Same-sex Marriage and “Gay” Politics: So Wrong in So Many Ways

Same-sex Marriage and "Gay" Politics: So Wrong in So Many Ways

by James A. Bridge

In the year 2011 we see a society and a national government in the United States in complete convulsion and in conflict with its larger self.

New York's Governor Mario Cuomo is prepared to sign into law the redefinition of marriage in the Empire State. The state's motto is, translated from Latin, "Higher, Higher!" I don't think New York's legislature has any problem being high, but I'm sure the "excelsior" motto was not intended for tokers and other drug abusers. New Yorkers deserve far better from their government than they have received at the hands of these bankrupting dastards and reflex-liberal ne'er-do-wells.

The pacific ocean of a complacent and tolerant majority culture and religion has eructed forth a bilious tidal wave of contrary impulse, at a time when Americans chose its national leader and legislatures poorly. This wave would alter the landscape of the society through a synchronously biased news and entertainment message, through control of the national political order, and even in the pews of synagogues and churches across the country.

Perhaps the most offensive of these is the "Gay" political movement and the push for same-sex marriage. And perhaps the most telling flaw in a permissive society is permitting that to continue which would destroy that lenient majority.

The goal of gays has demonstrable intensified to not just being left alone, and to be free of prosecution under blue laws that define sexual conduct. The goal is now two-fold: One, to change the nature of their sexual proclivities by redefining and destroying the heterosexual world, what its definitions are, and what is paramount to its continuation. Two, to get their barefaced lie of "as normal as you" into public schools. And they are succeeding.

Under the guise of protecting gays from bullying, gay awareness is being pushed into sex-education classes, and in special assemblies. Federal programs drive this, and under the 111^th Congress, run by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, there is no surprise—she regularly takes money from the Man Boy Love Association. You could check it out and find I'm right.

Why is that wrong, some of you may ask, for a politician to take money from a group that espouses statutory rape? Could there be anything more obviously wrong? Starkist also contributes to Pelosi; one would wonder, what do Starkist and statutory rape have in common?

They have a corrupt politician in common, who should be excommunicated from her place of worship, so vilely amoral is she. She is, however, a news media sacred cow. Imagine a Republican taking money from such a loathsome group! But we are on to you, Nancy, and all of your pals.

Gay as a political movement is wrong, because it drives a political agenda at preteens and teenagers. No political movement of any kind is truly appropriate in public schools, other than allegiance to one's state and country. Forcing that conversation about homosexuality upon our prepubescent young is inappropriate and serves no purpose other than to assuage a segment of society that is obsessed with its own sexuality.

The "Gay" political movement is in and of itself an affront to society. Not the fact of homosexuality: humans produce a certain number of sexually disoriented people. Our system of law and the political culture of the United States of America is tolerant of different. I, for one, refuse to pass judgment. However, there can be no political movement centered around a sex act; or rather, any such political movement is inherently ridiculous and inappropriate. Homosexual people don't all see the world from a genital point of view, but in evidence is the preponderance of in-your-face political ideology that is often intended to offend members of the heterosexual majority.

Would you like the proof of the argument I make? Here it is: There will NEVER be a heterosexual political movement based upon having sex a certain way.

Why?

Because it is NOBODY'S BUSINESS, and we don't want to hear about it from you, either, homo- or heterosexually. These kinds of conversions are inherently intimate, and should never be broadcast. The homosexual political movement and agenda is actually by definition pornographic.

The further affront of such a political movement is to drive the political discussion into the minds of the young. The forces of "Gay" have as a goal Public Schools. You could ask our President's "Safe Schools" czar Kevin Jennings, who has recently resigned (probably to avoid being further negative ballast for the President's re-election bid). There will be "Safe School" legislation that is in fact a Trojan Horse for "gay awareness" teaching and for "anti-gay" bullying. Children who are not homosexual will have to confront sexuality long before they need to have to think about it, all so that this sex-act-centric political movement can put the fact of its own homosexual identity on full display before them.

Nor is the discussion of same-sex marriage about equality. Marriage is ancient, it is sacred, it is understood globally as heterosexual, embraced my many, eschewed by few, and not all succeed or lead to happiness. Marriage is the expression of the normal, human desire for other-sex companionship. Whether that union produces offspring is not germane: that is marriage. Marriage is also sacred before God, if you believe in God. If you don't, one would hope you would think a little deeper about the insignificance of the world, in the context of an infinitely expanding universe of which in comparison we are but specks on a speck of wet space dust.

Homosexual activists are not content to be different; that is the over-weening purpose of the gay marriage movement. They want to alter the majority society in its own image. They no longer want to be a minority, or a subset of humanity. What they fail to grasp is that they will always be, as they always have been, different. And many homosexual people, due to their other-orientation, have personalities that do not fit in well with others who are not homosexual. Gay people will admit this to themselves, certainly.

The Gay Marriage movement is also a lie: Homosexual people can very easily "marry." All one has to do is find a gay-friendly or an actually homosexual priest or rabbi, and a competent lawyer. Sign mutual power-of-attorney documents and enter them in the court records, step one. Step two, have a blessing performed, and choose your setting. Invite me, I'll even bring a present! There, you have it: a homosexual union that is as binding as you want it to be.

But Americans know that politics and sex don't mix well. Go ask Anthony Weiner....Jim McGreevey...John Edwards...Bill Clinton...and on, and on, and on.

Anyone with either a finger to the wind or an ear to the ground knows that the formerly permissive great majority of Americans are at an end of patience. The now completely exposed animus of the forces of big government in partnership with a corrupted news and entertainment media, of the forces of anti-Jewish, anti-Christian religion and immorality generally has created a coiling backlash that certainly will reach epic proportions.

Fast forward to 2012. See you in the streets on November 7^th.