Abomination

ABOMINATION

Awww...According to our Attorney General, Eric Holder, the one thing that keeps him awake at night is the alarming rise in the number of Americans who are more than willing to attack, kill and otherwise do malicious damage to their fellow citizens. Sadly, our esteemed Attorney General is more likely to be spending his restless nights worrying over conservative Christian Tea Party grandmothers rather than those people with a proven record of treacherous and damnable behavior. Take, for instance, modern America's current socially privileged group: homosexuals. Democrats with the cooperation of a few spineless Republicans, have decided to invite this minority out in the open to celebrate, as acceptable and normal, a lifestyle that is anything but normal. By repealing the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy they have taken the first, dangerous step in unleashing this "lifestyle" upon us. Unfortunately, a quick look into homosexuality's history reveals homosexuals to be exactly the sort of people willing to attack, kill and otherwise do malicious damage to their fellow citizens.

We have heard, over and over, about the poor unfortunate homosexual soldiers who just wanted to serve their country only to be booted from the service when they proved to be unable to keep their private sexual choices to themselves. You should be careful where you place your sympathies. The inconvenient truth is that homosexuals who wanted to be soldiers can and have had successful careers in the military. It's those whose loyalties to their lifestyle superceded their oaths to their country who have consistently proven to be dangerous. Consider the case of Private Bradley Manning. He is the mole who gave Wikileaks hundreds of thousands of secret documents...the latest in a long illustrious line of homosexual traitors.

According to Manning's on-line chats he considered himself to be in "an awkward place."

"Manning could 'identify' with Iraqis and Afghans who he believed had suffered as a result of U.S. policies, especially because he himself was a 'a member of a minority' treated unfairly by the military." - Montreal Gazzette

Ahh yes. The ole' victimization excuse that those who perceive themselves as persecuted feel compelled to bring up as a justification for their choice to commit crimes in the name of "social justice." So even though Bradley Manning willingly volunteered to join the military and abide by the rules he clearly understood when he joined, he proceeds to blame the military and, in a fit of rage, hatch a plan to betray his country by creating the biggest leak of classified documents in U.S. history. He obviously considered the lives he would place in jeopardy by his actions to be a justified retribution for HIS mistake of choosing to join an army that he knew was not going to throw a parade to celebrate the enlistment of a homosexual. Boo-hoo.

If you are wondering how someone like Bradlee Manning could ever get the clearance necessary to get in the presence of such sensitive information then perhaps you might want to lay some of the blame at the feet of former president Bill Clinton. In 1995 he signed an executive order removing sexual orientation as a grounds for disqualifying someone for a security clearance. As we are about to show, this was one of the stupidest actions ever initiated by a president, especially coming from a democratic party that likes to portray itself as intellectually superior to its political opponents.

You may be wondering why homosexuals were denied security clearances prior to President Clinton rescinding the ban. A series of Senate committee reports dating from the 1950's called for enhanced efforts to ELIMINATE all homosexuals from the federal service. The committees concluded that:

"moral perverts are bad national security risks ... because of their susceptibility to blackmail" (Wherry 1950, 2), that homosexuals were "vulnerable to interrogation by a skilled questioner" due to their emotional instability and moral weakness, and that they were "easy prey to the blackmailer" (U.S. Senate 1950, 5).

Colonel Ron Ray in his 1993 book Military Necessity and Homosexuality also noted:

“Even if homosexuals are not ‘turned’ by foreign agents, evidence exists that homosexuals, as a group or subculture, can and do turn against their country simply on account of the nature of homosexuality and its hostile attitude toward the existing moral order. This fact is illustrated by a well known group of preeminent writers, thinkers, artists and high social figures known as Bloomsburys who began to reform English tastes before the second world war. That period, termed modernity, saw the supplanting of the fixed moral norms with another ethos. The key to understanding modernity and Bloomsbury is sodomy: Bloomsburys wanted to ‘live as they wanted to live.’ Along with their homosexuality they developed an amoral, irreligious attitude and were unpatriotic as well. E.M. Forster, a member of the Bloomsbury, was quoted as saying, ‘If I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I should have the guts to betray my country."

As you can see the suggestion that homosexuals were easy to blackmail was based on solid history of a then recent vintage. The most notorious traitors who sided with the Nazi fascists against their own governments were all homosexuals. This would include future KGB spy Guy Burgess and John Macnamara in England. Edouard Pfeiffer and Jacques Doriot in France. Leon Degrelle in Belgium. Artur Seyss-Inquart in Austria, and in Norway it was the infamous Vidkum Quisling, whose surname is even to this day synonymous with “traitor” much the same way as Benedict Arnold's name resonates in America.

The most damaging spies in British history were a band of homosexuals known as the Cambridge Five. (Although in particularly arrogant homosexual fashion they referred to themselves as "The Magnificent Five.") The five were Guy Burgess, Donald Maclean, John Cairncross, Anthony Blunt and lone heterosexual Kim Philby. These wonderful chaps all turned out to be on the KGB payroll. Anthony Hunt was in fact a member of the aforementioned Bloomsburys and his security breech cost the lives of many. Guy Burgess was so useful to the Soviets that upon his defection to the Soviet Union he was promptly set up with a boyfriend as a reward for his service. Fantastic.

The American's were just as riddled with homosexually compromised spies such as the ironically named Michael Straight, who was a speech-writer for President Franklin Roosevelt, and Whittaker Chambers who claimed that he gave up homosexuality when he gave up communism and later became the star witness in the infamous Alger Hiss case.

As impressive as the treachery of homosexual espionage appears there is a lot more blood on the hands of those who pursue these abominable relationships. In his book, Germany’s National Vice, historian Samuel Igra claims the outbreak of World War I was a direct consequence of homosexual intrigues in the court of Kaiser Wilhelm II. Revelations that a coterie of homosexuals acquired a Rasputin-like control of the Kaiser immersed the nation in a perverse scandal that spanned from 1907 to 1914. It resulted in a series of very public criminal trials.

Igra states that the scandal grew so big that Germany felt it had to choose war as the only way to resolve it’s domestic crisis. He cites, among other sources, The Diary of Count Robert Zedlitz-Truetzschler, Lord Chamberlain at the Court of Kaiser Wilhelm II, who wrote:

“Yesterday while hunting at Springe the Crown Prince had a long conversation with General von Moltke, the Chief of the General Staff, about the political situation (the internal political situation, he means) and committed himself to the opinion that only war can clear up the confused situation of the country.”

That's pretty damning. Whether or not this was the true cause of The First World War is really not the issue. It is enough that a homosexual scandal caused so great a national crisis that war was contemplated as a solution.

Before supporters of progressive social policies get too proud of themselves for introducing the concept of open homosexuality into the US military they should consider the under-reported story of the Srebrenica massacre, the worst act of mass murder committed in Europe since the second world war. General John Sheehan, a retired marine corps officer who was NATO's supreme commander at the time of the 1995 atrocity said that homosexual soldiers in the Dutch military were one of the reasons for the Srebrenica massacre.

"They declared a peace dividend and made a conscious effort to socialise their military – that includes the unionisation of their militaries, it includes open homosexuality. That led to a force that was ill-equipped to go to war. The case in point that I'm referring to is when the Dutch were required to defend Srebrenica against the Serbs. The battalion was under-strength, poorly led, and the Serbs came into town, handcuffed the soldiers to the telephone poles, marched the Muslims off, and executed them. That was the largest massacre in Europe since world war two." - General John Sheehan

The General, testifying earlier this year in a Senate hearing added that the Dutch chief of staff had told him that having gay soldiers at Srebrenica had sapped morale and contributed to the disaster.

Of course such a politically incorrect statement was dismissed as total nonsense because it contradicts the inevitable conclusion that has always been at the end of this debate. No one was going to let any evidence come between homosexuals and their cherished desire to get revenge against the United States military for failing to recognize their "special" status.

However, there is more treachery awaiting the military as the fallout from the repeal of DADT works its way into the system. The beauty of DADT was that it allowed the military to remain neutral. The military didn’t have to approve or disapprove. Now, the military will be forced to review its codes of conduct, and you can rest assured they will be rewritten in favor of homosexual rights, giving special treatment to homosexuals.

Forcing the services to accept openly gay members will also make it impossible to overcome the effects of inevitable homosexual networking. This is the preference that homosexuals give to one another based on their sexual contacts. The Marine Corps had to fight long and hard to rid themselves of a "lesbian mafia" that controlled the assignments and promotions of female Marines for years until an IG investigation finally gave the leadership the tools needed to break up the network. These network connections crossed ranks, units and services as they took priority over everything else. These networks destroyed evidence, lied, and obstructed investigations to protect one another. As always, homosexuals' loyalties lie with themselves and their carnal confidants, not to the service or their duty.

The most well known example of homosexuals infiltrating and networking within an organization for their own ends is, of course, the example of the Roman Catholic Church. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, American Roman Catholic Bishops and officials at the Vatican were being inundated with accusations of clerical sexual abuse in the United States. However the problem was not isolated to the U.S. Ireland and other European countries have experienced problems relating to instances of Roman Catholic priests sexually abusing children. This was constantly mis-reported in a press that is openly supportive of the homosexual agenda as being a crisis of "pedophilia." The blame has consistently been placed upon the Catholic church for "tolerating" and obfuscating alleged pedophile abuses.

