Monday, June 30, 2014

Mike Adams on Incest Equality

Mike Adams on the natural extension of the gay marriage argument:

Dear Governor Cuomo: 
I am writing to express my deep disappointment with your recent decision to push for an expansion of the definition of marriage – one that allows for marriage between a man and a man or between a woman and a woman. Most of your recent critics are writing because they think your crusade on this issue has gone too far. I’m writing because I don’t think it goes far enough. In fact, I think your approach to this issue reflects a fundamental narrow-mindedness that is almost as distasteful as your Pharisaic moral posturing and your constant media grandstanding....
Governor Cuomo, I want to get married. And I want to move my new wife to New York City so we can pursue our respective careers in education and art (she is a painter). But, unless your state becomes more welcoming and affirming, we won’t be able to do that because the woman I want to marry is my younger sister Jennifer.
It may shock you to hear from someone who openly advocates incest. But that is the way people used to react to homosexuality. In the case of homosexuality, the remedy for such a puritanical reaction has not been silence. It has been openness. Just as we talked about homosexuality constantly – beginning in the early 90s – we must now do the same with incest. There simply is no other way to make our lifestyle seem normal.
Under my plan tolerance of incest must begin in the public schools...
... Some have asked me whether I am concerned at all about the implications of marrying Jennifer. Specifically, they worry that once married to me she will try to bring a third party – one of her girlfriends – into the marriage. But I am okay with a three party marriage. I’m committed to marriage equality even if it means sharing a lover with my younger sister. Sharing is an integral part of the progressive vision.

The fools who support the deconstruction of marriage have no answer to the point that Adams is making. Once you deny natural law and millennia of tradition to expunge the inherent heterosexual nature of marriage, you open the box to stuff that would make Pandora's head spin.

Why restrict marriage to two people, or to two unrelated people, or to people at all? Siblings, parents and children, whole communities marrying, animals as spouses. You aren't species-phobic are you?

Let the bacchanal begin.

68 comments:

  1. It's completely legal for two sisters to "marry" each other in my state, or two brothers, or a father and son, or a mother and daughter. So I don't see why not.

    In years past, states didn't issue marriage licenses to blood relations for fear that they would have handicapped offspring. That explanation seems so antiquated now, as marriage and children have become estranged concepts. A marriage license is not a license to have a baby, thought is essentially what it used to be in those bad old days of bigotry.

    If two people want to make a baby, they will, with or without permission from the state. SO if two consenting adults are in love, who are we to thwart their happiness?

    TRISH

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In years past, states didn't issue marriage licenses to blood relations for fear that they would have handicapped offspring. That explanation seems so antiquated now, as marriage and children have become estranged concepts.

      Yes and there's also been a revolution in birth control. If a brother and sister use the bill and then a failsafe or two, the chances of becoming pregnant are nil.

      Most people oppose sex between blood relatives because they think it's gross and that anyone who does it must be a deranged redneck. I tend to share those beliefs. So do liberals.

      If liberals didn't share those beliefs, however, then speaking them aloud would be a fireable offense, a form of bigotry.

      The one that I never understood is polygamy. Why shouldn't that be recognized by the state too? It's consenting adults. The reason I think it shouldn't be recognized by the state is because it's wrong, but that's just me "forcing me morals" on others again, and I know I can't do that. But seriously, why can't a man have multiple wives? Or multiple husbands for that matter? So long as they are all consenting parties to the relationship, what's the problem?

      Moral considerations are simply not allowed.

      Ben

      Delete
    2. That should be "use the pill" rather than "use the bill." So sorry.

      Ben

      Delete
    3. Trish, yeah but why restrict it to two adults? Why not children, animals and inanimate objects? Equality is all-inclusive, right? Don't want to be an intolerant bigot, after all.

      Delete
  2. Franklin Roosevelt married his cousin. Liberals love Franklin Roosevelt. He wasn't even a hillbilly. He was a fabulously wealthy New Yorker, not unlike many liberals.

    The Torch

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Torch,

      FDR and Eleanor Roosevelt weren't close blood relatives - not first or even second cousins. Their last common ancestor was back in the 18th century, 7 generations in Eleanor's line and 5 generations in FDR 's.

      Delete
    2. Phew. For a second there I thought he was a perv.

      The Torch

      Delete
    3. The Torch,

      No, but you've proved that you're ignorant about facts.

      Delete
  3. Why is it that Conservatives are the ones always arguing in favor of incest, polygamy, and bestiality? I understand that you’re trying to make a slippery slope argument against gay marriage, but you’re too late. Now all you’re doing is spreading and reinforcing the meme for the logical necessity and inevitability of exactly what you don’t want to happen. The actual supporters of incestuous marriage Polygamy and bestiality don’t even have to make the argument because conservatives are doing it for them.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Commissar Boggs, Ministry of TruthJune 16, 2014 at 7:36 AM

      Your concern that Progressives will soon be marrying dogs because "Conservatives" brought it up and are "reinforcing the meme" is amusing, Popito. You are intellectually "turgid" today!

      Apparently, it's over your head to see that your comment isn't exactly an endorsement of Progressive intelligence. But neither is the presence of Al Sharpton on MSNBC.

      Delete
    2. "Why is it that Conservatives are the ones always arguing in favor of incest, polygamy, and bestiality?"

      We're playing the devil's advocate. We want to know why you won't be at least logically consistent.

      Let me explain it to you this way. You "liberals"--and I really despise that term--are the biggest moralizing hegemons the world has ever known. You push your morals on everyone by force of law.

      And when you do it, it's okay! When we do it, we're the equivalent of Bull Connor. When you say that you can't legislate moraliy, you really mean that other people can't legislate their morality. You can legislate yours all day long.

      "The actual supporters of incestuous marriage Polygamy and bestiality don’t even have to make the argument because conservatives are doing it for them."

      Au contraire. All they have to do is borrow the arguments of the homosexuals: equal love/equal rights, it's none of the government's business, we're consenting adults, get out f my bedroom, etc.

      TRISH

      Delete
    3. Trish admits in writing that she’s advocating for the devil.

      You can’t make this up.

      -KW

      Delete
    4. Commissar Boggs, Ministry of TruthJune 16, 2014 at 8:24 AM

      Popito: "Trish admits in writing that she’s advocating for the devil."

      More "strict constructionism". Popito? :-D


      Delete
    5. Trish, nobody is forcing you to marry or preventing you from marring anybody. Allowing gay marriage is the opposite of legislating morality because it allows greater individual liberty. It’s you that wants to use the law to force your Christian religious ethics on people that don’t share them.

      -KW

      Delete
    6. Whenever an activist judge legalizes SS'M, Catholic's religious freedom come under attack.

      http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/religious-liberty/fortnight-for-freedom/upload/Catholic-Adoption-Services.pdf

      "In 2006, Catholic Charities of Boston, which had been one of the nation’s oldest adoption agencies, faced a very difficult choice: violate its conscience, or close its doors. In order to be licensed by the state, Catholic Charities of Boston would have to obey state laws barring “sexual orientation discrimination.” And because marriage had been redefined in Massachusetts, Catholic Charities could not simply limit its placements to married couples. Catholic leaders asked the state legislature for a religious exemption but were refused. As a result, Catholic Charities of Boston was forced to shut down its adoption services.
      Later that year, Catholic Charities San Francisco faced a similar untenable choice and was forced to end its adoption services as well.
      In Washington, DC, Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington—which has provided support to children and families for over eighty years—had a partnership with the District of Columbia for its foster care and public adoption program. However, in 2010, a law redefining legal marriage to include two people of the same sex took effect in the District. The District then informed Catholic Charities that it would no longer be an eligible foster care and adoption partner. Why? Because, as a Catholic organization, Catholic Charities was committed to placing children with married couples so that each child would have the experience of a mother and a father. Concerned District residents appealed to bring the issue of marriage before voters so that they could have a voice in the debate, but the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics repeatedly denied voters’ request to put marriage on the ballot.

      In 2011, Catholic Charities affiliates in Illinois closed down instead of complying with a new requirement that they can no longer receive state money if they refuse to place children with persons in same-sex relationships as foster or adoptive parents. “In the name of tolerance, we’re not being tolerated,” said Bishop Thomas J. Paprocki of the Diocese of Springfield, Illinois, a civil and canon lawyer who fought for Catholic Charities to retain its religious freedom in Illinois.

      ----------------------------------------

      All for the greater good, right?

      Delete
    7. These Catholic institutions chose bigotry over serving the community. Good riddance.

      -KW

      Delete
    8. You've proved my point: they attack religious freedom by extending the definition of "bigotry" to mean disagreeing with progressive policies. But this is what secular-atheism does -- it destroys everything it touches.

      Delete
    9. It was always bigotry; it’s just now public opinion has recognized it and turned against it. It’s all part of the arc of the moral universe bending toward justice.

      -KW

      Delete
    10. Yes, Michael, how sad for the children that the Roman Catholic Church can't take care of them anymore - like in Ireland where the RCC mass-murdered children of "fallen women" by abuse, neglect and starvation, dumping the bodies in mass graves and even septic tanks. Such a lovely bunch of people, eh?

      Delete
    11. "Contrary to a great deal of reporting, including two stories published by The Washington Post, it doesn’t appear that there are 800 skeletons in a disused septic tank." (Wahington Post)

      Snicker.

      Delete
    12. Troy's lying, as usual.

      Eight hundred skeletons were not found in a septic system or anywhere else. A more accurate number is 20. And they weren't found in a septic system. No independent corroboration of a single skeleton has yet been confirmed.

      Furthermore, there is little evidence that this children, if there were any, were "murdered." They were probably buried behind an old home for unwed mothers that operated for approximately forty years in the 20th century. That's if you believe one man who claimed to have stumbled upon some kind of tomb while playing in the area as a child in 1970.

      Babies sometimes die. It's a fact of life. The fact that they were buried there doesn't mean that they were murdered. It just means that they died. Eight hundred death certificates were (supposedly) found there, according to a woman who considers herself a local historian.

      If you want to get upset about dead babies, look to Planned Parenthood. They kill 800 babies before breakfast. On a slow day.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/06/09/the-truth-behind-irelands-dead-babies-scandal-five-questions/

      Joey

      Delete
    13. That's the problem with these Catholic haters. They'll believe anything that justifies their bigotry.

      --Francisca S.

      Delete
  4. Will someone please tell me why a father and son who are in a loving relationship shouldn't have the same right to marry as everyone else?

    TRISH

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gee Trish, I’ve never thought about it before, but you make a good point. I guess we should let them marry. Thanks.

      -KW

      Delete
    2. So, KW are you going to marry your dad, adopt a goat , marry the goat, too. Make her baaaaabies, marry them between each other.....see anything goes in your world.

      Sounds like The Young and the Restless.

      "If there is no God, everything is permitted."
      -Dostoevsky

      Delete
  5. Commissar Boggs, Ministry of TruthJune 16, 2014 at 8:21 AM

    The real point of contention in the Marriage Wars concerns the nature of marriage.

    According to the Left, "marriage" is a contract issued and enforced by the state. In principle, there is no reason to prohibit a contract between two women, two men, three men and five women, a brother and sister, a parent and child, or grandparent and grandchild. Allowing nuptial contracts between humans and other species is a different matter at this time, but the Left is advancing the argument (see here) that "a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy" as a "civil rights" issue as we speak, and I suspect it won't be too far behind.

    According to people of faith, Marriage is not a contract but a covenant ("diatheke") instituted by God and not by the State. This view is evident historically, since involvement of the State in Marriage arose from nothing more profound or meaningful than a State interest in civil record-keeping and adjudication of estate law.

    From the State's perspective, given appropriate regulatory regimes to control the birth of human persons or other biological entities that might become a state burden or otherwise engage State interests, homosexual persons, relatives, polygamists, animal "companions", etc etc ad inf. should be welcome to engage each other in civil contracts to their hearts' desire.

    To persons of faith who understand the basis of Marriage, such "marriages" are really no more than the sad antics of a cargo cult. The ceremonies preserve, to a degree, ceremonial forms of Marriage, but cannot produce the effects of a true state of matrimony entered into by a consenting man and woman who understand the basis and purpose of covenantal Marriage.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Per your analysis many if not most heterosexual marriages are also “the sad antics of a cargo cult”

      -KW

      Delete
    2. Commissar Boggs, Ministry of TruthJune 16, 2014 at 8:44 AM

      Once again, we find ourselves in agreement, Popito. Many are.

      Delete
  6. "The fools who support the deconstruction of marriage have no answer to the point that Adams is making... Why restrict marriage to two people"

    In cases of spousal death, state-sanctioned marriage allows for control of the estate to go directly to the surviving spouse. In case of spousal incapacity, state-sanctioned marriage allows for health decisions to become the province of the remaining spouse. There is no mechanism in state-sanctioned marriage to determine which remaining spouse in a plural marriage is entitled to these benefits. These are two examples of how allowing plural marriage would necessitate a massive rewriting of marriage laws; this is something which same sex marriage does not require.

    "or to two unrelated people"

    There are several reasons to restrict marriage between related individuals. Mike Adams puts forward one argument: that incest is gross. I hope we can both agree that such emotional reasoning is neither convincing nor conducive to a reasoned discussion.

    Another reason that would preclude the allowance of sibling marriage is the increased risk of genetic diseases in offspring. But, given the current accessibility of genetic counseling, birth control, and abortion I see no reason why this reason should prevent siblings from marrying. We do not prevent unrelated individuals from marrying if they have a reasonably good probability of producing children with sickle cell disease or cystic fibrosis, so it would seem this by itself is a poor reason.

    " or to people at all?"

    In the United States, marriage between a person and a goat, or a fish, or a computer is not allowed for the same reason marriage between an adult and a five year old is not allowed. One party in the proposed marriage cannot possibly give consent to the arrangement.

    I hope that helps answer some of the points you have made.

    Good luck to the USA team today.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Commissar Boggs, Ministry of TruthJune 16, 2014 at 9:41 AM

      So the answer is...

      It would require additional legislation and/or regulations to iron out the details.

      Well, I can see how that's a show-stopper.

      Delete
    2. "In the United States, marriage between a person and a goat, or a fish, or a computer is not allowed for the same reason marriage between an adult and a five year old is not allowed. One party in the proposed marriage cannot possibly give consent to the arrangement."

      Okay, but why not consenting polygamists, consenting group marriage advocates, and consenting incestualists?

      No one has yet answered those questions. Marriage is a civil right that no one may infringe upon until it's you who's doing the infringing. You're a complete hypocrite.

      The Torch

      Delete
    3. There's the rub: marriage isn't a civil right. Nor is sexual preference or gender identity for that matter.

      Delete
    4. “Okay, but why not consenting polygamists, consenting group marriage advocates,...”

      Marriage, as a union of two people, affords over 1 100 federal benefits in the United States. Ending the prohibition on same-sex marriage necessitates relatively few changes to those benefits. As evidence, look at the states that have enacted same sex civil unions: in nearly all cases it carries the same benefits of marriage just without the name. Those same marriage benefits cannot accommodate a union of three or more people as the laws were not written in such a way. It would require the creation of a separate form of civil partnership. I am not in principle opposed to such an establishment.

      “and consenting incestualists?”

      Mike Adams gives the reason that incest is yucky. So is escargot. But an emotional aversion is not prima facie evidence to make a thing illegal. Provided that the parties are given genetic counseling, and the relationship does not involve a power differential that would preclude consent, I am not in principle opposed to such union.

      Delete
  7. So, the conservative position on marriage espoused here today is, there is no secular reason to prevent marrying family members, multiple spouses, or animals, and many if not most heterosexual marriages are a joke no more meaningful than gay marriage. Does that about some it up?

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Commissar Boggs, Ministry of TruthJune 16, 2014 at 9:46 AM

      Assuming "many" and not "most", it sums it up for me, although I can't really speak to the "conservative position".

      If you can think of a secular reason, beyond "it would require additional legislation", I'd love to hear it. Should be entertaining.

      Delete
    2. Nope, you’ve convinced me. Let them all marry.

      -KW

      Delete
    3. That's not my position at all. Nor do I have to think up a "secular position." I don't have to justify my beliefs to you.

      If being a consenting adult is all that matters, why should it matter the quantity or if there are three or more?

      The Torch

      Delete
  8. Commissar Boggs, Ministry of TruthJune 16, 2014 at 10:08 AM

    Daily Image™:

    Oblig. Trigger Warning... "That which has been seen cannot be unseen."

    Anointed Vessel of Bubba

    Some people have an excess of self-esteem.

    ReplyDelete
  9. KW - If we may apply the term 'marriage' to every possible human relationship then we have made the word meaningless. If a word means everything, then it means nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  10. As their worlds collapses in debt (the public sphere) and madness (the private realm), the atheist 'progressives' will obviously learn to first tolerate and then promote paedophilia.
    They know this themselves.
    The other week I saw an ad. for a new film. The story line is not too unusual these days. A male Teacher is having sex with a pupil. The difference was that she did not appear to be physically mature. Instead she the actress had been chosen for her obviously 'schoolgirl' face and features. One still had the two 'in the act' when she was in school uniform.
    This ad. was in the guise of an article in 'The Daily Mail' and did not even bother pretending to be 'shocked'. Zero negative comment regarding the storyline.
    As for bestiality/
    Well, commentators here seem to be unaware that years ago (5-8ish) the state funded Channel Four tv station screened, 'a sensitive look at people who have, over time, developed sexual relationships with their pets'.

    The state-media complex, in this particular guise of 'Channel Four' repeated the 'sensitive documentary' twice over the weekend.

    At the time; the state-media complex would only ever do this when they really want to 'hammer their message home'.
    It was rare indeed. The BBC repeated 'Jerry Springer the Opera' in this manner but I honestly think these two broadcasts were almost unique, in this regard of repetition, at the time.

    No-one cared.

    There was zero concern at the promotion of bestiality. People I know still watch Channel Four (in as far as anyone does, unremittingly liberal therefore it survives on taxpayer money).

    Christians are not telling atheists anything that they do not already know when we equate repulsive sexual perversion with repulsive sexual perversion.
    They know where they are headed.
    They simply do not care.
    No logical argument will persuade them.
    Discussion is pointless. They are not decent. Intellectual engagement only confirms in their minds that they have a position worth intellectually engaging with.

    They don't.


    John R.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'Intellectual engagement only confirms in their minds that they have a position worth intellectually engaging'

      Yep. You nailed it John R. I simply and always insist that 'gay marriage' is a null category. It doesn't exist. No one can be deprived of that which does not exist.

      Delete
    2. "The other week I saw an ad. for a new film. The story line is not too unusual these days. A male Teacher is having sex with a pupil. The difference was that she did not appear to be physically mature. Instead she the actress had been chosen for her obviously 'schoolgirl' face and features. One still had the two 'in the act' when she was in school uniform.
      This ad. was in the guise of an article in 'The Daily Mail' and did not even bother pretending to be 'shocked'. Zero negative comment regarding the storyline."

      Palo Alto, right? Leave it to Hollywood to glamorize a sexual relationship between a teacher and student. It is tantamount of pedophilia, regardless of age of consent laws.

      As for the MSM showcasing bestiality, I'm not surprised. England has been hijacked by secular-atheism, thus moral standards fall by the wayside.

      Delete
    3. 'Palo Alto, right?'

      I wasn't sure so I looked it up.

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2604780/James-Franco-blows-raspberry-screen-schoolgirl-lover-Emma-Roberts-lark-football-field.html

      You are correct Michael.

      While I'm on the subject, last summer a film called 'Blue is the deepest/warmest (?) Colour' was given massive advertisement by the state-media complex here in London.
      I use the London Underground and it seemed that every wall was covered in poster adds for this film.
      The newspapers covered it so much I became suspicious, so I eventually began to read one of the seemingly endless 'reviews' or interviews or something.
      Yep....schoolgirl lesbianism with 'extremely graphic' long sex scenes. Apparently.

      It might have won some 'awards' or something; Palme d'Or at Cannes? Maybe, I can't remember.
      However, I've hated this wall to wall sexual-political media campaigning for years so, bored during my long Summer break, I decided to research just how 'popular' this film was after all the avalanche of rave reviews etc.
      I was confused at first as it wasn't in the top 50, nor 80 nor the top 100 (!) films for box office takings.
      I think it was round about 120.
      One weekend it took about £2000 in the ENTIRE UK! Tickets here are about £20 I think.

      This is not a commercial operation. There is still, mercifully, no 'market' for this stuff. Good news that so many people are ignoring the hype.
      It's not entertainment at all. It's not even a distraction or an 'artistic indulgence'.
      Instead it's a form of psychological warfare against the sane.
      I suspect if we 'follow the money' we'd find some state agency of tax free foundation at the bottom of the pit.

      Huum.


      JR

      Delete
    4. "This is not a commercial operation. There is still, mercifully, no 'market' for this stuff. Good news that so many people are ignoring the hype."

      Good to hear. Unless people defend family values and ethics, society will devolve into an immoral cesspool.

      "It's not entertainment at all. It's not even a distraction or an 'artistic indulgence'.
      Instead it's a form of psychological warfare against the sane."

      Precisely.

      "I suspect if we 'follow the money' we'd find some state agency of tax free foundation at the bottom of the pit."

      As this agenda runs deep into the inner recesses of government, media and academia, I'd wager it's something much more sinister.

      Delete
  11. The homosexual bully fascists in Denmark are now forcing all churches to peform these fake marriages. Because buttfucking is equivalent to race.

    Tell me again how this doesn't affect me? The "gay""rights"movement is an awful misnomer. They have the same rights as everyone else. It just sounds a lot better than the anti-1st Amendment, religous liberty suffocating movement. These people have nothing better to do than sucker punch democracy and gang rape my civil rights.

    The Torch

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, they are fascists. That is the correct word. They are similar to the God-hating Adolf Hitler, who was probably also a homosexual.

      Joey

      Delete
    2. I worry that forcing churches to perform same-sex marriages is coming here too. These people are possessed by some kind of mania. They are hunting "bigots" and there's no line they won't cross.

      --Francisca S.

      Delete
    3. Torch, how are your civil rights being “gang raped”?

      -KW

      Delete
    4. KW. We are being pressured (and at some point force will be used) to agree that homosexual conduct is good and pure. This is the equivalent of burning a pinch of incense to acknowledge that Caesar is God. We didn't agree with the Roman Empire then and we won't agree with the Deviant Empire now.

      Delete
  12. Is anyone aware that in USA only 0.6% of households are gay couples (0.7% in Canada, 0.4% in UK). I bet most people don’t know this simple, sad fact. Would media purposely obscure it? Nooo, they never do that :D

    Media’s job used to be presentation of facts so we the citizens can form our opinion. Now media’s job is to form our opinion and hide the facts.
    Notice how TV, radio, newspapers, etc are “exercising” your thoughts to form new concepts and associations in your mind.

    “Celebration of diversity” is a new concept media is in process of associating with homosexuality instead of the old one: perversion.

    How the f**k do I celebrate diversity between me and gay guy or me and fat guy?
    Do I say to gay man “Let’s celebrate our diversity by talking about how you like to take it up the rear end and I don’t” ?
    Do I say to a fat guy “Let’s celebrate our diversity by talking about how you like to chomp down ten hot dogs and I don’t”?

    Can someone explain please?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Celebrate diversity simply means to accept people from different cultures races and backgrounds and appreciate how the combined experiences of a diverse population can lead to a richer cultural experience for everyone. Instead of resenting and avoiding someone because of cultural or racial differences, the admonition to celebrate diversity encourages us to form bonds based on our common humanity while trying to learn from and enjoy the kind of experiences that can enrich one’s life.

      -KW

      Delete
    2. That, KW, is all very well as long as the 'richer cultural experience' isn't also life threatening. I enjoy exotic foreign dishes. ( And you may take that any way you like.) I don't enjoy having my right to free speech threatened by fanatical religious nuts. I have a right to say that Mo was a baby raping caravan robber and lunatic without having a shrieking mob try to behead me. That isn't diversity. It is suicide. Try to understand the difference.

      Delete
    3. KW
      OK, thanks. Generally speaking you are right. I was thinking more about what to tell or do on a practical level when "celebrating diversity".
      I think most people who know gays accepts them on a personal level. It's our human duty not to judge others, but reserving the right to disagree.
       I know ladies couple and I think they are nice, fun, hardworking people. I greatly respect their discreetness about the relationship they have. Relationship should always be personal and not public business for any sexual orientation.
      Accepting as we may be, the fact is: nature rejects them. They cannot reproduce and continue human race. They are evolutionary dead end.
      In case you want to mention adoption option let me tell you that gay couples not so gaga about it. Their child raising and adoption statistics are dismal. It's absolutely no wonder that main stream media is completely silent about it. Hopefully you notice the pattern of the basic facts being hidden from general population.

      Delete
    4. "It's our human duty not to judge others, but reserving the right to disagree."

      Incorrect. We are to judge people's actions. That's not to say that we're given license to hate them on account of their flaws, but we're definitely not called to affirm and embrace wrongdoing. (In fact, Jesus warned that those who fail to warn others of wrongdoing will be held accountable.) You'd have good cause not to trust a liar, thief, pedophile, et al. Our thoughts, words and actions define us. All people are created equal, but all actions aren't.

      "Diversity" has become a catch-all dichotomy meant to foster the illusion that there are two separate groups of people: those who accept all people, regardless of bad actions, and those who don't and are therefore branded as "bigots". By design this political sleight-of-hand classifies Christians in the latter category so as to allow for open ridicule and hostility, as was done in the former USSR by the league of militant atheists.

      Delete
    5. " Jesus warned that those who fail to warn others of wrongdoing will be held accountable"

      You may be right, you probably know more about Bible than me.

      Again, on a practical level how do I tell these polite, discreet ladies that they are wrong. I mean face to face, person to person. They never promote their lifestyle or try to coerce anyone. If anything I would be first to stand up and protect them from physical or verbal abuse.

      On a personal level I really don't know what to do so I go with my instinct and look for positive side in people. All that being said I strongly oppose parades, lewdness and government/media brainwashing of citizens regarding gay issue.

      It is incredible how gay issue is being so inflated considering their abysmal statistical significance in any way measurable. Conservative media could play a little game. Every year couple of weeks before the Pride week they could find a gay pedophile who just did something wrong and inflate the problem just to spoil Pride fun.

      After that preliminary, conservative TV stations could host number of shows discussing the gay statistics or something like that. Maybe this way huge number of citizens would loose interest in the issue and thus gay activists would loose momentum. The activists would have to go on defensive and explain why they have been raising such fuss.

      Delete
    6. "Again, on a practical level how do I tell these polite, discreet ladies that they are wrong. I mean face to face, person to person. They never promote their lifestyle or try to coerce anyone. If anything I would be first to stand up and protect them from physical or verbal abuse."

      Noble quality. We're not to force Christianity on others but rather use it where the truth needs defending.

      "After that preliminary, conservative TV stations could host number of shows discussing the gay statistics or something like that. Maybe this way huge number of citizens would loose interest in the issue and thus gay activists would loose momentum. The activists would have to go on defensive and explain why they have been raising such fuss."

      Don't count on the MSM to do anything of the sort. Their job is to distract the public with bread and circuses and indoctrinate with PC Marxism.

      Delete
  13. If God created marriage, he did, then he decides who can get married. We know the answer. If man decides then a people only have the right to decide who gets married. tHere is no other higher moral or legal law on this.
    Therefore one must fight on this first line of assault.

