It's not bigotry... it's biology.

This is one of my favorite videos ever posted on this blog. This made my day since it's already irking the homofascists. Since denial is the cornerstone of the glbt lifestyle, the truth about the biological differences between men and women drives gays crazy!

When the truth drives you crazy... you are living a lie.

Congratulations Felix Baumgartner.

Marriage redefinition bigotry at Gallaudet University.

The marriage-redefinition-bigots are at it again with their, support- same-sex -“marriage”-or-else mindset. What happened to this world? How did people develop the desire to punish those of us who believe in God’s, one-man-one-woman definition of marriage? Compassion for gays means ignoring what God says? This is why, in my private life, I have no conversation for marriage redefiners.

“..Dr. Angela McCaskill has the distinction of being the first deaf black woman to receive a PhD from Gallaudet University, …teacher, administrator and leader for twenty-three years.

Today she was summarily put on administrative leave while university officials "determine her future" at Gallaudet. Why? Because it was brought to their attention that she signed the petition to allow the people of Maryland to vote on same-sex marriage!

No one is safe when marriage is redefined. The architects of same-sex marriage are bent on silencing and firing those who oppose their agenda. The irony of a university putting its own chief diversity officer on leave—a woman who by all accounts has served the institution with distinction for over two decades—simply because she chose to exercise her rights as a citizen, cannot be ignored. …”

Original info here.

The Sandusky touch.

The Sandusky case shows how some people allow their fear of being called a homophobe to enable men to rape young boys.  Jerry Sandusky was seen raping a young boy and was still allowed to continue with his homosexual molestations.  Not only that, Mr. Sandusky still doesn't think that he did anything wrong.  The classic, state-of-constant-denial in the gay mind. 

I am well aware that all homosexuals aren't a danger to children, but I am also aware of how very young boys are seduced into the glbt community by older homosexuals.  Same-sex attraction is emotion-based.  People are not born gay.

Story here.

Homofascists aren't after children?

This is what is in the mind of some, if not most gays.  THEY, not you, will tell your children how to feel about homosexuality.  Homofascists won't hesitate to violate the parental rights of a heterosexual. 

Feminist-femme lesbian angry at reality.

After three ultra-intense days at work and configuring my new smart phone, I can finally tend to my beloved blog.

And there it was waiting for me.  The story of a lesbian angry at the fact that her female lover couldn't impregnate her.  She considers it a, "biological injustice" that she can't procreate with her female partner.

"...What I mean is that I want the ease, the convenience, the — dare I say it — naturalness that straight people have when starting a family.

...The attitude I have always taken to having a baby with another woman has been this: "It's not fair! It's so hard! Why me?"

...I am a total brat about what I consider a biological injustice. . . 

...Why can't my girlfriend and I have a baby that shares our DNA? Why can't an egg from each of us be scrambled up and sprinkled with sperm? It seems so easy! Try harder scientists! Make this a priority. ..."

Wow.

The obvious, blatant, insanity of most of the glbt community is what powers this blog.  Can anyone defend this twisted woman?  What happened to this woman?  Who is she mad at?  Whose fault is it that she can't procreate with her lesbian lover? 

Denial is the cornerstone/foundation of the glbt lifestyle.

The data supporting this post is here and here.

HAM pic.

How gay "marriage" destroys religious freedom.

Matt Birk supports true marriage.

One of the consequences of having a same-sex romance is that you cannot marry each other since a marriage is between one man and one woman.  Many in the glbt community want to rebel against the heteronormative design of their own bodies and change the definition of marriage to normalize the perversion of their choices.  Some gays want to rebel against what a heterosexual couple does, (which is recognize and conform to the design of their genitalia,) and then demand what heterosexual couples have; the legal option of marriage.  This doesn't make sense.  If you want what heterosexuals have, you have to do what heterosexuals do.


"...The union of a man and a woman is privileged and recognized by society as "marriage" for a reason,

...government recognizes marriages and gives them certain legal benefits so they can provide a stable, nurturing environment for the next generation of citizens: our kids.

...Children have a right to a mom and a dad, and I realize that this doesn't always happen.

... Same-sex unions may not affect my marriage specifically, but it will affect my children -- the next generation.

...Marriage redefinition will affect the broader well-being of children and the welfare of society. As a Christian and a citizen, I am compelled to care about both. ..."

Original info here.

Heterosexual awareness month.

Another Susan Boyle moment.

I am ashamed. My self-control-reactor jumped to 94% to keep me from crying over this video.

"...and design their own tradition."

I had to create the words "heteroseparatist," "heteroactivist," and "heteroadvocate," to describe a rational, hate-free rejection of the glbt lifestyle. How come the gay community can't create a word to describe a union between two people of the same sex instead of trying to hijack the word "marriage"?

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. …”

Original info here.

H.A.M.

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.

Ex-lesbian speaks.

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.

Redefining words.

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.

Americans support true marriage.

More info here.

Hatred FROM those who cry,"Hater!"

Gay propaganda is loosing traction. People are starting to see through homofascist propaganda. Info here.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Mark Regnerus easily survives Scott Rose.

Scott Rose once admitted to me on this blog that he would speak to children about homosexual matters WITHOUT the consent of that child’s parents.

“…Scott Rose, a journalist from New York City and a pro-gay rights blogger, had made allegations about the study's author, Professor Mark Regnerus, in numerous letters to the university, after which an inquiry was conducted. The study by Regenerus showed that children of gay parents were less likely to succeed.

"Disagreeing with a study's conclusions is not grounds for allegations of scientific misconduct; therefore, we are not surprised that those accusations were found to be baseless," Hacker added. "This comprehensive, peer-reviewed research study consisted of leading scholars and researchers across disciplines and ideological lines in a spirit of civility and reasoned inquiry. We agree with the UT-Austin inquiry's conclusion that the academy is the appropriate place for debate about this study."

…"Professor Regnerus did not commit scientific misconduct when designing, executing, and reporting the research reported in the Social Science Research article. None of the allegations of scientific misconduct put forth by Mr. Rose were substantiated either by the physical data, written materials, or by information provided during the interviews. Several of the allegations were beyond the purview of the inquiry."

Regnerus' study was published in the July issue of Social Science Research. It concludes that the children of parents who had same-sex relationships have more emotional and social problems than children of heterosexual parents with intact marriages. ..."

Original info here.

The biological truth that most gays hate.

A man and a woman of normal health can marry and produce children. Two men of normal health cannot, neither can two women of normal health. Every human being currently on this planet has a biological mother and father.

Yet, my speaking of that simple, biological truth, will earn me the label of "heterosexist," or "homophobe," or "bigot," or "intolerant." When did the truth become so unpopular?

Marriage redefiners hate the truth.

The importance of words. (Updated)

“…Supporters sued after Secretary of State Mark Ritchie changed the title from “Recognition of marriage solely between one man and one woman” to “Limiting the status of marriage to opposite sex couples.” …”

Words. The importance of words.

Words shape thought and evoke emotion. Words can kill and words can heal. Jesus Christ himself is known as the Word of God. That’s very significant.

It was a word-assault that started heteroseparatist.com, and the mere mention of the word “heteroseparatist” is banned on democraticunderground.com. What an honor!

I was even threatened once by a homofascist for creating the word “heteroseparatist.” He said that he was going to, “…stop me personally…” from being a heteroseparatist. Wow. How did he think that he was going to achieve his goal? Do I not have the right to separate from a person because of their behavior? How could he “stop” me without violating my civil rights?

To change the wording of an amendment from that of its authors that defines true marriage is a clear effort to pollute a Godly, simple, genetic, logical, natural, biological, and historical truth.

Story here.

“… Minnesota for Marriage Chairman John Helmberger said Ritchie’s and Swanson’s “meddling with the title of the Marriage Protection Amendment is a perfect example of why we need the marriage amendment.”

“Some politicians are so blinded by ideology and beholden to special interests, like gay marriage activists, that we simply can’t be confident they will follow the law or respect the will of the people,” he said.

“The only way to protect the definition of marriage is to secure it in the constitution where activist judges, ambitious politicians and special interests can’t meddle with it.” …”

Full story here.

What heteroseparatist DON'T do. (updated 28 Aug. 2012)

I wanted to take the time to denounce a vicious, home-invasion attack against a lesbian. This act of violence is not what I stand for at heteroseparatist.com.

