Archive for category Gay Marriage

2 More Gay Sex Scandal Involving “Conservatives”

11:57 pm, March 4th, 2010 on Gay Marriage

The Republican and the Catholic

The Catholic Church has hardly been able to stay out of sex scandals and the GOP is racing to keep up.

This time around, a senior member of the Pope’s inner circle and an important adviser to the Vatican was caught engaging in homosexual activities, including haggling with a choir boy “over the specific physical details of men he wanted brought to him.” This guy is also accused of corruption.

Across the Atlantic, a Republican legislator in California, an anti-gay crusader, was arrested for a DUI shortly after leaving a gay club.

If they enjoy their indulgences, that’s their business. They should, however, stop pretending to be all pious and righteous.

Comment on this

Monogamous Frogs: Unacceptable!

12:08 am, February 23rd, 2010 on Gay Marriage

Save Us From Straight Frogs!

Over the past several years, scientists have been trying their best to portray homosexuality as normal by displaying supposed gay traits in animals.

We have now discovered a species of poison frogs that are not only monogamous but also, God forbid, straight. This is just wrong!

These frogs are entirely abnormal and should be eradicated, or turned gay.

Comment on this

Gay Marriage Vote Dies in Iowa House

11:55 pm, February 9th, 2010 on Gay Marriage

Iowa: How Much Longer?

Democrats in Iowa have denied Iowans the opportunity to decide whether they actually like gay marriages in their state after it was forced down their throats by liberal activist judges.

Well, it’s only till November.

Comment on this

The Enforced Homosexual Agenda

12:12 am, January 19th, 2010 on Gay Marriage, Liberalism, Media

Two and a Half Men’s new episode tonight featured the parents of the protagonist Charlie’s fiancee. The father, who is initially depicted as a conservative “bigot”, comes out of the closet to reveal that he has always been in love with a man.

While the episode itself was better than most stuff that Chuck Lorre has been putting out recently, I had predicted that the story line would feature a closet situation once the character’s wife pointed out he was always on guard against the “homosexual agenda.” As with most other TV shows, movies, and books these days, the liberal media establishment is forcing the “homosexual agenda” down our throats.

Incidentally, I recently finished reading Ursula Le Guin’s The Telling and it is the same deal in the book as well. Aliens are depicted to have lower moral standards than humans, involving homosexuality that is widely accepted. In fact, Le Guin’s aliens are bisexuals who have no conception of marriage or fidelity or morality. Characters switch sex-partners freely, choosing from either gender, with little or no emotion involved in the relationship, if you could even call it that. Previously, in The Left Hand of Darkness, Le Guin depicts a world in which the aliens can choose their gender once every month.

While I believe in equality and all that good stuff, we don’t have to be constantly reminded that homosexuality is normal and gay marriage is inevitable. Gay marriage will not become right just because the media forces us to get used to the idea.

Comment on this

Why DC Should Never Get Congressional Representation

12:04 am, December 16th, 2009 on Gay Marriage

While I support full voting rights for DC in principle – taxation without representation is patently wrong – the ultra-left nature of its politics would be a bit too much even for Pelosi’s Congress.

The DC council voted today to legalize gay marriage. Council-member David Catania claims:

For the world to see gays and lesbian couples equal to straight couples in the nation’s capital, that is an important message

His mate Harry Thomas Jr. opines:

this is a human rights issue for justice and equality

Gay marriage is not about equality. It is about liberalism winning a psychological and strategic war against the traditional family.

Marriage is a religious institution that is defined as a union of a man with a woman, not a man with a man, not a woman with a woman or any other combination proposed by the Kos-people.

Comment on this

Extending Benefits is Right, But…

11:51 am, June 17th, 2009 on Gay Marriage, White House

Jake Tapper is blogging that:

…[today] President Obama will sign a presidential memorandum extending benefits to the same-sex partners of gay and lesbian federal employees.

… it comes at a time that gay and lesbian supporters of the president are expressing anger and disappointment at his inaction on rescinding Don’t Ask/Dont Tell, his opposition to same-sex marriage, and his support for the anti-same-sex-marriage Defense of Marriage Act in a legal brief that compared same-sex unions to incestuous ones.

Denying benefits, that are already available to heterosexuals, to same-sex couples is wrong.

Government, like any employer, does not have the moral right to decide the sexual orientation or preferences of its employees. But, unlike any private business that can deny employment based on sexuality under certain circumstances, the Federal Government cannot do so. It cannot, likewise, discriminate employees based on their sexual preferences. If any benefits are provided to heterosexual couples, the same must be provided to homosexual couples.

Additionally, I feel that such benefits should not be restricted to sexual relationships alone. Any couple living together, whether the bond be forged by blood, friendship or any such ties, that declares itself to the government should be eligible for benefits.

Why does the government or any employer have the right to decide that a couple must be engaged in a sexual relationship before it can take advantage of benefits?

Now, even if Obama does make this decision, will it placate the gay rights lobby? Apparently not entirely:

“It seems to me at least to be a nice gesture, but a disappointment,” said Richard Kim, a senior editor at The Nation magazine.

But, of course, nothing is ever enough. Even when gay marriage is legal, we’ll have some other issue.

benefits, Obama

Comment on this

Animal Behavior does not Equate Human Homosexuality

12:12 am, June 17th, 2009 on Gay Marriage

Homosexuality in humans is a matter of choice – such sexual orientation may be natural or genetic, as some people claim, but the decision to act upon it is a matter of choice.

As Stephen Covey says, “we are free to choose our actions”; all our actions. Engaging in any kind of sexual relationship, whether hetero- or homo-, is a matter of choice. Humans do not have to do anything because of our superior intellect and reasoning. Humans do not have to have sex of any kind.

Apart from bodily functions, such as breathing or micturating, which cannot be considered “actions,” everything else a human does is a matter of choice. Read on »

homosexuality

8 Comments

Marriage is NOT a Right – Gay Marriage is Wrong, NYT

12:53 am, June 16th, 2009 on Gay Marriage, Media

Gay marriage is banned in communist countries (see China, for instance), but the comrades at the NYT are so obsessed with the concept of institutionalizing sodomy that they are willing to criticize their Lord and Master Obama in an editorial:

The Obama administration, which came to office promising to protect gay rights but so far has not done much, actually struck a blow for the other side last week. It submitted a disturbing brief in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, which is the law that protects the right of states to not recognize same-sex marriages and denies same-sex married couples federal benefits. The administration needs a new direction on gay rights.

Lesbianism may be "hot" - gay marriage is not. Courtesy, scrape.tv

The administration doesn’t need a new direction – the media does. The NYT needs to stop portraying gay marriage as an inalienable right. The media needs to stop advocating a position that is the opposite of what the MAJORITY feels. The attached PDF shows that even in a CNN poll, 54% of the general public opposes gay marriage.

…The brief insists it is reasonable for states to favor heterosexual marriages because they are the “traditional and universally recognized form of marriage.” In arguing that other states do not have to recognize same-sex marriages under the Constitution’s “full faith and credit” clause, the Justice Department cites decades-old cases ruling that states do not have to recognize marriages between cousins or an uncle and a niece.

Marriage is a religious institution. Recognizing marriage can only be done if that union is sanctioned by a religion. Just an incestuous marriage will be unacceptable, gay marriage would be too. And, that restriction would be completely reasonable. Read on »

Comment on this

WA – Gay Marriage Coming Soon to a Court Near You!

2:58 pm, June 8th, 2009 on Gay Marriage, Washington State

Washington State is one of those states, thankfully, that does not yet allow same sex marriage but provides the option of a “civil union” for same-sex couples wishing to fully legalize their relationship. The state Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that a ban on gay marriage is permitted under the constitution but the legislature can enact law to change that.

Last month, Gregoire signed the “everything-but-marriage” bill, claiming:

“[same-sex partners] will make for stronger families, and when we have stronger families, we have a stronger Washington state”

But, of course! Families with 2 fathers or 2 mothers make stronger families. Marriages that cannot pro-create make even stronger families, correct? I guess Gregoire thinks that what doesn’t kill traditional marriage only makes it stronger, as Kanye would put it.

Read on »

gregoire

1 Comment

Concord buys into gay marriage propaganda

12:48 am, June 8th, 2009 on Gay Marriage, New Hampshire

Marriage has been defined for decades, and still is, by the Merriam Webster Dictionary thus:

the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (emphasis added)

Marriage is a religious institution, that, by definition, is governed by religious laws. Distinct from civil marriage that is performed by a magistrate without any explicit religious sanction, “marriage” is performed in accordance with specifically defined religious traditions and laws. Marriage is defined by every religion as a union between a man and a woman, not man and man or woman and woman or any such other perverse combination. Read on »

dartmouth, lynch, marriage, New Hampshire

Comment on this