However, the data collected by John Jay College of Criminal Justice shows that from 1950 to 2002, 81 percent of the victims of these priests were male and 75 percent of them were post-pubescent. Puberty, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics, begins at age 10 for boys. Therefore it is more correct to say that three out of every four victims have been abused by HOMOSEXUALS.

"The (New York) Times continues to editorialize about the "pedophilia crisis", when all along it's been a homosexual crisis. Eighty percent of the victims of priestly sexual abuse are male and most of them are post-pubescent. While homosexuality does not cause predatory behavior, and most gay priests are not molesters, most of the molesters have been gay." - Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League

During the 1970's, renowned singer and former Miss America contestant, Anita Bryant, was excoriated in the media for her crusade against homosexuality. One of her primary complaints against homosexuals was that they were out to "recruit" children into their lifestyle. Well, the data is in and it appears she was right. They are recruiting children into this lifestyle by the most diabolical means possible:

In 2001, the journal Archives of Sexual Behavior published a study entitled Comparative data of childhood and adolescence molestation in heterosexual and homosexual persons. The abstract for this article states the following:

In research with 942 nonclinical adult participants, gay men and lesbian women reported a significantly higher rate of childhood molestation than did heterosexual men and women. Forty-six percent of the homosexual men in contrast to 7% of the heterosexual men reported homosexual molestation. Twenty-two percent of lesbian women in contrast to 1% of heterosexual women reported homosexual molestation. This research is apparently the first survey that has reported substantial homosexual molestation of girls.

That homosexuals prefer such occupational careers as priests and teachers is no accident. Homosexuals preying upon the young and the weak is not something that is either rare or new. It is, in fact, how their "peculiar species" has always preserved itself.

In the societies of ancient Greece and Rome, homosexuality was openly tolerated and even encouraged. Men of the time understood sex to be a matter of sexual penetration and phallic pleasure. The physical act of sex itself required a two tiered system to divide the roles of sexual partners into the categories of penetrator and the penetrated. This can also be referred to as "active" verses "passive" or, more appropriately, as "dominant" verses "submissive." Insertion of the phallus expressed social domination, superiority and seniority. So Roman law placed the sons of Roman citizens off limits to men. Citizenship status could be removed from a Roman male who allowed himself to be penetrated.

In ancient Athens, by contrast, free boys could be openly seduced, however an elaborate set of peculiar interpretations of the rules of engagement for this behavior protected adolescents from the shame associated with bodily penetration. These convenient and self-serving protocols allowed adolescent boys to gratify their male suitors without compromising their future status as adult citizens. These relationships ended once the boy could grow a beard because the Greeks, like their future Roman counterparts, considered a mature adult in a submissive homosexual role as weak and effeminate. These were dishonorable and unacceptable character traits in a society that praised virility. Hence, the discouragement of homosexual oral sex and the complete humiliation of any effeminate or "flaming" submissive homosexuals. So as you can see there is a two tiered system of justice. Penetrator homosexuality is fully acceptable, whereas submissive homosexuals suffered persecution for their weakness. Knowing this, how can you describe homosexuality as anything other than predatory?

It is actually the Christian apostle Paul who broke this two tiered system of homosexuality for the future of Western Civilization. He equated all homosexual acts as a violation of the natural use of the body and made no distinction between the dominant or submissive partner in the abominable copulation:

Romans 1:24-27 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Since both Roman and Greek societies had slave classes it should be remembered that one of the sanctioned and accepted roles of slave boys was to make themselves available for anal sex to their free masters. Young male slaves were often purchased entirely for the purpose of pleasuring their masters. Homosexual rape was also common in this world and the victims were chastised and punished for their weakness. The Greeks even had certain kinds of parties called Komos, where groups of drunken men would wander the streets looking for someone to kidnap and rape. Wealthy Roman families often bought large male slaves for the sole purpose of escorting their young male children through the dangerous streets so they wouldn't be raped. These homosexually tolerant societies were very predaceous by design...and the homosexuals designed it!

Even though these were societies that were highly permissive of homosexual behavior it should be noted that there were no such things as homosexual households or "families," no homosexual institutions or anything remotely resembling a "gay " culture. These are all fabrications of a modern homosexual movement aggressively attempting to promote itself as a "persecuted" minority in search of "special" rights that have never existed in any culture.

There was a lot to consider before repealing the DADT policy in the military. Unfortunately the history and damage homosexuality, and homosexuals, has done to planet earth was not allowed to intrude on the discussion. Allowing maladjusted, predatory narcissists to display their sexual preferences while enlisted in the armed services can produce no benefits, save the questionable one of giving them leverage over those who are repulsed by their behavior. It is inevitable that there will be an "us versus them" mentality amongst homosexuals, which offers no benefit to to the military.

One of the many values the military cherishes is that of selfless service. The ability to put the good of the nation above personal desires is as admirable as it is an essential trait of a good soldier. After all, at any time he or she may be called upon to give his or her life for the nation's defense. When you start openly accepting and actively recruiting people who are so self-centered that they put living their lifestyle out in the open above their duty and the needs of their country, then you have the dangerous combination that has and will again cause great harm. That's how we got PFC Bradley Manning. Because of his homosexuality and his bitterness toward the military, he decided to seek retribution and leak the 250,000 classified documents that have done our country irreparable harm. And yet he is a hero to his homosexual brethren, for he struck a blow against their enemies in the fight for their special privileges. Homosexuals are today as they always have been. It's all about them...they're special.

If homosexuals are willing to serve and die for this country is it right to deny them the right to marriage? That’s sure to be the next question presented by the advocates of homosexual superiority. Vice President Joe Biden already stated that he believes the legalization of homosexual marriage is inevitable. That is why repealing DADT is such a mistake. These so called "progressive" policies require an ignorant and/or apathetic population to gain traction. This is also how so many steps backward keep being mistakenly called progress. Once in place, all opposition to homosexuality will be disregarded as a bigoted relic of the past. Then these policies cannot ever be deemed to have failed, despite the misery and suffering that they cause.

There are those who suggest we must hate the sin and love the sinner. Unfortunately some sinners love their sins too much. It may be true that some homosexuals have done things that benefited their societies...in spite of their homosexuality. However it is also true that homosexuality itself has not produced one thing on this earth that we are not better off without. There is nothing commendable about sodomy or the homosexual lifestyle and it shouldn't be elevated as a preference in the US military or anywhere else! There is a direct connection between homosexuality and the demise of a society. You will get the government and country you choose.

Homosexuals have fashioned your tolerance into a knife and stuck it in your back...can you feel it yet?

Meet your new Army

The Politics Of Science

THE POLITICS OF SCIENCE

Scientists, not unlike journalists, are arrogant people. No, its not because they are, as some would have you believe, smarter than the rest of us. It really has more to do with their perceptions of their reputations. Science, we are repeatedly told, is concerned with facts and data and therefore it is supposedly immune to the sort of criticism leveled at the likes of politicians and clergymen. Unfortunately, scientists are, in fact, human and therefore susceptible to the same biases and temptations that befall the rest of us. Is it then shocking to find out that scientists would cast their "precious" reputations before swine and bias their research in favor of a particularly desired outcome, especially if by doing so they would gain both fame and the financing needed to continue their pursuits? Of course not.

The fact is, we have seen politics invaded by science all too often lately. Or is it the other way around? Sometimes it can get really hard to tell who is the whore and who is the customer. We have seen this a lot lately in the political discourse over so-called man made global warming. There are billions, perhaps trillions, of dollars at stake over public policy that is being debated to combat what is essentially a scientifically superficial fraud. The legislation now being considered in congress is nothing more than a redistributionist scheme to extract wealth from the private sector and place it in the control of the government. More scientists are coming out every day against the idea that any change in the climate is due to the actions of mankind or, more importantly, that any action taken by mankind could or should reverse it. Yet, experts who contest the concept of man-made global warming are not even being allowed to bring their arguments into the Democratically controlled congress's debates on the issue. The game is being rigged and a sympathetic media is going along with it. There is still hope that this Cap and Trade swindle will be stifled by congressmen from energy producing states acting in their own self-interest. But who knows? In Obama's world anything that generates economy destroying debt is seen as the "collective good."

And how about the fiasco over embryonic stem cell research? We recently watched as the current president excoriated the previous one as being unfriendly to science because he failed to fund new lines of embryonic stem cell research. This, in spite of the fact that embryonic stem cell research has been a considerable failure compared to the research being done with adult stem cells. This entire episode is nothing more than a political sideshow in the continuing debate over abortion and the definition of an embryo as human life. The politics and the science is being intertwined into an unnecessary moral dilemma. One that, from a purely scientific point of view, should be resolved with the successes of adult stem cell research. But why put an end to a good fight?

It should therefore come as no surprise to find out that the politically motivated science of progressive social engineers has yet again been derailed from its devious and deceptive tracks. This time it is the myth that homosexuality is genetically inherited that is coming unravelled. Yes, you read that correctly, one of the progressive's favorite lies is being scientifically destroyed. And not a moment to soon.

Many people today believe that homosexuality is part of a homosexual's construction from the moment of conception. This idea that homosexuality is both a genetic and permanent condition has been promoted by both homosexual activists and a fawning media. One example often promoted by the media is this from a brochure issued by the American Psychological Association (APA) in 1998 that stated:

"There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality."

There is only one problem with that. It is not, and never has been, true. The truth is that such statements are, and always have been, part of a massive homosexual propaganda campaign designed to deceive the public into accepting homosexual behavior as natural and normal. It was neither, and many of us have said so all along. However, by taking control of the debate and framing homosexuality as non-choosable and inherited, it became possible to refer to anyone who opposes the homosexual agenda as a bigot. A nice weapon to wield if you can get away with it. Unfortunately the real science of genetic research was always unwilling to go as far as the propaganda, as evidenced by this from Science Magazine in 1994:

"Time and time again, scientists have claimed that particular genes or chromosomal regions are associated with behavioral traits, only to withdraw their findings when they were not replicated. "Unfortunately," says Yale's [Dr. Joel] Gelernter, "it's hard to come up with many" findings linking specific genes to complex human behaviors that have been replicated. "...All were announced with great fanfare; all were greeted unskeptically in the popular press; all are now in disrepute."

In other words, it is not as simple as the journalists and activists implied. They had a result they desired and proceeded to look for some science to back it up. In the meantime they were willing to stretch the inconclusive results into unsubstantiated data that would support their desired conclusion. That conclusion being that homosexuals are born and not the product of any "environmental" influences. How damning it is then that the APA, after years of research deliberately looking for this mythical "gay gene," would be forced to change their statement on homosexuality to this:

"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles. ..."

Although they declined to reveal the particulars of the research that made them change their position it is resoundingly clear that all efforts to prove that homosexuality is biologically and genetically transmitted have failed. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A GAY GENE!

The MAJORITY of scientists now believe that homosexuality is attributable to a combination of psychological, social and biological factors, as the following statements on the matter can attest:

"Many scientists share the view that sexual orientation is shaped for most people at an early age through complex interactions of biological, psychological and social factors." -American Psychological Association

"At this point, the most widely held opinion [on causation of homosexuality is that multiple factors play a role." -Simon LeVay, "Gay Brain" researcher

"Any human behavior is going to be the result of complex intermingling of genetics and environment. It would be astonishing if it were not true for homosexuality." -Dennis McFadden, University Of Texas neuroscientist

"I know of no one in the field who argues that homosexuality can be explained without reference to environmental factors." -Steven Goldgerg, Sociologist

"If homosexuality was caused by genetic mechanisms, their children would be more likely to choose same-sex interaction. But they aren't more likely, so therefore it can't be genetic." - Douglas Abbott, University of Nebraska

All of this information is documented by The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). NARTH also has this to say about a term often used by proponents of homosexuality: "homophobia":

"The term 'homophobia' is often used inaccurately to describe any person who objects to homosexual behavior on either moral, psychological or medical grounds. Technically, however, the term actually denotes a person who has a phobia – or irrational fear – of homosexuality. Principled disagreement, therefore, cannot be labeled 'homophobia.'"

Homosexuality makes for strange bedfellows. The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 would provide special protections to homosexuals but leave Christian ministers open to prosecution should their teachings be linked to any subsequent offense, by anyone, against a homosexual. However, if we take this new Hate Crimes legislation to its natural conclusion, could not scientists who argue that homosexuality is not an inborn trait be considered guilty of violating the Hate Crimes legislation also? Homosexuals consider ANY criticism of them as hate speech so certainly if they decry the words of God from the Bible they must assuredly decry the words of scientists who fail to support their agenda. Something to consider as well is why we should allow such legislation to pass at all as it clearly is aimed at protecting behavior and not people. Perverse and un-natural behavior at that!

According to a recent survey by the Pew Research Center For People and the Press, attitudes about homosexuals have changed significantly over the last 22 years. This is especially true among people who consider themselves to be religious. There is a trend toward more tolerance towards homosexuals and the idea of homosexual marriage. This can be entirely attributed to the homosexual activists and their use of propaganda to deceive the public into viewing their "plight" as a civil rights issue. It is not. Their entire campaign has been built on deliberately misleading, and at times, entirely fabricated science. These lies are now being exposed. There is nothing virtuous about tolerating, supporting or endorsing homosexuals or homosexual behavior. If you are one of those who were led to believe that homosexuals are born that way, then you are a victim of this deceptive propaganda machine. Be a victim no more.

All of this has to be devastating to homosexual advocates, and it would be, if the media would report any of it. Like the also less that scientifically valid Theory of Evolution, some science is too politically important to allow the facts to interfere with the agenda. The Theory of Evolution is nothing more than a cog in the progressive religion of "multiculturalism" that is used to justify every social engineering scheme the socialist left favors. Genetic homosexuality, by contrast, is considered to be a poison to the only religion that can compete with theirs...Christianity. And to think these are the people who argue that they favor science over religion...

The Land Of Misfit Loins

THE LAND OF MISFIT LOINS

It is becoming increasingly clear that a certain, extremely vocal, portion of the public defines freedom and equality entirely on how much "tolerance" they can extort from the general public for their lascivious desire to promote the unrestricted exhibition and exploitation of their's, and other's, loins in and out of the public sphere. It is the classic example of mistaking immorality for freedom, and in their belligerent ignorance they see modesty, piety and bigotry as essentially the same. Our failure to endorse their increasingly ludicrous demands for approval of their "lifestyles" often leads to a display of some of the most pathetic adolescent behavior imaginable. In fact such behavior was unimaginable just a generation ago. When it comes to boorish behavior, nobody, and I mean NOBODY, tops the advocates for the homosexual agenda in this country.

When most of us were children we were given a simple test to determine our basic cognitive skills. It was a simple one that I am sure most of you remember. It almost qualified as a toy. You had several pegs of varying shapes and a board with holes in it that likewise consisted of the same varying shapes. You simply had to match the pegs to their appropriate holes. For most of us putting the square peg in the square hole was not a monumental accomplishment. There were, of course, many of our fellow children who could not accomplish this feat however, and they insisted on trying to mismatch the pegs and the holes. Although trying to put a square peg into a round hole was not something that should stigmatize a child for life, we reasonably expect that an attempt should be made to correct the child. Perhaps we would even dare to "teach" the child to recognize the shapes and to look carefully to match them. How many of you remember your teachers telling you it was equally correct to mismatch a square peg into a round hole as to match a round peg into a round hole? It didn't happen, and for good reason. It would be foolish. Well, we've got there now. Not only are we being forced accept this kind of foolishness, we are told it is a noble cause to promote such nonsense. In fact if we don't support it we are bigots.

The successful passage of the Proposition 8 amendment banning homosexual marriages in California has awakened the "enfant terrible" in a wide range of people who assure us that they are the "enlightened" ones that know what is best for all of us. Unable to accept that, yet again, one of the most liberal states in the country has failed to endorse square peg to round hole marriages, homosexuals have taken to the streets protesting and attacking people and businesses who supported the amendment and, in their most ill-mannered demonstrations, they have even trespassed into churches to deliver vulgar rants against those who fail to acknowledge the nobility of their demands. This proves once and for all that tolerance really is a one way street. And guess which way its going...(insert obvious AC/DC song here).

Apparently when it comes to the issue of homosexual marriage, the issue is already decided, at least according to the advocates of this preposterousness. The vote was just supposed to be a formality as, of course, there was always only ONE right answer. Six thousand years of human history be damned, these people have figured out that everyone who came before them was mistaken and there is absolutely nothing wrong with these mismatched unions. In fact, they tell us we are depriving them of their RIGHT to be married. Where did this "right" materialize from? Well, one argument stems from the Civil Rights movement of the 1950's-60's.

While attempting to equate their struggle with that of the African-American people may have seemed like a good idea, they have in fact offended the black community. One's sexual identity isn't so identifiable as one's race. Black people, once enslaved and declared less than human, were still being deprived of basic human dignities such as access to education and other services as well as fair treatment in almost every area of society. It was not something they could have avoided or hidden, even if they had wished to. Homosexuals have never been enslaved or declared less than human, nor are they being being legally discriminated against for their particular sexual preferences. Even if such things were to occur, they have legal remedies available to them. The lack of those legal remedies were at the heart of the Civil Rights struggle all along. The African-American community is rightfully offended that homosexuals would dare equate the quest for same sex marriage with their struggle for Civil Rights. Is it any wonder that 7 out of 10 African-Americans voted against homosexual marriage? They have every right to be offended! It is no surprise that this backfired on on the supporters of homosexual marriage.

Opponents of Proposition 8 like to bring up the court case of Loving v. Virginia. This was a 1967 decision finding that marriage was a basic human right and that there was no legitimate state interest in banning interracial marriage. Let us also remember this is still a square peg to square hole relationship, the colors do not alter the fact that all the working parts fit together naturally as they were intended by God or nature. Take your pick. Therefore the arguments for interracial marriages CANNOT be applied to homosexual marriages because you are still dealing with a man and a woman marriage. This is the basic relationship that results in traditionally accepted families that produce children. It is the tried and true foundation of every successful society. Certainly our society has an interest in the upbringing of children, as this process produces new citizens, and guides them to maturity. Therefore our society can, and has, decided that the traditional family is the proven successful model for raising a family. The foundation of that family being a marriage between a man and a woman. It is for that reason that we have chosen to honor these traditional marriages with special status.

In the aftermath of the successful win for Proposition 8, California Attorney General Jerry Brown said he would fight to uphold the initiative, even though he personally voted against it. This, of course, was before the adolescent tantrums of Proposition 8 opponents went into high gear in an attempt to extort their will, over that of California's voters, through intimidation. We have all seen the pictures of protesters attacking churches, demonstrating outside the homes, and even attempting to destroy the businesses of those known to have supported Proposition 8. They seem to have taken particular interest in both Rick Warren's Saddleback Church as well as the Mormon Church. Protest is a healthy thing for the democratic process, but this has long since crossed the line into violent intimidation. Trespassing onto the property, and into the services, of these churches is unacceptable behavior reminiscent of Nazi brown-shirts. The Nazi's laid a fine blueprint for a minority group wishing to impose it's will on others.

To be sure, the churches have handled these situations with remarkable grace and tolerance given the fact that these attacks represent a textbook example of intolerance on the part of homosexuals. In their eyes, there was only one right way to view this issue, and the voters of California failed to get it right. They therefore see it as their right to extract a certain amount of revenge against Christians for opposing them. As always, opponents of homosexual marriage are portrayed as bigots that are totally undeserving of respect. Their point of view is constantly and falsely being equated with racism. The media, as always, seems willingly pliable to promote wishes of the homosexual agenda.

The tantrums of the advocates for homosexual marriage may not be particularly effective against Christians and other adults, but they have apparently worked on the California Attorney General. After initially insisting he would enforce the will of the people, he has apparently had a change of heart:

"Proposition 8 must be invalidated because the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification. The courts have previously said the right of a person to marry is protected as one of those inalienable rights. The question at the center of the gay marriage cases is whether rights secured under the state Constitution's safeguard of liberty as an 'inalienable' right may intentionally be withdrawn from a class of persons by an initiative amendment."

"Although voters are allowed to amend other parts of the Constitution by majority vote, to use the ballot box to take away an "inalienable" right would establish a "tyranny of the majority," which the Constitution was designed, in part, to prevent, he wrote. "For we are talking, necessarily, about rights of individuals or groups against the larger community, and against the majority, even an overwhelming majority, of the society as a whole." - California Attorney General Jerry Brown

Of course, opponents of Proposition 8 are elated at the Attorney General's chameleon-like ability to adapt to the environment of hostility that they have created, and have taken to calling the Attorney General "a leader of courage and conviction." In truth he is neither courageous nor a man of conviction. He is a man betraying his duty to his office. It is the Attorney General's job to uphold the law, not to advocate for its change. Now he is attempting to use his office and the courts, yet again, to make homosexual marriages legal.

Does a man have an "inalienable right" to marry another man? Of course not, for if he did it would have long since been customary for such unions to be accepted. There is no "right" to marry. It is licensed by the state. Rights are not, nor do they need to be licensed! And here is the interesting fly in the ointment: homosexuals haven't been banned from getting married. Any homosexual person can marry somebody of the opposite sex. They often do. What they are demanding are special rights to marry within the same sex. This is not in any way an acceptable definition of an "inalienable right." If the Attorney General were truly worried about tyranny, he would recognize it as coming from a minority group forcibly imposing its unnatural perversions onto the rest of us. We are repeatedly told we have absolutely no right to reject this perverse behavior. It is us and our world-view that they are demanding be changed. This is the tyranny of political correctness. So who is the real tyrant here?

In 1973, The American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed homosexuality as a mental disorder from the APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-II). This decision was a significant victory for homosexual activists and they have continued to claim that the APA based their decision on new scientific discoveries that proved that homosexual behavior is normal and should be affirmed in our culture. This is a fine example of scientific and academic arrogance. For all of human history homosexual behavior has been considered "deviant" and abnormal but now these fine fellows have decided that not only is it normal, but that we must embrace and endorse this behavior based entirely on their "scholarly" recommendation? Give me a break. So everyone else throughout history, every culture, creed, religion and science was in error and these "enlightened" fellows have "discovered" the real truth? Sorry, but no sale.

If we were to accept that people are born homosexual and that they are powerless to resist their sexual urges we would set history BACKWARDS a thousand years. Yes, I said BACKWARDS. Endorsing this line of thought is not progressive at all. We like to think that we can be anything we want to be. We believe in neither "birthrights" or penalizing someone because of who or what condition they were born into. We judge people by what they are, not what they came from. Yet the homosexual agenda claims the homosexual is born that way and can be nothing else. They likewise perceive sexual preference as their all-encompassing identity and as such it essentially becomes a self-imposed penalty. That's as intolerable as it is un-American. You are what you make of yourself. You are not born locked into a homosexual lifestyle. I reject that. If you cannot choose, you cannot be free. Be very careful what you claim you want. It is the helpless that are the first victims of an abuse of power, and how often have homosexuals been persecuted for just that perceived helplessness? If someone wishes to live as, and be, a homosexual, by all means let them. But let them do it as a free citizen making a free choice. That choice is their right and neither I nor anyone else should dispute it. However if someone insists that they have no choice, and homosexuality was forced upon them by genetics or some other pseudo-scientific mythology, then they are just pathetic fools. I have no respect for that. Whining and making excuses deserves, and gets, nothing.

Which brings me around to the brouhaha following the president-elect's invitation to Pastor Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration ceremony. Homosexuals are in a rage over this in spite of the fact that President-Elect Obama has stated repeatedly that he does not support gay marriage. He holds exactly the same position on the issue that Rick Warren holds. John Cloud, an openly homosexual writer for Time Magazine even went as far as to call the future President a...you guessed it...bigot.

"Gays and lesbians are angry that Barack Obama has honored Warren, but they shouldn't be surprised. Obama has proved himself repeatedly to be a very tolerant, very rational-sounding sort of bigot." - John Cloud

What was Rick Warren's great crime, other than obviously opposing homosexual marriage? He infuriated homosexual rights activists with a comment made in a TV interview. He compared two homosexuals getting married to a brother marrying a sister or an adult marrying a child. Warren even went as far as to say "Certain body parts are meant to fit together." Kinda makes you think about square pegs belonging in square holes doesn't it? He rightfully pointed out that once you accept one of these taboo relationships as a "marriage" you are conceding that "alternative" definitions of marriage are acceptable. Once you make that concession you will be on that infamous slippery slope that will lead to further concessions for polygamy, polyandry, or even incest. After all, what logical argument can you hold against those practices that would not apply to homosexuality? It is advantageous for society to encourage the restraint of sexual activity and keep it within boundaries that prevent us from destroying one another. Failure to encourage such restraint will result in a society that tolerates everything. We have a name for such a society. It's called the Animal Kingdom, a place where the strong are predators that consume the weak and no creature has any rights except those enforced by tooth and claw. The quality of a society is not determined by what it tolerates but by what it does NOT tolerate. Remember that!

Lets make one thing nice and sparkling clear for our homosexual friends. Rick Warren, and all of us who consider ourselves Christians do not have to spend any time writhing in thought over this issue. For us it is pretty simple:

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." Leviticus 18:22

If we truly are Christians, then we do not have the authority to tolerate, accept or condone homosexual behavior or homosexual marriage. We belong to the Kingdom of God. We have humbled ourself before him and accept his wisdom and his way. Our approval is NOT our property to give. Lashing out at Christians will not gain homosexuals favor with us. They should never expect us to endorse the homosexual lifestyle as an "equal" to the traditional family. It isn't going to happen, not even by force!

It is one thing to tolerate the private choices made by free individuals. No one is out to suppress the behavior of consenting adults in the privacy of their own lives and no one should. Homosexuals argue that their "unions" are loving and committed relationships. Whoop de doo da day. I'm happy for them. This misses the point entirely. Marriage is a manifestation of not only the acceptance of the traditional family ideal, but also our desire to encourage it and create the conditions that will make it flourish. This is done for the betterment of the society as a whole, not because we are impressed with the fact that a couple loves each other. Society doesn't care about that. Endorsing and encouraging homosexual marriages will benefit no one but homosexuals.

There are many reasons to oppose homosexual marriages. The square peg will never belong in the round hole. There is no new found wisdom or understanding about it. Homosexuals who insist on continuing to try to ram these "square peg to round hole" unions down our throats are acting out of pure SELFISHNESS, and nothing more. Championing homosexual marriage is not a noble pursuit and no-one needs flatter themselves into thinking they are more "enlightened" than the rest of us just because they are willing to tolerate or accept it.

Like it or not, the Bible does have the best warning for those who insist that homosexual marriage is just another choice of equal value to traditional marriage:

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight! Woe unto them that are mighty to drink wine, and men of strength to mingle strong drink: Which justify the wicked for reward, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him!"
"Therefore as the fire devoureth the stubble, and the flame consumeth the chaff, so their root shall be as rottenness, and their blossom shall go up as dust: because they have cast away the law of the LORD of hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel." - Isaiah 5:20-24

No my arrogant friends, if you support the folly of homosexual marriage, you are not wise, educated, enlightened or tolerant. You are just the latest in the long history of mankind to foolishly "call evil good and good evil." We have seen your kind before, and you keep coming to the same result. No matter how hard you try, you cannot make putting a square peg in a round hole a "good" thing. There is no nobility in foolishness and there is no such thing as a noble fool...just a fool.