Marriage Matters: Consequences of Redefining Marriage

[RightThinking]

He can divorce Johnny and marry Mary...or he can do like Republican Congressmen and marry Mary while fucking Johnny.

I did not think you could give me an answer. Ideologues and radicals rarely can.

I gave you the only answer there is. It's not like this doesn't happen now. Do you have any idea how many gay people tried to play it straight, fell in love with someone of their gender and left their souses?

Utah has the highest percentage of same sex couples raising children for just this reason.

You can only be legally married to one person at a time. If you fall in love with someone else, you divorce your current spouse. Just ask Newt...he's done it a few times.

And the radical Leftist misses the entire point that needs to be spelled out.

The whackos want marriage to be re-defined, they want an entirely new concept of marriage, one that is not related to the CREATION of new life, but based on an official government benediction of sexual love which, in this case, happens to be of the same sex.

The rationale is that they are attracted to the same sex, so they should have the same "benefits" and "rights," etc. In other words, their nature is different from heteros, and they should not be denied anything because of this.

Well, this is where I brought in the BIsexual. "Bi," I hope you realize, means TWO. So, if one's sexuality is real dual, then - using Lefty logic - it would be a DENIAL not to be able to have one's true sexuality officially recognized.

And the ACLU is for this, ya know: The ACLU has taken the stand that polyamory is a constitutional right.

See how it all fits together: Johnny who is bi, can marry Bob who is only homo. Johnny can also marry Mary who is bi, and Mary marries Jane who is only lesbian. One big happy NEW FAMILY.

 

[Seawytch]

I did not think you could give me an answer. Ideologues and radicals rarely can.

I gave you the only answer there is. It's not like this doesn't happen now. Do you have any idea how many gay people tried to play it straight, fell in love with someone of their gender and left their souses?

Utah has the highest percentage of same sex couples raising children for just this reason.

You can only be legally married to one person at a time. If you fall in love with someone else, you divorce your current spouse. Just ask Newt...he's done it a few times.

And the radical Leftist misses the entire point that needs to be spelled out.

The whackos want marriage to be re-defined, they want an entirely new concept of marriage, one that is not related to the CREATION of new life, but based on an official government benediction of sexual love which, in this case, happens to be of the same sex.

The rationale is that they are attracted to the same sex, so they should have the same "benefits" and "rights," etc. In other words, their nature is different from heteros, and they should not be denied anything because of this.

Well, this is where I brought in the BIsexual. "Bi," I hope you realize, means TWO. So, if one's sexuality is real dual, then - using Lefty logic - it would be a DENIAL not to be able to have one's true sexuality officially recognized.

And the ACLU is for this, ya know: The ACLU has taken the stand that polyamory is a constitutional right.

See how it all fits together: Johnny who is bi, can marry Bob who is only homo. Johnny can also marry Mary who is bi, and Mary marries Jane who is only lesbian. One big happy NEW FAMILY.

What on earth are you blathering about?

You can only be married to one person at a time, regardless of their gender. It's as simple as that. Bob and Ted and Mary and Alice can fall in love with each other all they want to, but can only marry one person at a time.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Question about this NEW concept of marriage.

Before, the general idea was to create new life, but now the radicals want it altered to mean the official recognition of sexual love. Not that this was not part of it before, but this is the new basis to be recognized: Two people of the same sex want to get married and commit to a permanent life together. Apparently to limit their sexual activities between the two of them (even though about 50% of male same-sex partners have agreed to allow sex outside of the relationship).

In other words, homosexuals are saying that "this is what I am and I want to benefits of marriage and the recognition."

Well, what about this?

Johnny meets Tommy and they fall in love. They get married in the never-never land of Vermont. But wait! Johnny is now realizing something about himself.... He also likes women. Hey, he is the "B" in that LGBT group (or the LGBTQ group, I get mixed up).

So, his nature is not really homosexual. It is not really heterosexual. It is BIsexual. So, he meets Mary and falls in love.....

Now what? The radicals have said that marriage should be the unifying, according to law, based on the person's proclivity, choice, or nature (or whatever), in "marriage."

But Johnny is neither hetero- nor homo- He is BI. So, to not let him marry Mary would be to DENY him "rights," of course.

But wait..... A couple of years later, Mary meets Sally and falls in love; she did not realize she was also bi. Now what?

Incorrect.

There is no ‘new concept’ of marriage.

Indeed, same-sex couples seek only access to marriage exactly as it exists now, unchanged.

Otherwise, the rest of this post is irrelevant idiocy.

 

[P@triot]

I did not think you could give me an answer. Ideologues and radicals rarely can.

I gave you the only answer there is. It's not like this doesn't happen now. Do you have any idea how many gay people tried to play it straight, fell in love with someone of their gender and left their souses?

Utah has the highest percentage of same sex couples raising children for just this reason.

You can only be legally married to one person at a time. If you fall in love with someone else, you divorce your current spouse. Just ask Newt...he's done it a few times.

And the radical Leftist misses the entire point that needs to be spelled out.

The whackos want marriage to be re-defined, they want an entirely new concept of marriage, one that is not related to the CREATION of new life, but based on an official government benediction of sexual love which, in this case, happens to be of the same sex.

The rationale is that they are attracted to the same sex, so they should have the same "benefits" and "rights," etc. In other words, their nature is different from heteros, and they should not be denied anything because of this.

Well, this is where I brought in the BIsexual. "Bi," I hope you realize, means TWO. So, if one's sexuality is real dual, then - using Lefty logic - it would be a DENIAL not to be able to have one's true sexuality officially recognized.

And the ACLU is for this, ya know: The ACLU has taken the stand that polyamory is a constitutional right.

See how it all fits together: Johnny who is bi, can marry Bob who is only homo. Johnny can also marry Mary who is bi, and Mary marries Jane who is only lesbian. One big happy NEW FAMILY.

 

[P@triot]

I gave you the only answer there is. It's not like this doesn't happen now. Do you have any idea how many gay people tried to play it straight, fell in love with someone of their gender and left their souses?

Utah has the highest percentage of same sex couples raising children for just this reason.

You can only be legally married to one person at a time. If you fall in love with someone else, you divorce your current spouse. Just ask Newt...he's done it a few times.

And the radical Leftist misses the entire point that needs to be spelled out.

The whackos want marriage to be re-defined, they want an entirely new concept of marriage, one that is not related to the CREATION of new life, but based on an official government benediction of sexual love which, in this case, happens to be of the same sex.

The rationale is that they are attracted to the same sex, so they should have the same "benefits" and "rights," etc. In other words, their nature is different from heteros, and they should not be denied anything because of this.

Well, this is where I brought in the BIsexual. "Bi," I hope you realize, means TWO. So, if one's sexuality is real dual, then - using Lefty logic - it would be a DENIAL not to be able to have one's true sexuality officially recognized.

And the ACLU is for this, ya know: The ACLU has taken the stand that polyamory is a constitutional right.

See how it all fits together: Johnny who is bi, can marry Bob who is only homo. Johnny can also marry Mary who is bi, and Mary marries Jane who is only lesbian. One big happy NEW FAMILY.

What on earth are you blathering about?

You can only be married to one person at a time, regardless of their gender. It's as simple as that. Bob and Ted and Mary and Alice can fall in love with each other all they want to, but can only marry one person at a time.

So you're going to discriminate against them? What if California allows bisexuals to marry one of each gender?

 

[P@triot]

I don't support a tax system that penalizes me for the gender of my spouse. You obviously do.

I always like snarky liberal comments that miss the point of the conversation. They really make you think.

I appealed to your libertarian ideals. I'm taxed more (to the tune of over $100 a month) simply for being gay. Does that sit well with your libertarian ideals? I'm not getting taxed more because I make more money or use more of the commons. I'm taxed more because my spouse and I are both women.

It's a real simple question. Should the Federal government treat my legal marriage just like yours?

No your not!!! Stop lying... You are taxed the same amount as any other person not in a heterosexual marriage!

