So tomorrow is voting day... here are some thoughts to ponder upon....
The best strategy to confuse people and cause them to doubt the necessity and validity of Prop 8 has been the continuous harping on racism by the "No on 8" gang. If one considers their latest ad, one can see how they abuse this issue to a shameful degree.
Let's think about this though…
When did homosexuals become a race, an ethnic group suffering generations of racism and discrimination? When did sodomy become the equivalent of nationhood? Or are they craftily comparing apples and oranges to get what they want? Is our pre-determined race/ethnicity equal to our lifestyle/sexual choices/urges? Even though there is nothing scientific or natural about saying one is born gay, liberals have continued to drill into people's heads that one is gay by birth, that there is such a thing as "gay identity," a political label produced by modern sexual rebels. Changes in laws and social policies to normalize unnatural sexual acts and desensitize the population about them are political decisions par excellence; they have nothing to do with objective science. Like swinging, pedophilia, and polygamy, this immoral lifestyle is leading the way toward reshaping, or destroying, social ideals and fulfilling the radical notion that God, morality, gender, traditional family, and taboos are all obstacles to true freedom and happiness, what the sex-revolution architect Marcuse called "polymorphic perversity," an agenda that almost engulfed the Soviet Union if it weren't for the far-sightedness of anti-Trotsky elements in Russia.
Legitimate fears of many churches, parents, adoption agencies, and social workers about this phenomenon are completely ignored, and the majority of people who don't see this movement or lifestyle as reflecting a healthy normal society are demonized and called "racists" or "bigots." This continues to amaze me, and while these same groups get sued and pushed around in the name of political correctness, the homoerotic activists continue to compare them to the Nazis or the KKK. The only institution that still reflects the will of society, which is the voting booth, was overturned a few months ago by four judges in a typical display of judicial tyranny. Comparisons were quickly made between this and the Supreme Court decisions that ended segregation. The reality is that segregation ended because of public opinion not because of judicial charity to the black community. The entire nation fought to end racism since John Brown's death more than a century ago. Much of that victory was the result of the Christian notion that all men are created equal in the image of God (Martin Luther King and others used that same idea again and again), not the Darwinian or Eugenic idea that some are more evolved or fit than others. This time, the court's move was calculated of course: this is a great time to use the political discontent with the Right to the advantage of liberal agendas. Attempts continue to mutate public opinion, control education and silence social dissidents. Churches that refuse to perform gay marriages will face lawsuits, and homosexuals have already hinted in that direction. What guarantees that they won't face the same fate as the boy scouts, publishers that refused dealing with gay and lesbian activist groups, or pastors that dared read bible verses on homosexuality in their own churches? Until they get their way, they will continue to say that such fears are unwarranted. These things are happening, and more is to come according to many activists' writings. Are we entering an age of despotism where certain groups gain super rights over all aspects of society?
All immoral regimes in history, especially atheistic revolutionary ones, deceived their populations by slapping moral labels on corrupt agendas. It is interesting how the "No on 8" argument is tailored to deceive fair-minded people. Society and religion are the natural legitimate sources for "who you can and cannot marry." There is nothing racist or discriminating about that. Radical activists can call natural childbirth unfair to women, who in the end bear all the burden of motherhood, but this "discrimination" is simply the manifestation of the normal and natural gender roles they keep rebelling against. One may not like natural facts or social roles, but there is nothing unfair or wrong about them in the eyes of sane people.
Marriage between relatives, more than two adults, and same sex couples cannot qualify by definition as "marriage." If we accept the criteria for one, we cannot escape accepting the others as "normal" and "teachable." All one has to do is hang around such activists to know how far they want to go, and this is only the first step to annihilate our "capitalist, male dominated, and Christian" society. Like rebelling teenagers, this guilt-ridden group seeks acceptance by forcing its own manufactured identity down the throats of everyone else. Truly, those who rebel against nature and God, "who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them" (Romans 1:32).
Vote yes on 8. There is nothing unfair or wrong about moral choices.
True
