Response to “traditonal / redefinition of marriage” canard

This is in response to a regular "Anonymous" commenter at another website. I thought it worthy of further exposure.

Anonymous:
Actually, the point of my comments is that I’m not alone, there’s no bandwagon, my friend

The idea that marriage is not marriage unless it includes both genders is not some novel idea picking up steam

Trying to change the definition of words by governmental mandate is the unusual idea here

Anon: “the idea that marriage is not marriage unless it includes both genders is not some novel idea picking up steam”

Me: The definition of love is union. Thus, marriage is the uniting of two souls as being one.

Though men and women can love, platonically, members of the same gender more that that of the opposite gender, it is a world away from the reality of homosexuality.

I believe the Biblical love story between David and Jonathan was one such example:

David: “...I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; You have been very pleasant to me; Your love to me was wonderful, Surpassing the love of women.”

“Surpassing the love of women” being the operating phrase, implying that they were heterosexuals, and thus, not attracted to each other in a sexual way.

However, if they had been born or reincarnated as women, they would still be the same people (males), just in female bodies. As males (in female bodies), they would still be attracted to women, and the sexual component would then be at play -- Ergo, lesbians.

It is your belief systems that cause you to resist the fact homosexual couples can and do experience the same depth of romantic love that heterosexuals do.

Anon: “…marriage is not marriage unless it includes both genders … trying to change the definition of words by governmental mandate is the unusual idea here”

Me: And therein lies the rub.

The idea that this has anything at all to do with words like “traditional” “redefinition of” or the ever clevers like “if we let gays marry, then what’s to stop people from marrying a banana peel?” is a propaganda tool that you’ve all bought into.

Marriage or unity = Love. “Traditionally” thought as only being capable between a male and a female. This is what is at issue.

This wordplay with “marriage” is a euphemism to hide the fact that you and you ilk are incapable of, or unwilling to accept that our love for each other is equal to that of your own, the understanding of which would obliterate the notion that if allowed, then anyone could marry anything.

Nor would it open the door to Government sanctioned incestuous and/or polygamous marriage for reasons essential to maintaining a civilized society.

Anon: “actually, the point of my comments is that I'm not alone”

Me: Alone or not, like I said, it is your belief systems that are the source of your resisting the fact that homosexual couples can and do experience the same depth of intimacy that heterosexuals do.

And the crux of those beliefs lie the addictions to your egos (superiority, supremacy, etc.).

To be fair, I have the same addiction, but I am aware of it, and so I am in better control of it, but most importantly, I don’t worship it.

It is difficult to challenge one’s own beliefs and conform to one’s that are more accurate -- you lose a part of your identity, but I’d rather be wrong in order to be right.

Citizenlink: Chaplains Detail Problems in Military Since Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal

From Focus on the Family's news magazine, Citizenlink:
September 18, 2012

CL: “This is the anniversary of the Department of Defense using our military to promote a very radical social agenda,” said Col. Ron Crews, executive director of the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty. “It’s not a time to celebrate. It’s a time to mourn.”

ME: There’s a difference between “religious liberty” and Christian supremacy -- anti-gay or otherwise.

CL: "…threats to our troops’ freedom are mounting."

Some of the negative consequences of the repeal, according to Chaplain Alliance, include:

--A male service member sexually harassing another male service member at an officer-training school [through text messages, emails, phone calls and in-person confrontations]. The harassed service member reported the incident, but superiors took no action."

ME: For the sake of context, and I’m not just getting this from the article, over the years I’ve learned that following is the norm:

CNN: “Service members who report being sexually assaulted by a commanding officer or military colleague do so at their own peril. They face ridicule, demotion, investigation that includes a review of their sexual history and even involuntary discharge.”

CL: --A chaplain threatened with early retirement, then reassigned, because he expressed concerns about the repeal.

ME: Now, really. Just because he “expressed concerns?”

CL: --Same-sex ceremonies have been held at military chapels — including one in Louisiana, where the state constitution defines marriage as one-man and one-woman.

ME: What they “forget” to mention, is that same-sex ceremonies can and do take place on military bases in states where gay marriage is legal.

CL: “Compounding the outrage, service members are not free to speak out about these matters,” Crews said. “This ensures that distrust in the ranks will increase and morale will decrease as the number of silenced victims grows.”

ME: Yes, just like “speaking out” about how your fellow service members are niggers or kikes or wetbacks would “…ensure that distrust in the ranks will increase and morale will decrease…” So called “victims” like that shouldn’t just be silenced, they should be kicked out.

CL: “If passed, H.R. 3828 would protect members of the Armed Forces who hold religious or moral convictions concerning “the appropriate and inappropriate expression of human sexuality” from discrimination or punishment for beliefs.”

ME: But service members are already protected from the “appropriate and inappropriate ‘expression’ of human sexuality.”

CNN: "If you serve in the U.S. military and you rape or sexually assault a fellow service member … you have an estimated 86.5% chance of keeping your crime a secret and a 92% chance of avoiding a court-martial.

These disturbing statistics illustrate … an ongoing epidemic of rape and sexual assault in the military that … amounted to
19,000 incidents just in 2010."

ME: So I guess it all comes down to whether or not one’s deeply held religious beliefs view rape and sexual assault to be an “appropriate” or “inappropriate” expression of human sexuality” in need of protection.

CL: “The bill is awaiting action in both the House and the Senate.”

ME: Clearly the bill is meant to encourage the expression of anti-gay bigotry as a means of drumming up support to re-enact DADT, and ultimately, to institute a law the banning any service member deemed to be gay.

It’s discriminatory, malicious, redundant, but most of all, anti-American.
________________

Here is the entire CARL article (PDF) that FOTF via Citizenlink quoted this tripe from. There’s a few in there that surprisingly didn’t make the list, and predictably, not one footnote to be found.

Peter LaBarbera Laments Absence of Ex-Gay TV Characters

My latest @ Ex-Gay Watch.

Regarding the show "The New Normal"

Tuesdays 9:30e/8:30c

Dana Milbank: Hate speech is the same as exposing it

Article I wrote at Ex-Gay Watch.

Chuck Colson dies at 80

No tears shed here. Daily Kos has the gist of the

gory details on this one man super-duper anti-gay hate machine:

Sat Apr 21, 2012 at 03:25 PM PDT. Chrislove:

Charles (Chuck) Coleson--Watergate felon, viciously anti-gay zealot, and fundamentalist Christian theocrat--died today. He was eighty years old. His death was caused by complications after surgery following a brain hemorrhage.

I especially liked their inclusion of Jeff Sharlet's take on the matter:

Chuck Colson was a cruel, vain, and arrogant man in all phases of his life, a dissembler & a hater to the end. RIP..

One thing these Christian creeps don't count on is that God can't make them forgive themselves...or others for that matter...

Andrew Breitbart on the “threat” of unarmed liberals.

Andrew Breitbart, shares with us the Tea Party Dominionists' affinity for violence. ...and then cries victim

From The Ed Show:

SCHULTZ: …this is one of the most outrageous things I think I`ve ever heard. "We outnumber them and we have the guns." That`s a direct quote. That was right wing commentator Andrew Breitbart. It`s what he told a Massachusetts Tea Party group of people about their advantage over progressives.

Breitbart suggested that literal armed combat is the best way to go.

Transcript:

ANDREW BREITBART, CONSERVATIVE COMMENTATOR: And so there are times where I`m not thinking as clearly as I should. And in those unclear moments, I always think to myself, fire the first shot, bring it on, because I know who is on our side. And they know that. They can only win a rhetorical and propaganda war.

They can not win. We outnumber them in this country and we have the guns. So -- I`m not kidding. They talk a mean game. But they will not cross that line because they know what they`re dealing with. And I have people who come up to me in the military, major named people in the military, who grab me and they go, thank you for what you`re doing. We`ve got your back.

They understand that. These are the unspoken things we know, they know. They know who’s on their side, they’ve got Janeane Garofalo, we are freaked out by that. When push comes to shove, they know who’s on our side. They are the bullies on the playground, and they’re starting to realize, what if we were to fight back, what if we were to slap back?

"They are the bullies on the playground"

Those evil unarmed liberals, always harassing those poor defenseless gun owners.

Rick Santorum: Anti-American

Here’s a soldier, ready, willing and committed to fight and die for people like Rick Santorum for the freedom to spout their hatred for gay Americans, and Santorum essentially says f-you, go back in the closet.

GOP Debate - Rick Santorum On Reinstating 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell':

Moderator: [former senator and presidential candidate, Rick] Senator Santorum, this question stirred a whole lot of controversy on line. It comes from Steven Hill, who is a soldier serving in Iraq.

Stephen Hill: In 2010 when I was deployed to Iraq, I had to lie about who I was because I’m a gay soldier and I didn’t want to lose my job.

My question is, under one of your presidencies, do you intend to circumvent the progress that’s been made for gay and lesbian soldiers in the military

[crowd boos]

Santorum: I would say, any type of sexual activity has no place in the military, and the fact that they’re making a point to include it as a provision within the military that we are going to recognize a group of people, and give them … and removing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, I think tries to inject social policy into the military. And the military’s job is to do one thing, and that is to do one thing, and that is to defend our country. We need to give the military, which is all volunteer, the ability to do so in a way that is most effective and protective of our men and women in uniform, and I believe this undermines this ability.

[crowd roars]

Moderator:So what would you with soldiers like Stephen Hill? Now he’s out. When he first submitted this video to us, it was without his face, now he’s out - so what would you do as president?

Santorum: What we’re doing is playing social experimentation with our military right now, and that’s tragic. I would just say that going forward, we would institute that policy, period. That policy would be re-instituted, and as far as people who are in to it, I would not throw them out, because that would be unfair to them because of the policy of this administration. But we would move forward in conformity with what was happening in the past -- which was, sex is not an issue. It should not be an issue. Leave it alone, keep it to yourself, whether you’re heterosexual or homosexual. [crowd roars]

But we would move forward in conformity with what was happening in the past [DADT].

The hell you would! You'd sign an executive order criminalizing any LGBT person found to be in service of their country.

Wikipedia:

Santorum: the right to privacy doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, and that sodomy laws (Lawrence v Texas)
properly exist to prevent acts which undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family"

Gays = bad
Criminals = AOK

Washington times:

The number of waivers granted to Army recruits with criminal backgrounds has grown about 65 percent in the last three years, increasing to 8,129 in 2006 from 4,918 in 2003, Department of Defense records show.

It has offered larger enlistment cash bonuses, allowed more high school dropouts and applicants with low scores on its aptitude test to join, and loosened weight and age restrictions.

It has also increased the number of so-called “moral waivers” to recruits with criminal pasts, even as the total number of recruits dropped slightly. The sharpest increase was in waivers for serious misdemeanors, which make up the bulk of all the Army’s moral waivers. These include aggravated assault, burglary, robbery and vehicular homicide.