I thought I’d share with you some of the things my friends have posted on Facebook. First, a cartoon that’s obviously meant to support the Progressive open border policy, but that just as obviously proves the opposite:
I understand that you’re supposed to read the cartoon to mean that, without the Native American’s open border policies, we white people would still be floating around the Atlantic. Therefore, open borders are good. I have this strong urge to explain to the Progressives reading the cartoon that, if one looks at what happened to the Native Americans, they would have been wiser to adopt the policies that Republicans now advocate.
The next thing I found on Facebook was this anti-Romney poster:
I get it. Romney is an incredible hypocrite because his ancestors weren’t monogamous. He therefore has no basis for asserting that marriage is between one man and one woman. My response?
Dear Progressive, yes, some cultures are polygamous, but they’ve still involved a man on one side of the bed and a woman on the other. You see, historically, marriage has always been about two things: procreation and a wealth transfer system that allowed the man (who historically created wealth) to be assured that his own progeny, whether from one woman or from several, received his wealth. It’s kind of atavistic.
I’m not saying that atavistic human behavior is a good reason to keep the marriage status quo. As you know, I think the state should get out of the marriage business and get into the civil unions business, with an eye to promoting whatever conjoinings of people are best for the state. However, it’s foolish to pretend that relationships that never have natural procreative abilities are the same as the heterosexual marriages that have been normative throughout history. And no, please don’t hurl the words “adoption” or “artificial insemination” at me, and don’t mention that the English aristocracy so embraced cuckolding that the wife’s marital duty was limited to an heir and a spare. The fact remains that our lizard brains have always focused on getting a man to impregnate a woman, safe in the knowledge that she wasn’t cheating and that it would be his genetic offspring that got the benefit of his labor.
And lastly, a video that several of my friends posted. I don’t know about Prop. 37 and I may discover after researching it that I support it. Nevertheless, watching these vapid, alcoholic, misogynistic Hollywood types promote Prop. 37 (in insulting and condescending tones) inspires in me a visceral dislike for the proposition, and a strong desire to vote against it: