Friday, November 07, 2008

You Got It


Gypsy boots is correct. The same-sex marriage agenda is not against “right-wing” Christianity, but Christianity, period.

For the homosexual agenda, it simply isn’t good enough to be allowed to live their own lifestlyle and/or to create institutions that fit their “needs”, while leaving socially conservative institutions alone. The homosexual agenda will not been satisfied (and has not be satisfied) until the traditional nuclear family institutions are torn down, destroyed, and dilluted to the point where they become meaningless to the social conservatives that support them. Again, it is not enough to have their own instutions, they want to destroy and replace the institutions of social conservatives as well.

As part of this agenda of destroying conservative social institutions (which are, like it or not, the bedrock of our society), the homosexual agenda is attempting to capture the public bully pulpit so that they can force their abberrant values down the throat of social conservatives. Same sex marriage is simply a wedge that is being used to achieve greater legal and social leverage to support involuntary re-education and other elements of social control.

The attempt is nothing less than social rape, with activist courts and same sex marriage being used as a wedge to force social conservatives (and especially their children) to accept official indoctrination and education about the morality, legitimacy and normalcy of the homosexual lifestyle. This is misguided social policy, and social conservatives should be free to reject the tenets of this abberrant sexual “religion” in the same way that athiests are protected from public religious indoctrination. Social conservatives and their children should not be forced to suffer this type of forced indoctrination via judicial or legislative fiat. They should be free to reject the morality, legitimacy and normalcy of homosexuality, while at the same time respecting the basic human rights of all individuals (not some list of arbitrarily expanded rights), including homosexuals.

Social conservatives see this agenda with clarity. It is not a neutral issue, and they know that the end goal of homosexual activism is to destroy institutions that they hold sacred.

Consider this. For the short period of time in California when same sex marriage was lawful, were homosexuals content to enjoy their newly minted “rights” in private, or did they continue to push their agenda on social conservatives? Why were school children taken to homosexual marriage ceremonies in California? Why did a father in Massachussetts go to jail for trying to opt his child out of mandatory same sex education in public schools? Is this forced re-education really a legitimate use of public funds?

Social conservatives see these abuses and understand that the issue for gay activism lies not in securing rights for themselves, but in destroying and replacing the institutions that social conservatives hold dear. They further understand that homosexual activists are particularly intent on preaching their homosexual “religion” in public institutions as a means of obtaining greater political power and acceptance. That is why millions of Californians have now voted twice in favor of protecting marriage. The alternative was to lose a number of freedoms that we hold dear.


“That notion is a clear violation of the principle of equality of all before the law.”

Why? Some people get driver’s licenses, some people are blind. Some people can vote, some people are too young. Some people are doctors, some can’t get into med-school. And some people can marry, and some are too young, closely related, or homosexual.

Equality under the law also means that people get to decide the morality of their society. There really is nothing except morality that stops a man from marrying a nine year old. For much of human history in many cultures, this was an accepted practice. But it is not in ours. And neither is two men or two women marrying.

All our laws can be challenged on the basis that it isn’t fair. Is it fair that pedophiles were born with an urge to have sex with children? Certainly not. But that doesn’t mean society has to approve and support those urges.

And no free society would demand that the people do so.

Homosexuals are not child molestors (you know someone was cracking his knuckles to claim I said that.) But the same argument that is being used by homosexuals will certainly be used by all other forms of depravity.

Civil rights for every lifestyle is civilization for no one.


“Let me restate this clearly: Same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue.”

Homosexual marriage in not a civil right issue. What makes a person a homosexual? Is it that his skin is a certain color? Is it that he was born a man or a woman? No. The only thing that makes him a homosexual is that he chooses to engage in homosexuality. Just like the heterosexual, though he may have been born with the urge to have sex with women, refuses to engage in sex at all. Just like a rapist, though he may have been born with the urge to rape, chooses to engage in rape.

A black person can not pretend to be a white person. There is no don’t-ask-don’t-tell possibility for women.

This hiding behind the civil rights movement is disgusting. You are being judged not on who you are but by what you do. And if you deny this, and codify it in law, then nobody, no matter what they desire sexually, can be held responsible for their sexual choices or denied the ultimate approval of marriage.

If you want to have homosexual marriage, then go out and convince people that sodomy is just as good as coitus, that homosexual relationships are just important to maintaining a healthy society as heterosexual couples, that a handful of gay adoptive couples need societies entire moral and legal history turn on its head. This would be a hard sell, but at least it would be an honest argument. But please quit with the lame horsedung that you are not in control over who you put your penis into.


Same sex marriage is not a civil rights issue. Marriage is a heterosexual institution, and heterosexuals have already defined its meaning and purpose in society. If homosexuals envy marriage and want their own special institution, then they should attempt to create one. Then they can make it whatever they want it to be.

Forcing heterosexuals to accept a homosexual interpretation of marriage is at least as oppressive and dogmatic as forcing conservative christian religious morality on homosexuals. Wouldn’t it just be better to agree to disagree and to go our separate ways instead of being at each others throats? Strangely, homosexuals just aren’t willing to let this issue go regardless of the concessions made. They insist on forcing their homosexual “religion” on a heterosexual institution even though heterosexuals, for the most part, are just fine with letting homosexuals have their own institution in the form of civil unions, or garriage, or whatever you want to call it. So really, which group is the intolerant one? I’ll give you a hint… it’s not the Mormons.

No comments: