Tag Archives: gay marriage
The Truth: Last weekend, Chick Fil A publicly announced the following message on their Facebook Page.
The Chick-fil-A culture and service tradition in our restaurants is to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect – regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender. We will continue this tradition in the over 1,600 Restaurants run by independent Owner/Operators. Going forward, our intent is to leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena.
Chick-fil-A is a family-owned and family-led company serving the communities in which it operates. From the day Truett Cathy started the company, he began applying biblically-based principles to managing his business. For example, we believe that closing on Sundays, operating debt-free and devoting a percentage of our profits back to our communities are what make us a stronger company and Chick-fil-A family.
Our mission is simple: to serve great food, provide genuine hospitality and have a positive influence on all who come in contact with Chick-fil-A.
This of course preceded an original statement released by Dan Cathy:
“I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage, I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about.”
Of course, this belief is automatically labeled by the left side of the political spectrum as ‘Hate Speech’ and therefore must be silenced.
Case in point, the mayor of Boston has recently announced to the Boston Herald that he will work to prevent Chick-Fil-A from opening a restaurant in his city, following Chick-Fil-A’s statement. He is quoted as followed: “You can’t have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against a population.”
Mayor Menino has been backed my many Liberals across the nation who are vouching for a boycott of the famous restaurant chain. For example, many Liberals have taken to Twitter to express their frustration.
My opinion is simple, everyone is entitled to an opinion, and everyone should be allowed to share their opinion. If they are criticized because their opinion is illogical, then that’s their problem. I myself share the beliefs and common opinions with Mr. Cathy, and he has my 100% support on this issue.
The simple fact of the matter is this: If a company came out and said they were in support of Gay Marriage, what would happen? Something tells me the Boston Government would not intervene. That’s because it’s not their place. Even though the nation is divided almost equally on the issue of Gay Marriage, the local government still wrongly forced their view of the issue on a business that was suppose to be operating in a free enterprise environment.
Mr. Mayor, let me ask you this: has Chick-Fil-A turned people away because they were homosexual? No. Have they asked people if they are heterosexual, or homosexual before they allow them to place an order for a meal? No. Atleast, I’ve never been asked that question.
Believe me, I eat a lot of Chick Fil A.
The attacks launched by Mayor Menino are not patriotic, he may believe he is standing up for ‘Civil Rights’ but he is merely launching an attack on a business because of the morals and beliefs they support and encourage. That is simply wrong and unconstitutional. His actions are simple: boycott and harm those who he disagrees with in order to gain more support from his constituents.
Mayor Menino, if you are a man of morals, a man who stands up for Civil Rights, then I would encourage you to go after a different business: Planned Parenthood. Do they have beliefs? Sure. Are they entitled to their beliefs? Yes they are. What are their beliefs? Well, they are openly Pro-Choice, simply stating that they are Pro-Abortion. Would you boycott them if they wanted to open a new center? I’m not sure you wouldn’t, but want thing I do know for sure is that they do preform abortions, therefore, practicing their beliefs.
Being in a position of authority, especially in the American Government, it is flat our wrong to pick winners and losers.
Chick-Fil-A has beliefs but does not force them on others. If you want to be a Civil Rights activist, a true activist, then fight for the defenseless unborn. I advise you to contact and put pressure on the local Planned Parenthood center, they truly discriminate. Chick-Fil-A believes in traditional marriage, but is not discriminating upon others. Want to fight for Civil Rights? Here, I’ll help you out! Their address is: 1055 Commonwealth Avenue Boston, MA 02215. Oh and their phone number? (800) 258-4448
Stand up for real Civil Rights, Mayor Menino.
A T-shirt slogan that caught my attention last week, “Jesus is not a homophobe” so intrigued me I googled the word homophobe and according to internet lore it was coined in the sixties by George Weinberg, a Gay activist and psychologist who defined it as an irrational fear of homosexuals, a contagion of sorts. Boy, how things have changed. I don’t fear catching the lifestyle, but wrath from the LGBT agenda, now that’s another story.
The word Homophobe has since evolved from it’s clinical definition to the role of a de-humanizing slang-shooting weapon when referring to people of faith; particularly Christians by those in the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender (LGBT) community, and now recently the Obama administration has joined in on the assault. Is it not always the case that the folks most involved in helping those who are hurting often seem to get the brunt end of the stick ?
So exactly what should governments role be in the matter ? Let me borrow a phrase from Jay Warner Wallace at Please Convince me. Should the government permit Gay marriage ? Should they even go further and promote it ? Or simply prohibit it ? Those are all questions for all of us to figure out, but each one of those questions have consequences. I think we can figure them out right out of the gate.
I see a contradiction in our government supporting the LGBT community and Gay marriage while holding fast philosophically to Darwinian Evolution. A belief in Darwinism is a belief against same sex marriage, and the Gay community–no way around it. Remember The United States government made a philosophical commitment to Darwinian Evolution starting in 1962-(63) when they essentially threw out school prayer and the Bible, thus Creationism as a popular view of our origins began its steep decent. So no surprise we are discussing this.
Let’s think about science for a moment. The very definition of Darwinian Evolution concerning humanity essentially says; mankind evolved from a combination of genetic drift, mutation, and natural selection in such a way so that the survival of the fittest is afforded the right of reproduction. All those in the animal kingdom failing to reproduce the right genes will disappear into extinction. Not a pleasant thought.
So hear this clearly: according to Natural Selection, the major stanchion of Darwinian evolution; is also the damming component that makes support for same sex relationships as a continuing advancement to civil society, biologically futile. Bottom-line is that same sex couples can not reproduce and thus have no future from a purely Darwinian evolutionary perspective. The Obama administrations support for same-sex relationships is purely political and nothing else.
If your in the LGBT community this is bad news— according to Darwin extinction is the Gay communities destiny; and in the interim they are being played like chess pieces by the Obama political machine. To say it another way–your’e being punk’d. Yet, the very people you despise–Christians, have been telling you the truth–that Gay and Lesbian behavior is just that–behavior that can and should be changed not according to me, but according to the Creator of the Universe.
Jesus promoted a heterosexual lifestyle. The Bible is chock full of both warnings against this behavior and many others as well. However it is also filled with encouragement, and a way out of the same-sex bondage. Please hear me–there is a way out! Our current government, and Darwinism are not filled with anything but tyranny, strife, and extinction if you take them seriously—I don’t for most of it, but the inability to reproduce from same-sex couples is a fact as well as the Biblical immorality of it. Please think through your decision making and turn from the Gay life style.
Finally, as I think back to the slogan, “Jesus is not a homophobe” I do agree that he was not, and no one who follows Jesus should be either. I can’t say I have been perfect in this. I certainly have my list of sins I have wrestled with, but if I want to follow Jesus’ example then I need to tell the truth even if it is not popular. No, Jesus is not a homophobe he is a straight talking savior. Promoting marriage between a man and a women makes biological and ethical sense, don’t you agree ?
Some “Constitutionalists” say that “social issues” are not for election years – as if social issues were absent Constitutional basis.
Listening as a Democrat pundit said Thursday that sixty-something percent of Americans “support marriage” but saying so in a way that was intended to purport that the same majority supported gay marriage, the goal of redefining what marriage actually means felt eerily near to coming to fruition. The guest also mentioned that Obama’s recent evolution on gay marriage was a show of support for “marriage”. Whoever rejects Obama’s push to redefine marriage is now effectively against marriage according to the interviewee.
Semanticism is the tool of the left – redefining terms in a way that is socially, although illogically, acceptable in the hopes of diminishing an institution or idea that is an obstacle to realizing the unicorn-trodden, rainbow-emblazoned progressive stomping ground known as Utopia.
Marriage is the foundation of family. Family is what comes together in times of hardship to weather the storm. If the progressives can dismantle strong families they can create an entirely government dependent culture – one that could never, ever vote them out for the fear of having no one left to take care of them. As the Washington Post printed today.. why bother getting married at all? And if you do, getting divorced may not be as bad as you used to think.
Then there is the contracteption mandate in Obamacare. Obama’s regulatory agency has made an exception that defines who or what is or is not a religious institution when considering the requirement for employers to provide reproductive coverage (a.k.a. contraception) to employees. It dictates which institutions are or are not a church based on how they are ministered to. The definition is narrow, narrow-minded and built to destroy the current understanding of the wall between church and state. It is, as progressives are fond to admit, a nudge – a nudge intended to end another non-governmental safety-net: the church.
Those who would say that this election is not about these issues, but instead about the Constitution confuse me. Marriage is not a power enumerated in the Constitution and is therefor the States’ to handle – so says the tenth amendment. Why wouldn’t staunch Constitutionalists step-up to say that the federal government cannot decide who may or may not get married? The separation of church and state (1st amendment), although bastardized by the left, was intended to prevent exactly the kind of oppressive activity that the Obama administration is undertaking against the Catholic church. Those who purport a firm understanding of our founding document can’t be found to argue these important issues. They are after all “social issues” that they cannot be bothered with. What will happens when those disenfranchised by this nudge are not there to protect the strict Consitutionalists when a different amendment is under attack? Nothing, they’ll simply be the next domino to fall in the progression of liberal oppression.
If this nudge simply redefines what a church is or what is the definition of marriage, what will the next one bring?
These may seem like small things when viewed in a 30-second television sound bite, but they are nibbles – small bites out of the basis of American society intended to bring about a new one – without families, churches, opportunity or freedom.
The real test of a Constitutionalist is not what they do when their own rights are being threatened – but what they do when the rights of someone with whom they disagree are in peril. The redefinitions of marriage and church are exactly those tests by which Conservatives will be judged.
It was Karl Marx who said, “History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.” We are fast approaching the farce stage.
On Wednesday, May 9, 2012, President Unbelievable Gall (otherwise known as Barack Hussein Obama) said that members of the US military are “fighting on my behalf.” That sentiment sounds eerily familiar. It was Adolf Hitler who had the German military swear allegiance to him, not to Germany.
Obama’s lack of accomplishments is well documented by Gina Aveni. She says, “The new approach is an attempt to win votes ….” So now this gay marriage diversion and vote buying attempt has caused Obama to open his mouth once again.
In taking the Führer Oath, the German Army swore allegiance not to Germany, its constitution, or its flag, not to the constitution, but to Adolf Hitler personally who attained absolute power over the German people. The word “führer” in the German language ie equivalent to what we call a “leader” or “guide” or “dictator.” This site has a very brief history of what happened in Germany. The similarities between then and what is happening now is striking.
For comparison, let’s look at the oath sworn by the US military today, and what happened to the German military oath before and after Hitler came to power.
Current US military officer oath:
I, _____ having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.
Current US military enlisted oath:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Nowhere in either oath is Obama’s named mentioned.
German military oath before Hitler took over:
I swear by almighty God this sacred oath: I will at all times loyally and honestly serve my people and country and, as a brave soldier I will be ready at any time to stake my life for this oath.
German military oath after Hitler took over:
I swear by almighty God this sacred oath: I will render unconditional obedience to the Führer of the German Reich and people, Adolf Hitler, Supreme Commander of the Wehrmacht, and, as a brave soldier, I will be ready at any time to stake my life for this oath.
Did Obama make a Freudian slip? Obama’s remark was couched in homosexual rights terms and how he has evolved on gay marriage. But we have to wonder about his ultimate intentions. Does he really think the US military is fighting on his behalf? Polls of former and current US military personnel suggest otherwise.
Additionally, Hitler’s rise to power is not the only similarity to Obama’s current situation. Look at these promises Hitler made:
- To Unemployed Workers: Jobs building public works such as roads
- To the Middle Class: To restore the profits of small business and the value of savings
- To Farmers: Higher prices for their produce, making up for all their losses during the Depression
Do any of today’s promises from Obama sound familiar? Is history repeating itself?
But that’s just my opinion.
