[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Opinions/Editorials Title: A Violation of Community Standards A Violation of Community Standards By Mike Adams / 19 July 2013 In my seven years on Facebook, I have seen some pretty crazy posts from some of my friends on the irreligious left. One once suggested that the Virgin Mary should have had an abortion. Another said that Sarah Palin should have both her vagina and mouth stapled shut in order to keep retarded things from coming out of her body. Neither post got the user banned from Facebook. And I’m happy about that. Lunatics need to be exposed in a free and open marketplace of ideas. As Justice Brandeis once said, sunlight is a powerful disinfectant. However, as some of you may know, the Facebook thought police censored me recently. They actually suspended my fan page and my personal page for twelve hours just for posting the following quote: “Gay couples do not deserve equal benefits because they do not equally benefit society.” This simple remark was characterized as a “violation of Facebook community standards.” Personally, I think it was retarded to abort my post. But I’ll staple my mouth shut before I get into any further trouble. Admittedly, I’ve always thought that promoting sodomy was a violation of community standards. But that is far more brazen than what I was saying with my simple little post about marriage. Let me elaborate on my thesis, which is one that I think many Americans can agree with even in these relativistic times. 1. Traditional marriage tames men. Men are animals and they need to be tamed. When they marry women, they tend to become more responsible citizens. But that doesn’t happen when two men “marry.” It’s like putting two animals in a cage. Gay males define “faithfulness” as telling their partner when they’re going out with another man “for the evening.” Faithfulness in the gay male community doesn’t actually mean monogamy. And that’s why gays tend to lead shorter, less healthy lives even if they are in pretend marriages. The government has no interest promoting this facade. 2. Marriage protects women. Let’s take a walk on Sesame Street and play a variation of “which one of these is not like the others.” Here are our choices: 1. Single men, 2. Married men, 3. Single women, 4. Married women. Which one is by far the least likely to be victimized by crime? The answer is #4. Married women are easily the safest among these four demographic groups. And the reason is not just because they are married to some adult. It is because they are married to men who are stronger and better able to protect them. 3. Marriage is good for children. Newsflash: Most heterosexual couples are able to reproduce whereas homosexual couples can’t. (This means they’re not equal categories). Another newsflash: When heterosexuals do have children, they will either be male or female. That’s why a real marriage has one male and one female. It best facilitates the modeling of appropriate conduct for both boys and girls. If you need this explained to you then you are probably suffering from severe intellectual hernia. Or maybe you just believe that all sex differences are socially constructed, which means you are definitely suffering from severe intellectual hernia. So the argument that gay couples do not equally benefit society really isn’t a violation of any community standard that could demand to be taken seriously. It’s just common sense. In fact, those who would argue that same sex couples are “just the same” are violating widely accepted standards of intellectual honesty and reasoned discourse. But that’s not the real issue here. The issue is Facebook’s new role as an attached and non-neutral judge in the court of public opinion. Around the time of my Facebook banning, a gay couple sued a Colorado baker because he would not bake a cake for their same sex “wedding.” Another gay couple previously sued a New Mexico photographer because she would not photograph their same sex “wedding.” Neither suit was necessary because there are lots of bakers and photographers out there who would have been willing to offer their services for same sex “weddings.” But neither couple wanted to exercise the freedom to choose among available alternatives. They wanted to destroy the religious freedom of people who disagree with them. It should be noted that while there are lots of bakers and photographers, there’s only one Facebook. So the consequences of Facebook’s decisions are of greater moment. So, what’s next for those who wish to promote the exclusion of ideas in deference to the idea of inclusiveness? Are we headed toward two Facebooks – one for traditionalists and one for progressives? And, if so, how much longer before the union dissolves over its irreconcilable differences?
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|