John Kerry Says Assad Has To Leave Syria Or Else… Or Else What???
Just like in 2011, the US has demanded that Syrian strong man Bashar al Assad leave power. It is better than even odds that we get the same resultRead More »
The denizens hailing President Obama’s change of opinion regarding homosexual marriage claim their mission is “the right to marry for everyone”, “marriage equality”, “the end of discrimination” and other such idealistic statements. However, their claims of fighting for fairness noticeably omit others currently not allowed to marry whomever they wish.
Homosexual advocates and their allies frequently lump together all deviant sexual lifestyles as “LGBT”. One could reasonably conclude that members of all four of those classifications are united in pursuit of the same goals and mutual support of each other reaching those. If all four of those classifications are considered equally deserving of marrying whomever they wish, why are homosexual advocates excluding bisexuals from the quest marrying whomever they want? They condone the discrimination against bisexuals by touting a monogamous relationship as the basis for marriage. That limitation prevents those attracted to both sexes from marrying those whom they prefer. Why do these hypocrites want to deny bisexuals the right to both a man and a woman as their sexuality dictates? Why are homosexual advocates trying to force their morality on those others?
Why are supporters of the redefinition of marriage not demanding the right for intra-familial marriages? After all, those were legally recognized in different societies throughout history whereas homosexual marriages were never sanctioned. Incestuous marriages existed in ancient Egypt and in other societies millennia ago as brothers married sisters. Throughout the Middle Ages and Industrial Ages, European aristocracy arranged marriages between cousins. Also, Mohamadans have arranged marriages between cousins since Mohamad proclaimed the limitations on sexual relations, which do not include a ban on marriages between first cousins. The creator of Islam even arranged the marriage of one of his nephews to one of his daughters. So why do homosexual advocates and their apologists hate people of the intra-familial sexual orientation?
The proponents of homosexual marriage state that two people should be allowed to be legally married, whether that is a heterosexual or homosexual couple. Glaringly, that limitation excludes Mohamadan men who want more than one wife. How do they justify their tacit support of the ban on polygyny, thus denying a Mohamadan man a second, third, or fourth wife as the Koran states he has a right to do? Why are homosexual advocates and their lackeys blatantly engaging in Islamophobia?
Facile minds claim that everyone should be granted legal recognition of whatever type of intimate relationships that a person has. Have they never considered the consequences of that change? Do they prefer change for the sake of change? Do they actually prefer to water down this definition so it no longer has any importance? How do they justify demanding legally recognized marriages yet excluding other alternative sexual relationships? Undermining a cornerstone of civilization carries serious consequences, which its detractors refuse to recognize.
Marriage has served as the foundation of the family for millennia. The mockery of the practice by empty-headed celebrities and shortsighted serial brides and grooms cannot diminish the value of the tradition. By extending the term “marriage” to a non-heterosexual and non-monogamous relationships, it undercuts the meaning of the term. The stability of this institution rests upon its more than mere sexual activity. Marriage binds together a couple with the assumption that the man and woman from different families will create and raise children. That bears much more importance than simply pacifying tiny minorities demanding governmental endorsement of their divergent lifestyles.
COPYRIGHT BY CHARLES KASTRIOT MAY 2012