Raving Conservative

Google

Thursday, February 08, 2007

Homosexual Activists Showing Their True Colors . . . Again

It is good to be proven right after the ignorant accuse you of deceit and bigotry.

I have said before that the leadership behind the homosexual rights movement is not interested in getting marriage rights for homosexuals so they can be like the rest of us, but rather that the goal of this part of the movement is to destroy marriage to make the rest of us more like them. Recent events in Washington prove openly what most in the homosexual rights movement only admit privately. That they really do want to see marriage ended.

Assaulting the family has been a hallmark of the homosexual rights movement for decades now. It’s part of the strategy to normalize homosexuality. Anything that makes the rest of us more like them helps their cause just as much as anything that makes them appear to be like the rest of us.

Here is the most recent assault on the family.

Homosexual activists have proposed legislation that places an undue burden on heterosexual couples who wish to marry. Here is a synopsis of the legislation:

Heterosexual couples may not marry unless they can prove their fertility. They must submit to fertility testing to establish their ability to have children. Upon marriage they must have a child within three years or the marriage will be annulled.

UPDATE: You can view the propsed legislation at the website of the actual authors of the bill at http://www.wa-doma.org/ This is a homosexual/homosexual sympathetic activist group in Washington.

This is motivated purely out of spite by the homosexual activist group that has proposed. They are bitter that the honest argument that marriage is about families, primarily the bearing and raising of children resonates with not only the 98% of America that is heterosexual, but also many courts. This legislation is designed to denigrate marriage and eliminate it entirely over time.

Allow me to demonstrate the logical and moral idiocy of this proposed legislation.

1: It unfairly discriminates against women. Since men remain fertile much later in life than women do, it places an unfair burden on women who wish to marry, or remarry late in life. A man can find a younger woman of childbearing age and get married, but a woman cannot do the same thing.

2: It unfairly discriminates against single parents. Single parents may wish to marry, but may not have desire or the means to support additional children in three years. While marriage in this case is proven to be beneficial to both the single parent and all children, this legislation would ban such a family from forming. A single parent marrying provides the two parent household that is proven to be the best possible situation for the healthy development of children, but this legislation would prevent this family from forming.

3: Infertility is not what it once was. My wife and I are an infertile couple, but we have a child that is biologically our own. Set aside the many miraculous births of children to supposedly infertile couples and take a look at modern medicine. In-vitro fertilization is a blessing that has allowed many infertile couples to have their own children. But it is also expensive and does not always work. We went through three rounds of in-vitro before it finally succeeded. The first round was within two years of marriage. The second round was just before out fifth anniversary. The final round that finally succeeded was a few months later. We had our son just less than a month after our sixth anniversary. Under this law we would have been banned from marrying each other, and even we did slip through the system we would have been forced to divorce after three years because we did not have the money at the time to perform rapidly repeated rounds of in-vitro fertilization. There is no such recourse for homosexuals.

4: Point 3 proves how this proposed legislation also discriminates against the poor.

5: It ignores the historical morality of marriage. The three religions that comprise some 70% of the planet all teach their followers that sex is reserved for marriage alone. This places a moral burden on the vast majority of heterosexuals that most homosexuals do not share for two reasons. The first is that homosexuality itself is a violation of all three of these major religions, so any homosexual behavior from a follower of these religions is already morally wrong. The second is that most homosexuals feel no need whatsoever to restrain their sexual behavior prior to marriage while a full quarter of Americans, oversexed as we are, actually only have one sexual partner for their entire lives. The average American heterosexual has a total of 4 sexual partners in a lifetime, including those who have multiple marriages. The average homosexual has 50 (Correction: The original number of 90 was a typo. The 9 in adjacent to the 5 on the number pad. I missed the original typo.) sexual partners in a lifetime. This figure is skewed because male homosexuals have exponentially more sexual partners than female homosexuals. However, the average lesbian still has notably more sexual partners than the average heterosexual.

6: It ignores that the debate over homosexual marriage is, at its core, both social and moral. It has nothing at all to do with the legal system for most heterosexuals, but everything to do with the legal system for homosexuals because it is the only place where they have the ability to overcome popular opinion and moral consensus.

7: It ignores the historically proven fact that heterosexual marriage stabilizes society with or without children. By seeking to end marriage this legislation is guaranteed to have a destabilizing on America. There is no correlation between homosexual marriage and societal stabilization. In fact, current indicators show that homosexual marriage, including homosexual “civil unions” may actually have a destabilizing effect on society.

8: When the sponsors of a bill say things like “Let’s see how they like getting a taste of their own medicine.” It proves beyond all reasonable doubt that this legislation is nothing more than a revenge bill designed to hurt all heterosexuals. It is an intimidation tactic, and it will not work. Homosexuals may be able to intimidate Hollywood and Democrat politicians, but it cannot intimidate the entire heterosexual community.

30 Comments:

  • I think this is just a piece of proposed legislation that got out of hand. I don't think that the objectives of the homosexual rights movement is to undermine marriage, although I do think that this takes away rights from people that they should have. I think that the point that they are trying to make with the legislation is, within purely civil marriages (thus ignoring the religious issues that you want to bring in), it is wrong to deny gay couples the right to get married based on the fact that they can't reproduce because that doesn't stop heterosexual couples from being married by the state. I feel that that was the point of introducing the legislation, but I agree that it was carried to far. It isn't right to drag others down with you and deny rights that both parties should enjoy. Zachary Moore summarizes my position nicely here: Procreation Initiative: Funny but Immoral

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:03 PM  

  • Yeah, it sounds like a retalitory action. I don't really care if they want to get married, that should be up to each state's legislature. But to try and pass a retalitory law? That's not right.

    By Blogger Robert M., at 5:16 PM  

  • I agree with the others here: I believe the intent here was IRONY, not legislation.

    Daniel, I've been to the secret gay meetings, trust me - they're not out to do away with marriage.

    They're too busy with their first goal of turning everyone gay. Undoing marriage is years down the road on their agenda. /sarcasm>

    By Blogger Dan Trabue, at 2:45 AM  

  • Dan T,

    Read some of the the literature the leaders of the national movement and other radicaals have put out. iy outlines their strategy and supports what I havewritten here. unless you believe things like "target the schools to indoctrinate chilren into homosexality as early as possible" is innocent. If you think it's innocent and harmless then you are too far gone to have this discussion with because you are delusional.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 9:02 AM  

  • sigh.

    Source?

    By Blogger Dan Trabue, at 9:43 AM  

  • If you google:

    "indoctrinate children into homosexuality"

    all you get are rightwing scare sources.

    1. One can't "indoctrinate" children into homosexuality any more than they could persuade you or me to be gay. We're straight. We are attracted to members of the same gender. That is not a trainable feeling.

    2. EVEN IF you could "indoctrinate" someone into homosexuality, no one is. No one. There are zero people out there doing this or advocating doing this.

    Do I make myself clear?

    And do you know why? Because gay people aren't monsters hoping to create a world of gay monsters.

    If you can't provide documentation, then you really ought to quit repeating this sort of demonization. It is diabolical (literally, "of the devil").

    By Blogger Dan Trabue, at 9:50 AM  

  • After reading your first paragraph can I just say "here we go again"?

    "... the goal of this part of the movement is to destroy marriage to make the rest of us more like them..." ??????? What??? You can't make staight people gay or gay people straight. It is impossible. It's about civil rights and equality, how could it be any simpler?

    This 'proposed legislation' you then write about is insane! I think somebody is having a joke with you. If anybody tried to make this into a law they would be laughed at!

    ...

    Meanwhile, bak in the real world:

    So you're bored and you have created a spoof post but your mad ideas of what this imagined evil conspiracy wants are quite insane.

    By Blogger DanProject76, at 11:04 AM  

  • Memo To Daniel:
    You're throwing out some grerat bigoted crap here!

    "The average American heterosexual has a total of 4 sexual partners in a lifetime, including those who have multiple marriages. The average homosexual has 90 sexual partners in a lifetime."

    How ridiculous. Who gets asked these questions? I doubt your Bigoted Ladies For America go out asking gay people about their sexual history and ditto for the straights. 90 sexual partners? Where's the time to have a job or a social life? But the straight man only has 4? Yeah right. I am up to a grand total of 4 and I have been 'married' for almost 7 years whereas most of my straight friends had got past that figure by the time they started university.

    "current indicators show that homosexual marriage, including homosexual “civil unions” may actually have a destabilizing effect on society."

    Really? How so? Marriage is a good thing for society, like you stated. I agree with that as I am a firm believer in marriage myself as well as the raising of children in a happy healthy loving home. As are you. Is any married heterosexual man really going to get a divorce because their gay brother has got hitched to his man? Don't be so ridiculous!

    But I am wasting my words. You like being ridiculous.

    By Blogger DanProject76, at 12:37 PM  

  • DP76,

    I know you wish this were a spoof, but I first encoutered te story through news radio. I have included an update that has the link to the website of the group that authored the legislation in the article.

    The original number of 90 sexual partners was a typo. The actual number is 50. I must have accidentally hit the 9 on the number pad. Thank you for griping about the number or I might have continued to miss the typo.

    Dan T,

    Here is a source for you.

    Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, the fathers of the homosexual movement are the sources of the strategies I mention regarding the homosexual activist agenda. They have written articles and books outlining their tactics. Feel free to read their work.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 4:54 PM  

  • Daniel, the fact that you can find two individuals in all the world who may say what you're saying (let's take your word for just a minute on that) only means that there are two crazy people in the world.

    So, I WOULD have to rephrase my earlier point to, "There are NO people or gay advocacy groups out there (with the exception of a few nuts just like there are a few nuts in every movement) who are advocating that."

    It would be unfair of me to say that "The Anti-gay-marriage movement is dangerous because they want to tie gay folk to the bumpers of their trucks and drag them to their deaths! Don't believe me? It happened just a couple of years ago! So see? Proof positive!"

    By Blogger Dan Trabue, at 4:28 AM  

  • In a short search for those authors and "manifesto" I find references to their books and many rightwing sources citing the supposed gay agenda and this manifesto, but I could find the "manifesto" nowhere.

    The only links I could find to it besides rightwing sites were ones like this one from a gay site:

    "I have noticed recently that all of a sudden (and that book is well over 15 years old!) it is being referenced by several right-wing types as The Authoritative Agenda that we are supposedly all following. That strikes me as incredibly funny, since I found it not a particularly striking book, and also I have a feeling most other LGBTs and allies are unaware of its existence."

    That rings true to me, based upon my gay friends and what my admittedly short research revealed.
    At least it sounds much more likely than any organized agenda. One just sound like a conspiracy wingnut when one talks along those lines.

    By Blogger Dan Trabue, at 4:55 AM  

  • Thanks for the link to the original article. As I thought, this 'proposed legislation' is a stunt to point out the weakness of the Religious Right's argument against gay marriage. It's not like anyone actually thinks it will become real law. It's to prove a point! Have you actually read it properly?

    My Gay Agenda: Be honest, be happy, be faithfull, be excellent to each other.

    By Blogger DanProject76, at 7:00 AM  

  • Dan T,

    Again, get their books and articles. YOu may dismiss them as nuts that no one follows, but that is not true. It is easy to see how the homosexual activist movement has followed their outline.

    Just a few examples of teh homosexual activist movement following their outline are these 6 principles:

    1: Talk about gays and gayness as often and as loud as possible. (To minimize the impact of encountering a homosexual in your own life)

    2: Portray gays as victims, not aggressive challengers. (To create sympathy)

    3: Give homosexual protectors a "just" cause.

    4: Make gays look good.

    5: Make the "victimizers" look bad. (To create an image of the opposition being roughly equivalent to racists.)

    6: Get corporate America and major poundations to financially suport the homosexual cause.

    7: Teach children about gayness as early as possible, use the punlic schools as a vehicle of change.

    When you look at the sudden rise in gay pride parades in the eighties after the frst plan was laid out, vitriolic rhetoric about so-called "homophobes" starting atthe same time, schools that are now teaching about homosexuality in kinderrgarten (which is 4-5 years earlier than they teach about heterosexuality) and the pattern is obvious. The plan these men laid out is the plan that tthe homosexula activist is still following to this day. And it's not like the leadership of the homosexualactivist communiy is exactly quiet about this. Of course there are exceptions among individuals and som small groups, but the greater trend is this form of destructive radicalism that I have been consistently pointing out for years now.

    DP76,

    Don't make excuses. Check the news releases of some of teh organization endorsing this proposed legislation. They genuinely think it is a good idea.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 10:51 AM  

  • I ask again, have you read this article properly, Daniel?

    'We will do this through three initiatives... Absurd? Very. But there is a rational basis for this absurdity. By floating the initiatives, we hope to prompt discussion about the many misguided assumptions which make up the Andersen ruling. By getting the initiatives passed, we hope the Supreme Court will strike them down as unconstitutional and thus weaken Andersen itself. And at the very least, it should be good fun to see the social conservatives who have long screamed that marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation be forced to choke on their own rhetoric.'

    That statement from the article says to me that they are using this absurd (their words) idea to point out the ridiculous argument that gay people cannot marry as they have no means of procretion together. It's a direct action way of pointing out the inconsistencies of certain peoples' beliefs.

