Gays are not maritable. It will not make a difference if they get a legal certificate that says that they are. It is based on the fact that two gays getting together is a defacto demurrage, i.e. people staying in an infantile psychological state, demurring the ascent to marry. Homosexuality is a choice, it is a willingness to do without God, it is a willingness to avoid psychological maturation and a denial of objective reality. Homosexuality does serve as a social impediment, it prevents the individual from entering into the marital state, the state which is safest for the community at large in regards to S.T.D's and most conducive and supportive for child bearing and rearing. Marriage itself is a social institution not a private relationship between two people. It is effectively an office held by two people of the appropriate age in the recognized legal structure of a marriage, a legality that in a Catholic marriage is first and foremost recognized by the God and the Church and then ratified by the State. As an office it is not occupied by the two person in question for the exclusive benefit of the two person's in question. It serves to ally and strengthen two families and creates a third through procreation by which a medium is created in which an indisputable birth right is established which cannot be revoked or denied in any manner as a biological family member. The children in question have aunts, uncles and cousins on either side which strengthen and unify the family in total.
Now, as to the question posed, how does gay marriage effect it's detractors or even it's heterosexual supporters? This comes across as a very strange question as it pertains to law in a representative democracy. A government of the people, for the people by the people, A government that prosecutes people as one unified state implying the people of that state agree that an individual has transgressed their laws and hence their values and societal obligations. It seems strange how in a city like New York where it is determined that smokers undermine the health of non-smokers and this is the grounds by which it is currently illegal to smoke a cigarette in a public park that the question of how an aberrant inclusion to the social structure such as the redefinition of marriage effects heterosexuals. Perhaps it is because the social, the abstract and the metaphysical not to mention the super natural have all been dismissed in lieu of the material. Yet we recognize the realist notion of a 'state' as one body, we recognize the realist notion of a corporation as one 'body'. Yet we fail to recognize that anything that requires state recognition involves the state and we are all the state and responsible for it's welfare? The sad irony is that this question has been posed by elected officials such as congressman Barney Frank and New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg. If they don't understand how passing a law to which all citizens must adhere effects those same citizens what are they doing in public office?
The gays promote the idea that the only thing that precluded this ludicrous notion in the past was that everyone opposed to it were bigots. They suggest that we all be 're-educated' and receive sensitivity training. In response to my comments on the expansion of the Department of Agriculture's gay friendly policies against 'heterosexism' one 'gay-narriage' supporter wrote:
What exactly does 'extreme sensitivity training' entail, water boarding, electric shock treatment, psychotropic medications until we accept homosexuality as normal and healthy? The fact of the matter is that while homosexuality was and is considered by most as disordered it is categorically consider so as a behavior. Whereas heterosexuals are considered aberrant because of their political position, values and beliefs. It was President Eisenhower who warned Americans of the military-industrial complex but we are more rightfully to be cautious today of the medical-governing complex. One in which psychiatric diagnoses will be attributed according to people based on their political positions. Already, heterosexuals who profess that homosexuality is a behaviorally aberrant are themselves called 'homophobes'. A term which I am not absolutely certain does not exist in the latest diagnostic manual of psychiatric disorders. Their is a growing consensus amongst the elitist liberals that dissenting heterosexuals are inherently intellectually inferior and need to be sent to 're-education' camps as in the great leap forward of Chairman Mao in communist China or the Khmer Rouge of Cambodia.
