Quantcast
This website is a member of Liberty Alliance, which has been named as an company.

gay marriageI knew there was more to the Gay Marriage issue than government sanctioning civil unions which gay folks already have access to.

Civil unions get gay people pretty much all the bells and whistles of marriage. I know that gays want to steal another word by redefining “marriage.”

Why not? They have absconded gay and queer…what’s one more word and its traditional definition.

They also want to erode the foundation of religion, because they don’t like being called what we all are…sinners.

So your sin is being attracted to somebody of the same sex. Get over it.

My point is that the government doesn’t care about the civil rights of gays as it pertains to marriage. That’s the cover story.

What the government really wants is more revenue, and gay people are all too ready to pay it.

Heritage Foundation reports:

One bizarre feature of the Senate-passed health care bill is its pervasive bias against marriage. Under the bill, couples would face massive financial penalties if they marry or remain married.

Conversely, couples who cohabit without marriage are given highly preferential financial treatment. If the Senate bill becomes law, saying “I do” would cost some couples over $10,000 per year.

Obama’s ever-expanding government is salivating over more taxes, and officially allowing gay marriage would mean a tax windfall.

So Obama is anti-baby (he is pro-abortion at every stage of pregnancy and voted twice against the Born Alive Infant Tax), and anti-traditional marriage.

Hmmm. Every American should be anti-Obama and his government-feeding, Marxist-infused legislative theories!

 

 

It's FINALLY HERE!
Kevin Jackson's hilarious take on Race-Pimping: The Multi-Trillion Dollar Business of Liberalism!

Enjoy this excerpt from the book:

"In actuality, black people will go to substandard hospitals, wait in long lines behind illegal immigrants, and be treated like non-citizens, as there simply won’t be enough healthcare to go around. There will be the occasional lucky few who will receive treatment, and we will parade them around like championship rings, thus continuing the ruse. As you can see, we’ve left out nothing. We touch more on this in Chapter 10: Promise Everything, Deliver Nothing. If for some reason we happen to run out of blacks, we will be able to apply our trade to the Mexicans with little disruptions. Plans are already underway for our next edition in this “How To” series: How to be a Latino "Race Pimp for Fun and Profit…even if you’re Illegal."

Pre-Order Now!
 
Posting Policy
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

  • disqus_JoTWA3QGu9

    That and removing all that is “good, sacred, and private” in the world. “Sorry this is a _____ only club” will soon be illegal.

    • Larry Stauth

      I doubt it, only organizations related to white males, Christians or Jews, are honored to be candidates for such change. Minority groups (that typically fail anyway) won’t have to cave, mainly because people do not envy them as much.

      Then again, don’t know many boys wanting to join the Girl Scouts.

  • jeanbean14

    Well said, Kevin. I am starting to wonder if my fellow countrymen will EVER wake up. But keep the information coming, please!

    • Larry Stauth

      The problem is this, while more and more people are influenced by that thinking, people get caught in the problems of, “what happens when someone close to my heart is Gay?”

      Many find it too difficult to take a hardline stance. They tell themselves small excuses or they compromise their morality for acceptance.

      Then again, we see a lot of that from the Old Testament. As the Hebrews integrated more and with other nations. Or we see in the Early History of the Christian church. The Catholic faith is a prime example of a history of compromising morality for emotional comfort.

      • jeanbean14

        Yes. Those are good examples. God has told us that He doesn’t like lukewarm. He says be hot or cold. In other words, make a decision and then be honest about it. If you’re going to follow His commands, do it with enthusiasm and conviction. I think people choose to make excuses or compromise their morality because, like you said, they want acceptance, or because it’s easier. But if you love someone, you will tell them the truth, kindly but honestly, even if it is uncomfortable or risky. Some people are more interested in pleasing themselves than in pleasing God. It’s always better to be honest and do the right thing, even when that is the more difficult or scary option.

      • Poppo

        We are being consistently desensitized to the truth. This desensitization has grown exponentially in the last 60 years, particularly with the advent of instant, world-wide communication. What was totally unthinkable in the 1940’s and 50’s is commonplace today.

    • http://www.facebook.com/sstephaniew stephanie wilson

      amen!

  • Jacob

    Actually, acting on that attraction is the sin, not the attraction.

    • Larry Stauth

      Not so… Jesus said that “looking at a woman lustfully was adultery”. He also painted a wonderful picture about hate.

      Sin IS the absence of God. So anything apart from God is, by definition, also Sin.

      Especially since God is not concerned with your physical presence, He is concerned about your heart.

      • King Free

        Ravi Zacharias speaks to homosexualism in depth, just You Tube it or go to his site. (And you will find no more credible source on The Bible and religion in general) According to Ravi, Jacob is exactly correct. Having homosexual urges is NOT the sin, acting on those urges IS.

        And it appears a lot of you seem to have missed the whole point of the article. It wasn’t debating the right or wrong of gay marriage, it was pointing out yet another hypocrisy of the Federal Govt.

        • mreichard7

          Ravi Zacharias is one of the best “modern-day” pastors/speakers/evangelists.

          • King Free

            Ravi is officially an “Apologist” I believe. But whatever else he is, he NEVER loses a relious debate. Dawkins won’t go near him.

            But I just realize I said “homosexualism”…is that a real word ? Geez. Been a long week.

  • okokok

    conservatives are such haters:

    for example see the comments in this link, collected by jukeboxgrad says:

    http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/the-gops-ongoing-bush-problem/#comment-1706835

    • Disapp

      Why are using a moral word such a haters? What is the basis of your morals?

      Some want to be left alone and not participate in same sex weddings or giving positive affirmations. Some Christians love The LORD more than they love their lives. God’s Word doesn’t change to please anyone. All are sinners, but shouldn’t celebrate our sins.

    • mac12sam12

      Two words overused by libs are racist and hate, the myth continues.

    • mreichard7

      You confuse disagreement with hate.
      Some may hate, but not all.

  • Daniel Boone

    Gay Shmay what they do behind closed doors is none of my business unless they are doing it with minor children. I could care less what they call it, how they do it or whom they do it with as long as it isn’t done with intentions of blatantly shoving it at me. So. If you are gay close your door and get it on.

  • Daniel Boone

    I’m not here to try to enforce the laws of Jesus or the bible that is why we have freedom of choice you choose which path is right for you, after all we all can’t go to the kingdom’s of God the bible tells us that much. So choose your path and good luck with that !

    • http://www.thefreedomtrainusa.com/ FreedomTrainUSA

      That is true…But if you choose Sin…You will reap what you sow…

  • Carrieann1

    You forgot to include the rainbow that they absconded too! The rainbow was God’s promise that he wouldn’t destroy the world again — like he did with the flood in Noah’s day. It has been trashed and stomped on and the meaning totally degraded by making it a gay symbol.

    • Dorotha

      the rainbow is GOD”S promise that HE would not destroy the earth by flood again…next time it will be by FIRE !!!

  • David_in_Houston

    I assumed this was an Onion article. Trying to link marriage equality with the Affordable Care Act is laughable. Equally laughable, referring to someone’s sexual orientation as a sin. An innate human trait that harms no one is hardly sinful; and the Bible is not a scientific journal about human sexuality.

    • JVT92

      One can most definitely refer to a sexual orientation as a sin. Paedophilia and zoophilia are sins. They are also sexual orientations, whether you want to acknowledge them as such or not because the idea of doing so would hinder your ability to advance your agenda. “Marriage equality” is a euphamism. “Equality” is a buzzword. Add equality to anything and sheeple automatically think it’s right, but what “marriage equality” is really about is invalidating marriage to be a concept which is so ambiguous as to be meaningless. Homosexuals complaining that they can’t marry someone of the same sex is analogous to Jimmy Dean complaining that they can’t get Kosher certification for their pork sausages.

      • David_in_Houston

        Sexual orientation only consists of heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality. Wanting to have sex with a child, a dog, or even a corpse is not a sexual orientation. Those are abnormal behaviors that don’t define a person’s orientation towards a particular gender. There is a big difference between consensual relationships and those that aren’t. I shouldn’t have to explain the difference. Children and animals cannot give their consent to having an adult sexual relationship.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation

        “…but what “marriage equality” is really about is invalidating marriage to be a concept which is so ambiguous as to be meaningless.”

        There is nothing ambiguous about allowing the remaining 5% of society the right to marry the adult of their choice. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness fall under that category; or do those promised America values only apply to straight Christians and no one else? You can toss in the 14th Amendment while you’re at it.

        I’m also not sure how the marriage of two men or two women invalidates “marriage” for the rest of society. I’m fairly certain that straight men and women continue to get married in Massachusetts, even though gay couples have ALSO been able to marry there for the past decade. Considering that I attended an opposite-sex wedding there a few years ago, I’m more than certain about that. The same goes for the 15 countries and 13 states that also have marriage equality. I have yet to hear of a single opposite-sex marriage that has been so-called “invalidated” because Adam and Steve were given a marriage license by the state.

        Said a bigot 50 years ago: Interracial couples complaining that they can’t marry someone with a different skin color is analogous to Jimmy Dean complaining that they can’t get Kosher certification for their pork sausages.

        • Joshua

          Whether or not the object of sexual desire can consent to sexual activity is irrelevant as to whether a sexual orientation is a sexual orientation. Paedophiles are born that way, as are dendrophiles and zoophiles. http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=8934

          Your 5% number is arbitrary. There is no study or anything else that suggests %5 of the population is homosexual. The “pursuit of happiness” is not a legal statute, as the Declaration of Independence is not a legally binding document and has no legal authority.

          You’re obviously not very familiar with the effects that your so-called “marriage equality” has had on Massachussetts: http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm_2012/index.html
          Your generic reference to interracial marriage, is a straw man that has been overkilled. You refuse to acknowledge, or are incapable of comprehending, the fact that trying to change the definition of a word heavily tied to deeply held religious beliefs and traditions, to mock, and demand that it mean something which it has never meant, is anything but tolerant, and is most definitely comparable to what would be the mocking of the word Kosher by placing the label on pork chops.

          • David_in_Houston

            If you wish to disregard what the AMA and APA have said about sexual orientation for the past 50 years, that’s your choice. I seriously doubt that any rational person is going to equate a relationship between two consenting adults with someone that has sex with a sheep.

            The Supreme Court believed that marriage is such a fundamental right, that even mass-murderers in prison have a right to get married:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turner_v._Safley
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyle_and_Erik_Menendez
            One has to wonder how Lyle and Erik’s marriages benefit society. While Ellen and Portia’s marriage is ripping the fabric of society apart. Funny how that works out.

            As for my reference to interracial marriage, it’s hardly a straw man. At one time, 30 out of 48 states had bans in place. Sound familiar at all? When the Supreme Court overruled the “will of the people” and nullified the remaining bans, 72% still disapproved of race-mixing. In 1958, only 4% of the public supported interracial marriage:
            http://www.gallup.com/poll/163697/approve-marriage-blacks-whites.aspx
            In 2013, one would assume that the other 96% of society were ignorant bigots. But I have no doubt those people had “sincerely held beliefs” that it was immoral for blacks to mix with whites. Regardless of their socially approved beliefs, we know now they were irrational bigots.

            *I don’t click on links that direct me to SPLC-listed hate groups. Mass Resistance is one of those sites. They also have zero credibility when it comes to issues about gay people; or as they like to refer to them: aberrant sexual deviants or sodomites. You might as well ask black people to check out the KKK’s website for their opinion about black culture. It’s offensive that you even used them as a resource.

          • 1NedSprockethead1

            Ah, because SPLC has listed something as a “hate group” you can’t follow the link, therefore you don’t have to debate logic, you can just make crap up. Good work, head-up-your-butt!

          • David_in_Houston

            Yeah, I’m pretty sure if someone gives me a link to a Nazi skinhead group, I’m not going to treat it the same way as a link to CNN. There’s more than enough proof that Mass Resistance is an anti-gay hate group. Find me ONE pro-gay article to prove me wrong. Just one.

          • JVT92

            “If you wish to disregard what the AMA and APA have said about sexual orientation for the past 50 years, that’s your choice. I seriously doubt that any rational person is going to equate a relationship between two consenting adults with someone that has sex with a sheep.” -First of all, it hasn’t been 50 years. Homosexuality was only taken out of the DSM in 1973, and homosexuals storming the convention to try to force them to do so had a large part to do with it. Secondly, 50 years ago, I seriously doubt if any rational person would try to equate the relationship of a husband and wife to two people who engage in sodomy.

            Your argument about incarcerated individuals getting married is a red herring. No, those marriages do not help the institution of marriage. But just because one thing is allowed does not necessarily mean that another thing should be allowed.

            “In 2013, one would assume that the other 96% of society were ignorant bigots. But I have no doubt those people had “sincerely held beliefs” that it was immoral for blacks to mix with whites. Regardless of their socially approved beliefs, we know now they were irrational bigots.” -If you want to call your parents and grandparents “ignorant bigots,” that is your prerogative. It’s also relevant to point out that blacks made up a much larger portion of the population in 1958 than 4%, so that would mean that even blacks supported anti-miscegenation laws. It would be similar today to a majority of homosexuals opposing same-sex “marriage.” It was a very different situation. To this day many older black folks still oppose interracial relationships.

            Also, your comparison between interracial marriage and same-sex “marriage” is still a straw man because there is fierce opposition to same-sex “marriage” in states and countries that never had anti-miscegenation laws.

            The purpose of anti-miscegenation laws was to keep the races separate. The purpose of natural marriage, whether between two people of different races or two people of the same race, is to bring the sexes together, and in an interracial marriage, bring the races together. Same sex “marriage” does not do this.

            If bans against same-sex “marriage” were like the anti-miscegenation laws of old, a homosexual man and a heterosexual woman, or a heterosexual man and a homosexual woman, would not have the right to get married. Looking at it from the other angle, if the anti-miscegenation laws of old were like the same-sex “marriage” “bans” (ban in quotes due to the fact that you can’t ban something that doesn’t exist, but I will use the term here for simplicity) of today, then two black people would not have been allowed to get married. Obviously the two are different if you actually look at them.

            Here is an article from The Telegraph (I trust they aren’t on your beloved SPLC’s fraudulent and arbitrary list of “hate groups”), written by an atheist man who is ambivalent to the issue of same-sex “marriage,” explaining why the comparison is, in his words, “utterly moronic.” http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100137861/it-is-moronic-to-compare-opposition-to-gay-marriage-with-opposition-to-interracial-marriage/

          • David_in_Houston

            “I seriously doubt if any rational person would try to equate the relationship of a husband and wife to two people who engage in sodomy.”

            Statistically speaking, husbands and wives engage in more sodomy than gay people. Secondly, having sex is not the defining reason why couples marry. You don’t need to get married in order to have sex.

            “Your argument about incarcerated individuals getting married is a red herring.”

            No it’s not. It makes the point that literally every straight person has the right to marry; and that neither the state nor the government is interested in whether or not those marriages benefit society in any way. So if that’s the case, why is the state going out of its way to prevent gay couples from being able to marry?

            We’re going to have to agree to disagree regarding interracial marriage bans. When 30 states had laws preventing interracial couples from marrying, and today 32 states have laws preventing same-sex couples from marrying, to deny that there is an overarching ‘bigotry’ regarding ‘the other’ is either naive or willful ignorance. Blacks were thought of as ‘less than’, and today gays are considered ‘less than’.

            The public comments about the Telegraph article say it all. The overwhelming opinion is that the author is an idiot. This is his biggest lie: “…the anti-racist activists of old were calling for democratic equity within an already-existing institution, whereas today’s pro-gay marriage activists are calling for the creation of an entirely new institution.” — Expanding the right to marry to include ‘sexual orientation’ does not create a new institution. Marriage between straight couples has not be redefined just because gay couples can ALSO get married. I love how he quotes the Supreme Court ruling on Loving v Virgina. Yet he doesn’t comprehend how the quote should obviously apply to gay citizens as well: “…vital personal rights, [which are] essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men”. Why he believes that gay citizens shouldn’t be accorded the same personal rights as straight people is never explained. He also acknowledges that procreation is not required to be married. So, as usual, people like him have to grasp at straws to come up any semi-plausible reason to rationalize their bigotry, or biases if you will.

            PS: The is no such thing as “natural marriage”. Aside from man creating the institution, it doesn’t appear anywhere else in nature.

          • JVT92

            “No it’s not. It makes the point that literally every straight person has the right to marry; and that neither the state nor the government is interested in whether or not those marriages benefit society in any way. So if that’s the case, why is the state going out of its way to prevent gay couples from being able to marry?” First of all, heterosexual people do not have the right to marry anyone they want to. They cannot marry their first cousins in most states. Is this because of bigotry? There is a difference between same-sex “marriage”and interracial marriage. Interracial marriages have always existed. The overwhelming majority of countries that have ever existed in the history of the world never prohibited them, including ultra-conservative societies like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the Holy Roman Empire. There are only two countries I can think of that ever prohibited interracial marriages- the United States and South Africa, and both of these examples are very recent when looked at in the context of all of history. On the other hand, same-sex “marriage” has never existed. It was not even practiced by the Ancient Greeks and Romans and they had very liberal views about homosexuality (Nero “married” a eunuch, but this was an isolated incident).

        • Disapp

          The same sex marriage doesn’t end with the couple. School children are being taught sexual behavior in the states with approved same sex marriage. California has passed a law requiring insurance to cover fertility treatments for same sex married couples. Same sex couples can’t reproduce therefore, fertility treatments are unnecessary.

          • mreichard7

            This is such a shame. The “fall-out” effects of same-sex whatever are harmful…and hurtful.

      • mreichard7

        I Corinthians 6:9-10

    • Ex Nihilo

      The gay lifestyle is extremely unhealthy and the average gay male dies 20 years younger than the hetero male.

      Scripture is as clear about the sin of homosexuality from cover to cover. For one example Romans 1:25-27 says, “Because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.”

    • mreichard7

      Your opinion only. Many believe the Bible to be the inspired Word of God.

