I think it's very interesting that no one has directly spoken to the ability/inability of heterosexuals to make a conscious choice about their sexual orientation. Some have spoken about the willingness/unwillingness to choose homosexuality, but this is not the question at issue.

The question is whether or not one can make a conscious choice to alter one's sexual orientation. I believe no heterosexual, answering honestly, can say they have that ability. So why would one expect that from a homosexual?

There is no such thing as the Easter Bunny.

If there arose a global movement that loudly and proudly demanded “bunny e******y,” and a dozen or more activist federal judges suddenly declared the Easter Bunny to be real, and thousands of rabid rabbit wannabees pranced in pink bunny suit parades, all the while pretending to be, even believing themselves to be, Easter Bunnies, and liberal legislators passed “anti-discrimination” laws presuming to force everyone else to join in on the delusion (severely punishing those who refused), there’d still be no Easter Bunny.

There is no such thing as “same-sex marriage.”

There can’t be.

It’s an idea no less silly than a giant pink bunny hiding eggs behind trees. It’s an oxymoron. It’s contradictio in terminis. It’s like pointing to your lawn and saying, “What a beautiful green sky.”

Oh, sure, there are thousands of people hopping around pretending to be, perhaps even believing themselves to be, “married” to someone of the same sex. Still, and while nice folks they may be, these nice folks labor under an unfortunate fairytale.

Fairytales are for children.

The “gay marriage” fairytale hurts children.

Here’s what marriage is. Marriage is the God-ordained, lifelong, covenantal union between man and wife, designed to provide men, women and children optimal stability and overall well-being. Marriage is that biologically, spiritually and morally centered institution calculated to ensure responsible procreation and perpetuate the human race. Marriage, real marriage, represents the fundamental cornerstone of any healthy society (any society that hopes to survive, at least).

Here’s what marriage is not:

Anything else.

On Thursday, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Ohio agreed. It rightly upheld natural marriage laws in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee. This is huge. It has kneecapped the left’s propagandist “gay-marriage-is-inevitable” myth. It’s created a conflict between federal circuits, which means, almost certainly, that the U.S. Supreme Court will, once again, weigh in on extremist efforts to deconstruct marriage, nationwide, via lower court judicial fiat.

In the 6th Circuit’s decision, Judge Jeffrey Sutton wrote, “Of all the ways to resolve this question, one option is not available: a poll of the three judges of this panel, or for that matter all federal judges, about whether gay marriage is a good idea. Our judicial commissions did not come with such a sweeping grant of authority, one that would allow just three of us – just two of us in t***h – to make such a vital policy call for the thirty-two million citizens who live within the four states of the 6th Circuit.”

Ah, judicial restraint. How refreshing.

Here’s what most folks don’t know. The U.S. Supreme Court has already settled the “gay marriage” debate. In its 1972 Baker v. Nelson decision, the high court found that there is no “federal question” surrounding the definition of marriage. That is to say, there is no constitutional “equal protection” right (or any other right for that matter) to so-called “same-sex marriage.”

This, my friends, is the law of the land.

The 6th Circuit upheld natural marriage based on the Supreme Court’s Baker decision, noting that it remains controlling law. “The Court has yet to inform us that we are not, and we have no license to engage in a guessing game about whether the Court will change its mind or, more aggressively, to assume authority to overrule Baker ourselves.”

In Baker, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that a law protecting the timeless definition of marriage as between one man and one woman did not violate the U.S. Constitution: “The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis,” the court found, further recognizing that “there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex.”

The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed that laws limiting marriage to the natural man-woman binary requisite did not raise “a substantial federal question.” For legal purposes, this is equivalent to the high court affirming the decision on the merits.

And so Baker became, and remains, precedent.

In keeping with the spirit of Baker, Sutton continued, “A dose of humility makes us hesitant to condemn as unconstitutionally irrational a view of marriage shared not long ago by every society in the world, shared by most, or not all, of our ancestors, and shared still today by a significant number of states.”

The Supreme Court has, in other cases, likewise upheld the critical nature of natural man-woman marriage.

Marriage is “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.” Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942).
“An institution in the maintenance of which in its purity the public is deeply interested, for it is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.” Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190 (1888).

Every rouge federal court that has somehow divined a constitutional “right” for two people of the same-sex to “marry” is not only out of touch with reality, it’s out of touch with the U.S. Supreme Court.

Even so, the final outcome is yet to be seen. It remains unclear just where Justice Anthony Kennedy, the “gay marriage” swing v**e, will ultimately come down when the high court revisits the issue as early as June 2015.

The New York Times isn’t sure what he’ll do.

Nobody is.

Soon after last year’s disastrous Windsor decision, the Times observed: “Justice Kennedy writes that the Defense of Marriage Act violates the principles of federalism, which allow states to largely chart their own course.”

“The State’s power in defining the marital relation is of central relevance in this case quite apart from principles of federalism,” Kennedy opined.

Hmm: “The State’s power in defining the marital relation.” That’s promising. While, in reality, nobody, not even the states, has the power to define, or to redefine, marriage (that’s solely within God’s purview), that Kennedy evidently believes this to be a “states’ rights” issue bodes well for both the rule of law and for the preservation of marriage.

If he holds true to these federalist principles and observes the Supreme Court’s established precedent in Baker v. Nelson, then marriage will live to see another day.

If he does not – if he pulls a “gay” Easter Bunny from his hat – then this thing gets ugly.

Read more at http://eaglerising.com/11150/supreme-court-gay-marriage-easter-bunny/#aIfGQBrxE9aF4J1M.99

If ya take that hook out of your mouth, maybe you could be understood somewhat better... ?

The Fallacy of Homophobia

Noun: fallacy A misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning

"In today’s world we often hear words tossed around so much that they often become imbedded in our culture whether or not there is any t***h or meaning to them, for example the word “like” used by many young girls as a sort of speech filler as opposed to the regular meaning of liking something. Oftentimes, one group or the other will take or formulate for themselves one particular word or phrase and claim that for their own, for example the word “gnarly”. Coined by surfers in the 60’s, gnarly means difficult, dangerous, or challenging. While both of these examples use words in common speech, the first really has no meaning while the second does convey meaning. There seems to be a third type of word which is very commonplace today and that is what I would call a figmentary word. This would be a word that is imagined or created by a person in his or her mind and has become commonplace in speech, but in reality has Zero meaning and is actually a dangerous word because it conveys a lie while purporting to be t***h. Such is the word “homophobia”.

"In order to see this word and the lie it foists upon the world all we need to do it actually understand this word. This word is based upon the supposed meaning in common culture of a “fear of homosexuals or homosexuality”. But how can this be? The word Phobia actually denotes a medical condition / anxiety disorder, with some type of a horrible panic or fear with physical and mental results. Take Arachnophobia as an example; when one is afraid of spiders a competent physician can measure the fear by observing the physical manifestations of that fear. The same goes for Agoraphobia – Fear of wide-open spaces, Acrophobia- Fear of heights, or Androphobia- Fear of men, or any other number of phobias."

"However, all these true phobias have one common denominator, “fear” that is measurable. So how is homophobia a fallacy? Haven’t we been bombarded with the idea that anyone who isn’t comfortable with the concept of homosexuality is a homophobe? Haven’t we enacted laws and regulations based upon this word and the fear of being branded a homophobe? Yes we have, but what if this word is just made up and has Zero meaning? What if we have been lied to, both the homosexual community and the non-homosexual community alike and all those in positions of authority?"

Let me ask all of you a question, “How many non-homosexual people do you know that exhibit measurable symptoms of fear when in the presence of a homosexual person?” I don’t mean how many people may be uncomfortable, non-understanding, bigoted, or even h**eful, but actually show measurable symptoms of fear? I can tell you the answer, ZERO. It is an absolute fallacy that men or women exhibit symptoms of fear when around homosexuals. What is there to be afraid of? Are we afraid we may be in the presence of a homosexual and catch a bad case of it? No. All the arguments surrounding this word “Homophobia” are made up, concocted to promote an agenda."

"Look, I don’t h**e homosexuals. I don’t fear homosexuals. It is just that homosexual behavior doesn’t compute within my heterosexual brain. That is all. It is very similar to trying to feed Chinese language information into a computer database that only understands C++, you will get a “does not compute” message. No fear is exhibited, just an error message. Our non-homosexual brain is unable to process this data and gain any understanding of it. I really don’t care if someone calls themselves a PhD Psychologist or Psychiatrist, if they are not a homosexual there is no way on this earth that they can compute in their brains the homosexual behavior. They can clinically explain it and describe it and have empathy for the homosexual, but understand it and make it compute in their brains, No way! Impossible! If someone says they can, they are a liar."

"So if this word is figmentary and conveys a lie, what is the harm you ask? The harm is that this lie of a fear of homosexuals causes people to feel and believe over time that they actually are something that they are not. Many times in churches, pastors will berate the congregants and tell them they are worthless sinners, when in reality they are not. Pastors do this to control the congregants. However, over time, people actually become what they are told they are. If the Government tells you long enough and often enough that some government program is good for you even if it isn’t, you may begin to believe that it really is good for you. That is the way lies are. A lie told often enough and loud enough will begin to appear as t***h to those who are in t***h “weak minded”."

"A young man named Daley Saxton said to me, “While physical symptoms of fear may not be visible a lot of folks still treat gays badly. And to me you only attack what you fear. Treating someone badly because they aren’t straight to me is a physical symptom of fear.” While it is very true that many people treat gays badly, it is not necessarily a symptom of a phobia or many times not even a fear. Usually it is a hatred centered in misunderstanding and erroneous teaching not a clinical symptom of a phobia such as manifested in the sweats, panic etc. There may be some sort of a fear goaded by hatred as a result of lies taught, much like the Japanese public had after being lied to by their Government."

"We as a society need to begin to study and understand these words and lies that are so freely bantered about us every day, for in doing so we may actually develop a clear picture of the agendas of the world that are desiring to make us sheep and separate us from our money and our control over our own lives and we may actually begin to get away from the h**e filled rants of those who think that people are homophobes who in reality know nothing of others."

"And actually homosexuality should be one of our least worries. We have a government and world running amok and wars everywhere and homes and livelihoods being stole by the thousands by illegal practices by Judges, government agencies and banks and we are worried about homosexuals? Our children are k*****g themselves and others by the thousands because of us not instructing them who they are created to be and what they are to do and how dehumanized they feel and we are worried about someone stating an honest non-politically correct opinion instead of a lie. It really is so sad that our word is fed and run by lies and the distribution of fear to the uneducated masses."

Yeah, later toots!

:roll: :roll: :roll:

This is a email I received thought I would share it with you all.



When I was a kid, my Grandma liked to make breakfast food for dinner every now and then. And I remember one night in particular when she had made breakfast after a long, hard day. On that evening so long ago, she had placed a plate of eggs, sausage and extremely burned biscuits in front of my Granddad. I remember waiting to see if anyone noticed!
Yet all my Granddad did was reach for his biscuit, smile at my Grandma and ask me how my day was. I don't remember what I told him that night but I do remember watching him smear butter and jelly on that ugly burned biscuit. He ate every bite of that thing... never made a face nor uttered a word about it!
When I got up from the table that evening, I remember hearing my Grandma apologize to my Granddad for burning the biscuits. And I'll never forget what he said: "Honey, I love burned biscuits every now and then."
Later that night, I went to Granddaddy to say good night and I asked him if he really liked his biscuits burned. He wrapped me in his arms and said, "Your Grandma put in a hard day of work today and she's real tired. And besides - a little burned biscuit never hurt anyone!"
As I've grown older, I've thought about that many times. Life is full of imperfect things and imperfect people. I'm not the best at anything, and I forget birthdays and anniversaries just like everyone else. But what I've learned over the years is that learning to accept each others faults, and choosing to celebrate each others differences, is one of the most important keys to creating a healthy, growing, and lasting relationship.
And that's my prayer for you today... that you will learn to take the good, the bad, and the ugly parts of your life and lay them at the feet of God. Because in the end, He's the only One who will be able to give you a relationship where a burnt biscuit isn't a deal-breaker!
We could extend this to any relationship. In fact, understanding is the base of any relationship, be it a husband-wife or parent-child or friendship!
So, please pass me a biscuit, and yes, the burned one will do just fine.
And PLEASE pass this along to someone who has enriched your life. Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

I'm not a Republican so I can't speak for them, but personally I agree with the sentiment, but recognize it for the BS that it is.

This is from Wikipedia:
"...In the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, Warren served as chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel created to oversee the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). She later served as Assistant to the President and Special Advisor to the Secretary of the Treasury for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau under President Barack Obama.... "

Do you understand that? She PERSONALLY oversaw the bailout of the bankers she's supposedly against now.

She has been in influential positions since 2008. She could have done something to facilitate the prosecution of those 'big financial institutions' but chose not to.

But, hey, it's a good sound-bite, and that's all that really matters, right?