 

[WorldWatcher]

I always like snarky liberal comments that miss the point of the conversation. They really make you think.

I appealed to your libertarian ideals. I'm taxed more (to the tune of over $100 a month) simply for being gay. Does that sit well with your libertarian ideals? I'm not getting taxed more because I make more money or use more of the commons. I'm taxed more because my spouse and I are both women.

It's a real simple question. Should the Federal government treat my legal marriage just like yours?

No your not!!! Stop lying... You are taxed the same amount as any other person not in a heterosexual marriage!

Her Civil Marriage is charged taxes differently then other Civil Marriages, that is the standard. She is legally Civilly Married under the laws of the State of California, the federal government has chosen to discriminate against legally married same-sex couples based on the gender composition of the Civil Marriage spouses.

For over 200 years the Federal government recognized all legal Civil Marriages entered into under State law, with the passage of DOMA they began discriminating as to Civil Marriage recognition based on gender.

So ya, she is taxed differently then other Civilly Married couples.


>>>>

 

[Redfish]

I appealed to your libertarian ideals. I'm taxed more (to the tune of over $100 a month) simply for being gay. Does that sit well with your libertarian ideals? I'm not getting taxed more because I make more money or use more of the commons. I'm taxed more because my spouse and I are both women.

It's a real simple question. Should the Federal government treat my legal marriage just like yours?

No your not!!! Stop lying... You are taxed the same amount as any other person not in a heterosexual marriage!

Her Civil Marriage is charged taxes differently then other Civil Marriages, that is the standard. She is legally Civilly Married under the laws of the State of California, the federal government has chosen to discriminate against legally married same-sex couples based on the gender composition of the Civil Marriage spouses.

For over 200 years the Federal government recognized all legal Civil Marriages entered into under State law, with the passage of DOMA they began discriminating as to Civil Marriage recognition based on gender.

So ya, she is taxed differently then other Civilly Married couples.


>>>>

gays in a legal civil union should be able to file using the "married" tax rates. But that does not make their union a marriage. It is legal, it should be treated equally with man/woman unions, but a gay union is not a marriage.

That is what seawytch is all about, the word marriage. She is not about equal rights or equal treatment. She, and many like her, want the government to mandate how the rest of us feel and talk about gay relationships. They want thought control. I say fuck that!

 

[WorldWatcher]

No your not!!! Stop lying... You are taxed the same amount as any other person not in a heterosexual marriage!

Her Civil Marriage is charged taxes differently then other Civil Marriages, that is the standard. She is legally Civilly Married under the laws of the State of California, the federal government has chosen to discriminate against legally married same-sex couples based on the gender composition of the Civil Marriage spouses.

For over 200 years the Federal government recognized all legal Civil Marriages entered into under State law, with the passage of DOMA they began discriminating as to Civil Marriage recognition based on gender.

So ya, she is taxed differently then other Civilly Married couples.


>>>>

gays in a legal civil union should be able to file using the "married" tax rates. But that does not make their union a marriage. It is legal, it should be treated equally with man/woman unions, but a gay union is not a marriage.

That is what seawytch is all about, the word marriage. She is not about equal rights or equal treatment. She, and many like her, want the government to mandate how the rest of us feel and talk about gay relationships. They want thought control. I say fuck that!

Sure it's a Civil Marriage, signed - sealed - and delivered under the laws of the State of California and there are 12 other states that recognize Civil Marriage regardless of gender.

Sounds like you're out for you own bit of thought control no different then your accusations against her. Civil Marriage is define by the law of the applicable jurisdiction over 25% of the states (and DC) now have Same-sex Civil Marriage. Yep, they are Civilly Married.

What you appear to want is the government to mandate how the rest of us feel and talk about gay relationships be denying them equal access to the word "marriage". You and she are two sides of the same coin. Both about thought control, you just want opposite thoughts. But see that mandate is OK because it's one you agree with.


>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

And the radical Leftist misses the entire point that needs to be spelled out.

The whackos want marriage to be re-defined, they want an entirely new concept of marriage, one that is not related to the CREATION of new life, but based on an official government benediction of sexual love which, in this case, happens to be of the same sex.

The rationale is that they are attracted to the same sex, so they should have the same "benefits" and "rights," etc. In other words, their nature is different from heteros, and they should not be denied anything because of this.

Well, this is where I brought in the BIsexual. "Bi," I hope you realize, means TWO. So, if one's sexuality is real dual, then - using Lefty logic - it would be a DENIAL not to be able to have one's true sexuality officially recognized.

And the ACLU is for this, ya know: The ACLU has taken the stand that polyamory is a constitutional right.

See how it all fits together: Johnny who is bi, can marry Bob who is only homo. Johnny can also marry Mary who is bi, and Mary marries Jane who is only lesbian. One big happy NEW FAMILY.

What on earth are you blathering about?

You can only be married to one person at a time, regardless of their gender. It's as simple as that. Bob and Ted and Mary and Alice can fall in love with each other all they want to, but can only marry one person at a time.

So you're going to discriminate against them? What if California allows bisexuals to marry one of each gender?

Bisexuals, just like gays and straights will be able to marry one non familial consenting adult at a time.

 

[P@triot]

What on earth are you blathering about?

You can only be married to one person at a time, regardless of their gender. It's as simple as that. Bob and Ted and Mary and Alice can fall in love with each other all they want to, but can only marry one person at a time.

So you're going to discriminate against them? What if California allows bisexuals to marry one of each gender?

Bisexuals, just like gays and straights will be able to marry one non familial consenting adult at a time.

And what if California changes that? Why are you running from the question (because it exposes your hypocrisy? because you think bisexuals are "icky"? both?)

 

[Seawytch]

No your not!!! Stop lying... You are taxed the same amount as any other person not in a heterosexual marriage!

Her Civil Marriage is charged taxes differently then other Civil Marriages, that is the standard. She is legally Civilly Married under the laws of the State of California, the federal government has chosen to discriminate against legally married same-sex couples based on the gender composition of the Civil Marriage spouses.

For over 200 years the Federal government recognized all legal Civil Marriages entered into under State law, with the passage of DOMA they began discriminating as to Civil Marriage recognition based on gender.

So ya, she is taxed differently then other Civilly Married couples.


>>>>

gays in a legal civil union should be able to file using the "married" tax rates. But that does not make their union a marriage. It is legal, it should be treated equally with man/woman unions, but a gay union is not a marriage.

That is what seawytch is all about, the word marriage. She is not about equal rights or equal treatment. She, and many like her, want the government to mandate how the rest of us feel and talk about gay relationships. They want thought control. I say fuck that!

I don't have to "be all about the word marriage" (even though the word is your hang up, not mine). I am married. I have a marriage license issued by the state of CA.

I want my legal marriage treated equally under the law, that's all.

 

[Seawytch]

Her Civil Marriage is charged taxes differently then other Civil Marriages, that is the standard. She is legally Civilly Married under the laws of the State of California, the federal government has chosen to discriminate against legally married same-sex couples based on the gender composition of the Civil Marriage spouses.

For over 200 years the Federal government recognized all legal Civil Marriages entered into under State law, with the passage of DOMA they began discriminating as to Civil Marriage recognition based on gender.

So ya, she is taxed differently then other Civilly Married couples.


>>>>

gays in a legal civil union should be able to file using the "married" tax rates. But that does not make their union a marriage. It is legal, it should be treated equally with man/woman unions, but a gay union is not a marriage.

That is what seawytch is all about, the word marriage. She is not about equal rights or equal treatment. She, and many like her, want the government to mandate how the rest of us feel and talk about gay relationships. They want thought control. I say fuck that!

Sure it's a Civil Marriage, signed - sealed - and delivered under the laws of the State of California and there are 12 other states that recognize Civil Marriage regardless of gender.

Sounds like you're out for you own bit of thought control no different then your accusations against her. Civil Marriage is define by the law of the applicable jurisdiction over 25% of the states (and DC) now have Same-sex Civil Marriage. Yep, they are Civilly Married.

