Welfare rights are pseudo-rights: They rely on the force of law to take private property for the use of others without compensation and without consent. Public charity is forced charity; it is not a virtue but a vice.
I never did care much about what or with who people do to get their rocks off beyond thinking that some it was gross and not something I wanted to see or hear. But then, I’ve also been no friend or ally to the Gays since their bullshit over California’s Prop 8, and that chasm has grown deeper and broader with all the subsequent “Gay Agenda” lawfare that they engage in to force acceptance of their behaviors.
The above all being said, I find the image to be straight-up funny (pun very, very much intended) – hilarious even! 😆 👿
Amanda Heard’s naked body certainly lends both interest and beauty to the sentiments involved in the cause of legalizing and normalizing queer marriages. Sadly, however, not matter how nice Ms. Heard is too look at she doesn’t change the fact that the entire queer marriage cause is predicated upon the premise that homosexuality is either acceptable behavior or an inborn, harmless yet incurable medical condition that must be accounted for and for which allowances must be made.
Neither of these premises are accepted by the majority of people at this time. Consensus opinion is still strongly divided upon whether or not homosexuality is inborn or behavior choice. Consensus opinion is also divided, though less widely, upon whether or not homosexuality, if it’s an inborn genetic or congenital condition, is harmless or more of the nature of alcoholism or other inborn psycho-medical pathologies.
It also doesn’t help Ms. Heard’s cause that she’s bisexual with, reportedly, a strong preference for other women. That makes this all seem a bit self-serving.
So Amanda Heard’s demonstration is a beautiful sentiment in so many contexts but is based upon a flawed premise since many, many people will just believe that it is another case where Liberals want people’s choices not to have negative consequences – equality and similarity of results without concern for inputs.
Summing up Obama’s “evolved” stance on Gay Marriage is really quite easy. It’s a simple case of his being Gay For Pay.
Sure! Obama Will Go Gay – For $15 Million In Donations
The Obama Campaign and the Dems in general were looking at loosing the financial support of both Queers and seriously pro-Queer donors, a situation made acutely worse by North Carolina passing Amendment 1 by a wide margin, defining marriage solely as a union between a man and a woman in the state’s Constitution.
So the Campaigner-in-Chief, under the direction of his handlers, had to say something, preferable something nuanced with lots of exit pathways and few commitments.
At a certain point, I’ve just concluded that– for me personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that– I think same-sex couples should be able to get married. Now– I have to tell you that part of my hesitation on this has also been I didn’t want to nationalize the issue. There’s a tendency when I weigh in to think suddenly it becomes political and it becomes polarized.
And what you’re seeing is, I think, states working through this issue– in fits and starts, all across the country. Different communities are arriving at different conclusions, at different times. And I think that’s a healthy process and a healthy debate. And I continue to believe that this is an issue that is gonna be worked out at the local level, because historically, this has not been a federal issue, what’s recognized as a marriage.
Yeah, the boy will do Gay for Pay alright. He’s got limits though – no Full Service; he won’t bend over that far, not when it might cost him more than he’s getting for it. 😉
I’ve got a more important and pressing question than what Obama wants people to believe is his personal stance on Gay Marriage is though. Does America’s newest rent boy think that the queers – single, involved, it’s complicated, or married – could use some jobs?
In the past I’ve made some sarcastic posts about DOMA and traditional aka biblical marriage. To continue in that vein here’s an instructional video by Betty Bowers on traditional marriage as defined by biblical precedent:
Betty Bowers on Traditional Marriage Per The Bible
Yes, the video is needlessly harsh, insulting, and sarcastic. It also uses some pretty far-fetched interpretation of biblical passages – e.g., there’s no theological basis for saying Eve seduced Cain; it’s far more likely that he took one of his unnamed in the Bible sisters to wife. That doesn’t, however, mean that it doesn’t contain a number of simple truths about what Yahweh supposed endorses by way of marriage.
Christians, you need to read your Bible; it is, after all, your holy book and, as such, more than worthy of individual study.
In it are many passages that show that Abraham’s God seemed to have little or no problem with many forms of marriage beyond “one man and one woman.” Indeed, nowhere’s in the Bible is monogamy ever explicitly described as a requirement.
Divorce, contrariwise, was expressly forbidden in both Old and New Testaments.
On the other hand, the Bible does maintain that same-sex marriage, along with a number of other acts now generally considered OK, is right out, forbidden, and an abomination to be treated with abhorrence and lethal violence.
Remember, God hates fags – though possibly not lesbians, multi-cropping / under-planting, poly-cotton blends, gaudy jewelry, and shellfish. 😛
So, my dear Christian sometimes-allies, have some fun with this if you can. Think a bit on it though; there’s truth buried in any bit of humor, elsewise it wouldn’t be funny.
Politics makes for strange bedfellows and war and Muslim Terrorism is just an extension of politics, so it’s unsurprising that Al-Qaeda’s “spiritual leader,” Osama Bin Laden would cultivate a relationship with North Korea’s yammering monkey, Kim Jong Il. Yet, who knew that it would take such a bizarre, depraved, and disgusting turn?
Strange Indeed! Most Believed Osama Preferred Goats
A leading Al-Qaeda cleric, Imam Abdul Al Akroot ibn Al Daa’reh Khanzeer responded to queries about Osama Bin Laden’s seemingly prohibited relationship with the North Korean dictator.
What Osama has done is permissible. It is not the sin of homosexuality because Kim Jong Il is not a man; he is a monkey. As Abdullah ibn Abbas narrated in the Kitab Al-Hudud, “There is no prescribed punishment for one who has sexual intercourse with an animal.”
Allah is merciful. Women of Islam are few and goats and such are many, and it is often hard for a man to tell them apart in the night. Allah knows this and thus it is halal.
Sadly, when questioned on the fact that the ayat immediately preceding the one that he cited (Book 38, Number 4450) called for the death of any man caught fornicating with an animal – and the death of the animal! – Imam Abdul Al Akroot went into a violent rage and became too incoherent to continue the interview.
The Civilized World just fervently and desperately hopes and prays that Osama Bin Laden and Kim Jong Il will not follow in the trend of celebrities couples and release a sex tape. 😯