Friday, August 31, 2012

Posts to close out August

A note from the blogger:

With the RNC now over and the Republican Party affirming it's opposition to gay marriage, expect to see the Democratic Party announce it's support during the DNC. 

The issue of marriage equality is a deeply divisive one, with staunch supporters on either side. Even in states where court cases and legislation has been passed in support of marriage equality, the debate still rages on. Part of the issue is that those in support of marriage equality have this misconception that those on the right must not know any gay people, for if they did, they would change their mind. Part of the issue is that those on the left believe the right to be "hateful bigots". 

The other side of the coin is that those who claim to be "defenders of traditional marriage" believe that gays are "Atheistsic perverts" who want to "corrupt marriage" and turn America into a "Sodom and Gomorroah." They also believe that gays should "welcome pedophiles" (if not believing gays are pedophiles) and that gays are "predators" who want to "steal children from their mothers and fathers." 

People locked into these beliefs will likely never reach an accord about the nature of civil marriage - for that's what most gay marriage advocates are wanting to discuss. They want to discuss civil marriage and the benefits that go along with making a lifelong commitment to a consenting adult whom they love and respect with all their heart. Unfortunately, some people on side of "traditional marriage" can't separate their religiously motivated rhetoric from the civil debate. Nay, they can't even be civil in a civil debate, as one commenter notes that "Gay marriage supporters should keep their support in the bedroom".

With that note, I bring you comments from the week in NOM. These are the people who will be voting for Romney in November, seeking to strip rights from thousands of married gay couples and destroying the families they've been building. All in the name of "marriage."


From ForTraditionalMarriage

Gays crack me up! They are intrinsically atheistic and don't care about God's definition of marriage. Their whole argument is that marriage should be based on state laws and not biblical principals.. In that case, it is a free fall. Let everyone have their cake. If a bi-sexual man/woman want an extra partner - why not? Hey, they are in the same bucket with the rest of you homosexuals. Why should they be denied their rights? Homosexuals arguing about the legality of polygamy is too funny. smdh

From M. Jones

They said it wouldn't happen and it did! The perversion extremists won't be happy until America becomes another Sodom and Gomorrah.

From Good News

You bring up a good point Jon. P(edefilia) has to be added to LGBT. LBBTP.
Each one is a sexual appetite or behavior that has been traditionally looked down upon by the larger civilization. And each one has seemingly rational arguments on why they are natural normal behavior that should be accepted in the public eye.
Why in the world should a person who hits puberty not be allowed to have sex with anyone he wants to? Nature opened the door, who are you to close it? And how can physically pleasing a child even younger than that hurt him if it is done with love and care. And more than all else, if the society would simply learn to accept it and stop putting taboo's on it, which only end up creating psychological wounds, the child would than not have a reason to have a problem with it.
The same goes for incest now that birth-control is so perfected and abortion is included in health care. So to be fair to all at hand, it should read LGBTPI; and that is not a joke.
All of these groups have seemingly rational arguments that can and or could be put forth – as the homosexual “marriage” argument. The best thing is often simply to say “no” to something, even if a good argument for that “no” cannot be articulated. The problem with homosexual “marriage” is that we have started to allow arguments to be made for it, rather than saying outright “no”. (A good seemingly good argument does not dictate truth)
Now stop your bigotry and let the P & Is in your group.

From Chris Fox

Another attempt by gay predators to have access to children. Hijacking black civil rights or hiding behind step parenting to gain legal access to children. The community is a community of sexual predators doing their best to brainwash society with homophobic propaganda. Frank Lombard and gay icon Larry Brinkin if not caught would be joyful of these measures.

All one need do is consider the source of this bill. In 2005, Leno authored AB 849, the bill that legalized psuedo marriage. In 2007, he introduced AB 43, the deceptively named Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act, that would have allowed for same-sex marriage.
He has a history of introducing bills with deceptive names that force radical social changes on the people.
It's clear that his newest creation (SB 1476) is designed to make it easier for same-sex couples to steal children from their rightful parent(s).
He follows in the footsteps of other gay extremists who view children as nothing more than commodities to be bought, sold and stolen.

My position is the same as the GOP Platform in Oklahoma, which states: “Those promoting homosexuality or other aberrant lifestyles should not be allowed to hold responsible positions over children, which are not their own, or other vulnerable persons.” “We believe that homosexuality is not a genetic trait, but a chosen lifestyle,” argues the platform. “No adoption privileges therefore, will be afforded homosexuals.”

Richard, you are missing the point: at it's core, marriage is an opposite-sexed union. Even polygamy, which includes more than one wife, still includes the husband. SSM does not. There are actual consequences to individuals when states choose to ignore 1) fundamental distinctions between males and females and 2) the complementarity of male+female. There is nothing arbitrary about neutering marriage. The fact that, once in a while, and on a limited scale, some few same-sex unions have been codified (still not related to gay identity politics, which are fairly recent), does not make it incumbant upon our nation to eject the sexually complementarity of the opposite-sexed marriage requirement, in order to pander to sexual identity politics.
Furthermore, society's attitudes towards homosexual behavior are irrelevant to marriage eligibility, as those who choose to engage in homosexual behavior are permitted to marry. I venture to say that a cursory check in the history books would show that a few homosexual males still married females, with an eye towards perpetuating the family lineage.
Also, one who has actually read and studied the Bible would quickly discover that nowhere is there stated doctrine that says the scriptures are open to arbitrary interpretation. As for the early church performing same-sex unions, if such were the case, it is to be remembered that an apostasy from truth is also a propohesy fulfilled, in the scriptures (2Thess.) Lastly, a person versed in racially discriminative marriage laws would know that only whites were not permitted from marrying a minority; minorities were allowed to marry each other. The ban against whites marrying minorities was to keep the blood lines "pure"--another nod at the universal ties marriage has to procreation, and which SSM has no interest, being a non-procreative union.

It is pretty obvious Rich. SSM is an issue because SSM is being pushed. Polygamy, polyamory and no fault divorce are also threats to the definition of marriage, but currently, LGBT activists are using SSM as the most recent assault on the definition of marriage.

From Robert 
You have to be far away from God to not know what is true in your heart. The gay activists are making up many lies about what marriage really is. We all know what marriage is, but many people are blind and deaf they cannot see or hear God anymore they have toned Him out, and made up a fantasy world where they believe their own lies and others follow, they deceive themselves.

So-called same-sex "marriage" is bizarre and perceived to be a radical, drastic change to our society. We see homosexuals portrayed on television, but we see them as one of the many other strange groups of characters that dominate our viewing (see. e.g., Hoarders, Jerry Springer, Toddlers & Tiaras, etc...).
To take a group like that and hold it out as an American value will turn off a lot of people. It's one thing to support same-sex "marriage" as long as it is kept as a private matter or as a television amusement; but when it's held out as an ideal of sorts, expect to see a backlash against it.

No comments:

Post a Comment