What you appear to want is the government to mandate how the rest of us feel and talk about gay relationships be denying them equal access to the word "marriage". You and she are two sides of the same coin. Both about thought control, you just want opposite thoughts. But see that mandate is OK because it's one you agree with.


>>>>

Except on my side of the coin, I don't care what it's called, as long as its equal.

 

[P@triot]

I appealed to your libertarian ideals. I'm taxed more (to the tune of over $100 a month) simply for being gay. Does that sit well with your libertarian ideals? I'm not getting taxed more because I make more money or use more of the commons. I'm taxed more because my spouse and I are both women.

It's a real simple question. Should the Federal government treat my legal marriage just like yours?

No your not!!! Stop lying... You are taxed the same amount as any other person not in a heterosexual marriage!

Her Civil Marriage is charged taxes differently then other Civil Marriages, that is the standard. She is legally Civilly Married under the laws of the State of California, the federal government has chosen to discriminate against legally married same-sex couples based on the gender composition of the Civil Marriage spouses.

For over 200 years the Federal government recognized all legal Civil Marriages entered into under State law, with the passage of DOMA they began discriminating as to Civil Marriage recognition based on gender.

So ya, she is taxed differently then other Civilly Married couples.

Sorry - you can keep lying but that doesn't change reality. America (as a whole) only recognizes marriage between one man and one woman - and that is not the relationship she is in

 

[Seawytch]

So you're going to discriminate against them? What if California allows bisexuals to marry one of each gender?

Bisexuals, just like gays and straights will be able to marry one non familial consenting adult at a time.

And what if California changes that? Why are you running from the question (because it exposes your hypocrisy? because you think bisexuals are "icky"? both?)

If California changes what? Laws on polygamy?

Seriously, we might as well be saying "what if space aliens want to breed with humans".

You're out of bullets and throwing the gun.

 

[Seawytch]

No your not!!! Stop lying... You are taxed the same amount as any other person not in a heterosexual marriage!

Her Civil Marriage is charged taxes differently then other Civil Marriages, that is the standard. She is legally Civilly Married under the laws of the State of California, the federal government has chosen to discriminate against legally married same-sex couples based on the gender composition of the Civil Marriage spouses.

For over 200 years the Federal government recognized all legal Civil Marriages entered into under State law, with the passage of DOMA they began discriminating as to Civil Marriage recognition based on gender.

So ya, she is taxed differently then other Civilly Married couples.

Sorry - you can keep lying but that doesn't change reality. America (as a whole) only recognizes marriage between one man and one woman - and that is not the relationship she is in

You might want to check the latest polls...

http://www.gallup.com/poll/162398/sex-marriage-support-solidifies-above.aspx

 

[RightThinking]

No your not!!! Stop lying... You are taxed the same amount as any other person not in a heterosexual marriage!

Her Civil Marriage is charged taxes differently then other Civil Marriages, that is the standard. She is legally Civilly Married under the laws of the State of California, the federal government has chosen to discriminate against legally married same-sex couples based on the gender composition of the Civil Marriage spouses.

For over 200 years the Federal government recognized all legal Civil Marriages entered into under State law, with the passage of DOMA they began discriminating as to Civil Marriage recognition based on gender.

So ya, she is taxed differently then other Civilly Married couples.


>>>>

gays in a legal civil union should be able to file using the "married" tax rates. But that does not make their union a marriage. It is legal, it should be treated equally with man/woman unions, but a gay union is not a marriage.

That is what seawytch is all about, the word marriage. She is not about equal rights or equal treatment. She, and many like her, want the government to mandate how the rest of us feel and talk about gay relationships. They want thought control. I say fuck that!

I would like to see the individual states handle it and the federal government not bestowing any tax benefits under DOMA. The individual states could then include tax breaks for these people who are "married" under that NEW concept that obliterates the old one that has existed in all cultures of the world throughout human history.

And you are right that we will be mandated to think and feel as the radicals demand; this will be enforced in our speech. It is already happening in parts of Europe: People can be arrested for speaking openly against homosexuality.

These radicals will have to revise history if their agenda ever reaches the federal level: They will present their newly acquired status as some kind of liberation or freedom from centuries of tyranny and oppression in school textbooks. The textbooks for our children will have to have quotas, of course. Right now, there are specific guidelines for textbooks about the number of photos of women, various "minorities" and such. It will have to next include homosexuals because these have been - according to these radicals - and oppressed and maligned group that has finally - after incredible struggle - achieved full human rights and dignity.

Organized religions will be attacked also, unless they capitulate to the Party dogma. If parents teach their children that homosexual sex is sinful or wrong, children will have to be told that their parents are ignorant and bigoted. In this Brave New World, there can be no alternative.

But Russia is standing up to this insanity:

http://http://bigstory.ap.org/article/russian-parliament-vote-anti-gay-bill

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No your not!!! Stop lying... You are taxed the same amount as any other person not in a heterosexual marriage!

Her Civil Marriage is charged taxes differently then other Civil Marriages, that is the standard. She is legally Civilly Married under the laws of the State of California, the federal government has chosen to discriminate against legally married same-sex couples based on the gender composition of the Civil Marriage spouses.

For over 200 years the Federal government recognized all legal Civil Marriages entered into under State law, with the passage of DOMA they began discriminating as to Civil Marriage recognition based on gender.

So ya, she is taxed differently then other Civilly Married couples.


>>>>

gays in a legal civil union should be able to file using the "married" tax rates. But that does not make their union a marriage. It is legal, it should be treated equally with man/woman unions, but a gay union is not a marriage.

That is what seawytch is all about, the word marriage. She is not about equal rights or equal treatment. She, and many like her, want the government to mandate how the rest of us feel and talk about gay relationships. They want thought control. I say fuck that!

‘Marriage’ is a legal term, it connotes particular policies, rules, and obligations unique to the institution. Marriage is between two equal partners, gender is irrelevant, the doctrine of coverture abandoned well over a generation ago. See: Hollingsworth v. Perry.

‘Separate but equal’ remains un-Constitutional; same-sex couples cannot be segregated into some contrived ‘alternative marriage’ in violation of the 14th Amendment based solely on the desire of opposite-sex couples to retain a monopoly on marriage.

 

[Seawytch]

I would like to see the individual states handle it and the federal government not bestowing any tax benefits under DOMA. The individual states could then include tax breaks for these people who are "married" under that NEW concept that obliterates the old one that has existed in all cultures of the world throughout human history.

Who is stopping you? I keep hearing all these "libertarians" (who all just happen to be legally married) say that the tax breaks for being married should be eliminated...and yet I haven't seen a single piece of legislation introduced ANYWHERE by ANYONE that would do that.

And you are right that we will be mandated to think and feel as the radicals demand; this will be enforced in our speech. It is already happening in parts of Europe: People can be arrested for speaking openly against homosexuality.

And of course you have a historical reference in this country for that, right? Bigots have been feeling "mandated" to accept things they hate for decades and yet none of the end of the world scenarios they predicted have come to pass. The 1st Amendment isn't in any danger Captain Hyperbole.

These radicals will have to revise history if their agenda ever reaches the federal level: They will present their newly acquired status as some kind of liberation or freedom from centuries of tyranny and oppression in school textbooks. The textbooks for our children will have to have quotas, of course. Right now, there are specific guidelines for textbooks about the number of photos of women, various "minorities" and such. It will have to next include homosexuals because these have been - according to these radicals - and oppressed and maligned group that has finally - after incredible struggle - achieved full human rights and dignity.

There will be gays in the history books whether we are allowed to be married or not.

Organized religions will be attacked also, unless they capitulate to the Party dogma. If parents teach their children that homosexual sex is sinful or wrong, children will have to be told that their parents are ignorant and bigoted. In this Brave New World, there can be no alternative.

