OR: They Can't Help Being That Way, Can They?
Published on July 12, 2004 By CrispE In Politics
The current political hysteria over the menace of Lefty marriages in the U.S. and the threat it poses to our Righty society has now reached the point where many church and social leaders want to pass a Constitutional Amendment banning Lefties from marrying. The language of the amendment: "We hereby define marriage as a union between two right handed people." fits scriptural reasoning in the old testament because we read in Exodus when God speaks to Moses at the burning bush, "Go and tell Pharoah, let my people go! Oh, and BTW: You're not left handed, are you?" Now, I have an admission for you, my brother is left handed!!!

Throughout history left handed people have born the mark of second-class citizenship and often during the middle ages, along with the Jewish people were burned at the stake in Europe when towns had famines or plagues. Left handed people were mostly considered unscroupulous and traitors. The phrase "the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing" probably spawned from this natural suspicion. When my brother came out of his box at the age of 5 we were all shocked that one of those left handed perverts was in our family but somehow we overcame prejudice and 1000's of years of culture to embrace what he truly is: A man who writes left handed.

Genetic surveys done would indicate left handed people comprise between 2 and 15% of the population. That would mean between 5 and 30 million Americans are born this way. The numbers are probably skewed by the fact that if asked point blank: "Are you a pervert left handed person?" many lefties will answer no because of the shame attached.

Studies done where one twin was left handed showed that more often than the general right-handed population if one twin was left handed, so was the other. Other genetic studies also indicate a genetic link in left handed people. Nevertheless, the true genetic link has not yet been found and may not be for many years but I know it has always been my mother's fondest hope that the research will go on and eventually we will let the light in on the truth.

Now I know my righty friends out there are saying, "you're not left handed, why do you care?" Well, friends, if lefties are banned from marriage, couldn't the court by implied law (which is what courts often follow) say that this clearly establishes a barrier against lefties in our society? I am not saying they would be rounded up but clearly this fear that they are invading our moral center and ruining our values, peddling drugs to our children, using unholy sexual positions that we righties would never use is pervasive. Some people in communities in the midwest put signs in their lawns exclaiming "No LEFTIES allowed in town after dark!"

Some have even tried to reform my brother. My mother tried for years to get him to write and shake hands right handed so that no one would know. "Marry a right handed person she told him in his teens and stay away from other lefties" she'd implore him. But alas it wasn't to be. He hid his "leftness" and worked 40 years for the phone company, paid taxes and raised 2 left handed children who thought they wouldn't, because of gradual acceptence in society, face the stigma of how they were born.

We are Americans, right thinking and mostly right handed. We should never disenfranchise anyone from what it is to be American. We have laws, good laws against public conduct of a sexual nature and we need to enforce them but what someone is in their heart and does in their bedroom with another consenting adult is between them and God and I say, so be it.

This proposed amendment is wrong.

What do you think, righties?


Comments (Page 2)
5 Pages1 2 3 4  Last
on Jul 12, 2004
To the Anonymous User:
If it is genetic, is it a choice? Did you have a choice when you were born on hair color, foot size? In the Old Testament leprosy was considered a result of sin. But science has shown leprosy to be a disease, not a punishment from God. Before we call being a lefty a sin, shouldn't we at least take the time to find out for certain that it is?
on Jul 12, 2004
Why does everybody always forget how the government discriminates against the ambidextrous? They can't marry either. The government even intervened when Utah attempted to allow them to! That's as discriminating as not allowing lefties to marry, yet they have no voice among the Hollywood liberals who like to pretend that they care for all human beings.
And don't tell me that they choose to be ambidextrous, because it's as "genetic" as being left-handed.
on Jul 12, 2004
A constitutional amendment would prevent any state from being forced to recognize a homosexual marriage performed in another state, correct? So for those of you arguing from the "States Rights" position should be supporting the amendment, not going against it.


The currently proposed amendment would prevent ALL states from recognizing homosexual marriages. The CURRENT state of things would prevent any state from being forced to recognize homosexual marriages performed in other states. That's why the federal government needs to stay out of it, and let each state decide separately.

So the proponents of “states rights” would oppose the amendments. We could have lefty states and righty states. We did it before. It almost worked. Minor upridsing.


...you mean that pesky little problem in the 1860s?

on Jul 12, 2004
Get those left handed sunnuva guns out of here. We don't need their kind in a proper moral society such as ours. I for one will not stand a wrong handed person within 100 yards of me. Why, when I see two of those wrongies standing on a corner shakin their lefts, I just want to puke! So I yell, "Get out of my town, wrongies!" And if anybody in my family every announces they are left handed, god help me! I'll just get my shotgun and shoot em dead. The only good lefty is a dead lefty!
on Jul 12, 2004
Joseph:
Ambidextrose? Does that mean they can eat sugar with both hands? Hehehe. Yes, they should allow to marry too. My wife is ambidextrose, as much as I've tried to get her to just use her right hand for M&M's. They always melt in her hand the other way.....
on Jul 12, 2004
I think that eventually there will have to be a nationwide standard regarding whether to recognize same-sex marriage.

The ammendment as I have seen it restricts marriage to only one man and one woman.

on Jul 12, 2004
None of these are lifestyle choices, they are conditions of nature that cant be helped or changed.


Unfortunatly, I'm going to have to disagree there.

Being gay is a lifestyle choice. Or if you want it in the Darwinism form:

If being gay is natural and is of nature, then gayness itself would be a very rare thing. The fact that two gay men or gay women can not NATURALLY have a child together would mean that their "species" would die out because it would have no way to reproduce. Survival of the fittest.

A constitutional amendment shouldn't be necissary, but unfortunately it is still sought after because of the main-streaming of gay and lesbian acceptance.

Peace,

Beebes
on Jul 12, 2004
OK. Now, I cannot speak for the lefty lobby, and this seems to be a rather rational discussion of the topic, so I will bring out the other specter. Yes. I am going to use the “cu” word.

What if the federal government follows Vermont and Mass. lead and by federal statutes gives Civil Unions equal status under the law as marriage. Civil union, two people, no horses or third parties. Civil union, no religion, justice of the peace. Two people in a loving committed relationship that desire to be recognized by law with the same duties and responsibilities of righties.

IG
on Jul 12, 2004
little_whip:
Some actions fall into the area of criminal such as adult to minor relationships. I doubt anyone will take up the flag of such as genetic predisposition and equating that with "leftism" would be incorrect.

Did the founding fathers have in mind to protect lefties. Well, you could certainly make the case that some of them were lefties and felt the Constitution in the ratified form said what it needed to about them, right? Did they feel a need to define marriage in the way the proposed amendment does? No.

Remember, I am only saying we don't need to rush to judgement until all the research is done. That it will take a few years to do it doesn't bother me. This isn't a new situation, only the way we are looking at it.
on Jul 12, 2004
Being gay is a lifestyle choice.


Being homosexual is no more a lifestyle choice than being heterosexual is.
on Jul 12, 2004
Being homosexual is no more a lifestyle choice than being heterosexual is.


I think the difference is that heterosexuality has an actual purpose in nature, where as homosexuality doesn't. Of course, an attraction might not be a lifestyle choice, and I might not have any control over my lust for redheaded babes with big ol' boobs like Alyson Hannigan.
on Jul 12, 2004
I think the difference is that heterosexuality has an actual purpose in nature, where as homosexuality doesn't.


So does being intelligent. Should we therefore make a constitutional amendment banning marriage between stupid people?

Lets face the facts. This ammendment isn't about "Nature" or saving the institution of marriage, it's about forcing a particular brand of morality onto a minority.
on Jul 12, 2004
Lets face the facts. This ammendment isn't about "Nature" or saving the institution of marriage, it's about forcing a particular brand of morality onto a minority.


That's true, and even if we legalize gay marriage, there will stil be much forcing a particular brand of morality onto a minority. There are minorities as significant as homosexuals unable to marry (polygamists, relatives), and yet, notice how supporters of gay marriage never even mention other areas where marriage discriminates, and I honestly doubt that they will make a deal about these other minorities even after gay marriage is legalized.
on Jul 12, 2004
Death_by_Beebles:
Calling it a lifestyle choice is interesting. It's interesting that through the ages the percentage of leftyism has been fairly constant by both culture and times (bad times, good times, etc.) and the genetic studies done this far at least imply that a genetic component exists.

As for Darwin, many species seem to have no real purpose or function in the kaleidoscope of nature, for example: the duckbill platypus or the komodo dragon. So if you drag Darwin into this I would say you need to appreciate that species that do have a purpose sometimes become extinct and others that don't, survive. I can't see how that applies to this.

What seems to be coming out is that lefties are seen as a threat to a core value system. But is that because they are left-handed or because the value system was already so weak that it is easy to upset it?
on Jul 12, 2004
One area where lefties continued to be discriminated against is military salutes. The traditional salute is done with the right hand, which discriminates against left-handed members of the military.

However, proposals to allow a left-handed salute have been met with opposition. One general notes, "We have always saluted right-handed. Allowing a left-handed salute undermines the seriousness and respect of saluting."

Pro-lefty activists disagree, arguing that, "There are plenty of sloppy right-handed salutes that do more harm to the salute than snappy, crisp left-handed salutes would."

But right-handed traditionalists maintain, "If we allow left-handed salutes, what other salutes will be allowed? What if someone decides to salute by scratching their neck or touching their nose."

Lefties counter that that is rediculous, "A salute has always been a hand above the eyebrow. Everyone knows this."
5 Pages1 2 3 4  Last