Only a Liberal…

If Sean Penn’s recent acceptance speech at the Oscars doesn’t epitomize mindless liberalism, I dont know what does…

Sean Penn, Oscars 2009: “I think that it is a good time for those who voted for the ban against gay marriage to sit and reflect, and anticipate their great shame, and the shame in their grandchildren’s eyes if they continue that way of support. We’ve got to have equal rights for everyone. And there are these last 2 things. I’m very, very proud to live in a country that is willing to elect an elegant man President.”

Obama in 2008: “I do not support gay marriage. Marriage has religious and social connotations, and I consider marriage to be between a man and a woman.”

I don’t know whether Sean Penn is really, really stupid, or just an unapologetic hypocrite. I am certain he is aware that Barack Obama has repeatedly been against gay marriage in the mainstream press. Yet, he refers to him as an elegant man, immediately after calling people who are against gay marriage shameful.

My conclusion is that mindless liberals like Sean Penn care nothing for substance, but are more interested in style. He is happy, as long as the President has the proper demeanor and personality. What the President says is utterly irrelevant. It’s how he says it, or how he carries himself.

Barack Obama has made it clear he does not support gay marriage. He insists it be called “civil union” to distinguish it from the union of a man and woman. Penn finds opinions like this to be shameful, but does not find Obama to be shameful. Insanity like this is why the Republican party still exists despite all its screwups in the recent past. Penn supports Hugo Chavez and Barack Obama, in spite of their positions and behavior that conflict with the strong beliefs of Penn. Penn couldn’t care less.

What do you think the chances are last time Penn hung out with Chavez, he asked him why he was friends with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Ahmadinejad’s country of Iran routinely executes people for being gay. Mr. Penn, please explain the inconsistencies.

Marriage as we have known it for years is far from “sacred” to many people. Plenty of heterosexual people engage in marriages they have no business engaging in.

That being said, natural reproduction is and always will be better, and cheaper, to society as a whole than artificial reproduction. Humankind cannot continue without reproduction, so an institution where natural reproduction is held above artificial reproduction is a good thing. I do not believe heterosexuals should be forced to have children for the same reason I don’t believe homosexuals should be forced to marry the opposite sex to get the same tax benefits as heterosexuals. In both cases, I feel that way because this is a free country.

On the other hand, there is a HUGE statistical difference between the behavior of heterosexuals vs. homosexuals. Promiscuity by heterosexuals is dangerous, but it seems to be much more popular among homosexuals. I’ve also seen studies that say the number of partners is not the reason for a higher STD occurrence among homosexuals; its the activity engaged in that increases the occurrence. Either way, its riskier to engage in homosexual behavior than heterosexual. It’s also riskier to jump motorcycles over 10 buses, but we haven’t officially made that illegal. People should be educated about risky behavior, not outlawed from doing it.
A lot of conservative or religious people want marriage to be defined as between a man and a woman. I have zero objections to this. If people wish to marry others of the same sex, they can come up with another name. If civil union doesn’t suit them, pick something else. Homosexual marriage in most cases is different than heterosexual marriage, so it makes sense to distinguish between them.

Here’s the easiest way to put it: any man and any woman can get married to each other without living together or loving each other, so why shouldn’t two men or two women who do love each other be able to do the same? As long as they have the same laws and consequences as heterosexuals, life will go on just fine. Come up with a new name for it if you don’t like “civil union.”