female with extremely
short hair, almost a crewcut. Often, while watching "K"
play with his own ponytail as "S" towers over him, I have
wondered, Isn't it odd that this somewhat effeminate man should be
married to this somewhat masculine woman? Is "K" not, on
some level, imperfectly expressing a slight latent desire to be
married to a man? And is not "S," on some level,
imperfectly expressing a slight latent desire to be married to a
woman?
Then
I ask myself, Is this truly what God had in mind?
Take
the case of "L," a female friend with a deep, booming
voice. I have often found myself looking askance at her husband, "H."
Though "H" is basically pretty masculine, having neither a
ponytail nor a tight feminine derrière like "K,"
still I wonder: "H," when you are having marital relations
with "L," and she calls out your name in that deep,
booming, nearly male voice, and you continue having marital relations
with her (i.e., you are not "turned off"), does this not
imply that you, "H," are, in fact, still "turned on"?
And doesn't this indicate that, on some level, you, "H,"
have a slight latent desire to make love to a man?
Or
consider the case of "T," a male friend with an extremely
small penis. (We attend the same gym.) He is married to "O,"
an average-looking woman who knows how to fix cars. I wonder about
"O." How does she know so much about
Similar Books
