♫ Coolant Test Strips Nitrites food that is bad for you Farming trailer

☭ bedava porno isle
Natalie Martinez Pic - sexy small girls nude Traditional indian house
lesbian stream videos
video de star du porno
britain's toy soldiers - Sandra Bullock Nude In New Movie - Zoo extree Anya "brutal Facesitting"; Alyssa Milano Booty strattera semen teen jock strap. asian amateur tgps Nude Bangladeshi Girls
liz viscious porn
; jeans by e v zoo; Hitomi big boobs
Lady Sex Kuala Lumpur
lican planus, Nude silhuoette Free Video Movie Titjob Handjob☎ http://assuptak.xxxbabes.gq/ – sex rapishare, Nova Scotia Sex Recreational Real Estate;

The Logic and Consequences of ‘Same Sex Marriage’

May 20, 2012 by Culture No Comments


Well now; Mr. Obama comes out in favor of ‘same sex marriage.’  He joins a significant number of people who seem to be incapable of coherent, logical thought.

In the interest of clarity I propose that we analyze the arguments being made in favor of ‘same sex marriage:’

Gays and lesbians don’t have the same civil rights as heterosexuals

Proponents of ‘same sex marriage’ say that they are being discriminated against and denied their civil rights because heterosexuals can marry and homosexuals cannot.

This is demonstrably false.  If a gay man wants to get married, he only needs to find an unmarried woman of legal age to marry him.  It works the same for lesbians – find a man who wants to legally marry them.  It’s simple.  Equal rights.

Any man or woman regardless of sexual quirk can marry any person of the opposite sex who is approved by state law to marry.  There is no discrimination; no denial of “civil rights.” The entire argument made by ‘same sex marriage’ proponents is a mirage that disappears on closer inspection.

People Must be Able to Marry the Person They Love and Should Not Have toFeel the Painof Being Considered Less Than Full Citizens

This is legal humbug.  It is also logical quicksand.  If  ‘same sex marriage’ is infiltrated into the culture by faulty reasoning, the fire it will start will become a conflagration engulfing the culture.  Let’s conduct a thought experiment:

  • Assume there is a small group of people – all heterosexuals – who enjoy each other’s company, have a great deal of affection for each other, pay their mortgages and taxes, mow the lawn, and pick up the newspapers – all around good people.
  • Assume that the group decides that each of them is paying too much for health insurance and could benefit from discounts given to families; besides, the men have noticed that the women are hot.
  • These great Americans go to a county courthouse and request the forms to complete applying for a marriage license for all seven of them to get married.  They are told that they can’t do that; and asking why, they are told that the law only permits two people to get married – not seven.

If Mr. Obama and the ‘same sex marriage’ proponents have their way, I assure you this will happen.  Let’s follow the story:

  • The group files suit against the county and the state, hire an ACLU attorney who takes the state to court alleging that these people are being denied their civil right to be married.  The state attempts to make the case that state laws only permit two people to get married whether they are male and female; male and male; or female and female.
  • The plaintiff argues that a civil right cannot apply only to a group of two, and not to a group of seven; in addition, these people are negatively affected economically by having to maintain separate houses, and paying more for their healthcare; and because married couples are able to take advantage of the law when filing their taxes than single people.
    The court rules against them.
  • They appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in California which overturns the lower court.  The state appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court and the Justices decide that since marriage is a civil right, it cannot be denied to any group of individuals otherwise meeting the age and other thresholds set by the various states.  In addition, they point out that rights of inheritance, and the advantages of retirement savings are further denials of equal access to a recognized civil right.
  • In the wake of this decision, larger groups decide to marry, and soon third graders are assigned books like, “I Have 15 Daddies and 32 Mommies.”   The point is that if homosexuals are permitted to marry because it is a civil right, there can be no barriers to marriage for any kind of group of legal age who meet state standards.

Marriage is Not a Civil Right

Marriage is not a “civil right.”  It cannot be because people are denied their “civil right” to marry all the time.  If it’s a “civil right” then why can 14-year-olds not marry?  Why do you have to wait for the state to grant a divorce before marrying someone else?  By Mr. Obama’s definition, the states deny people their civil rights all the time, and he’s apparently okay with that because he only wants “civil rights” to extend to homosexuals.  But there could be more – he’s “evolving.”

Further, if marriage is a civil right, why would Mr. Obama say that the states should decide who gets to exercise that right?  How could Mr. Obama suggest that the states should decide whether or not to deny a civil right?  What circumstances could possibly qualify this man  to be a lecturer in the law teaching future attorneys?

This was the argument used by Democrat Stephan A. Douglas defending slavery in his debates with Republican Abraham Lincoln:   let the states decide.  Borrowing the ‘logic’ of Mr. Douglas – Mr. Obama is not personally interested in entering a ‘same sex marriage’, but he thinks people who are interested should be able to do so if their state permits it.  In those states where ‘same sex marriage’ is not permitted everyone should be denied the right  The federal government should not get involved.  Senator Douglas’ argument led directly to the Civil War.  Mr. Obama’s may do the same.

The Legitimacy of Cultural Norms

Cultural norms exist for compelling reasons. They are built from the realities of life.  The realities of life in this regard are that even though sexual libertinism may sound good to people who think they will not actually ever have to give an account of their sexual life to God, the consequences of a libertine culture are far-reaching.

The homosexual community and their public champions like Mr. Obama seek to overcome cultural norms by creating legal sanctions and use force to attempt to change the natural disposition of the heart through mandated public education; but they will fail.  Draconian prescriptions like mandated curricula for schoolchildren, preventing people from exercising freedom of association; and even freedom of speech, and official government opprobrium name-calling,  and demonization are used.

But they will fail.  Such efforts inevitably fail when pitted against the realities of human nature and human relationships.  Reality inevitably mugs ideology; triumphs over theory.

The fulfillment of secret sexual desires that normal cultures do not approve results in the augmentation of disease states, deceit, fear, betrayal, and hatred.  None of which are conducive of a healthy state.  Think about acting out your deepest sexual thoughts.  What would happen if you openly acted them out?  Betrayal, fear, hatred, estrangement, loss.

Civil Rights Are Not Universal

Even if marriage was a civil right, civil rights do not extend to everyone.  We limit them for very good reasons.  Denying 13-year-olds to marry is also the denial of a “civil right.”  But what if the parents are fine with it and the teacher agrees not to consummate the marriage until his wife is 18 years of age.  Besides, the families are all Muslims, and the practice has deep historical roots in Islam.  In this case, the individuals are being denied their civil rights based on a legal discrimination against a particular religion.  We grant rights to some and not others for what we believe to be good reasons.  (Although given today’s federal judges, permission to marry in such a circumstance may indeed be granted!)

Further, the law discriminates all the time.  Cops can exceed the speed limit without repercussion; you can’t.  Sure, traffic patrol policing is important work, but it’s an arbitrary decision to say it’s more important than the work you do.  The laws grant special privileges to any sworn patrol officer that do not attach to you.  By the logic of the proponents of gay marriage, you are being denied the same rights as police officers because police officers can exceed the speed limit, and you cannot.

Following Mr. Obama’s prescription for establishing marriage law in the U.S., people who want to drive as fast as they want could begin to complain about the pain they feel because they are not being treated like full citizens.  They could get the media on their side and make the case that have been discriminated against for many decades; that they don’t have the same rights as police officers.  Worse their rights have been trampled on by the very same police officers who not only exceed the speed limit but have the power of the law to fine you for doing exactly what they are free to do.  So these people should the right to enjoy the same rights the privileged police minority have.

The other side counters with the argument that police serve the function of preventing speeders for damaging other people by driving too fast; they help keep us safe.  The plaintiffs reply that it is a fallacious argument to assume that people who want to drive fast are worse drivers than those who drive slow.  Besides, some of these people work for the TSA or are in government labs working on ways to prevent the murder of hundreds or millions of American citizens, and their work is just as important as that of patrol officers.  It may be even more important.

Would Mr. Obama support such a move to help the speeders avoid personal pain?

Further Consequences of the Move to Mainstream ‘Same Sex Marriage’

Mr. Obama considers marriage a “civil right;” and should the country follow his “logic” it is only a matter of time before any minister licensed to perform marriages in that state will lose that right because if they refuse to marry gays and lesbians, they will be charged with denying people of their “civil rights.”  In some states they may consider it luck if they are not sent to jail for practicing their religion.

What is the effect of Mr. Obama’s train of thought on Christianity?  Or Islam, or Judaism, for that matter?  Apparently Mr. Obama and other proponents of ‘same sex marriage’ are untroubled by elevating sexual gratification and the right to be free from “pain” above the right to freely practice religion.

We have already seen his hatred of Christianity with his ‘health care’ plan which requires that Christians violate their religious principles.  Now he has announced his willingness to take the country where religious people are forced to violate their own religions principles regarding homosexuality.   The only other option Mr. Obama would provide for you if you insist on your freedom of religion is for you to quit practicing the sacrament of marriage “in the sight of God.”  The law – he thinks – should force us to settle for his personal, squalid moral views:   doctor visits and sexual deviancy both should triumph over our constitutional right to freely practice our religion.