Friday, June 28, 2013

Somewhere Over The Rainbow: Sodomatrimony

 Sodomites are rejoicing as the US Supreme Court struck down part of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as unconstitutional. The Federal government is now forced to provide "marriage" benefits to perverts. Also on that infamous day, June 26, 2013, the High Court refused to give standing to a group that challenged a Federal judge who declared Proposition 8 (amending the California Constitution to prohibit same sex "marriage" after the State Supreme Court allowed it) unconstitutional. As a result, same sex marriage can resume in our nation's largest state. This brings the total number of states allowing sodomatrimony to 13.

The blame lies squarely at the feet of the Vatican II sect. Having thrown out the True Faith and Morals supported by the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the seven Sacraments, they substituted Modernism and its pernicious errors. Invalidly ordained "priests" who the Modernists let in the seminaries with "same sex attraction" have molested children in the thousands and destroyed the vast moral authority and credibility enjoyed by the True Church before the damnable Vatican II Council.

As I have posted about the secular reasons for opposition to sodomatrimony before, here is a good Biblical list of reasons to be opposed (written by a Protestant minister, Dr. Jim Feeney), after which I will pile on some more attacks against the evils of Modernism and sodomatrimony:

Summary of Biblical Arguments Against Gay Marriage
1. God lists “homosexual offenders” among “the wicked” (1 Corinthians 6:9).
2. God lists “homosexual offenders” among those who He determines will “not inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9).
3. Historically, homosexuality has incurred God’s destructive wrath upon an entire city (Gen. 19:4-5, 11-13).
4. God’s word defines the men of Sodom as “sinning greatly” because of their men having sex with men (Genesis 13:13; 19:5).
5. God calls Sodom’s sin “sexual perversion (Jude 1:7). Societies that remain in perversion (Sodom, Rome...) are on the road to destruction.
6. God’s word identifies husband-wife relations as “natural relations” and homosexual relations as “unnatural ones” (Romans 1:26-27) and “perversion” (vs. 27).
7. God’s word also rebukes those who “approve of those who practice” homosexuality (Romans 1:32).
8. Jesus settled the marriage issue once for all, declaring that God had made them “male and female ... a man ... [and] his wife” (Matthew 19:4-5). Jesus' affirmation of the heterosexual definition of marriage left no room for same sex marriages. (Emphasis in original).
Most Protestants have a better grip on the issue than the Vatican II sect which does nothing but pay lip service to true marriage. Indeed, with their phony "annulments" they have been promoting adultery for decades. I would now like to address one of the most sinister aspects of Modernism--ethical relativism. Enshrined in pop culture by the creed of "what's true for you, is not true for me," and "who are you to enforce your morality on others," here are a few points to remember:
  • relativists assume an absolute truth, "intolerance is wrong," and makes them intolerant of those who think intolerance is right
  • equality of persons doesn't mean equality among truth-claims. Indeed, if some claims are true, then the opposite claim must be false
  • people are not stopped from having any relationship they want, but it does not follow that the State must sanction it
  • Are you also for marriage between siblings? GSA's are also a recognized sexual orientation that deserves equal rights.
    There are many recognized sexual orientations that are established aT birth, including Pedophilia. Who decides which should be allowed the rights to marry whom they are attracted to, and should not? What gives one group a greater right than the other. With today's reproductive technology, you can't even say that GSA's should not marry, especially if they are both Gay and GSA. Also, should a 13 year old Gerontosexual be told they must control and suppress their urges?
  • That statement is purporting to be a truth-statement and not an opinion
  • Surely, some opinions are more worthy to be held than others, namely those that have more evidence and logic going for them
  • The rejection of your opinion means he can determine truth from opinion; ask him by what means he does this because if everything is an opinion, than that statement (everything is an opinion) is not an opinion and the position is self-refuting
Please realize that our right to free speech and free exercise of religion will come under attack. Think I'm being dramatic? Please read what happened in Michigan:
 On October 20, 2010, some students and staff at Howell High School recognized Anti-Bullying Day, a national movement aimed at raising consciousness to the bullying of individuals based on their sexual orientation. Students in the Gay Straight Alliance Club posted a flier asking staff and students to wear purple that day to show support for the cause.  A teacher printed purple t-shirts with “Tyler’s Army” printed on the front and “Fighting Evil with Kindness” on the back to bring attention to the plight of Tyler Clementi, the Rutgers student who committed suicide after his roommate allegedly livestreamed a video of him engaged in a nonsexual homosexual encounter. Other than permitting the Gay Straight Alliance Club to post its flier, the school administration did not participate in the Anti-Bullying Day activities.  They were not aware of the Tyler’s Army t-shirts.  The court determined that the Anti-Bullying Day and its related activities were not school sponsored.
Economics teacher Jay McDowell wore a Tyler’s Army t-shirt on Anti-Bullying Day.  In each period, prior to beginning his planned lesson, he engaged students in a brief discussion about bullying and showed a video about an individual who committed suicide after being bullied due to his sexual orientation.  As the sixth period students entered, McDowell observed a student wearing a confederate flag belt buckle and directed her to remove it, which she did.  Class began, and McDowell started to explain to the students about Tyler’s Army, the purple t-shirts, and what it meant to him.

At that point, based on the court’s findings, the following exchange took place:

Student Daniel (calmly raising his hand):  Why can’t she wear a Confederate flag belt buckle when students and teachers can wear purple shirts and display rainbow flags?

McDowell: Because of the difference in symbolism between the Confederate flag and the rainbow flag.  The Confederate flag represents the hanging and slashing of African Americans, it isn’t allowed in my classroom, and it’s discrimination against blacks.

Daniel: I don’t accept gays, and the purple shirts discriminate against Catholics.

McDowell: You can not say that in class.

Daniel: I don’t accept gays because I’m Catholic.

McDowell: It’s fine if your religion is opposed to homosexuality but  saying such things is inappropriate in a classroom setting.  You can’t say “I don’t accept gays” any more than you can say “I don’t accept blacks.” Do you accept gays or not?

Daniel: I do not.

McDowell: Leave and go to the office.  I’m writing up a referral for unacceptable behavior.

Second student: I don’t accept gays either, can I leave ?

McDowell: yes

After Daniel and the other student departed, other students asked why McDowell had thrown them out and “why didn’t they have free speech?”  McDowell “explained that a student cannot voice an opinion that creates an uncomfortable learning environment for another student.”

Upon investigation, the school district expunged any reference to Daniel’s referral and reassigned him to another class at the parents’ request.The school district suspended McDowell for 1 day without pay, issued him a written reprimand, and ordered him to attend First Amendment training.  The reprimand stated:
You “disciplined two students for holding and stating personal beliefs, to which you disagree.  You disciplined them in anger under the guise of harassment and bullying because you opposed their religious belief and were offended by it. The students were causing no disruption to the educational process.” (emphasis in original)….You “discipline[d] two students who told you that they do not accept gays due to their religion.  After a failure of getting one student to recant, you engaged in an unsupported snap suspension, rather than allow the student his beliefs.” …You “modeled oppression and intolerance of student opinion . . . This could be construed as teacher-to-student bullying; ironic of the Anti-Bullying Day intent.”
Scary. What's more scary is what's at the end of the sodomite rainbow: a place where everyone can "marry" anyone (or more than one) whom their perverse desire chooses. Vatican II is taking us there. God save us.

No comments:

Post a Comment