"...What she saw instead was her 33-year-old neighbor, she said, naked and bleeding.

"I was in shock," Rappl said. "She was naked, her hands were tied with zip ties. All I could see was a cut across her forehead and blood running down." ..."

Story here.

WHAT!! It was a FAKE hate crime!? Story here.

Heterosexual Awareness Month.

Click here.

A child's right to a mother and a father.

It is evil for a person to put their own desires before the needs of their child.

R.I.P. Niel Armstrong.

I remember my father waking my brother and I up to come watch the moon landing. I wasn’t even ten years old, but I knew that it must be an important thing for him to wake us up to witness. My brother and I had a strict bedtime and daily routine. Then I remember making a lunar module out of white Lego blocks whilst waiting for the big event in front of the tv.

All normal men want to be able to give a legitimate, if not impressive answer to the (oft internal) question; “What did you accomplish?” Neil Armstrong had a great answer for that question.

Story here.

Brian Brown vs. Dan Savage.

I haven't had time to watch this yet but I'll post it anyway.

True marriage and DOMA.

Ignore gender in a marriage!?! Are you crazy?

Gay is not the new black.

One of the things that inspired me to create the word “heteroseparatist,” was the absurd comparison of homosexuality to race and gender. Race and gender are morally benign; neither good or bad. But sexual behavior is never morally benign. Is a man in a sexual relationship with his consenting, adult sister on the same moral tier as a man who has never had sex with anyone but his wife? Is a woman who cheats on her husband on the same moral level as a woman who doesn't? Whatever happened to sexual common-sense?

“…while it's difficult to watch a coordinated, well-funded, well-connected propaganda strategy undermine thousands of years of human history, it's especially disconcerting to witness the use of the civil rights struggle as the vehicle for the strategy.

…the now-popular phrase "Gay is the new black."

…The California Supreme Court, like Gross, would have us believe that the homosexual struggle for a redefinition of marriage puts them in the same category as my ancestors. However, they would rather you didn't take a closer look, lest you see how flimsy the comparison turns out to be.

…homosexuality is undetectable apart from self-identification. Determining whether or not a person is black, Native American, or female usually involves no more than visual verification. However, should doubt remain, blood tests, genetics, or a quick trip up the family tree would suffice. Not so with homosexuality.

Moreover, the homosexual community itself has made this identification even more complicated in an effort to distance itself from those whose same-sex behavior they find undesirable. The Jerry Sandusky case is a prime example. Sandusky is accused of molesting numerous young boys during and after his tenure at Penn State. However, try placing the label "homosexual" on his activities and the backlash will be swift and unequivocal.…

…men who are extremely effeminate but prefer women, or those who once were practicing homosexuals but have since come out of the lifestyle (i.e., 1 Cor. 6:9-11)? In short, it's impossible to identify who is or is not a homosexual. As a result, how do we know to whom the civil rights in question should be attributed?

Ironically, the fact that homosexuals cannot "interbreed" shines a spotlight on the problem inherent in their logic. How can forbidding people who actually have the ability to interbreed be the same thing as acknowledging the fact that two people categorically lack that ability?...

The very definition of marriage eliminates the possibility of including same-sex couples. The word marriage has a long and well-recorded history; it means "the union of a man and a woman." Even in cultures that practice polygamy, the definition involves a man and several women. Therefore, while anti-miscegenation laws denied people a legitimate right, the same cannot be said concerning the denial of marriage to same-sex couples; one cannot be denied a right to something that doesn't exist.
It should be noted that the right to marry is one of the most frequently denied rights we have. People who are already married, 12-year-olds, and people who are too closely related are just a few categories of people routinely and/or categorically denied the right to marry. Hence, the charge that it is wrong to deny any person a "fundamental right" rings hollow. There has always been, and, by necessity, will always be discrimination in marriage laws.
Third, there is a historical disconnect. As early as the time of Moses, recorded history is replete with interracial marriages. In our own history, the marriage of John Rolfe and Pocahontas in the 17th century,9 along with the fact that anti-miscegenation laws were usually limited only to the intermarrying of certain "races" of people (i.e., black and white), stands as historical evidence of the legal and logical inconsistency of such laws. Thus, unlike same-sex "marriage" advocates, those fighting for the right to intermarry in the civil rights era had history on their side.

