Johnny Cakes anyone?
Yesterday the senate voted against a bill that would prevent gay marriage. Democrats are complaining that this is nothing more than Bush trying to rally his core conservatives during a time of low approval ratings due to the war in Iraq. Perhaps there is some truth to that. On the other side, I am not sure why he would care, its not like he running again. Personally I do think the timing is a little poor, and would rather see his focus on more important issues.
My take on the matter is that government shouldn't make any laws regarding sexual preference whatsoever. Ones sexual preference does not qualify them for minority status. What qualifies someone to be a minority is the ability to be prejudged based on appearance or physical attribute. You cannot discriminate against a homosexual, unless he or she first informs you that they prefer abnormal sexual relationships. Homosexuals are seeking for the population to consider their behavior normal. That's what gay rights is really all about isn't it? Problem is, assigning rights to gays is giving people rights because of their behavior rather than appearance or physical attribute.
One could argue that someone is born gay and has no choice in their behavior. I once asked a homosexual friend of mine if it is indeed a choice or is it something you are born with? His answer was a very sincere "why would I choose this?". His answer came with almost tears after a lengthy conversation of my prying questions. I believe him, and do not accept the idea that it is a chosen desire to be homosexual. Never the less, this is abnormal behavior. It is observed as grotesque and/or immoral by most of the population. Just because one is born with an abnormal desire does not mean it has to be acted upon. We should not have to create laws or special rights for a persons abnormal behavior that most consider immoral. The aim of the left is to submerge the population with homosexuality until we become immune to it and thus accept it as normal. Take for instance, HBO. I watch every single one of HBO's origional series, they are all very good, but every single one has gay characters and they show their behavior in detail even though many times it has nothing to do with the plot or story line. I am not exaggerating, every single one has at least one gay character and they always go off on some tangent to show you their homosexual behavior. Even the Sopranos did their own little version of Broke Back Mt. A big fat Italian Mafia man, calling his lover Johnny Cakes (since he met him in a diner while Johnny was making his pancakes). The gay thing has been beat to death on HBO, yet they keep on doing it. Why? It has nothing to do with the storys they are telling (except for perhaps, 6 Feet Under). The only conclusion is that it is actually part of an agenda.
Why wear it on your sleeve. If you must live a gay lifestyle, why must everyone be involved? why do you need everyone to accept it? Two things I can't stand to see
1. A man on the parade route holding a sign that says "God hates Fags".
If you really are a Christian, act like one!
2. A man marching in a parade because he wants you to see his gay pride.
Why wear it on your sleeve? I am a heterosexual, but am I proud of it? Not so much I though I needed to march and let everyone know.
Websters defines marriage as a union between a man and woman.
My take on the matter is that government shouldn't make any laws regarding sexual preference whatsoever. Ones sexual preference does not qualify them for minority status. What qualifies someone to be a minority is the ability to be prejudged based on appearance or physical attribute. You cannot discriminate against a homosexual, unless he or she first informs you that they prefer abnormal sexual relationships. Homosexuals are seeking for the population to consider their behavior normal. That's what gay rights is really all about isn't it? Problem is, assigning rights to gays is giving people rights because of their behavior rather than appearance or physical attribute.
One could argue that someone is born gay and has no choice in their behavior. I once asked a homosexual friend of mine if it is indeed a choice or is it something you are born with? His answer was a very sincere "why would I choose this?". His answer came with almost tears after a lengthy conversation of my prying questions. I believe him, and do not accept the idea that it is a chosen desire to be homosexual. Never the less, this is abnormal behavior. It is observed as grotesque and/or immoral by most of the population. Just because one is born with an abnormal desire does not mean it has to be acted upon. We should not have to create laws or special rights for a persons abnormal behavior that most consider immoral. The aim of the left is to submerge the population with homosexuality until we become immune to it and thus accept it as normal. Take for instance, HBO. I watch every single one of HBO's origional series, they are all very good, but every single one has gay characters and they show their behavior in detail even though many times it has nothing to do with the plot or story line. I am not exaggerating, every single one has at least one gay character and they always go off on some tangent to show you their homosexual behavior. Even the Sopranos did their own little version of Broke Back Mt. A big fat Italian Mafia man, calling his lover Johnny Cakes (since he met him in a diner while Johnny was making his pancakes). The gay thing has been beat to death on HBO, yet they keep on doing it. Why? It has nothing to do with the storys they are telling (except for perhaps, 6 Feet Under). The only conclusion is that it is actually part of an agenda.
Why wear it on your sleeve. If you must live a gay lifestyle, why must everyone be involved? why do you need everyone to accept it? Two things I can't stand to see
1. A man on the parade route holding a sign that says "God hates Fags".
If you really are a Christian, act like one!
2. A man marching in a parade because he wants you to see his gay pride.
Why wear it on your sleeve? I am a heterosexual, but am I proud of it? Not so much I though I needed to march and let everyone know.
Websters defines marriage as a union between a man and woman.
posted by Jim Fisher at 5:06 AM
1 Comments:
"Just because one is born with an abnormal desire does not mean it has to be acted upon."
I agree with Jim. The argument that says, "Well, I have this desire, and I prayed that God would take it away. He hasn't so He must have made me this way..." is just an assertion, not an argument.
I have lots of desires. It would certainly be wise if I refrained from acting upon them.
:-)
Post a Comment
<< Home