The Fallacious Arguments of the Homosexual Agenda


The debate on homosexual "marriage" and ‘rights’ continues full steam. Those of us who are opposed to this are pejoratively labeled as “haters”, “bigots” and a plethora of other vile names, all while they, homosexuals, preach of love and tolerance to opposing viewpoints. They attack Facebook pages which support homosexual "marriage," doing so with the expressed purpose of bringing the page down and silencing all dissenting votes. They are immune to logic and facts, attempting to rationalize their behavior through whatever manner they can, claiming animals do it ( one of the most ridiculous excuses I have ever heard ), that it is natural ( an is/ought fallacy), and most importantly ( and falsely ), that they were born that way, a formal fallacy of deductive reasoning as the premise is unfounded and unproven. They claim that they do not have the same rights as the rest of us, and that they are the objects of ridicule, teasing, name calling, and discrimination, while at the same time having no ethical compunction about doing it themselves.

These people don’t even want to get married, they just want the benefits of marriage. Marriage is about the complimentary union of a man and a woman - the way Almighty God ( or Nature depending on your cosmological view ) intended it; perfect symmetry of form & function, and in perfect complimentarianism. Let us examine some of these claims today, and in the interests of brevity, the others in follow-up articles.

“I was born that way”

Rubbish. Not only does this fly in the face of common sense, it is at odds with evolutionary genetics, Medellin genetics, endocrinology, bio-chemistry, and the most recent nucleotide studies. It is also at odds with the design of the Creator. How so, you ask? Well lets go through an overview of gamete life forms ( sexually reproducing life forms ). All higher-order gamete life on this planet reproduces through gamete biology – through heterosexual congress, the form of which we are all familiar.

The Prime genetic program, reproduction and the propagation of the species, is strictly dependent upon this mechanism, which is an irreducibly complex system. In order for this mechanism to function, it is necessary that the bio-chemistry of the life form direct the male and female of the species to be ‘attracted’ to one another, lest intercourse would never happen. This mechanism is dormant until puberty; the activation mechanism is a genetic "switch" ( epi-genetics), specifically the GPR-54 gene. This gene is activated by a molecular peptide called 'kisspeptin', which is in turn produced by another gene called the kiSS-1 [gene]. When the GPR-54 gene is activated, the endocrine system kicks in producing a wide variety of hormones, resulting in the heretofore dormant 'sexual feelings' to emerge.

At this point the subject begins to 'feel' his/her sexuality, both physical and emotional. It is at the onset of puberty that boys lose interest in their male friends, and suddenly find females attractive - girls start to see boys in a different light ( due to the production of the hormone oxytocin in the female ), a whole plethora of physical, emotional and endocrine changes occurs; everyone should have learned this in high school biology. Thousands upon thousands of books have been written to explain these changes to new pubescent children, to help them understand the physical and emotional changes that they are going through. This is a well settled subject and is not open for debate.

So what does this mean? It means that no one is born anything but heterosexual, unless they are claiming chromosomal damage ( not likely, genetic flaws are corrected by various evolutionary mechanism’s and if this is the case, genetics would have countered the flaw within a few generations [this is simple Mendelian Genetics ]), and homosexuals would have died out within a few generations of the first appearance of the wayward genetics or chromosomal damage. Accepting this, it then follows that everyone is born heterosexual.
You can read more about it at NIMH.

For more reading on the biological mechanisms and genes involved in puberty go here and here.

So bearing in mind that the reproduction subroutine absolutely requires that the male and female be attracted to each other for the prime program to operate, it logically follows that we are all born the same way. There is no life on this planet that reproduces through same sex congress, so what would be the point of humans or animals being ‘born’ that way, unless it is a defect? We may then observe that there, then, isn’t really any such thing as homosexuality, just homosexual BEHAVIOR; heterosexual humans pleasuring themselves in whatever manner suits them. Homosexuals might also observe that they are born with heterosexual parts – if you have a penis or a vagina you are a heterosexual life form. Just because you discover that you CAN do something else with your penis, does not mean you’re not a heterosexual. Humans are not flying animals either, but we have learned to be – doesn’t mean those humans who fly get to call themselves birds.

Dr. Francis S. Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, along with his team of over 150 of the top geneticists in the world, who sequenced and decoded the human genome, three years ahead of schedule, have emphatically said, ad nauseam, that there is NO gay gene, and although I have the original report from Collins where he DID say this in a press conference, this has now been sanitized by the truth loving tolerant homosexuals and the MSM; but you can read excerpts still, like at NARTH; read it here.

The American College of Pediatrics also maintains this position, read it here. I am awaiting permission and further clarification if I am allowed to publish Collins original words which I obtained from an academic journal on JSTOR. These publications, as with all scientific or peer-reviewed publications and the intellectual property of the author and as such are usually not available to the public and cannot be accessed on the Internet without paid subscriptions, and even then only for one’s own research).