…the Iowa Supreme Court in their decision in favor of same-sex "marriage": "It is true the marriage statute does not expressly prohibit gay and lesbian persons from marrying; it does, however, require that if they marry, it must be to someone of the opposite sex."

Homosexuals haven't been deprived of any right.

…following this line of reasoning, one could argue, "I have the right to join the military, but I am a pacifist. Therefore, I don't really have the right (since it would be repulsive to me). Therefore, we need to establish a pacifist branch of the military so that I can fulfill both my desire to join, and my desire not to fight."

…then what's to stop the "bisexual" from fighting for the ability to marry a man and a woman simultaneously since his "orientation" is, by definition, directed toward both sexes?10 What about the member of NAMBLA whose orientation is toward young boys?11 Where do we stop, and on what basis?

…we know that God has designed the family in a particular way.

…many Christians have been bullied into silence by the mere threat of censure from the homosexual lobby. "Oppose us and you're no better than Gov. Wallace, Hitler, and those homophobes who killed Matthew Shepard!" is their not-so-subtle refrain. Consequently, we spend so much time trying to prove we're not hate-filled murderers that we fail to recognize that the Emperor has no clothes. There is no legal, logical, moral, biblical, or historical reason to support same-sex "marriage." In fact, there are myriad reasons not to support it. I've only provided a few.

Original article here.

Homofascist hate-crime against FRC largely ignored.

When the FRC labels another group as a "hate group," it becomes a license for anti-Christ homofascist activists to violate the civil rights of the members of that group. The FRC operates like the KKK used to.

True marriage is worth defending.

Ignoring the fact that marriage is the appropriate joining of a man and a woman is unspeakably absurd.

The Corkins Award. (for homofascist-of-the-year)

On 01 August 2012, Chick-fil-A dealt such a devastating blow to homofascists and marriage redefiners that on 15 Aug. 2012, a Mr. Floyd Corkins took a 9mm Sig Sauer pistol, 45 rounds of ammunition, and 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches (to place beside each person he killed) into the FRC in Washington D.C. Mr. Corkins was stopped by an unarmed security gaurd after he shot the security guard in the arm.

This is what the "hate" label-placed on anyone who disagrees with the redefinition of marriage-does. How ironic that the "hate" label itself inspires hate. Now the homoOrwellian circle is complete and homofascists are now worse than their phantom "oppressors."

If a member of the Westboro Baptist Church committed an identical act of violence against the headquarters of the HRC with 15 empty Starbucks cups to place beside each fatality, wouldn't the mainstream media hold ALL Christians responsible for the actions of the shooter? Wouldn't there be a thunderous outcry against Christian doctrine for motivating the shooter even though the teachings of Jesus Christ decry proactive violence? Hasn't Floyd Corkins added to the embarrassment of homofascists and marriage redefiners? Did homofascist Corkins put a cork in homofascism?

What a great month for heteroseparatism!!

Hate-filled homofascists.

Homofascists feel that they have the right to silence anyone who disagrees with the redefinition of marriage.

Once a homofascist labels you a "bigot," a "homophobe," or "intolerant," it is open season on your civil rights.

Doesn't the behavior of anti-Christ homofascists clearly show their bigotry and intolerance?

Anti-hetero "chicken hawk" goes looney tunes over true marriage.

Wow. Now, if you believe that marriage is between one man and one woman, someone might get a gun and try to kill you. And some people think I'm wrong from walking away from the glbt community!?!

Look what anti-Christ/anti-hetero/anti-family bigotry and homofascist propaganda has produced! Is this not further evidence that Chick-fil-A day set homofascism back by 20 years? And then the subsequent failure of the homosexual "kiss-in"? The militant gay community has never been this wounded in my lifetime.

Story here.

Anderson Coopers blt sammich mess.

I take no joy in Anderson Cooper's pain, but the blt sandwich at 1:32 made me LOL! This video is just to funny to not post.

The harmfulness of same-sex "parenting." (updated 15 Aug. 2012)

Along with a lot of very obvious facts of life, a person has to reject common-sense to justify bringing children into a homosexual household. Just not having a sister made it difficult, in my younger years, to understand the unspoken cues that women send to men.

Today, I've stumbled upon a well-written article written by a man who was raised in a lesbian household.

“…Between 1973 and 1990, …I was the only child who experienced childhood without my father being around.

…I was the only child who experienced life under “gay parenting” as that term is understood today.

…Quite simply, growing up with gay parents was very difficult, and not because of prejudice from neighbors.

…Inside, however, I was confused. When your home life is so drastically different from everyone around you, in a fundamental way striking at basic physical relations, you grow up weird. I have no mental health disorders or biological conditions. I just grew up in a house so unusual that I was destined to exist as a social outcast.
My peers learned all the unwritten rules of decorum and body language in their homes; they understood what was appropriate to say in certain settings and what wasn’t…

I had no male figure at all to follow, and my mother and her partner were both unlike traditional fathers or traditional mothers. As a result, I had very few recognizable social cues to offer potential male or female friends, …
My home life was not traditional nor conventional. I suffered because of it, in ways that are difficult for sociologists to index. Both nervous and yet blunt, I would later seem strange even in the eyes of gay and bisexual adults who had little patience for someone like me. I was just as odd to them as I was to straight people.

…I have trouble in professional settings because co-workers find me bizarre.
It was not until I was twenty-eight that I suddenly found myself in a relationship with a woman, …I don’t feel like dealing with gay activists skewering me the way they go on search-and-destroy missions against ex-gays, “closet cases,” or “homocons.”

Though I have a biography particularly relevant to gay issues, the first person who contacted me to thank me for sharing my perspective on LGBT issues was Mark Regnerus,…

Regnerus’s study identified 248 adult children of parents who had same-sex romantic relationships. Offered a chance to provide frank responses with the hindsight of adulthood, they gave reports unfavorable to the gay marriage equality agenda. Yet the results are backed up by an important thing in life called common sense: Growing up different from other people is difficult and the difficulties raise the risk that children will develop maladjustments or self-medicate with alcohol and other dangerous behaviors. Each of those 248 is a human story, no doubt with many complexities.

…The gay movement is doing everything it can to make sure that nobody hears them. But I care more about the stories than the numbers (especially as an English professor), and Regnerus stumbled unwittingly on a narrative treasure chest.

…I don’t mince words when talking about how hard it was to grow up in a gay household. Earlier studies examined children still living with their gay parents, so the kids were not at liberty to speak, governed as all children are by filial piety, guilt, and fear of losing their allowances. For trying to speak honestly, I’ve been squelched, literally, for decades.

…threaten the core of the LGBT parenting narrative—we do have a choice to live as gay or straight, and we do have to decide the gender configuration of the household in which our children will grow up.

…Once I was a father, I put aside my own homosexual past and vowed never to divorce my wife or take up with another person, male or female, before I died. I chose that commitment in order to protect my children from dealing with harmful drama, even as they grow up to be adults.

Sherkat’s assessment of Regnerus’s work shows a total disregard for the emotional and sexual labor that bisexual parents contribute to their children.

…The turbulence documented in Mark Regnerus’s study is a testament to how hard that is.

I cleaned out enough apartments of men who’d died of AIDS to understand that resistance to sexual temptation is central to any kind of humane society. Sex … leaves us vulnerable and more likely to cling to people who don’t love us, mourn those who leave us, and not know how to escape those who need us but whom we don’t love. The left understands none of that. That’s why I am conservative.
I thank Mark Regnerus. Far from being “bullshit,” his work is affirming to me, because it acknowledges what the gay activist movement has sought laboriously to erase, or at least ignore.

…The children of same-sex couples have a tough road ahead of them—I know, because I have been there."

Full article here.

Backlash against the writer of this article is covered here.

How Jesus can repair a homosexual's heart.

Only about one in twenty people that do not know who Jesus Christ is, can figure out that a person cannot be born homosexual.

“…In short, he argued that the same Christ that redeems sinners also helps them to "change" -- i.e., to put aside those things the Bible defines as sin. Burnett's response was astonishing at one level and not surprising at another. It's no surprise that she would be in favor of gay marriage. It is astonishing, however, that she would be so overtly dismissive of basic Christian morality -- as if it were completely outside the bounds of rational discourse.

