Skip to comments.PRUDEN: Navigating past the same-sex marriage ‘ick factor’
Posted on 05/15/2012 3:39:14 AM PDT by tobyhill
This is not what Barack Obama expected for a coming-out party. The historic revelation that he is now fully evolved, as from tadpole to frog, and now grooves on same-sex marriage, was meant to be marked with quiet ceremony. No music, no flowers, no kiss, no dancing, not even a cupcake.
Rage and outrage over same-sex marriage would take everybodys mind off the dreary economy, which whimpers on. Everybody was then supposed to shut up and get back to work (for those with work).
Instead, the president gets his photograph (with a rainbow halo) on the cover of Newsweek magazine as the first gay president, all the Sunday-morning political talk shows were devoted to endless gasbaggery about gays and marriage, and even Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the heartthrob of the Upper East Side, complained that the presidents coming-out might have set back the campaign for full equality for gay caballeros.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Campaign funds !
The gays were not donating and voter fraud operations are pricey to set up
The lefties treat guys like a cute fashion accessory or designer dog but not as equals .
They mock them behind their back .
Personally, I don't give a crap if you're gay or straight or whatever, and I have acquaintances who are gay and married, as I live, after all, in the Gay State. And I'll tell you this, as "evolved" as I am on this issue, I still cannot help but find it really "not normal."
Honestly, it's a little like a tranny trying to pretend he's a chick. No matter how hard they try to pass it off as normal and just another day-to-day thing, it really isn't. And it's not like I have anything against these people, or that their being married affects my life in any measurable way. It's just odd. And trying to normalize it only makes it feel more odd.
Frankly, I think we spend FAR TOO MUCH TIME on the gays and it distracts us from the real problems that affect this nation.
Fellow, we all have to be aware of something, that should concern us. We are losing this battle because the media and the liberal culture are the vanguard of the army of the other side.
Less than 10 years ago, nationwide, gay marriage was opposed by 65% of people. Now it's down to the low 50% range. Why? Because of countless movies, books, TV shows, and college professors who routinely and casually mainstream the notion of homosexual parents and homosexual relationships.
Another example: when we check in for the first time at a new doctor's office, we routinely fill out a form with personal information, one of which is Gender/Sex: M[ ] or F[ ]. In contrast, my alma mater sent me an alumni form recently, and for Gender/Sex there were six listed: M[ ] F[ ] Transexual [ ] Transgendered [ ] and two more I can't remember but were no doubt equally perverse and disgusting.
If we are to defend our values, we need to look beyond the 2012 election and BHO's bumbling declaration that he has "evolved" to finally support gay marriage. The tide continues to rise and we are retreating, step by step.
Let people have any ceremony they want, but none should be recognized by the state. Finances, hospital visits, power of attorney, custody, etc should be handled by legal paperwork.
Government being involved in marriage is a holdover from the days when women had far less rights. The same thing for financial settlements in divorce - it was intended for a time when women had no earning power and it protected them from being thrown penny-less into the street. Today, they shouldn't get a dime except for 50% of the child support. They could go into any career and easily earn more than men. Why do courts continue to subsidize the ones that aren't ambitious enough to do so?
Defining marriage to be sodomy is nonsensical. But this nonsense will have disastrous consequences.
We’ve seen it in MA. Full normalization of homosexuality in government school curricula.”Dick and Jane said ‘Hi’ to Mr. & Mr. Jones.”
Adoption of children by sodomites.
And the coup de grace: absolute equality of men and women. Unisex bathrooms (already proposed here in MA), changing rooms, and God knows what else.
The Supreme Court legalized sodomy, and now the Democrat Party wants to institutionalize it.
BO is a Muslim at heart who hates Christianity....the muscular kind, not the sell-out kind that stands for nothing. Anything he can do to cause pain and suffering to true Christians is his contribution to the ascendancy of Islam. Just look at the results of his “Arab Spring” as Exhibit A.
Liberals, in general, do everything they can to avoid what it really means to be a homosexual, especially a male homosexual.
If you say, “do you REALLY want to say that a marriage between a man and a woman is equivalent to the desire of one man to put his * in another man’s *?”, they’ll recoil in horror and say that YOU’RE the bad person for bringing that up.
Many people are wondering why the Obama is doing this and I have my own theory as to why. First off it is not Obama who is orchestrating this but it is the democrat party doing so. For the first time in history the demcorats have given America a black President. Lest we forget that the demcorats are the party of the KKK. My theory is that the democrats are seeking to regain control of the civil rights issue and to control it. What is not pointed out ever (by anyone) but is amazing when looked at within a historic perspective is that we are about to have the party of the KKK, who fought against civil rights, now redefine the meaning of civil rights in America.
They want to do it now while America has a black President for two reasons; a.) it gives them cover against their past history by letting them claim they are not racist because they elected a black man President, and b.) being that they lost the civil rights issue in relation to the rights of black Americans it is a symbolic victory for them to redefine ‘civil rights’ and regain control over the issue with a black man leading their party.
Why is it never discussed as to how this issue will redefine ‘civil rights’? Is precedent being set for a person’s sexual behavior to possibly be as important (or more important?) as their race or gender? If more forms of sexual behavior or sexual identification become recoginized as protected classes then how do all these different protected classes weigh against eachother? Is being homosexual more important then being black?
It amazes me that the party of the KKK is possibly near accomplishing the complete reconfiguration of the meaning of civil rights and no one even points out that fact.
The wealthiest and most catered-to "oppressed minority" group ever!
That's not entirely true. In colonial Massachusetts, for example, Puritans were married by civil magistrates because they had rejected the notion (Anglican) that marriages had to be solemnized by a priest. Puritans also believed that when the terms of the covenant of marriage were broken, the marriage could be dissolved in divorce. The government also played a large role in "policing" marriage; "deadbeat dads" and such were routinely hauled into court and made to pay up, and of course, if the government weren't so involved in the marital affairs of its citizens, Hawthorne wouldn't have had the source material for Hester Prynne and her form of public punishment.
I had Phagophobia once. It’s a real disease. Look it up in Wikipedia. (Fear of swallowing).
Threatened with being “outed”?
“He is a prisoner of his own stupidity.”
By their fruits you will know them. Heterosexuality produces children, and the perpetuation of the species. Homosexuality produces aids and hemorrhoids. One of them produces life, and other produces disease and death.
People may all be equal in the eyes of the law, but that does not mean that all relationships are equal. There are defined, privileged relationships in our society: attorney-client, doctor-patient, priest-pennitant, and husband-wife. It is in the legitimate interest of society to help a man and a woman produce and raise a functioning member of society. There is simply no such impetus for awarding this privileged status to a same sex couple. And while the homo-lobby likes to say "what about a marriage that produces no children", I reply that I don't have to show that heterosexual unions always produce children, I just have to show that homosexual unions never produce children. A same sex relationship is simply not the equal of an opposite sex relationship, and we as a society are under no obligation to treat them as such.
I think of homosexuality as a disorder. It does not mean the people afflicted with it are criminals or insane. It just means I believe it to be a psychological disorder. Like all disorders, if I could cure it somehow, I would. But simply because I don’t believe homosexuals are criminals, I also don’t believe they’re entitled to the rights of marriage as people who don’t have the disorder.