The exceedingly stupid author fails to realize (or mention) that redefining marriage will essentially crush us all.
Probably the origins of homosexual fascism have its roots in the disgusting acts they perform. Something the author doesn’t recognize or understand.
Interesting. It’s obvious the author opposes homofascism, but it’s also obvious the author has no clue about the fact that God is not mocked, and our nation’s embrace of homosexuality is mocking Him. His wrath is already falling on us because of our collective depravity. Our formerly rich and prosperous nation is teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. How much more wrath do we want poured out on us? So this embrace of homosexuality ain’t a “victimless” crime.
All these libertarian types who supported gay marriage must be horrible chess players; they cannot think more than one move ahead. The SSM movement has been very successful in marketing themselves as the successor of the Civil Rights movement; not allowing SSM is the same as not allowing interracial marriage. What happened to the segregationists post-1960s? They were driven out of polite society and such views are not tolerated. With SSM on the verge of the final SCOTUS coup de grace it is entirely expected that those who opposed SSM will also like segregationists be driven out of society. But for some reason people like Klavan did not realize that and are now being thrown under the bus since they served their useful idiot purpose.
“Is it better for the state that those relationships be brief, brutish and meaningless or committed, affectionate and long-lasting? You figure it out.”
This line betrays the authors naivety. The state has no business encouraging either. Surely if the state really looked out for its interest, it would favor having these people just enter heterosexual relationships.
Besides, even with homo marriage, the relationships STILL end up being vast majority brief, brutish and meaningless. All you’ve done is given it a government seal of approval
The satanic left, led by the homosexuals and feminazi’s, are not interested in ‘live and let live’. They will howl and squeal like a pig any time they don't get their way - and their way is literally ‘my way or the highway’.
The homosexual agenda must either be eradicated, contained, or like a cancer will spread until the host is no more.
AK gets a lot right but not this.
One cannot serve two masters, have ones cake and eat it too...which he tries to do here. I think in a vacuum, he would be right...but we are not in one. Homosexuality comes with strings attached. Death, mental illness exasperated by the act itself, disease, corruption of our foundational principles...it’s a long list.
Homosexuals do not simply do their thing. There are far reacing and very negative consequences to ‘their thing’. Their thing involves AIDS, chickenhawkery, political facism, anti religious sentiment forced on the religious and dozens of others.
In realistic terms, this situation is all but settled...the courts have allowed ‘anything goes’ regardless of what individual states and their citizens want. That said, the ‘state’ redefining marriage is not to be excused. The author’s argument has some merit (about gay relationships). The legal and economic argument of giving two gay men or women the same rights as a married couple is a reasonable argument. Whether it is tax benefit, legal rights in court and in hospitals. A stable relationship is a far better thing than perpetual singlehood. Personally, I know many gay partners who have 15+ years together.
That said, redefining marriage is just plain wrong. The government should never have had a role in defining marriage so it could be redefined by government fiat. The government now supersedes individual religion, which is a horrible development. Unfortunately this happened swiftly and with little discussion or debate...it was done with a hammer by the left and no counter-argument was made....those against have stated a belief in traditional marriage, but that is not sufficient nor has it moved the ball back in the right direction. It is likely too late policy wise, but I would love to see at least one state move to establish a domestic partnership law in lieu of ‘marriage’ and take it through the court system.
I agree with this guy in concept. There are always going to be gay people. As long as they stay on their side of the room and don’t intrude into my side I can live with that. I’m not going to condemn them. That’s God’s job. But I’m not going to let them force me to accept their lifestyle as normal or provide services for them against my will nor am I going to allow them to escort a young male cub scout troop with my grandson into the woods alone against my better judgment either. There are reasons for socital limitations on what is considered normal or deviant behavior and it comes from judgment based on prior experiences. No amount of PC will make me give in and go against my better judgment. Stop the Homo Nazification of our children and stop trying to breed a new generation of perverts and we can get along.
