Pat Boone has given us yet another compelling reason to oppose gay marriage: Webster’s Dictionary!
I noticed this powerful use of logic by Pat Boone today in a World Net Daily editorial that he penned (or, at least, word processed):
Not just the Bible, but Webster’s Dictionary, defines this covenantal relationship called “marriage” as a commitment between one man and one woman.
Wow. Not just the Bible, but the dictionary, is on the side of heterosexual sanity here. And not just any old dictionary, but Webster’s Dictionary. The anti-gay rights side now has not just one book to publicly appeal to, but two: the Bible and the dictionary!
And if Webster’s Dictionary says it, obviously we must not ever do anything contrary to it because, well, when Pat Boone was a kid he used Webster’s Dictionary to do his homework, and that was back at a time when America was still America, and words meant something.
In other words, gay marriage will ruin not just marriage and America, but the English language!
And gay marriage will also promote the evolution of words, and evolution (as we all know) is bad. If words start evolving, there’s no telling where such a process might stop. We might, for instance, start changing the meanings of other words, like calling, say, “torture” enhanced interrogation.
Oh, wait. That was a bad example. But you get my point.
And by the way, Pat Boone, in the same essay, called gay activists in California sexual jihadists, saying “there is a real, unbroken line between the jihadist savagery in Mumbai and the hedonistic, irresponsible, blindly selfish goals and tactics of our homegrown sexual jihadists.”
I don’t think sexual jihadist is in Webster’s Dictionary. Pat is making up new and inflammatory phrases now. I wish he’d cut that out. He might be inadvertently adding a new phrase to our language if he’s not careful.
Ah, sunflower! What turned you, in your old age, into a cranky Fox News naysayer to those who have suffered a long and unjust history of bigotry, discrimination, and even violent persecution? But I have to admit, you sure could sing when you were young. I’ll certainly give you that. One might even say that you were beautiful. Is that okay to say that you were beautiful?
Here’s Pat doing a duet with Roy Rogers. And what an outfit Roy’s got on! Can we say Village People? Or is there something wrong with looking or being gay?