Yes, they will be attacked...by public opinion, not by laws. The churches will change or they will die. It's already happening...

New research shows young Americans are dramatically less likely to go to church -- or to participate in any form of organized religion -- than their parents and grandparents.

"It's a huge change," says Harvard University professor Robert Putnam, who conducted the research.

Historically, the percentage of Americans who said they had no religious affiliation (pollsters refer to this group as the "nones") has been very small -- hovering between 5 percent and 10 percent.

However, Putnam says the percentage of "nones" has now skyrocketed to between 30 percent and 40 percent among younger Americans.[...]

Putnam says that in the past two decades, many young people began to view organized religion as a source of "intolerance and rigidity and doctrinaire political views," and therefore stopped going to church.
​

Young Americans Losing Their Religion

But Russia is standing up to this insanity:

http://http://bigstory.ap.org/article/russian-parliament-vote-anti-gay-bill

So, you think Russia's got the right idea do you?

 

[RightThinking]

I would like to see the individual states handle it and the federal government not bestowing any tax benefits under DOMA. The individual states could then include tax breaks for these people who are "married" under that NEW concept that obliterates the old one that has existed in all cultures of the world throughout human history.

Who is stopping you? I keep hearing all these "libertarians" (who all just happen to be legally married) say that the tax breaks for being married should be eliminated...and yet I haven't seen a single piece of legislation introduced ANYWHERE by ANYONE that would do that.

And you are right that we will be mandated to think and feel as the radicals demand; this will be enforced in our speech. It is already happening in parts of Europe: People can be arrested for speaking openly against homosexuality.

And of course you have a historical reference in this country for that, right? Bigots have been feeling "mandated" to accept things they hate for decades and yet none of the end of the world scenarios they predicted have come to pass. The 1st Amendment isn't in any danger Captain Hyperbole.



There will be gays in the history books whether we are allowed to be married or not.

Organized religions will be attacked also, unless they capitulate to the Party dogma. If parents teach their children that homosexual sex is sinful or wrong, children will have to be told that their parents are ignorant and bigoted. In this Brave New World, there can be no alternative.

Yes, they will be attacked...by public opinion, not by laws. The churches will change or they will die. It's already happening...

New research shows young Americans are dramatically less likely to go to church -- or to participate in any form of organized religion -- than their parents and grandparents.

"It's a huge change," says Harvard University professor Robert Putnam, who conducted the research.

Historically, the percentage of Americans who said they had no religious affiliation (pollsters refer to this group as the "nones") has been very small -- hovering between 5 percent and 10 percent.

However, Putnam says the percentage of "nones" has now skyrocketed to between 30 percent and 40 percent among younger Americans.[...]

Putnam says that in the past two decades, many young people began to view organized religion as a source of "intolerance and rigidity and doctrinaire political views," and therefore stopped going to church.
​

Young Americans Losing Their Religion

But Russia is standing up to this insanity:

http://http://bigstory.ap.org/article/russian-parliament-vote-anti-gay-bill

So, you think Russia's got the right idea do you?

Again, the radical ideologue does not read what has been written: I would hope that the federal government preserves DOMA and does not extend the tax benefits to any other than male-female marriages. In other words, that it DOES extend tax benefits to male-female marriages, and that states can do as they please with the various benefits.

The truth is not bigotry, of course. But that is how radicals will demand it be interpreted.

There ARE gays in history books, but there is not yet a demand for incessantly pointing this out, quotas, and references to liberation from oppression. In other words, in the Brave New World, children will be indoctrinated into the myth that the entire history of the world - in relation to homosexuals - was one of oppression and victimization.

The churches that make the most demands of its adherents are the ones that endure and are growing; not the appeasers.

The whacked-out radicals make a point of attacking the Catholic Church. But the Left-wingers are condemning the behavior that they are promoting and/or excusing in their world! Left-wingers demand "toleration" of sexual perversions - So, these Leftist radicals would have to say that homosexual priest SHOULD be ordained, for example. The Left-wingers want a church that is like their secular nightmare.

Yup - Russia got it right this time.