By Timothy Birdnow

'Sex' is as important as eating or drinking and we ought to allow the one appetite to be satisfied with as little restraint or false modesty as the other."

Marquis de Sade

In 2004 Missouri overwhelmingly approved an amendment to the state constitution banning same sex marriage. This measure - which passed with 71% of the vote - became law under Article I Sec. 33 and states:


"That to be valid and recognized in this state, a marriage shall exist only between a man and a woman."

Now one would think this is unambiguous; to be valid and RECOGNIZED does not leave much wiggle room for the lawyers, yet the state's Democratic governor, Jay "I am not a crook" Nixon, is wiggling on this worse than a worm about to be mounted on a fishhook; he has declared that gay marriages performed in other states will be recognized on state income tax forms.

This sort of dissembling is endemic of the "gay marriage" debate (which is itself a term rank with dishonesty; two men or two women can no more be married than can a man and his goldfish, the two being biologically incapable of reproducing in either case. The promotion of homosexual behavior by the Progressives in our society is now reaching a crescendo and the first casualty in this titanic struggle for the right to fornicate in an largely painful and unhygienic fashion and receive societal approval has been the truth.

Why did Nixon do this now? Governor Nixon is the Ensign Pulver of politics; the secret of his success is his invisibility. (For those who have never seen the movie Mr. Roberts http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0048380/, Ensign Pulver never left his bunk shipboard, and nobody knew he was a member of the crew.) The secret of Nixon's success has been his willingness to hide and to not take any controversial stands - thus appearing to be whatever the casual observer chooses to believe of him. (He is much like Barack Obama in this, although Obama was quite visible while Nixon slinks around in shadows.) But Nixon has his eye on bigger things, and to advance beyond the backwater of Missouri a Democratic politician must embrace - a larger view, to quote Senator Palpatine from Star Wars. Gay marriage is at the top of the Progressive agenda, and Nixon can claim he cannot stop this de facto recognition of it thanks to the work of his brother in Illinois, Democrat Pat Quinn just signed into law gay marriage for that utopian land just east of Missouri http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/20/illinois-governor-signs-... and who is Jay Nixon or any Missourian to question this wisdom? Illinois has been such a rousing success story, after all...

So Jay Nixon has attempted to backdoor gay marriage (no pun intended) in the State of Missouri.

The Left has promoted homosexual behavior for a long time. At first glance one can make out no sensible reason why this would be so. But Isaac Asimov let the cat out of the bag back in 1971, arguing in an essay that, given the expansion of the population, we should welcome gay sex and gay marriage because these relationships do not lead to reproduction. Asimov - an atheist and secular humanist - promoted the old Malthusian argument that population growth would eventually lead to grinding poverty and an eventual collapse of civilization. Homosexual behavior was harmless, Asimov reasoned, and so promoting "gayness" would actually be a societal good. (Interestingly enough Asimov died of AIDS. http://www.locusmag.com/2002/Issue04/Letter.html )

Asimov published innumerable essays bemoaning overpopulation http://www.asimovonline.com/oldsite/essay_guide.html, and he was hardly non-main sequence liberal here; Thomas Malthus has been at the root of many of the left's main causes for over a century. Paul Ehrlich, he of the Population Bomb, was simply the '70's disco version of Malthus, and that gave us "Limits to Growth" which gave us the environmental movement, Global Warming pseudo-science, and "sustainability". Homosexuality is but one leg in the dream world of the Left, a world where breeding is not considered a right but a very special privilege. The Left seeks to divorce sex from reproduction, to make sex a simple physical act, a feeding of a hunger. That is why Sandra Fluke can demand free contraception without batting an eye; sex has little to do with creating families or binding yourself permanently to one person, the person who will ultimately help you raise your children. Homosexuality is the ultimate rebellion against this "Bourgeois morality". The Progressives have a powerful incentive to promote being gay.

And unrestricted sexuality has been a goal of the Left for well over a hundred years. The "Free Love" movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries was the stepchild of the Marquis De Sade, who was a profoundly influence on the emerging Liberal movement of the 1]8th century, according to Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn in his grand review of the roots of liberalism "Leftism Revisited". A desired to smash the constraints on sexual appetites, to divorce it from society's view of the individual, lies at the very heart of the Left and always has.

The social order has always been built on a fundamental regulation of sexual behavior. Overpopulation was indeed a problem in the past as a tribe could easily outrun their food supply, and marriage was the restriction put in place to prevent that. Furthermore, it was observed that a much stronger society was to be had by giving children two parents to share the burdens not only of providing for the physical needs of the children but also doing the hard work of satisfying their emotional need for love and security, as well as providing a model for how to live. The Left, seeking a "new man", one freed from the restraints imposed by Christian morality and Nature's God, have risen in rebellion against the entire order of society, against Natural Law, against Divine Revelation. Sex is the bayonet of that revolution.

That last is important because what the current "gay fad" is intended to do is to break this passing along of received wisdom from our forbearers. The Left wants to make a "New Man" and to do that the chain of "contagion" of old ideas and beliefs must be broken. Children must be raised by the State or at least have the State be the primary influence over their intellectual and moral development. Common Core is one of the tools now being implemented to accomplish this, and that is being promoted in both the public schools (the original source for Leftist indoctrination) and the private ones as well.

It is why atheists launch hysterical legal assaults on Nativity scenes, or try to ban Bible quotes in schools (even though the Bible was one of the historical building blocks of American society and as an historical underpinning should logically be taught to students). It is why the left promotes any centralization of power over regional or local control. Common core is a tool designed to break this cycle of "contagion". It is why Obamacare demands free contraception. It is why abortion is so holy a sacrament to the Left; it is a symbolic act that makes turning back to one's Christian roots quite difficult (it is difficult to ask for forgiveness when one has murdered her own child.) The idea is to make the Progressive movement the only place where many can find acceptance - or so they want people to believe.

So I ask again, why did Governor Nixon risk poking his hoary little head out of his shell to promote homosexual marriage in a state that has overwhelmingly rejected it?

Because powerful forces are behind the big push. Those forces determine who will be allowed to dance on the national stage, and who will be relegated to the backwaters of a place like Missouri. Nixon, like all egomaniacal politicians, seeks greater glory.

Which then makes one ask the question first uttered by that pillar of moral virtue de Sade; what makes sex different than food or drink?

One would think Divine Revelation and thousands of years of human experience would be adequate to answer such a question, but some of us learn at slower rates and perhaps de Sade was the first Common Core student so we may cut him some slack (something I fear he rarely did with his sexual partners). So let us simply apply this logic to the two topics and examine the responses of modern liberals to both.

Michelle Obama has spearheaded a national drive to combat obesity in children, and her efforts have involved the creation of "food police" who oversee what lunch items children may eat. Children caught with food not approved by the Commissars are subject to their lunches being confiscated at their being forced to eat the carrot sticks and other rabbit refuse - and then being forced to pay for it.

In fact, this has been happening across America:

1.In New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg tried to ban large soft drinks as a measure to combat obesity. His ban was overturned by a court of law.

2.In 2009 New York Governor David Paterson proposed a 15% "obesity tax" on soft drinks at the behest of the notoriously liberal junk-science organization Center for Science in the Public Interest, which has called for taxes on most fat-containing foods as well as salt.

3.There have been numerous attempts to fight obesity with lawsuits. http://banzhaf.net/obesitylinks.html

See these horror stories of food Nazis throwing away parent-packed lunches in public schools:

Meanwhile, Michelle Obama is heading up a campaign "let's move!" designed to promote physical exercise.

Strange how aggressive this government - led by committed leftists - is toward dietary problems while at the same time promoting homosexuality. And they HAVE promoted it; they have regularized it in the military, have refused to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in court, etc.

If there is a societal interest in reducing obesity, is there not an equal societal interest in reducing homosexuality?

Scientists pretty much agree that obesity is caused by a combination of elements, including genetic predisposition as well as eating habits (learned) and taste as well as the amount of physical activity performed by the child. In other words, there are several factors that go into fat kids. But we are now told that homosexuality has one sole cause, and that genetic. Being gay is entirely out of the hands of gay people, we are led to believe; it is a genetically driven imperative. Society has no hope of reducing the number of gay people nor does it have any interest in doing so, therefore we must grant full civil rights to the gay individual (despite millennia of historical experience).

First, there has never been a "gay gene" found. The best that science has been able to offer are some tantalizing correlations (a tendency to greater left-handedness among gay people, a tendency for separated identical twins to both be gay) but correlation does not mean causality. There have been epigenetic markers http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/33773/title/C... that may point to a tendency to be homosexual (why would we have a suppressed "gay gene" to begin with? It makes no evolutionary sense, since this gene would naturally breed itself out of the gene pool before it could become established in the general population). But there has never been a smoking gun genetic link proven.

A gay gene makes bisexuality completely illogical.

But for the sake of argument let us concede a genetic tendency towards homosexuality. Well, isn't that exactly what we have with obesity? Some people have a genetic tendency to be overweight WHEN THE CONDITIONS ARE RIGHT and that is precisely what the government seeks to control so as to avoid the problem. (Actually, food Nazism is about much more than the individual, see my article Where's the Beef http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/01/wheres_the_beef.html Also, consider that the Left is the culprit in the first place; the family meal was strangled by them in their quest to atomize the individual and break the family, and now they propose to fix a problem largely of their own making.) If controlling the kinds of food and portion sizes that children are allowed is a state-sanctioned function, than shouldn't controlling homosexual imagery and experience be likewise? Shouldn't we be trying to put homosexuality back into the closet to prevent children with genetic tendencies from suffering temptation? Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

The difference in approach is astonishing.

I hear the "buts" now; but being overweight is clearly a societal concern because it leads to all manner of medical complications and society ends up paying for this.

True, but it is equally true of homosexuality.

They tend to have more and more severe http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb02/newdata.aspx mental health problems http://psychcentral.com/lib/higher-risk-of-mental-health-problems-f... as well as are plagued by a host of physical ailments either not normally associated with heterosexuals or that appear with greater frequency and intensity. http://brown.edu/Student_Services/Health_Services/Health_Education/...

In fact, the life expectancy of homosexuals is shortened. This claim brings howls of protests from gay activist groups http://catholicimedia.blogspot.com/2012/09/scientific-research-dama... but is undeniable nonetheless.

So both obesity and homosexuality may have a biological component and both are bad for the public health. So why are we treating these two behavioral issues differently? If society must discourage obesity, should it not equally discourage homosexuality?

That is the opposite of what is happening. We are celebrating being gay while condemning being overweight. The left's hypocrisy is astonishing.

But that is because the two both serve real purposes to the advancement of socialism. In the case of food the prevention of obesity allows government to grow obese itself, to metastasize as it tells the individual and the family what they can or cannot eat while there would be no similar benefit from the prohibition of homosexuality. The promotion of homosexuality offers many benefits that the Left finds attractive. It damages the family, opening the door to greater government control. It promotes a platform to assault traditional values and particularly Christianity. It creates a solid voting block that favors Democrats.

And we are told we must change our entire way of life to accommodate what is perhaps 4% of the population. The influence of the gay lobby is staggering in proportion to their actual numbers.

So, why is Missouri Governor Jay Nixon willing to risk offending his entire state by recognizing gay marriages? The people who could advance his career have decided this is a deal breaking issue.

Gay marriage is not and never has been about fairness.

Read more from Tim and friends at The Aviary www.tbirdnow.mee.nu

Views: 1564


You need to be a member of Tea Party Nation to add comments!

Join Tea Party Nation

Comment by Conrad C Gabbard on November 29, 2013 at 11:57pm

Insult cannot be given - only taken, by those who feel themselves inferior.   Eleanor Roosevelt said:   "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent."     She was right.    This is an excellent article.    I believe all marriages should be gay - using the ancient meaning of the word that I grew up with.    The new mayor of NYC is married to a black lesbian.   They have two children and seem rather happy.     The high promiscuity rates within the homosexual community are the invariable result of boredom.   Some homosexual couples manage to stay together, however, two males or two females rarely have enough differences to keep it interesting - and sex is not enough.

My grandmother taught me the creation (myth?) of her Choctaw tribe, of God making His last creation: man, perfect.    Problem was that such a perfect, self-propagating creature needed nothing - not even God.    Correcting His mistake, God ripped the four armed, four legged, two headed, perfect creature asunder and sent the two parts in different directions, condemning man to an eternity of searching for his other half, containing the different strengths, weaknesses and ability to reproduce.    While most never quite find the proper match, those that do once again achieve perfection.    I like that story better than the one she taught me out of Genesis.

Comment by Conrad C Gabbard on November 27, 2013 at 2:11am

Just to add some levity:  alah   means deity or god in Arabic, al means the.    Arab Christians use Allah to mean Jehovah.     It is "To ascend"  in the Hebrew language.     Alah is found in the Hebrew Bible 688 times and translated a number of ways: "went up" [Gen 2:6]; "arose" [Gen 19:15]; and "ascend" [Isa 14:13].    If indeed the great Satan made his boast to be "Alah" in Isaiah 14:13, and has deluded over a billion people upon the earth to shout his name from their knees as the slaves they believe themselves to be, then Lucifer has indeed become a mighty god for one-sixth of the people upon the earth.          The Koran/Qur'an would by implication be the Bible of Lucifer as dictated by Mohammed, whose thrice-orphaned and repressed first forty year history gives credence to it.     The Koran/Qur'an, returned to the order Mohammed dictated it, proves to be auto-biographical additions to his biography, using Allah's words to justify whatever Mohammed wanted, whenever he wanted it.   Strange that a "perfect copy" of a book that has been in paradise with Allah since the beginning of time could be so precise - with many verses beginning with "Say" to indicate what Mohammed should tell his followers or kafir.

