Some of us have observed the homosexual movement from the very beginning. First, all they wanted to do was practice the sexual desires which “God gave them,” so they managed to get sodomy laws abolished. But that was not the end game.
Then they wanted to live with their heads held high, so they wanted to hold Gay Pride Parades. If you have ever been to a gay parade, you know that, it is not just a bunch of homosexuals on floats holding up banners saying, “I’m gay and loving it!” You will see all sorts of simulated sexual acts and men wearing clothing in such a way as to be erotically graphic. It is much more of an “in your face” approach. “This is what we are; deal with it.” But that was not the end game.
Now that gay pride parades are common—at least in some areas—there was the next step. So many male homosexuals had the love of their lives suffering in hospitals, and yet, they had no legal right to see this person, and family members were keeping them separated, and so they had to have civil unions or domestic partnership laws. The hospital scenario was presented again and again, although this was a situation that fewer than 1% of homosexuals had ever dealt with. Many had been to hospitals with ex-lovers dying of AIDS, but the number who had been banned from their “lifetime” partner was minuscule. However, by presenting that rarely occurring scenario, homosexuals gained quite a number of state laws which allowed them to become legally attached with the legal rights that they needed to have. But, that was not the end game.
And now, today, the big push is for marriage rights. Everyone has the right to marry the person that they love, except for gays; and it is so unfair! “It is a fundamental human right to marry the person you love!” they proclaim.
There are churches in every state—many of them headed by gay pastors—who are more than willing to perform a marriage ceremony, and pronounce them married at the end of the ceremony; and gays can tell everyone that they know, “This is my gay marriage partner” and they can demand such recognition from their friends and family. But, you know what is so terrible? The state will not proclaim them married! The federal government will not proclaim them married! Oh, dear, oh dear; this is such a violation of their civil rights! How can they really feel married unless the state or federal government recognizes them as married? Attending their own marriage ceremony in which they are pronounced married? Not good enough. Telling all of their friends and family that they are married? Not good enough. Marriage only counts, for some reason, if the state or federal government certifies them as being married.
But gay marriage is not the end game. No gay will ever tell you the end game, because if they did, you would never support gay marriage.
What gays like is more sexual partners. Whereas, it is very unusual for a heterosexual male to have 100 or more different partners, this is not unusual in the gay community. A study in 1978 said that 75% of gay men had over 100 sexual partners. And since gays make up only about 3% of the population, it is hard to find new gay men to have sex with. What is their approach? Some partially change themselves into women; they don’t go all the way (except for the very nutty ones), but they go far enough so that they can have sex with some straight men.
However, if marriage between gays becomes the law, and the state recognizes homosexual marriages to be legally equivalent to marriages between heterosexuals, then life in America is going to change dramatically. Gay marriage is not the end game; but once gay marriage is made legal, then gays can do a number of things they have been wanting to do.
First, because there are always been animosity among gays against Christians, the Bible will be proclaimed to be hate literature and any pastor who tries to teach portions of the Bible will be taken to court for teaching hatred. They could care less whether or not they win; sue a few small churches, and word will get around fast enough. Defending against such lawsuits is expensive, and few churches can afford to do it. We know this will happen because it already has. If marriage between homosexuals is “legalized” then, this opens up the opportunity to strike back at the church, and if a few congregations get shut down, who cares? These churches are nothing but disseminators of hatred.
However, attacking Christians and the Bible is not the end game; that is simply sport and revenge. The end game is, more homosexual partners. When a man has had 100 sexual partners, that has to be a clue that, having sex, and a lot of sex, is extremely important to the homosexual. If there is a way to expand the franchise, so to speak, that is seen as a great objective.
Sexuality is a complex thing, and homosexuals have found that, if a male is violated at a very early age, sexual gratification can be associated with homosexual behavior. This does not work in all cases, but it works in enough cases to make presenting homosexual behavior in the schools a worthy goal for the homosexual community. There are many schools today that teach, in sex education, that there are 3 types of sexual intercourse, and all 3 of them are equally valid. This is taught to as young an age as they can get away with.
Even today, there are schools where books about homosexual couplings are made a part of the curriculum for grammar school children. “And Tango Makes Three” is a popular book which has crept into the primary schools all over America.
There are many schools where homosexuals have pushed anti-bullying programs which, incidentally, present homosexual couples as normal. These programs are pushed with great enthusiasm, despite the meager evidence of bullying occurring because a child has two daddies. However, essentially to these anti-bullying programs is, a homosexual union is normal thing and a good thing.
Homosexuals know that young children, just reaching puberty, can be carefully navigated into trying homosexual acts. They know that, by using lies or trickery, make up and surgery, that additional males can be tempted into homosexual acts. This does not mean that such young men will be turned into homosexuals; it just means, they can be gotten to experiment, and that is the end-game. More gay experimentation and more gay partners.
Men are men, whether they are predominantly interested in homosexuality or heterosexuality; and, for many men, multiple partners is a desirable thing to them. This helps to explain why, even in “committed” gay relationships, fidelity is almost nonexistent.
