I see from your recently-held human elections that Earthlings continue to not want to allow individuals attracted to members of the same gender (or homo-sexuals) to unite in a legally-binding ceremony signifying mutual love and the intention to tie one's fates to the other. Humans of differing genders may engage in such ceremonies (and often do), though while the language of such ceremonies express the intention that this union will last until the death of one or both of the individuals involved, they appear to mostly be kidding about that.
On Superion, we reproduce asexually (for the ignorant among you, this means we do not require a partner to produce an offspring). Still we can (and DO) engage in physical relations with other Superions, though that's because sometimes Daddy's got wants instead of needs. The point being, Superions do not have as strictly defined gender roles as you humans do, so I am fascinated and confused by your desire to restrict one another's ability to achieve happiness based on gender preferences.
Now, granted, I'm in favor of almost anything that keeps human beings from achieving happiness, as I loathe and detest (yes, both!) your entire species, but I remain confused about the distinction.
If I understand one argument correctly, humans who prefer to wed those of an opposite gender (or hetero-sexuals) fear that allowing humans who prefer to wed those of an identical gender (or homo-sexuals) will pose a direct threat to the traditional (i.e. opposite gender union).
I have never once heard of one of the homo-sexuals saying that they want ONLY homo-sexual unions allowed. Do the hetero-sexuals fear that once the homo-sexuals are allowed to wed, they will suddenly become irresistible to everyone? Aside from Angela Lansbury, I find no human beings physically desirous, so it's hard for me to judge, but I suspect given many of the homo-sexuals proclivity for flamboyant dress and rhythmic dancing, this may be a genuine fear.
Still, I have assembled this brief list of a few of the things I have observed on Earth that seem to pose a greater threat to traditional marriage than homo-sexual unions:
1. The Wonderbra
2. booze
3. Bret Michaels
4. Having children
5. Big Macs
6. The upcoming Superion invasion after which all human unions will be made illegal
7. ESPN
8. sluts
9. Angela Lansbury (one would assume at least. Hot momma!)
10. Snoring
And yet, for some reason, hetero-sexuals choose not to make any of these items illegal.
While I applaud humanity's ongoing efforts to make each-other miserable, if I were able to choose between banning homo-sexual or hetero-sexual unions, I would certainly choose to ban the latter. Hetero-sexual unions result in far too many additional human beings running around Planet Earth. As it is, once the Superion Invasion Fleet takes over your planet, we're going to have to kill at least half of you anyway. If you could all gay up and stop making more babies in the meantime, it's going to be a lot less miserable once the rest of my kind get here.
On Superion, we reproduce asexually (for the ignorant among you, this means we do not require a partner to produce an offspring). Still we can (and DO) engage in physical relations with other Superions, though that's because sometimes Daddy's got wants instead of needs. The point being, Superions do not have as strictly defined gender roles as you humans do, so I am fascinated and confused by your desire to restrict one another's ability to achieve happiness based on gender preferences.
Now, granted, I'm in favor of almost anything that keeps human beings from achieving happiness, as I loathe and detest (yes, both!) your entire species, but I remain confused about the distinction.
If I understand one argument correctly, humans who prefer to wed those of an opposite gender (or hetero-sexuals) fear that allowing humans who prefer to wed those of an identical gender (or homo-sexuals) will pose a direct threat to the traditional (i.e. opposite gender union).
I have never once heard of one of the homo-sexuals saying that they want ONLY homo-sexual unions allowed. Do the hetero-sexuals fear that once the homo-sexuals are allowed to wed, they will suddenly become irresistible to everyone? Aside from Angela Lansbury, I find no human beings physically desirous, so it's hard for me to judge, but I suspect given many of the homo-sexuals proclivity for flamboyant dress and rhythmic dancing, this may be a genuine fear.
Still, I have assembled this brief list of a few of the things I have observed on Earth that seem to pose a greater threat to traditional marriage than homo-sexual unions:
1. The Wonderbra
2. booze
3. Bret Michaels
4. Having children
5. Big Macs
6. The upcoming Superion invasion after which all human unions will be made illegal
7. ESPN
8. sluts
9. Angela Lansbury (one would assume at least. Hot momma!)
10. Snoring
And yet, for some reason, hetero-sexuals choose not to make any of these items illegal.
While I applaud humanity's ongoing efforts to make each-other miserable, if I were able to choose between banning homo-sexual or hetero-sexual unions, I would certainly choose to ban the latter. Hetero-sexual unions result in far too many additional human beings running around Planet Earth. As it is, once the Superion Invasion Fleet takes over your planet, we're going to have to kill at least half of you anyway. If you could all gay up and stop making more babies in the meantime, it's going to be a lot less miserable once the rest of my kind get here.
No comments:
Post a Comment