      • David_in_Houston

        Civil marriage is secular. Non-religious couples have always been able to marry in our country. Don’t confuse a non-legal religious sacrament with a state-sanction legal status. They are not the same thing.

        • Robert Bolagh

          David thinks the Government is the moral law. How cute… Rights come from God, not your opinion. America was founded on the freedom that God gives in the Bible to all. Even those that don’t believe. The U.S. Constitution was born through the Biblical Revelation, and this Country has been great becase of it. If Marxism is the basis for any country, freedom would vanish, religious tolerance would disappear, progress would stop, humans would become slaves and human existance would go extinct. You want marxism? Go to Antartica and you will be no more.

    • Disapp

      The ACA doesn’t distinguish between same or opposite sex marriage regarding the financial penalties. Since you don’t believe in The Bible, why are you questioning sin. Adultery and fornication are also sins in The Bible. Why did you compare a scientific journal to The Bible. The CDC has documented the increase in HIV and STDs in MSM. According to you, this is a harmless human trait.

  • mtngma

    Good point, but the left is rife with ideas that debase the family. Also the Green agenda is to get rid of us Carbon dioxide breathers so their precious planet will heal, ha. Gays don’t have kids.

    • http://www.thefreedomtrainusa.com/ FreedomTrainUSA

      Lets give all the Gays and Lesbians and their supporters their own country….I do believe that AnArtica could easily be settled….just move a few Penguins out of the way….The good thing is that in less than a generaltion they will all be gone…

  • Diane Stein

    also a great way to irradicate the population

  • SniperToo

    No surprise here. Obama is a homo himself. Why do you think Moocheata has divorce papers waiting on her lawyers desk, the minute Obumer leaves the white house. They stopped her at the end of the first term because his handlers said it would hurt his re-election. She cant wait to get away from his homo butt. They have 3 off shore accounts and one of them is hers to take to Hawaii.

    • Joshua

      I’m on your side but I would really like to see some references for that.

    • mreichard7

      Hope I live long enough to see the results of your theory. Seriously.
      I certainly believe they maintain off-shore accounts.

  • Poppo

    I don’t condone sex outside marriage, be it between unmarried persons or persons that are married to other people. I don’t condone sex between adults and children. I don’t condone rape. I don’t condone homosexual sex. I also do not condone murder, robbery, bestiality, burglary, theft, racial or religious discrimination, lying, child abuse and a long list of other things. I guess that makes me homophobic.

  • Dr. Death

    I grew up in Silverlake (Suburb of Los Angeles) also known as “The Swish Alps”. Our next door neighbors were old fashioned homosexuals, i.e. they didn’t wear their sexuality on their sleeve, or march in parades, kiss each other in public, etc. and as such they were accepted as part of the community, and invited to parties by straight folks, helped with the groceries, etc. Now we have radical homos who shove their deviant lifestyle in your face, and if you don’t accept it, your a homophobe! I could care less what you do behind closed doors, just don’t flaunt it, like I don’t French kiss my wife in supermarkets, etc. Keep it to yourself. Thank you.

    • Disapp

      !00% agreement!

  • Agent Ofgood

    The social engineers – Marxists who have complete control of our government and education systems know with the forced acceptance of the gay agenda they can go into kindergarten and indoctrinate our children. Once children are bullied into acceptance, anyone who tries to tell them the truth about sexuality and morality will appear to be the liar. That’s how Marxism works, they go after the young and turn them away from God, turn their thinking upside down and watch them not only accept Marxism but defend it viciously, even disregarding the views of their own parents. They do the same with capitalism and global warming. But the acceptance of homosexuality is disgusting because it ignores the spiritual damage of perversion and abnormality, throwing aside morality, virtue and sexual restraint.

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2320473/posts

  • carolrhill814

    All of this makes me want to vomit and that is the truth.

  • Disapp

    I assumed that the LGBT groups are being used as political pawns such as other minority and women groups. However, the lives of the vulnerable rarely improve. Their supporters (politicians) become wealthy. Now with the ACA, same sex couples will be penalized just like the opposite sex couples.

  • Amagi

    I think all ‘marriages’ should be civil unions to protect each partner legally. I believe marriage is more a religious ceremony and if you want to ‘marry’ in your church, fine. But everyone that wants legal protection should have a civil union.

    • mreichard7

      Good point.

  • Jill

    It’s wrong. Men and women are created to perfect one another. You are rebelling against the way God created it to be. Sorry that is truth.

    • Amagi

      I don’t think it is that simple.

  • carolrhill814

    I have known gays all of my life and they would say to me why can’t we marry and I would always tell them it you want to get into my institution go for it but it NOT what it is cracked up to be.