    Then the good guys must hold what we now have that stops gay marriage and at the same time very aggressively strive to persuade enough people to hold the line for times before the issue is revisited.
    its that simple.
    The pro-male/female marriage people must hold and persuade and persuade enough people as to why gay marriage must not be allowed.
    Its about God's idea, Christianity and others, our deep sense of identity as men and women and how our societies must only recognize marriage as a attractive relationship between the very segregated sexual identities of mankind.
    Homosexuality must be said, since they bring the issue up, to be a contemptible actions, not the people or any inclination beyond free will as we see it, . its repulsive and mankind and our ancestors thought sio very much.
    We can live and work and play and love each other but no consent to homosexuality being made a moral or neutral righteous thing.
    We must insist its not unkind, unfair, intrusive to think and say these things and its them imposing on us a radical new idea in a short time and hardly interested in our opinions much less being democratic and equal time about it. they use courts in disrespect of us and our heritage and foundations and democracy. They are almost fanatical.
    As in any struggle like wars like Civil War and WW11 the good guys lose the early battles but the victory goes to those willing to fight to the end.
    history allows no excuses for setbacks.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Robert,

    'As in any struggle like wars like the Civil War and WWII the good guys lose the early battles but the victory goes to those willing to fight to the end'.

    A rather tortured analogy. But anyway - so you think that the Soviets in WWII, the North Vietnamese and the Iraqi insurgents currently are the good guys?

    You're also confusing 'setbacks' with (final) defeats.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nope. Its a true analogy. God, justice, rightness is on our side. its up to us to use the tools left by our forbears and defend and assault on this matter.
      I am confident the majority of people can easily agree with us.
      How bout you agreeing??

      Delete
    2. Robert,

      I was pointing out that your analogy of the 'good guys' losing the initial battles in WWII but later winning the war results in you claiming that the Soviets were 'good guys', effectively.

      Obviously, they weren't - just slightly less evil than the Nazis. The lesser of two evils...

      Delete
    3. Fiend - A comparison of the 'evilness' of the Soviets and the Nazis is of the same order as a comparison of the 'dignity' of being crucified or impaled....

      Delete
  15. i want to thank God for using (Druwagbale@gmail.com) as my source of salvation after 2 years of unemployment and my lover left me alone for 2 years, only broken heart until I met a Dr. druwagbale on a ladies testimony how he was helped by the same Dr. uwagbale, so i decided to contact him and when I told him all my problems he laughed and said this is not a problem. everything will be fine in three days. Exactly on the third day of my ex lover call me and surprised me and what surprised me was that a company i applies for more than four months ago they called and said I should return to work as soon as possible.Am very grateful to Dr. uwagbale, if you wish to contact him, his email is (druwagbale@gmail.com) it makes the spell as follows (1) If you want your ex back. (2)you need a divorce in your relationship (3) Want to be
    promoted in his office. (4) Would you want men and women run after you. (5) If you want a child. (6) Do you want to be rich. (7) You want to tie your husband and wife to be yours forever. (8) If you need financial assistance. (9)you want to adopt a child,(10)you want to be a member of illuminati.
    Herbal Care Contact him today (druwagbale@gmail.com) Be Useful judge sin emphasize Today

    ReplyDelete
  16. Miss the posts, Mike. :(

    ReplyDelete
  17. Again with the 'gay marriage will lead to people marrying animals' or some other B.S.
    How long has this gay marriage issue been going on? How long has there been gay people on earth? Quite a LONG time, people.

    So where is this influx of beastiality? Where are the hordes of people demanding they get to marry their sister, or father? Dont even say 'oh there was this GUY so and so... ' Show me the VAST legions of people who demand this.

    You cant, I know. So shut up already.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anyone know if Dr. Egnor is okay?

    ReplyDelete
  19. We hope everything is alright.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Hey Dr Egnor

    Hope all is ok, Haven't seen a post from you in a while.

    Best Wishes

    Chris. UK

    ReplyDelete
  21. Egnor is in his own personal heaven, writing for the Discovery Institute on Evolution News and Views, where they don't allow comments and nobody can challenge his B.S.

    ReplyDelete