“It isn’t so much that liberals are ignorant. It’s just that they know so many things that aren’t so.” – Ronald Reagan
Cross-posted at RWNO, my personal web site.
obama announced Wednesday that he now supports same-sex marriage, reversing his public opposition after feeling pressure from several Democrats, including his own Vice President, Joe Biden.
obama’s position on same-sex marriage has changed several times during his hideously dishonest, radically motivated, meteoric career. In 1996, he was in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage. Then, in 2008 his view “magically” switched to “marriage is between a man and a woman”. More recently, up until Wednesday, his opinion was “evolving”.
What this reveals about obama is how coldly calculating is his timing. Each and every reversal of position coincidentally benefited obama’s political prospects enormously. It’s clearly not an accident that each shift in his position happened at exactly the right time…for him.
Back in 1996, while running in a Democratic primary to become an Illinois State Senator from Chicago, he took the position that suited the views of that electorate. He was an open supporter of same-sex marriage.
When obama announced in 2008 that he believed marriage should be between a man and a woman, he was running a nationwide campaign for president. He clearly understood that Electoral College votes might not fall his way if he openly supported gay marriage. Naturally, since the ends justify the means, a dishonest shift in his position seemed perfectly appropriate to him. As was his tactic in the 1996 State Senate campaign, he tailored his views to suit the electorate.
Now in 2012, when he’s struggling to raise funds for his re-election, obama suddenly supports same-sex marriage…again.
It’s no mystery that the gay community makes big donations to Democratic campaigns. Since obama needs donations from the deep-pocketed gay community, don’t expect him to change his position on same sex marriage again. That is, unless and until it becomes politically expedient.
Since he first took center stage within the national public eye, obama’s constantly preached about how he will have the most transparent administration in American history. In this instance, on this issue, that claim carries a semblance of truth.
What are the odds?
Where: Streaming Internet Radio
What: Join Social Media Director of ConservativeDailyNews.com, Michelle Ray (@GaltsGirl) as she discusses the issues that impact America.
Show Recording: (Available after show)
Marriage between a man and a women, once a joyous occasion with no cultural back-lash other then a few of your old buddies (man’s perspective) teasing you about being hen pecked may now be in danger of becoming a cultural litmus test before the “I do”. The politically charged debate is now in the cross-hairs of the ever-ready Obama war machine.
President Obama, has managed a War on Guns, a War on Women, a War on Big oil, a War on Wall St., and amazingly a War on Terror; tapping out the number one villain in the world Osama Bin Laden. Only Pharaoh could boast so much—until one day he met a man called Moses who took him on a humbling swimming lesson in the Red sea. This War on Marriage may just be the stretch run gambit the president regrets later in life.
We must ask ourselves, does President Obama, like his historical, and egotistical Egyptian predecessor, have the interests of the people at heart ? Does this president agree with the interests of those involved in the Gay and Lesbian persuasion as he “evolves” on the issue, or are they being used as political pawns to be discarded after the election is over ? Here is a preview of what I think the presidents War on Marriage playbook might look like based on what I have seen so far.
First off, our president is not without help. His Hollywood and Big Media troubadours continue to create a narrative that points to a Boogieman—that would be you an me. Mothers, fathers, parents who believe deeply in their conviction that marriage is a sacred vow since time immemorial between a man and a women–it’s never been any different.
However, the President’s chief henchmen, Eric Holder is smart enough to know that time does not make an argument, after-all slavery had gone on for a long time, and so the equivocation of slavery and same sex marriage is a fairly easy sell—but a flawed one. False comparisons with ethnicity and behavior will be their narrative.
Secondly, the administration could play the racist segregation theme as well; that mothers and fathers, parents that want to uphold traditional marriage are one and the same with those bigots who were against blacks and whites marrying one another long ago. We hear these straw man arguments already, and I find those kind of comments truly offensive.
Considering that both President Obama, and Attorney General Holder are both black men who have experienced racism in their lives, yet overcame such discrimination with grit and determination, I suspect their words may resonate particularly well with those who are still struggling in life be it financially or otherwise.
Thirdly, are the issues of benefits. It would seem unfair to deny health care and certain tax benefits to a couple in love. After-all, does it seem fair to deny a sick person health care ? Considering the Obama-Care is now in the hands of the Supreme Court, I expect the president to maneuver and associate the same sex marriage debate as part and parcel of the controversial health care legislation.
If he can successfully tie that narrative in, he will pressure the Supreme’s who are no different then you and me in their human desire to be loved and respected. The strategy is simple: obfuscate the issue of same-sex marriage with healthcare enough, ultimately so you can’t have one without the other.
Finally, so what are people who believe marriage is between a man and a women to do ? Considering the above strategies in some form or another will intensify, I think the following three steps should be on every conservatives mind in some form or another.
Number one, stay on subject—marriage. This is what the debate is about, nothing else. Not healthcare, not slavery, not racial intermarriage, not even people who claim their in love. Its about an institution that has the biological advantage of having a mom and a dad for children to learn from each parent with their unique gender advantages.
Gays and Lesbians have the right to do as they please, but they do not have the right to redefine marriage for all of us. Having no children is not an argument against traditional marriage any more then it is an argument for same sex marriage. It’s about upholding values that sustain civility for society.
Number two, marriage is a biological must for the human race to progress into a civil and technologically advanced society—it is more then just survival of the human race. Without it, I doubt seriously I would be here writing this piece, and frankly there would be few of you who would know how to even read it—let alone on a computer.
We need to be thankful to someone for this grand institution called marriage— I will leave that up to you who that is.
Number three, we need to concern ourselves with those who we disagree with on these major issues. I have had a similar conversation with some in the gay community. I care for their survival, their health, their prosperity—and as a Christian their ultimate welfare. I must admit I wasn’t always this way. Show you care, engage people you differ with in dialogue—have conversations that don’t burn bridges—the cause is worthwhile.
In the end, some may think I may be falsely mis-characterizing the president. I have thought about this, and I don’t think so. Reading both his books, (still not finished) watching him for almost four years now, seeing him instructing his Attorney General not to enforce DOMA ( Defense of Marriage Act), I believe he is making a pure political calculation no more no less.
Yet, as personable and likable as he comes off, I believe his vision for America is dangerous and most uniquely disguised as peaceful–a rare trait. For me and my family, I think the president is sailing in sacred waters which may well sink his hope and change chariot.
Special thanks to www.nationformarriage.org.
Obama is running around like a hysterical schoolgirl courting his left-wing base, which is a portentous sign for an incumbent who should be wooing the moderate middle like Selma Hayek worked the room in Dogma.
The war on moms, condomgate, dog-eating, and now rainbow flag-waving studs in assless chaps complete the sideshow circus tableau for our nation to move ‘forward’ into. If the mise-en-scène is not jovial, it sure is frivolous; ‘gay’ in more than one regard.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that. I had more than a few gay friends in college, an institute of higher learning that unfortunately was not too adept at the finer points of rhetorical parlance. One of my friends came out of the closet and I neither had a clue he was gay, nor did I bat an eye. Consider it a lack of gaydar that springs from a devil-may-care individualist streak.
Apologias aside, the gay mafia demanded its pound of flesh from Obama in exchange for a commitment to ‘marriage equality,’ and he both pandered and hedged at the same time: he paid lip service to a supposedly lofty ideal while maintaining the status quo — a familiar track record for the president and a sign of electoral weakness.
Obama has thereby inflamed the more extreme elements of his base by opting for an ‘evolved’ position that basically says it’s super if states want to pass gay marriage laws, a non-committal committal if there ever was one, while chilling the religious ‘black community’ he needs another strong showing from on election day. Van Jones can flippantly make remarks about Obama coming out as gay and not losing any of the black vote — wait, why is an avowed communist and known truther doing on MSNBC again?
But all shamanlike attempts at political weathermaking aside, we’re not likely to see Obama gyrating his hips to the Village People in front of a phallic variation of the Greek columns anytime soon. The president has seemed truly uncomfortable dealing with issues of homosexuality.
If one might be allowed to speculate, could it be that the same syncretist faith background that had young Obama munching on tigers, snakes, and dogs has lodged a tiny mote in the president’s eye when it comes to same-sex relations?
Oh, but I forgot. The man who must have an assuredly remarkable conversion story had this to say in 2008:
I believe marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it’s also a sacred union.
Of course, what one considers ‘sacred’ is a subjective matter, as one readily sees with the “goddamn-ing” “Reverend” Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s long-time spiritual adviser. Radical politics, as destructive as they are, are their own millenarian faith system.
But the president’s willingness to utter verbiage suggesting he holds something inviolable, while later demonstrating not only political shiftiness but personal rootlessness, demonstrates a hollowed out man without a core. Obama is thus a kaleidoscopic character — one composed of distorting mirrors and a fracturing worldview. And yet the rainbow colors sure are pretty.
This isn’t to say that the man is not an ideologue — he most certainly is, albeit of a particular sort. The ironic thing about cosmopolitan socialism is that the moral leveling that stems from a dogmatic faith in equality and relativism leads one to rigidly and radically oppose anything that vaguely smacks of judgment. Bigotry thereby becomes the greatest sin in the left’s moral universe. Thus, while the right is crying out for the left to do something constructive about the disastrous economic situation, the left is obsessing about such fetishes as whether or not the state recognizes gay marriage.
What if the state did recognize gay marriage? Then what? Would it really make life that much better for gay couples who can openly and legally live with one another already? Isn’t marriage a ‘patriarchal’ institution? In any event, aren’t there more important things to focus on when the country is being led into normalized poverty and the government is bribing all comers with taxpayer money so politicians can remain entrenched in filthy power?
That is why gay issues are a distraction on the national stage at this point in time, as seriously as some may take them. As a conservatarian, I’d prefer to see such social issues taken off the table as playthings of the political parties, meaning the state should see its way out of such intimate and private matters. The church should be able to decide who is married and who isn’t; while the state should legally recognize civil unions for adults who want to bestow legal privileges on one another, such as power of attorney or child custody. This is not to say “anything goes.” But gay couples who want to call themselves ‘married’ in public must have the free speech right to do so.
Gay people should not be so beholden to the government that they crave its recognition. Sexuality is not the end-all, be-all of human identity. But it has become a politicized aspect of life for the everything-is-political left.
Liberty and individual rights, for all Americans, are what voters should rally around. No one should be a fool for the left-wing drama queens, who are gobbling up immense bits of power like cherry bon-bons after a Liza Minnelli moviethon.
North Carolina is now the 31st state to approve a constitutional amendment on marriage. NC voters banned same-sex marriage, also barring legal recognition of unmarried couples by state and local governments. And now Obama has come out with a public statement exclaiming he is absolutely in favor of gay marriage. For once, I am elated at something he has done. This “evolving” position coming from Obama is more proof of how out of step with the American people he really is.
Gay marriage is an oxymoron. Nothing about it fits or works or makes sense in any way. When we stop defining issues Biblically and through common sense and began interpreting everything emotionally, the truth becomes irrelevant and insanity reigns. However, rather than focusing on gay marriage specifically, consider the irrationality of homosexuality.
Homosexuals do not match physically. There is no point in elaborating with a description of male and female anatomy. Besides, my writings are always G rated. Homosexuals, and especially men, are more susceptible to health problems, infections and a shorter life span than heterosexuals. There is conclusive proof available in studies for those who will search the internet and in libraries. People of the same sex do not fit one another physically. Have you ever noticed among homosexual men, one tends to be more masculine and the other feminine and among lesbian couples, one tends toward masculinity and the other is more feminine? This unintentional tendency to define two genders validates heterosexuality.