So have we been a country of bigots for over two hundred and forty odd years? No. That is simply a blatant and strategic lie designed simply to demonize those opposed to this obvious psychological attack against the American people. For far too long we have failed to assess the psychological maturity of people in this country and yet we have legal age requirements in order to take part of certain societal privileges such as voting, drinking, sexual intercourse and of course marriage. Yet we do not see these nominal age prerequisites as 'bigoted' and irrational oppressions, we understand them to be necessary qualifications to partake of these privileges. Why is marriage viewed as an unfettered right rather than a privilege upon qualifications? Is it true that any two people of the opposite sex can marry? Absolutely not, people who are too closely related cannot marry, those whose probability of healthy children is deemed too low by medical standards such as the mentally incapacitated are prohibited from marriage for the same reason. Polygamy has been barred without a reasonable explanation for years amongst the Mormons in Utah and across America in general. Certainly, homosexuals who have a zero chance of healthy children and who are prohibited from even routine blood donation then do not meet the qualifications for marriage. Thus when heterosexuals claim that procreation is not a factor in marriage they are clearly incorrect. Procreation, the probability of healthy children that is, has always been a factor regarding marriage privileges and primarily for the state's welfare and the welfare of the child who would become the ward of the state as a new citizen if the parents are incompetent. Naturally, as stated earlier, there are also age requirements that must be met in order to qualify one to marry. Here we must ask, what is the significance of age requirements? The biological age requirements are rooted to a presumptive correlation of psychological maturation. In fact it is the psychological maturation which is of predominant importance in most instances. When someone can qualify for Congress or the Presidency has more to do with their psychological development rather than any biological thresholds in time. If not for the psychological maturation in fact the nominal age of the person would have little meaning. In fact, to the astonishment of many we have been angered but also surprised when a legal infant who has been statutorily raped at ages as young as twelve becomes pregnant and bears another child. In a further example, child soldiers in Liberia kill men and get high on drugs so too do American G.I.'s biologically older than they. Yet not all the child soldiers become psychologically disintegrated and not all the American G.I.'s remain integrated, if in truth they ever were in the first place. So it is not for biological reasons that intercourse with minors are illegal or that the age to enlist and kill a man in the United States military is eighteen rather than eleven but rather because of the psychological trauma that is presumed to ensue if such encounters are engaged prematurely under the further presumption of a direct biological and psychological age correlation predicated on what must be a 1950's conventional lifestyle in America. Yet, in America by eighteen the former child is considered an instant adult without any correlative evidence that in fact they have acquired psychological maturity. Is it possible that inside the biological eighteen year old lies a psychological infant of fifteen or sixteen?
Is it possible that this individual through fear or emotional immaturity refuses to venture much further than that and enter into psychological adult hood without anyone's awareness since it is a covert process and the rites of passage test have become culturally extinct in America?
When we read the comments of homosexuals do we not get a first hand glimpse of their psychological age? When we see Justice Von Walker delve into a diatribe of rationalism regarding same sex marriage in California or congressman Barney Frank throw a tantrum regarding the same aren't we witnessing psychologically immaturity? Is it rational to have two people of the same sex in a marriage? Ought there not be an equal ration of the sexes in this societal institution? Should there not be a ration of God in people's life? After all aren't we all equal under God? Is that not where the very concept of equality stems? Wasn't that the meaning in the Declaration of Independence?
What then are human rights? Rights that humans bestow upon themselves amongst themselves? Isn't this invalid? The rights understood in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are the ones bestowed on man under God. How does one know when they are right? When they are justified against someone that is absolutely right and that would be God. God is truth, you only know that you are absolutely right when you deal with it in a meta-physical sense. Mathematically you can have a perfectly right angle, materially you cannot however, it is against this metaphysical benevolence of God that we have come to know what is immutably true and perfect and not through a consensus of the intemperate and imperfect creatures that we are.
Materialism has caused us all to digress into an extrinsic legalistic society which paradoxically has lead us to more oppression and exploitations disguised as freedoms, i.e. abortion and pornography.The homosexual fallacy is based on the false logical palindrome that anything running in one direction can be freely run in the opposite. That what is good for the goose is good for the gander, including another gander. All squares are parallelograms and all parallelograms are squares. A woman is sexually equivalent to a man and thus the woman can be replaced by one. The rectum is as good as a vagina and can be exploited as a sexual object. It is suitable to be used as penal receptive orifice as well as an orifice of waste expulsion. There is no difference, there is no teleological exclusion that exist in the human body. This abnormal use of the rectum is not 'ab-use' and abuse is love. We are all just objects in three dimensional space.
With this Wundatian, materialistic interpretation of life words are only so much scribble on paper, a perception applied to some of the most important tomes in society, the D.S.M, the law and the Bible. Meaning is irrelevant, it requires a soul, an interperative subject but with the invert the subject has become the object and the objects have become subject to his interpertations of them. Meaning, the discursive interpertation of everything from astrologiy to psychology is discredited as 'fairy tale' and farce. Thus signifigance of a thing is unobtainable to the homosexual, like the Narcissist reflection in pond and anything that threatens his glass house is eradicated in order to aviod the emotional suffering of admitting that he does not exist in isolation from others, that there is an interdependence of souls that course through him. Too great to accept is the fact that although he claims to be a god and denies God he is not independant and soverign as is God. He is a part of a woven tapestry and a way station of other people's lives to whom he must submit from time to time. So this truth is avoided and being a biological adult, one no longer has a master who can demand him to tolerate such humilation.
Further, take note, when it comes to successful ancient societies why is it that the Jewish society is so often bashed as "primative' by atheist and homosexuals (same difference one in the same). The Greeks and all their mythology are studied in Princton, the Roman's are even privately envied and not so privately honored. Yet, the Jewish people and their great gift to the world, the Bible and the revealed true God is dismissed as unworthy of even class room study. It is because of this very fact that the homosexual borders on a schizophrenic materialism where words are meaningless to them. They have proved that with the 'gay-marriage' debates. The double-mindedness of the homosexual is obvious and it just seems like this is another group that is used against the American values of freedom. Using the Constitution against America is no different than how the Protestants use of the Bible against Catholics. The first group was the African-Americans although they were certainly disenfranchised most White American businesses have received a great boon combining the suffering of the African-American with the realist philosophy of the Catholic Church using the fourteenth amendment to be able to recognize their businesses as a 'person'. Woman suffrage called for equality, in politics and then in pay and now in all things to the point that authority of the man has been thrown out entirely but what they call freedom only lead to divorce, debasement and disenfranchisement. In fact the dignity of women are lower today than they were fifty years ago. Yet this has ushered in 'equality' no different than communism where it ultimately does not matter who 'wears the pants' as long as the work gets down and ironically wages have stagnated for both sexes. Now the homosexuals are ushered in as the latest suffering group who refuses to suffer any more in society and looks to change it entirely, to a world which much more suits them or rather those who seek to exploit them to destroy the bonds of family and religion in order to dissolve the nation states and create one world government operated by the elite and the land tilled by clones. Yet, behind the material accruement of each group there has been an ultimate political enfeeblement. I have never seen so many female actresses and singers half naked in the newspapers as I have as of late. They are near celebrated prostitutes than grande dames. African-Americans have viewed the election of President Barrack Obama as a great accomplishment but he is the very one serving to unravel America. Selling her into licentious bondange with many unemployed today and with strange curtailments on common American freedoms. Mandatory purchases of health insurance to further bind or civil liberties for our biological 'own good', guilty until proven innocent at all the airports, armed military at the main rail road stations and the desolution of marriage and thus the family with his support for the gay agenda.
Yet the other question remains, why are so many heterosexual people in favor of 'gay-marriage'? The answer is quite simple. It is because they are morally debased themselves. A better question would be why is it that sex is not related to character and character is not related to national security anymore? Sexual license has severally injured this once great nation and it is always been used as a method of exploiting people. We have so sexualized the culture that abortion on demand has rendered the woman nothing more than a sex object which often she exploits for her own political power and advantage yet at the cost of multiple abortions per woman. Pornography is legal when once it was considered to have no redeeming social value. Instead of lambasting the perverts in Times Square the Square has been remodeled and 'cleaned' of much of the sexual entertainment but the same pornography pours in buckets directly into the homes of 'all the good' people who two or three generations ago would have called the 'perverts' going to Times Square for a peep show degenerates. Even the bearded men with the sandwich boards proclaiming that 'the end is near' have disappeared and are certainly not being aired on Internet and cable pornography channels. Thus what was once considered smut has become 'main stream porn' and acceptable entertainment but not because the subject matter has changed but because the same privacy extolled to kill babies is employed to entice people to engage in sex and so the 'circle of life' is circumvented for private satisfaction.
Yet the fact is that sex is directly related to character which is why it needs to be kept in check. This is one of the primary reasons why traditionally women are subject to their husbands. Whereas many men will never really want to ban women from driving as they do in the Iranian theocracy, they cannot deny that here in the United States they are confronted with a perverted debauchery where the ordinary structures of society are being torn down. If you never start to maintain authority where will this quest for liberties end and how will a society stay cohesive for it's own survival?
Although those of us who oppose 'gay-marriages' are called homophobes, the reality of the matter is that people who do not have a respect for sexuality are the ones who more directly threaten the sovereignty of this nation. The essence of respect is fear. Men and women who do not know how to fear their own sexuality also cannot take responsibility for it when everything falls apart and many of them will be quite content to live in anarchy.
Sexuality has really been one the most damaging indulgences of our society and it has been under regulated in America for too long. We have found ourselves threatened by our privileges and success, or eating habits, smoking habits, spending habits but also our sexual habits, yet we cry that how we behave is no one's business but our own. Again, there is this issue of privacy which often leads to public disgrace and national disintegration. When one lives in a society one does not live for or by one's self. A government of the people for the people by the people is a governing process that obviously has to include the people. One has to see where their obligations lie in relations to all their 'rights'. If we are no good to one another we are no good to ourselves. Remember the commands of Christ, "love thy neighbor". We are created as interdependent beings, money often gives us the false impression that we are all islands amongst the currency.
When 'laws' are written that says people can jump out the window and fall up into a cushy cloud rather than the hard street below the law is detrimental to the people and is a bad law. It is a law that no one can follow without harm to themselves. The positivist laws written that are self destructive to the people are laws that are to be rejected. The 'gay-marriage' law is exactly that.
Now, as to the question posed, how does gay marriage effect it's detractors or even it's heterosexual supporters? This comes across as a very strange question as it pertains to law in a representative democracy. A government of the people, for the people by the people, A government that prosecutes people as one unified state implying the people of that state agree that an individual has transgressed their laws and hence their values and societal obligations. It seems strange how in a city like New York where it is determined that smokers undermine the health of non-smokers and this is the grounds by which it is currently illegal to smoke a cigarette in a public park that the question of how an aberrant inclusion to the social structure such as the redefinition of marriage effects heterosexuals. Perhaps it is because the social, the abstract and the metaphysical not to mention the super natural have all been dismissed in lieu of the material. Yet we recognize the realist notion of a 'state' as one body, we recognize the realist notion of a corporation as one 'body'. Yet we fail to recognize that anything that requires state recognition involves the state and we are all the state and responsible for it's welfare? The sad irony is that this question has been posed by elected officials such as congressman Barney Frank and New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg. If they don't understand how passing a law to which all citizens must adhere effects those same citizens what are they doing in public office?
The gays promote the idea that the only thing that precluded this ludicrous notion in the past was that everyone opposed to it were bigots. They suggest that we all be 're-educated' and receive sensitivity training. In response to my comments on the expansion of the Department of Agriculture's gay friendly policies against 'heterosexism' one 'gay-narriage' supporter wrote:
"...sensitivity training, even if extreme, can't hurt. There are far too many Tracy Morgans out there who are in need of help to overcome their prejudices and cruel hatefulness."
What exactly does 'extreme sensitivity training' entail, water boarding, electric shock treatment, psychotropic medications until we accept homosexuality as normal and healthy? The fact of the matter is that while homosexuality was and is considered by most as disordered it is categorically consider so as a behavior. Whereas heterosexuals are considered aberrant because of their political position, values and beliefs. It was President Eisenhower who warned Americans of the military-industrial complex but we are more rightfully to be cautious today of the medical-governing complex. One in which psychiatric diagnoses will be attributed according to people based on their political positions. Already, heterosexuals who profess that homosexuality is a behaviorally aberrant are themselves called 'homophobes'. A term which I am not absolutely certain does not exist in the latest diagnostic manual of psychiatric disorders. Their is a growing consensus amongst the elitist liberals that dissenting heterosexuals are inherently intellectually inferior and need to be sent to 're-education' camps as in the great leap forward of Chairman Mao in communist China or the Khmer Rouge of Cambodia.
So have we been a country of bigots for over two hundred and forty odd years? No. That is simply a blatant and strategic lie designed simply to demonize those opposed to this obvious psychological attack against the American people. For far too long we have failed to assess the psychological maturity of people in this country and yet we have legal age requirements in order to take part of certain societal privileges such as voting, drinking, sexual intercourse and of course marriage. Yet we do not see these nominal age prerequisites as 'bigoted' and irrational oppressions, we understand them to be necessary qualifications to partake of these privileges. Why is marriage viewed as an unfettered right rather than a privilege upon qualifications? Is it true that any two people of the opposite sex can marry? Absolutely not, people who are too closely related cannot marry, those whose probability of healthy children is deemed too low by medical standards such as the mentally incapacitated are prohibited from marriage for the same reason. Polygamy has been barred without a reasonable explanation for years amongst the Mormons in Utah and across America in general. Certainly, homosexuals who have a zero chance of healthy children and who are prohibited from even routine blood donation then do not meet the qualifications for marriage. Thus when heterosexuals claim that procreation is not a factor in marriage they are clearly incorrect. Procreation, the probability of healthy children that is, has always been a factor regarding marriage privileges and primarily for the state's welfare and the welfare of the child who would become the ward of the state as a new citizen if the parents are incompetent. Naturally, as stated earlier, there are also age requirements that must be met in order to qualify one to marry. Here we must ask, what is the significance of age requirements? The biological age requirements are rooted to a presumptive correlation of psychological maturation. In fact it is the psychological maturation which is of predominant importance in most instances. When someone can qualify for Congress or the Presidency has more to do with their psychological development rather than any biological thresholds in time. If not for the psychological maturation in fact the nominal age of the person would have little meaning. In fact, to the astonishment of many we have been angered but also surprised when a legal infant who has been statutorily raped at ages as young as twelve becomes pregnant and bears another child. In a further example, child soldiers in Liberia kill men and get high on drugs so too do American G.I.'s biologically older than they. Yet not all the child soldiers become psychologically disintegrated and not all the American G.I.'s remain integrated, if in truth they ever were in the first place. So it is not for biological reasons that intercourse with minors are illegal or that the age to enlist and kill a man in the United States military is eighteen rather than eleven but rather because of the psychological trauma that is presumed to ensue if such encounters are engaged prematurely under the further presumption of a direct biological and psychological age correlation predicated on what must be a 1950's conventional lifestyle in America. Yet, in America by eighteen the former child is considered an instant adult without any correlative evidence that in fact they have acquired psychological maturity. Is it possible that inside the biological eighteen year old lies a psychological infant of fifteen or sixteen?
Is it possible that this individual through fear or emotional immaturity refuses to venture much further than that and enter into psychological adult hood without anyone's awareness since it is a covert process and the rites of passage test have become culturally extinct in America?
When we read the comments of homosexuals do we not get a first hand glimpse of their psychological age? When we see Justice Von Walker delve into a diatribe of rationalism regarding same sex marriage in California or congressman Barney Frank throw a tantrum regarding the same aren't we witnessing psychologically immaturity? Is it rational to have two people of the same sex in a marriage? Ought there not be an equal ration of the sexes in this societal institution? Should there not be a ration of God in people's life? After all aren't we all equal under God? Is that not where the very concept of equality stems? Wasn't that the meaning in the Declaration of Independence?
What then are human rights? Rights that humans bestow upon themselves amongst themselves? Isn't this invalid? The rights understood in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are the ones bestowed on man under God. How does one know when they are right? When they are justified against someone that is absolutely right and that would be God. God is truth, you only know that you are absolutely right when you deal with it in a meta-physical sense. Mathematically you can have a perfectly right angle, materially you cannot however, it is against this metaphysical benevolence of God that we have come to know what is immutably true and perfect and not through a consensus of the intemperate and imperfect creatures that we are.
Materialism has caused us all to digress into an extrinsic legalistic society which paradoxically has lead us to more oppression and exploitations disguised as freedoms, i.e. abortion and pornography.The homosexual fallacy is based on the false logical palindrome that anything running in one direction can be freely run in the opposite. That what is good for the goose is good for the gander, including another gander. All squares are parallelograms and all parallelograms are squares. A woman is sexually equivalent to a man and thus the woman can be replaced by one. The rectum is as good as a vagina and can be exploited as a sexual object. It is suitable to be used as penal receptive orifice as well as an orifice of waste expulsion. There is no difference, there is no teleological exclusion that exist in the human body. This abnormal use of the rectum is not 'ab-use' and abuse is love. We are all just objects in three dimensional space.
With this Wundatian, materialistic interpretation of life words are only so much scribble on paper, a perception applied to some of the most important tomes in society, the D.S.M, the law and the Bible. Meaning is irrelevant, it requires a soul, an interperative subject but with the invert the subject has become the object and the objects have become subject to his interpertations of them. Meaning, the discursive interpertation of everything from astrologiy to psychology is discredited as 'fairy tale' and farce. Thus signifigance of a thing is unobtainable to the homosexual, like the Narcissist reflection in pond and anything that threatens his glass house is eradicated in order to aviod the emotional suffering of admitting that he does not exist in isolation from others, that there is an interdependence of souls that course through him. Too great to accept is the fact that although he claims to be a god and denies God he is not independant and soverign as is God. He is a part of a woven tapestry and a way station of other people's lives to whom he must submit from time to time. So this truth is avoided and being a biological adult, one no longer has a master who can demand him to tolerate such humilation.
Further, take note, when it comes to successful ancient societies why is it that the Jewish society is so often bashed as "primative' by atheist and homosexuals (same difference one in the same). The Greeks and all their mythology are studied in Princton, the Roman's are even privately envied and not so privately honored. Yet, the Jewish people and their great gift to the world, the Bible and the revealed true God is dismissed as unworthy of even class room study. It is because of this very fact that the homosexual borders on a schizophrenic materialism where words are meaningless to them. They have proved that with the 'gay-marriage' debates. The double-mindedness of the homosexual is obvious and it just seems like this is another group that is used against the American values of freedom. Using the Constitution against America is no different than how the Protestants use of the Bible against Catholics. The first group was the African-Americans although they were certainly disenfranchised most White American businesses have received a great boon combining the suffering of the African-American with the realist philosophy of the Catholic Church using the fourteenth amendment to be able to recognize their businesses as a 'person'. Woman suffrage called for equality, in politics and then in pay and now in all things to the point that authority of the man has been thrown out entirely but what they call freedom only lead to divorce, debasement and disenfranchisement. In fact the dignity of women are lower today than they were fifty years ago. Yet this has ushered in 'equality' no different than communism where it ultimately does not matter who 'wears the pants' as long as the work gets down and ironically wages have stagnated for both sexes. Now the homosexuals are ushered in as the latest suffering group who refuses to suffer any more in society and looks to change it entirely, to a world which much more suits them or rather those who seek to exploit them to destroy the bonds of family and religion in order to dissolve the nation states and create one world government operated by the elite and the land tilled by clones. Yet, behind the material accruement of each group there has been an ultimate political enfeeblement. I have never seen so many female actresses and singers half naked in the newspapers as I have as of late. They are near celebrated prostitutes than grande dames. African-Americans have viewed the election of President Barrack Obama as a great accomplishment but he is the very one serving to unravel America. Selling her into licentious bondange with many unemployed today and with strange curtailments on common American freedoms. Mandatory purchases of health insurance to further bind or civil liberties for our biological 'own good', guilty until proven innocent at all the airports, armed military at the main rail road stations and the desolution of marriage and thus the family with his support for the gay agenda.
Yet the other question remains, why are so many heterosexual people in favor of 'gay-marriage'? The answer is quite simple. It is because they are morally debased themselves. A better question would be why is it that sex is not related to character and character is not related to national security anymore? Sexual license has severally injured this once great nation and it is always been used as a method of exploiting people. We have so sexualized the culture that abortion on demand has rendered the woman nothing more than a sex object which often she exploits for her own political power and advantage yet at the cost of multiple abortions per woman. Pornography is legal when once it was considered to have no redeeming social value. Instead of lambasting the perverts in Times Square the Square has been remodeled and 'cleaned' of much of the sexual entertainment but the same pornography pours in buckets directly into the homes of 'all the good' people who two or three generations ago would have called the 'perverts' going to Times Square for a peep show degenerates. Even the bearded men with the sandwich boards proclaiming that 'the end is near' have disappeared and are certainly not being aired on Internet and cable pornography channels. Thus what was once considered smut has become 'main stream porn' and acceptable entertainment but not because the subject matter has changed but because the same privacy extolled to kill babies is employed to entice people to engage in sex and so the 'circle of life' is circumvented for private satisfaction.
Yet the fact is that sex is directly related to character which is why it needs to be kept in check. This is one of the primary reasons why traditionally women are subject to their husbands. Whereas many men will never really want to ban women from driving as they do in the Iranian theocracy, they cannot deny that here in the United States they are confronted with a perverted debauchery where the ordinary structures of society are being torn down. If you never start to maintain authority where will this quest for liberties end and how will a society stay cohesive for it's own survival?
Although those of us who oppose 'gay-marriages' are called homophobes, the reality of the matter is that people who do not have a respect for sexuality are the ones who more directly threaten the sovereignty of this nation. The essence of respect is fear. Men and women who do not know how to fear their own sexuality also cannot take responsibility for it when everything falls apart and many of them will be quite content to live in anarchy.
Sexuality has really been one the most damaging indulgences of our society and it has been under regulated in America for too long. We have found ourselves threatened by our privileges and success, or eating habits, smoking habits, spending habits but also our sexual habits, yet we cry that how we behave is no one's business but our own. Again, there is this issue of privacy which often leads to public disgrace and national disintegration. When one lives in a society one does not live for or by one's self. A government of the people for the people by the people is a governing process that obviously has to include the people. One has to see where their obligations lie in relations to all their 'rights'. If we are no good to one another we are no good to ourselves. Remember the commands of Christ, "love thy neighbor". We are created as interdependent beings, money often gives us the false impression that we are all islands amongst the currency.
When 'laws' are written that says people can jump out the window and fall up into a cushy cloud rather than the hard street below the law is detrimental to the people and is a bad law. It is a law that no one can follow without harm to themselves. The positivist laws written that are self destructive to the people are laws that are to be rejected. The 'gay-marriage' law is exactly that.
1 comment:
Stopped reading on "homosexuality is a choice".
Post a Comment