Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2009

    No, Mr. President, Same-sex Couples Cannot Marry

    Wednesday, 16 May 2012 15:29
    No, Mr. President, Same-sex Couples Cannot Marry
    Written by Selwyn Duke

    font size decrease font size increase font size

    No, Mr. President, Same-sex Couples Cannot Marry

    In case you’re wondering, I’m using the word “cannot” properly in the above title. No, I don’t mean “same-sex couples should not marry” — rather, they aren’t capable of doing so. What am I talking about?

    Barack Obama’s coming out party notwithstanding, the question in this debate should never be one of rights. It should be one of definitions. If we accept that marriage is, by definition, the union between a man and woman and nothing else, the faux-marriage-rights argument is moot.

    For you cannot have a right to that which doesn’t exist.

    This isn’t just semantics. If social engineers insist on pushing faux marriage, we must demand that they first attempt to redefine the institution.

    “Have you gone off your rocker, Duke?! This is precisely what we’re fighting!” some will now say.

    Actually, no, it isn’t.

    This is because there is no widely accepted and professed alternative definition to fight. For the Left has not sought to redefine marriage.

    They are “undefining” it.

    After all, what is the Left’s argument? They don’t focus on definitions any more than the Right does; they don’t say, consistently and boldly, “Marriage is the union between any two adults; therefore, there is no reason to exclude same-sex couples.” They won’t tread there.

    There are a couple of reasons why. First, leftists are confused: They never have a clear vision of what they want to create, only what they want to destroy (i.e., the status quo). Second, redefining marriage would be a tactical disaster for them, as they’d relinquish a huge hammer they pummel the opposition with: the accusation that traditionalists are being “exclusive” and “discriminatory” and are denying people rights. For if you establish boundaries — anywhere — you’re excluding and discriminating against whoever lies beyond them.

    So leftists won’t offer any alternative definition; instead, they simply imply that the right definition is wrong. And this is where they lose the debate. For if you cannot say what marriage is, how can you be so sure about what it isn’t?

    This failure to redefine marriage also puts the lie to the Left’s claim that their actions won’t lead to the recognition of other conceptions of “marriage,” from polygamy to inter-species unions (yes, this does happen). This isn’t as silly as it sounds. Remember that an undefinition excludes nothing. If you refuse to establish boundaries, then the sky — or Hades — is the limit.

    Thus, while the Left’s focus on rights helps them win the immediate marriage battle, it also ensures the loss of civilization. After all, once you undefine something, you have destroyed it — at least in people’s minds. For if something exists, if it is real, it is a certain thing and thus can be defined. “Bird” refers to a specific creature, but if “bird” could mean fish, insect, chair or pepperoni pizza — if it could mean anything — the term would lose meaning. Likewise, if marriage can mean anything, it will ultimately mean nothing. It will simply be a “something” and be destroyed as a meaningful institution.

    To understand the implications of this, realize that marriage exists not as a “right” that brings self-fulfillment but to stabilize the family. It encourages men and women to fulfill their obligations to each other and their children. Thus, an attack upon marriage is an attack upon the family. And, since the family is the central building block of civilization, if you destroy it, you have destroyed civilization.

    Except perhaps for a few Machiavellian types, the Left doesn’t understand this; like all emotion-driven people — like children — they know only what they want at the moment. But wiser heads should refuse to discuss the issue as what it isn’t: a matter of rights. Instead, be steadfast in the understanding that faux marriage simply doesn’t exist. Oh, people can still pretend to marry; heck, we did that in first grade (only boys and girls back then). But dismiss this as child’s play — and a rather twisted variety of it at that.

    This is why I seek to control the language and use the term “faux marriage.” For the side that defines the vocabulary of a debate, wins the debate. Thus, using the Lexicon of the Left — in this case, the oxymoronic euphemism “gay marriage” — is disastrous; it’s likewise a mistake using “traditional marriage,” for what is the other side of that coin? Both terms either state or imply that a mythical institution called “gay marriage” exists.

    What will happen once citizens accept this idea? Well, homosexuals are people, too, and if their conception of “marriage” exists, many will conclude that it’s wrong to deny recognition of it. Hey, how can you not recognize — in the sense of perceiving — something that exists? And once personal recognition becomes widespread, legal recognition is nigh.

    This is why states err when proposing laws and constitutional amendments limiting marriage to a man and woman. Instead, their measures should state, “Marriage is defined as the union between a man and a woman.” Again, this isn’t just semantics. When these measures go to court and judges are left to rule on the constitutionality of limiting who may marry, they can easily rationalize that such laws violate the equal-protection clause. But if the law is framed as I suggest, this argument becomes illogical, as no one is being denied anything. After all, a homosexual certainly can — and may — marry just as anyone else may; he may form a union with a member of the opposite sex. As for heterosexuals, they cannot form a legally sanctioned union with a member of their own sex any more than anyone else can. Thus, controlling the definition would help control the courts.

    Of course, our “creative” judges can spin anything, so there are no guarantees. But we ought to ask: If they would rule that same-sex couples have a right to “marriage,” with what definition are they working? After all, the only consistent definition out there is the one the West has operated by for millennia. There is nothing else except an effort that amounts to an “undefinition,” an unraveling of part of civilization’s bedrock. And you cannot have a right to what doesn’t exist.

    No, Mr. President, Same-sex Couples Cannot Marry

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Home » The So-Called ‘Science’ Behind ‘Gay’ Marriage
    The So-Called ‘Science’ Behind ‘Gay’ Marriage
    May 17, 2012 byGary DeMar

    irrationalA letter writer to USA Today equates “gay marriage” with “equality,” “science,” and “rationality.” Here’s how he puts it:

    As our nation and the world move forward with advances in science and medicine, rationality inevitably follows. Conservatives will have a more difficult time defending their bigotry.

    If there’s one thing homosexual behavior isn’t, it’s rational. Anyone doing an objective study of sexuality would conclude that same-sex sex (homo = same + sexuality). No matter how many times persons of the same sex engage in sexual activity, there will never be any offspring. If everybody only engaged in homosexual sex, within 100 years the human race would be extinct. This is a mathematical, scientific, and medical fact. Bigotry has nothing to do with opposition to homosexual behavior.

    One must consider the objectivity of someone who claims that sticking a penis into an orifice that deposits into a toilet is comparable to a man and woman having intercourse. The scientific case for homosexual behavior will have merit when a man gives birth from another man’s rectum.

    Once homosexual marriage is sanctioned by law in the name of science and rationality, anything goes. A woman from San Francisco (surprise) with an “object fetish” married the Eiffel Tower. “Objectum-sexuals are people who fall in love with inanimate objects, like buildings, cars, and Hammond organs. And I don’t mean appreciation of good design, I mean l-o-v-e.”

    Are these types of “love” relationships also rational and other categories of equality? Who’s to say?

    Read more: The So-Called

    Hmmm isn't that what the elites want population reduction

    The So-Called

  3. #3
    Senior Member CCUSA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    New Jersey
    Article from 2004.


    The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

    Adam Kolasinski

    The debate over whether the state ought to recognize gay marriages has thus far focused on the issue as one of civil rights. Such a treatment is erroneous because state recognition of marriage is not a universal right. States regulate marriage in many ways besides denying men the right to marry men, and women the right to marry women. Roughly half of all states prohibit first cousins from marrying, and all prohibit marriage of closer blood relatives, even if the individuals being married are sterile. In all states, it is illegal to attempt to marry more than one person, or even to pass off more than one person as one’s spouse. Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphilis or other venereal diseases. Homosexuals, therefore, are not the only people to be denied the right to marry the person of their choosing.
    I do not claim that all of these other types of couples restricted from marrying are equivalent to homosexual couples. I only bring them up to illustrate that marriage is heavily regulated, and for good reason. When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse’s social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse’s health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children.
    Granted, these restrictions are not absolute. A small minority of married couples are infertile. However, excluding sterile couples from marriage, in all but the most obvious cases such as those of blood relatives, would be costly. Few people who are sterile know it, and fertility tests are too expensive and burdensome to mandate. One might argue that the exclusion of blood relatives from marriage is only necessary to prevent the conception of genetically defective children, but blood relatives cannot marry even if they undergo sterilization. Some couples who marry plan not to have children, but without mind-reading technology, excluding them is impossible. Elderly couples can marry, but such cases are so rare that it is simply not worth the effort to restrict them. The marriage laws, therefore, ensure, albeit imperfectly, that the vast majority of couples who do get the benefits of marriage are those who bear children.
    Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met.
    One may argue that lesbians are capable of procreating via artificial insemination, so the state does have an interest in recognizing lesbian marriages, but a lesbian’s sexual relationship, committed or not, has no bearing on her ability to reproduce. Perhaps it may serve a state interest to recognize gay marriages to make it easier for gay couples to adopt. However, there is ample evidence (see, for example, David Popenoe’s Life Without Father) that children need both a male and female parent for proper development. Unfortunately, small sample sizes and other methodological problems make it impossible to draw conclusions from studies that directly examine the effects of gay parenting. However, the empirically verified common wisdom about the importance of a mother and father in a child’s development should give advocates of gay adoption pause. The differences between men and women extend beyond anatomy, so it is essential for a child to be nurtured by parents of both sexes if a child is to learn to function in a society made up of both sexes. Is it wise to have a social policy that encourages family arrangements that deny children such essentials? Gays are not necessarily bad parents, nor will they necessarily make their children gay, but they cannot provide a set of parents that includes both a male and a female.
    Some have compared the prohibition of homosexual marriage to the prohibition of interracial marriage. This analogy fails because fertility does not depend on race, making race irrelevant to the state’s interest in marriage. By contrast, homosexuality is highly relevant because it precludes procreation.
    Some argue that homosexual marriages serve a state interest because they enable gays to live in committed relationships. However, there is nothing stopping homosexuals from living in such relationships today. Advocates of gay marriage claim gay couples need marriage in order to have hospital visitation and inheritance rights, but they can easily obtain these rights by writing a living will and having each partner designate the other as trustee and heir. There is nothing stopping gay couples from signing a joint lease or owning a house jointly, as many single straight people do with roommates. The only benefits of marriage from which homosexual couples are restricted are those that are costly to the state and society.
    Some argue that the link between marriage and procreation is not as strong as it once was, and they are correct. Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage, in every society around the world, has been procreation. In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment. As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage, rather than the good of the children or the social order, has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years. Homosexual marriage is not the cause for any of these pathologies, but it will exacerbate them, as the granting of marital benefits to a category of sexual relationships that are necessarily sterile can only widen the separation between marriage and procreation.
    The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction than love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.Adam Kolasinski is a doctoral student in financial economics

    The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage - The Tech
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  4. #4
    Senior Member TexasBorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Getyourassoutahere, Texas
    Nice article and very logically written.
    ...I call on you in the name of Liberty, of patriotism & everything dear to the American character, to come to our aid...

    William Barret Travis
    Letter From The Alamo Feb 24, 1836

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Is Obama Our First Gay President?

    Thursday, May 24, 2012 | Subscribe to Video Updates

    Obama had a halo over his head on the cover of Newsweek that even The Huffington Post called a “Gay-Lo”, so is he our first Gay president?! We discuss Obama’s Gay ‘evolution’ on this episode of PolitiChicks.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Video Banned by YouTube on Gay Marriage Proudly Hosted by Breitbart News
    Posted on May 27, 2012 by Conservative Byte
    Print Friendly

    The following video produced by sixteen-year-old Madeleine McAulay has been banned by YouTube because it did not meet their “community guidelines.” The video, which had garnered over 20,000 hits in only a week, was submitted to Breitbart News for consideration when it was first released.

    As editor of Breitbart TV, the video curating division of Breitbart News, I receive dozens of daily submissions from talented and thoughtful citizen journalists. Many of them are similar to McAulay’s video which consists of an individual sitting in front of their webcam and giving their opinion about an issue in the news. These “vlogging” submissions very rarely get published at Breitbart TV. It is not a reflection of the content or quality of the videos; they just don’t generally fit with Breitbart TV’s editorial objective, which

    is to provide newsworthy and compelling videos catering to the center-right audience.

    ← CNN host cuts Guiliani off for saying Obama’s community organizing experience is inferior to Romney’s CEO background
    Krugman: Scientists Should Falsely Predict Alien Invasion So Government Will Spend More Money →
    65 1 Email4

    Video Banned by YouTube on Gay Marriage Proudly Hosted by Breitbart News
    Posted on May 27, 2012 by Conservative Byte
    Print Friendly

    The following video produced by sixteen-year-old Madeleine McAulay has been banned by YouTube because it did not meet their “community guidelines.” The video, which had garnered over 20,000 hits in only a week, was submitted to Breitbart News for consideration when it was first released.

    As editor of Breitbart TV, the video curating division of Breitbart News, I receive dozens of daily submissions from talented and thoughtful citizen journalists. Many of them are similar to McAulay’s video which consists of an individual sitting in front of their webcam and giving their opinion about an issue in the news. These “vlogging” submissions very rarely get published at Breitbart TV. It is not a reflection of the content or quality of the videos; they just don’t generally fit with Breitbart TV’s editorial objective, which is to provide newsworthy and compelling videos catering to the center-right audience.

