Busily redefining life, death, and lesser phenomena, B.O.’s badministration has not neglected the family. At least for federal benefits purposes, a pair of same-sex homosexuals is being proposed to count as one. (Not having read the fine print, I don’t know if a pair of different-sex homosexuals’ living together would qualify, but no doubt the likes of Pelosi, Boxer, Rangel, Reid, and Feinstein will tell us.)
What I’m wondering, though, is that if the transmogrification of the concept of “family” is to be made on the dimension of sexual deviation, why not include a man that has intercourse with a ewe or a woman, with a dog? In these cases federal benefits could be extended to cover veterinarian bills for the thereomorphic half of the union. As of this time, maternity benefits would not be reckoned, but with the biological strides this badministration will approve, even that sky may not be the limit.
Sublunary thinkers cannot even contemplate what other innovations B.O. & Co. may introduce; perhaps one federal employee, bunking with 5-6 other homo’s will be a family the taxpayers can subsidize.
Another question is what’s wrong with including a pair of men or a pair of women that do NOT do deviational acts with one another? Is it necessary to be disgusting in order to take? Under this give-everything-to-everybody excuse for a government, why would a normal pair of people be excluded? Wait! I just answered my own question – NORMALITY, OF COURSE, IS THEIR DEFECT!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment