Sunday, September 30, 2012
Another Susan Boyle moment.
I am ashamed. My self-control-reactor jumped to 94% to keep me from crying over this video.
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
"...and design their own tradition."
A loyal reader who also happens to be a powerful heteroactivist, brought to my attention an article written by a homosexual who opposes the redefinition of the word “marriage.” This is a rare thing, but there are some gays who can punch through homofascist propaganda and see that a true marriage is all about the acknowledgement of gender and not the ignoring thereof. Words are very important, and the word “marriage,” belongs to heterosexuals.
“…Many attribute homophobic motives to the signers. In some cases, that may be true. I am certain that the vast majority are others who, like me, simply view “marriage” as an immutable term that can only apply to heterosexuals. It’s undeniable that, from age to age, marriage has been humanity’s greatest success and source of prosperity, crossing all cultures and religions. We shouldn’t mess with it.
…Full disclosure: I am gay. A few years ago, I was on the other side of the fence on this topic. But the more I read, thought, investigated and attempted to defend my position, the more I realized that I couldn’t. I feel very strongly that gay relationships should be supported by society. I have grown convinced, however, that the term “marriage” should not be altered or adjusted in any way.
…Let’s face it: We should not attempt to force into an old construct something that was never meant for same-sex partnerships. We should welcome the opportunity to christen a new tradition, beginning a new chapter in the history of gays and lesbians within American society. Same-sex relationships are different from heterosexual relationships, and gay men and lesbians need to accept that and design their own tradition. …”
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
French kissing sexual insanity.
Despite my compassion for those who have endured the trauma that causes same-sex attraction, my decision to disassociate with marriage redefiners is strengthened by what’s happening in France right now. Soon, a heterosexual couple marrying in France may not be able to legally call each other “husband” and “wife,” so as not to offend the glbt community. This is yet another answer for the, how-does-gay-“marriage”-effect-yours crowd. This is what marriage redefinition brings. It brings the absurd into reality. To ignore gender in a social institution that is based on the differences in men and women is an absurd, insane thing to do. Gay couples reject the reality of gender differences and therefore have no justification in demanding the redefinition of marriage.
“Under the proposed law, only the word "parents" would be used in marriage ceremonies for all heterosexual and same-sex couples, a move that has sparked widespread outrage, The Telegraph reports.”
“French Catholics also have published a 'Prayer for France,' which says, "Children should not be subjected to adults' desires and conflicts, so they can fully benefit from the love of their mother and father," according to the report.”
Sad story here.
“Under the proposed law, only the word "parents" would be used in marriage ceremonies for all heterosexual and same-sex couples, a move that has sparked widespread outrage, The Telegraph reports.”
“French Catholics also have published a 'Prayer for France,' which says, "Children should not be subjected to adults' desires and conflicts, so they can fully benefit from the love of their mother and father," according to the report.”
Sad story here.
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Monday, September 17, 2012
Presence of homosexual American ambassador in Libya true cause of riots in middle east.
<---Young Chris Stevens with homosexual lover.I just found out, about an hour and a half ago, (Thank you Julio Severo!) that it was the presence of a homosexual American ambassador, a Mr. Chris Stevens, in a Muslim country, Libya, that sparked the Anti-American riots that are now sweeping the middle east.
Well. Go figure. Sending a homosexual ambassador to a Muslim country and he gets raped and murdered. How many American men have died now due to this man’s embracing of sexual sin? Isn’t the count up to nine so far? And how come the glbt community doesn't attack Muslims like they attack Christians? Where is the public outcry from the gay community about the rape and murder-by Muslims-of ambassador Chris Stevens? The mainstream media has covered up his ambassador Chris Stevens homosexuality, and his rape by Muslims.
“…Fingers have been pointed, by the mainstream media, to the potential culprits of the Islamic, anti-American riot in Libya, resulting in the murder of the US ambassador and other Americans. The main culprit is an anti-Mohammed movie made by a Coptic Christian in California, they say.
…Forget that the murderous riots coincided with 9/11. And forget that the homosexuality of Chris Stevens, the US ambassador to Libya, was no secret, to America and Libya. A gay American first broke this story…
…Yet, everybody is keeping silent about this secrecy. Let the Muslim world know the American “audacity”, as al-Qaida adherents would say, to send homosexuals to their “sacred” lands, and expect more violent and murderous riots. …
…to teach a lesson to “homophobic” Libya. …
…Yet, the Western powers are very aware that it is diplomatic and military suicide to try to teach such a lesson to these “homophobic” nations. …
…It is much easier to blame Christians and let them suffer the consequences of bad diplomatic and political decisions. So the Obama administration and media chorus say, “Blame the anti-Mohammed movie!” …
…Yet, when a homosexual is murdered by Muslims in a Muslim nation, refrain from blaming Muslims. Otherwise, Muslims will do what Christians never do: murderous riots. …
…To cover up the sodomization and murder of a US gay ambassador by Muslims in a Muslim nation, the anti-Mohammed movie will be the perfect excuse to deflect attention from the Obama administration’s bad decision to insult Muslims by sending them a gay ambassador. …”
My supporting data is here.
"...I don’t, like to speak ill of the dead, especially when they died in such a brutal and disgusting mannor. But Cris Stevens was a supporter of Arab Spring (Spring time for Hitler and the Muslim Brotherhood) and a liaison between Obama’s administration and the rebels who over turned the libyab government last spring. Did the ambassador think about how gay men (meaning men who have gay loving relationships) would be treated by the Muslim Brotherhood? Was he at all concerned with the minoritiies such as Christians and Jews in Libya? Did he ever worry about what a democratically elected government in the Muslim world would do to it’s women?
My head spins when I have to listen to any Obama supporter. But when I incounter a gay Obama supporter or a Jewish Obama supporter my head spins completely off my neck. Christopher Stevens was recklessly naive in his politics and his choice of job. I am sorry that Ambassador Stevens is dead. But I am more sorry for the many others who are forced to live in these Muslim countries’ new democracies while being a memeber of a minority religion, being a woman or gay. ..."
Supporting info here.
More info here.
Sunday, September 16, 2012
Monday, September 10, 2012
Challenge for Jason Friedman.
Jason: Can you debate one-on-one? I can. How come you can't? You say homosexuality is normal, I say it isn't. Let's talk.
Hatred FROM those who cry,"Hater!"
Gay propaganda is loosing traction. People are starting to see through homofascist propaganda. Info here.
Friday, September 7, 2012
NOT "bigotry" to support God's definition of marriage.
Those who hate the truth sometimes call the truth "hate." Anti-Christ bigotry is the driving force behind most homofascist marriage redefiners.
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Whatever happened to sexual common-sense?
How did this happen? How were so many people decieved into believing that there are no differences between men and women? We think differently, we have a different set of emotions, we have a different set of priorities, we have different genitals. Yet, some people actually think that a same-sex couple isn't a disadvantage to the psychological developement of a child.
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage.
by
ADAM KOLASINSKI
The debate over whether the state ought to recognize gay marriages has thus far focused on the issue as one of civil rights. Such a treatment is erroneous because state recognition of marriage is not a universal right. States regulate marriage in many ways besides denying men the right to marry men, and women the right to marry women. Roughly half of all states prohibit first cousins from marrying, and all prohibit marriage of closer blood relatives, even if the individuals being married are sterile. In all states, it is illegal to attempt to marry more than one person, or even to pass off more than one person as one’s spouse. Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphilis or other venereal diseases. Homosexuals, therefore, are not the only people to be denied the right to marry the person of their choosing.
I do not claim that all of these other types of couples restricted from marrying are equivalent to homosexual couples. I only bring them up to illustrate that marriage is heavily regulated, and for good reason. When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse’s social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse’s health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children.
Granted, these restrictions are not absolute. A small minority of married couples are infertile. However, excluding sterile couples from marriage, in all but the most obvious cases such as those of blood relatives, would be costly. Few people who are sterile know it, and fertility tests are too expensive and burdensome to mandate. One might argue that the exclusion of blood relatives from marriage is only necessary to prevent the conception of genetically defective children, but blood relatives cannot marry even if they undergo sterilization. Some couples who marry plan not to have children, but without mind-reading technology, excluding them is impossible. Elderly couples can marry, but such cases are so rare that it is simply not worth the effort to restrict them. The marriage laws, therefore, ensure, albeit imperfectly, that the vast majority of couples who do get the benefits of marriage are those who bear children.
Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met.
One may argue that lesbians are capable of procreating via artificial insemination, so the state does have an interest in recognizing lesbian marriages, but a lesbian’s sexual relationship, committed or not, has no bearing on her ability to reproduce. Perhaps it may serve a state interest to recognize gay marriages to make it easier for gay couples to adopt. However, there is ample evidence (see, for example, David Popenoe’s Life Without Father) that children need both a male and female parent for proper development. Unfortunately, small sample sizes and other methodological problems make it impossible to draw conclusions from studies that directly examine the effects of gay parenting. However, the empirically verified common wisdom about the importance of a mother and father in a child’s development should give advocates of gay adoption pause. The differences between men and women extend beyond anatomy, so it is essential for a child to be nurtured by parents of both sexes if a child is to learn to function in a society made up of both sexes. Is it wise to have a social policy that encourages family arrangements that deny children such essentials? Gays are not necessarily bad parents, nor will they necessarily make their children gay, but they cannot provide a set of parents that includes both a male and a female.
Some have compared the prohibition of homosexual marriage to the prohibition of interracial marriage. This analogy fails because fertility does not depend on race, making race irrelevant to the state’s interest in marriage. By contrast, homosexuality is highly relevant because it precludes procreation.
Some argue that homosexual marriages serve a state interest because they enable gays to live in committed relationships. However, there is nothing stopping homosexuals from living in such relationships today. Advocates of gay marriage claim gay couples need marriage in order to have hospital visitation and inheritance rights, but they can easily obtain these rights by writing a living will and having each partner designate the other as trustee and heir. There is nothing stopping gay couples from signing a joint lease or owning a house jointly, as many single straight people do with roommates. The only benefits of marriage from which homosexual couples are restricted are those that are costly to the state and society.
Some argue that the link between marriage and procreation is not as strong as it once was, and they are correct. Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage, in every society around the world, has been procreation. In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment. As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage, rather than the good of the children or the social order, has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years. Homosexual marriage is not the cause for any of these pathologies, but it will exacerbate them, as the granting of marital benefits to a category of sexual relationships that are necessarily sterile can only widen the separation between marriage and procreation.
The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction than love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.
Adam Kolasinski is a doctoral student in financial economics.
I do not claim that all of these other types of couples restricted from marrying are equivalent to homosexual couples. I only bring them up to illustrate that marriage is heavily regulated, and for good reason. When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse’s social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse’s health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children.
Granted, these restrictions are not absolute. A small minority of married couples are infertile. However, excluding sterile couples from marriage, in all but the most obvious cases such as those of blood relatives, would be costly. Few people who are sterile know it, and fertility tests are too expensive and burdensome to mandate. One might argue that the exclusion of blood relatives from marriage is only necessary to prevent the conception of genetically defective children, but blood relatives cannot marry even if they undergo sterilization. Some couples who marry plan not to have children, but without mind-reading technology, excluding them is impossible. Elderly couples can marry, but such cases are so rare that it is simply not worth the effort to restrict them. The marriage laws, therefore, ensure, albeit imperfectly, that the vast majority of couples who do get the benefits of marriage are those who bear children.
Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met.
One may argue that lesbians are capable of procreating via artificial insemination, so the state does have an interest in recognizing lesbian marriages, but a lesbian’s sexual relationship, committed or not, has no bearing on her ability to reproduce. Perhaps it may serve a state interest to recognize gay marriages to make it easier for gay couples to adopt. However, there is ample evidence (see, for example, David Popenoe’s Life Without Father) that children need both a male and female parent for proper development. Unfortunately, small sample sizes and other methodological problems make it impossible to draw conclusions from studies that directly examine the effects of gay parenting. However, the empirically verified common wisdom about the importance of a mother and father in a child’s development should give advocates of gay adoption pause. The differences between men and women extend beyond anatomy, so it is essential for a child to be nurtured by parents of both sexes if a child is to learn to function in a society made up of both sexes. Is it wise to have a social policy that encourages family arrangements that deny children such essentials? Gays are not necessarily bad parents, nor will they necessarily make their children gay, but they cannot provide a set of parents that includes both a male and a female.
Some have compared the prohibition of homosexual marriage to the prohibition of interracial marriage. This analogy fails because fertility does not depend on race, making race irrelevant to the state’s interest in marriage. By contrast, homosexuality is highly relevant because it precludes procreation.
Some argue that homosexual marriages serve a state interest because they enable gays to live in committed relationships. However, there is nothing stopping homosexuals from living in such relationships today. Advocates of gay marriage claim gay couples need marriage in order to have hospital visitation and inheritance rights, but they can easily obtain these rights by writing a living will and having each partner designate the other as trustee and heir. There is nothing stopping gay couples from signing a joint lease or owning a house jointly, as many single straight people do with roommates. The only benefits of marriage from which homosexual couples are restricted are those that are costly to the state and society.
Some argue that the link between marriage and procreation is not as strong as it once was, and they are correct. Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage, in every society around the world, has been procreation. In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment. As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage, rather than the good of the children or the social order, has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years. Homosexual marriage is not the cause for any of these pathologies, but it will exacerbate them, as the granting of marital benefits to a category of sexual relationships that are necessarily sterile can only widen the separation between marriage and procreation.
The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction than love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.
Adam Kolasinski is a doctoral student in financial economics.
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
The bloom is off of Scott Rose.
I believe that Mr. Scott Rose would welcome a child INTO the glbt community WITHOUT the consent of that child’s parents, and I challenge Scott Rose to deny my accusation.
I can and will and hereby denounce speaking to a child about heterosexuality or Christianity without the consent of that child’s parents, so how come Scott Rose can’t renounce speaking to a child about ENTERING the glbt community without the consent of that child's parents?
The Regnerus study thwarts the efforts of people like Scott Rose who want to normalize the gay lifestyle to children WITHOUT the consent of that child’s parents.
“Anti-bullying” classes in grade schools are used by some gay activists to encourage children to join the glbt community behind the backs of their parents. The mere mention of homosexuals in anti-bullying classes is NOT what I’m referring to. I’m talking about telling a child that it is okay for them to personally embrace homosexuality EVEN IF their parents tell them that the glbt lifestyle is wrong or sinful.
“…blogger Scott Rose accused Regnerus of scientific misconduct in two letters to the school, first charging Regnerus with deviating from “ethical standards” for research and later accusing him of “possible falsification” of research. Rose, who is gay, claimed the study was compromised…”
“…Regnerus’ New Family Structures Study sampled 3,000 people ages 18-39, of whom 248 said their mothers or fathers had a same-sex relationship while they were growing up. Regnerus, an associate professor of and a faculty associate at the university’s Population Research Center, said his study is unique because prior probes of same-sex parenting have been based on smaller samples and anecdotal cases that seemed designed to conclude there are no differences between children of the two groups. …”
Story here.
I can and will and hereby denounce speaking to a child about heterosexuality or Christianity without the consent of that child’s parents, so how come Scott Rose can’t renounce speaking to a child about ENTERING the glbt community without the consent of that child's parents?
The Regnerus study thwarts the efforts of people like Scott Rose who want to normalize the gay lifestyle to children WITHOUT the consent of that child’s parents.
“Anti-bullying” classes in grade schools are used by some gay activists to encourage children to join the glbt community behind the backs of their parents. The mere mention of homosexuals in anti-bullying classes is NOT what I’m referring to. I’m talking about telling a child that it is okay for them to personally embrace homosexuality EVEN IF their parents tell them that the glbt lifestyle is wrong or sinful.
“…blogger Scott Rose accused Regnerus of scientific misconduct in two letters to the school, first charging Regnerus with deviating from “ethical standards” for research and later accusing him of “possible falsification” of research. Rose, who is gay, claimed the study was compromised…”
“…Regnerus’ New Family Structures Study sampled 3,000 people ages 18-39, of whom 248 said their mothers or fathers had a same-sex relationship while they were growing up. Regnerus, an associate professor of and a faculty associate at the university’s Population Research Center, said his study is unique because prior probes of same-sex parenting have been based on smaller samples and anecdotal cases that seemed designed to conclude there are no differences between children of the two groups. …”
Story here.
Monday, September 3, 2012
The intolerance of those who cry, "tolerance!"
Marriage redefiners are the most intolerant people that I've ever met. To ignore gender in a marriage is completely unrealistic and absurd, but if you merely disagree with them, they will attack you.