    Continue Reading on Breitbart ...
    Breitbart News Proudly Hosts Gay Marriage Video Banned by YouTube

    Video Banned by YouTube on Gay Marriage Proudly Hosted by Breitbart News | Conservative Byte

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Monday, 28 May 2012 13:45
    Mass. Church Threatened With Violence for Stand on Marriage
    Written by Dave Bohon

    Mass. Church Threatened With Violence for Stand on Marriage

    A Catholic parish in Acushnet, Massachusetts, has been targeted by homosexual activists for a sign it posted taking a stand for traditional marriage. The sign, displayed on the outside message board at St. Francis Xavier Church in Acushnet, read, “Two men are friends not spouses” — a simple and direct confirmation that, in the eyes of the Church, only a man and a woman can be married.

    According to the New England Cable Network (NECN), the sign, which the church displayed for only a 24-hour period, prompted a major backlash from homosexual activists and their supporters. Steve Guillotte, director of pastoral services at Saint Francis Xavier, “said the church has received a number of menacing, obscenity laced phone calls, including one threatening to burn the church down,” reported NECN. “A sign describing the church’s message as ‘hate’ was nailed to the church’s fence, while additional hostile signs were laid against the fence with rainbow balloons attached to it.” Guillotte explained that “I didn’t calculate reaction into it because, to be honest with you, we’re a Catholic institution and our responsibility is to speak out on behalf of Christ.”

    NECN reported that reaction by pro-homosexual individuals and groups “ranged from quiet protest to an expletive-laced voicemail message saying the church should be burned. Vanessa Raymond, a Facebook user who has posted heavily on this issue, said she left a counter-sign at the parish that everyone is welcome in this community. Meanwhile, three signs of a very different tone were found Wednesday on church property. Among other things they tell the reader to ‘Pray for Death’ and make a sexually derogatory reference to the Virgin Mary.”

    One sign declared, “You may not be welcome in this church, but all people are welcome in this community. Spread love not hate.” Another woman told the local NBC news affiliate: “I worry that young people who might be struggling to come out see [the church’s sign] and are really negatively affected by that.... I was shocked. I felt like it was the 1940s and we were discriminating based on race and it just absolutely was appalling.”

    The church’s pastor, Father Gerard O’Connor, found it puzzling that supporters of homosexuality would react so vehemently to his parish’s exercise of free speech. “I thought we had freedom of religion, freedom of speech,” he said. “Show your point of view. But why couldn’t we?” He also disputed the notion that the sign expressed hatred, as some homosexual activists had charged. “It was never meant to be hateful,” he said. “It was never meant to cause harm to people. Just a statement. Six words. We thought we’d get across our point of view in sort of a pithy way.”

    O’Connor pointed out that the Catholic Church has “always said marriage is ... a sacrament between a man and a woman…. It doesn’t mean we hate you because of your sexuality.... But apparently we’re hated now because we have that view.” He added that “we think we have the right to express our difference of opinion in freedom without the backlash of hatred.”

    The Catholic Action League, a Massachusetts-based pro-family Christian group, said that the backlash against the church showed the over-the-top arrogance of those pushing the homosexual agenda. “It should be obvious to any fair-minded observer that homosexual activists have no understanding of the First Amendment, and have nothing but contempt for the religious freedom rights and moral sensibilities of Roman Catholics,” said Catholic Action League spokesman C. J. Doyle. “These threats and protests are clearly intended to intimidate Catholics into silence on the issue of same sex marriage.”

    Doyle noted that the attack against St. Francis Xavier Church shows that the traditional understanding of marriage, “which for millenia was believed always and everywhere by everyone, is now demonized as hatred and bigotry.” He added that “something unheard of in the history of the planet — the idea that two persons of the same gender could contract marriage — is now treated as beyond criticism. The punitive, illiberal, and authoritarian character of the homosexual movement in this country is becoming increasingly evident.”

    He warned that standing for traditional values was becoming unsafe, and called on local authorities to investigate the threats of violence against the parish’s pastors and members. “At a time when homosexual pride parades monopolize public thoroughfares with police protection, it is now unsafe to post a message upholding traditional morality on private property,” warned Doyle. “This event tells us all we need to know about the totalitarian instincts of organized homosexualism in America. What began as a so-called ‘gay rights’ movement, has become a neo-fascist enterprise dedicated to suppressing, harassing, censoring, silencing, and punishing anyone supportive of biblical morality. Attorney General Martha Coakley and Bristol County District Attorney C. Samuel Sutter should investigate the threats against Saint Francis Xavier Parish for possible prosecution as hate crimes.”

    Mass. Church Threatened With Violence for Stand on Marriage

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Is This the Civil War Obama’s Looking For? Bishops Prep Catholics for Mass Defiance
    posted on May 28, 2012 by Tad Cronn

    The U.S. Catholic Bishops are preparing Catholics for what some are saying may be the largest wave of civil disobedience since the Civil Rights Movement.