Unlike disreputable homosexual scientists like LeVay, a scientist AND homosexual who had a preconceived notion of whether homosexuality was genetic or not and was simply trying to support his opinions with research that was exceedingly personal to him ( he was gay), The Human Genome scientists conducted original unbiased research; the Human Genome Project had no such ulterior motives nor preconceptions, and went about their project with the intent to simply map and sequence the human genome – they were not out to prove anything one way or another on ANY subject. But once done, it was quite evident that there was no gay gene. It should be noted that without fail, EVERY study done by homosexual advocate ‘scientists’ has been debunked, and none, absolutely NONE have EVER been reproduced. The latter means the research was garbage, whether it’s about homosexuality or baking a pie. The mis-use of control groups by homo activists is a prime target as well.

Additionally, research into this question that is performed by homosexual advocates is unsound and not credible, for reasons that should not require belaboring. A liberal would not believe the National Right to Life’s research on the issue of abortion, or accept an Latter Day Saints researcher’s research on whether Kolob exists or not, but they will happily accept the same type of biased research from the LGBT and their pseudo-science minions when it supports their pet causes. That is not to say that a homosexual scientist is not credible – if a homo is researching the existence of magnetic mono-poles in N-Desitter space as support for String Theory, then their sexual orientation is not relevant to that research and that research is credible. But when a homo scientist researches his OWN issues, THAT research is garbage. This should not have to be explained as to why.

None the less, they insist that they were born that way, and bemoan how they are teased, laughed at and ridiculed; these people seem to think that they have a corner on Hell, that their particular brand of persecution is worse than the next mans, and that no one who is not a homo could understand their plight. Ignoring the half dozen logical fallacies in such a position, kids and adults are teased every day for many reasons, homosexuality being the least. Girls are teased about body style, small breasts, not being pretty, boys are teased and bullied by the bigger boys, the 'geeks', the intellectuals on the physics team or the chess club, are looked down on and reviled by the 'jocks' and cheerleaders, a boy who plays the piano is teased, a girl who likes sports is shunned by other 'girly' girls, poor kids are picked on mercilessly. They are NOT unique in this regard and the claim ( spoken or de-facto ) that they are is at best disingenuous, but in any case belies youth and inexperience.

Additionally, if my lifestyle, caused me to be persecuted and bullied to the point that I wanted to kill myself, well call me silly but I would waste no time in changing my lifestyle, instead of trying to change everyone else’s reaction to it.

Also, and perhaps most importantly, if a homosexual, or anyone, would consider killing themselves over a WORD or teasing, I would suggest that such a person has more wrong with them than their sexual orientation.

But back to the “I was born that way” mantra: I am asked all the time, “Why not just ask a Homo if they were born that way”. Well the answer is, frankly, we just don’t believe you guys. Why? Well the above for one thing, but more importantly, and perhaps more to the point, is that their entire quest for 'rights' is predicated upon the basis that they WERE born that way, and so it would be inimical to their agenda of normalization to admit otherwise; means if you admit it’s a choice you get no rights, so in order to garner rights, they MUST claim it is a choice, whether it is or not.

Considering this, anything they claim simply is not credible, and we therefore must look to other means to arrive at the truth of the matter. When they make claims that are in opposition to basic biology, bio-chemistry and endocrinology ( like knowing if you re str8 or gay when you are born - one doesn’t know anything about anything when you are born; an infant, nor a 5 yo or even a 8yo has developed the cognitive, reasoning or conceptual abilities to coalesce abstract thought ), or claiming you had sexual feelings before puberty, an obviously false statement, it then casts doubt on anything else they might claim; the well has been poisoned.

But this is not the main thrust of the argument that they were ‘born’ that way. Under our system of government, it is well established that one does not obtain rights by behaviors or lifestyles that you CHOOSE to engage in. It therefore follows that the entire foundation of the homosexual agenda to obtain special rights is predicated upon the unproven assumption that they were born that way ( a few articles on epi-genetics by homo activists vs. hundreds of thousands of scientists who have not jumped on this sad bandwagon means nothing ), and that they therefore cannot help themselves any more than a black man can help being black; they can even tell it to you with a straight face. They then connect the righteous quest for equality of our Black brothers and sisters with their quest, and in similar manner to hijacking the word ‘gay’ to be their moniker, they have hijacked the civil rights movement, which I support in full for my black brothers and sisters, and likened it to their own ‘quest’.