Comment by Robert Wyan on November 27, 2013 at 1:35am

Yes, the Roman's did the actual crucifying, because that's what the people wanted. Not every Jew wanted him crucified. Any person who calls them self a Christian and then makes anti-Semitic comments aren't really Christian. I know JESUS was a Jew. According to the bible, the only unforgiveable sin is blaspheming the Holy Ghost. Every other sin is forgiveable. We're all sinners and come short of the glory of GOD. I was always told that the Jews are GOD's chosen people. I know that hatred and intolerance aren't only confined to the left.

Maybe I misunderstood one of your earlier comments about compromise. I took it that you were saying that Christians and people on the right should be prepared to compromise their beliefs/morals. I believe that marriage is between one man & one woman. If same couples want to say they're married, then let them. It's not my place to judge them or anybody else, because I'm no better than they are. There are times that we type something on the internet meaning one thing, only to have others read it and take it a totally different way.

When I was younger, I could care less if you were a homosexual as long as you didn't try to pick me up. I said before that I don't have a problem with homosexuals, I just have a problem with homosexuality. I admit that I use to make fun of homosexuals and called them names. There is a difference. We humans are brothers & sisters in GOD's eyes.


Comment by Jeff Smoley on November 27, 2013 at 12:42am

Jews have been persecuted because they were Jews. Good, bad or indifferent in their religious practice, it didn't matter. The people who crucified Christ were Romans, Jews never used crucifixion. Yes, it was one Jew who gave away his location to the Romans who ruled the land, but do you blame an entire religion for the actions of one man? Do you continue to blame all Jews more than 2000 years after it happened? Christ was a Jew, the Last Supper was a Jewish feast, the last meal of Passover. 

I have ancestors who had to flee Spain and Portugal because they were Jews, I have ancestors who had to flee Russia because they were Jews, I had relatives who had to flee Germany, Poland, Russia and the Ukraine, because they were Jews. I remember having relatives with tattoos on their arms telling me about the relatives I would never meet because they died in the camps. I grew up listening to a Christian minister, on the radio, telling people to hate Jews. This was in New York city. All those countries were predominately Christian. 

I have relatives in Ireland, where Christians were terrorists and killed other Christians. The indigenous peoples of central & south America were slaughtered and enslaved, by Christians. Indigenous peoples of north America were slaughtered by Christians.  I live today, hearing Christians make anti-Semitic and other racist comments. I have heard them do this in a church.  I have heard them do this at Tea Party and 912 group meetings, where some of the people responded that those words were not acceptable.

Unfortunately, intolerance is not confined to the Left.  I don't hate Christians. I dislike those individuals who show their hatred. 

There are so many acts that are considered sins, why should one act (or group of acts) infuriate so many people who preach tolerance and forgiveness? Murderers and rapists can be forgiven, why not homosexuals? 

Comment by Robert Wyan on November 26, 2013 at 11:28pm

I know if you had reported the chaplain for ordering you to attend his Sunday services, he would have denied it. Me saying something about how you spell GOD, that was my mistake. I didn't know you were Jewish. A lot of the  Jewish people were always being persecuted, because they wouldn't obey GOD. Some Jewish people listened to GOD and followed his laws. I was always taught that the people who had JESUS CHRIST crucified were the sinners who didn't like that JESUS had convicted them of their sins.

I wasn't always a Christian. I grew up listening to country & western music until my teen years when I started listening to heavy metal. I started smoking. I drank when I was in the US Marines. A few years ago I started trying to find my way to JESUS CHRIST. Sometimes what I say or type don't come out the way I intended. I'm no better than you or anyone else.

Enough homosexuals are trying to force everyone, especially Christians to accept their lifestyle or be punished. Not all homosexuals are like that, but enough are and people tend to hold that against all homosexuals. I know, some so-called Christians and Muslims are always trying to force their beliefs onto everyone else.

GOD doesn't want people to be forced to believe in him. He wants people to come to him of their own accord. That's why he gave all humans a freewill.

You called me "holier than thou". You were being judgmental and threw a stone(figuratively).

We don't know each other well enough to judge each other or throw stones at each other.

I guess we both misunderstood/misread each others comments.    

Comment by Jeff Smoley on November 26, 2013 at 11:11am

"Chaplains in the military have been threatened with court-martial if they pray in JESUS' name or teach homosexuality is a sin in their church services. Does that seem fair to you?" Yes it does, if they are giving a service to non-Christians because there isn't a chaplain of that faith in the area. 

I had one chaplain give me a direct order that I had to attend his Sunday services. He then proceeded to belittle my religion and tried to convert me. This continued for months until the Jewish chaplain arrived. He was a general and quickly go rid of that chaplain.  

The reason Jews write G_D or G_d is in the old testament. 

Your stated beliefs and your other statements prove your attitude is closer to my observation than to your response.

Just in case you haven't noticed, Jews are being persecuted too, and have been for a lot longer than Christians, and frequently they are being persecuted by Christians.  Do you remember a statement about throwing stones?

Comment by Timothy Birdnow on November 26, 2013 at 10:24am

Hey Aaron, in case you missed it, I included the link to Janet Asimov's comments on the matter. I also said "ironically" which should have tipped a troll like you off, but apparently you aren't quick enough on the uptake. And you ARE a troll; you just signed up for TPN, I see.

Apparently you missed the point of the entire essay, which is not to bash gay people but to point out liberal hypocrisy. But then I see you have your own.

Comment by Robert Wyan on November 26, 2013 at 9:58am

Jeff Smoley,

    I'm not holier than thou. In my comment, I admitted I'm a sinner. I noticed that you spell GOD the same way a lot of other people do by spelling it G_D.  GOD gave man a freewill to make his own decisions. You don't believe satan can create his own false religions? Every person on this planet has the right to believe whatever they want. Why do liberals criticize Christians, but then turn around and defend muslims? Liberals preach tolerance to everyone and then criticize people who won't compromise their ethics and beliefs. There are some people who call themselves Christians, but don't live Christian lives. I'll put it this way, when JESUS CHRIST comes back, then we'll see who is right and who is wrong.

Chaplains in the military have been threatened with court-martial if they pray in JESUS' name or teach homosexuality is a sin in their church services. Does that seem fair to you? The new US Army manual lists Christians as terrorists and Christian groups/organizations as terrorist groups. It was on Yahoo and Fox News and on the radio.

JESUS said, his people will be persecuted, prosecuted, put in prison and some put to death, in his name. Christians worldwide are being persecuted, in some countries they are being prosecuted and put in prison and in some countries(muslim) they are being killed, just for believing in JESUS CHRIST as their LORD & SAVIOR. Let someone on the right criticize Islam and the muslims are ready to go to war over it.


Comment by Jeff Smoley on November 26, 2013 at 8:32am

Robert Wyan,

There is nothing in the laws that gives one a right to a church wedding. A civil service will suffice. Generally a pastor won't perform a wedding unless at least one of the people is a member of the church?

You believe your religion if the "right" one. So in your I'm holier than thou righteousness, you are superior to Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, Taoists etc.  If G_d only wanted one religion, why are so many allowed to exist? Why are there so many different types of Christianity? Which one of you is right? Why are Christians a minority (world wide)? Wouldn't G_d have made most people see the right path? 

You have the right (in the US) to believe whatever you want, but it is your holier than thou attitude that allows the left to gain supporters among people who might otherwise be on your side. Your "my way or the highway" is very Christian?

Everyone has to follow your rules because you know you are the only people who G_d has spoken to?  

Comment by Robert Wyan on November 26, 2013 at 12:13am

Jeff Smoley,

"We have laws already, if a religion's practice violates those laws, then the law of the land must stand."

So, if a pastor refuses to officiate a same-sex marriage, then he should be charged with discrimination and the same-sex couple should be able to sue him? More and more states are starting to legalize same-sex marriages. If same-sex marriages become legal in all 50 states and some pastor's refuse to officiate those ceremonies, on the grounds that they would violate their religious beliefs. Should the government be able to step in and charge those pastor's with discrimination against same-sex couples? Wouldn't that be violating the liberals mantra of "Separation of Church and State"?

Real Christians will never compromise their beliefs. GOD's law supersedes any and all of man's laws. If the law of the land goes against GOD's laws, then why should we Christians be forced to obey man's laws and turn our backs on GOD's laws?

I don't hate homosexuals. I hate the sin of homosexuality. I don't hate murderers. I hate the sin of murder. I don't hate sinners, because I am a sinner and come short of the glory of GOD, but I do hate sin. We all will continue to sin until JESUS CHRIST comes back, because we're not perfect.

If we Christians compromise our beliefs just to get along with others, then we would be following after the world(satan). If we Christians compromise our beliefs, then we're saying that GOD is wrong and his laws are offensive and wrong. I don't know about you, but I won't compromise my beliefs, just to get along with others.

If my comment offends you or anybody else. So be it.

Tea Party Nation is a social network

© 2016   Created by Judson Phillips.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service