damned, liberal...uh...astronomers?
The Solar System is under attack by liberal astronomers and their pro-asteroid agenda! According to these "academics", if Pluto qualifies for planethood, then at least three other, if not more, celestial bodies in the solar system deserve planethood. It is our duty to fight these attacks on the traditional definition of planethood. This is a slippery slope toward destroying planethood as we know it.
NOTE: A key for the italicized words in this satire is included at the end of the post.
Fellow God-fearing citizens, modern science, if not civilization itself, is built upon planethood being our traditional, nine beloved planets. But now some liberal astronomers claim that the inclusion of Pluto under planethood requires us to allow other celestial bodies to be planets, too. Granted Pluto has an elliptical orbit, and the natural orbit for planethood is a circular orbit. But Pluto has the potential of this circular orbit, even though, for various reasons, it isn’t always circular.
The trouble with these liberal astronomers is that they want us to include deviant asteroids or moons under planethood. This includes such unnatural relationships as Pluto’s moon Charon. Come on, two planets in an orbital relationship can’t possibly be planethood. Real planethood needs a planet and a sun, not two planets! As astrophysicist Alan Boss put it, if there are 50 or more planets, then "being a planet isn’t worth what is used to be. Then what’s the big deal about being a planet?"
Some scientists suggest introducing the label "Pluton" for these other celestial bodies, which would afford them rights equal to planethood. Perhaps I can accept this, because it doesn’t sully the good name of planethood. This label could cover things beyond Pluto. The trouble with this label is that it's difficult to create a definition for Pluton which simultaneously both includes Pluto with its elliptical orbit and excludes all other celestial bodies from planethood.
The reason these scientists are having trouble properly defining Pluton is because they're trying to define planethood outside of society and tradition. For decades, our society has understood what planethood means. Any child can tell you which celestial bodies constitute planethood and which don’t. God made the solar system with 9 planets. Nothing more. It doesn't matter if other celestial bodies resemble planethood in some respect. Tradition has never included them in planethood, and it never should.
I'm tempted to write my congressman to push for a Constitutional amendment which would define planethood as the orbital relationship between one sun and one planet that is no further away from the Sun than Pluto. I welcome any support from my fellow Americans.
KEY to italicized words:
liberal astronomers = liberal judges, liberal activists
planethood = legal marriage
celestial bodies = cohabitating relationships, e.g. a homosexual relationship
elliptical orbit = non-reproducing relationship
circular orbit = reproducing relationship
asteroid, moon = LGBTQ people
Pluton = civil union
Americans = idiots
x-posted to blobert
NOTE: A key for the italicized words in this satire is included at the end of the post.
Fellow God-fearing citizens, modern science, if not civilization itself, is built upon planethood being our traditional, nine beloved planets. But now some liberal astronomers claim that the inclusion of Pluto under planethood requires us to allow other celestial bodies to be planets, too. Granted Pluto has an elliptical orbit, and the natural orbit for planethood is a circular orbit. But Pluto has the potential of this circular orbit, even though, for various reasons, it isn’t always circular.
The trouble with these liberal astronomers is that they want us to include deviant asteroids or moons under planethood. This includes such unnatural relationships as Pluto’s moon Charon. Come on, two planets in an orbital relationship can’t possibly be planethood. Real planethood needs a planet and a sun, not two planets! As astrophysicist Alan Boss put it, if there are 50 or more planets, then "being a planet isn’t worth what is used to be. Then what’s the big deal about being a planet?"
Some scientists suggest introducing the label "Pluton" for these other celestial bodies, which would afford them rights equal to planethood. Perhaps I can accept this, because it doesn’t sully the good name of planethood. This label could cover things beyond Pluto. The trouble with this label is that it's difficult to create a definition for Pluton which simultaneously both includes Pluto with its elliptical orbit and excludes all other celestial bodies from planethood.
The reason these scientists are having trouble properly defining Pluton is because they're trying to define planethood outside of society and tradition. For decades, our society has understood what planethood means. Any child can tell you which celestial bodies constitute planethood and which don’t. God made the solar system with 9 planets. Nothing more. It doesn't matter if other celestial bodies resemble planethood in some respect. Tradition has never included them in planethood, and it never should.
I'm tempted to write my congressman to push for a Constitutional amendment which would define planethood as the orbital relationship between one sun and one planet that is no further away from the Sun than Pluto. I welcome any support from my fellow Americans.
KEY to italicized words:
liberal astronomers = liberal judges, liberal activists
planethood = legal marriage
celestial bodies = cohabitating relationships, e.g. a homosexual relationship
elliptical orbit = non-reproducing relationship
circular orbit = reproducing relationship
asteroid, moon = LGBTQ people
Pluton = civil union
Americans = idiots
x-posted to blobert