However, as a Catholic I am convinced that the entire Moral Law can be reached via reason drawing reasonable conclusions from evidence, which is to say, the entire Divine Moral Law can be learned from, Natural Law, since they both have the same Author.
And what that means is that active homosexuality will work the destruction of individuals, families, cultures and civilizations. It has as much disruptive power, cumulatively, as a nuclear war.
So it looks like we're going to have to actually experience increasing inundations of suffering, all of us (not just the perps) because people will not heed a warning.
I remember the incident in “One Million Dead,” (by Jose Maria Gironella, on the Spanish Civil War) where the far-Left commander Buenaventura Durruti is leading a column of Anarchist troops to try to take the city of Zaragoza. The effort fails, partly just from anarchists-being-anarchists, and partly from the sexual disorder sweeping the ranks, with venereal diseases having a greater impact on the troops than even mortar injuries.
At one point Durruti separates out all the homosexuals and gonorrhea-infected militiawomen from his forces, puts them in boxcars, takes them off on a railway siding, and mows them down with a machinegun.
Not my recommendation, by the way.
But it does show that the Spanish Left was even in the 1930’s a haven for disordered, promiscuous people (both hetero and homo) and even the Left found that sexual disorder (in any kind of “sexual”) is incompatible with combat-readiness.
Note to the DoD.
Countless judicial decisions and legislative enactments have relied on the ancient proposition that a governing majority’s belief that certain sexual behavior is “immoral and unacceptable” constitutes a rational basis for regulation. (...)State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices. (...)
“The law,” it said, “is constantly based on notions of morality, and if all laws representing essentially moral choices are to be invalidated under the Due Process Clause, the courts will be very busy indeed.”
~ Justice Scalia, Lawrence v. Texas dissent
From the article ...
> Sin is not the government’s business, no matter what clever
> rationales you come up with to make it so.
Really? Murder, stealiing, and false witness are sins, too. You mean the government should butt out of those, too?
Right out of the chute, the author has the Gospel wrong. His info may be from the "Gospels", but this is not the "Gospel". Go read Paul's letter to the Romans. In the Gospels, Jesus was teaching the Jews that if they want Law to be their salvation, here is what is involved...perfection. Otherwise, God will grant faith to those whom He has chosen (by grace, alone) and rescue them because He has decided. No wonder the author cannot see the picture...he has been blinded by "religion".
“Why can’t we all get along”? Did Rodney King write this article?
“Why can’t we all get along”? Did Rodney King’s ghost write this article?
Here the author reveals his simple-minded naivety. Before us we see the growing destruction resulting from everyone doing whatever is right int heir own eyes. Before us we see the devolution of the moral safe guards that have kept a free people from becoming debased by their appetites and own carnality. From this, no good will come. Be assured, only pain, misery, and brokenness will be the result of the attitude of the author.
How much human misery will we allow by having the author's misplaced high-minded attitude of tolerance? The problem is that this tolerance will most certainly exact an unmistakably harsh penalty on society and upon individuals. The decent into craven lust will certainly not end with homosexuality. There will be new demands for acceptance of increasingly vulgar and debased behavior. Pedophilia, bestiality, polygamy and the sort will soon be up for negotiation by those who tell us that there is no collateral damage or appropriate offense to be taken. The author is woefully misguided by suggesting that those who object to homosexuality do so only out of venial concern or out of an outdated moral code.
Like many others, the author disingenuously equates those who oppose the practice of homosexuality as those who also hate the individuals who have surrendered themselves to such a practice. This is a false narrative that has been cleverly leveraged by those seeking to advance the practice of homosexuality.
No, the author is wrong.
The author does not understand that the victory of ‘Gay Marriage’ = the victory of homofascism; the two are inseparable.
So people don’t have a right to make purchasing decisions if they think the merchant is an asshole? If I found out the guy that runs the McDonald’s near me was anti-whatever in a way that pissed me off, I’d probably find somewhere else to get chicken nuggets at midnight.