It would take a book to refute the latter assumption, a highly insulting one to Blacks. Blacks, as a whole, excepting the liberal minions like the NAACP, do not support homosexuality. Of all the ethnic groups in America, Blacks are the LEAST tolerant of homosexuality, a condition which I can applaud, and wish my white compatriots would adopt. One can read, by prominent well-healed blacks, the denouncements of the gay’s equating the push for perversions with black civil rights. Alveda C. King, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, has this to say about the NAACP and its embrace of perversion:

“Neither my great-grandfather, an NAACP founder, my grandfather Dr. Martin Luther King Sr., an NAACP leader, my father Rev. A. D. Williams King, nor my uncle Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. embraced the homosexual agenda that the current NAACP is attempting to label as a civil rights agenda,” says King, founder of King for America and Pastoral Associate for Priests for Life”. Read more of Mrs. Kings thoughts, and other prominent black leaders here.

Mrs. King is not alone. Black leaders across the country, en masse, are revolting against the traitorous NAACP. Liberals like to point to the fact that the NAACP is supporting this, but conveniently forget to mention that a great majority of the rank and file black population does not. KENNETH D. JOHNSON, black, and a senior fellow for social policy and civil society at the Seymour Institute for Advanced Christian Studies sums up the fallacious comparison of Black rights:

“There is a specter haunting America. It is the movement to promote and legalize homosexual "marriage." The movement has adopted a cunning political strategy to appeal to everyone from the suburban soccer mom to the urban white-male liberal: It has packaged its demand for the radical redefining of marriage in the rhetoric and imagery of the U.S. civil rights movement.

This strategy, though utterly cynical and possibly racist, has enormous strategic utility. For what reasonable and fair-minded American would object to a movement that conjures up images of Martin Luther King Jr. along with pacifist marchers facing down unleashed attack dogs and men with fire hoses? In the aftermath of that struggle for racial justice, who today is prepared to risk being branded a bigot for opposing the homosexual’s activist agenda?

This strategy is the most brilliant playing of the race card in recent memory. We have not witnessed so brazen a misuse of African-American history for partisan purposes since the “poverty pimps” of more than 35 years ago—who leveraged the American public’s sense of guilt and fair play in order to hustle affirmative action set-asides.

But the partisans of homosexual "marriage" have a problem. There is no evidence in the historiographical literature of the civil rights movement or in the movement’s genesis in the struggle against slavery to support their political and moral argument of equivalence. For it was in the crucible of the unique experience of slavery that the civil rights movement was born.

As the eminent historian Eugene D. Genovese observed more than 30 years ago, the black American experience as a function of slavery is unique and without analogue in the history of the United States. Though other ethnic and social groups have experienced discrimination and hardship, none of their experiences historically and politically can compare with the physical brutality of slavery”.

Please read the rest of the article here. It is quite informative and details precisely why the civil rights movement has been hijacked and has nothing in common with the homosexuals pursuits of “rights”.

Additionally, one must address directly the assertion of “discrimination.” The claim that the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman constitutes discrimination is based on a false analogy with statutory prohibitions on interracial marriages in many states during much of the 20th century.

This alleged analogy collapses when one considers that skin pigmentation is utterly irrelevant to the procreative and unitive functions of marriage.

Racial differences do not affect or interfere with the ability of sexually complementary spouses to become “one flesh” through sexual intercourse that fulfills the behavioral conditions of procreation.

The law of marital consummation makes it clear that this bodily union serves as the foundation of the profound sharing of life at every level—biological, emotional, dispositional, rational and spiritual.

This complementary form of life-sharing explains not only why marriage can only be between a man and a woman, but also why marriages cannot be between more than two people.

The King family, for the most part, does NOT stand behind Coretta and her traitorous support of homosexual "marriage." King's youngest and only living daughter, Rev. Bernice King, and his niece, Dr. Alveda King mentioned above, have historically thought otherwise. In 2004 the cousins, along with thousands of protesters, participated in a march against same-sex marriage in Atlanta.

In January 2005 Newsweek asked Alveda, who has aligned herself with the religious right and frequently wields her family name and her voice against LGBTQ rights, whether Martin Luther King would be a champion of LGBTQ rights. "No, he would champion the word of God," she replied. "If he would have championed gay rights today, he would have done it while he was here. There was ample opportunity for him to champion gay rights during his lifetime, and he did not do so." She added, "My cousin, the Rev. Bernice King, has said that she knows in her sanctified soul that her father did not take a bullet for same-sex marriage."

And indeed he did not.

But we don’t even need that; If you are a homosexual and REALLY believe that black society ( not black liberal talking heads ) embraces homosexuality, then I invite you to take your sex-partner down to any ghetto in any city in the US, walk through it while engaging in your homo behavior, and see how ‘accepting they are’, and assuming you get out alive, report back to me. You will be assaulted and beaten to an inch of your life, and possibly killed. If that’s what you call acceptance, knock yourself out.

But I already know, as do the homosexuals, what will happen if they go there and do this, and so they will not go, and will instead come up with all manner of rationalizations why they don’t have to go; but we all know why they won’t. This is, perhaps, one of the few ( only? ) redeeming factors of the “hood/gangsta” mentality and lifestyle. You go down into one of these areas, which comprise the vast percentage of the black population, and you are taking your life in your hands. If you’re homo, you might as well just shoot yourself before going in there.

So if someone tells you, “I knew at 5 years old that I was gay”, simple biology calls them a liar, as no human, str8 or homo, has any sexual ‘feelings’ before puberty ( the endocrine system subroutines that are responsible for sexual feelings are dormant until puberty and a 5 yo’s mind has not yet developed the cognitive and reasoning abilities to conceptualize whether he is homo or not ). This is a prime indication that they are liars. Just because you can get your penis into an excrement factory does not mean you were born with an attraction to an anus – an anus is NOT a sexual organ, any more than an ear is – although I imagine that if you could get your penis in an ear, some pervert would have figured it out by now and claimed he knew from 5 that he wanted to screw ears all his life.

Rubbish.

Another common complaint I here is, “I just want to be treated like everyone else”.

Fine. Then ACT like everyone else; that is, after all, the ONLY reason that ‘everyone else’ IS everyone else.

Next Article: The Duplicity and Hatred of the Homosexual mindset: Heterosexual Awareness Month taken down by Facebook and the loving, tolerant Left.

Authors note: This next segment is a must read for all, and details the Lefts complete lack of tolerance for beliefs contrary to their own. It contains graphic content not suitable for younger readers. Parental Discretion is Advised.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.

You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.






Comments

comments

About Shea Bernard
Shea Bernard; BSEE, MCSE, MCITP, CCIE, IT Consultant, with 30 yrs in the IT industry. He is currently pursuing graduate degrees in History, and is completing an undergraduate in Religious Studies, and hopes to begin an undergraduate in Astrophysics and Geology upon completion of graduate courses. Mr. Bernard is married with two children, owns and runs two businesses. Follow Shea Bernard on Twitter: https://twitter.com/SheaBernard
  • Jason

    Everyone listen okay? As a Messianic Jew (Born again Jew) I can say this right now, what text did Jesus (Yeshua) read from? Jesus was a Torah reading, Sabbath keeping, and temple going Jew and If anyone sits there and says that the OT is just from the Jews, than so is the Messiah since that's what He read. The NT didn't come in to play until 100 years after the Messiahs resurrection. So, to further strengthen the argument that homosexuality is not condemned in the NT, I can say this: The OT was common knowledge to everyone in Israel since they read the Tanakh then which also stated that bestiality, pedophilia, and homosexuality was an abomination then as it should be knowledge to us now since we SHOULD be reading the bible as a whole. These atrocities may not be mentioned in our Ten Commandments nor condemned much in the NT but non-the-less are condemned. Another interesting fact about Judaism and when Judaism came in to play is: was Adam and Eve Jewish when G-d laid down the Sabbath rest which is included in the Ten Commandments? What about Noah - was he Jewish? Judaism didn't start until Jacob which was after Abraham. No gentiles have an excuse. This is fool proof for us Jews as it is for you gentiles. Sorry, but G-d had a plan long before any of us humans knew what thinking was nor what a plan even was.

  • Guest

    Everyone listen okay? As a Messianic Jew (Born again Jew) I can say this right now, what text did Jesus (Yeshua) read from? Jesus was a Torah reading, Sabbath keeping, and temple going Jew and If anyone sits there and says that the OT is just from the Jews, than so is the Messiah since that's what He read. The NT didn't come in to play until 100 years after the Messiahs resurrection. So, to further strengthen the argument that homosexuality is not condemned in the NT, I can say this: The OT was common knowledge to everyone in Israel since they read the Tanakh then which also stated that bestiality, pedophilia, and homosexuality was an abomination then as it should be knowledge to us now since we SHOULD be reading the bible as a whole as Tim Brown above as stated. These atrocities may not be mentioned in our Ten Commandments nor condemned much in the NT but non-the-less are condemned. Another interesting fact about Judaism and when Judaism came in to play is: was Adam and Eve Jewish when G-d laid down the Sabbath rest which is included in the Ten Commandments? What about Noah - was he Jewish? Judaism didn't start until Jacob which was after Abraham. No gentiles have an excuse. This is fool proof for us Jews as it is for you gentiles. Sorry, but G-d had a plan long before any of us humans knew what thinking was nor what a plan even was.

  • ChristianPatriot146

    Bravo! Not to mention that homosexuality has more to do with lust than it does love. There is an obsessive focus on the sexual orientation, much like there is with any other sexual perversion.

    Is there anything loving about sadomasochism? A perverse form of sexual self gratification.

    What about pedophilia? Since children, as you point out, do not have a sense of sexual feelings or cognitive reasoning in this matter, then lust and personal self gratification is what drives the pedophile to abuse children.

    What about zoophilia (bestiality)? Since the animal is not capable of returning "love" in the sexual act, then it must be lust for self gratification.

    Homosexuality, thus, is a sexual perversion for self gratification by the very nature of being an obsessive behavior with an unnatural act as designed by God or nature, as you please. The five levels of real love cannot be experienced in a true sense in a homosexual relationship, because the level of intimacy required, can only be experienced in a monogamous, heterosexual relationship between a man and a woman.

    • shea

      Excellent reply ChristianPatriot146, very well articulated. I had not considered the self-gratification angle, thank you for giving me yet another weapon in my arsenal.

  • http://twitter.com/Verna0530 Verna Seivert

    Wow, it's hard to believe someone as ignorant as this guy, could still be alive. You'd think he would have killed or seriously hurt himself by now, considering he has no brain.

  • jason

    You could make the argument that homosexuality is unnatural, not equal to heterosexuality, not a genetic fate, a social construct, a cultural perversion, whatever.

    But I seriously laugh every time someone says homosexuality is "harmful."

    2 guys having sex with each other, or 2 girls having sex with each other. How is that harmful? Most importantly, how is that harmful to YOU.

    I get that the politics coming from the LGBT community can be disingenuous, or at the worst, hateful and Orwellian. I get that a number of gay people can have a false sense of self-righteousness and self-victimization about their experiences and identity.

    But homosexuality, in and of itself, harmful? How? Because an anus isn't a sex organ, apparently? Or because your God says it is?

    You spend so much time talking about the importance of critical thinking, logic, facts and science. You study Astrophysics, Geology and Biology and run two businesses. You are certainly an intelligent person, who believe in logical thinking.

    Except, it seems, when it comes to this idea of yours that because you think there is this God who believes homosexuality is wrong, is wrong.

    You are certainly entitled to your religious beliefs on homosexuality. But that's all they are: beliefs. You may have argued, or even proved that homosexuality is unnatural, but you haven't proved, in any real sense, that God disapproves of homosexuality (or that there is a God, for that matter).

    So next time you say this thing "God disapproves of homosexuality." I'm going to take that just as I would a claim that gun control reduces violence. I'm going to take it as an unsubstantiated claim.

    • http://www.facebook.com/akos.tarkanyi Akos Tarkanyi

      The cause of high frequency of attempted suicide among homosexuals is probably the high frequency of sexual cheating on each other. Jealousy with all its emotional
      problems is probably much more frequent among homosexual males because of this. Dale O'Leary is an author in this topic, so you can read more about this on the
      internet if you seek her name.
      As far as I remember it was also Dale O'Leary who stressed the interesting observation that drug addiction and attempted suicide are more fequent among homosexuals in the big cities of the US than in its rural areas. Although the rejection of homosexuality is stronger in rural areas. Then the rates of such deviant behavior should be higher in rural areas IF ITS CAUSE IS THE STRESS BECAUSE OF SOCIAL REJECTION. But the situation is just the opposite.
      So then it is not social rejection the major reason behind such deviant behavior but something connected to big cities - and that is the homosexual subculture with its multiple sex partners and cheating and cheating...

    • http://www.facebook.com/akos.tarkanyi Akos Tarkanyi

      Sexual and other child abuse is much more frequent among children cared for by male homosexual parents: See a few sources to this claim:

      Cameron, 1998, Psychological Reports, p1155-1191; Fergusson
      et al., Archives of General Psychiatry, 1999;56:876-880; Goode, Psychiatry,
      1980, 43: 51-59; Doll et al., Child Abuse & Neglect, 1992, 18: 825-864 -

      Children of homosexuals do have a disturbed gender identity - see Stacey, American Sociological Review, 2001/2.

      We know that not only attempted suicide is frequent among homosexuals but also drug abuse, STDs and AIDS. Thus homosexuality is extremely dangerous for homosexuals themselves - but also for their children if they have any from some other relationship.

    • http://www.facebook.com/akos.tarkanyi Akos Tarkanyi

      And this is the 3rd part of my answer why homosexuals are dangrous. They are not only dangerous to themselves and to children.

