Just What Was All of That Fuss Over Homosexual Marriage Again?

by lewwaters

If you call a tail a leg, then how many legs does a cow have? Four, because calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it one.”

Pig Bride & GroomThe above riddle, most often credited to Abraham Lincoln, begins a well thought and expressed essay by Thomas Wenski, Archbishop of Miami, Florida concerning the potential of the Supreme Court doing away with the Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by former President B.J. Clinton on September 21, 1996 that prohibits the federal government for legally recognizing homosexual marriage as legitimate.

The essay arrives at a compelling conclusion;

“As an institution marriage precedes both Church and State — while both within their proper spheres can certainly regulate marriage, neither has the authority to create the meaning of marriage. The Supreme Court Justices would do well do remember Lincoln’s aphorism – even if you call a tail a leg, it’ll still be a tail. Calling the mutual sexual gratification of same sex couples ‘marriage’ won’t make it so either.”

As we know, homosexuals have long sought legitimacy for their lifestyle and have been pushing for full marriage rights, relying on the old arguments of labeling those who defend more traditional marriage as “homophobes,” “bigots” and what have you.

The Lazy C strongly favored making homosexual marriage legal in Washington State, publishing numerous pro-articles masquerading as “balanced” that were not even close. Arguments laid out by commenters ran the gamut from “promoting monogamy” (even though homosexuals have argued for many years they were not promiscuous), to “equality” with the truth being closer to “they want it.”

Once passed into law last year, passing a citizen vote statewide (even though Clark County strongly opposed the measure) and being implemented early this year, the Lazy C ran a joyous article, Making history: Clark County gay couples wed at midnight and More than 2,400 gay couples have married in Washington as even some local Churches, apparently ripping a few pages out of their Bibles, jumped on the bandwagon to perform such sham marriages.

Remember the words credited to Abraham Lincoln that calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it so.

After all of the glorification and heavily biased articles promoting homosexual marriage, now we read a front page, headline story in the Lazy C, Gender plays role in walk down the aisle with the remarkable claim, “Same-sex marriage trends suggest that men — whether straight or gay — have to be dragged kicking and screaming to the altar.”

My initial though was something along the lines of, since they are both male homosexuals, just who is dragging them ‘kicking and screaming’ down to any altar and does the writers at the Lazy C ever think about what they are writing?

Reading on I then see what is really being said with,

“In the first six months of same-marriage in Washington, just one male couple married in Clark County for every two lesbian couples that tied the knot. That mirrors what’s happened in other states and countries where marriage equality laws exist.”

Oh, okay, I see now, not enough male homosexuals are seeking to enter a sham marriage to suit the Lazy C?

Maybe not quite, although that is how it comes across.

The article clarifies a little more with, “Bottom line: gender matters,” said Amy Wharton, sociology professor at Washington State University Vancouver. Gender, rather than sexual orientation, is a better predictor of marriage and family choices, she said. Women are more likely to crave marriage and children; men are more likely to have and act on sexual urges.”

Curious claims of “Women are more likely to crave marriage and children” since women cannot conceive a child without the involvement of a male somewhere along the line and “men are more likely to have and act on sexual urges” since that one of the arguments against legalizing homosexual marriage, it would benefit primarily divorce lawyers sooner or later and that claims of homosexuals not being promiscuous stated over so many years is not even close to accurate, although I am sure there some.

Infidelity is a major reason that many marriages fall apart, but many claimed homosexuals were above all of that in promoting the notion of such sham marriages as homosexuals marrying each other.

Along this line, the article also says, “M.V. Lee Badgett, research director at the Williams Institute, thinks children are the greatest driving force in lesbian marriage rates. Lesbians are more likely than gay men to have or want to have children,” still ignoring that in order to conceive a child, even a lesbian woman much involve a male somewhere along the line, even if only a sperm donor.

Basic biology tells us, neither sex can conceive a child without the other.

The article also focuses heavily on “gender differences” once again admitting that there are only two genders. This after many months’ efforts to convince voters that gender made no difference and it was largely dependent upon someone’s frame of mind.

The state has even gone so far as to make marriage certificates “gender neutral,” showing us again that they see gender playing no role.

Referring back to having children, the article brings up two male homosexual couples, Seth Hutton of Vancouver and Alvin Black of The Dalles, Ore. and Jeff Sgro and Robert Beaubien of Vancouver.

Seth Hutton says, “We both couldn’t imagine a fulfilling life without being parents, and neither of us thought being gay meant you couldn’t have a family. It just takes a little more work, planning and money,” while Jeff Sgro says, “I would have had children 10 years ago. [Robert’s] not sure he wants to have kids at any point.”

Do they think they can just waltz into the local Walmart and buy a child? Again, a woman must be included for the egg to be impregnated and to carry the child to term, then give birth.

Archbishop Wenski, in his essay reminds us,

“The state in historically recognizing the traditional understanding marriage as a union of one man and one woman does so to encourage and support, as social policy, heterosexual marriages because such marriages best provide the optimal conditions for the raising of future generations of its citizens.”

“And all honest social research as well as anecdotal evidence shows children are ‘hard-wired’ to be best raised by a mother and father who are married to each other.”

And yet, in order to satisfy a very small percentage of homosexuals in society, all caution is to be thrown to the wind as once again, natural truths are ignored for yet another social experiment with no regard of what the outcome is likely to be down the road many years from now.

And yet, now we read that some natural truths do make a difference, but a “little more work, planning and money,” will overcome such natural truth.

Little wonder that Pravda, the official Russian news agency says,

“Americans are turning gay and Russian men are looking more like the Klitschko brothers. The US is the modern day Sodom and Gomorrah while Christianity triumphs in Russia. No ACLU in Russia suing Christians to be sure.”

How sad that in today’s America, anything goes except the old fashioned common sense that once propelled us to the richest, strongest, freest and greatest nation on earth.

21 Comments to “Just What Was All of That Fuss Over Homosexual Marriage Again?”

  1. Time for Polygamists and Pedophiles to demand “Equal Time”.

    Like

  2. Queers will “breed” themselves out of existence.

    Like

  3. two piglets – very appropriate

    Like

  4. I have no problem with what adult individuals mutually decide to do, whether cohabitate or procreate sans creation. I understand that issues with intimacy for a number of reasons do manifest themselves in ways that are not conducive to procreation. I do know there is an almost base urgency in males to re-create oneself, and in females there is a maternal instinct that is natural and sublime. I suppose that much would not change despite sexual orientation, nor would it diminish.

    I am not familiar with statistics that show negative affect on children of same sex couples, be the partners male or female, but we have been dealing with that issue long enough to have a base line. I have seen reports that indicate both positive and negative outcomes. I a world where orphans abound and foster parents are scarce, unless there is real concern about the motives of the couple, I am not too worried that being raised by a homosexual couple would present long term issues for the child, and may be a blessing in stead for both the couple and the kid. But proof of stability is mandatory,

    Like

  5. so, go marry your brother

    Like

  6. Is this still an open issue? Dude, move on.

    Like

  7. I also agree with the archbishop, and with President Lincoln that a tail by any other name is still a tail. There is a difference between marriage between and male and female relationships for want of companionship. It is all to easy to simply state just to be cool that marriage is between just two, and call it all equal. There is a matter of lawfully being able to dedicate the savings and retirement earned over a lifetime to a partner, and purchase of a home, or even visitation rights and burial plots. The legal stuff is the easy part, the more difficult part is in maintaining humanity when faced with something that may appear odd or even unnatural.

    The bigger question is whether or not as a society we are willing to condone same sex relations. and whether or not we can determine if someone can be trusted to not abuse parental authority when there is no genetic bond between persons. I do not know the answer to the second question, I am uncertain if anyone does.

    Like

  8. Jack, the trouble with your sentiment is all the hetrosexuals who keep having queer babes. Can you splain that?

    Martin, for some it is a real issue for real cause, and cannot not be easily dismissed as homophobia nor considered to be wrong or even unjust. My father in law held a real hatred of all things Japanese for years. His family thought it a real break through when he bought a Toyota PU. I don’t begin not for one moment, to think I can understand the issues involved, as I have known too many people scarred beyond sanity’s reach by violent struggle from which no retreat was possible. I will not lightly dismiss nor condemn, just because I do not understand.

    Like

  9. Sane, as soon as any study comes out showing children fare better with a male/female couple, it is met with the usual “homophobia,” “bigotry,” and shouted down by homosexual advocacy groups declaring themselves “experts.”

    As we know, the minds of men and women operate somewhat differently on certain matters and children benefit from that balance in points of view.

    That does not mean all children of homosexual couples do poorly, just that more from a male/female relationship fair better.

    Kids of gay parents fare worse, study finds, but draws fire from experts

    ‘Gold standard’ study’s striking findings: children of heterosexual parents happier, healthier

    And yes, there are other studies claiming the opposite, mostly from homosexual advocacy groups who would deny any other point of view.

    Someday, hopefully, more people will wake up to the fact that nature is male & female for a legitimate reason, a reason homosexuals cannot manage on their own.

    Like

  10. Sure thing Martin, just as much as Democrats have moved on from legitimately losing the 2000 election in Florida by a slim margin.

    Like

  11. I’m not about to debate that happier study, Lew. Just not certain it Means anything more than kids from unstable households are at a large disadvantage. I have no grounds from which to declare any expertise in fixing that. Other than don’t.

    Like

  12. It’ easy to explain the Queer Babies, Dude – Society “creates” them just like idiots that”just have to” get their bodies tattooed.it’s a selfish desire to be “somehow different” than other human beings apparently nobody wants to be “just another human being” they want to think that they’re”somehow “unique”.

    Like

  13. it’s a form of narcississm

    Like

  14. As it stands we are all unique. God loves all of us equally. We are all precious to him and there is absolutely no way anyone can argue that is not true. I look around at all the beautiful creations in nature with all its variety and am amazed at the artistic uniqueness in everything. It makes me believe that God cannot stand uniformity and perhaps even finds it dull. I believe he embraces with anticipation and delight the wide open ranges of creativity. Although I don’t personally care for tatoo’s and such bold statements of the type I doubt God would condem any for being different from me.

    Like

  15. THE Queers will never give it up, Martin

    Like

  16. Carolyn,there are those who are unhappy with the “equipment” that God gave them, so they have it butchered. I wonder what God would say about that?

    Like

  17. If the cause is dibiltating endometriosis, the choice would be obvious. In the cause is cancer the choice would be wise, if the cause is any number of issues for which people are unhappy with the equipment they were issued, it is always the individual’s right and a rightful purpose to pursue improvement. Jack what do you think God would say about that? Do you think he would suggest they just get over themselves? Nawt.

    Like

  18. I think God would say “Let them marry their dogs and burn in hell”.God didn’t issue a commandment against human stupidity.God didn’t give mankind a mechamism tp prevent terminal stupidity.you can be as stupid as you want to be.

    Like

  19. Many of the above comments are living proof of that.

    Like

  20. Just remember, Ralph, you reap what you sow.

    Polyamory Advocate: Gay Marriage ‘Blazing the Marriage Equality Trail’

    New research says pedophiles are born that way

    Many researchers taking a different view of pedophilia

    I hope liberals enjoy this new world they created.

    Oh, and when it collapses around their feet, don’t come crying to us, we’ll be busy.

    Like

%d bloggers like this: