‘Gay’ Marriage: It’s NOT About ‘Equal Rights,’ It’s About Destroying Christianity

299255_546576328707259_1667267896_n

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: Same Sex Marriage Foes Haven’t ‘Been Able To Do Anything But Thump The Bible’

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?

CDC: 110,197,000 Venereal Infections in U.S.; Nation Creating New STIs Faster Than New Jobs or College Grads

New CDC Report: HIV Rate 44 Times Higher Among Homosexuals

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:

Hollywood Rallies for Gay Marriage as SCOTUS Considers Prop 8

Gay Marriage Is the Media’s Vehicle, Destination Is to Destroy the Church

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.

Alabama School Bans Word ‘Easter’

“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?

College Student Says He’s Been Suspended After He Refused Prof’s Demand to Stomp on Jesus Sign

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.”

70 thoughts on “‘Gay’ Marriage: It’s NOT About ‘Equal Rights,’ It’s About Destroying Christianity

  1. This whole Supreme Court case is about the Federal Government’s position of NOT recognizing homosexual marriages, and is something I would like to point out was a Bill Clinton agenda to begin with.

    Can any of you liberal asshats tell me where in the enumerated powers did they grant the Federal Government to opine by law on this issue to begin with? Yeah, that’s right. It isn’t there, and the silly ass liberals should have not gotten involved with it in the first damn place.

    And now I sit here looking at my Twitter and Facebook waiting these very same democratic liberals bloviating about how the conservatives are trying to steal their rights. I call bullshit. Go bash Clinton for this colossal dramatic crap we are having to deal with today … all for the sakes of increasing redistribution of wealth by not allowing you tax credits. Follow the money for once.

    You wanna do your thing, then fine by me. Do it however in a state that supports your cause. Either way, you aren’t affecting my personal relationship with God, and likewise, you should keep your nose out of my beliefs.

    Good day, donks.

  2. For me it’s semantics. I have no problem with same-sex civil unions and them being granted the same rights as heterosexual marriages. I just feel that marriage is sacred and should be treated thusly…..in a church. Because govt. is involved in these contracts, I think it would be best to make the gay community happy by granting civil unions that have the same legal rights as married couples. I feel that govt. wouldn’t infringe upon the church in that way.

    • “I just feel that marriage is sacred and should be treated thusly…..in a church.”

      This would imply that there is verses in the Bible that speak in favor of homosexual relations/marriage. Not being a Bible scholar, perhaps you could point to those verses perhaps?

        • So therefore the Civil Union would be the Right Rite……as in correct!

          Sorry Tax season…. and with two businesses it’s getting punchy.

          • “Sorry Tax season…. and with two businesses it’s getting punchy.”

            Boy you said a mouthful. After years of being able to deduct nearly $28,000 dollars in home loan interest, this year I found myself with an $8000.00 deduction.

            That equals …. sell the home. It’s been busy.

        • “Marriage=rite.” <— there is the clarification that was absent from your post. I did not catch the "civil unions" part as I have been hearing arguments all day where gay couples want to be titled "married".

          • Augger,

            I can’t speak to Kells position, but I intentionally left the issue of civil unions out of my original post. Technically, they already exist in many States and, as a point of constitutionality, it would be difficult to contest them. But the fact that the homosexual community is insisting on changing the definition of marriage instead speaks to the point of my post: an attack on the religious foundation of our society.

            That said, the federal govt. is silent on this point, therefore, it has no authority to act in either direction — except to protect the States’ right to alter their constitutions to meet the will of their people. On that point, were the Court to address States’ rights, it would have to uphold a legally voted on amendment as, once voted on, it cannot be “unconstitutional.” The point in the federal constitution that would address this is the guarantee of the States to have a republican form of govt.

        • You are right on the money Kells. If we could just look at this as a civil rights issue instead of a religious issue, I think we could move it off the board and concentrate on other pressing problems.

          • Agreed. Social issues should not be as pressing as radioactive corn…….but, doggoneit! People love that radioactive Spiderman! That’s it! Spiderman is the cause of everyone ignoring everything else that is going on in the world today! There’s no inflation! Spiderman is delivering pizza! Cyprus? That’s a new drink created by Spiderman! DHS ammo? No worries! They got the Spidey AOK! Gun Banning? Spidey says he’s got his web! What true American dun’t love a radioactive web slinger, right?

            Um. I’m losing my temper, Steve…..

            • Kells,

              If a society has no ‘right’ to legislate ‘social issues,’ then what — exactly — does it have a right to legislate? And how can it even be called a society?

              Serious questions, I’d appreciate a serious reply to both.

              • “If a society has no ‘right’ to legislate ‘social issues,’ then what — exactly — does it have a right to legislate?”

                I believe society has the right to enact laws that the people vote for. (They are the govt., not the other way around.) Was that serious enough, Joseph?

                “And how can it even be called a society?”

                We’ve made our bed and we must lie in it…….(Tu compris?) Nous avons permis cette.

              • I would suggest that “civilization” is nothing more than a social contract. We do in fact legislate social issues. It is the basis of living together as peacefully as possible.

                As it concerns the issue of gay “marriage” , we are not rounding up gays and sending them to the camps, but neither are we affording them equal rights under our laws pertaining to partnership contracts. As the opposition appears to be rooted in religious doctrine, take the church out of it, and there is really no problem.

          • Steve,

            The term “civil right” is a construct of the Leftist mind designed to get around the constraints of the constitution just as the corporation was designed to get around the liability of the law. But if it helps people to think in these terms, fine:

            Social security is a civil right — so we should stop messing with it.

            Obama care is a civil right, so we should stop fighting it.

            Welfare is a civil right, so we should stop messing with it.

            Bailouts for companies too big to fail is a civil right of the union and stock holders and everyone with a 401K, so we should stop messing with them.

            Deficit spending must also be a civil right, as it is the only way we can afford our other civil rights.

            OH! And pedophilia is no longer pedophilia, but just the way some people are borne. So is having more than one “partner.” So living in whatever sort of arrangement we wish is as much a civil right as the rest.

            And before you object, I will point to the process by which we got to where we are now on this issue and tell you not to bother: history is on my side in everything I just asserted. Now, see where bastardizing the language leads us?

            • Joe, This response is not up to par. You really can’t be serious about anything above pedophilia.

              No one but the Catholic Church is taking pedophilia lightly, and polygamists are embracing gay marriage in attempt to further their cause. If you oppose polygamy, you do not have to oppose gay marriage by extension.

  3. Will post this thought again.

    Marriage is a Religious Rite – not a Civil Right.

    When our nation was first established the Founding Fathers obviously did not think our Government should be sanctifying a Religious Rite that was only performed by religious organizations and sanctified by their God, because it was not mentioned in the Constitution. At the time the only place to be married was in a Church. But as our Nation expanded into the west the last organization to to settle in was the Church. And the people to ease a moral populations desire for Sanctifying their personal interactions until it could be Sanctified by a Religious Organization. Allowed the local government to perform Civil Unions. The Definition of Marriage was the same for both the Government and the Church; A Union of one man and one Woman. The Mormon faith was the first to be ‘forced’ into this definition when they wanted to enter the Union. The dilemma we are now facing is the Islamic Faith and it’s support of Polygamy? And it’s hatred of the homosexual? the definition is soon to change again I fear.

    Our Government now wants to change the definition of “Marriage” to a definition that most Christian Religious Organizations cannot accept. If our Government insists on assuming the powers of God and sanctifying their definition of ‘Marriage’ there can only be one outcome. And the Church is not the winner. And the First Amendment is abrogated.

  4. Even if the Suprem Court strikes down all state laws and legalizes gay marriage with the stroke of a pen the progressives will use the issue to charge ministers with hate crimes, remove the church’s tax exempt status and further destroy what Godly morals remain.

    Surely, when the marriage relationship, as God designed it, is destroyed, we will see the acceleration of judgements against the US. The day is coming when even the homosexuals will wish they had remained in the shadows as they realize their “foolishness” hastened their own demise. The Evil will have their 7 year man centered Utopia called Hell on Earth.

    Revelation 6:15 – And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;

  5. My opinion on this subject is the same as kells for the most part. Rather we like it or not, the gay community is not going anywhere, any time soon. I don’t want to give into their demands so to speak, but we should at least toss them a bone. Something to at least shut them up. Maybe bleeding heart gay activists at work will finally shut up and get something done for once 🙂

  6. Pingback: ‘Gay’ Marriage: It’s NOT About ‘Equal Rights,’ It’s About Destroying Christianity | Lightship Ministries

  7. Interesting comments. Yesterday, I was listening to the Schnitt show and he spoke on a lesbian who had been with her partner for 43 years. Her partner died and now the govt. wants $340,000 for the estate (or death; I can’t remember which) tax. Essentially, a married couple (or a couple granted a civil union) would not be required to pay this tax. Is this fair?

    While I do not agree with gay marriage, I do agree with civil unions. I have seen too many life-long partners be punished by the govt. If we separate church and state, we allow God to be their judge.

      • They’re not taking it from the dead, of course–they’re taking it from the survivors. Though not many survivors, nowadays. And all money gets taxed repeatedly–when it’s paid from one person to another for goods or services, or when it’s given away. Whether you agree with taxation or not, inheritance taxes are not significantly different in that way.

        Also, some of the founding fathers (whom you pretend to idolize when you agree with their points), including Thomas Paine (whom your hero Glenn Beck pretends to idolize yet doesn’t really seem to understand) agreed with high inheritance taxes because they viewed inherited wealth as an anti-democratic form of “royalty.”

        • James,

          As usual, you’re wrong. This time, it is easy to demonstrate it.

          The death tax is applied BEFORE a person’s money is transferred to their “survivors.”

          Ego, THEY ARE TAXING THE DEAD!

          Are you really this obtuse, or just that politically bent on asserting your ideology over reality?

          • “The death tax is applied BEFORE a person’s money is transferred to their ‘survivors.’”

            Just as an income tax is applied in most jobs BEFORE you get your check, and just as a sales tax is applied BEFORE you get what you paid for, right?

            And I expressed no ideology in this case, specifically stating, “regardless of how you feel about taxes…” But you’re too obtuse to know the difference, just as your hero is too obtuse to recognize how little he has in common with Thomas Paine.

    • Kells, don’t know if you are old enough to remember but the ceremony conducted by the Justice of the Peace or judge was considered a ‘Civil Union’. And a lot of people would have the ceremony later performed by a Priest or Minister in a Church to have it sanctified by God. Funny how things have changed so quickly.

      To be perfectly clear, I would prefer for the current ‘Marriage License’ issued by the counties to be renamed a ‘Domestic Partnership Agreement’ and have all those things granted by ‘Marriage’ now be enumerated in detail, not left to customary common law.

      • No, Triper, I’m only 21. (M. and B.can and WILL attest to this, of course………..if they know what’s good for them.) I like your idea. It seems, though, that when something is logical, it gets thrown to the wayside.

  8. Marriages used to be performed by a Priest or Minister and were recorded in the family Bible. Then, after the civil war, some states decided that they needed to license marriages to stop miscegenation or the mixing of races. Basically, the marriage license is now a contract between you, your spouse and the state…another tax or fee.

  9. I too have rarely heard any straight person lol defend it but have heard bigot homophobe ignorant narrowminded etc is that their defense? We will call you names instead. I too have noticed that its not even gay people who are fighting for gay marrriage. Its straight people! Why? Many say this doesn’t affect u um likewise u aren’t gay either geez.

    I’ve heard Sep of church and state attempt except 31 states put this on ballot and voted to ban it. Sep of church and state applies to state elections how LOL

    Bible doesn’t apply to them, said by many in hell.
    I’ve seen so much ignorance and irational illogical second hand recycled opinions its sad actually

  10. “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.”

    So gay people don’t want equal rights; they’re just stupid? Gee, you have such a way with words, Joe. I can see why you have plenty of time to spend here though, without having to waste much time with friends. 🙂

    “As a porn star if she was bi before she started working.”

    Most of us don’t know any to ask–but apparently you do?

    “Should the homosexual crowed win their case, how will they defend against polygamy? Or bestiality? Or even pedophilia?”

    Uh, Joey, most folks are smart enough to recognize that even if you just consider the sexual aspects (ignoring the argument that homosexuality is a broader issue), the latter two of those by definition do not involve consenting adults.

    “I have to be personally destroyed.”

    Cartoonish delusions of grandeur, Joe; I can’t imagine anyone else thinking you’re that important. And as for “destroying” you, your own self-aggrandizing words, your overuse of hyperbole, your reliance on Glenn Beck and Breitbart as sources, your frequent dishonesty, and your inability to admit when you’ve obviously erred do more to destroy your credibility than anyone else could. https://therionorteline.com/2013/03/26/if-it-walks-like-a-nazi/

    And see, I didn’t call you a racist, a bigot, or a homophobe. 🙂 Though you do provide an excellent example of your deeply thoughtful new favorite word: https://therionorteline.com/2013/03/25/for-those-who-question-or-dislike-my-use-of-the-word/

  11. / Excellent and well-written blog, Joe. Check out the following – something I ran into while on my computer. /

    (The following paper was inspired by Bill O’Reilly whose TV show favors God Dumpers and not “Bible Thumpers.” Quotes are from “Vital Quotations” by Emerson West.)

    DANGEROUS BIBLE THUMPERS OF AMERICA

    ROBERT E. LEE: “In all my perplexities and distresses, the Bible has never failed to give me light and strength.” (p. 21)
    DANIEL WEBSTER: “If we abide by the principles taught in the Bible, our country will go on prospering and to prosper.” (p. 21)
    JOHN QUINCY ADAMS: “I have made it a practice for several years to read the Bible through in the course of every year.” (p. 22)
    ABRAHAM LINCOLN: “I believe the Bible is the best gift God has ever given to man. All the good from the Saviour of the world is communicated to us through this book.” (p. 22)
    GEORGE WASHINGTON: “It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.” (p. 22)
    HORACE GREELEY: “It is impossible to mentally or socially enslave a Bible-reading people.” (p. 23)
    THOMAS JEFFERSON: “I hold the precepts of Jesus as delivered by himself to be the most pure, benevolent, and sublime which have ever been preached to man. I adhere to the principles of the first age; and consider all subsequent innovations as corruptions of this religion, having no foundation in what came from him.” (p. 45)
    THOMAS JEFFERSON: “Had the doctrines of Jesus been preached always as pure as they came from his lips, the whole civilized world would by now have become Christian.” (p. 47)
    BENJAMIN FRANKLIN: “As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, is the best the world ever saw, or is likely to see.” (p.49)
    WOODROW WILSON: “The sum of the whole matter is this—-that our civilization cannot survive materially unless it be redeemed spiritually. It can only be saved by becoming permeated with the spirit of Christ and being made free and happy by practices which spring out of that spirit.” (p. 143)
    PATRICK HENRY: “There is a just God who presides over the destiny of nations.” (p. 145)
    THOMAS JEFFERSON: “Material abundance without character is the surest way to destruction.” (p. 225)
    THOMAS JEFFERSON: “Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern, which have come under my observation, none appear to me so pure as that of Jesus.” (p. 237)
    GEORGE WASHINGTON: “The foolish and wicked practice of profane cursing and swearing is a vice so mean and low, that every person of sense and character detests and despises it.” (p. 283)
    BENJAMIN FRANKLIN: “Here is my creed. I believe in one God, the Creator of the universe. That he governs it by his Providence. That he ought to be worshiped.” (p. 301)
    CALVIN COOLIDGE: “The strength of a country is the strength of its religious convictions.” (p. 305)
    GEORGE WASHINGTON: “The perpetuity of this nation depends upon the religious education of the young.” (p. 306)

    Prior to our increasingly “Hell-Bound and Happy” era, America’s greatest leaders were part of the (gulp) Religious Right! Today we’ve forgotten God’s threat (to abort America) in Psa. 50:22—-“Now consider this, ye that forget God, lest I tear you in pieces, and there be none to deliver.” Memo to God Dumpers: In light of Rev. 16:19, can you be sure you won’t be in a city that God has already reserved for destruction?

    • Thanks, Irv. I was aware of the majority of those quotes — but not all. I am also aware that — though they use similar language — not all of those men meant the same things by what they said. Wilson would be chief among them.

  12. I don’t think you’ve made the case that high rates of sexual infection among gay people should mean that gay marriage should not be allowed. Indeed, wouldn’t high rates of sexual infection and increased promiscuity mean there is *more* reason to legalise gay marriage? Wouldn’t signifying the importance of a monogamous relationship in the gay community be a good thing since it would reduce rates of sexual infection?

    To your point about a majority “accepting the demands of a minority”, the whole point of democracy is that minority viewpoints should be considered. This point is moot anyway, because acceptance of gay people and gay marriage is now the majority viewpoint anyway. People who want to continue denying gay people equal rights are actually now the ones who want the majority to comply with their demands!

    For your point about sexual deviancy, putting aside your claim that evolution hasn’t been proven (lol) I can honestly state to you, as a gay dude, that my gayness is part of who I am. I’ve never found a physical attractiveness to women, indeed when I was 15/16 I wondered when I would start finding women attractive. It wasn’t until I was 17/18 that I realised I was jerking off to dudes. I don’t think any amount of someone telling me to start liking girls would make a difference, and if you really want I can find you plenty of literature that explains how so-called “gay conversion therapy” is extremely psychologically damaging, and leads to depression and suicide in some cases.

    I can assure you that our desire for gay marriage is for nothing more than two things. One, equal treatment before the law. A marriage between two gay men is no more and no less than a marriage between two consenting adults. It does not mean marrying your dog, or two people, or your toaster, because these are not marriages between two consenting adults. The second is that we want to not be treated as second class citizens. I work a professional job, study at uni, love my mum and dad, go to the gym, like sleeping in, and have sex with guys instead of girls. I’m not a deviant, nor am I morally corrupt, I just want to be accepted for being true to who I am. I think if you were to take the most important teaching from the bible – the golden rule about treating others the way you want to be treated – you’ll find it’s a lot more important than one line in Levitius, the same book that says not to wear polyester.

      • Kells, legalised civil unions would be a step in the right path, if they grant the full legal protections and equivalent rights of marriage (power of attorney, right to decide what to do in case of hospitalisation or death etc).

        Some of my friends are opposed to the concept of marriage, likening it to oppression. This is from their views on feminism and the empowerment of women. Personally given that both partners to a same sex marriage would be equal partners since they are both of the same gender I’m not convinced by this viewpoint.

        • Yes, many of my gay friends think marriage is not the answer………until they are faced with legalities, which then wake them up to reality.
          I thought civil unions granted the same legal rights as marriage. Is that not the case?

          • That’s the intention as far as I’m aware. I’m definitely in favour of civil unions as a first step. Once people see that we just want to live a normal family life like everyone else then they will become more understanding and accepting of us. Some of my friends point out that “equal but separate” really means “equal but discriminated”, but I don’t agree that theirs is the right approach.

            It comes down to the social vs radical argument. The social argument is that we need to demonstrate that we are just like the rest of society and so they have no reason to be fearful or opposed to us. The radical argument is that we need to hold on to our unique cultural identity and get people to accept us for what we are. As I said I believe that the social argument is the best way to go about it. I suppose this is partly because I am what is called a “straight acting” gay, in that I am less obvious in my gayness (at least until I’m drunk, then watch out!).

            • Very good points with the social v. radical argument. It is funny. While I find myself to be quite fond of the gay community, I get annoyed at times, as well. For instance, on the FB site, all of my gay friends have done this silly avatatar. All I could think was, “This is so gay.”

