United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Homosexual movement threatens these freedoms
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Feb 17, 2015
Author: Gina Miller
Post Date: 2015-02-17 21:10:19 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 17571
Comments: 87
It is pointless to answer the insincere, bully arguments of militant homosexual activists, because they will not accept the truth, no matter how plainly, simply and in small words it is presented to them. These people have a propagandist mission of flooding conservative website comment sections with their deceptive talking points (which is why we have very little patience for allowing them to freely spread those lies on our comment forums). But, it is important to refute their lies for the many others out there who are not involved in watching this movement, who do not see its progress nor understand the very real danger to some of our fundamental freedoms that this movement poses. We are already seeing our rights being eroded. Just ask Christian business owners who are being successfully sued by homosexual activists when the Christians refuse to participate in the shameful abomination of marriage. The Left's fallacious argument that "business owners can't discriminate" against same-sex "marriage" customers is a bogus weapon that far too many people blindly accept. In a free nation, business owners are under no obligation to accept the business of anyone who walks in the door, much less those who are pushing a degenerate mockery of marriage in the face of the business owner. Do not be misled by homosexual activists' false comparison of the civil rights movement for the equal treatment of black people to homosexuals. That is a completely illegitimate equation. There is no correlation at all between the morally neutral, innate characteristic of ethnicity and the chosen, sinful behavior of homosexuality. As wise people in the black Christian community say, "Don't compare your sin to my skin!" Our society has become so deeply corrupt, that a growing number of people no longer believe that homosexual behavior is wrong, although it always has been wrong and always will be wrong. A growing number of people also do not understand that marriage is one thing only: the union of a man and a woman, and it can be nothing else, or it's not marriage. People who lack a right moral foundation will not accept the truth. However, a lack of understanding by anyone does not change the fact that our rights and freedoms are in the cross-hairs of the militant homosexual movement. If the evil sham of same- sex "marriage" and other "rights" of the homofascist movement are imposed on the entire United States of America, these freedoms will be in grave danger: Freedom of Conscience and Religion Christian business owners' freedom to run their businesses by the moral code of the Bible and according to their consciences will be effectively outlawed in America. They will not be free to reject the lying premise of same-sex "marriage," and under penalty of law, will be forced to violate their conscience and religious beliefs to accommodate same-sex "marriage" business demands. The countless examples of homo-activist lawsuits that have prevailed against Christian business owners who did not want to use their work to participate in same-sex "marriage" are already a testament to this truth. This will also affect countless other people of conscience, like marriage license clerks, who would be forced to issue these sham licenses to same-sex couples or lose their jobs. Freedom of Association "Discrimination" is a necessary thing in life (it simply means "to make a distinction"), but this word has been hijacked and turned into a weapon of tyranny being used against people of conscience. The "Employment Non- Discrimination Act" (ENDA) being pushed in Congress by homofascist sympathizers, would make it illegal to "discriminate" in hiring and firing practices against men who dress like women (and the reverse) or who display other in-your-face sexually deviant behavior. So, you don't want to hire a man dressed like Cher? Be prepared to get fined out of business, or worse, if this becomes law. Even though this has not yet become the law of the land, many major companies have already adopted internal policies to the same effect. They mandate the acceptance in the workplace of mentally disordered "transgender" people, who imagine they are the opposite sex. They even allow them to use the restroom of the opposite sex. You don't like it? Too bad! In many big corporations, if you want to keep your job, you no longer have the right to protest or state the obvious lunacy of such things, things that would have been rightly understood to be horribly outrageous just a few short years ago. Freedom to Protect Your Children From Pro-Homosexual Indoctrination If same-sex "marriage" and ENDA become law, the creeping pro-homosexual indoctrination in the public schools will become mandatory, as it already is in California. Parents will not be allowed to opt their kids out of being taught that same-sex "marriage" is real marriage, that boys and girls can choose which sex they want to be and that homosexual behavior is perfectly natural and normal, all of which are damnable lies. Even now, many parents don't realize that the "anti-bullying" programs in the public schools are nothing more than thinly disguised pro-homosexual propaganda. Want to shield your child from having a male teacher who dresses as a female or an aggressively open homosexual teacher? Again, too bad for you. Other Predictable Outcomes Freedom of speech is a big target of the entire radical Left, including its homofascist wing. The United States of America's First Amendment protection of our God-given freedom of speech is a great frustration to these people on the Left. All tyrannical regimes throughout the world and history have crushed free speech, because despots simply cannot allow the truth to be told about them. People who are free to speak are free to expose the desperate corruption of the evil guys who rule them and to declare that there is a better way than tyranny. Likewise, homosexualists despise the truth to be told about the immoral, unnatural, unhealthy behavior of homosexuality and "transgenderism." It is easily predictable that they will continue to work to silence those who oppose the part of their agenda that seeks to normalize perverse sexual behavior and destroy the meaning of marriage. Our freedom of speech will be in jeopardy if same-sex "marriage" and ENDA become bad law. They will accomplish this, as they have accomplished some of their other goals, through lawsuits that end up setting "precedent" and through the push for "hate speech" laws. We're already part-way there with unconstitutional "hate crimes" laws that apply unequal protection of the law, deeming some crime victims more worthy than others of their Orwellian protection. It is also predictable that churches will be targeted, as well. After all, if same-sex "marriage" is the law of the land, then what "right" do church leaders have to refuse to accommodate these sodomites who want to be "married" in the church? Don't doubt this for a minute! These people will not stop until they obliterate any opposition to their twisted, despotic agenda. As with everything the Left does, the "issue" is never the issue. For example, "Obamacare" is not about "affordable health care." It's about power and control over the medical industry, the health insurance industry, and our personal health care. In the same way, the man-made "global warming" hoax is not about "saving the planet." It, too, is about power and control over our freedom of movement, our private property rights and our very way of life. Obama's illegal amnesty is not about "compassion" for poor illegal aliens. It's about creating a massive, permanent underclass of Democrat voters. The same goes for the radical homosexual movement. Its members claim that they only want "marriage equality" (there is no such thing) and equal "rights" (they already have those), but the real goals of this evil movement are rooted in tyranny against our freedoms, especially Christian expression, and if it's not stopped, these and other freedoms will become a fading memory.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-10) not displayed.
.
.
.
#11. To: redleghunter, AKA Stone, Y'ALL (#9)
The problem is; -- Who gave the government, (Fed State or local) the power to define marriage? Not true. 2+2=4 is a universal mathematical truth. ---- "Marriage" was a religious term used by various religions, for various relationships. -- Till our govts started using it to control religions they didn't like, for example, the Mormons in Utah. I don't cater to queers. I could care less what their problems are about their living arrangements, and the feds should NOT give any tax breaks to anyone for their living arrangements. What the hell is immoral about wanting equal treatment under constitutional law? 2+2=4 is an absolute. Your 'Law Giver' is different from a Mormon's, for instance. Here in the USA, we obey a Supreme law, our Constitution.. Yep, like it's better for two criminals to go free, than one innocent man be convicted? --- Like that? Quite true. Thanks... We agree, except in this respect; there is no power in our Constitution that enables any level of govt to define marriage. [Or to give it tax breaks] -- And that's the problem..
Gonna have to agree with you here, Stone. Once the premise that a 5,000 year-long definition of "marriage" is indeed redefinable, it sabotages the entire language, and with it, the virtues of honesty and integrity. This kind of absurdity seemed to have begun when a certain President got away with, "That depends on what the meaning of 'Is' is."
Amoral not immoral.
The Declaration of Independance is superior to the constitution. For it allowed us to cut ties with another government. Also I would add the constitution asks for a "blessing" That only comes from God.
Come on -- your math is crooked. And so is your history. At NO time in the history of the world has "Marriage" EVER described a homosexual relationship. "Marriage" has been the definitive word to describe cultures -- BOTH secular AND religious -- as ONLY a man and woman who've bonded as mates.
Tax brakes are to help pay for the cost of raising children. Fags should have to pay an extra tax for spreading fag diseases like AIDS.
The same question applies. --What the hell is amoral/wrong about wanting equal treatment under constitutional law?
Mike Tyson should box in the womans Olympics. Once you can get by that let me know. We all want to be equal right. Any man can marry any woman. if you don't understand that you are as dense as the sneaky peter.
We agree, except in this respect; there is no power in our Constitution that enables any level of govt to define marriage. [Or to give it tax breaks] -- And that's the problem.. Then tie them into raising children, not into living arrangements... Fine with me, but I doubt we'd get much support. -- I'd rather we shitcanned the whole income tax, and found some constitutional tax method.. How bout you?
The government REDEFINING marriage violates the first amendments religious protection. If the constitution protects two perverts to redefine marriage. Then the constitution is a piece of shit document that I would never support. I would want its overthrow. I'd wipe my ass on it.
I get your point. -- But both Pete and I are far from 'dense'. -- And you're the boss here, so I guess equality under the law at LF is a moot point, aye?
You can have any view you want. You don't have to agree with me. Nothing personal I agree with most of what you say. It just infuriates me that society is being forced to accept a perversion as normal. It is sick stuff. That is not the purpose of government. I may criticize Pete a lot. But I never have banned him. I don't think I've even ever deleted one of his posts.
-- there is no power in our Constitution that enables any level of govt to define marriage. [Or to give it tax breaks] -- And that's the problem.. The government REDEFINING marriage violates the first amendments religious protection. My point is that govt has no power to define, or to REDEFINE.. -- So we agree. It doesn't, imho.
It just infuriates me that society is being forced to accept a perversion as normal. It is sick stuff. That is not the purpose of government. We agree. And I can't imagine why you think I'm for 'gay marriage'.
Which came first? The chicken or the egg?
"For holy Scripture establishes a rule to our teaching, that we dare not “be wiser than we ought;” but be wise, as he himself says, “unto soberness, according as unto each God hath allotted the measure of faith." (Augustine of Hippo (354–430)
At the least the above is 10,000 years of worldwide societal case law. SCOTUS loves case law. Wonder if they think they should trump 10,000 years of history.
"For holy Scripture establishes a rule to our teaching, that we dare not “be wiser than we ought;” but be wise, as he himself says, “unto soberness, according as unto each God hath allotted the measure of faith." (Augustine of Hippo (354–430)
I've been working on a theory that redlegged peckerheads may have been first. --- Whattdya think?
Humor...very un-libertarian:) Well we know it can't be the egg. As a mature hen lays eggs. But we know 'new' chickens, chicks come from eggs. So the Constitution of the United States of America is one such 'egg' and there were chickens and eggs before it. So somewhere there must be the unmoved chicken. You know the Rooster that got it all started.
"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:6-7)
That's BullBush. Many different societies have defined marriages many different ways. What you are describing is the definition of marriage by a tiny religious cult known as "Christians". Almost all other religions allowed multiple wives,and a lot of them allowed all sort of things that would make you faint dead away at the thought of them. If you want to say "1 man,1 wife is the accepted standard for marriage amongst Christians",you are correct. Not everybody is a Christian,though.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Not true. There were "male marriages" as well as "female marriages" in Europe,Asia,and even in what is now called North America by native tribes dating back thousands of years. It was said back in the late 1700-'s or early 1800's that "The British Navy runs on rum and sodomy" because so many sailors had wives on shore,and "ships wives" once they were at sea. I have a hard time believing the British Navy was unique in this.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
I have to admit that I am shocked to see you rally to the defense of the Mormons and their cultural desire to have more than 1 wife per family. Good for you!
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
BullBush! In some societies people have married their horses,their sisters,and even their daughters. Not to mention their brothers and cousins.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Not to mention their brothers and cousins. Quit bringing in your small town history Pete:)
"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:6-7)
Most people lived in small groups/tribes of hunter/gatherers before farming became common. Even after farming became common because farming used to be very labor intensive.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Sneakypete: Not true. There were "male marriages" as well as "female marriages" in Europe,Asia,and even in what is now called North America by native tribes dating back thousands of years. Educate me. In which societies, tribes, or cultures were "male marriages" or "female marriages" found acceptible? It was said back in the late 1700-'s or early 1800's that "The British Navy runs on rum and sodomy" because so many sailors had wives on shore,and "ships wives" once they were at sea. I have a hard time believing the British Navy was unique in this. That's some interesting queer trivia, but what has it to do with either "gay marriage"? (or you and Yukon?)
Quit bringing in your small town history Pete:) Lol... (And what?? No cousins??)
Yup, at least 10,000 years. From the day Eve, Steve and Adams first evolved and forged society's very first Threesome Hippie/Homo Marriage. ;-) SCOTUS loves case law. Wonder if they think they should trump 10,000 years of history. SCROTUS thinks they are so utterly "enlightened, " that led by Ruth Bader-Witchburg and womyn of SCROTUS, we know they will vote the usual 5-4 to discard the current definition of "marriage." Because not 10,000 years; NOT even one million years as traditional, usual, normal definition of "marriage" is enough consensus
Yes, I remember Badeye saying he was born in the wrong country and a bit too late. Except for the rum.
The homosexual movement is out to threaten social adherence to basic sanity. Threatening the reminents of such adherence from all directions has become a national sport and a symbol of diversity.
The ones which died out. No male-female "interaction" no babies. Boy even Dawkins could figure that one out:)
"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:6-7)
This one didn't: www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/fr...e/secrets-of-the-vatican/ The Eunuch drones have taken over the self-worshiping hive... and when that happens -- It's Romans 1:25+ time, again.
The homosexual movement is the consequential part of the cyclical human nature that is described in Romans 1:25+ "because of this, GOD GAVE THEM OVER"
Wow.
"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:6-7)
You finish that liberal book on Paul yet? Curious how it ended. Probably with endnotes from Vanity Fair.
"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:6-7)
Curious how it ended. "The bottom line is that no other historical account of earliest Christianity is similar to this one, because no other account adheres to the methodology that has been described here. They all violate it rampantly, not just on a few details; and all of them build their “historical” reconstructions primarily upon the Gospels and Acts, documents which are falsely alleged to be witness testimony, rather than upon the seven authentic letters by Paul, which are far higher quality evidence." Zuesse, Eric (2012-03-29). CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity . Hyacinth Editions. Kindle Edition. It ends like that.
Got insurance?
Educate yourself. That's some interesting queer trivia, but what has it to do with either "gay marriage"? Did you miss the part about "ship wives" being the norm? (or you and Yukon?) Yeah,I'm not an ignorant,superstitious,bigotted fool,so I MUST be queer,huh?
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
The ones which died out. No male-female "interaction" no babies. You are not stupid,so why do you insist on trying to pass yourself off as stupid? Homosexuals have always been a tiny minority of the human population,and the fact that they were recognized as humans with a right to live like everyone else by most societies that weren't members of the "Christian religion of peace and love" does nothing to change that. What is it with you Christians and your hatred and fear of homosexuals? The oddest part is you worship a guy that was most likely a homosexual himself.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Educate yourself. I didn't think you'd be able to answer that one. Look -- unlike you, I don't have time or incination to frequent "gay-friendly" online propaganda and revisionist indoctrination centers. As busy as you are, I'm surprised you do. Did you miss the part about "ship wives" being the norm? No, but I missed the part of seafaring history where sodomy has been interpreted as "marriage" back at the dock ("Arrrgh...Look everybody! Me an' me bucko are now mateys fer' life! Husband and wife! Arrgh!!") Yeah,I'm not an ignorant,superstitious,bigotted fool,so I MUST be queer,huh? At least I can laugh at your ball-busting. You can't take a bit of ribbing anymore?
A tiny minority of the human population, and STILL are. So why do they any right to enforce their perversions and fascism by coercive judicial fiat or have their lifestyle sanctioned and endorsed by the rest of us? What is it with you Christians and your hatred and fear of homosexuals? Hey pal -- when the schools and gubmint are sanctioning and endorsing perverion, making homosexuality seem "normal," and forcing private business to deal with homofascist queers, you'd better believe Christians are going to oppose it being crammed down their throats. But Christians are hardly the only ones who reject institutional homosexual coercion by the courts. The oddest part is you worship a guy that was most likely a homosexual himself. Ignorance and idiocy has become your signature, hasn't it?
Educate yourself. I didn't think you'd be able to answer that one. I could if I wanted to bother to spend the time to look up things I read a decade or more ago just so I could post links to them here so you and others who have no real interested in reading them and would say the information was wrong if you did read it. You are a grown man. If this stuff interests you,look it up your own damn self.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Comments (52 - 87) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest It is already has a definitoin. Just like 2 + 2 already has a definition.
If you cater to people who are mentally ill who are crying to the feds to redefine marriage so they can feel good. You are part of the problem.
Being a libertarian doesn't mean you have to be amoral.
Or maybe that is the problem with libertarians. They are amoral. They treat wrong just like they do right. --- Good and bad shouldn't be on equal footing.--- A K A Stone
redleghunter -- The above is the crux of the issue at hand. Without the Law Giver there are no absolutes.
We find an American society today condoning things they know are wrong only because they want to protect the freedoms of things they know are good.
This is the moral relativism of sincere libertarians. "I like my guns and we must protect the 2nd Amendment"; "I like my freedom of religion and free speech so we must protect the 1st Amendment."
In order to protect these clear rights, some go on to support things that are NOT rights in our Constitution. --- redleghunter
#12. To: A K A Stone, tpaine (#8)
If you cater to people who are mentally ill who are crying to the feds to redefine marriage so they can feel good. You are part of the problem.
#13. To: tpaine (#11)
Being a libertarian doesn't mean you have to be amoral. What the hell is immoral about wanting equal treatment under constitutional law?
#14. To: tpaine (#11)
2+2=4 is an absolute. Your 'Law Giver' is different from a Mormon's, for instance. Here in the USA, we obey a Supreme law, our Constitution..
#15. To: tpaine, redleghunter, AKA Stone, Y'ALL (#11)
2+2=4 is a universal mathematical truth. ---- "Marriage" was a religious term used by various religions, for various relationships.
#16. To: tpaine (#11)
We agree, except in this respect; there is no power in our Constitution that enables any level of govt to define marriage. [Or to give it tax breaks] -- And that's the problem..
#17. To: A K A Stone (#13)
#18. To: tpaine (#17)
We agree, except in this respect; there is no power in our Constitution that enables any level of govt to define marriage. [Or to give it tax breaks] -- And that's the problem..
#19. To: A K A Stone (#16)
Tax brakes are to help pay for the cost of raising children.
Fags should have to pay an extra tax for spreading fag diseases like AIDS.
#20. To: tpaine (#19)
there is no power in our Constitution that enables any level of govt to define marriage. [Or to give it tax breaks] -- And that's the problem..
#21. To: A K A Stone (#18)
Any man can marry any woman. if you don't understand that you are as dense as the sneaky peter.
#22. To: tpaine (#21)
I get your point. -- But both Pete and I are far from 'dense'. -- And you're the boss here,
#23. To: A K A Stone (#20)
If the constitution protects two perverts to redefine marriage.
#24. To: A K A Stone (#22)
Nothing personal I agree with most of what you say.
#25. To: tpaine (#11)
#26. To: Liberator (#15)
At NO time in the history of the world has "Marriage" EVER described a homosexual relationship. "Marriage" has been the definitive word to describe cultures -- BOTH secular AND religious -- as ONLY a man and woman who've bonded as mates.
#27. To: redleghunter (#25)
Which came first? The chicken or the egg?
#28. To: tpaine, liberator (#27)
Whattdya think?
#29. To: Liberator (#12)
Once the premise that a 5,000 year-long definition of "marriage" is indeed redefinable,
#30. To: Liberator (#15)
At NO time in the history of the world has "Marriage" EVER described a homosexual relationship. "Marriage" has been the definitive word to describe cultures -- BOTH secular AND religious -- as ONLY a man and woman who've bonded as mates.
#31. To: A K A Stone (#20)
The government REDEFINING marriage violates the first amendments religious protection.
#32. To: redleghunter (#26)
At the least the above is 10,000 years of worldwide societal case law.
#33. To: sneakypete (#32)
BullBush! In some societies people have married their horses,their sisters,and even their daughters.
#34. To: redleghunter (#33)
(Edited)
Quit bringing in your small town history Pete:)
#35. To: sneakypete (#30)
Liberator: "At NO time in the history of the world has "Marriage" EVER described a homosexual relationship. "Marriage" has been the definitive word to describe cultures -- BOTH secular AND religious -- as ONLY a man and woman who've bonded as mates."
#36. To: redleghunter, sneakypete (#33)
In some societies people have married their horses,their sisters,and even their daughters.
#37. To: redleghunter (#26)
At the least the above [definition of marriage as man and woman] is 10,000 years of worldwide societal case law.
#38. To: sneakypete (#30)
"The British Navy runs on rum and sodomy"
#39. To: A K A Stone (#0)
Homosexual movement threatens these freedoms
#40. To: Liberator, TooConservative, Vicomte13, GarySpFc, Don, out d.a (#35)
Educate me. In which societies, tribes, or cultures were "male marriages" or "female marriages" found acceptible?
#41. To: redleghunter (#40)
The ones which died out.
#42. To: rlk (#39)
The homosexual movement is out to threaten social adherence to basic sanity.
#43. To: VxH (#41)
#44. To: VxH (#42)
#45. To: redleghunter (#44)
#46. To: redleghunter (#43)
Wow
Twinkle Twinkle Morning Star.
#47. To: Liberator (#35)
Educate me. In which societies, tribes, or cultures were "male marriages" or "female marriages" found acceptible?
#48. To: redleghunter (#40)
Educate me. In which societies, tribes, or cultures were "male marriages" or "female marriages" found acceptible?
#49. To: sneakypete (#47)
In which societies, tribes, or cultures were "male marriages" or "female marriages" found acceptible?
#50. To: sneakypete, redleghunter (#48)
Homosexuals have always been a tiny minority of the human population,and the fact that they were recognized as humans with a right to live like everyone else by most societies that weren't members of the "Christian religion of peace and love" does nothing to change that.
#51. To: Liberator (#49)
In which societies, tribes, or cultures were "male marriages" or "female marriages" found acceptible?
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]