    The Catholic Church last week sued the Obama Administration over President Obama’s decree that all employers must pay for health insurance that covers abortions, sterilizations and contraceptives, all of which violate Catholic moral teachings. The pope himself has spoken on the issue and pointed out the threat posed by Obama’s attempt to force Catholics to cooperate in “intrinsically evil practices.”

    Despite the lawsuits whose 43 plaintiffs include the New York and Washington Archdioceses and the University of Notre Dame, President Obama indicated in campaign speeches last week that he plans to go ahead with enforcing his mandate, part of Obamacare, beginning in August.

    “We don’t need another political fight about ending a woman’s right to choose, or getting rid of Planned Parenthood or taking away affordable birth control,” Obama said. “We don’t need that. I want women to control their own health choices, just like I want my daughters to have the same economic opportunities as my sons. We’re not turning back the clock. We’re not going back there.”

    (Obama’s use of the phrase “my sons” has been noted by numerous pundits. Given that he has no sons that we know of, and given the context of opposing the Catholic Church, could Obama have been deliberately trying to strike a pastoral tone, to establish himself subliminally as being on equal footing with religious authority? The possibility is more than a little chilling.)

    First lady Michelle Obama was the first out of the gate, however, saying in a speech only three hours after the bishops announced their lawsuits, “You can tell people how, because we passed health reform, insurance companies will now have to cover preventive care — have to,” said Mrs. Obama. “Things like contraception, cancer screenings, prenatal care — and they have to do it at no extra cost. People have to understand that’s what that fight was for.”

    The bishops aren’t backing down. They have developed a lengthy document explaining their position and a shorter one to be inserted in parish bulletins in June. Both are available at United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

    “Freedom is not only for Americans, but we think of it as something of our special inheritance, fought for at a great price, and a heritage to be guarded now. We are stewards of this gift, not only for ourselves but for all nations and peoples who yearn to be free,” the bishops wrote in the long statement on their website.

    “Some unjust laws impose such injustices on individuals and organizations that disobeying the laws may be justified,” they said in the shorter bulletin insert. “Every effort must be made to repeal them. When fundamental human goods, such as the right of conscience, are at stake, we may need to witness to the truth by resisting the law and incurring its penalties.”

    The website lists other ways in which the Catholic Church is being attacked by government at all levels, from state laws about “harboring” immigrants that have prevented churches from caring for needy people, to discriminatory acts against Catholic students, and attempts by local governments to interfere in church organization.

    “Is our most cherished freedom truly under threat?” the bishops wrote. “Sadly, it is. This is not a theological or legal dispute without real world consequences.”

    But President Obama’s decree is the top issue.

    The bishops cite the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, which wrote in a separate statement, “Most troubling, is the Administration’s underlying rationale for its decision, which appears to be a view that if a religious entity is not insular, but engaged with broader society, it loses its ‘religious’ character and liberties. Many faiths firmly believe in being open to and engaged with broader society and fellow citizens of other faiths. The Administration’s ruling makes the price of such an outward approach the violation of an organization’s religious principles.”

    The bishops added, “This is not a Catholic issue. This is not a Jewish issue. This is not an Orthodox, Mormon, or Muslim issue. It is an American issue.” (The Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops — which represents all 65 Orthodox bishops in the U.S., Canada and Mexico — back in February threw its support to the Catholic Bishops.)

    The bishops have called for “A Fortnight of Freedom,” from June 21 to July 4. The beginning date marks the feasts of St. John Fisher and St. Thomas More, both of whom were executed by King Henry VIII for not acknowledging him as the spiritual head of the Church of England when England broke from the Catholic Church.

    With the Fortnight of Freedom ending on July 4, the bishops cite several Founding Fathers, including George Washington, who wrote, “the establishment of Civil and Religious Liberty was the Motive that induced me to the field of battle.”

    They also cite Thomas Jefferson, whose statement in a letter about a wall of separation between church and state is so often misrepresented by liberals. They cite Jefferson’s written assurance to the Ursuline Sisters in Louisiana that the Constitution ensured their organization would be free “to govern itself according to its own voluntary rules, without interference from the civil authority.”

    The lines have been drawn. Do you really want this Civil War, Mr. President?

    Read more: Is This the Civil War Obama's Looking For? Bishops Prep Catholics for Mass Defiance - Godfather Politics

    Is This the Civil War Obama's Looking For? Bishops Prep Catholics for Mass Defiance - Godfather Politics

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts