Jun
23
2015

Opposing Gay Marriage Is The Tolerant Thing To Do

Transgender Fallon Fox recently received criticism for breaking the eye socket of Tamikka Brents in a mixed martial arts match. Having a sex change in 2006, he-now-she has successfully won match after match in the women’s league. As Brents points out, “I’ve fought a lot of women and have never felt the strength that I felt in a fight as I did that night.”

Biologically, men are stronger than women; so it is no wonder Fox easily beats her opponents. She has a man’s body in a women’s league. But, while there is criticism there is no stop to it because our country currently prides itself on being a tolerant society. So, where did this tolerance come from? And, can our country continue to keep its tolerance, yet rule in the favor of one side in two different world views?

In the via Antiqua, the third to twelfth century, morality was defined as the pursuit of man’s happiness by living a virtuous life. The virtues in a man inspired his Reason and his Will, both of which gave him interior freedom. That interior freedom resulted in peace and joy. This thinking was endorsed not only by religious belief – but by the State. People found that only states that laid foundations upon this belief were secure, happy and prosperous.

Recent ad in the Washington Post targets Catholics for being "intolerant".

Recent ad in the Washington Post targets Catholics for being “intolerant”.

In the fourteenth century however, there was a rupture in the public’s understanding of morality. Happiness and virtue were suddenly on opposing ends in the minds of new philosophers. Ignoring the historical evidence, they declared that virtues were obligatory because of the divine commandments, but that a chasing after happiness was only possible if man succumbed to sinful passion (Find this and more in Morality: The Catholic View by Fr. Servais Pinckaers, O.P.)

Continuing toward progress and change, Cardinal John Henry Newman explains about the public in his nineteenth century Letter on Mr. Gladstone’s Expostulation (abbr.). He says there has been an even greater change that has occurred in the public’s understanding of morality. A person’s conscience is no longer based upon the divine commandments at all. Conscience now listens to the reasoning of each man’s prerogative – each man’s ever changing opinion.

And so we come to the via Moderna, our modern era: a time where each man’s morality is whatever each man wants his morality to be—in other words, moral relativism. With this as the current philosophy, our country must become a country of tolerance – which brings us back to the Fox case, and into the gay marriage debate.

The opposing sides of gay marriage vehemently disagree, but they are allowed to explain their arguments under the societal umbrella of acceptance. In the public square, we see these debates all the time. Red-faced and bull stubborn, they argue their morality before the public eye. But what happens when it enters a geographical region? If you own a plot of land, aren’t you free and able to practice your morality on it – ensuring a tolerant society?

In the days before the Supreme Court must rule on gay marriage, this comes to a head. Those who pitch a tent on the side of gay marriage exclaim that their morality must be tolerated in all the land, whether you own it or not.

Those on the Catholic Christian side scoff and respond that to enforce a morality of gay marriage would be to shut down a Christian morality in the places where Christian morality is practiced; and in a tolerant society, such an all-bars-none approach cannot be allowed.

Arguing like children and blue in the face, all resolutely forget that neither “idea” of morality is truer than the other since both are solely based upon the opinion of each man.

Today though, their argument has gotten so loud that Mother Supreme Court is making a decision just to get them to shut up. However, the question still remains–can one morality (gay marriage) be forced upon a tolerant society and still keep that society tolerant?

The answer is no. Ten years ago, Canada walked this same path, and voted on the side of gay marriage. Today, those with opposing viewpoints are being singled out and removed one-by-one. It shows that there is zero tolerance if one view is forced upon all.

In these coming days, will the Supreme Court be wise enough to recognize that there is a very real chance that a decision in favor of gay marriage will upheave the very foundation of tolerance she stands upon? We have a threat that marriage will be redefined in our country and both parties are currently freely crying out. To silence one of them would be to eliminate tolerance. The tolerant response is to oppose gay marriage and not change a thing.

afoxAshley Sheridan Fox is Director of Religious Education and Director of Safe Environment Awareness and Certification for the Diocese of Venice in Florida. She received a Masters in Theology and Christian Ministry from Franciscan University of Steubenville where she specialized in Catechetics. Her Bachelors in English Literature is from the University of Connecticut. She writes as a guest blogger for CatholicVote and The Catechetical Review: Communicating Christ for a New Evangelization. 
Articles by Ashley:

  • Pingback: THURSDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit

  • me, myself & I r all here

    Mother Supreme Court….. You will be labelled a racist & hater for daring to use that word! ….. Not sure which one, but they all sound horrendous in a tolerant society….

    • eddiestardust

      We do not live in a tolerant society any more.

  • cminca

    “If you own a plot of land, aren’t you free and able to practice your morality on it – ensuring a tolerant society?”

    Yes you are. What you are not entitled to–what Christians don’t get “special rights” to–is the ability to enforce YOUR morality on everyone else’s plot of land.

    What you are also not entitled to–what Christians don’t get “special rights” to–is to vocalize your belief in other’s immortality (as defined by your beliefs) without the rest of the public having a right to vocalize their response to your beliefs.

    What you are also not entitled to–what Christians don’t get “special rights” to–is insisting on tax-payer funding for your charities while deciding that some of those tax payers aren’t entitled to benefit from those charities. And you are not entitled to lie about being “forced” to close those charities when the reality is you could have maintained them with private funding but you decided not to do so.

    So, what this is really about, is the religious right’s inability to call the shots. It has been the religious right that has stood in the square–red faced and belligerent demanding all of society dance to their tune. Now they are acting like the bully who cries and screams “it isn’t fair” when the 98 pound weakling punches back.

    And finally–the next time you want to vote to take away people’s civil rights I’d suggest that you remember this–next time we might decide to vote on YOURS.

    • eddiestardust

      I’m not forcing you to go to church..but you are telling me that Nature is wrong and so am I simply because I do not agree with you….

      No one has been forcing gays to leave the planet, now have they?

      Gays are forcing their minority viewpoint here….

      • cminca

        “….but you are telling me that Nature is wrong and so am I simply because I do not agree with you….”

        I’m assuming you missed the word “bigot” in that sentence. As I said above–you don’t have special rights to say things without recourse.

        “No one has been forcing gays to leave the planet, now have they?”

        No–but you attempted to deny my civil equality—which I covered with my last point.

        “Gays are forcing their minority viewpoint here….”
        No–you are free to believe anything you want.
        Have churches been shuttered? Have priests been jailed? Have the thought police injected electrodes into your head to determine your thoughts? No.
        What you aren’t free to do is to make everyone else dance to your tune either by intimidation or the ballot box.
        The constitution of the country tries to protect the equality and the liberty of all–even when some others don’t like it. You are conflating the inability to persecute others with actual persecution to yourselves.

  • Diego Serrano

    Why oh why do you use feminine pronouns while making the point HE is a man? That is, and I tell you respectfully, it is ridiculous. You are a director of religious education. And you have talked of two opposing positions as if they were both valuable and deserving respect and “tolerance”. Elementary logic (Unless one belongs to the via moderna you mention, in which case logic has died) tells us that two opposing things cannot be both true. So, if one of your students asks, which of these two does God agree with? What will you respond to them? Now, God does not contradict Himself, therefore He does not believe both of these is true. So, tell me, which one is it? Two opposing moralities which should be tolerated? Really? Sodomy is a mortal sin. Do you believe in hell? Do you believe there is lots of people there? Then “tolerating” gay “marriage” is an act of hate against people who suffer from SSA. It is validating them in their sin and making it very likely for them to end up in hell. Not to mention the STDs, some deadly, suicide, depression, etc.

  • Diego Serrano

    Please change the title to “opposing drug addiction is the tolerant thing to do”, and change all relevant parts accordingly. It’s unbelievable.

  • Diego Serrano

    Arguing like children and blue in the face, all resolutely forget that neither “idea” of morality is truer than the other since both are solely based upon the opinion of each man.

    Is this your opinion Ashley? If so you are a relativist. What about God?
    Yep. God doesn’t have an opinion or it doesn’t matter. Meet “tolerance” the new God!

    Hum… I don’t remember Jesus being very tolerant at all! Well, I guess that’s irrelevant.

    • eddiestardust

      God doesn’t mean anything to these folks but neither does nature….
      Shows how good our system of education is these days….

  • Katherine

    What the Supreme Court and others forget about Gay marriage and rights is the victims. I along with my children are some of them. My ex husband is transgendered and walked out on his family to pursue a life of surgery, drinking, and more fun than a family could provide. I believe that in the pursuit of tolerance and the hope to be something more, my small family and others were pushed aside. Yes, I get the decision is on marriage, but where does it end? I may love the person as Jesus did but it can’t undo the therapy needed for the children and spouses involved.

    • cminca

      Katherine–
      I realize this does not help your current situation, but if your husband hadn’t felt he had to hide himself all those years perhaps you would not be in the situation you are now.
      Good luck to you and your children.

      • eddiestardust

        Cminca,

        I recently met a member of my new parish whose family is going through the same thing…it is very sad and very hard on the children.

        Thankfully the woman, this gentleman’s wife was able to get a Catholic Annulment.

        What about the marriage vows?

        If one is Catholic and decides to marry that means that you take a vow to remain married…

        IF one of the spouses leaves the marriage to become a member of a gay couple or Transgender, that signifies that person broke the marriage vow!

        The other spouse is NOT responsible for the actions of the spouse that leaves either for a gay relationship or to become Trans…!

  • utah rose

    What often isn’t spoken of too is the pressure now that gay people might feel to marry their partner! I have a lesbian friend whose partner was ill and she took care of her. Then her partner cheated on her and found someone else. At the time, her ex partner also was a co signer of her mortgage! She had to go through quite a bit of legal stuff removing her from it. She now has a new partner but they live separately and I doubt she’ll marry her. We may now see divorces among same sex couples just as we see for heterosexuals. I feel pity for them. But I can also see lawsuits from the belligerent LGBT community targeting mom and pop businesses who due to their conscience don’t want to participate in their weddings, and it’s already happening. Canadians have been jailed for this. No Christian organization would force police and fireman to march in a parade, but some gay organizations would force them to do this in a Pride parade. No right wing organization or commentator has forced a resignation from someone with other beliefs. So you see, tolerance is only a one way street here. Some gays are against gay marriage. It would be wonderful if they had the courage to speak out.

    • flanoggin

      Actually, gays can be fired for being gay in 29 states…ansd have been. Your comment ” No right wing organization or commentator has forced a resignation from someone with other beliefs. ” is simply not true. Canadians also have different laws than the US has. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are uniquely American

    • Louise

      No Canadians have been jailed over the issue of gay marriage. Stop making up lies.

    • FindSomeChill

      Wait your argument against same sex marriage is that some people are bad for each other? Isn’t that true of straight marriage? Some people make terrible couples, lets ban marriage.

  • dagbat

    Not tolerating gay marriage is the only thing to do if you still have your sanity. No one has a legal or moral right to institutionalize something that would destroy the world if everyone had it. Likewise no one has a right to force someone to do something against their religious beliefs. Or to think the way they think or to believe what they believe.

    If the homo-fascists had been tolerant and followed what they preached they would have left marriage alone and called their same sex partnerships something else. But they did not because they are mean spirited and hateful.

    The reality across all life forms is that homosexuality is a sexual deviation. Radical homosexuals know this but can not admit it. And like all intolerant dictators they are now trying to force everyone else to believe their lie.

    The homosexual sex act has no redeeming value. If everyone did it the human race would become extinct. The purpose of marriage is to increase humanity, not to kill it off.

    • Louise

      Wow, you have some serious anger issues. Seek help.

      • dagbat

        Perhaps the issue is more that you don’t agree and you are the one who is really the angry one. I’m just stating what I believe to be true..

        • cminca

          “I’m just stating what I believe to be true..”
          And you have a lot to learn.

          • dagbat

            Everyone has a lot to learn beginning with the difference between right and wrong. When the Bible says something is wrong, then it is wrong. If you disagree with the Bible then admit that and we can agree to disagree.

          • cminca

            You cherry pick the bible for certain verses that support your bigotry, and refuse to see the forest for the trees.
            Try reading Mark 12:29-34 for context and then you’ll understand what I am talking about.

          • dagbat

            I understand and respect where you are coming from. We all should try to follow the golden rule and to love God. But there is a flip side. God has rules. So if we truly love God we will obey Him and follow His rules. That is the meaning of love the sinner but hate the sin.
            We are all sinners. And when we fall we get up and confess our sins and ask for forgiveness. Again and again and again. God loves us because of this. He knows we are trying.
            Also know that the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament are one and the same God. And also that Jesus specifically said He did not come to change one iota of the Law. And finally that Jesus Himself converted St. Paul. So the words of St. Paul are just as valid as Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, and Peter…
            Finally as to the sin of homosexual sex (not the temptation or one’s orientation which are not sins) I refer you to:
            1 Corinthians 6:9-10
            Leviticus 18:22
            Leviticus 20:13

          • cminca

            If you are going to quote Leviticus at me you better be living Kosher.

          • dagbat

            As far as I know Leviticus is part of the Bible. That’s good enough for me.

          • cminca

            Do you eat shellfish?

            Do you wear clothes of mixed cloth?

            Would you participate in stoning someone to death for working on the Sabbath?

            Do you desist from touching people for 7 days after your period?
            All of them are in Leviticus.

            Do you have ANY clue what you are talking about?

          • dagbat

            Yes. Christ did not abolish the moral precepts
            of the law. The other stuff you are referring to, rules and
            regulations and details….were abolished. See

            Mark 7:14-19
            Col. 2:16-17; 20-23

          • cminca

            aka “cherry picking”

          • dagbat

            Facts are facts. You can deny them if you want but that will not make them go away. I bid you adieu and wish you well.

          • cminca

            THEY AREN’T FACTS.

          • dagbat

            Then what do you think the word of God is?

    • cminca

      Let’s deconstruct–shall we?

      “No one has a legal or moral right to institutionalize something that would destroy the world if everyone had it.”

      First–please explain how SSM is going to “destroy the world”. Are the collective heads of all the right wing religious going to explode at one time and knock the earth off its rotational axis?

      Second–Even if you could come up with a likely scenario where the world would be destroyed, since only a small percentage of the human population is SSA it is not highly unlikely that “everyone” would have a SSM? Or are you assuming that heterosexuals are going to be forced into SSM by some sort of governmental secret police?

      “Likewise no one has a right to force someone to do something against their religious beliefs.”

      Not one person has been forced to do anything…..NOT ONE. There are ramifications to actions, however, and when you break the law you (yes, even Christians) are subject to the rule of law. I realize you want “special rights” to be held above the law, based on “Jesus”, but you are not entitled to special rights in a secular, pluralistic, democratic republic.

      “If the homo-fascists had been tolerant and followed what they preached they would have left marriage alone and called their same sex partnerships something else. But they did not because they are mean spirited and hateful.”

      We’ll set aside the pejorative “homo-facists” and move right on to the meat.

      The LGBT community has been fighting for legal recognition of their partnerships. In the past, it was the religious right that would not allow the recognition of “civil unions” with full rights and benefits because it would be “too much like marriage”. As a recent example, while an archbishop in Argentina the Pope, during the time the government was considering passing SSM legislation,begged the rest of the CC hierarchy to support push for civil unions instead of marriage. They would not, the CC lost the battle, and the state passed SSM.

      In other words–you religo-facists have brought this on yourselves.

      “The reality across all life forms is that homosexuality is a sexual deviation. Radical homosexuals know this but can not admit it. And like all intolerant dictators they are now trying to force everyone else to believe their lie.”

      Once again you use a pejorative term–deviation–when you should have used a non-pejorative word like “variation”. Because there is nothing more “deviant” about homosexuality than there is about left-handedness. It is a variation that appears, without a fully known cause, in some members of a population of mammals. Just because it involves those “icky sex parts” that the Judeo-Christian community seems so afraid of doesn’t mean that it is inherently evil.

      “The homosexual sex act has no redeeming value.”

      I must assume you’ve never spoken to a homosexual. Because I can assure you, from personal experience, that it provides us the same bonding experience that it provides to heterosexuals.

      “If everyone did it the human race would become extinct.” Technically, yes–but we’ve already covered the un-likelyhood of that scenario above.

      “The purpose of marriage is to increase humanity, not to kill it off.”
      Companionship, Enjoyment, Protection and the knowledge of God together are all purposes for marriage. The societal recognition of the pair bond is a purpose for civil marriage.
      If the increase of humanity was the ONLY purpose of marriage than fertility tests would be a mandatory part of the marriage license process. Even the CC doesn’t require proof of fertility in those couples presumed to be of child bearing status and the CC also recognizes older couples marriages.
      You wouldn’t want us to consider you hypocrites–would you?
      Well–this has been fun but as a gay man I have to return to planning the overthrow of civilization as we know it. Oh–and a brunch.

      • dagbat

        The fact is that homosexual sex is anti Darwinian. I would call that a deviation of nature, and the Bible calls is a lot worse. If you can’t see that then I can’t help you.
        Also there is a big difference between the homosexual sex act and the homosexual person who is performing the act. I am talking about the sex act and not trying to belittle the person. I follow the Catholic rule – love the sinner but hate the sin.
        I think if the radical element with the gay community had real love and compassion they would have respected the institution of marriage as fundamentally different from their form of sexual coupling and found another way to gain the equality that they rightfully deserved from society.
        Instead they took the mean and hateful approach of burn and conquer. Just like a militant fascist would do today and a barbarian would do in times past.
        And the really sad fact is that homosexual couplings are mostly fleeting and most homosexuals have many partners and the majority prefer it that way.

        • cminca

          “The fact is that homosexual sex is anti Darwinian.”

          Actually incorrect. There are some studies which suggest that homosexual populations increase at both times of stress for the mother as well as in families with a large number of male children (gay sons are born later). Both suggest that this may be a way that nature is regulating access to scarce commodities.

          “Also there is a big difference between the homosexual sex act and the homosexual person who is performing the act. I am talking about the sex act and not trying to belittle the person. I follow the Catholic rule – love the sinner but hate the sin.”

          Honestly–I’ve yet to meet any gay person who is gullible enough to fall for that canard. “I hate the self-righteous bigotry—not you the self-righteous bigot.” Now don’t you feel bathed in my love?

          I think if the radical element with the gay community had real love and compassion they would have respected the institution of marriage as fundamentally different from their form of sexual coupling and found another way to gain the equality that they rightfully deserved from society.

          ASKED AND ANSWERED–OTHER AVENUES WERE DENIED BY THE MAJORITY (“THE CHRISTIANS”) AS BEING “TOO CLOSE TO “MARRIAGE””)

          “And the really sad fact is that homosexual couplings are mostly fleeting and most homosexuals have many partners and the majority prefer it that way.”

          Two points–lesbian couples are more monogamous than straight couples, who are more monogamous than SS male couples. The problem with fidelity isn’t LGBT–it is penis. If you want to strengthen marriage don’t let men marry.

          The other point is societal. Until VERY recently you are talking about a society that was underground. It was impossible to form long term relationships and hope to keep your job or your home. Society and law was stacked against us. With marriage will come additional stability. More and more you are seeing long term gay couples adopt children and form strong families….but then your church is against that too.

          • dagbat

            I think your studies are just wishful thinking. Perhaps you also have some studies on the issue of health in homosexuality? The studies I have seen are grim. And what about the AIDs epidemic? The homosexual sex act is un-natural, and un-safe, and it is anti evolution. And it is based not on one partner lifetime love, like marriage, but on transient pleasure seeking multi partner hook ups. Facts are facts. If you don’t want to believe them that is your choice.

          • cminca

            Look up birth order studies. Do the work yourself or stay ignorant. It is up to you.

            “Perhaps you also have some studies on the issue of health in homosexuality?”

            Gee–growing up gay and being told you are an abomination, being told you are responsible for 9/11, Katrina, and AIDS, being more likely to be kicked out of your parents house as a teen, being more likely to be bullied…..how could the LGBT community end up turning to drugs and alcohol?

            As one of my favorite writers put it—“….and somehow some of us managed to escape our adolescents without slitting our wrists….”

            AIDS is a virus. It is NOT condemnation from God. It started in bush meat…..aka Monkey eaten in Africa.

            I might as well be trying to teach a head of broccoli to think. Over and out.

          • dagbat

            I am thinking. And I know what I am talking about. And because I care I will speak the truth even if it is upsetting. There is a God and He has rules.

      • eddiestardust

        No one is forced to do anything..my gosh, where has your sanity gone?
        Suing a 70 year old Grandmother , who just happens to be Christian, just because she won’t , in good conscience , make you a floral arrangement for your gay wedding?

        That’s not forcing…when you force someone out of business?

        Perhaps someone will do the same for you and then how would you feel?

        • cminca

          She may be a Christian but she is also a business person held to the same anti-discrimination laws as everyone else.

          Let’s look at this scenario. A woman is driving through the desert at night. She has her two toddlers and an infant with her. She breaks down and has to walk two miles carrying the infant and begging the two exhausted toddlers to keep walking. She arrives at a gas station.

          She is denied service because the Muslim owner has sincere religious feelings about the fact that:

          1. She is driving.
          2. She is talking to him.
          3. Her head is uncovered
          4. She is wearing a cruxifix
          5. She is not accompanied by a male family member.

          He sends her out into the dark to find another service station.

          Would you support his “strongly held religious belief” to deny her service?

          If the florist can’t offer wedding flowers to all–then don’t offer wedding flowers. Or do something else. No one is forcing her.

          She broke the law–no matter how Christian, no matter how Grandmotherly.

          Or do you think that Christians should be above the law?

    • http://healingandempowerment.blogspot.com Phil Dzialo

      Homosexuality exists across all species of the animal kingdom. Homosexuality is not a disorder and that has been clarified years ago by the American Medical Society, the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association. Gay Marriage is favored by the majority of self-identified Catholics and also other Christians. 22 Countries including the US, Canada, Ireland, France etc. allow and legalize gay marriage.
      Bigotry and hatred, even under the guise of religious freedom and other texts, is still bigotry and hatred, Love is love….
      I would recommend some serious psychotherapy and then a turning to a God who loves and welcomes all people, especially the marginalized.

      • dagbat

        The reclassification of homosexuality by the Psychological Societies was a rigged affair from within by other homosexuals. And because there are minor traces of homosexuality in other species just reinforces that it is an abnormality. I would recommend you read Making Gay Okay by Robert R. Reilly. Yes God loves all people and so do I. But God also hates sin. God considers homosexual sex a big sin. So if you want to complain about this reality you need to take it up with God. Not with me.

        • http://healingandempowerment.blogspot.com Phil Dzialo

          I did, and She agreed with me.

      • eddiestardust

        But to be human is to be more than just animal

        • http://healingandempowerment.blogspot.com Phil Dzialo

          We are biologically primates, homo sapiens sapiens and our total DNA structure is 98.75 identical to the bononos…only difference is a split chromosome 2….keeps us humble wouldn’t you say! All life forms have soul, chi, life force or what you choose to call it. So what makes us different? Morality?

          • Erasmus 52

            Well, if you want to point to DNA, it makes one either male or female. And the norm morally is heterosexuality. But, feel free to identify yourself with bonobos if you so choose.

          • http://healingandempowerment.blogspot.com Phil Dzialo

            Biological gender characteristics are a function of chromosomal combination. Sexual orientation is a function of nature and nurture. Norms have no morality in themselves; different people place morals on expressions of nature. I never said I identified with bonobos, I did say that the genetic near identity with the oversexed chimp made for my sense of humility.

    • FindSomeChill

      It would only destroy the world if same sex marriage was legally mandated for every single adult human being on the planet. That’s not the case, that is never ever going to be the case. Gay people can marry, straight people can marry. There are a LOT more straight people than gay people, who are willing to get married and have babies. There are also methods of reproduction (such as artificial insemination) that don’t involve actual sex, so in the extremely rare event we find ourselves in some manner of gaypocalypse we could still make new humans. Your comment is a paranoid mess of what if’s and slippery slopes.

  • julianpenrod

    In
    fact, homosexuality universally is a manifestation of massive
    psychological disorder, representing even physical danger to others.

    Among
    other things, homosexuals have been campaigning for decades to
    decriminalize the act of knowingly, therefore willingly, therefore
    maliciously transmitting HIV/AIDS to others. That is an act of
    depraved indifference to human life, and that is a defining feature
    of homicidal sociopathy, but all homosexuals want it decriminalized!

    Add
    such documented facts as that homosexuals universally display self
    loathing and massive drug abuse both at levels completely alien to
    the heterosexual community. The self hatred leads to homosexuals
    have suicide rates one hundred times those of heterosexuals and
    engaging in risky sexual practices also at levels unseen among
    heterosexuals.

    And,
    likewise, it is documented that homosexuals need regular, if not also
    frequent, involvement in massively numerous, orgiastic sessions of
    anonymous sex. And they don’t even do it for the pleasure! Just the
    satisfaction of knowing they had so many sexual encounters in so
    short a period of time! Obviously, though, this makes a mockery of
    the idea of fidelity! But it is documented, too, that permission to
    engage in mindless promiscuity is the “glue” that keeps all
    homosexual relationships together! But that also makes homosexual
    “marriage” a lie, since they, none of them, intend to observe any
    of the facets defining marriage to even the slightest extent! They
    have even gone so far as to declare they “redefined” “monogamy”
    and “fidelity”! They want marriage only to steal from taxpayer
    funded benefits that government made sure to alert homosexuals to,
    but withheld information on from heterosexuals.

    The
    very things “Justice” Kennedy invoked as defining marriage,
    homosexuals declare they will violate!

    And
    consider that, on Saturday, after the Supreme Court spat in the face
    of humanity, decency and God, a homosexual “pride” parade in
    London included a flag displaying rectal penetration devices. On a
    public street! Where, among others, children could see it!

    But
    that is demonstrative of the fact that quisling shills for
    homosexuality deny, that all homosexuals want to expose children
    early to sexual encounters, even if it means raping them to do it!
    They had absolutely no concern for children who might be watching!
    The individual carrying the flag, the others marching in the parade.
    None of them thought about children being harmed and decided to take
    it down! They welcome the opportunity to rape children!

    Note,
    too, this was also deliberately disrespectful of women and decent
    people, as well.

    But
    that only underscores the fact that homosexuals hate everyone. They
    didn’t mind disrespecting women and normal people, to say nothing of
    those who did it deliberately to show how much they hate them!

    And,
    consider, when a group carried a flag or a banner, it’s to be
    emblazoned with images or representations that define the meaning of
    the group. This is an open admission that homosexuality is about
    nothing more than deviant sex! They lie profusely, talking about
    “love” and not wanting to be “alone”, but depravity is all
    they care about. Notice that all forms of homosexual sex always
    necessarily satisfy only one partner, to say nothing of a number of
    them causing severe physical harm to the other! But no form
    whatsoever of homosexual sex involves them looking into their
    partner’s eyes, which is reminiscent of the fact that homicidal
    sociopaths cannot bear to see their victims’ eyes, so they cover them
    with tape or a bag.

  • FindSomeChill

    “The answer is no. Ten years ago, Canada walked this same path, and voted
    on the side of gay marriage. Today, those with opposing viewpoints are
    being singled out and removed one-by-one. It shows that there is zero
    tolerance if one view is forced upon all.”

    Actual Canadian Resident here, I’m pretty sure it’s not illegal to be a bigot here. People aren’t being systematically “removed” for hating gay folk. You’re making it sound like there’s some kind of gay cabal out to control the populace. Please, next time don’t use us as a prop in your infantile fear mongering.

    • eddiestardust

      And suing Christians just because they don’t want to partake in a gay wedding is not removing folks?

      Well, Mr or Ms Canadian, why don’t you talk about what is or is not Canadian

      And leave Americans to discuss what is happening in our country!