Marriage Equality is a Myth

There has to be a fundemental understanding of why States license marriage. It establishes legal responsibilities for the progeny, and incentives to raise them well. Without children raised in homes with a Mother and Father, our society emplodes. Marriage has been damaged already by quick no fault divorce, and single parents have become the norm. This adds to the disintegration of a revered institution that our civilization depends. Its already cracking under the strain. I read 47 percent of children are born into single parent homes. A potential disaster in the making.

The State has no interest in licensing homosexual marriage, as it does nothing for the State (i.e. in terms of producing and educating the next generation). I realize there is surrogate breeding and adaptions by homosexuals, but these children grow up in homes where natural heterosexual parents (the norm) isn't modeled. In some cases, adapted or surrogate children raised in these homes are more likely to sexually experiment between genders....and receive encourgement from homosexual "parents" to do so. Why not?  The growth of homosexual marriage also creates "markets" for surrogates to breed children, which is horrible. Put yourself in the childs position, of being bought and sold on the market, regardless of whether your adapted parent "loves" you.

I'm a person who believes homosexuality is a mortal sin, and that those unrepentent homosexuals, adulterers, fornicators (all sexual immorality) will not inherit eternal life. Homosexuality has been a problem for centuries, read Romans Chapter 1 (as a history) to see what the early Christian Church in Rome was confronting with homosexuality. One thing to remember, God rules in his heaven, not the Supreme Court.

Halloween Fashion...

Homosexual Marriage....Doesn't Make Sense

Gayness is a self proclaimed identity based on ones sexual appetites. It represents a very small minority.

The States sole interest in protecting the institution of marriage is the protection of children... vital for the perpeturity of civilization. Who needs gay marriage? To what end, to what purpose?

Unhealthy homosexual practices launched one of the most deadly epidemics in the world; perversions which have now leaked into to heterosexual community....costing billions upon billions....not to mention lives lost.

Not only should we never endorse marriage between homosexuals, but ban it entirely by reinstituting sodomy laws. Although I would never suggest monitoring private behavior in bedrooms, sodomy laws had the good effect of forbiding homosexual marriage and running perverse pornograhers out of the State. A two-pher benefit. Sodomy should be banned as unhealthy practice, as much crystal meth piping is today.

The concept of Barney Fwank piping his boyfriend, or Elana Kagan strapping on "an aparatus" for her girlfriend.. can never be equated by the holy union of a man and women united in a commited relationship, with the promise of nurturing,raising, and educating the next generation of Americans. Give me a break.

Homosexual Marriage...Not in Texas

Marriage is a legal institution to provide legal status to children. Again, and again, and again, the State of Texas is not governing love, but establishing an institution that’s in its best interest. That interest is constructing the best platform for raising healthy children inside homes with a Mother and Father. That result is indisputable. Children (by and large) who are raised in these homes get better grades, are less likely to be criminals, are less likely to have babies outside of marriage. Homosexual marriage, in contrast, provides no value to the State at all, but encourages unhealthy sexual practices that will add costs to an already overtaxed healthcare system.

Heterosexual marriage does not simply involve procreation, but provides healthy families that will raise balanced children who will eventually become patriotic taxpaying citizens. Without balanced children growing up to adulthood, the State would not exist. Since Europe has already bought into the Gay marriage agenda, and has failed to endorse and encourage strong heterosexual families, their not even replacing themselves. When the State redefines marriage to mean ‘anything goes’, young heterosexuals in Europe have changed attitudes about marriage and are no longer interested in engaging in long term relationships (or producing healthy children) as the societal norm. Sure, they continue to be interested in sex, and occasional have procreation accidents, which is what keeps the abortion mills in the business of killing children before they draw their first breath. Look at the Hollywood culture today…I rest my case.

In California, who has bought into the “gay” agenda, is a collapsing mess,…economically, structurally, and morally. We in Texas are trying to preserve American traditional values, and insure those values are preserved. Licensed marriage by the State of Texas is not about LOVE, unless someone can show me in the law where loving your partner is a requirement. The legal requirement is that you have to be of legal age and opposite sex. Some arguments that childless couples should not be allowed to be married are completely feckless. That cannot be defined in any reasonable sense, as childless couples adopt and/or medical science provides solutions so they might have their own children. In both cases, the child has the best environment to thrive, with both a Mother and a Father. Older couples who marry provide good examples and roll models for younger child bearing heterosexuals, so it helps establish a healthy social order…so it still benefits the State.

Finally, homosexuality is a psycho-sexual disorder, just like pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality, cross dressing, etc, and a ever increasing long list of sexual deviate behaviors. Homosexuality was removed from this list by fiat in 1973. Political pressure (as it is today) was brought to bare against the American psychologist and psychiatrist association not by a scientific evaluation, but by a show of hands (a vote). Of course, this group met in San Francisco, so what more can I say. Now the pedophiles in the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) are trying to get pedophilia legalized. Homosexuality is not a gene, birth defect, or anything that can be identified scientifically. This science is much like the recently debunked man-made global warming hoax. In this case, the data was cooked. In the case of homosexuality, there was no supporting data at all (click HERE for more info). Homosexuality is an identity and lifestyle. Homosexuality is a proclivity like many other things. Homosexuality is a psychological disorder. Whatever, it should never be licensed in the State of Texas. God save Texas.

Things Going On I Don't Like

So-called Conservatives making arguments for open "gayness" in the military. Let me state for the record, there is no "Conservative" view of open gayness or gay marriage. What this is actually, is rhetoric from social liberals that happen to hold some fiscal conservative positions. This is the kind of garbage spread by the likes of Cindy McCain (and her skank daughter), Margret Hoover, Lynn Chaney, and other so-called liberal Republicans. There is no "conservative" position on open homosexuality in the military (or so-called "gay" marriage), only liberal ones. At least be honest. Social conservatives believe marriage should be between a man and women, and open homosexuality in the military is counter productive to good order and discipline. There is no Constitutional right to serve in the military. That’s what Conservatives believe, so let there be no confusion.

I am also very concerned about Sarah Palin’s support of John McCain in his bid for re-election in Arizona. If John were a more honorable politician, he would retire. However, I disagree with those who say Sarah owes John something. John McCain put Sarah on the ticket for his own benefit, not too help Palin. He knew he needed to energize the enervated conservative GOP base, and that’s exactly what Sarah Palin did. Palin ought to have great resentment towards McCain campaign strategists (i.e. Steve Schmidt) who rolled Sarah out into an L shaped ambush designed by Democrat cheerleaders Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson. Holy batshit Batman, that was the dumbest thing I think I’ve ever witnessed. McCain did his part as well, by delivering two terrible debate performances …not to mention his stubborn refusal to attack Obama where he was most vulnerable. Who can also forget his campaign suspension (with great fanfare) to only go back to Washington to vote for TARP…both supported by the unpopular Bush and his political opponent, Barack Hussein Obama. Without the fire of Sarah Palin, the McCain campaign would have replicated the previous Bush I and Bob Dole campaigns…both two big yawns. Sarah should say goodbye to John, and leave him on his own to defend his Maverick rejection of conservative principles over the years.

I hate to keep picking on Sarah, but she should also reconsider going to Texas and campaigning for Rick Perry. Perry is much like McCain, in that he is a conservative when he campaigns, but governs like a liberal or a Rockefeller Republican. Perry is hell bent on building a network of toll roads through Texas, and turning management over to foreign companies. These toll roads would require eminent domain confiscation of private property, and has been a hotbed of controversy in Texas. Perry efforts were squashed by the legislature, but he remains determined. Perry additionally tried to force Texas school girls to take the Guardisil injections as a requirement to enter public schools. Parents in Texas rightly saw this as Government intrusion on their parental rights, and the measure was rejected by the legislature. Perry again was unapologetic. Sarah Palin should back off her commitment to campaign for Perry, and throw her support behind Debra Medina. Medina, a nurse, a small business owner, is gaining a great deal of support inside the Texas Tea Party movement. Medina is not a professional politician, is more conservative than Perry, and is much more compatible with Palin’s views on government.

Homosexuality, Iowa, and the March of Altruism

Homosexuality is a psycho-sexual disorder. Some have looked into the background of homosexual males, and have found some commonality. Three things stand out: 1. Raised in a family with a passive or submissive father, 2. A dominate mother, 3. A child with a high degree of sensitivity (defined as strong reaction to outside stimuli, positive or negative). Some children are much more sensitive than others and it’s an unexplained personality trait in individual children, although I’m sure there are various theories. These three things, coupled together, set the stage or potential for homosexuality to take root. No one yet knows why males coming from these circumstances tend to display such proclivity for same sex attraction. It could be a coping mechanism to reduce anxiety, as asserting dominance in a typical male role can often create conflict and tension that sensitive males find frightening and uncomfortable. Perhaps retreating into a ‘Gay’ identity provides some refuge or relief from these anxieties, and why those so afflicted cling so desperately to this identity. I should caveat that due to social pressure, sometimes homosexual males camouflage their behavior in public to avoid scorn. Some are more comfortable, and outwardly express their identities in manner of speech, dress, and general demeanor. I don’t hold the belief that sexual preference is necessarily innate, as many kinds of experiences, circumstances, and socialization can impact ones application of ‘self’ as a sexual being. Yes, nature certainly plays a roll in sexual proclivity as well, but external stimuli all weigh-in to potentially alter nature’s call. The intelligent human being has the ability to restrain or act out sexual behavior in any way they choose. Yes, we all have proclivities. Everyone does. Compulsions can be very strong, some say irresistible, and need to be addressed with treatment…as some are very destructive. Of course, these three conditions discussed above do not account for all cases of homosexual behavior, but I am simply stating that many male homosexuals have many or most of these factors in their respective backgrounds.

These personality traits, generally develop between the ages of 2 and 5. This is the reason it’s so difficult to treat, because these coping mechanisms have been reinforced over a lifetime. There have been some reparative therapies that have been successful for passive homosexuals. The starting point of homosexual reparative therapy is the realization of a problem. An alcoholic or addict will not stop drinking or using until they recognize there is a problem. Most doctors, taking a political position these days, are now unwilling to call homosexuality a disorder. There are few places for these people to go other than to believe this Gay identity is what their stuck with. This has hyper-politicized the issue further, and why the natural progression of this is to create (from thin air) an issue of civil rights…for what would be otherwise be a recognized sexual proclivity disorder (not a race, gender, creed, or religion issue).

There rests the dilemma…that we are told that we have no choice but to accept that homosexual behaviors are normal… regardless of the fact that our own biology screams that it is not. Homosexual sex is an unhealthy practice and lifestyle. Homosexual men especially, have a life expectancy of males in third world societies. It is a high risk sexual behavior that can have deadly consequences. Saying this is normal or good is not my definition of compassion, if thats what this bonehead judge in Iowa thought he was demonstrating.

Younger people, who are otherwise normal adolescents, unfortunately, have been encouraged to experiment by many voices in society they trust (friends, teachers, celebrities, politicians, etc). However, this sexual experimentation has lead to homosexual techniques practiced in the heterosexual community, between men and women, which are equally unhealthy. We are seeing manifestations of this experimentation causing a wider diversification of sexual practices and perversions in all communities… that are not conducive to a healthy society…either physically or mentally.

I have also read postings by homosexual apologists that the growing divorce rate is an indication that marriage is no longer a viable institution in our society (and that's a defense of homosexual marriage...I don't get it). That view has as much cynicism attached to it as pouring pollution into a river, then saying the water is no longer fit to drink. The failure of marriage is symptomatic of this growing sexual immorality that is rapidly spreading throughout the country. If we, as a nation, do not uphold marriage as the ideal institution for the preservation of the next generation, then I fear what America will look like in the next 100 years. Children, with two parents of the opposite sex, born into the security of a nurturing loving home, taught Judeo-Christian moral values to keep them healthy and viable, are the best option for a strong Nation.

Others disagree. Liberals, and even some well meaning people believe supporting the Gay agenda is compassionate, but by doing so unwittingly plant the seeds of their society’s destruction. Once the currency of their Christian heritage is lost forever, and it’s replaced with secular altruism, it’s finished....done. History is replete with the cruelty and destruction caused by man’s faith in his own goodness (Hitler, Marx, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Amin, Chavez, and Liberal Federal Judges), all worshiping in their church of altruism. The only boundaries they have are in their own judgments, and their own moral sense of right and wrong. There is no higher authority in the Church of Altruism…I’m it…its ME…I’m the King. So much for the American experiment.

We Americans need to think more about Unalienable Rights, and what that means. Our Creator endowed to us (as Stated in the Declaration of Independence), Unalienable Rights, that no Dictator, King, State, or Principality can abridge or remove. I wish someone would tell this to the altruistic judges of the Federal Court, who believes both the Ten Commandments and the Constitution, are subject to any modification using any strain of tortured logic to interpret and create new rights without a legislative process. Why not do away with legislature and executive branch, the Constitution...lets just do away with elections and representative government entirely...and let the judge decide...everything. That won't send us to hell, but we'll get there faster.