    It's really rather straightforward.

    I love your Gay Agenda ideas:
    'Talk about gays and gayness as often and as loud as possible. (To minimize the impact of encountering a homosexual in your own life)' : What impact would this cause a person of the heterosexual persuasion exactly? Gay people exist. They have always existed. At least one of your relatives is bound to have been gay in the last few generations. There is no 'impact' to minimise!

    'Make the "victimizers" look bad. (To create an image of the opposition being roughly equivalent to racists.)' : If you replace the word 'homosexual' with 'black' in many of your blogs you get a very rough equivalent to racism. Or do you agree with racism too?

    (I know you do not really)!

    You are so paranoid and delusional and it scares me. I would expect this kind of scaremongering and bigotry in places like Iran but the 'enlightened' America?

    By Blogger DanProject76, at 11:32 AM  

  • DP76,

    "I love your Gay Agenda ideas:"

    Not my ideas. Please reference the founders of teh homosexual activist movement in America as I noted in a previous reply.
    I understand your reluctance to accept the truth of the situation in America, but that is only natural considering the causes of homosexual advancement in Europe versus America. In Europe the rise of teh homosexual movement has been more passive and is directly linked to the collapse of Christianity that region. In America the riseof the homosexual movement has been an aggressive counter-culture campaign waged largely in the courts and against popular opinion which is largely the result of the dominance of Christianity in this country. As a result the American homosexual movement is, by neccessity if it is to have any chance of achieving its ends, largely a radical movement thathas been taking hostile action against existing American culture. Dan T likes to talk about all "right wingers" who expose the fats of the movement while ignoring the fact that the homosympathetic liberal left wing would never dream of exposing problems of any kind with a movement it is actively promoting. To be fair, the same can be said of many on the right who seek massive ideological or polical change. This is why it is important for both sides to be heard, because they check each other.

    And have you bothered to check the press releases of teh sympathetic organizations who have taken up co-sponsorship of this bill or not?

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 1:37 PM  

  • Daniel, in the Seven points you reference (I suppose as being part of their manifesto), you appear to have backed off that they are actively "indoctrinating" people into a "gay lifestyle," which is what you alleged.

    Those seven points are fine and valid points that I can support. There's nothing radical or subversive in those ideals (unless you consider acceptance "subversive").

    Does that mean you were deliberately building a strawman argument when you said gays were out there trying to "indoctrinate children into homosexuality" or were you mistaken in your original assertion and now you're backing off of it (with apologies to those maligned)?

    By Blogger Dan Trabue, at 9:42 PM  

  • Dan T,

    The fact that you think that homosexual sex ed for 5 year-olds is perfectly alright is perverse. Second, there are many more than 7 points to the aganda. I just listed those ones. I specifically listed that particular as just one, most egregious proof of the indoctination goal of the homosexual movement. How you took that to mean I was in any backing off is beyoond reason. Again, do try to actually pay attention to what you hear and read. you constant misrepresentations aregrowing tiresome. if you are actualy comprehending what is being resented but still making comments like yur last one then you have moved from irrational to dishonest. So which is it? Are you dense or dishonest?

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 12:28 AM  

  • Daniel L, you are way too obsessed with this subject. The basic facts are as follows:

    Most people are straight and will always be straight, just like you.

    Some people are gay.

    Some of these will be 'in the closet' as they have not come to terms with this due to all of the associated shit that they get from the media, organised religion, etc.

    Some of these people are 'out' and living their lives just like everyone else, but with one small difference: What they do in bed!

    Sexuality is pretty set in most people. The exception is bisexuals, of which there are few.

    You cannot 'promote' homosexuality, just as you cannot promote having blue eyes. It is an orientation of a tiny proportion of the population, always has been and always will be.

    Gay people want to live their lives just like everyone else does. This means that some laws need to be changed, just as some already have. i.e. discrimination in the workplace, marriage rights, adoption, etc.

    Gay people don't want to 'convert' straight people. It is illogical. They do not want 'special rights' any more than you have 'special rights'.

    The parallels with racism still stand, in my eyes. It's all ignorance, fear and stupidity.

    By Blogger DanProject76, at 6:25 AM  

  • DP76,

    Unfortunately, the evidence does not support some of your asssertions. Sexualorientation has been repeatedly demonstrated to NOT be fixed. All evidence points to choice and mental trauma in a large majority of homosexuals. Also, do try to remeber that there are vast numbers of homosexuals who have turned staright, as well as starights who have turned homosexual.

    In America there are numerous homosexual activist group whos include recruitment of straights and children into homosexuality as part of their goals. Some even have slogans as simple and straightforward as "Recruit! Recruit! Recruit!" I know nothing about the homosexual movement in England, hence I do not write about it or else I would be writing from the point of ingorance as you do when you say that what is happening in America cannot be true.

    Finally, let me ask you a question. If you had a friend who was an alcoholic, no matter what reason, knowing all of the negative health effects of alcoholism, including anaverage lifespan of 10 years less than a non-alcoholic, wouldn't you try to help him escape his self-destructive lifestyle? Now turn that around and look at the fact that homosexuals generally suffer from many of the same and other comprable health effects, but take that 10 year reduced average life expectancy and make it an average life expectancy of 30 years less than heterosexuals, including the 30% of male homosexuals who will have AIDS or be dead by age 30. Might you not then view fighting against homosexuality as a fight to save millions of lives? This is how I, and most people liek me view this situation. We are not bigots, we just want homosexuals to stop believing lies and get rescued from behavior that has been shown to kill them three times faster than alcoholism. If this loving, lifesaving action is bgotry onthe level of racism then feel free to call me a bigot all you want. It's a weird defintion of bigotry, in fact, you won't find such a definition anywhere in any dictionary.

    My mision regarding homosexuality is twofold: Save lives, and prevent people from choosing to join a lifestuyle that will kill most of them by its very nature while prevnting this lethal abberation fromgaining any more social acceptance than any other self-destructive behavior. This second part ties directly to the first. It may not bother you that homnosexuals are frequently killed at a yougn age by their sexual behavior, but it bothers me greatly.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 8:30 AM  

  • "All evidence points to choice and mental trauma in a large majority of homosexuals."

    In Extremist Right Wing Christian Fundamentalist research, perhaps? Not one of the many gay people I have known over the years has ever said it was either a choice or a result of some kind of mental trauma. Calling me mental is impolite.

    "Some even have slogans as simple and straightforward as "Recruit! Recruit! Recruit!" "

    If they do then they are very stupid. You refer to them as activists and that is what they would be if they did that: Extremist activists. Same as you are not one of those people who kills abortionists or pickets funerals with hasty banners. Extremists are, well, extreme! Most people are not like that.

    "an average life expectancy of 30 years less than heterosexuals... We are not bigots, we just want homosexuals to stop believing lies and get rescued from behavior that has been shown to kill them three times faster than alcoholism."

    You are quoting an extremist organisation again, whose mission is to make reality look worse than it is. And you still do not understand that you cannot 'rescue people' from what is essentially their nature. It is not possible.

    "feel free to call me a bigot all you want."

    You're a bigot. But you don't realise it. That scares me more than those proud bigots.

    "Save lives, and prevent people from choosing to join a lifestuyle that will kill most of them by its very nature while prevnting this lethal abberation fromgaining any more social acceptance than any other self-destructive behavior."

    It is not a lifestyle choice though! Why would it be chosen? This argument is bullshit. Sorry but it is!

    "This second part ties directly to the first. It may not bother you that homnosexuals are frequently killed at a yougn age by their sexual behavior, but it bothers me greatly."

    Killed by bigots, you mean? Bigots who are encouraged by hateful propaganda? Like this blog? You're part of the problem, mate, not the solution.

    By Blogger DanProject76, at 9:23 AM  

  • Okay I didn't read all the comments but I skimmed them. Basically I think this:

    A.) the legislation is wrong and immature. Using the law to get back at someone is pathetic.

    B.) I'd agree that there is a certain element among gay people that is overly intrusive, but not all of them.

    By Blogger Robert M., at 10:43 AM  

  • Of course the legislation is wrong and immature.

    That's the whole point of it!

    By Blogger DanProject76, at 11:04 AM  

  • That's not a good thing...

    By Blogger Robert M., at 6:30 PM  

  • "feel free to call me a bigot all you want."

    You're a bigot. Your positions are based upon ignorance and twisted truths.

    Whether or not it's deliberate ignorance or indoctrination, I don't know, but ignorance and bigotry it is.

    I don't say this in anger, just sadness that someone as intelligent as you would embrace and promote lies and half-truths.

    By Blogger Dan Trabue, at 6:36 PM  

  • I never said that the immature and wrong legislation is a good thing!

    It wouldn't be necessary in a fair world though.

    By Blogger DanProject76, at 11:06 AM  

  • DP76 and Dan T,

    I hate to dissapoint you guys, but homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. The evidence shows that more than likely it is an abnormal compulsion that has a nearly 100% recovery rate among people who seek help, and 50% recovery rate among any randomly selkected group of homosexuals. You cannot recover from from biology, but you can recover from mental disorders, adictions, and compulsions. The insane left-wingers who are promoting homosexuality as a safe lifestyle with no choice are directly responsible for the deaths of millions of homosexuals who have dies as a direct of that lifestyle. The CDC reports that the average life expectancy of a homosexual is 48 years without AIDS factored in. 42 years with AIDS factored in. It is a fatal condition that must be treated, not promoted.

    The bigots are the people who know these facts and continue to promote homosexuality and teh homosexual agenda in spite of them. There are many more facts about how deadly homosexuality is to its practicioners, and about the myriad of mental problems associated with homosexuality. You may call me a bigot, but people like me are actually teh best friends homosexuals have because we tell the truth so that homosexuals can be empowered to live a new life that will not shave an average of 30 yeears off of their life expectancies.

    If you refuse to believe the facts, even facts provided by such reliable sources as the Centers for Disease Control, then you are chossing death and to support death by what ammounts to a suicidal lifestyle. You would not advise your friends to drink themselves into oblivion every night because it will kill them, and you should encourage or support homosexuality for teh same reason. Show some love, oppose homosexuality, provide facts and support for recovering homosexuals, and save some lives.

    Of course, you cancontinue to support the homosexual agenda and enable people to kill themselves for belief in a vast left wing lie. The choice is yours.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 1:37 PM  

  • Oh Daniel, why why why???

    "you can continue to support the homosexual agenda and enable people to kill themselves for belief in a vast left wing lie. The choice is yours".

    "... abnormal compulsion that has a nearly 100% recovery rate among people who seek help"

    It's not a choice. It's a fact.

    The sky is blue.

    Grass is green.

    I am gay.

    I am quite happy with all of these things.

    It cannot be 'promoted' any more than having bad eyesight can be promoted.

    I am just a normal guy living my life and some of my friends happen to also be gay. More of my friends happen to be straight as there are far more straight people out there. That is all. It's the real world. You are weirdly obsessed with all of this whereas in my world I am half of a loving couple just like any other. No different to you and your wife.

    I don't want 'help' i.e brainwashing and superstitious mumbo-jumbo. Thanks for the offer though!

    By Blogger DanProject76, at 11:39 AM  

  • How ironic: The Google ads under your logo are currently advertising gay wedding services!

    Heh.

    By Blogger DanProject76, at 12:14 PM  

  • Pat Buchanan's book "The Death of the West" mentions a psychiatrist who converted over 30 homosexual men into heterosexual men who later went on to have happy traditional family lives. So I do believe that people can convert from homosexuality to normal heterosexuality. Merely accepting the claim "I was born this way" is absurd. What if Mike Tyson were to say "I was born with a horrible temper so I should be allowed to beat and kill people."? Sure people are born with a propensity towards certian actions but said actions are still immoral. A lot of fat people say they were born with a gland problem or an over indulgent passion for food, but there is a word for that; it's a sin called gluttony. First Corinthians 6:9 calls homosexuality a sin and God destroyed Sodom and Gommorrah for committing the sin of sodomys o it is always immoral. Do you know how absurd it sounds tosay that God was in the wrong for destroying Sodom and Gomorrah? Step back and take a look at the team your on.

    By Anonymous Darkseid, at 6:25 PM  

  • I don't think I have seen so much hot air expressed. This silly imagination that homosexuals want to subvert hetrosexual marriage. I am gay. I have been with my partner for 15 years. The thought of getting "married" is ridiculous. However, some people are diffrent to me and want to be just like all you (God knows why!)so what's the problem? They are human beings, just like you. If they want society's blessing in the form of a recognized marriage and feel the need for that then what's the problem with allowing them that right. What makes you so special that you get to marry whilst gays don't? They don't want to "bring people down to their level" at all, they just want respect and regardless of all your ravings let me tell you this. People like you will be just mowed out of the way, pushed, gabbling impotently to the sidelines whilst humanity evloves appropriately. This has been the case always and will continue to be the case. So just get on with your dreary little lives and try to make something of them without getting satisfaction from marginalizing others to make yourselves feel better about yourself. What is your true sexuality afterall? If you were sure about it you wouldn;t be so threatened by those who have the courage to be themselves, now,...would you?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:10 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home


 
Listed on BlogShares