We have been told by the mainstream media and other liberals that those poor homosexuals haven't been able to marry, enjoy certain benefits, and feel so ostracized from society. This is why the military must change, laws must change, and we must certainly stop talking about these issues because we are wrong. Few however, are looking behind these issues to discover the truth behind the mainstream lie.
In 2010 the U.S. Census bureau announced they would count same-sex households as a part of their data gathering. (Whether we agree with this or not is moot; they did it anyway.) After culling through the data the Bureau announced in August that there were nearly one million homosexual households. Not many. Last week this number was revised downward even further, to less than 650,000 households. That is a little more than one half of one percent of the United States homes.
In states where same sex marriage is legal, the statistics get more interesting. In Massachusetts homosexuals could marry beginning in 2004. Homosexuals flock to this area to marry and live because of the culture, and yet comprise only two-tenths of one percent of married households. What is the deal?
The fact is this. Homosexuality has marketed a couple of lies, and our society is buying them. There is very little demand for same-sex marriage. As a culture, they would rather be sexually promiscuous than monogamous. Tons of research bears this out. The second lie is that this is another "civil rights" movement in action. No, it's not. It is merely another segment of society trying to get their perverse behavior to be accepted. Like shacking up, no-fault divorce, pedophilia and other social issues, this is just the latest in the string of moral garbage that is foisted upon society. The repeal of the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy in the military realm is another tactical plot to de-moralize our society, and it's all around us these days.
So when your child calls you up and asks you to pick him up from school because he has been expelled for his views (as happened recently in Ft. Worth, Texas), because he criticized a poster hanging on the wall of his classroom, don't be surprised. The poster showed two openly homosexual men kissing, and was posted by an openly homosexual teacher. The student's ejection and the teacher's retention was upheld by an openly gay school board member and his cronies, and morality as you know it went down the drain. Society, laws and government are all moral decisions. Whose morality will prevail? The majority? Or the vocal, active and perverse minority? You decide.
Ultimately this nation will split. Those that are grounded in principle and faith, and those that are not. You are watching it happen now with the "occupy Wall St" movement.
...separating the wheat from the chafe.
Please Lord, let the democrats identify with the "occupy Wall st" protests..., PLEASE. Let them put their name on it. Let this be an end to their marxist-socio-liberal ideology, better known as the enemy of you, God. Have the democrats take ownership of the vile and the evil. The sloth and the wicked. Have the democrats and the liberals suffer the misery that they deserve for destroying this once great country, founded in your name. Let the be crushed in the 2012 election, to the point that their party will never recover.
AMEN
Posted by: Dennis | October 11, 2011 at 08:39 PM
Reading is hard. Let me help: "You know, like marriage being spiritual, but not of Christianity (maybe like...., unicorns)." Dennis.
Posted by: Shirley | October 11, 2011 at 12:14 PM
Shirley said; "So Buddhists who consider themselves married are not?"
You are presenting that out of left field, (no pun intended); perhaps you could expand on that remark and its relevance to the previous discussion.
Btw, still glad that you are in agreement that government has no place in marriage, let people choose that for themselves with no need for official recognition or reward. Good to have you as an ally on that score.
Posted by: Rick Jones | October 10, 2011 at 08:45 PM
So Buddhists who consider themselves married are not? I'm nowhere like those goons. They have no idea even why they're there. Dennis: you need to move to a nation in which Christianity is the official religion. Try Norway.
Posted by: Shirley | October 10, 2011 at 08:28 PM
Rick/Powerball,
You guys are wasting your time. Shirley's like one of those folks attending the Occupy Wall street. Satisfied to exist in her own filth. You know, like marriage being spiritual, but not of Christianity (maybe like...., unicorns).
Posted by: Dennis | October 10, 2011 at 08:25 PM
Well, if that is your position then we are in agreement that government should be out of the marriage business altogether. So, there is no need for gays to bother the government for legal recognition, in our opinions, as it is, (or should be) none of the government's business. I am glad to have you on board with that.
Posted by: Rick Jones | October 10, 2011 at 08:17 PM
How? I want NO government interference or role in marriage, which is an individual and often spiritual relationship. I don't want the government involved in such decisions. Your assertion is again illogical. Try again.
Posted by: Shirley | October 10, 2011 at 05:48 PM
Shirley said, "Do you stand for freedom, or do you stand for big-government nannyism? You can't have both.".
Shirley, meet mirror.
After all, you're the one promoting MORE government involvement in private matters, not me.
Posted by: Rick Jones | October 10, 2011 at 05:06 PM
Shirley would be unsatisfied by any response to which she could not use in an attempt to demean the respondent. But, she is free to speak that way if that is how she wishes to live.
Posted by: Rick Jones | October 10, 2011 at 04:55 PM
This is the least logical sentence I've read in a long time: "If it is the only way a person can achieve a level of shared physical comfort it is a choice." Either way, if someone's behavior doesn't affect me, it should be legal. That's freedom. If you don't like it, move to a country that simply uses the Bible as the law of the land.