      An actual homosexual relationship means a model of homosexual relationships and that model does not have the potential of fertility. Society should support such social models which help it maintain itself in the long run and discourage or ban those that do not help it. Even if a homosexual man or woman exceptionally and
      individually conceives or begets a child that child is the product of another distroyed heterosexual relationship and not the homosexual one and the child
      really - demographically and also socially - belongs to another heterosexual
      relationship. The homosexual model is infertile, cannot be fertile and means a
      demographic free rider model for the whole society. We know that science did
      not prove that homosexuality is "born that way" and those experts who
      know homosexuality say that its development is influenced by social and psychological factors. Therefore it can be copied and spread through social and cultural means. Declaring the naturally infertile homosexual relationship model
      "marriage" means that the law does not differentiate the socially useful and the free rider - thus harmful - model and declares to people that it doesn't matter what they choose. And they will think it so. And they will think that it might be so because probably there are no social consequences of their choices. As a consequence of the declaration of the homosexual model to be marriage some heterosexuals might choose the homosexual model directly instead of the heterosexual one, some other heterosexuals might choose only its infertility and characteristic sexual unfaithfulness. We know that the rate of marriages is in decline in the developed world and the fragility of partnerships is high and growing. There is a robust trend of "individualization" behind these demographic and social trends and that means precisely this: that people think that there are no harmful consequences and no costs of their choices and noone will have to pay for them.
      And that is not true. Divorces, even the unofficial ones (of cohabiting
      couples) very often mean a large psychological burden and long term losses.
      Also promiscuity or sexaul unfaithfulness have their harms, amng others in
      psychological troubles and STDs. A society without individual checks and
      balances of a rational marriage law gradually becomes a society of lonely and
      depressed old people who mostly live in psychological misery and often in a
      financial one, too. That is where the "everything is free, nothing
      matters, there are no prices" ideology leads in the long run. And the
      normalization of the homosexual relationship model by declaring it to be
      "marriage" thus normal and acceptable by anyone will accelerate this.
      process the described way. The whole nation should work with all its might to
      slow down and preferably stop this social process of the extreme
      individualization in the field of relationships and also to mitigate its
      negative social consequences. Declaring the homosexual model to be "marriage"
      and so normal and choosable would make a great impact to the opposite
      direction, to the gradual devastation of society.

  • http://www.facebook.com/christopher.reilly.9022 Christopher Maxwell Reilly

    This really is not a convoluted issue in terms of government legislation....

    The government has only two courses of action according to the constitution. Either it can make marriage a completely religious institution, and allow religion to do whatever the hell it wants with it, or it will make it a contract between two adults, regardless of gender. There is really no halfway point which is justified in the constitution.

    Also, I find it a bit strange that conservatives in this country believe that the government doesn't have a right to know what kind of boomstick you have, but it does have the right to deny people certain privileges because of who they would like to spend the rest of their life with in loving matrimony. This seems to be a bit of a contradiction.

    I do not say this with any malice, I just think that my libertarian viewpoints mandate that I not care about who other people want to rub their private parts on, so long as the other person consents with the whole ordeal. I think that it is none of my business, and I am happy with that.

    Message me or comment if you have a problem, and perhaps we can have a reasonable discourse. Maybe we will both learn something.

    • http://www.facebook.com/face.of.ainsleyjo Ainsley Jo Phillips

      I have absolutely no problem with this! I think that we get into other people's business too much these days anyway. This isn't to say that we shouldn't be involved and caring, but it goes too far when people can come into your home and tell you what to keep, what to throw out, where to live, etc.

    • http://www.facebook.com/bigteejay TJ Johnson

      As a person who thinks of himself as a Conservative Libertarian, I'll admit there is a bit of cognitive dissonance between same-sex marriage (SSM) and gun control (to use two specific examples.)

      "...my libertarian viewpoints mandate that I not care about who other people want to rub their private parts on..."
      One specific example that comes to mind when I hear this (and please fellow readers, don't carry this example too far) is what of sadomasochism, even Stockholm-syndrome, in which a person may be voluntarily willing to make choices that would harm themselves (which in a sense, supports the claim made by the original author in regards to making choices, in spite of knowing the potentially extremely harmful consequences.)

      It seems basic human empathy and compassion should call any human being to action to, essentially, protect that person from themselves... but as a Libertarian, I recoil at the intrusion of the government into my affairs aside from (Federally) the notion of defense.

      In contrast however, what if the bulk of society decided that my own choices were harmful to me (drinking large sodas for instance, something I myself don't actually do at all.) There are also some very vocal groups that would claim that sharing my faith with my children amounts to child abuse. If they decided they were acting in my my best interest, how would that be any different than my previously arguing against SSM?

      I won't claim to have all the answers, but it does seem like there is a reasonable point at which a society does logically, reasonably, and morally have grounds for input into the lives of its fellow citizens.... at which point the question becomes, where is that line and why (and what, if not our Creator, is the basis for defining that line.)

      I really think there is a great deal of truth in the statement that (paraphrasing), "our form of government is only appropriate for a religious people", not even as a form of condemnation. If we haven't the common touchstone of the Judeo-Christian God, and his principles, then all we have left is mob rule (or worse, rule by the loudest or strongest, even if that's a fraction of the majority.)

      Yet if we accept God, then we do, Biblically, have a very clear picture (both Old and New Testament) of his views on the SSM subject.

    • http://www.facebook.com/akos.tarkanyi Akos Tarkanyi

      Whether homosexual relationship can be called "marriage" or not is not necessarily a religious question but rather a question of scientific facts, common sense and public interest. Homosexual behavior means a dangerous burden to society and that is why it shouldn't be legally accepted and thus normalized and encouraged by declaring it to be marriage. You can see my answers above to a certain Jason - I explained my arguments abput the dangers and social harm of homosexuality there. You find them there quickly, I won't repeat them here.

  • 9mmhipchick

    Lindsey Graham of S.C is gay.

  • http://www.facebook.com/sewgirl102 Sandy Day

    my son said it quite succinctly, that homosexuality being wrong is a no-brainer. That's because men and women fit together like a key and a lock. Given that God created us and DNA is our software, and the head of the human Genome project decisively states there is no "gay" gene, that means God created us perfectly for the purpose of sexual reproduction. After sin entered the equation, then not only did death enter the picture, but also all kinds of depravity and perversion ...i.e. murder, lying, stealing, blasphemy, covetousness, and also the sexual sins of homosexuality and beastiality. Not content to just participate in these behavioral sins, the "in your face" attitude and attempts to brainwash adults and even small children into believing gayness is normal and acceptable is reprehensible. While God tells us to hate the sin and love the sinners, he does not tell us we have to tolerate their sin. The line has been crossed, and normalizing deviant behavior is detrimental to society at large. What's the next battleground.....legalizing rape, or how about pedophilia?

  • G. Brown

    I am a Christian woman. This issue is complicated. I see so much smugness and self-righteousness in these comments that it makes me sick. The greatest commandment is to love God and love our neighbor as ourselves. We are severely warned against judgment by Jesus. When Jesus was on earth, the majority of his ranting about sin was to the Pharisees. They were smug and judgmental. Just that fact that some of you commenting use the work "Homo" in a derogatory way tells me what's in your heart. I've known many homosexuals in my long professional life. My older brother, who is my favorite person on the planet, is a homosexual. He is one of the most decent, loving people I know, as are his friends. I don't believe for a minute that he woke up one morning, said "I want to be perverted and scorned by society, so I'm now going to be sexually attracted to men." That's a lot harder to believe than to believe that homosexuals are, perhaps, born that way, or something extremely early in their life programmed them that way. To every homosexual I know, their orientation is as much a part of who they are as ... your heterosexuality, which you didn't choose. I'm assuming. I dare say that few of you who rant so have ever dearly loved a homosexual - be it a father, brother, or son. Demanding them to be heterosexual would be like demanding you to be homosexual - how would that go? I've not personally met any "self-loathing" homosexuals, but I've met many wretched heterosexuals that are! MANY people have emotional/mental issues. To say that all homosexuals are self-loathing is so stupid I can't even process it! Physical sexual feelings may not show up until puberty, but I had crushes on boys when I was in kindergarten! The gay folks I've been close to have had the same feelings for their sex since they could remember. For you to declare that it is a choice when you haven't personally experienced it is also stupid and so convenient; but you don't know the heart of another person. I do my best to love everyone because I want them to know Jesus as their Lord and Savior. If someone is gay, I will love them no differently and, if they become a Christian, it will be the Holy Spirit's job to convict them if He so chooses. There are homosexual Christians that are living victorious lives, you know... hmmm. And please don't speak of the OT laws. You don't pick and choose one law so you can judge and ignore all of the other laws that nobody bothers with today. We all sin every day. Why aren't you folks writing articles about the hoards of folks, including Christians, who consistently do "what God hates" in Proverbs? Haughtiness? I see a whole lot of that on this forum! Stirring up conflict? Or what about the sin of not taking care of your body? It's the temple of the Holy Spirit!! "But I discipline my body and keep it under control, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified." (I Cor. 9:27) No, you never discuss that sin because half of you are probably overweight, totally out of shape, and eat crap. It's amazing how judgmental we are about sins we don't have a problem with! What is apparent to me is that most of you don't care much about the souls of homosexuals, just making sure they know how horrible their "choice" is. That is a tragedy. Judge not. Love thy neighbor - it is the greatest commandment.

    • http://www.facebook.com/face.of.ainsleyjo Ainsley Jo Phillips

      Amen, sister!!! Here's a good one for you: I had such a huge crush on this one teacher when I was in high school. A friend of mine (who is gay) saw where I had posted something about Ron, and he replied that, when he was in high school, he also had a huge crush on him. I told him it was too bad I didn't realize this so that he and I could have enjoyed a catfight over him! LOL Ron would have, of course, preferred me to George--but I didn't end up with him, either!!!

    • http://www.facebook.com/face.of.ainsleyjo Ainsley Jo Phillips

      P.S. I'm on my way to follow you here, because I really like the way you think!

  • Tymze

    Excellent, well-researched article. Needs to be broadcast across America and distributed in every news outlet. Our children are being brainwashed into thinking that this behavior is normal and "nice" by our school system, with 10 year old kids claiming they are "gay". What is going to happen to them when they grow up when we are confusing them now.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=674870487 Leslie Fish

    Oh get real. Some time spent living on a ranch or livestock farm will show you that homosexual behavior is common among the natural beasts of the field and forest. So long as the species keeps up its population (which humans have done to excess), Nature doesn't care what else the critters do. If self-righteous straights would just stop using "fag" as an excuse to beat people up, niggerize them for fun, or rip them off of their social and legal rights, Gays wouldn't have to be activists. They wouldn't have to be fierce about it if they weren't being attacked. If you want to kill the "homosexual agenda", just treat them like anyone else, and leave them alone.

    --Leslie < Fish

    • http://www.facebook.com/shea.bernard.5 Shea Bernard

      I rarely comment on my own articles - but this requires a direct response:

      I have spent more time on ranches and farms than you have been alive young lady. In fact, I'm sitting on one now. My mothers family in Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas are farmers and cattle ranchers. I am also an avid outdoorsman, and have survived in the wilderness where you would have died within hours. I am an animal lover, and have been surrounded by them in one manner or another all my life - yes on ranches and farms. Can you drive a herd of 1000 head? I doubt it.

      Cattle: are NOT homosexual. Here's how the dance goes young lady - when there is an imbalance in the ratio of cows to bulls, favoring the cows, or when the bull simply is not doing his job, a female cow, the more dominate one, within sight of the bull, will often mount another cow, usually but not always, from the front. The dominate cow will then urinate on the mounted cows face. The bull then sees this, and smells the hormones in the urine, and comes over shoves his nose in the utrine stream ( if still going ) and seperates the two, then copulates with the dominate cow first, and the often the other one. This is part of the reproductive cycle, mainly to get the bull moving, a mating ritual as it were. No cows are gay, cows are stupid animalsand do not concpetualize. YOU, however, commit the newbie fallacy of "anthropomorphising" by ascribing the reasons that a human does a thing as the same reason an animal does a thing; this is a basic error in reasoning and is Logic 101. There is NO correlation between human anthropology and that of cows, or dogs, or penguins.

      Dogs: This applies to ALL pack predators: it is a sign of dominance, period. This has been known since before the homosexual agenda was even an issue. The Alpha male does this to show the OTHER dogs, especially newcomers, who is the Alpha. He usually will mount his "second" in command, although not always, so that the other dogs see this, and know who the top dog is. At other times a make dog will do this when a specific dog gets out of line, and when a new dog enters the pack. Alpha females, in pack animals, including big cats, are the bosses at the den, NOT the males. Female pack animals will often engage in the same range-dominate behavior as the males, establishing who is the Alpha female. Other lower ranks may also engage in this behavior, establising a pecking order, a hierarchial status.

      Also, they're ANIMALS. They dont have 'reasons' for doing a thing, like humans. Dogs are just horney randy creatures; they not only hump other dogs, they hump pillows, plush toys, and even their owners leg, or a visitors leg. Are you prepared to claim that a leg humping dog is a limbasexual? That a pillow humping dog is a pillowsexual? Did you ever consider they might just be humping things because they are confused and reacting to an instinct?

      Fact: NO animal other than man achieves penetration in any manner other than male-female. The behavior that you THINK is homosexual is actually a dominance display, a hierarcial establishment, or simply part of the mating ritual to get the male moving. Other animals that 'supposedly' are engaging on homosexual behaior are not, and are explained on similar manner as above.

      I would like to leave with somethng to think about - when a dog wipes his butt on the ground, do you believe he is wiping his butt???

      - Shea

    • [email protected]

      Wow, I guess I am to old these days because I can't get the dog to hump my leg anymore...

    • LeslieFish

      Begging your pardon, but not all human homosexual acts involve penetration, either. Also, scientists have observed homosexual behavior in every species of animal known to possess a backbone. It seems to be a population control device, as with wolves.

      BTW, I've seen two steers and a cow take turns mounting (the rear of) a draft-horse mare. I've also seen a paddock full of mixed farm animals going at each other with a merry disregard for gender or species. It seems that animals, having no religion to scare them, will do whatever feels good with whatever will hold still for them. Mating-season hormones may impel them to seek mates of the opposite gender, but between seasons they'll do whatever feels good. Sex-for-pleasure is not exclusively a human trait.

      And yes, I've survived in the wild, wet woods, and I've lived on farms and ranches. Give me a good enough horse and pack of drover-dogs, and I'll move your thousand head.

    • shea

      I doubt it.

  • Ethan Ellingson

    If they'd just get back in the closet where they belong we wouldn't be having this debate. Better yet, if they'd just repent of their CHOICE of committing the capital sin of sodomy and humble themselves before a God who died for their sin, we could welcome them into the church. 1 Cor. 6.