Skip to comments.Homofascism Should Be Crushed
Posted on 06/03/2014 8:10:03 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
This blog is was, shall remain a friend to gay people. I hope its a friend to any person who wants to do whatever gives him joy and hurts no one else.
Many of my fellow Christians tell me that homosexuality is a sin. Maybe so, but its not my sin. And on the off-chance the Gospels mean what they say and I will one day stand before the throne of God and be judged on whether I loved Him and my neighbor, whether I did what I could for the hungry, thirsty, sick, weak, enchained well, lets say Ive got approximately a lifetimes worth of other things to think about before I start worrying myself over other peoples sins.
Anyway, though our laws are steeped in Judeo-Christian principles, one of those principles happens to be the divide between Caesar and God. We are not, nor are we meant to be, a theocracy. Gluttony is a sin, one of the seven deadlies, but Mayor Bloomberg was still an overbearing idiot when he tried to tell us what sort of sodas to drink. Sin is not the governments business, no matter what clever rationales you come up with to make it so.
So should gay people be allowed to marry by law? I look at it this way. There are going to be gay people. They are going to have relationships. Is it better for the state that those relationships be brief, brutish and meaningless or committed, affectionate and long-lasting? You figure it out.
Having said all this, I think Homofascism this current movement to regulate and restrict opinions and outlooks toward homosexuality indeed, toward anything should be crushed. Lawsuits against photographers who wont shoot gay weddings. Television show cancellations because the hosts oppose gay marriage. Attempts to silence anti-gay preaching or force churches to recognize gay marriages. Crushed, all of it. Crushed by the united voice of the people, crushed in courts of law, in legislatures, in businesses and in conversation. When someone is sued, attacked, shamed, boycotted or fired for opposing gay marriage or just opposing gayness in general, straight and gay people alike should protest. No one should lose his television show, no one should be dragged before a judge, no one should have his business threatened. Dont tell me about a companys right to fire its employees. It has the right, but it isnt right. Its unAmerican and its despicable.
Gay rights, like all rights, do not in any way supersede the rights of others. A free person may have any opinion about homosexuality he chooses or about blackness or about Judaism or any other damned thing and he should be able to speak that opinion out loud and act on that opinion if he does no immediate harm. Basically, as long as he keeps his hands to himself, he should be able to believe and say whatever he wants without paying any price whatsoever for it other than the disagreement and possibly dislike and disdain of his fellow Americans.
Does he believe that homosexuality is a sin that degrades the practitioner? He should be able to say so. Does he feel it would be a sin for him to participate in a gay wedding as a baker or photographer? He should be allowed to follow his lights in peace. Does he feel male-female marriage is a pillar of freedom? Let him fight to preserve it. Does he find gay sex disgusting? Rude to say out loud maybe, but still, within his rights. Maybe he finds it unnatural (whatever that means). Or maybe hes a leftist and feels that all gender behaviors are pure social constructs hey, theres no law against being an idiot. Me, I feel that heterosexuality is the human norm, but there are harmless variants outside the norm and, you know, who cares? Ill say the same to anyone. We should all be able to say and vote what we please. Its called freedom. Its a beautiful thing, even when it gets ugly.
The next time a business a TV network or restaurant or anything finds itself under attack or boycott because one of its employees disapproves of gays, they should issue the following statement. Our employees opinions do not represent our opinion. Our opinion is this: its a free country; to each his own. And in keeping with that philosophy, we are taking no action in this matter. Have a chicken sandwich.
How hard is this? How did we lose this idea? You can be free, but so is the next guy. America. Simple.
The exceedingly stupid author fails to realize (or mention) that redefining marriage will essentially crush us all.
Probably the origins of homosexual fascism have its roots in the disgusting acts they perform. Something the author doesn’t recognize or understand.
It’s not a good article. It’s naïve.
Interesting. It’s obvious the author opposes homofascism, but it’s also obvious the author has no clue about the fact that God is not mocked, and our nation’s embrace of homosexuality is mocking Him. His wrath is already falling on us because of our collective depravity. Our formerly rich and prosperous nation is teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. How much more wrath do we want poured out on us? So this embrace of homosexuality ain’t a “victimless” crime.
I concur. Hypocritical rubbish. He agrees to their demands, then asks that they be crushed.
It's not naïve, but dangerously deceptive. Homos always try to be our "friends" to get within stabbing distance.
I don't buy his filth for a second.
All these libertarian types who supported gay marriage must be horrible chess players; they cannot think more than one move ahead. The SSM movement has been very successful in marketing themselves as the successor of the Civil Rights movement; not allowing SSM is the same as not allowing interracial marriage. What happened to the segregationists post-1960s? They were driven out of polite society and such views are not tolerated. With SSM on the verge of the final SCOTUS coup de grace it is entirely expected that those who opposed SSM will also like segregationists be driven out of society. But for some reason people like Klavan did not realize that and are now being thrown under the bus since they served their useful idiot purpose.
“Homos always try to be our “friends” to get within stabbing distance.”
Money quote. Most faggies hate “breeders”, something else this author cannot fathom.
“Is it better for the state that those relationships be brief, brutish and meaningless or committed, affectionate and long-lasting? You figure it out.”
This line betrays the authors naivety. The state has no business encouraging either. Surely if the state really looked out for its interest, it would favor having these people just enter heterosexual relationships.
Besides, even with homo marriage, the relationships STILL end up being vast majority brief, brutish and meaningless. All you’ve done is given it a government seal of approval
The satanic left, led by the homosexuals and feminazi’s, are not interested in ‘live and let live’. They will howl and squeal like a pig any time they don't get their way - and their way is literally ‘my way or the highway’.
The homosexual agenda must either be eradicated, contained, or like a cancer will spread until the host is no more.
AK gets a lot right but not this.
One cannot serve two masters, have ones cake and eat it too...which he tries to do here. I think in a vacuum, he would be right...but we are not in one. Homosexuality comes with strings attached. Death, mental illness exasperated by the act itself, disease, corruption of our foundational principles...it’s a long list.
Homosexuals do not simply do their thing. There are far reacing and very negative consequences to ‘their thing’. Their thing involves AIDS, chickenhawkery, political facism, anti religious sentiment forced on the religious and dozens of others.
In realistic terms, this situation is all but settled...the courts have allowed ‘anything goes’ regardless of what individual states and their citizens want. That said, the ‘state’ redefining marriage is not to be excused. The author’s argument has some merit (about gay relationships). The legal and economic argument of giving two gay men or women the same rights as a married couple is a reasonable argument. Whether it is tax benefit, legal rights in court and in hospitals. A stable relationship is a far better thing than perpetual singlehood. Personally, I know many gay partners who have 15+ years together.
That said, redefining marriage is just plain wrong. The government should never have had a role in defining marriage so it could be redefined by government fiat. The government now supersedes individual religion, which is a horrible development. Unfortunately this happened swiftly and with little discussion or debate...it was done with a hammer by the left and no counter-argument was made....those against have stated a belief in traditional marriage, but that is not sufficient nor has it moved the ball back in the right direction. It is likely too late policy wise, but I would love to see at least one state move to establish a domestic partnership law in lieu of ‘marriage’ and take it through the court system.
I agree with this guy in concept. There are always going to be gay people. As long as they stay on their side of the room and don’t intrude into my side I can live with that. I’m not going to condemn them. That’s God’s job. But I’m not going to let them force me to accept their lifestyle as normal or provide services for them against my will nor am I going to allow them to escort a young male cub scout troop with my grandson into the woods alone against my better judgment either. There are reasons for socital limitations on what is considered normal or deviant behavior and it comes from judgment based on prior experiences. No amount of PC will make me give in and go against my better judgment. Stop the Homo Nazification of our children and stop trying to breed a new generation of perverts and we can get along.
it will never be settled
first off, there is nothing in the Constitution which allows courts to impose laws on the states.
However, as a Catholic I am convinced that the entire Moral Law can be reached via reason drawing reasonable conclusions from evidence, which is to say, the entire Divine Moral Law can be learned from, Natural Law, since they both have the same Author.
And what that means is that active homosexuality will work the destruction of individuals, families, cultures and civilizations. It has as much disruptive power, cumulatively, as a nuclear war.
So it looks like we're going to have to actually experience increasing inundations of suffering, all of us (not just the perps) because people will not heed a warning.
With or without regard to religion, homosexuality is a perversion. Period.
“There are always going to be gay people. As long as they stay on their side of the room and dont intrude into my side I can live with that. “
and that is why, eventually, America will balkanize. They refuse to stay on their side of any room they enter. As with other liberals, they demand your/my side adopt the norms of their side and ‘become’ their side in all ways.
That was tried in 1776. England learned the hard way too.
I remember the incident in One Million Dead, (by Jose Maria Gironella, on the Spanish Civil War) where the far-Left commander Buenaventura Durruti is leading a column of Anarchist troops to try to take the city of Zaragoza. The effort fails, partly just from anarchists-being-anarchists, and partly from the sexual disorder sweeping the ranks, with venereal diseases having a greater impact on the troops than even mortar injuries.
At one point Durruti separates out all the homosexuals and gonorrhea-infected militiawomen from his forces, puts them in boxcars, takes them off on a railway siding, and mows them down with a machinegun.
Not my recommendation, by the way.
But it does show that the Spanish Left was even in the 1930s a haven for disordered, promiscuous people (both hetero and homo) and even the Left found that sexual disorder (in any kind of sexual) is incompatible with combat-readiness.
Note to the DoD.
Countless judicial decisions and legislative enactments have relied on the ancient proposition that a governing majoritys belief that certain sexual behavior is immoral and unacceptable constitutes a rational basis for regulation. (...)
State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers validation of laws based on moral choices. (...)
The law, it said, is constantly based on notions of morality, and if all laws representing essentially moral choices are to be invalidated under the Due Process Clause, the courts will be very busy indeed.
~ Justice Scalia, Lawrence v. Texas dissent
From the article ...
> Sin is not the governments business, no matter what clever
> rationales you come up with to make it so.
Really? Murder, stealiing, and false witness are sins, too. You mean the government should butt out of those, too?
He fails to mention - I believe intentionally - that redefining marriage to include same-sex couplings is not the end of it at all. In fact, it will just be a staging area for the real attacks against any vestige of a Christian society.
Right out of the chute, the author has the Gospel wrong. His info may be from the "Gospels", but this is not the "Gospel". Go read Paul's letter to the Romans. In the Gospels, Jesus was teaching the Jews that if they want Law to be their salvation, here is what is involved...perfection. Otherwise, God will grant faith to those whom He has chosen (by grace, alone) and rescue them because He has decided. No wonder the author cannot see the picture...he has been blinded by "religion".
“Why can’t we all get along”? Did Rodney King write this article?
“Why can’t we all get along”? Did Rodney King’s ghost write this article?
Here the author reveals his simple-minded naivety. Before us we see the growing destruction resulting from everyone doing whatever is right int heir own eyes. Before us we see the devolution of the moral safe guards that have kept a free people from becoming debased by their appetites and own carnality. From this, no good will come. Be assured, only pain, misery, and brokenness will be the result of the attitude of the author.
How much human misery will we allow by having the author's misplaced high-minded attitude of tolerance? The problem is that this tolerance will most certainly exact an unmistakably harsh penalty on society and upon individuals. The decent into craven lust will certainly not end with homosexuality. There will be new demands for acceptance of increasingly vulgar and debased behavior. Pedophilia, bestiality, polygamy and the sort will soon be up for negotiation by those who tell us that there is no collateral damage or appropriate offense to be taken. The author is woefully misguided by suggesting that those who object to homosexuality do so only out of venial concern or out of an outdated moral code.
Like many others, the author disingenuously equates those who oppose the practice of homosexuality as those who also hate the individuals who have surrendered themselves to such a practice. This is a false narrative that has been cleverly leveraged by those seeking to advance the practice of homosexuality.
No, the author is wrong.
The problem is with homosexual acts. Because they are innately gross, the men who perform them turn to drugs and alcohol to wash the memories away. That was the way it’s been in society for a thousand years. Then gays decided that the best way to wash away the guilt was to get straight people to accept their acts. They were so successful that they grew into fascists - probably in the same way that the SA in Hitler’s regime grew to power, although I’m certainly no expert.
I love my neighbor enough to try to save him from his sin. Just sayin’.
It is “naïve” because it allows him to avoid the wrath of liberals and sodomites on this issue. He’s a coward.
I read it as naivete. Do you think naivete can’t be dangerous?
The author does not understand that the victory of ‘Gay Marriage’ = the victory of homofascism; the two are inseparable.
Meaning tell them that homosexuality is wrong.
Excellent comments Mrs. Don-o, especially about it being an abuse of the other party—regardless of consent.
I cannot believe that fallen humanity would be THAT good at keeping a vice in the closet unless said vice had some really obviously nasty social side-effects that called for swift and severe reaction.
“Sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance” indeed.
So people don’t have a right to make purchasing decisions if they think the merchant is an asshole? If I found out the guy that runs the McDonald’s near me was anti-whatever in a way that pissed me off, I’d probably find somewhere else to get chicken nuggets at midnight.
> I would imagine that if there were an undercover exposé on their true lifestyles many of the straight supporter’s mouths would drop. I don’ think they have an idea about how promiscuous and deviant they really are.
All one naïve straight needs to do is find a gay male website. His eyebrows would fly off his face. The language alone (one of my pet peeves with gay men) would send them to the Pepto Bismal.
The problem is that changing the meaning of words will not make the homosexual encounters anything BUT brief, brutish and meaningless.
Their encounters are based in the desire to stick their peepee into another guys butt. That is it. That is all there is to that "relationship". It is like asking if it is best for the state that the relationship between a person and their blowup doll be "committed, affectionate and long-lasting".
When everything is based on sex there is nothing there to build on.
There is no desire to have children together because they can't.
There is no desire to build a family together because they can not.
If you don't believe me just look at how many of those "committed, affectionate and long-lasting" relationships survived their make-believe "marriage".
It is all too often very dangerous.