Posted by: Shirley | October 10, 2011 at 11:33 AM
A cognitive theory should give due diligence to both the "means" and the "end". Does the end justify the means. One must be able to explain and square their idea for it to be acceptable and bear repudiation. To ignore either of these, by splitting hairs, is again an attempt to manipulate the conversation without proper justification to both sides of the equation.
A person attempting to fool anyone this way must also know that is their aim and though they may fool everyone else in their heart they know they are deceitful since they have gone to great efforts to get to that point. In the end, that secret will always find its way to light-of-day whereby more absurdity will be required eventually disproving the original thought all on its own.
These tactics are a waste of time that shirley everyone recognize as the true form of bullying; child-play.
Posted by: Powerball | October 10, 2011 at 09:49 AM
So then Rick would prohibit marriage between straight folks without any ability or plans to reproduce? That sounds like a freedom-loving American. Or, Rick would prohibit two straight people from divorcing unless they satisfied Rick's standards of moral conduct? Sounds like a freedom-loving American. Do you stand for freedom, or do you stand for big-government nannyism? You can't have both.
Posted by: Shirley | October 10, 2011 at 09:06 AM
"Don't thank God, Dennis. You chose to be straight, right?"
Shirley, nice try. Straight is the norm in an evolutionary process, the default setting if you will. Gay is either a choice or a reproductive malfunction. If it is the only way a person can achieve a level of shared physical comfort it is a choice. If it is the brain directing the mating process with the intent to deliver a furtherance of the species it is a malfunction.
Posted by: Rick Jones | October 09, 2011 at 10:04 AM
As a society we have lost the reason that the institution of marriage was invented. And, I don't claim to be the exception, it seems to me the best answer I've heard is to make a stable family unit for child-raising. But, I wasn't around when it was formed and I really just do not know why it came about. And, if stability is at the heart of the institution that went away long ago as divorce became so common.
My point? We need to come to a new realization for the benefit of marriage to society, a reason to justify our recognizing it as special and heaping rewards on those who partake.
I see no value in extending the privilege of having society recognize a choice until we agree on why it is worth our endorsement. And, with so many failing, (and this will happen with gay marriage, man/goat marriage, woman/horse marriage or whatever), why should we give it any credence at all. A pox on all their houses, so to speak. But, that will never happen and I believe the author has it right that gays only want the ceremony to reinforce their contention that they are normal. Indoctrination works just fine for them, even if they have to force it upon the world.
And, that is the truth.
Posted by: Rick Jones | October 09, 2011 at 09:55 AM
Bobby J,
I believe that you are the only person suggesting that. you sound like a school girl.
Posted by: Dennis | October 08, 2011 at 04:32 PM
Forget about murderous wars, poverty, unemployment,fiat currency,tax rates that approach slavery, invasion of privacy and instead lets hang the gays.
God will save America if we could just get rid of all of Gods gay children.
Get a rope Paw.
Posted by: Bobby J. | October 08, 2011 at 07:53 AM
Why is it the teachers prerogative to hang a poster of homosexuals kissing but not a depiction of Christ?
Would the boy have been expelled if he found offense with a picture of Christ hanging in his classroom?
No, that's never happened, the teacher would have been suspended.
So whose fooling who?
Ones sexual preference is not a choice. If it were one could just as easily change back again. Why would we want to spend our time and money to have it declared that one has changed from being a man to being a woman or vise versa unless there is large benefit of fees to society to have it recorded.
I do believe there is a deviation in makeup of some people that causes them to be attracted to the same sex. Addisons disease, which affects the cortex of the adrenal gland, can cause a deformation of sexual characteristics at birth. These people must also take and adjust cortisone intake because their bodies do not produce it. Cortisone is addictive, should these people be considered addicts? Of course not, but some may find the need to call them so, for lack of understanding, in order to promote some sort of war on drugs. In the same breath, there is no need to celebrate them either. If they think they need celebration, they are actually crying for counseling.
To think any of this is a choice is a misunderstanding and representation of prejudice just like thinking one choses to be black, white, red, or yellow. It is a baited question with no place in the conversation.
Posted by: Powerball | October 07, 2011 at 09:29 PM
Don't thank God, Dennis. You chose to be straight, right?
Posted by: Shirley | October 07, 2011 at 08:47 PM
I don't get it. For the most part homosexuals aren't even religious. So why do they want to infect the sanctity of marriage? I am repulsed at the thought of homosexual acts; however, recognizing that America is still a nation of freedom I do not think that homosexuality should be illegal.
A persons perspective of how American morals (at least we used to have some) relate to their faith should dictate how they vote. I personally would vote against gay "marriage". Our federal government should have no say in this matter, as it is a state issue.
I will not lose sleep over this as, thank God, I am not gay.
Posted by: Dennis | October 07, 2011 at 05:44 PM
My kid would not be sitting in that class room. Ugh, makes me want to gag.....
Posted by: greeley | October 07, 2011 at 05:20 PM
You'll gain your first point of credibility on the issue of gay marriage as soon as you advocate limiting the freedoms of those who are gluttons, those who lust, and those who are greedy. Ours is not a system based on one group's concept of morality vs. another's. It is a system based on freedom. You say you're for freedom, but you are not. Just start telling the truth. You say you're for truth too. Are you?
Posted by: Shirley | October 07, 2011 at 10:27 AM