This is why homosexuals have become so active in school curriculums, particularly on the grammar school level. This is why homosexuals are so interested in having gay marriage proclaimed as legal and equal to heterosexual marriage.
This is why they want homosexual acts to be presented side-by-side heterosexual acts in sex education.
Where is the best place for gays to encourage more gay behavior, which means more partners? On the grammar school level.
Here is exactly what they want; here is the end game:
(1) Sexual intercourse between males to be presented as exactly the same as sexual intercourse between a male and a female. No judgment. “You like coffee; I like tea; its all the same.” All of the resultant physical problems from anal intercourse will not be taught at any level. If there is any teaching about AIDS, it will be presented as a disease spread among all sexual relationships, and, all you have to do is, use a condom to prevent it. Furthermore, this must be presented to as young a group as possible. Preferably to children who do not even know what sexual relations are.
(2) A homosexual union must be presented as exactly equal to a heterosexual union. I have a few dozen Time-Life books on home repair, and, in more than half of the pictures, women are doing the work; laying brick, lifting up walls, drilling holes—this is what homosexuals want to see in our schools. If there is a book or a movie or an illustration which involves a family, they want to see a homosexual couple represented. From the earliest age possible, they want young 5 and 6 year old boys reading about gay penguins, or 10 year olds doing a math word problem which involves a homosexual couple Just like women construction workers are ubiquitous in my Time-Life books, they want to see homosexual couples ubiquitous in the public school curriculum. And if a school fails to do this, then they will go to court over it. Such a school would be teaching underlying or institutionalize bigotry, and that must be stopped. They cannot take such a school to court today, because gay marriage is not recognized by the state and federal governments. However, once that hurdle is made, then “institutional sexual bigotry” in the schools will be attacked via the legal system.
(3) Young males in particular must be raised in such a way as to think about their sexuality at a very young age; preferably before puberty, which will encourage experimentation. Whether you realize this or not, more homosexual behavior will be the result. Whether it sticks or not, is not important. It is the experimentation that counts. It is that discussion about sexual identify with a trusted adult that counts.
Homosexual marriage is not about love and commitment; anyone can do that, with or without the law. Passing homosexual marriage is really about recruiting more partners, the younger, the better.
These things are being done to a very limited extent at a handful of schools across the United States. However, once gay marriage passes (particularly, if it is done on the federal level), then these things will be pushed in a much more concerted way in our future, through the schools and the courts.
From Conservative Review #166
http://kukis.org/blog/ConservativeReview166.htm
http://kukis.org/blog/ConservativeReview166.pdf
A retired math teacher who spends most of his time exegeting the Old Testament and, once a week, puts out an ezeen.
Very thought provoking and thorough as usual, Gary. I can hardly wait for the moonbats’ heads to explode!
Wow, what a paranoid rant. You obviously don’t know any gay people.
You are losing this battle, big time. And this kind of ignorant diatribe (that all gay people have hundreds of partners and want polygamy more than anything) is only going to make people laugh. The moment you have a son, or a brother, or a best friend come out as gay, you will know how normal, kind, and caring gay people can be. Until then, get used to the laughter, because man, you sound CRAZY!!!
Good information. And yet another reason to homeschool.
@Ms. Sanderson
Uh…did you cite any sources to disprove what the author had to say?
Or are we expected to just take your word for it?
A gay penguin wearing a pink construction hat just told me that the comment scoring system is rigged.
*S* The gay penguin’s accusation has been disproven. I see that my experimental “Like” vote just registered. Evidently there’s a short time lag involved in the polling software.
That’s an interesting addition, btw. My guess is that a lot of visitors who don’t take the time to comment on various posts will enjoy having the ability to register an opinon on them.
I agree. This is such a difficult subject because we all have people we love who are homosexuals; (I have a sister and now, supposedly, a niece). My cousin died from AIDS 20 years ago, and his brother “experimented” as well. These family members all want our support and enthusiasm for the “next step.” I remember when my sister abhorred anything having to do with being traditional. And now she lives a more traditional life than I, except that her partner is a woman. Yet, that is NOT good enough…she and her partner will not be truly happy until they have the federally or state recognized right to marry. Neither my sister or her partner have experienced a day of discrimination from society or from family members–so why? Why do they want to turn our lives upside down? Most of my family members support her–I just avoid the subject because I do NOT support gay marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman whether it’s in the bible or not. That is just the law of nature in my book, and, whereas, I wish my sister every happiness, I do not view her lifestyle any more “normal” than my alcoholic sister. She’s very educated and successful, but I know many educated and successful alcoholics too. I guess just like drunks don’t like to drink alone; ergo homosexuals don’t like to sex it up alone. 🙂
@Greg: Funny Greg. Ain’t rigged tho, I found a plugin that records IP’s so readers will only be able to vote once per comment.
I know this comment voting was a request by readers during the redesign phase so I figured I would put it in and see what everyone thinks. Let me know what you think.
So now there is a Huge Task ahead, Re-writing the UCMJ to accommodate the repeal of DADT and legitimizing other Acts that were considered to be Offensive or Criminal in Nature. There are no cost figures presented on this revamp of the UCMJ. Nothing submitted that is on Record as Congress must approve the costs. I’m curious to see if other Offenses will be made Legal in the process to please a very Vocal Minority that may or may not choose to serve. The US Armed Forces have been All Volunteer for some time.
Officers writing Bad Checks can be Cashiered. Adultery can end a Career. Conduct Unbecoming is most likely to get loosened up. That’s a whole lotta paperwork in itself. Decades of Rules regarding Conduct and Discipline will get the axe to satisfy a Vocal Minority, many of which would not Volunteer for the Military in time of War or Peace but want “Change” for the sake of the recent Leverage that has been applied.
Now the real issue falls on the Unit Commanders shoulders. Those of Traditional Values that object to Life on Very Close Quarters with those that may care to stretch the rules a little may look to the Commander for relief from having their Values “compromised. Morale and Readiness issues as well as Unit Cohesion may suffer. All for the desires of a Vocal Minority that is not found within the Ranks but outside on the Civilian Side.
In NATO, the Dutch Military became meterosexual a few decades ago. They rarely deploy into Harms way and are generally not Feared by ANY Nations Military.
Lets see how the Military treats Marriages other than the Recognized Traditional ones. More money spent there too to overhaul the System and the UCMJ. For the desires of a few. For all of You that wanted to see the Defense Budget cut, this was counter to that notion. It will require a lotta Cash to get the UCMJ reworked to be acceptable to that Vocal Minority.
Call me Berry Goldwater; but could someone please tell me where it says anything about marriage in the constitution…Oh, ok.. Well how about the bill of rights…. No not there ether. So wait a minute despite your grievances on the issue the federal government really has no business making marriage laws, until we have a constitutional amendment, right? I could care less If homosexuals got married, but If I was going to blindly follow a party line I would have been a liberal, and If I wanted the government to take power not enumerated to it I would have voted for Obama(assuming I could vote).
Perhaps there should be a constitutional amendment, after all we live in a representative republic. Until then maybe some of us non kool aid drinkers should take a closer look at this issue.
I predict that If gays should openly serve in the millitary, then women in combat units are soon to follow, and none of that will work.
I have Always Favored the citation of Constitutional Authority as a Footnote on Every piece of Legislation that Congress crafts for Presidential sign off. I don’t expect that in My lifetime. Those that are engaged in looting the Treasury would not have a Legal leg to stand on if that came to pass.
For the Common Good, General Welfare and Commerce Clauses could actually be used to make Prostitution Legal in All of Obama’s 57 States if that were the case. Just sayin…
I live in a very gay-friendly city.
We have a gay month.
We have several gay parades.
My condo complex has had several gays in it over the years I have lived here.
One cannot generalize.
Some gays are very responsible and settled.
Some are very promiscuous and immoral.
People are not given a bit of moral support if they express revulsion.
So, most people are just quiet.
My credit union is right across the street from a major high school.
For decades I have watched gay adults hang out near the school at close of day to try to pick up young partners.
Since 1. the police are very gay-friendly, and 2. some leaving the school are over 16, nothing has ever been done to stop this.
I know some gays who claim to be dying to marry, to make their relationship legal.
It is as if they think other people will be forced to respect them.
Some people will always be revulsed by overt gay activity in public.
(Heck, some people are also upset by overt hetero activity in public.)
There are always going to be a variety of human responses to fringe activity.
Gays and their supporters will never legislate that away.
But I think Gary is 100% correct that the underlying agenda to all of this gay marriage, anti-hate speech stuff is to be able to better troll for new meat.
Well that’s the best answer I’m going to get, but I would be more in favor of a constitutional amendment. Some of these clauses have been abused.
On Women in Combat, I have received Close Air Support from the venerable A-10 aircraft that were driven by Female USAF Pilots in Afghanistan on both My first and second deployments. The Ordinance delivered was no more or less effective to the Bad Guys. 500 Lb Bombs and 40MM Cannon Fire do NOT discriminate.
Regarding Ground Combat, the jury is still out on that but grenades thrown, bullets fired or mortar rounds lobbed in from the same weapons systems seem to always have the same effect on the recipient. Somebody has a bad day if they are hit. The Israeli Army has Female Tank Crews that are in their Inventory. They are all judged by the same standard. Putting Ordinance on Target is the goal and it matters not Who pulls the trigger if it gets a hit.
Old Trooper: I agree with you actually I read an article recently that said that women are more suited for submarine warfare(ill have to find it to send the link) for a variety of reasons. I know that a lot of women have had to take up a rifle and have fought honorably. I just think that female war casualty would be harder to understand sir…
@Nan G: Attempting to Legislate certain Societal Moral issues is what I commonly refer to as selling Ice to Eskimos. It caters to those that like Ice despite the fact that some prefer to live in Arizona to avoid that Climate. Any time you cater to a minority, some in the majority will be offended. That is Human Nature.
There are States that Recognize Marriage by same Gender types and still some degree of discrimination persists even there. All of the accommodating in the World will never please everyone. Legislating that creates some level of division amongst the best of Us.
For Zac, Barry Goldwater desegregated the Arizona Army and Air National Guard Years ahead of other States. He was the author of “Conscience of a Conservative”, a book that is in My library at the House.
@ Zac, It hurts to Lose any Soldier in Combat. When I am around DC, I visit Arlington to see where Old Friends rest. The placement of Our Fallen there does not discriminate by race or gender. They are America’s Finest that just did not make it to another birthday, will never grow any older, will never know if it is Memorial Day or April Fools Day but I consider their sacrifice to be the ultimate one as Warriors.
Their sexual preference or favorite food or color matter not at that point. The Things that they Valued and were Willing to Defend does. That Oath holds them separate from the 93% that are “At the Mall”. In my personal belief, They are Twice the Citizen by comparison to their Civilian counterparts. I admit to My bias here. They Volunteered.
I haven’t done enough in my life to honor those that have fallen in combat. I don’t know if I ever could.
I know that I will never go to a mall.
@ Zac, In Missoula, My Home Town closest to My spread, there are Malls. However, I find that I get better prices on goods at small Family Owned businesses and better goods as well. Try getting a pair of shoes made just for Your feet by a Cobbler at the Mall or buying Tack or Saddlery goods at the Mall. Good Luck on that!
The “At the Mall” quote was one that I saw at a Transfer Point in Kuwait where Soldiers, Marines, Air Force, Coast Guard and Navy Service Members wait for transport to and from Iraq. It was done with broad tipped black marker that had been painted over and redone by thousands of Service Members that arrived there, departed from there and as it kept re-appearing they finally left it there. Sorry for drifting off topic here.
The Cost of Change in just rewriting the UCMJ may not be in Budget but it must be done.
Her Ya Go…981 Pages. http://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/pdf/mcm.pdf
Read it at Leisure. Changes must be approved by the US Congress as are all revisions.
Changes to accommodate the desires of a Few that will affect the many. It will take years if anyone “Reads the Bill” and it will not be cheap.
Correct me if I’m wrong but I was on the DOD website yesterday, I saw they had an entire page for budget cuts open to the public. Is this not a travesty to implement this expense right now?
I went to a mall today to buy a book; couldn’t find the book; thought the majority of men dressed like females, even the heterosexual ones. ill never go back. What you said about the mall made it sink in.
You know what they say – once you’ve seen 120 stores under one roof, you’ve seen a mall…
@ Zac , The Current Gates DOD was a change from the Rumsfeld DOD. I have seen the DOD change like the old “musical chairs” each time the Leadership is replaced. I was NOT a Rumsfeld Guy either. DOD is run by Civilians, not the Military. They are Politicians, not Military Professionals. Their job is to determine direction based upon the CIC’s Policies, Lobby Congress for Funding for Programs and argue with the Joint Chiefs of Staff on Personnel Numbers, Weapons Systems, Commitments to Win or Lose Wars and generally Manage the Military.
US Foreign Policy is a beast with Three Arms, Economic, Political and the use of Military Force. DOD is just one part of the equation.
@ anticsrocks, Several years ago I navigated the Mall of America with Map & Compass in hand. It was a waste of 3 Days and even my Daughter thought it was overdone. She thought that the walk through Carlsbad Caverns in New Mexico was a more meaningful investment of Her time.
Of those spaces of high dollar rent store frontage, I wonder how many are open now?
Oh.. Well I’m glad I have you to hear this from sir. I have a lot to learn yet.
Extremism in the name of freedom is no vice!
-Barry Goldwater
I have not read The Conscious of a Conservative. Do you recommend it?
@ Zac, Yes I do recommend it. There are other Authors that should be on Your list as well. Anything written by COL David Hackworth is good. I was offered a couple of deals to write a book of some kind but I feel that My Views and writing skills may not be up to par in the current market.
The Goldwater Era of Conservative thought is a classic. Set in the times of the Cold War, the Fight for Equal Rights for all and a time of Political Evolution brought on By the Vietnam War by proxy with Communism and the years of LBJs Great Society that begat the Current Entitlement Class that became the Lowering of the Bar for Governing.
I have always been suspicious of their seeming desperation to adopt children myself. That’s also the best reason I can think of to oppose gay marriage. Once they are able to legally marry, then they would have as much right to adopt as any heterosexual couple. Any attempt to restrict them legally, based on their sexual orientation, would be deemed unconstitutional by many judges. Any even if an adoption agency could produce any valid reason to deny an adoption, they could take them to court, probably with unlimited support from the gay community and legions of attorneys. After so long, any agency would be wary of denying any gay couple the right to adopt. So maybe that’s their end game. Get the laws to validate their lifestyle to such an extent they can’t be restricted in any way, and make everybody afraid to cross them in any way, no matter what they want.
@Zac: I recommend Liberty & Tyranny by Mark Levin. It is a MUST read for the modern conservative.
@OT2 – highly doubtful with this Obama recession that is plaguing us these days. Carslbad Caverns is something to behold, and I have long wanted to see them. I did enjoy Ruby Falls in Chatanooga, TN.
Thanks!
@ Temple, I, for one, would prefer to see more adoptions and fewer abortions in America. Provided that a good Home and nurturing was part of that transaction. I cannot vouch for the Quality of the raising in some Heterosexual Homes or the Homosexual venue as I was raised in the Hetero mode. The question that I would raise would be that of orientation or if the child involved would be able to exercise a freedom of choice in preferences in development. What would be encouraged or discouraged so to speak.
Too add to these comments on a historical basis, marriage has historically not been about the approval of sex acts, per se, but rather the identification of legitimate children versus illegitmate children. When one follows the long and demonstrable history of marriage as a children’s issue and not a sexual orientation issue, the entire argument implodes upon itself.
While it may seem rather crass to define the so-called homosexual agenda as “trolling for new meat,” it is rather accurate. Moreover among the gambits of the cultural Marxists from the early 1900s, an attack on marriage itself was considered one of the tools to destabilize society and tear away at capitalism as the ultimate goal.
Between cultural Marxism’s long march effects and the wishes to attack theology on the one hand while celebrating multiple sexual partners on the other, the arguments for homosexual marriage come down to little more than an attempt by gays to mimic the normal and average in life, while simultaneously defining it away.
If “Billy Has Two Dads” is supposedly normal, where did Billy come from becomes a laugh. The basic biology of species reproduction in mammals gives lie to the notion that homosexuality is normal. The rampant spread of sexually-transmitted diseases gives lie to the notion that multiple sexual partners is healthy. The conclusion that because promiscuity has made individuals ill and sometimes deadly “society” should pay is an escaoe from consequences related to one’s own behaviors.
While there may be exceptions to many overall trends in society, the acceptance of a significantly deviant-from-the-norm behaviors — and this applies to unsustainable debt as to raging sexual appetites — as normal is merely a redefinition of “normal” to include that which is “abnormal,” i.e. away from the normal. The simple science of this is easily demonstrated, which is why the argument has been clothed in the costume of “civil rights.” It has been a century long attempt to justify behaviors which society historically has seen as outside the norm, by reason of disease, dysfuntion, clarity in generational lineage and inheritance issues, and more.
All to justfy being “randy.” How sad for society when the small minority declares itself the arbiters of what is normal, thereby making a generally larger group out to be abnormal.
I always wonder about any straight person who becomes obsessed with hating gay people . And by ‘wonder’ I mean, I assume he’s a closet case.
This FA move toward overt homophobia: gotta say, very classy.
The accusation of “hating gay people” is a fallacious argument, which functions to divert an issues-based discussion into emotional responses, as well as to hide from making cogent replies other than accusations.
The second tactic of concluding without evidence that some one who expresses opinions not an approved part of the so-called homosexual agenda is “closet gay” is laughable, given the statistics as to the distribution of homosexuals in a normative population of any measure. The largest share of any national population is heterosexual, which makes the knee-jerk accusation of “closet gay” most amusing, limp and more than unproven. It makes such as accusation completely ad hominem without a rational dialogue. It is the equivalent of turning over a chessboard in order not to play further into a likely loss, or at least a stalemate, and then strut about saying that “if” the game had continued the losing side would have one.
Using a simple “edit” search of the text and comments to this moment, the only instances of the word “hate” refer to those who disagree with the homosexual activist for whom “hating gay people” is the translation of “someone disagrees with you.”
what a garbage post. the entire thing was filled with sourceless speculation mixed with hate and fear. if we conservatives ever want enough support to finally move to truly small government, we are going to have to walk away from mindless drivel like this.
OT2 and Zac,
Placing people in combat should be preceeded by careful assessment. I believe that women can be as effective as men in combat. Some men should not be in combat. Too many are placed in a combat unit to enhance their career not because they will enhance the mission. A friend’s daughter, a combat medic, has 2 Purple Hearts from Iraq. The last, she was lying on top of her patient protecting him from enemy rifle fire when she was hit in the shoulder above the vest. She volunteered to escort the body home dispite her wounds.
Some people are not suited for combat. They can not get their head around what needs to be done in a timely manner. Sex should not be the descriminator.
@playwithfire:
It is homosexuals who want to change the traditional view of marriage, which also changes the fundamental aspects of marriage (family, protection, fidelity, societal good, lifetime commitment, even complete lifetime sexual commitment), which change will become a function of more and more government, more and more court cases, more and more involvement in the schools. So, taking the natural institution of marriage and making it bend and conform to a very small percentage of people will result in more law and more governmental involvement, not less….and you know this.
Secondly, any study on homosexuality reveals that there is no such thing as virgin homosexual marrying; there is rarely a lifetime commitment (most homosexual relationships last a third or so the average length of a heterosexual relationship), and multiplicity of partners is common (among male homosexuals). 1000 partners is not way, way outside the norm.
When it comes to an inordinate amount of involvement in the schools, homosexual and gay agendas are far overrepresented in certain school districts.
As for homosexual males preying primarily upon young boys, there are also studies of this as well. It is far more likely that a homosexual male will violate an underage boy than a heterosexual male will violate an underage girl.
And, again, homosexuals–a number of them–find their very definition in their homosexuality. I have people who have known me for years–they have no clue as to my sexual interests in any regard. That is not what defines me as a person. The same cannot be said of homosexuals, for the most part.
there are 2 parts to the truth, one the understanding thru the spirit, of what is in scripture, which is a message of spirit, because godlove of the 2nd commandment(love neighbor) is the summation of all new covenant law. and 2nd is thru the the living spirit that lives in all, that all are one thru his spirit. it is his message of spirit and the living oneness of his living spirit that testifies to the truth. and because homosexuals as well as heterosexuals abide in this spirit, any truth that is, will be what they both see together.
historically heterosexuals have refused homosexuals this equality. but the living spirit reveals that homosexuals find life in the same spirit as heterosexuals, that kindness,patience, gentleness(fruit of the spirit), renews their lives as homosexuals, in the same way, as it does in the lives of those who are being heterosexual. the cry goes out ” that they are human beings too” and that” the spirit of the fullness of god is lived out in their lives in the same way it is lived in the lives of those heterosexual.”
this is the testimony of truth, that is of spirit, that demands that homosexuals be embraced as equals to heterosexuals. and it is a testimony of spirit because the standard of the new covenant is not law(the shadow of the light) but spirit, christ’s love ( the light itself.)
again, because both are spiritual equals whatever truth there is, will be what is seen by both together.
homosexuallity has been deemed legal, homosexuals are entitled to the same protections as heterosexuals, one’s free speech ends where it intrudes on another’s equal protection.
homosexuals have never been found wanting in any sector of society compared to heterosexuals, they are not less a brother, friend, doctor, lawyer counselor, engineer, father, neighbor.
they bond in the same way as heterosexual out of mutual love, devotion, affection, trust and respect for a shared committed life together.
but they are denied equality with heterosexuals because heterosexuals refuse to grant this equality. how is this inequality of homosexuals any different than when there were laws about miscegenation because black were deemed inferior to whites and to allow mixed marriages would enabled the corruption of the white race.
The term, equality, is so eailsy misused in an dialogue as is this. If equality, as used speciously by one comment, were to applied to brutal sado-masichists, mutiple-spouse arrangements, and even marriage to a house pet as has already been argued in another news blog, the argument ceases to have any meaning at all. Homosexuals experience equality within a normal Western nation in general, but demand that they be allowed to define words like “marriage” and “husband” from a legal perspective. Once politics enters into the game, all bets are off, and a democratic vote would argue for normative definitions. Then the agenda runs to the courts, hoping to mimic civil rights issues. But in doing so they fall into the above cited trap. If homosexuals should be allowed to legally marry, then why not multiple partners? Number is no different an argument, in this construction, than sexual orientation.
Moreover, the argument continues to travel down the path of sexual proclivity itself, rather than the proven historical path of identifying offspring and their inheritance rights. This is to be expected, for by forgetting history one can attempt to rewrite it, albeit unsuccessfully in the long run. My view is that, within the context of procreation and the continuance of cultures and civil traditions, homosexuality plays little part at all, except to evidence itself as a non-player demanding now to make the rules for everyone else. When deviancy from a norm demands to define/redefine that norm and the new normal includes deviancy from said norm, the norm is thereby destroyed. This is the only goal of the game, and it is failing because the normal defines the deviancy from it, as is always the case.
@feetxxxl:
As already argued, our society has decided to look the other way when you have sex and when you cohabit. There are no laws which forbid you to call yourselves married and there are no laws which forbid a church from having a marriage ceremony for you and there are no laws which forbid you from calling your union whatever you want to call it, and making your friends and family call it by that same name.
You even have all sorts of legal protections thrown in through domestic partnership laws.
But you are bond and determined to have the state and federal government pronounce you married, even though there is almost no similarities between the marriage of a man and woman and the union of 2 men (apart from there being 2 people involved).
Furthermore, all of the arguments I have seen from the gay side have been ridiculous, when it comes requiring the state to pronounce your union as a marriage. So, most of the time, the argument is the slogan “marriage equality” (or some other phrase with the word equality thrown in); sometimes a reference to interracial marriages not being legal at one time; and to brand all counter arguments as “hatred” or suggest that maybe those who are against this are closet homosexuals.
If the government got out of the marriage business tomorrow and refused to even recognize the institution of marriage, men and women would continue to get married, often in a church, and the majority of them would remain sexually faithful to one another for the rest of their lives.
It boils down to this simple fact: 2 gays cohabiting is nothing like a man and a woman cohabiting. It is a whole different ballgame with different rules and a different dynamic.
I think you have a delusional view of the traditional marriage. You’ve mentioned several times that it consists of a lifetime sexual commitment, but already over half of marriages end in divorce and we know that of those that do not end that way – they do not always involve two faithful individuals. The definition of marriage has already changed and trying to drag it back a century is only going to make conservatism look hateful and drive away the new generation of individuals that will fight for small government. Older conservatives need to pick their battles and this is not one that will end in their favor.
I think the government should get out of the marriage business tomorrow… that would be great.
As a gay guy, who has commented here before on this subject — I find this a good recitation of the usual talking points — mostly the “recruiting” part. Anita Bryant was on that 40 years ago. Not remotely true, but hey, we’ve been hearing it for decades. I was not “recruited” but came to my own realization as a 10 year old boy. Though my father was quite sure I threw like a girl, I never heard the word “gay” or “homosexual” until I was 15 or 16. That was some 35 years ago — long before any “gay rights” anything was around. Every gay man tells me the same story — while you all debate exactly how we somehow, ingeniously, secretively, seductively induce not-gay folks to be gay at an amazingly consistent 5% or so of the population. All over the world too. And strangely, the vast majority of us are so ridiculous, shall we say — sissy like — one wonders how it could not be seen as “weird, but natural.”
Meanwhile, for some odd reason, 106 boys are born for every 100 girls, worldwide, and when the 100 marry the 100, as you do — well, six of us are left out of the game. We call this “gay” — you like the word “homosexual” — to put the “sex” into it, I guess.
Meanwhile, the Family Research Council is almost quite sure, but still confused, that it was some psychological scare from our mothers. While their pals the North Americans into Research and Therapy for Homosexuals (NARTH) is quite sure it’s because of a bad relationship with our fathers. The Catholic Church has thrown up it’s hands and decided it’s for “largely unexplained reasons.” And other and various sundry researchers of gay folks have said it’s for this or that reason. I count about 27 different reasons for our gayness in professional journals and books still afresh today — all of which do rebut your “Recruiting” argument, and more importantly, all of which simply discount and dismiss anything we might say about the matter. Not that we’re living it or anything, you just know what you know.
Meanwhile, the gay rights movement was never coherent, and it can’t be coherent – because we’re too diffused through the nation, have never had a leader to speak of, and some of us are liberals and some of us conservatives on every other area of public policy, and some of us, to put it mildly, are just too silly.
In the meantime, in between the police state bar raids stopped in the 1970s — and the laws against our smooching which weren’t quite gone until 2003 — and we’ve had to fight our families for inclusion, our moms for dealing with what we say is real — and the state, the church, the law, and just about everyone else — our campaign for even we don’t know what it is sometimes has had fits and starts, false directions, and additions, as one hurdle was knocked down before the next.
It was after all, hard to push for relationship recognition in 1976 while a police man was busting down the door to your club. Not to mention, we’re the only known “condition” that is at one and the same time “free choice sinning” “psychological” and “psychiatric” — and that’s quite a hurdle to fight coherently, from the beginning, while still dodging police batons swung with wild abandon at us, when you yourselves are not coherent in your arguments against us — other than, of course, “it’s icky.”
But you never were in a gay bar raid, I’m sure. Would you like to know what it was like? I could tell. Or shall we return to the good old days, hmm? But all that aside, don’t you just marvel at our fortitude?
@feetxxxl:
What a load. This was obviously written by someone who wants to promote what pc doesn’t allow us to call it for what it actually is; the gay agenda.
Nor does it address the actual problems that are rampant in the gay community. One of those being that most gay men identify themselves as gay first, and brothers, friends, doctors, engineers secondary, unlike the heterosexual population who do not attribute their sexuality as the primary aspect in their lives.
One only has to remember the history of the gay “bath houses” in San Francisco and why there was such an outcry by the gay community to close those dens of sex down. It was because gay men (in particular) often consider multiple partnerships to be the norm, not the exception. Nor can anyone forget the rallying cry “Get the government out of our bedroom” only to see that when that was acheived, then gays started demanding even more concessions due to what they did in their bedrooms. It is also a lie that gays are denied equal rights. They are not. They are allowed to work, shop, rent a home or buy, attend movies or do any of the other activities enjoyed by the rest of the population. What they are not allowed to do is marry someone of the same gender, and so now they claim they are being oppressed. Bull. I would challenge feeltxxxl to tell me one state where the question “Are you gay” is listed on a marriage licence and I challenge feeltxxxl to tell me in what state gays are NOT allowed to marry. In order to cater to gays, a caveat must be added: marry the person of their choice, NO MATTER THE GENDER.
Nothing has ever been enough. Sodomy laws were the thorn, so they were removed. But it was not enough. Employers starting giving “domestic partnership” benefits, but it was not enough. Now gays want teachers to indoctrinate their charges in the belief that homosexuality is just as normal as heterosexuality. Therein lies the goal; to make normal what is not normal. To remove the last vestiges of socialtal norms.
Randy that is a convincing argument. I would never argue against women being allowed the pilot jets, submarines, or tanks.
Do you think GI-jane is realistic? As good a job as Demi More did, I’m not sure. I’m also not sure if America is ready to see young women come home shot up. Although I’ve been wrong before.
@Gary
“Any study”, Gary? Please show us a study by a respected source (i.e.. not an anti-gay hate group) that backs any of your outrageous claims.
Any sexual activity between an adult and a minor is a crime, Gary, not experimentation. So I assume you have proof that homosexuals target minors for sex?
You’ve made this claim before, Gary, and I’ve asked you for proof before (which you’ve yet to provide).
Gary, do you believe most hetero marriages are between two virgins?
Of course while Gary has yet to bring forth any proof for his many claims, he also hasn’t explained how fidelity or a person’s sexual history could practically factor into his rather narrow view of marriage. Do we deny marriage to all non-virgins? How about divorcees, do they get a second shot? How many partners can you have before Gary disqualifies you from marriage?
And what about the women? It’s very telling how Gary’s arguments conveniently ignore 50% of the population (not that surprising though, considering Gary’s dismissive views on women in general). Do we assume that lesbians get the right to marriage, because of Gary’s arguments fall apart once you bring them into the equation?
Gary has yet to adequately address that comparison, which has been pointed out to him before. The problem with debating a person like Gary is, he starts out with vague claims of proof from ‘studies’ (which he never actually provides), but if you push him, invariably he falls back onto his personal interpretation of the bible. Everything he’s mustered here is just for show. What it really comes down to is his interpretation of scripture and his belief, to the extent possible, we should all be forced to believe the same and live the same way he does.
in houston yesterday a number of gay couples went to the license bureau to get a license to marry, they were denied a license………… a license that automatically enters their relationship into the laws in this country in respect to the rights and privileges of those married, not because there was anything intrinsically wrong with there devotion or commitment to marry, compared to heterosexuals, but because of physicallities, their choice of gender and erogenous zones.
that is a violation of equal protection.
for the law to call the marriages of gays, civil unions, while calling the marriages of heterosexuals marriages is a violation of equal protection.
have you not heard there is no such thing as seperate but equal………. proven 50 years ago.
@Jim Hlavac:
I’ve never known Gary’s attitude to survive an actual acquaintance with a gay person. It’s easy to fearmonger about the unknown, but when your cousin/neighbor/officemate is gay, it becomes something much different. Self-imposed ignorance makes it much easier to hate; it’s a lot tougher when it’s a real person you interact with every day. Your generation deserves a ton of credit for making it easier for gays to live their lives openly. This openness, in turn, serves as living refutation to all the ugly stereotypes.
@feetxxxl:
While you comment expresses one, quite idealized and romantic, viewpoint I have seen in some homosexuals locally, it is NOT the only viewpoint homosexuals hold toward their fellow man.
I especially would like to note the OP realistically points out a predatory and expansive need that the small homosexual community continues (as a community, not as every individual) to need to create more partners where they might not already exist.
Thus the trolling, I see every time I visit my credit union across the street from a high school.
I don’t think any parent cares about simple ”free speech” from homosexuals.
It is when homosexuality is propagandized in public schools that is the problem.
Then, right afterward, meeting a dozen homosexuals just outside the campus property, before mom and dad have a chance to undo the damage of the propaganda, there is the problem.
School is inherently a coercive environment.
Children trust their parents, and their parents send them to school.
So teachers MUST also be trustworthy, as loving parents would NOT pick untrustworthy teachers.
That is how children see school.
But it is no longer true, if schools can and do teach immoral and unethical things to students, as if they are both moral and ethical.
@Jim Hlavac:
Thanks for proving the point I made that for homosexuals, their sexuality defines them. That is why you began your entry with “As a gay guy”. Being gay lends no more creditibility to your opinion than it would if you had opened with “As a blue eyed Swede”. But it does show what takes precedence in your thought process.
@feetxxxl:
“in houston yesterday a number of gay couples when to the license bureau to get a license to marry, and they were denied”
What a liar you are. Yesterday was Sunday, and there are NO state, county or municiple offices on Sunday. Also, no gay has ever been denied a licence to marry simply on the basis of their being gay. Or perhaps you would like to tell us what states have a question on the marriage licence application that says “Are you gay?”?
A gay person has the same right to marry as a heterosexual, they just have to abide by the rules the rest of society does, and that is the thing that pisses them off. Gays want the laws to be written to cater to them, the hell with the rest of society.
And if you are going to be a disgusting little troll, at least try to get your facts straight, like the fact that government offices that issue marriage licences are NOT open on Sundays.