Skip to comments.Who Are the Real Gay Bigots and Bullies
Posted on 08/26/2011 2:51:16 PM PDT by ReformationFan
George Orwell said, In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. When you tell the truth about homosexuality today, you can be sure that the central tools of deceitname-calling and bullyingwill be unleashed.
I recently was having a respectful conversation with a homosexual activist, but after I made a point he couldnt answer he called me a bigot.
I asked, Whats your definition of bigotry?
He said, Fear and intolerance.
I said, The definition of bigotry is not fear and intolerance. Its making a judgment without knowing the facts. I have written a book about the problems with same-sex marriage and the destructive medical consequences of homosexual behavior. So my convictions on those issues are based in fact not bigotry. With all due respect, if anyone is engaged in bigotry it is you for judging my position as wrong without even knowing why I hold it.
He was also falsely equating my opposition to a behavior as prejudice toward people who engage in that behavior. Thats the central fallacy in virtually every argument for homosexualityif you dont agree with homosexual behavior, you are somehow bigoted against people who want to engage in that behavior. How does that follow? If conservatives and Christians are bigots for opposing homosexual behavior, then why arent homosexual activists bigots for opposing Christian behavior? And if we are bigots for opposing same-sex marriage, then why arent homosexual activists bigots for opposing polygamous or incestuous marriage?
Everyone puts limits on marriageif marriage had no definition it wouldnt be anything. Recognizing that marriage is between a man and a woman is not bigotry, but common sense rooted in the biological facts of nature.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
“Everyone puts limits on marriageif marriage had no definition it wouldnt be anything. Recognizing that marriage is between a man and a woman is not bigotry, but common sense rooted in the biological facts of nature.”
It’s also a sacrament. Whatever happened to the liberals holy grail...separation between church and state? How do you force churches and states individually to recognize something established by a federal, centrally located source?
This is just one example of how intolerant the left can be.
What could derail the gay triumphal procession is an honest national discussion of the REAL cause of homosexuality.
Homosexuality is spread by molestation. Vampire fashion. Nothing genetic about it at all. Any gay or lesbian whos being honest will admit that they were violated when they were children.
Bring THAT fact out of the closet and you blow up the central premise of the gay normalization campaign, i.e. that some people are just born that way so they and their proclivities should be accepted and celebrated. And if theyre not part of natures plan, then politically and philosophically we are not obligated to indulge them.
This also goes a long way towards explaining the inconvenient truth that so many gays are such messed up people; bubbling over with rage at society, sexual compulsives, affinity for young boys, etc. I wish I could find the study that caused so much shouting recently. The one about the shockingly short average lifespan of gays, when you factor in the suicides, deaths by partner violence, drugs, booze and of course, disease.
Personally, let them hate all they want. It only makes them more miserable. Nothing these thugs say really affects me. Let em watch MSNBC and leave us alone!
The study, entitled Gay obituaries closely track officially reported deaths from AIDS, has been published in Psychological Reports (2005;96:693-697).
In an interview with lifesitenews.com, Dr. Paul Cameron, the President of the Family Research Institute and the scientist who headed the study, indicated that he was not at all surprised by the findings. Rather he said that it only served as further confirmation for what had long been known and other studies have already shown.
One such study was conducted in Vancouver British Columbia and published in 1997 in the International Journal of Epidemiology (Vol. 26, 657-61: http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/26/3/657). It almost exactly mirrors the findings of Camerons research.
Yeah, but that report only tracks AIDS obituaries. All the gays who commit suicide or drink and drug themselves to death when very young and those runaways and throwaways who die under bridges don’t make the obits. Not to mention those who die ooky deaths like autoerotic asphyxiation or having their heads beaten in by their life partners and so on.
Only the beautiful, successful gays are the ones you hear about.
All the gays who commit suicide or drink and drug themselves to death when very young and those runaways and throwaways who die under bridges dont make the obits.”
Pretty tough to track scientifically; we know they are there, but not many people list gay as cause of death.
Nice, but they have NO intention of “leaving us alone”. Live and let live ain’t in their vocabulary.
They’re just going to keep making histrionic demands and pushing us around until either they get pushed back hard or they learn to overcome their inchoate rage against the world and themselves. Don’t get me wrong, gays and lesbos are not all crazed, vengeful hatemongers, we’ve all known at least a few. It’s just that, like the various racial and ethnic minority groups, it’s the angry domineering types who shoulder their way to the head of the movement.
Sodomites have a public face and a private face - a face generally reserved for others in the “lifestyle” and that expresses who they really are. They are almost all crazed and hateful with interludes of sanity.
sacrament is merely incidental to the law.
marriage is an institution of society.
Society rewards the institution not the individual.
the left uses religion to argue the ONLY prevention to homosexual based marriage is mere religion. This is a trap.
“marriage is an institution of society.”
Marriage is a religious ceremony. The law intruded into it so it could impose fines and levy taxes. The fact that happened doesn’t make it any more right than taking my money and using it to kill babies. It has become what it has become through the constant usurpation of our rights to worship as we see fit. We established this country on freedom of religion. The statists want to make it freedom from religion. Marriage is a religious ceremony. Screw what the left does, or what the “trap” is. You can’t change fact. Marriage is not “an institution of society” no matter how much you might prefer it that way. It is a religious ceremony. Period.
Calls to mind the old riddle: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one.
Similarly, calling a same-sex partnership a "marriage" ....
“Similarly, calling a same-sex partnership a “marriage” ....”
Or like calling an abortion clinic “planned parenthood.”
