This issue about ‘gay’ marriage is another one of those Progressive movements that are about something else entirely. Sure, there are many homosexuals who believe this is about their rights to marry, but they are largely nothing more than useful idiots in a cause they do not even understand. Have you ever noticed how many otherwise ‘straight’ people push the gay rights agenda? Once again, they position themselves as fighting for rights and liberty, but they’re not – and it becomes readily apparent when you ignore their words and posturing and look more at who those people are, their political leanings and the rest of their actions. And then there are those few homosexuals who are fully aware of what is going on. For them, it is about all of the above. What is really going on here is one part of a multi-pronged campaign to destroy the influence of the Judea/Christian ethic on Western civilization – a civilization that would not even exist without it.
I ran into this gem from the bloviating blowhard, Bill O’Reilly:
O’Reilly: “The compelling argument is on the side of homosexuals. That is where the compelling argument is. We’re Americans, we just want to be treated like everybody else.”
“That’s a compelling argument, and to deny that you’ve got to have a very strong argument on the other side. And the other side hasn’t been able to do anything but thump the Bible.”
So, the only piece of evidence against gay marriage is the Bible? Is that what Bill is saying? Then what about these stories?
There can be no doubt that the rise of homosexuality is connected to a general promiscuity in society. History is very clear on this; as the moral fabric of society decays – especially an affluent society — sexual deviancy and promiscuity increases. You’ll find many studies on this issue that confirm the lesson of history. This leads to an increase in STD’s, which places a greater strain on the health care system. So, why aren’t we using all the arguments against gun control being linked to health care, or obesity, or salt, or sugar in drinks to combat sexual promiscuity and homosexuality? If the arguments work for all those other things, then they must apply equally to this issue – unless there are ulterior agendas in play.
Or maybe I should ask Bill if a society has a right to define itself? Or amend its own constitution? If the majority can be forced to accept the deviant demands of a minority – especially in matters of morality – then it cannot defend its culture. If society cannot amend its constitutions, then it cannot defend its laws. And a society that cannot defend its culture or its laws is no society at all. Should the homosexual crowed win their case, how will they defend against polygamy? Or bestiality? Or even pedophilia? They won’t be able to; their own arguments will either apply to these other groups or they will have to testify against their own demands. Either way, society crumbles under the demands of deviants.
And let’s look at the question of deviancy. The immediate objection is to claim people are born gay, but that’s never been proven any more than evolution has been. In fact, there is sufficient evidence to suggest that counseling is extremely effective in ‘curing’ homosexuality – which is why the homosexual community pushes so hard to pass legislation prohibiting counseling. But there is even more evidence that homosexuality is an acquired taste. As a porn star if she was bi before she started working. Study the prevailing bi-sexuality among adolescent females and compare it to just twenty years ago. A bi-sexual encounter has become almost a right of passage for teenage girls. And then there is the swingers’ community, where nearly all of the females are pressured into bi-sexuality. People will be upset by this, but it’s all true and accurate. So, how can humanity ‘evolve’ if we consist of nothing but homosexuals? The answer is: we can’t. No reproduction means no evolution – unless we want to go with cloning, which is a denial of natural law. But if we deny natural law, we deny evolution, and that brings us back to the Bible, doesn’t it, Mr. O’Reilly? You pinhead!
No, the agenda here is something else, and it is evidenced in an objective reading of the headlines:
If anyone wants to argue that the same government currently forcing religious institutions to purchase the abortion pill through ObamaCare will not eventually use civil rights violations in order to attempt to force the Church to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies — good luck with that.
“We had in the past a parent to question us about some of the things we do here at school,” said Heritage Elementary School principal Lydia Davenport. “So we’re just trying to make sure we respect and honor everybody’s differences.”
Who is ‘honoring and respecting’ the majority of this nation: the Christian? Where is the deference to their sensibilities? Why are we only defending those of minority groups — and even then, only when it suits the greater agenda?
Now, I can go on, but I shouldn’t have to: the evidence I’ve presented, coupled with the picture I posted and the body of other supporting stories, should be more than enough to carry the day for my argument. There is a common agenda in every aspect of these many issues, and that is a direct assault on the Judea/Christian influence in society. But, instead of actually defending their position, I’ll be attacked by the opposition. I have to be personally destroyed. The opposition’s case cannot stand up to honest and reasoned examination, so they have to shout ‘racist, bigot, homophobe.’ It’s the only way they can win. Unfortunately, it is an all too effective method with the ignorant – the masses these same people have worked to make ignorant precisely so they will fall for the scream of ‘racist, bigot, homophobe.”