14 responses to “Faux (Same-sex) Marriage Bill Passes Vermont House”

1. 

   Philip France

   April 3, 2009

   The homosexual mafia is relentless in their efforts to erode the core of civil society: the traditional family. This controversy is not about “rights”. Homosexuals have every right afforded to them under the United States Constitution, INCLUDING the right to marry. What our laws rightfully prohibit is the societally unhealthy and unwholesome and morally depraved concept of a man marrying a man and a woman marrying a woman.
   Now I realize that a soft-hearted (and, by extension, soft-headed) person will think, “What’s so wrong about two people who ‘love’ each other wanting to enter into a legally-recognized union?”. Good question. Here is your answer:
   Such a union has absolutely no potential to proliferate the advancement of the species and civil society. It is an evolutionary dead-end. “Ah, but homosexual couples can adopt children and, in the case of lesbians, use turkey-basters to produce them,”. Factually correct, but such profileration of the human species is not a result of this union but by artifical means. There is NO potential for such a human to contribute to the proliferation and advancement of the human species; the potential will only lead to end it.
   The good men and good women of our society must not fall to the soft propaganda of the homosexual mafia. Particularly to the deliberate abrogation of our language by usage of terms such as “gay”. These men and women are no more and no less “gay” than you and I (by the centuries-old usage of the term). No: these activists are homosexuals. Let’s be more real: the men are sodomites. We must refer to them as such to accurately portray this unwholesome and unhealthy proclivity so that we have a vivid mind-picture of their lifestyle choice. And choice it is.
   This has upset the African-American and Asian-American communities to no end. That the homosexual agenda has cloaked its struggle (which is NOT a struggle for ‘rights’ as much as it is intended to disorder civil society)by co-opting civil rights arguments. Here is what is wrong with this faux-logic: A black man or woman did not choose to be black. Nor did an Asian.
   If one chooses to be homosexual (adjective, not noun) and participtate in this dangerous, unhealthy and unwholesome lifestyle, knock yourself out. It’s free country. But keep it away from me and my family and the rest of ordered and civil society. And please, how DARE you demand to have exclusive ‘rights’ predicated SOLELY on your lifestyle choice above that which all of the rest of civil society (including you, the sodomite or lesbian) enjoys as guaranteed by our Constitution.

   LikeLike

   Reply
2. 

   T. Bruce

   April 4, 2009

   Mr. Duke,
   On what do you base your assertions regarding “correct” marriage?
   Thank you.

   LikeLike

   Reply
3. 

   T. Bruce

   April 4, 2009

   Mr. France,
   It is rather obvious that you have determined that one’s experiencing a naturally occurring sexual attraction to the same sex is impossible. [Of course it is not impossible, but I see little use in arguing that with you.] Does one “choose” to be heterosexual, or how about asexual?
   If this rampant and gross “choice”–that you find so threatening to “[you] and [your] family and the rest of ordered and civil society”–is so terribly unnatural, will not Nature resolve that matter herself?
   Does a hard heart “by extension” result in a hard head?
   Why do you say “homosexual (adjective, not noun)” in one place but in another use the phrase “these activists are homosexuals?” Would they not be “homosexual (adj.) activists (n.)?” [It just doesn’t have the same punch, right?]
   Are you now a spokesman for the (so-called) African-American and Asian-American communities? Could you direct me to some documented accounts of this “upset” to which you refer? I somehow missed all that uproar.
   By what authority do you speak? [Your right to speak your mind as you see fit is good enough for me, but…] If you purport to stand “for the church,” then maybe you can help me understand why all the good church people rolled over and played dead when they were originally told that it was unlawful for them to marry unless they asked for and received a license from the government to do so. [A relatively recent event, actually–that was established in large part, by the way, for the purpose of keeping some of those who didn’t choose to be white from marrying some of those who didn’t choose to be black. Perhaps there IS some connection after all?] Does your objection rest on some contention that sodomy (there, I’ll use your term) is a sin? What do you do with all the other sins? What exactly makes this sin so much more evil than all the rest?
   What if a homosexual person didn’t engage in sodomy? Would that be all right with you? Should heterosexual persons who engage in acts of sodomy be likewise banned from marrying and/or having (or adopting) children?
   What is it with this “vivid mind-picture” thing? Does “sodomy” give you a more vivid picture than queer, or gay, or homosexual?
   I often wonder what “lurks beneath the surface” with persons like you. There seems to be some seething anger that seeps out by way of (faux?) intellectualism and concern in a sanctimonious here-I-am-to-save-the-day tone. [What is it about the word “faux” anyway? Le mot anglais “fake” il ne signifie pas la même chose?] I just don’t get it. Maybe you can help me. I just want to understand.
   Thank you.

   LikeLike

   Reply
4. 

   tj

   April 4, 2009

   I wouldn’t object to homosexual marriage if it wasn’t certain to be used as a tool for gaining further “social” legislation: dictating how families are to be described to preschoolers, denying preachers the freedom to define homosexual behavior as sinful and likely having resistant individuals subject to indoctrination or even criminalized (the case in England of grandparents being denied access to grandchildren taken from them and given to a same-sex couple for adoption). The fact of the matter is gay rights legislation inevitably means curtailment of the rights of heterosexuals. If we could trust homosexuals to simply enjoy their freedoms without turning them on the rest of us as weapons, more people would at least not resist the idea of gay marriage.
   Why can’t you leave us and our children alone, Mr. Social Engineer Bruce?

   LikeLike

   Reply
5. 

   Shaun

   April 4, 2009

   Mr. Bruce,
   If I may, I would like to address one of the issues you brought up. Let me start by saying I believe it is hard to pin someone in an argument against homosexual marriage using secular laws. I debated this issue with a professor in school for about an hour and in the end I realized if you don’t have morals, you cannot see why homosexuality is wrong. Many of our forefathers told us that only a moral people could govern a democracy. [keep in mind that I am not trying to lecture you, only state my opinion]By our laws one could pass legislation allowing almost anything and find a way to make it fit in the constitution’s perimeter. That, in my opinion, is why it is so important to uphold moral principles and pass them on to our children.
   In the end I came up with a question that was hard for the secularists to answer about giving state approval of faux marriage. I asked: What is the average lifespan of homosexual men? By most accounts you come up between 39-50 yrs of age. Why is this so? I imagine because the acts of homosexual “love” are so destructive to the body that it severely limits your lifespan. Now, should the state step in and prevent such an act of self destruction? Why no,in fact they are giving it the rubber stamp of approval. But what of prostitution and drug use? Why are these illegal? (In time they probably wont be) Is a lifelong obsession of anal intercourse(amongst other detestable acts) somehow more dignified than smoking marijuana or doing lines of coke? What about selling your body for money? I realize that these are not perfectly synonomous arguments but it seems to me they all fall in the same camp. The camp of sin and self destruction. The fact that we debate Faux marriage despite that even the smallest child can see the rotten fruit such a culture produces is mind boggling. Are we that committed to individual freedoms and liberalism that we do away with moral boundries? Ahh, but that is the key. What determines morals? Man or God? I guess Vermont and Iowa have made their choice.
   Thanks for reading
   ShaunUCA

   LikeLike

   Reply
6. 

   Walt

   April 4, 2009

   Establishing that sexual monogamy and financially singular behavior between two people are of benefit to society, it is the government’s job to incentivize such a voluntary commitment. Does the government have the right to use the word marriage? Marriage traditionally, has been defined as a life long oath, sworn to God, between a man and a woman. The sworn oath is different from religion to religion. Is it government’s job or right to provide administration for God? I don’t think the Creator of the Universe needs much help in that regard. The interconnection of marriage and government comes from a day when the government was for all intents and purposes, property of a religion; the U.S. is not.
   So today we argue on homo/hetero marriage. There should be no argument. Actually, both atheist and believer should, for different reasons, be fighting the governmental use of the word marriage. To an atheist, the use of the word marriage carries religious connections. To a believer use of the word could be considered heretical. Particularly when the government itself can not by its Constitution, make a law establishing religion (endorsing a particular God/god).
   Here is my proposal in a short context. Get rid of government defined marriage. Marriage belongs to God not government. However, the government should endorse and reward a contract between two. The contract should be straight forward and direct. I would call it the, “Contract of Sexual Monogamy and Financial Singularity” (CSMFS). Breaching the terms of the CSMFS, would result in forfeiture of all future government rewards or entitlements. Like any tax deduction, shelter or tax credit, breaching the terms of the SMFS (such as promiscuity), would result in certain punishments that would start at simple loss of privilege and possibly grow to tax evasion and imprisonment. Like any contract, if you agree to terms in order to reap a benefit; breech should too carry concequences.
   Marriage in America is a joke. It is a pledge sworn in front of a judge with no consequences. The government SHOULD NOT be in the business of administration of God’s tenants.

   LikeLike

   Reply
7. 