              Dave, the majority of America ( I think 78%) is straight. Truly, I do believe that most people would come round to more acceptance were it not for the “look-at-me-look-at-me-how-do-like-them-apples” attitudue. I could be wrong. None of my friends are like this, but I do see it……For instance; parades? C’mon! I can suck c*ck too, and nobody’s thrown me a flippin parade!

              That said, I do believe one’s sexual orientation or union thereof aught not deprive them of their basic rights. I truly believe gay people are born the way they are. I cannot imagine God turning away my friends. Then again, I do not know the mind of God…….. I believe you have inspired a post, sweet Dave…

    • Dave,

      You missed the point of mentioning high rates of sexual infection.

      You do not understand the difference between a democracy and a REPUBLIC. You also do not understand the difference between a Natural Right and a Civil Right. Gay marriage is NOT a natural right — it would be civil, and if it is a civil matter, the people have the Natural Right to forbid it.

      “This point is moot anyway, because acceptance of gay people and gay marriage is now the majority viewpoint anyway.”

      See, that is why the founders set us up as a republic and NOT a democracy. Also, public polling says you are wrong — by 17-37%. It is only in select, isolated areas where it is largely accepted — the same areas where the kids have been taught to accept it since kindergarten.

      It is not denying “equal” rights. That is a fallacious and emotional argument. They have as much right to marry a member of the opposite sex as anyone else. They are demanding society change the definition of an institution to meet their personal desires. That is SPECIAL right.

      Evolution has NOT been proven. While I am not a literal creationist, I am smart enough to know that the EVIDENCE contradicts Darwin’s theories. In fact, it runs in the opposite direction of his predictions. Thus, evolution is a FAILED THEORY!

      As for your argument about marrying your dog: you cannot make it. Anyone who uses your arguments has equal claim to them for marrying their dog, a child or fifteen people of different sexes. To deny their “equal right” is to deny your own argument. It’s a matter of logic, not your “desire or opinion.”

      All this said, I have NEVER opposed civil unions as they would be legal and would not constitute a special right or the trampling of the people’s rights. At the same time, those same people retain the right to deny such unions, as they are a civil matter.

      • Hi Joe, I’m not going to bother disputing each of your points (although I can’t wait until you post an evolution thread ^_^) because I want to clarify something else instead.

        I think that your opposition to gay marriage stems from the fact that you dislike gay people. It’s likely that you were raised this way, that you were told gay people were immoral when you were growing up. I can speculate you were told it was immoral because it wasn’t what most people did. Ie most people are attracted to the oppostie sex and so people who are attracted to the same sex are “not normal”. Because they are not like you they must be bad somehow.

        People today are raised to accept gay people because most of society has accepted that being gay is a fundamental part of who gay people are – it’s the same as being born a jew, born left handed, born with ginger hair etc. I’m gay, so I can tell you absolutely that it is not a choice. I cannot choose to become straight. I even tried having sex with a girl once before I was willing to accept myself for who I was – I couldn’t get it up >:.

        I think you are a good person Joe, I really do. We have different viewpoints on the topic of same sex marriage, but I honestly don’t think you are setting out with the intention of “hahaha I’m enjoying discriminating against those gay people!”. I think your view point is based out fear, and I’m sad that the community which raised you did such a disservice by raising you that way.

        If this is the case please let me know. Otherewise if your opposition to same sex marriage for another reason I’d be glad to know that! Eg, if you really do actually think that our intention in seeking same sex marriage literally is “to destroy christianity”…

        • Dave,

          I am indifferent to gay, so you’re wrong.

          As for evolution: don’t bother. I’ve yet to find ANYONE who can defend that failed theory — unless they ignore the historic record and accepted scientific methodology. You can’t even explain how life came to be and now you’re not only going to tell me how it evolved, you’re going to tell me it evolved into members of a species that do not and cannot reproduce, yet those same members are not abortions of that species.

  13. Joe, so you really think that it is just because people (someone?) want to destroy christianity? I think it is a little paranoid. I am no fan of how organised religion is one of the primary promoters of social injustice against myself, but even I don’t think it should be “destroyed”.

    As for why homosexuality is present despite evolution it’s a conundrum. Biologically there must be some reason for it, otherwise why do straight parents keep having gay kids (lol!). If homosexuality was “genetic” trait then it would have eventually been bred out of our species since gay people can’t have kids normally. But given that it keeps on reoccuring there has to be some sort of biological evolutionary reason for it. Assisting to control population growth might be one possibility. It could also be that the development of different social norms in the gay community provide a diversity that is useful or beneficial somehow. I don’t really know too much about this subject although I’m sure there are some theorists who have considered it.

  14. Actually the whole concept of the gay community fighting for the right of marriage is equality. Marriage may be a tradition in Christianity, however it’s also in Shintoism, Hellenism, Asatru and many others as well. Simply put, not all religions oppose gay rights, some even support it. As far as Christianity goes, it’s destruction would actually be a positive for America. The United States was founded on the principle of freedom for all. However Christianity doesn’t believe in freedom. Quite the opposite actually. It commands genocide, slavery, killing of disobedient children, killing of non-believers, killing of believers of other faiths. The list goes on. That said the gay community isn’t opposing Christianity nor their rights. Though America really should question the danger of Christianity as a whole. Definitely a potential threat. I suppose thankfully the homosexual people don’t really need to fear being murdered by Christians at least. They may be viewed by lesser beings by Christians but they still have a right to live I suppose…

    • If Christianity were destroyed, America — as founded — would be destroyed. They are tied together. And when America is destroyed, man’s freedom will go with it. Now, let me ask you how you plan to have gay marriage when the likes of Stalin and Mao and Hitler are all that rule the world? All three would have gays eliminated. But then, if Christianity is destroyed, you will have GLOBAL Shari’a law within a generation, and with it, all gays, as well as all other religions will be eliminated, as well.

      No, this is not about “equality.” That is a LIE! It is about a society being able to determine its culture. It is about being able to defend the plain meaning of words. It is about being able to enforce the laws. You see, gays are a MINORITY, and — by definition — a deviancy from natural norm. Now, that’s fine, but the minority — especially deviancy from the norm — should NEVER be allowed to dictate to the majority on matters of personal taste.

      There is nothing more here than a group of people demanding to NOT have to pay the consequences of living outside of nature and society’s norms. Just remember — and this is true — EVERY argument the gay community makes to demand their “rights” can and does apply EQUALLY to the pedophile and even those who claim they were born rapists and must be allowed to rape. After all, the right to sex is not a ‘religious’ thing. All societies and religions recognize a right to sex, so if I am just borne with the drive to have whoever I wish, then what ‘right’ do you, gays or society have to tell me I can’t take whoever I wish whenever I wish?

      This is the very line of reasoning we’re dealing with here, only we are also dealing with people so self-centered that they can’t see it and won’t acknowledge it.

      Now, all that said, Christians do not see gays as “lesser beings.” This is just another lie that serves to cloud the issue and make things emotional. It also shows the dishonesty on the part of the gay community. In truth, were it not for the TOLERANCE that is part of the Judeo/Christian ethic, there probably would be many fewer gays in the world, as the law would allow their elimination in many more places. And where it was allowed…. Well, history is pretty clear on this: where it was always allowed, you find a society in decay and collapse.

      • Your arguments against gay marriage are at odds with reason, history and biology. Do you even know how the Christian church (Roman Catholic Church) became involved in marriage to begin with? Your article suggests that you don’t. Marriage wasn’t a “sacred” or religious institution. It was a business transaction between a woman’s/girl’s father and her husband (new owner) and served as a means to ensure the legitimacy of their future heirs (children.) Members of the Roman Empire officiated those marriages until the empire fell, at which time, the duty was handed over to the Church. At that time, gays had the right to marry and the ceremonies were performed by priests. Now, if the Bible truly says and means what modern day Christians think it does, why would the early Church participate in this? It wasn’t until all forms of sex, except procreational, were demonized that marriage became a “sacred” institution. As far as nature is concerned, homosexuality is present and observable. Are that creatures, who have no soul according to the Bible, are sinning or are they simply following their nature? These are all rhetorical questions meant to encourage you to do some damn research before clacking away on your keyboard and putting you ignorance on display. Good luck to you, Joe. I hope you truly find God in this life. I pray He opens your heart and helps you find a way to serve Him and your fellow humans with love. I pray He leads you away from the arrogance that has caused you to write this article. Be blessed.

        • Nice attempt to rationalize it, but I HAVE researched this issue. It is how and why I know you have not made your case. You see, we went over this issue at some length in my sociology classes (I hold a BA in sociology). It is where I learned that the list of ‘defenses’ you cited are easily answered — by intellectually honest persons, anyway.

          First, assuming we are going to hold to Scripture, what you have done is describe the way man has perverted God’s Sacrament — nothing more. That is what is meant by ‘sin:’ the disobeying of God’s Laws/ways.

          As for being at odds with reason and nature: I think you may need/want to re-examine your position. Nature has a vested interest in NOT allowing homosexuals to continue. They do not re-produce, so they are of no biological value to the evolutionary model. So all you are doing is reading your desires into what you see. Otherwise, you might realize that much of what you see as natural among animals is still deviancy caused by a lack of self-control or available females. At that point, you have opened the homosexual community to legitimate attack. I know you will not see it this way, but that does not change the fallacy in this line of argument.

          As for Society: it has no interest in allowing homosexuality for the same reason. In fact, given that it is — by definition — a deviancy, society actually has an interest in controlling/preventing it. The rest of your supposed history lesson aside, we can look back at history and note that the point where homosexuality became embraced by a given society, that society was already well on its way to collapse. In such case, it is a symptom of a greater moral decay within society, so do not jump to the conclusion that I am blaming homosexuals. I am blaming all of society –myself included.

          Oh, and one more thing: God does not sanction sexual immorality of any type, so PLEASE, do not pray that the One True Living God would lead me away from His Law. If He could, He would not e God, he would be Satan!

        • Indya,

          Marriages were performed under religious ceremonies LONG before the Roman State was ever a thought. In Israel, Egypt, Greece…..in fact Everywhere. God or Gods were invoked to sanction the Marriage.

          And as just one example, the Greeks did NOT sanction gay sex…..they certainly distinguished between aberrant behavior and marriage. Greek homosexuality was only PARTLY tolerated under very specific circumstances. Likewise you should do some REAL research, instead of HuffPo and liberal academic propaganda websites.

          Saying God sanctions homosexuality is the height of arrogance. You of course speak to God Right ? As opposed to reading his words.

          • “You of course speak to God Right ? As opposed to reading his words.”

            WOW! Don, I know Indya will not understand why I say this, but you do: that was harsh, brother. Maybe deserved, but harsh.

            • MMMM.

              Not really….. It was in response to what are really arrogant and harsh words thus :

              “… do some damn research before clacking away on your keyboard and putting you ignorance on display. Good luck to you, Joe. I hope you truly find God in this life. I pray He opens your heart and helps you find a way to serve Him and your fellow humans with love. I pray He leads you away from the arrogance that has caused you to write this article. Be blessed.”

              I guess I could’ve added “Be Blessed” like Indya did. But mimicking sincerity is not honest and frankly engages in exactly the kind of ” I know God and you don’t” that Indya is engaging in, and that I called him/her out for.

              • Don,

                I know what you were doing, but by asking if Indya was talking to God rather than reading His word, you were coming close to implying Indya had placed himself/herself on God’s throne.

                • Actually by him/her claiming you AREN’T right with God and implying he/she( Indya) IS….. it is Indya who is claiming a position.
                  I merely highlighted his/her position with a rhetorical question. The implication isn’t mine. I merely repeated the rhetorical posturing of Indya’s own words.

Leave a Reply to Black3Actual Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.