Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘same-sex marriage’

beat-the-cake rainbow warriors

A Lesson in “Marriage Equality”

By Jerry A. Kane

When the idea of same-sex “marriage” was first soft pedaled to the gullible masses, the pitch was, “What can it possibly matter to you if two men or two women wed?” As Glenn Beck said, “If it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket, what difference is it to me?”

Since then conservatives and evangelical business owners have learned the difference it makes and why it matters: It can mean an end to their small businesses, it can mean their church institutions including schools and adoption agencies can no longer be run according to biblical principles, and it can mean the loss of their jobs if they work as a Fox sports analyst, a CEO for Mozilla’s web browser Firefox, or as a contractor with Ford Motor Company.

Will Americans stand behind the Constitutional protections for people of conscience and conviction to live their lives and run their institutions in accord with their faith, or will they stand by and allow state agencies to fire, fine, or imprison anyone who finds same-sex “marriage” objectionable?

The Gaystapo message to evangelicals and conservatives isn’t the once-heralded live-and-let-live proverb; it’s the ISIS shout to the infidel, “Renounce your faith or die!”

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

For at least a thousand years, western civilization has recognized marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and for over two hundred years the United States has defined marriage as the union of two people of opposite sex who are not close blood relatives.

Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples would allow for the definition to expand beyond recognition. If marriage is redefined as the union of consenting adults who profess to love each other, there is no principled reason to exclude others who want legal recognition and social acceptance of their unions.

How could you justify excluding a person from marrying a close blood relative or more than one person when exclusion would mean the denial of that person’s civil rights or sexuality? How could you exclude close blood relatives from marrying each other, or bisexuals who want to marry more than one person?

If two men can marry, why does it matter if they are close blood relatives, or why limit the number to just two? After all, there’s no risk of genetic deformity in the case of homosexual incest.

If homosexual marriage is permitted, why not permit incestuous and polygamous marriages? The only reason not to permit them is that people find them morally repugnant.

Western societies have forbidden incest and polygamy on the grounds of public morality. Homosexuals who want to marry are not being denied their civil rights. They can get married; they just can’t marry someone of the same sex, a close blood relative, or more than one person.

What Same-sex marriage proponents want to do is move the moral line that has been fixed in western culture for over a millennium. They call me a bigot because I am unwilling to move the line, but what they want to do is re-draw the line based their sense of morality and limit marriage to only heterosexual and homosexual couples.

Same-sex marriage proponents claim homosexuals are being denied their civil rights when they are denied the right to marry, but if that’s true, aren’t close blood relatives and bisexuals also being denied their civil rights to marry? So why isn’t it bigotry to deny close blood relatives and bisexuals who profess love for each other their right to get married?

Obviously same-sex marriage proponents don’t recognize the love that close blood relatives and bisexuals profess to have for each other as legitimate, which is why they aren’t demanding that such marriages be sanctioned by the state.

When the only basis for marriage is love or the desire of the parties to get married, it logically follows that close blood relatives and bisexuals will soon demand the right to marry, also.

Same-sex marriage proponents are extraordinarily naïve to believe that redefining marriage will have no serious repercussions or lasting effects on the social fabric. Depravity knows no bounds, and the depraved are waiting in line to prove the point.


This 9:06 youtube video is taken from The Millstone Report web cast at the Resistance Radio Network.

The two-hour show aired Friday, Nov. 8, 2013. TMR was broadcast live M-F from 10:00 am – noon on channel 2.

For more clips from The Millstone Report web cast visit I.M. Kane 2012 on youtube. To see a rebroadcast of the last show, visit the Ought to be Headlines web page

Read Full Post »

Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples would allow for the definition to expand beyond recognition. If marriage is redefined as the union of consenting adults who profess to love each other, there is no principled reason to exclude others who want legal recognition and social acceptance of their unions.

The truth is same-sex marriage is a ruse. What homosexuals really want is moral equivalence with heterosexuals, and they are willing to destroy marriage, one of this nation’s most crucial institutions, in their no-holes-barred attempt to get it.

This 20:00 youtube video is taken from The Millstone Report web cast at the Resistance Radio Network.

The show aired Friday, November 8, 2013. TMR is broadcast live M-F from 10:00 am — noon on channel 2.

See the Ought to be Headlines web page for more web casts. Join the resistance and make a difference before it’s too late.

 

Read Full Post »

This 22:58 youtube video is taken from The Millstone Report web cast at the Resistance Radio Network.

The show aired Tuesday, March 11, 2014. TMR is broadcast live M-F from 10:00 am — noon on channel 2.

See the full two-hour show on the Ought to be Headlines web page, and the join the resistance. Make a difference before it’s too late.

 

Read Full Post »