   Walt

   April 4, 2009

   Please excuse previous post. I did not fully cut and paste the entire peice.
   Marriage is an institution of God. For those of you who don’t believe in God, it is an institution of religion. Therefore, I say it is un-Constitutional for government to endorse or engage in the administration of traditional marriage.
   It has always been in a government’s best interest to encourage and reward, people who choose a life of sexual monogamy and financial singularity (aka “married”). I wont go through all of the benefits to society but they are many and certainly worth reward. The question is, in its “best case scenario,” does homosexual marriage benefit the country or even the populous? My answer would be (discounting the negative effects) yes; there are some societal benefits to sexually monogamous and financially singular homosexual relations (arguably less than traditional marriage, but benefits nonetheless).
   Establishing that sexual monogamy and financially singular behavior between two people are of benefit to society, it is the government’s job to incentivize such a voluntary commitment. Does the government have the right to use the word marriage? Marriage traditionally, has been defined as a life long oath, sworn to God, between a man and a woman. The sworn oath is different from religion to religion. Is it government’s job or right to provide administration for God? I don’t think the Creator of the Universe needs much help in that regard. The interconnection of marriage and government comes from a day when the government was for all intents and purposes, property of a religion; the U.S. is not.
   So today we argue on homo/hetero marriage. There should be no argument. Actually, both atheist and believer should, for different reasons, be fighting the governmental use of the word marriage. To an atheist, the use of the word marriage carries religious connections. To a believer use of the word could be considered heretical. Particularly when the government itself can not by its Constitution, make a law establishing religion (endorsing a particular God/god).
   Here is my proposal in a short context. Get rid of government defined marriage. Marriage belongs to God not government. However, the government should endorse and reward a contract between two. The contract should be straight forward and direct. I would call it the, “Contract of Sexual Monogamy and Financial Singularity” (CSMFS). Breaching the terms of the CSMFS, would result in forfeiture of all future government rewards or entitlements. Like any tax deduction, shelter or tax credit, breaching the terms of the SMFS (such as promiscuity), would result in certain punishments that would start at simple loss of privilege and possibly grow to tax evasion and imprisonment. Like any contract, if you agree to terms in order to reap a benefit; breech should too carry concequences.
   Marriage in America is a joke. It is a pledge sworn in front of a judge with no consequences. The government SHOULD NOT be in the business of administration of God’s tenants.

   LikeLike

   Reply
8. 

   Philip France

   April 4, 2009

   Dear Mr. Bruce:
   Please accept my applause for your eloquence and your extraordinary argumeentative skills. I mean this most sincerely.
   I will begin my rebuttal by stating that I stated my positions solely on secular grounds and deliberately avoided moralistic and Biblically-informed positions. From a Biblical vantage-point, there is an avalanche of theory discouraging homosexual behavior. The Epitsle of St. Paul to the Romans, in Chapter I, verses 16-32 makes a compelling case. If I believed that you truly “just want to understand”, I would elaborate on this in minute detail. Since I do not beileve this based on your tone, I will summarize by using one single phrase from this record: that those who engage in such behavior have been given over to a “reprobate mind”. This means that such an individual possesses a mind that is devoid of judgement. I want to be certain that this phrase does not mean that such an individual is unintelligent. It means that their intelligence is distorted by their willingness to believe and accept lies.
   In your opening paragraph, you suggest that a homosexual attraction is “naturally occuring”. This is one such lie. This is completely unnatural and abnormal. If homosexuality were normal, the human species would be extinct after its first generation. This statement also rebuts your concluding question in your second paragraph. I will further protest your reference to “Nature” by the feminine gender Although I understand that this is a commonly-held practice, such terminology is rebuked by verse 25 of Romans 1 in which such distortion is referred to as a “lie” (in the original text, this prase reads: “THE lie”).
   The lie that homosexuality is “naturally occuring” is refuted by the thousands of ministries dedicated to freeing homosexuals of their self-imposed bondage and their considerable success.
   Touché on your hard heart/hard head question but if you can concede your cynicism for a moment, you will understand that I refer to the practice of how the veneer of compassion leads many to distort facts and data.
   I do not claim to be a spokesman for African-Americans or Asian-Americans. They spoke abundantly for themselves in their overwhelming “Yes” votes on California’s Proposition 8 (for the record, it was 70% yes for African-Americans and approximately 90% for Asian-Americans). I did, in fact, hear their outrage at the co-opting of civil rights arguments. Columnists Thomas Sowell and Michelle Malkin both wrote pieces documenting this outrage. Find them yourself if you truly “just want to understand”.
   You go on to ask by what authority I speak and if I and others of my opinion assign degrees of sinfulness. I speak on the authority that is guaranteed to me under the U.S. Constitution and under the terms and conditions permitted by the management of selwynduke.com. As for whether or not there are degrees of sinfulness I will respond by stating that this is a clever but specious contention. That is part of the reason that I avoided Biblically-informed doctrine in my first posting. Where have you seen activists promoting the legalization of theft? Of murder? Of adultery?
   You then go on to ask a series questions that leads me to conclude that you (and others like you) are whom Aldous Huxley referred to when he stated that “the eye altering alters all”. This is a fancier way of saying “reprobate mind”.
   If you truly wonder what “lurks beneath the surface” of people like me, it is not a “seething anger that seeps out by way of (faux?) intellectualism” and sanctimony, as you suggest. No sir. You will find it difficult to accept, but what lurks beneath my righteous indignation is a heart of love. That’s right: a heart of love for my God, my Lord and Saviour, my family, my country and my fellow man (in that order).
   My moral center is informed by years of Bibilical research study and my social opinions are crafted carefully by studying trusted sources of facts and observation, among my favorite sources are this very website and Michael Savage’s radio program.
   Somehow I doubt that I have helped you to understand.

