“Poll Shows Most Americans Now Support Gay Marriage” Gee, I Wonder Why.

Over the past several weeks, you’ve heard the most wonderful news just gushing out of the liberal media about how polls now show that “most americans now favor gay marriage”, which just happens to come out as the Supreme Court takes up the DOMA/ California’s Prop 8 , of course, in line with the usual “everybody wants it, so why don’t you join us” tactic of the gay sycophants.

I don’t doubt that the polls are correct – if not in terms of percent, but in terms of public shift. That is, the numbers may or may not be 50+%, I don’t know, but I do believe that yes, more people support gay marriage then 10 years ago; and why shouldn’t they? No, I’m not saying I have had a change of heart, and I believe gays should be able to change the definition of marriage – I never will; my point is, there has been an all-out publicity campaign to show gays and lesbians as sympathetic figures, as their cause being a civil rights cause (which it certainly is not), and other underlying themes that have (as good publicity often does) promote an unbalanced picture of the truth.

Shows like Grey’s Anatomy, As the World Turns, One Life to Live, Greek, Ugly Betty, and Modern Family all have positive portrayals of gay characters. They are funny, kind, warm, likable folks,  seen as normal as their heterosexual counterparts, searching for love, dealing with hardships and so on. Any characters in the storyline that in any way challenge the sexuality of the gay character – be it someone uncomfortable with it, a hurt family member, a religious figure – are always vilified, if not overtly, then subtlety; they are the antagonist. They have no valid points or concerns, no feelings that need to be respected, if they don’t totally and without reservation support the gay character.

This, of course, goes right to the heart of the liberal mind – emotions over realism, and the never-ending desire to find a victim to defend, and it’s corollary, defining a villain. Eugene Robinson, the liberal black political commentator, is notorious for finding racism; I’m surprised he’s not calling God a racist for making daytime white, and nighttime black. The liberal mind, being so burdened with an emotional task master, really can’t help itself in this regard. You see, for the liberal, there can be no acceptable reason for not seeing things their way; you must be a (something) -ist. Racist, ageist, misogynist, and so on. You just simply hate. This response makes perfect sense, if you consider it – it’s an emotional reaction to an emotional reaction. It’s the only response they are capable of. You can’t accept their position on a point for a perfectly acceptable reason, because in their sea of emotions, their can be no logical islands, no beaches of reasoning, even.

Enough digression. My point is, the liberal media has been complicit in turning public opinion to favor gay marriage – which is, by the way, not about “equal rights”, but simply about forcing public acceptance. If they can use their considerable power to change the public opinion about gays, then damn it, they can go home and feel good about themselves, that they’ve finally righted a wrong, and dispatched yet another monster. Really, it’s no different from having elected Obama; it’s undeniable a lot of people elected him to finally break that barrier, right that wrong – choosing a black man for president (despite his under qualifications). It felt good to do it, and a perceived wrong was finally righted. Hallelujah! They could feel better now (again, with the emotionally driven behavior).

What the media doesn’t show you is the rest of the story.

Do they ever show you the crushed parents of the gay man that came out? The realization they’ll never have grandkids with this child, or how they’ll have to live with this socially? No.

Do they ever show you the “gay” man that leaves his wife and kids of 15 years for another man? How that family suffers? No.

Do they ever show a person who acts out in homosexual ways, because of emotional trauma suffered earlier? No (because gay is gay, and can never just be an emotional acting out).

Do they ever show promiscuous gay men? No. Because, we all know, men don’t want sex wherever or whenever they can find it – especially two men together.

Do they ever show kids of gay parents that say gee, they really might have benefited by having a two sexed parentage? No.

You don’t see those sides of the story, because it doesn’t paint gays in a favorable light. It’s not because these scenarios aren’t real – they are. If the above instances are mentioned, of course, it’s not the gay person’s problem, it’s everyone else. Get those parents into PFLAG; the gay men that leave their wives always were gay all along; people acting gay are always gay; gay men can’t be promiscuous, never mind gay bath houses and adult bookstores where gay men have encounters. Kids with gay parents wouldn’t have it any other way – because they don’t know any other way, duh!

Yes, perhaps the public’s perception of gay marriage has changed – but it’s due in LARGE part to the gushing portrayals by liberals in the television, movie and print media.

 

Read Full Post »

Gay Marriage: It’s Not About Rights

It’s not about rights; it’s about acceptance. That is the impetus behind the gay marriage movement.

Surprised? You thought it was about having equal rights. After all, you, a heterosexual, had a right they didn’t have – the right to marry. They told you that, and you, not wanting to appear bigoted, hateful, or being unjust, decided for gay marriage. Furthermore, they equated their struggle to those that wanted to marry inter-racially decades ago, and how that was (rightfully) remedied.

So then you signed that petition at the local arts and crafts show, for “equality” in marriage, and you felt good about it; I mean, equality is good, right?

There is one thing you need to understand when a social issue like this comes up: There’s always another side to the story, and the story you are hearing is not necessarily the truth. Such is the case here. Let me present my side of the story, as I’ve been fighting against gay marriage for years.

First of all, hate has nothing to do with it. Just because I disagree with your point of view, doesn’t mean I hate you. This is a common tactic by liberals, when they have no other argument left. You’re just a hateful person. You have to be, you don’t agree with them, and they can’t convince you, because you haven’t acquiesced. Having said that, some people just outright hate gays, I can’t deny it, and are against gay marriage just for that impetus; but my case is based on arguments, not emotion.

They already have the right to marry. This is the biggest lie gay marriage proponents propagate – some, unknowingly. The setup? You can marry, I can’t. Therefore, inequity. The claim is patently false; gay men can, and do, marry. They enjoy the same right that I, a heterosexual man, does. Is it arguable that a gay man cannot marry a woman, as I can? Do not gay men, in fact, marry women occasionally? It’s a fact, gay people have the same exact right I do – to marry someone of the opposite sex. There is no way to argue the point – yet, they do. They will counter, when presented with this fact, “Well, yeah, but I can’t marry the person I love, like you can.” Again, another falsehood. Can I marry anyone I love either? Can I marry the underage girl next door, my first cousin, or another married woman? No. Once again, they have the exact same right I do. Therefore, what they really must do, is redefine what marriage is – a union between one man and one woman – to make this work.

It’s not the same civil rights issue blacks faced. Not only is this false, this is insulting to a real civil rights issue. Let’s look at the history. At one time, black people couldn’t vote – in any way. Because they were black, they couldn’t vote. It was unjust, and it was remedied. In contrast, gays, as I’ve shown, can and do, marry. Black people couldn’t vote – in any way, gay people can marry. Another part of this civil rights struggle they try to reference is interracial marriage. Before 1967, blacks and whites couldn’t marry. Yet, the dynamic of a man and a woman was still there. THAT is the difference. With gay marriage, it’s absent. In fact, the difference is not something immutable – skin color – but something malleable – sexual orientation, identification and practices – all behaviors.

Passing a gay marriage bill will force churches to marry gays. Remember what I stated at the beginning – it’s all about acceptance, not rights. In American society, marriage is the “gold standard” of relationships; it’s the ultimate foundation of society, the basis of a family. It imparts certain rights – and responsibilities. Being homosexual implies relationship to another person – albeit one that is many times scorned. Therefore, if you can get societies’ stamp of approval, you normalize the relationship in society. That is step one – getting the legal system to recognize, and therefore legitimize – their relationship. The final voice against them is the church. They are the stalwart voice, the final hurdle, against total acceptance in society. So then, they must be stopped. Propoents of gay marriage will argue, “There’s a separation of church and state; they can’t make a law compelling clergy to marry gays.” And this is probably true. However, they can claim discrimination, and urge (bully) legislators to revoke a church’s tax exempt status. Pro-abortion advocates successfully put pressure on Catholic organizations to provide contraception to employees and patients. If you think the gay mafia is going to let clergy just rally against them and not take action, you’re sadly mistaken.

There are reasons to be against gay marriage – you believe it’s just wrong, it goes against your religion, you think it lowers your marriage – and so on. That is not a good way to argue agains them. Tear down their false premises, and the issue will resolve itself.

Read Full Post »

Gay Marriage Advocates Next Target: Churchs.

The gays have made good progress in their push to re-define marriage; Their next target will logically be places of worship.

Oh yes.

Now, they are going to tell you that all they are interested in is civil marriage, that they won’t attack places of worship (churches, temples, mosques, etc); it’s just the legal entitlements they are after.

Let me tell you why I think that’s bull. I’ve always maintained that gays want to be able to marry because marriage is the ultimate “gold standard” of a relationship – that the legal entitlements are just a nice benefit.  It’s a bedrock of society, widespread across all peoples, and has been around forever. If you are in a relationship that is so questionable by society (not to mention nature), as gay relationships are, and you want society to accept your relationship, then the logical course of action is to try to obtain that status for your relationship, to give it (hopefully) more credence and to make it more acceptable in society.

So let’s assume society’s definition of marriage changes what it has always been to make this very small segment of the population feel better about themselves and this relationship. Is that enough? No, of course not. Most people get married in the context of a religious venue of some sort. That is the tradition, icing on the cake, so to speak. If you are spiritual or religious person, you would like the blessing of your place of worship, of course. Also, it would put one more legitimacy “stamp” on the relationship; not only are we married, we were married in church – accept us! This of course, would mean that the clergy of the church would have to approve the ceremony. Some religions – like the Unitarian Universalists (a group who really has no definitive beliefs) – allow gay marriage. However, most don’t.

Uh-oh.

So, a married straight people will have that “edge” over a gay married couple – being married in a place of worship. Well, can’t have that. There must be absolute equality! Everywhere! All the time!

You’re thinking that government can’t tell the church what it can and cannot do, regarding ceremonies; and you’d be right.

What it can do is revoke the place of worship’s tax-exempt status, that all (that I’m aware of) places of worship enjoy. Punishment, for not towing the line. When it comes to gay rights versus religious freedom – gay rights win, as seen in this NPR article about the subject.

Refusal of a place of worship to marry a gay couple is what? Discrimination. That’s what they will cry. As such, they will compel gay-friendly legislators to take away tax-exempt status from those places of worship that don’t fall into line. Who knows? If the clergy of a place of worship has a sermon on how homosexuality is a sin, they might even be charged with a “hate crime”.

And then, their work will be done. They’ll be able to wear the mantle of marriage, with the civil, moral and legal approbations bestowed therein; they will have then punished churches that dare deny them the church ceremony, and then finally went after the clergy that made moral proclamations on their homosexuality.

This is why we must stand up against the re-definition of gay marriage, so this slouching toward Gomorrah never gets started.

Read Full Post »

Gay Marriage – It’s All About Acceptance.

I’ve been arguing against gay marriage for over 10 years, and have learned a tremendous amount about it.

It’s all about acceptance. 

It’s not about legal issues, equality, or any heart-tugging canard they throw at you.

Don’t you realize that homosexual man or woman – of legal age – can (and do) marry? Oh yes. Look at Elton John, or Anne Heche. Both supposed homosexuals – both were married to people of the opposite sex. That’s the first myth to be destroyed – that gays can’t marry – undeniably, they can and do.

Their side will counter with, “Yes…..but…..we can’t marry whom we want – like you can!” Really? Can I marry anyone I want? Can I marry the lady across the street who is married? How about the 14 year old girl next door?  If I’m 15, can I marry my teacher, a woman, who’s 30? No, I can’t marry whom ever I want either; their are parameters of acceptable relationships in society – which pro-gay marriage people want to change. It’s that simple. Marriage has always been between one man and one woman – with a few exceptions, such as the Mormon polygamists. But even then the core dynamic – a man and a woman – was there.

Myth #2 – gay marriage is a civil rights struggle.

No it’s not. True or false – can a homosexual person marry (of legal age)? As I showed you above, yes they can. In fact, they do have the same exact right to marry I enjoy. It’s undeniable. The other weapon they tow out is the “blacks couldn’t marry whites at one time either”. This is true, and was remedied – but again, the same underlying parameter – one man and one woman – was still upheld. 

They want to change all that. Ipso facto, they want to redefine marriage.

“But why do you care? How does it affect you and your marriage?” 

Good question. Imagine I’m in a war, and I get my leg blown off. I come home, and am justifiably awarded the purple heart. No one would argue that’s appropriate. Now comes along a group that is advocating for the purple heart for vets that claim mental stress. They get their way, and now basically all vets, when they come home, are getting purple hearts.

How special and precious is that purple heart now? What meaning does it really have? How do I feel about the purple heart I was awarded?

The answer is it becomes meaningless. So it will go also with marriage; if you open up marriage to anyone that wants to get married – whether that be two men or two women – you must open it up to everyone else, or you will be opening a pandora’s box regarding the equal protection clause of the Constitution. 

They’ll throw out the “we want to enjoy the same legal rights as married couples enjoy”. Fine, legal instruments can be crafted to remediate those issues. But gay marriage advocates don’t want that. They want that word – marriage. 

The family – a man, a woman and children – are the foundation of society worldwide. Children need both a mom and a dad to learn how to relate to both sexes; to willfully deny them that is abusive. Look at the black community – some 70% of black kids are born to single mothers with no father figure in their lives. Do I need to point out the state of black males in society to you? It’s not some inherent problem with the black people – we know that black kids, raised in a decent home with a mother and father, will do as well as a kid of any other race. It’s the culture that says “we don’t need fathers for our kids.” 

Often times, you’ll see gay couples wanting to either bring in their kids from their previous heterosexual marriage, or want to adopt one or more with their partner. Selfish, and done for the purpose of bringing credibility and validation to their relationship.

Again, it’s all about acceptance. These people have been fighting, largely all their lives to be accepted for who they are. I wouldn’t want to be in their shoes. They want someone in their lives to love, and to be loved by. I get that. I understand that.

But we cannot allow the very foundation of society – marriage and the nuclear family – to be fundamentally changed for a very small minority of the population, for no other reason than to make them feel accepted.

Read Full Post »

Well, at least we had one tremedous victory…

So we have a new president. Not my guy, certainly, but at least we can show the world we’re not the bigots liberals think we are. We lost the presidency, the House and the Senate. By golly, here in my state of New York, all major branches are Dems!  They’ve done so great for us in the past, we just had to elect more (deep, abiding sarcasm)!

At least we won with Gay Marriage, a big deal for me. Three more states banning gay marriage! We have a total now of, by my count, 47 of the 50 states. 28 states will now have a ban on gay marriage as part of their constitutions. 19 other states have laws that ban gay marriage and limit marriage to one man and one woman (but it is not in their constitutions). Massachusetts is the only state allowing gay marriage. New York (my home state) has no law either way, as does Rhode Island.

Seems like that issue is settled in our favor.

Read Full Post »