Homosexuals do not match emotionally. Men think and respond differently on issues because they ARE DIFFERENT. Remember the “Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus” book a few years back? Read the following conclusion from a totally secular and objective source (So this is not some fundamentalist Baptist preacher beating you with the Bible): Men and women are actually from the same planet, but scientists now have the first strong evidence that the emotional wiring of the sexes is fundamentally different. An almond-shaped cluster of neurons that processes experiences such as fear and aggression hooks up to contrasting brain functions in men and women at rest, the new research shows. For men, the cluster “talks with” brain regions that help them respond to sensors for what’s going on outside the body, such as the visual cortex and an area that coordinates motor actions. For women, the cluster communicates with brain regions that help them respond to sensors inside the body, such as the insular cortex and hypothalamus. These areas tune in to and regulate women’s hormones, heart rate, blood pressure, digestion and respiration. http://www.livescience.com/4085-emotional-wiring-men-women.html Homosexuals have a lower level of good emotional health, self-esteem and general mental and emotional stability, with higher levels of depression, than heterosexuals.
Homosexuals cannot naturally and normally fulfill the fundamental desire inherent in both sexes to reproduce. Homosexuals love to counter this with cases of infertility among normal couples and how they do not have to accept childlessness because of medical breakthroughs and adoption options. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? The majority of heterosexual couples are fertile and do conceive and have children with no medical or adoption assistance and only a minority have fertility problems. However, 100 % of homosexual couples cannot conceive normally. Reason? They are not supposed to because men and men and women and women were not designed to marry and have children. Sex is a means to an end and that end is reproduction.
Homosexuality makes no sense. It is illogical. Homosexual sex is irrational, aberrant, immoral, destructive and defies common sense. The majority of people are not homosexual, and are not born that way. In one study, a considerably higher number of homosexual men and women were sexually molested as children (46% of the homosexual men questioned in contrast to 7% of the heterosexual men reported homosexual molestation. 22% of lesbian women in contrast to 1% of heterosexual women reported homosexual molestation). Also, bad parental relationships have a bearing on the cause of homosexuality. However, God designed us to be heterosexual and nothing will ever change this.
Joseph Harris, [email protected] has been a college professor and pastor since 1987 and his writings have appeared on stupidpoliticians.com, WND, Sword of the Lord, Intellectual Conservative, Conservative Daily News, Canada Free Press, Land of the Free, The Post Chronicle and News America Daily.
For those of you that haven’t read my bio here, and wandered off to my personal site (shame on you!), I must offer the following disclaimer. I am an atheist, so therefore, I have no vested interest in promoting any faith of any kind. Conversely, I don’t bother to say anything against religions, unless their followers start doing silly things, like attempting to have their rights respected over anyone else’s. After all, I fit in that “anyone else” category.
So, it should go without saying that I don’t agree with Kirk Cameron on just about anything when it comes to religion. Hell, I don’t agree with him when it comes to social issues either, but that’s because I have this little problem with government sticking its nose into people’s personal lives. However, I must give this man credit for how he handled Ann Curry! I’ve seen my share of public figures from the world of social conservatives that couldn’t have managed to keep their cool under that pressure. They would have flown into yet another tirade about their faith, that would have left Curry with a new pile of “objectionable comments” for ammunition. I mean seriously, how can she come back firing on a man that calmly sits there and tells her that he loves everyone? Brilliant!
One thing I would love to see is Cameron answer a couple questions for me. I understand that he believes that being gay is wrong, and that gay marriage is detrimental to society. That’s fine. However, does he also believe that members of say the United Church of Christ, or the Unitarian Universalist Church do not have a right to observe their religions freely in this country? It is an honest question, since last I checked, both of these institutions recognize gay marriage. See, I think I might have the advantage here as the atheist, because I didn’t arrive where I am as far as faith and religions are concerned without taking the time to try to find something to believe in. Obviously, I failed in that task, but I did learn quite a bit about many religious sects in my travels. My point is that every time I hear Christian right-wing people preaching about the sins of alternative sexuality, I cringe. While they might think they are speaking for all Christians, they actually aren’t. Or even if they do recognize that there are other varieties of Christianity out there, they don’t seem to take them seriously enough to stand up and defend their right to observe their religion.
Well, that’s more than enough preaching in one day for this atheist! I’ll just say this: Ann Curry, if you ever decide to interview Kirk Cameron again, please don’t bother asking him about any hot-button issues, or suggest that he is a hateful man. You simply don’t have the chops to face him in a one-on-one interview without making a fool of yourself.
What’s in a headline? In this day and age, a lot. Internet, smart phones, Twitter, Facebook- all of these world-changing advances have also left us with a shortened attention span. Web magazines and iPads have begun to replace the traditional forms of print media. For many, the headline of a story and perhaps the first paragraph is all they will read. “Headline readers” rarely dig into the meat of an article, let alone take any time to investigate the claims made in the body of the text itself. Journalists and opinion writers struggle with this phenomenon. A headline should grab a reader’s attention, but should it do so dishonestly?
A friend who despises the “social conservatives” in the GOP primary race sent me a blog post recently. The title – “Three GOP Candidates Sign Pledge to Investigate LGBT Community” . How alarming! My friend was making the point that social conservatives are crazy, and here is a blog that has revealed the true depth of their depravity! It was certainly a disturbing headline, but my citizen journalist brain knew better than to trust that. I read the entire post. I wanted proof. Here it is, beginning to end:
Get ready for another round of McCarthyism. Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Santorum have all signed a pledge to form a commission to investigate the LGBT community if elected President.
This pledge was created by the National Organization For Marriage, and they have a history of extreme views against homosexuals and anyone who votes to extend marriage rights to them.
The pledge reads as follows.
I, [candidate name], pledge to the American people that if elected President, I will:
[…] establish a presidential commission on religious liberty to investigate and document reports of Americans who have been harassed or threatened for exercising key civil rights to organize, to speak, to donate or to vote for marriage and to propose new protections, if needed.
In other words, the extreme right wing is going to persecute homosexuals on a whole new level if they have power after the 2012 Election. Homosexuals and supporters of marriage equality will be intimidated, interrogated, and stripped of their right to speak freely. The religious right wing has been allowed to push their un-American and unconstitutional agenda for far too long. Americans must push back. If we continue to do nothing, we could all be persecuted by this fanatical group. -Stephen D. Foster, Jr.
Mr. Foster’s headline was based on quite a few shoddily built bridges. Of course this pledge said nothing about investigating homosexuals, throwing them in jail or stealing away gay people in the middle of the night to imprison and torture. Foster’s first bridge is built on the fact that the pledge was developed by the National Organization for Marriage. His opinion is that they hate homosexuals because they advocate for traditional marriage. So it wouldn’t matter what the wording of the pledge was, simply signing it makes you a hate-monger.
Foster’s second bridge to nowhere connecting homophobia to the candidates comes when he takes the phrase “investigate and document reports of Americans who have been harassed” for their views and opinions to mean homosexuals everywhere will be thrown into dank, dark dungeons never to be heard from again. His language is so alarmist and desperate its laughable. Is this reporting? The pledge does advocate the desire to protect the very first amendment rights Mr. Foster so desperately decries will be stripped from the homosexual community. He may not realize that advocates of traditional marriage have been threatened, had their personal voting and financial records released and have been specifically targeted. When citizens are specifically targeted and threatened for holding opinions, that is a threat to all Americans. NOM feels strongly about protecting that right, and that sentiment should be supported by all Americans, regardless of opinion. If Foster was so terrified homosexuals losing their freedom of speech he might rethink this entire piece.
Regardless of Foster’s personal sentiments and the candidate’s own positions on the issue, the point is that his headline was not only misleading and alarmist, it was false. My bone of contention is not with his opinion but with his false reporting. Personal opinions of gay marriage notwithstanding, the pledge used no strong language, inappropriate terms or hateful rhetoric. Foster “proves” it is hateful simply by saying so. He caps his post with a dire warning: “...we could all be persecuted by this fanatical group“. As a blogger, I find Foster’s dishonest attempt to garner readership despicable. If you are going to report, report the facts as they stand. Give your opinion in the body of the post, of course. However, don’t lead with a headline that sets up a lie, then use your opinion as proof of that lie. Its tacky. Unfortunately, the Stephen Foster’s of this world count on the short attention span of modern Americans. They count on the hope that most readers won’t read beyond the headline, or bother to investigate arbitrary claims made by opinion bloggers.