   LikeLike

   Reply
9. 

   T. Bruce

   April 6, 2009

   Mr. France,
   Despite your doubts, you ARE helping me to understand.
   I know that in order to prove my desire for understanding you are leaving it up to me to find evidence of Mrs. Malkin’s and Mr. Sowell’s outrage. [So far I haven’t had much good fortune along those lines, but I’m not going to give up just yet. Should you experience a moment of beneficence, I would appreciate any references that you could send my way.]
   Would you be so kind as to provide me with a source that provides the racial and ethnic breakdown on the 2008 California Prop 8 voting? In particular I am interested in the 70% African-American & 90% Asian-American figures. As far as I have been able to determine, the State of California does not keep records of the race and ethnicity of its voters [which is admirable]. And, the research that I have found so far does not reflect such large percentages of support in these two groups.
   And, finally, I never thought that I would need them, but could you tell me where to find the “the terms and conditions permitted by the management of selwynduke.com?”
   Thank you, and Keep the faith.
   TB

   LikeLike

   Reply
10. 

    Philip France

    April 6, 2009

    Dear Mr. Bruce,
    Nice try.
    I see through your attempt to discredit me by attempting to cast doubt on my claims. Both Michelle Malkin and Thomas Sowell are syndictaed columnists (and brilliant ones at that). If you are “truly” interested the archives at The Washington Times should be most useful.
    The results of ethnic breakdowns of the successful Yes on 8 campaign were taken by exit pollers that make their living conducting such research. Surely one as seemingly intelligent as you knows this and would know where to discover their results.
    Finally, when one signs up for an account to post at this website, you must agree to its terms and conditions. Now a silly old fool like me even knows that most of this language is boiler-plate and nearly identical in every case so most of us just click “I Agree” and are on their way. I happen to read them prior to accepting. How droll.
    Lastly, you have little or nothing to say about my most poignant and incontrovertable statements. This leads me to believe, and please forgive me if I am wrong, that your genuine interest is dubious.

    LikeLike

    Reply
11. 

    T. Bruce

    April 7, 2009

    Yes, Mr. France, I have much to say on your “most poignant” points. My goal is to show you the respect of presenting a well-researched and documented response to your considerate “rebuttal.” Thus my requests for direction on the referenced material.
    You see through the non-existent when you see through my attempts to discredit you. I have neither the time nor energy to waste on discrediting you. The doubt on your claims — sometimes referred to as a “healthy skepticism” — originates from your undocumented assertions (i.e. “gratuitous”). If you are to be discredited, it will be by your own devices, not mine.
    I am familiar with the works of Sowell and Malkin and have spent hours in research on this particular subject in regards to them (spurred by your reference to them). Fortunately, I have access to Lexis-Nexus (the wonders of modern technology!), and coincidentally have already spent time searching the Washington Times’ (among other’s) archives and currently available material. I also am attempting to contact Mr. Sowell and Mrs. Malkin via email (or whatever other effective means available) to ask them for their direct response to this matter.
    And, yes, I have found some research that addresses the exit polling from Prop 8. The problem that I am encountering is that the figures do not approach the numbers that you reported. My hope was to include the 70/90 figures in my response, but if you cannot point me toward the source of those findings then I will have to settle for the “less dramatic” figures that I have been able to locate.
    Lastly [almost], unless it is spoken by the almighty Creator, there is NO SUCH THING as an incontrovert[i]ble statement. If you “believe” that you are capable of making such statements, then the belief to which you are led is most assuredly incorrect. My interest is genuine. For you to otherwise suggest is merely a sign of disrespect and/or weakness. Which is to be preferred? To be right in one’s own eyes or to be united in common subjection to the Sovereign will of the God of creation?
    For the time being, from one silly old fool to another (you said it, I’ll second it), have you hugged your grandchildren lately? I have. Plucked a blade of grass and stretched it between your thumbs to make that grass-reed, hand-instrument sound? Kicked off your shoes and walked barefoot in the park? Stood in awe of a sunset or sunrise? Have you beheld the beauty and wonder of creation? [In which Rom. 1:20 tells us that the Godhead is made manifest.] I’m just wondering…and wandering…a poor, wayfaring stranger.
    Finally…lastly [for sure/for now]…Please, drop the self-deprecation. It is beneath you — a trite and useless tool.
    My (ongoing) response will follow…
    Wishing you all the best that life has to offer…
    tb

    LikeLike

    Reply
12. 

    John

    April 7, 2009

    T. Bruce, it’s shocking that you don’t know the statistic about 70% of blacks voting for Prop 8. Everyone was talking about it at the time and some homos even used racial epithets against blacks because of it. I thought you were someone who followed the news. Whatever though. But I’ll give you the statistics. This is based on a CNN poll as presented by Wikipedia. [Philip did make a mistake about the Asians.]
    The following list comprises a detailed, though not exhaustive, account of the demographics voting on Prop. 8 from the CNN exit poll.
    For those who voted Yes on Proposition 8:
    84% of weekly churchgoers – (32% of those polled);[note 1]
    82% of Republicans – (29% of those polled);[note 2][note 3]
    81% of white evangelicals – (17% of those polled);
    70% of African Americans – (10% of those polled);[note 4][note 5]
    68% of voters married with children (31% of those polled);
    65% of all Protestants – (43% of those polled);
    65% of white Protestants – (29% of those polled);
    64% of voters with children in household – (40% of those polled);
    64% of Catholics – (30% of electorate);
    61% of age 65 and over – (15% of those polled);
    60% of married people – (62% of those polled);[note 6]
    59% of suburban dwellers – (51% of those polled);
    58% of non-college graduates – (50% of those polled);
    56% of union households – (25% of those polled);
    53% of Latinos – (18% of those polled);
    51% of white men – (31% of those polled).
    For those who voted No on Proposition 8:
    96% of gays and lesbians – (5% of those polled);
    83% of those who never attend church – (21% of those polled);
    79% of white Democrats – (21% of those polled);
    78% of Liberals – (26% of those polled);
    67% of whites age 18-29 – (9% of those polled);
    64% of Democrats – (42% of those polled);
    62% of singles – (38% of those polled);
    61% of age 18-29 – (20% of those polled);
    60% of those with a postgraduate degree; – (17% of those polled);
    58% of those without children – (60% of those polled);
    52% of white women – (32% of those polled);
    51% of whites – (63% of those polled);
    51% of Asians – (9% of those polled);
    Here’s the link – http://74.125.93.104/search?q=cache:XugFtSwgUgQJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)+proposition+8+blacks+70&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

    LikeLike

    Reply
13. 

    T. Bruce

    April 7, 2009

    Walt,
    Thank you for your quite daring and very rational response here. Allow me to say that I agree with you (totally) in principle — “the government [whatever that means right now] SHOULD NOT be in the business of administration of God’s tenants” [or tenets]. Your idea of “the contract” is plausible. My main (potentially) differing point would rest in the matter of tort vs. criminal consequence in regards to the execution and oversight of the contract. [Of which I am sure you are aware.]
    Truly, in regards to the “homo/hetero marriage” issue, there should be no argument, and “both atheist and believer should, for different reasons, be fighting the governmental use of the word marriage.” For me to secure and maintain my (allow)ability to “believe,” the atheist must be allowed to not believe as he or she sees fit. This poses no true threat to me (or anyone else).
    I apologize for the brevity of my comment. Thank you for “speaking your mind.” This is honorable.
    tb

    LikeLike

    Reply
14. 

    T. Bruce

    April 7, 2009

    “Whatever though”? [I’ll overlook that one.]
    Thank you, John. I will take a look at this.
    Unfortunately, I am unable to “follow” ALL of the news. And, I have no idea why you would think that I am “someone who followed the news.” Part of the reason that I can still think is that I am NOT such a devout follower of the news.
    Back to my research and writing….

    LikeLike

    Reply