…Christ not only saves sinners from the penalty of sin but also from power of sin (Romans 6:14). That means that genuine Christianity inevitably results in a changed life on the part of the one who trusts in Christ. From the moment of conversion, the Spirit of God progressively transforms Christians into the image of Jesus Christ (Romans 8:29; 2 Corinthians 3:18). Without this kind of holiness, no one will see the Lord (Hebrews 12:14). To reject God's purpose of holiness is to reject Christianity altogether (1 Thessalonians 4:7-8).

What the Bible teaches on this matter is not aimed only at gay people. It goes for all sinners, gay or straight. Every person who receives Christ and believes the gospel must change. They cannot remain the sinner that they were without calling into question the validity of their conversion. As one preacher put it, "If the faith that saved you didn't change you, then it didn't save you."

This does not mean that sinners become perfect all at once. … The work of sanctification is a progressive work that extends over the course of one's life. There are stops and starts, triumphs and failures along the way. But it is nevertheless the mark of a Christian that he is working out his salvation with fear and trembling, knowing that it is God who is at work in him both to act and to will according to God's good pleasure (Philippians 2:12-13). For many gay people who come to Christ, it may be a life-long struggle. But the Bible teaches that they will have what they need for the fight (2 Peter 1:3) and that they are not bound by this sin any longer (Romans 6:6).

What Burnett dismisses as "crazy" and "hateful" is at the heart of the Christian faith. To deny that the Gospel can change sinners -- even homosexual ones -- is to deny Christianity altogether. That is why Mohler's answer was profoundly and biblically right. He didn't give any ground on this issue, and neither should any Christian who wishes to give a defense of the hope that is in him (1 Peter 3:15). It is neither crazy nor hateful to suggest that gays can change. It's the essence of love that God enables them to do so. …”

Original article here.

Hawaii does a five-O on marriage.

Mabye their distance from liberal California has enabled the government of Hawaii to hold on to sexual sanity.

"...Same Sex Marriage (SSM) was originally supported by feminist organizations such as NOW as a way to empower women to be more independent of men (achieving women's equality is important but there are always healthy and unhealthy ways to reach a goal).

The support rose as radical subgroups of feminists grew which advocated that women should in a sense form their own separate tribe, living apart from men and even creating a future society where men could be cut off and eventually disappear because they were redundant and unnecessary as well as dangerous and violent.

The support became so intense it led to irrational positions, leading some to equate grouping people by race with groupings by gender or even by sexual behaviors, ignoring that these groupings are fundamentally different in various ways (gender differences are from evolving together, and the sexual behaviors evolved with them, while racial differences are from evolving separately). Also ignored is that SSM reduces diversity in a family group, a type of diversity that has been fundamental in human evolution and survival. It is argued that it increases the diversity of family groups, but the KKK could argue similarly that it provides a greater diversity of groups by creating a group without diversity.

The SSM movement has been able to grow so vigorously because economic/financial elites have supported it. Militant feminism merged with the left and came to dominate it, promoting lesbianism to the point that males feel uncomfortable and unwelcome in the left, making it small and weak and incapable of any strong resistance. The economic/financial elites recognized this and so have heaped support on the SSM movement. ..."

"...Hawaii is one of thirty-nine states that, by provisions in their state constitutions or in state laws, restrict marriage to one man and one woman. ..."

Story here, here, and here.

Canada...again.

Religious freedom, free speech, and parental rights have to be done away with in order to redefine marriage.

"Chicago values."

"Pro-gender" marriage.

I read the term, "pro-gender marriage" today.
What a great term! How does one go so far as to ignore gender when it comes to marriage? No culture in history has ever ignored gender when it comes to marriage.

Every person that I've ever met was born either male or female, but most gays want me to ignore that fact. I will not ignore facts.

Story here and here.

Disagreement equals 'hate"?!?

Everything I know about the glbt community points to the conclusion that most gays hate anyone who dares to disagree with their behavior.

Dissin' "kiss-in" missin'.

I went to the closest Chick-fil-A friday and didn't see any gay people protesting or same-sex kissing.

