Roundup

—–

Sadly, pro-choicers think it is a good thing that we’ve reduced the cases of Down Syndrome outside the womb by killing 90% of those who have it when they are inside the womb.  And yet they think pro-lifers are the extremists.

—–

For you Reformed folks, please consider switching from TULIP to BACON.  Tulips are beautiful but bacon is tastier and more manly-sounding.

—–

Good, simple flowchart in responding to same-sex marriage arguments (click the link to embiggen and get the jpeg):

Marriage-Flow-Final-2.png (1024×563)

—–

Mainstreaming Bisexuality: ‘Captain Bisexual’ Marches in Chicago Pride Parade as Young Children Watch — the title says it all.

—–

Aussie Communists: ‘Strike blows’ against the Church and capitalism with same-sex ‘marriage’ — Hey, kudos to them for being honest about their agenda.  At least they didn’t peddle the lies about it being for “love,” which countless unthinking people reflexively repeat (as if not changing the definition of a timeless word would prevent people from loving each other).

10 thoughts on “Roundup

  1. Hey, kudos to them for being honest about their agenda. At least they didn’t peddle the lies about it being for “love,” which countless unthinking people reflexively repeat (as if not changing the definition of a timeless word would prevent people from loving each other).

    No, but not changing the definition of that word might prevent them from forcing their beliefs on the rest of society (the very thing Christians are most often accused of doing)…watering down the definition of marriage beyond all meaning, or furthering the goal of normalizing – in the minds of regular people – unnatural sexual relations.

    As you astutely point out, “love” was never the issue. Neither was commitment or even religious recognition. I’m not even sure that state recognition was it, since the ‘civil union’ compromise wasn’t good enough. The fact that they didn’t stop there, told me that something far more sinister was at work.

  2. As you astutely point out, “love” was never the issue. Neither was commitment or even religious recognition. I’m not even sure that state recognition was it, since the ‘civil union’ compromise wasn’t good enough. The fact that they didn’t stop there, told me that something far more sinister was at work.

    I understand the want/need for civil unions – some type of legal structure to deal with people who merge their lives but are not married. (It’s the lawyer in me – I see no problem with getting things straightened out so that the mess is easier to untangle in the end.)

    But there is the deeply insecure (or statist, whichever) notion that it’s not really ‘love’ unless the government recognises it as such, and that it’s therefore society’s job to make people feel better about their choices. To which I say: get a grip. If you really loved each other, you wouldn’t give an airborne duck whether or not society or the government validated your deep love.

    Then there is the notion of equality. Since no homosexual couple in the history of ever has produced a child, I just can’t see why they are so hell-bent on adopting a social/legal structure that is all about producing a stable environment for children.

    Civil unions should be the end of it, but the agenda seems to be about further undermining marriage and then, for good measure, holding children and heterosexual women up to gay man standards of promiscuity. That’s a rant for my blog, in fact.

    • “I understand the want/need for civil unions – some type of legal structure to deal with people who merge their lives but are not married.”

      I never did. Could you explain what you think is in play
      here. I was never personally concerned with the legal implications of uniting with my wife in marriage. “Legal
      structure” never entered my mind. Thus, what legal structures unmarried people feel they need is a foreign concept to me.

      As to that, “civil unions” are a sham and any way one looks at it. It isn’t marriage, and it confers marital status on any
      two people simply to game the system in order to gain benefits meant to encourage the traditional notion of marriage between men and women who engage in sexual
      relations that produce children.

  3. Pingback: I don’t care what people do in their own bedrooms… at Haemet

So, what do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s