Karen Gallo Dunn, click here
to update your web pages on AuthorsDen.
The Gays have about as much right/reason to get married as the Arabs have the right/reason to have
their driver's license picture taken
with only their EYES showing!
To change the Laws of Marriage -- endorse to permit new definitions of Marriage or Driver's License Rules and Regulations -- in order to include a group of unqualified parties is RIDICULOUS. To change our laws to grant certain groups permission to accept a privilege when they are unqualified is INANE.
Arrangements, contracts, agreements can be made between couples no matter what sex they are. However, sacred bonds of matrimony is the number one solid, concrete foundation WE as a United Nation use as our premise for procreation and civilization.
There are many translations, interpretations and versions of the Bible, however, everyone understands the sacred bond of matrimony. No man has the right to change the understood and living definition of a right that belongs ONLY to the parties that this law serves which is: MAN and WOMAN for PROCREATION of FAMILY -- that is known as mother's natures journey to fulfill the fruits of CIVILIZATION and/or or security of companionship and/or dependency.
It is most difficult to find a partner for life in this day and age of aids, lack of morals, lack of standards, lack of stability -- world wide insanity - out of control cells of destruction, etc.
In my 56 years, I have never seen anything to compare to the world situation to date. Combined CoRnfusion -- Prez Bush and the Iraq Bamboozle "WHERE ARE THE WEAPONS?" -- our soldiers returning to America with the Baghdad Boil -- God being kicked out of everywhere and made a spectacle of to the point of insult and sacrilegious intent that has been heart felt by many -- where is Bin Laden??
Don't Forget -- Gov. Bush of FL. dragging Teri Shiavo out of her death bed to hook her back up to life support AGAINST her husband's orders based on her wishes. The Gov gave into the whims of her parents. Included in the bonds of marriage, the husband and/or wife is responsible for each other's last wishes including the funeral arrangements, etc. WHO is the GOV to change the laws of the land? I was a widow before and I had to accept the responsibility to make decisions for my husband without governmental interference.
Could you imagine the Gov's wife in a coma for 13 years and her parents wanted her to continue in the vegetative state in spite of her husband (the Gov's) knowledge and her wishes NOT to stay on life support. Then along comes a Superior and overpowers the GOV and keeps his wife on life support. That WILL BE THE DAY! Where is the majority??
Poor Teri Shiavo will she be forced to live on life support for 25 years or more? -- I guess until maybe both of her parents die or the GOV gets a grip -- then maybe - probably - possibly -- the husband could qualify for control? But how does one obtain control when it is COURT ORDERED because of the unfair battle and pull of a government official who is the PREZ's bro -- against one mere citizen of the USA a mere husband?
....... and NOW -the Gay's Want to Marry. That is simple -- MERELY QUALIFY for the PRIVILEGE and you have the RIGHT for the OPPORTUNITY. Imagine the benefits confusion on which one is THE survivor/mother/child of this relationship????$%^&*()_
Marriage is an institution/constitution by which one man and one woman marry and are bound by law and the Government empowers the State to enforce the laws and burdens as well as the assets of that binding marriage contract.
The purpose of marriage is to procreate, raise, support, care, channel and direct children -- our future population for the continuation of the human race -- to the best of the parent's ability so that these new aspiring ADULT LEADERS will USE their education to possibly add or bring out new changes for the world to make it a little bit better place to live.
Marriage is our solid premise that controls the "universal foundation" for raising a family to carry on the heritage, secrets, cultures, name, family -- the world's number one solid root foundation -- the intended direction to be a family and that's what makes the world go round.
To change, modify the earth's understood concept of our entire life's premise is INSANE. To abuse anyone's religious culture and blaspheme their Jesus, Allah, Creator, Lord, Master, etc. and cast out holy symbols thereby openly offending and chastising believers in God is shaking up our seniors and confusing our children. FREEDOM entitles each one of us to practice our choice of rituals, believes, ceremonies, etc.
However, religious practices, rituals or privileges should NEVER have the right to buden our laws or the constitution into a major change --
Who are you -- the minority of oddballs attempting to unstablize the mere core of our world to satisfy your new rules?
One must qualify to be worthy of the privilege to participate in the GAME. If you do not qualify try another GAME.
Unacceptable - Untimely!
"Shakespeare might remark]
'Much Ado About Nothing'"..
...per William Nevin
Does anyone really care?
Our Future Children !
Our Seniors !
The Moral Majority
HOLD THAT MESSAGE:
What is going on now with these
"I'm coming out of the closet and
I want my boss to know I am gay!"
I just hope that I don't
get fired to---- day!!
What is up with this now?
Who cares if you are in
or out of the closet?
Why do you need to tell it on TV?
What is the purpose of identification?
Telling Private Information?
Do you want a coronation?
Because of your GAY destination.
Self-imposed name calling!
I never had to tell I am not gay!
Who is taking the vote?
Find your Mate
Reader Reviews for
"Gay Marriages? Who Cares? Get a Grip Rosie OHOOOO"
Want to review or comment on this
Click here to login!
Need a FREE Reader Membership?
Click here for your Membership!
|Reviewed by Joe B (Reader)
|Karens reply sent to my personal email-
--------------------------Your Message: ----------------------------
Obviously you are gay and miserable. Re-read and possibly you will UNDERSTAND the message. The point you are missing is in this world and all of the important situations "life threating", etc. etc. etc. --Gay marriages are of little consequence to life this year. If you cannot conceive how everything in the world is topsy turvey == then my friend you should read more than berate someone who is probing you to think. Furthermore, who cares if you are gay or not. They gays are the ones pushing and probing and making spectacles of themselves with special parades, special Disney Days, now they really want to believe they are for REAL. They are the NORM. They what the world want to legalize and incorporate their queerisms. Of course, I could not agree with them or their need to rights of wrong doing. Thanks for your review. I knew there were a few NUTS out there and I will leave you on my page so people can see your blantant stupidity and attack on a person rather than on a paper. Apparently you have not read the rules of reviewing authors writes. Shame on You! Karen Dunn PS: Your analysis of me is convoluded but all one can do is consider the source of JOE BLOW -- - from Karen Dunn
Hmmm..Someones trailer park is showing. Another rant, why am I not suprised? Was it the spirit inside you again? I understood the message, I mean afterall, you were indirectly talking about me. Yes there is more going on, and besides shouting on the moutain tops, what else are you doing to help? I fought a Gulf War because people like you are more comfortable with a soap box than action. Me miserable? It would make you feel better if I said I was, but sorry toots, nope. I have buckets of money, great friends and a loving boyfriend. Gay marriages may of little consequence to you, but they are a very big deal to me. You seem the self centered type so Im sure that wont make much sense to you. Making a spectacle of myself? Im not the one with a webpage full of garbage poetry and illogical "articles". Rules Shmools. There dont seem to be rules for washed-up "writers" trying to relive some youth. "Convoluded", my thats a big word for you! I'm suprised you didn't call me a big poo poo head. "Probing me to think"? All YOU can do is think about it, I however, live it. "Nuts"? Because I don't agree with you? What are you 12? It wouldn't suprise me if you couldn't remove my review. That's ok....you can have some pride. Although it seems your pride could use a facelift too.
Sincerely-Your #1 Fan
PS- You never addressed any of the points I made.
|Reviewed by Karen Dunn
|Blow Joe Blow!!|
|Reviewed by Joe Blaine (Reader)
Karen Dunn does obviously. From her ranting about the government to gay marriage she tries to shock when all she does is bore. Trying to sound like a editorial columnist, she comes off neurotic and desperately in need of attention. When it comes to womans rights she screams "Who are you to judge?!", a few links later she says, "Gays can't get married, its wrong!". Hypocrite? Me thinks so. Her "poetry", totally lacking in imagination screams "care what I think!". This is the type of person whos biggest fear isn't death, gay marriages, abortion, war, etc....her biggest fear is NO ONE LISTENING TO HER. My guess is she's not married and has no long term partner. "Automaic writer" that moves when "spirit is inside you", isn't that called babbling? The spirit must be in her quite often, as all she does is babble. Now she lives in Florida,the home of con-men scam artists. Anyway back her "article" of gay marriage. Karen seems to use the bible and evolution as her basis for rejecting gay marriage. Remember Karen, in those days you too, would've been stoned for blashapmy. Automatic writing is a form of witch craft, which is a sin. Karen overlooks this. She can barely stay on the subject of gay marriage before she goes on a rant about Bush, the government, etc. Thankfully she comes back to gay marriage, without really proving anything. Her arguments have holes you can drive a Mack truck through. Marriage is for bearing children? I'll take the wedding rings of every post-menopausal woman and impotent man now. If we didn't mix chuch and state, this wouldn't happen. But like a used car saleman's pitch, her arguments dont have to support each other for ignorant people to believe them. I also always thought freedom OF religion implied freedom FROM religion. As with religion and tradition, they both change. People like Karen Dunn fear change, for it might make her doubt herself and her "convictions". Bottom line.... What do the rantings of a obscure, neurotic, attention starved 50 yr old with a lack of imagination and a fondness for ranting have to do with me? Absolutely nothing. As she so professionally put it...WHO CARES????
|Reviewed by Eddie Thompson
|Some of the arguments by those reviewing this work are bogus. Nobody has a constitutional right to marry "the one" they love. Even if a man loved more than one person, bigomy is not allowed. Even if a brother loved his biological sister, we would not allow it. Abberant behavior simply should not be given a stamp of governmental approval, no matter how much complaining is done. If it does not add to this society, why should we change the institution to those who want "extra" not "equal" rights. I do not have a right to marry someone who is a man either. This slippery slope is not necessary. Best friends could begin marrying to garner rights afforded to couples who marry with children in mind. I agree with this author, and I enjoyed his article.|
|Reviewed by David Cupples
|Suppose you were told that you cannot marry the love of your life, and gain all civil and social benefits that are pertinent because your eyes were the wrong color? It is the same thing essentially because the fact is that sexual definition is as changeable as the color of your eyes, yes it can be disguised, but you do know the truth you hide. I believe that the institute of marriage should be open to all true and loving partners/couples, not "as long as..."|
|Reviewed by William Neven
|With regard to your comments regarding the gay marriage issue, Karen, I am with you and the other 60+% of Americans in believing that 'marriage' should be defined as a union between a man and a woman. Period. Subsequently, I do not see that there is any discrimination implied by only allowing two members of the same sex to be enjoined via a "civil union" [as has been widely suggested] in order to have their legal affairs put in order. As such, I do not believe any constitutional amendment outlawing homosexual unions would be appropriate, especially since it would be the first to patently discriminate against one group of our society and would thereby set a precedent for further such un-American legislation. Otherwise - as you so wisely point out - with all the death and destruction that is facing us these days, this issue in that respect [as Shakespeare might remark] is really 'Much Ado About Nothing'. Thanks again for sharing your thoughts with us.|