Is this the beginning of the end of the reign of homofascism? Has the population of my country become fully aware of what I've been saying for 10 years? What a turn-out of true marriage supporters on wednesday, and what a flop for homofascists on friday!

Story here.

Gays harrassing Bible reader.

I don't see people who have sex outside of marriage, and people that cheat on their spouses going crazy whenever they see a bible or hear someone reading from it. Why then do homosexuals go so crazy when they see someone reading from the bible? Is there something in the heart of the homosexual that feels particularly threatened by biblical verse?

At 0:16, the Godly man's response to the reporter's question is edited out. At 0:26 the homofascist is clearly provoking the Godly man. And at 1:20, one can brief hear the Godly man say, "...all I'm saying..." His tone of his voice reveals his peaceful mindset, while the behavior of those surrounding and harassing him reveals their intolerance and hatred.

No COWardice here!

Yeah...I'm just about done with this Chick-fil-A thing, but this pic was just to funny-but-true to ignore.

"Hate" !?!

It is nothing short of ludicrous to equate non-agreement with hate.

Chick-fil-A bully fired.

How cowardly of this man to attack this innocent young woman who is simply working in a drivethru!! Once again, the hatred of marriage redefiners is clear to all. This coward was fired (an action that I don't support) for his homofascist act.

Heterobacklash at Chick-fil-A!!

When I was young, if you were called a "chicken," it was an insult to your manhood. How ironic that a fast-food chain that specializes in chicken has become a symbol of courage! OMG! I can't stop laughing at what my very well be the beginning of the end of homofascism. Is this the heterosexual equivalent of the Stonewall riot?

More info here.

Chick-fil-A day pics.

Boycott? What boycott!! Does this look like a boycott to anyone? Look at the heterobacklash here!

People are really waking up to homofascism and, finally, fighting back!

More detailed info here.

Telling cartoon.

Elton John admits that he's harming his child.

I wanted to post this story about a week and a half ago, but my work schedule and the Chick-fil-A episode have prevented me from doing so.

It is wrong to deprive a child of a parent through one's own sexual actions or "orientation." If you're going to live the single life, or the gay life, or a life that embraces any other sexual sin... leave kids alone!

Homofascists attack Christian cakemaker.

If a bachelor went into a Christian-owned bakery and asked them to bake a cake shaped like a woman's breasts, behind, or crotch, for his bachelor party, the owners of that bakery would refuse to do so. Likewise, if a woman were to ask the same Christian business to create a cake shaped like a man's sexual part for her bachelorette party, her request would be refused also. Also, a polygamist wouldn't be able to have a wedding cake made, by this Christian bakery, with multiple brides standing on both sides of a single man.

Why then would a gay couple go into a Christian bakery and request a cake for their "wedding"? And why would they twist-off when they were refused? Homosexuality isn't like skin color, homosexuality is an activity. Doesn't everybody know that there are certain sexual activities that Christians do not support? Was this an intentional act to harass Christians?

Story here and here.

Vile homofascists celebrating death of Chick-fil-A spokesman.

If just one person calling themselves a Christian were to celebrate the death of a homosexual or a homofascist, the glbt community would go wild with cries of, "hatred!," "homophobia!," and "intolerance!"

Yet some of those who support the redefinition of marriage are celebrating the sudden death of Don Perry, the chief spokesman of Chick-fil-A.

Now that's hatred.

Story here.

Pro Chick-fil-A gay.

I still can't believe how far this Chick-fil-A thing has gone. To try to shut down a business because the owners of that business support God's definition of marriage is beyond absurd and just goes to show the insane mindset of marriage redefiners.

If someone had told me thirty years ago that someday a business would be denied a business licence because they believed that marriage is between one man and one woman, I would've thought that that person was absolutely insane.

Homonomic bullying.

The attacks against Chick-fil-A are getting spooky. To deny a business license to a company because the owners of that company support true marriage is the epitome of a homoOrwellian society, and undeniable religious persecution. Again, Chick-fil-A hasn’t denied service or employment to anyone in the glbt community, so what’s the problem with those who hate Chick-fil-A? The homofascism is really over-the-top in the anti-Christ bigotry displayed by those who are attacking Chick-fil-A.

It isn’t “discrimination” to not allow smoking inside of a Chick-fil-A establishment? Aren’t smokers a segment of society? What about denying service to someone without a shirt and shoes on? Doesn’t that discriminate against nudists?

“…Officials in at least three cities have vowed to block efforts to open Chick-fil-A restaurants after the company’s president told reporters that he supported the traditional definition of marriage – and warned that redefining marriage might bring God’s judgment on the nation.

“Because of this man’s ignorance, I will now be denying Chick-fil-A’s permit to open a restaurant in the First Ward,” he announced.

The Los Angeles Times condemned the decision, calling it far more troubling than Chick-fil-A’s support of traditional marriage.

The Boston Globe wondered “which part of the First Amendment does Menino not understand? A business owner’s political or religious beliefs should not be a test for the worthiness of his or her application for a business license.

“When an elected public official wields the club of government against a Christian business in the name of “tolerance,” it’s not harmless kid stuff,” Malkin wrote. “It’s chilling.”

“The militant homosexual advocates have launched an all out assault on Dan Cathy and Chick-fil-A,” he said. “The attempts to hurt or destroy Chick-fil-A are nothing short of economic bullying.” …”

Full story here.

Chick-Fil-A day this wednesday.

Chick-Fil-A hires gays and serves gays, but they support true marriage also. What's wrong with that?!

Apparently, the mayor of Boston, a Mr. Thomas Menino, has embraced homofascism and won't allow Chick-Fil-A to open in his city. What!?! Does he think that he'll live forever? Does he not know that someday he won't be mayor anymore? Mr. Menino thinks that Chick-Fil-A, "discriminates against a population."

One of the most oft-misused words in the English language is the word, "discrimination." Not supporting someone's conduct is not "discrimination." I plan on eating at Chick-Fil-A tomorrow, to avoid the crowd.

“… Dear Marriage Supporter,

Thanks to your recent efforts at DumpStarbucks.com and DumpGeneralMills.com, we've shown the cultural elite, the gay millionaires who fund anti-marriage initiatives, and the biased media that the defenders of marriage are willing to put our money where our mouth is.

Well, this Wednesday, we have a chance to do it again—and this time even more literally—by coming out in support of National Eat at Chick-fil-A Day. …”

Info here, here, and here.

J.C. Penny stock drop.

True-marriage supporters don't make nearly as much noise as same-sex "marriage" supporters do, but our growing awareness of homofascism is beginning to be felt by corporate America.

The Regnerus study.

This is why I blog about homofascism whenever my, roll-of-the-dice work schedule permits.

I didn't know that the man who gathered the data for this info was under attack, but I'm not one bit surprised that homofascists are trying to destroy him.

Does it not stand to reason/common-sense that a child is better off being raised by their father and mother? Or an acting mother and father? Two, same-sex "parents," cannot provide the ideal environment for raising a child since a man cannot fully imitate the mind of a woman, and a woman cannot fully imitate the mind of a man.

Yet, those who need a "study" to believe what they hear, have flipped out because the Regnerus study confirms common-sense observations about the benefits that a true family provide to a child.

“…Mark Regnerus’ recent study on children who are raised by gay parents. Regnerus’ work has since proven to be very controversial because it does not paint a positive picture of children of gay parents. Even though it’s based on scientific methodology, it suggests conclusions that cut against the prevailing gay rights narrative. As a result, folks on the left have been calling for Regnerus’ head on a platter.

…the witch hunt is officially on. A gay blogger lodged a complaint with the President of the University of Texas, alleging that Regnerus had engaged in “scientific misconduct.”

…This whole thing is outrageous on many levels. There is nothing untoward about this study.

...just released a statement today defending Regnerus’ work as scientifically credible. The push-back is coming simply because some people don’t like where the data led.

…Normally studies like this one are vetted by the scholarly community in subsequent publications. But that is not good enough for the gay activists. The thought-police are out in full force not to counter Regnerus in print, but to destroy his career and reputation.

…the social pressure will transform into governmental pressure, and Christians will suffer. We will look back on moments like this one as one more step down the path of intolerance of Christian views. Mark Regnerus is in the crosshairs now, but it will be all of us before too long. …”

My supporting info is here and here.