Ain’t no parenting being planned in those death chambers.
there is no religion test for marraige.
there is no love test for marriage.
society only rewards the behaviors that promote the institution and by extension the future of society.
we USED to have wide spread common law marriage which was by mere public presentation and cohabitation. That has gone away and at present only 8 states even have some semblance of it.
It is a matter of statutory construction. You want to have the common law which predates written law giving the broadest protection as to what marriage should be. One man one woman. You do not want the narrow statutory construction to take constrol because it means the government will define what is or is not marriage and what is or is not part of marriage. Remember the ABA is pushing that children are NOT legal parts of marriage and are just “accessories” to marriage. (this is to allow a door for homosexuals since it is physically impossible to produce children without a member of the opposit sex and/or medical intervention)
If there was a religion test then mixed marriages could not happen. Atheists would not be allowed to marry.
It may upset the religious purists but that is the way it has been for several millenia.
Good point. My niece must be miserable because she never smiles. Others joke about it and she goes along with the joke but she never smiles. I couldn't imagine going an hour w/o smiling and laughing -- but that's the type of guy I am. I suppose I should pity her but it's hard to pity someone who is so full of hate. Truthfully, I just ignore her.
“Atheists would not be allowed to marry.”
Wow. Who are you? Atheists can be married, you twit.
Peddle your nuts somewhere else...cripes, not allowed to get married...cripes. Allowed by who, the STATE? You don’t even hear yourself do you? Slave.
It’s not just your niece. I find than many if not all leftists in general have this attitude that they are so morally superior because of their belief in “equality”, e.g., state enforced equality of result a.k.a. socialism. Hence, they are “morally right” in their eyes to try to economically destroy and control anyone who disagrees with them on any topic. A female former co-worker of mine had a hyper left wing daughter(she had voted for Ralph Nader) who forbade her mother from ordering pizza from Domino’s because they financially supported pro-life causes. I found it ironic that the daughter wanted her own mother to have the right to kill her but don’t look for any semblance of logic among the brainwashed left.
Yes, liberals do deem themselves morally superior to all of us lowly conservatives. I have never had a political discussion with some of the liberals in my family; that’s a road I would never want to go down. Even so, I have been ostracized by some because, in my opinion, they know I oppose the gay agenda and by default would not approve of my niece’s lifestyle. While I don’t approve I realize I don’t need to and I would respect her life’s choices w/o a word of judgement. But they’ve made up their minds about me because I am a conservative and to that I say, so be it.
The difficulty in tracking these statistics is both inherent and purposely contrived. Inherent because "gayness" is not objectively determinable by any scientific methodology, it is fully subjective. No medical specialist can perform an autopsy with unlimited, extensive testing on a deceased body and determine that the person was homosexual, absent any physiological damage and/or disease consistent with the lifestyle.
It is a purposely contrived obfuscation because homo-activist know that if the true facts were revealed and publicized, it would obliterate their agenda. Obituaries seem to be the best indicator and evidence so far. Ironically, as activist homosexuals become more "open" about their predilections, more evidence will become available concerning this destructive life choice. Their only hope is to stay ahead of the curve in public opinion before the blossoming truth gets out, when it's too late to do anything about it in law.
Marriage is a religious ceremony.
Actually, it's both. It's a societal institution in as much as society has an obligation to recognize the religious ceremony and commitments involved.
Who would enforce the promises made in this bond of marriage otherwise? The Church? Only by its authority to ex-communicate and otherwise discipline its adherents. As far as the real-world ramifications of marriage: spousal and child support, parental rights, property rights and the rights to inheritance, the state MUST be involved in officiating any conflict when they arise. Otherwise you have unlimited, harmful, deadly family feuds with children much of the time in the middle. It would inevitably be bloodbath.
It comes down to a distortion and a twisting of what used to be good. We figured that marriage licenses were a good thing when they were useful to prosecute polygamy, because back then cohabiting with someone who was not your legal spouse was a crime, and that was the way in which we could punish polygamy, however, first problems started with the fact that the laws against cohabitation around the nation got lax in enforcement, then following this, cohabitation grew in popularity. If you ask me about cohabitation, it doesn’t seem likely someone who cohabitates instead of marries would care much about marriage, then when the future arguments about how marriage is such an essential right rather than a sacrament, or that denying marriage to those who wants it hurts and causes suicide for some sad puppy points, it all builds up sympathy to turn what was good into something ugly and in contrast to it, now there is the demand that churches change their ways to accomodate behaviors that are vile, unsanitary, and God loves his children enough to discourage the committing of such acts.
Judeo-Christian tradition came a long way in terms of determining marriage. Marriages of society weren’t as stringent or as mutually beneficial when you look historically, as were the Israelite and later Jewish marriages. In most cultures, it was not wrong to have sex with some prostitute for the sake of worshipping a nature/fertility goddess, while you were married. Whereas if some woman were not ceremoniously your wife by religion (singular or plural) it was considered adultery for sexual relations with her, it was also wrong to have pre-marital sex too. Well, in case you wondered, religious marriage deserves to be above society’s standard, and this is made all the more true with today’s trends.
read, if religion is a requirement of marriage, then those without religion can’t get married. the logic contained in your words not mine.
“...read, if religion is a requirement of marriage, then those without religion cant get married. the logic contained in your words not mine.”
Exactly. And? Do you have a point to make somewhere? Anywhere? If you want to get a non-religious “civil ceremony” have at it. If you want a marriage, do it in a church, where marriages SHOULD take place. Between one man and one woman.
If it’s in a church, WTF DOES THE GUBMINT HAVE TO DO WITH IT?