Monday, February 18, 2013

Delaware Senate: Homosexual activists want to use marriage as a tool to force heightened social validation of homosexuality! -the distilled version of why gay marriage harms society.

You have a gay marriage bill before you. Please take a moment to consider:
Craftily buried within the wording are overreaching, malicious provisions that would force faith groups to in fact do what the heading of the bill insists they wont, like, they can deny their facilities to gay couples ONLY if they deny renting their facilities out to ALL OTHER acctivities. And, they can deny them only if they don't mind losing their tax-exempt status. And they can deny the use of their facilities to gay ceremonies only if they don't mind losing their property tax-exempt status. Look at the bill, because all these provisions are in there, all nice and veilled for your protection.
I study the gay lobby, I know their tricks well. They're banking on local lawmakers capitulating to public pressure and not taking the time to fully understand the veilled provisions buried in this bill.
But more importantly, the issue of gay marriage is a moot one. As a rule, gays don't wed down. And finding that rare, celibate, committed, domestically-and-socially responsible gay couple down the street who just wants to marry their lifelong partner, well, those cases are as about as rare as finding an albino species of animal out in nature, and those are the cases as the Media depicts as the norm.
But also, the gay lobby is a massive, powerful juggernaut. They purport to desire marriage to gleam the same citizen benefits as regular married couples have, but you know what? Getting those things would be a cake-walk to this well-heeled political machine, and actually pair in comparison to the radical victories they've eeked out in our culture. Remember that one State recently that called it's gay civil unions bill "Everything But Marriage"? Well, that's exactly what it entailed.

Gay marriage codifies and sanctifies a demonstrably disordered lifestyle in such a way that abolishes Christians' right to dissaprove of it - with the freedom of conscience and freedom of association clauses written into the Constitution. Gays don't desire to wed down! The original philosophy behind the gay rights movement was sexual freedom w/o having to committ to a family. Gay marriage is just political leverage for the anti-social gay activists in their fascist drive to silence Christians and all other dissenters. In Massechusettes, Christian father David Parker was ruled against by that Supreme Court in his demands that he could opt out his kindergarten son from pro-gay lessons at school. The court cited that state's gay marriage statute as why no public school student can be exempt from pro-gay presentations/materials there. Or the Va. mom Lisa Miller who briefly became a lesbian, travelled to Vt. to wed, returned to VA, became a Christian and left homosexuality, and because of gay marriage, the courts have given custody of that woman's daughter to her temporary lesbian partner, and now that mom and daughter are international fugitives from justice because they refused to comply. But not only that, courts are bogged down everywhere because of all the frivilous lawsuits stemming from all the Constitutional grey areas caused by gay marriage, proving that you must impose it on everyone, or it hopelessly sabatoges the legal system.

For gay activists, gay marriage is  the most important cog in their totalitarian, Fascist cultural takeover machine - efforts that were specifically mapped, scripted, and delineated in "The Gay Activists' Playbook" (After the Ball' 1988)
The gay rights movement is but a cover story for the Fascist takeover they've so hinted at but won't outright admit, and the central element to the path forward? Access to the title of Marriage.
Karl Marx once wrote, that the best way to take down a nation is to destroy the traditional family, and that's what gay marriage achieves: hopelessly blurring gender roles, keeping children fatherless/motherless by design. And let us not forget the recent Mark Regnerus study which revealed that adult children raised from gay households fared worse in 77/80 developmental areas, and a study showed children from these types of households are many times more likely to become homosexuals themselves.
And let us not forget the abyssmal degeneracy and decadence that parallels the lives of those who adopt homosexual identities: all the extreme levels of STDs, substance abuse, psychiatric disorders, domestic violence, and consistent backgrounds of childhood sex abuse and lifestyle calamities. And drawn from this pool are handpicked poster children that the HRC parades to the media as "with-it", gay couples who could put most straight marriages to shame. This phenomenon is just like a farmer with an orchard of pest-ravaged fruit trees carefully selecting the very few unmarked apples and then telling everyone how good his yield will be. Finding marriage-worthy, domestically stable gay couples is akin to finding an albino specimen in the animal kingdom.

I read up on the gay lobby always. I read up on their appearances on legislative floors crying rivers of crocodile tears and pushing phony and exaggerated victimhood narratives. They truly subscribe to that Alinsky philosophy: "By any means necessary".

Lastly, our Country is barreling toward the fiscal cliff. What gay marriage achieves is accelerates greatly our advancement toward the edge of the moral cliff.

This blogger that I've come across puts it brilliantly, much better than I could ever do:

"The issue is not whether marriage benefits and recognition can be extended to homosexual couples; the issue is whether they should be. There is no constitutional right to the idea of "homosexual marriage." The basis of this political campaign seems to be emotional blackmail and bullying, rather than anything substantively rational.
Why would the state want to grant marriage benefits and recognition to the sterile unions of homosexual couples?? What benefit to society could be so great as to warrant benefits to all such couples in return?
There is none.
Marriage is not a "benefits soup kitchen" for couples, and it is not about love (although love helps). Marriage is a longstanding institution centered on children and used by the state to regulate procreation and child rearing. Note the licensing and myriad rules and benefits involved. Note the recording of marriages in every courthouse across this huge country. The notion that the state goes to all that effort to regulate love is an utterly ridiculous myth, largely perpetrated by the entertainment industry.
The state awards marriage benefits to heterosexual couples because their unions — in principle, as a class — create the best situation for procreation and child rearing, which is a huge public interest. Procreation is not required in each and every instance; it is anticipated from the class.
The state does this without regard for incidental infertility or contraception — because (1) the overwhelming majority of married couples do have children, and (2) the state is constitutionally prohibited from screening all couples for fertility — because that would violate the medical privacy of couples. (See Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965.)
In sharp contrast, homosexual couples can neither create children nor raise them with gender complementarity. They are biologically incapable of fulfilling the implicit quid pro quo that is the political institution of marriage. Their unions are all sterile, and they cannot provide both a mother and a father for children.

1.  Homosexual activists want to use marriage as a tool to force heightened social validation of homosexuality. The "lost" revenue from "gay weddings" is a ridiculous pittance by comparison.
2.  Gay activists will often parrot the infertility canard when they claim that the state cannot regulate a behavior (procreation and biological parenting, in this case) without requiring that behavior. That's arrant nonsense — because it is common practice for the state to provide incentives for outcomes without necessarily requiring the desired behavior in each and every instance. As just one example of thousands, when the state wants to increase the number of specialists in a certain field, it offers college scholarships to students without requiring them to actually get a job in that field when they graduate.
3. Marriage is much more than a simple contractual arrangement between two people. It's the foundation, the bedrock, from which harbors and provides for the future generation(s) of Citizens. Like a protective cocoon, it fosters the optimal environment for responsible procreation and childrearing - both of which sterile gay couples are exempt.

5.  As far as the gay adoption aspect goes, men and women are not interchangeable parts. That androgynous ideological premise is refuted by basic biology.

7The ideological core of the campaign for "homosexual marriage" is cultural Marxism, which is inherently authoritarian."