‘Love is Love’ Opens a Wide Door

homosexuals_SCOTUSAs many have pointed out before, if the U.S. Supreme Court decides to usurp, the U.S. Constitution, several state constitutions, and Natural Law itself to allow counterfeit marriage for homosexuals, that will open the door on all sorts of marital and sexual perversions.

After all, if you make the claim that “love is love,” or that “because you love someone, you should be able to ‘marry’ them,” then there is really no logical stopping point.

Incest advocates are already pushing the normalization of this perversion. If you don’t think it isn’t already going on and being justified by its practitioners, think again.

Even pedophilia advocates have been coming out into the open, advocating their perversion and claiming it really does no harm.

And you certainly can’t claim (as we did when the Mormons tried it over 100 years ago) that polygamy is unjustified after allowing two sodomites to call themselves “married.”

The Media Research Center talked with some of the people gathered Tuesday at the Supreme Court for the hearing on counterfeit marriage, asking them about marriage and polygamy. They got some pretty “enlightening” answers (not so much enlightened, as some of the tortured and perplexing responses illustrated, but rather enlightening about about how little fact and logic are employed by homosexual activists). Take a look:

There is no reason why you could logically and consistently deny the “love” of two women for the same man, or two men for the same woman, or two men and two women for all four of themselves, or any other combination you could dream up. After all, if “Steve’s love for Mike” is enough justification to allow Steve and Mike to call themselves “married,” you cannot logically declare that “Suzy’s love for Joe and Sally and Fred and Jennifer” is not worthy of allowing them to call themselves “married” to each other.

Allowing homosexuals to counterfeit marriage opens the door to a “Star Wars bar scene” of sexual perversion and irresponsibility that will knock a huge torpedo hole in the stability of our once-great nation.  Of course, one of the central characteristics of virtually all homosexual activists is a deep-seated narcissism, and narcissists have never been known for caring about the good of others, or society in general. If they cared about society and it’s most innocent victims if this war on sexual normality (children), they wouldn’t be homosexual activists in the first place.


This article is printed with the permission of the author(s). Opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of American Clarion or Dakota Voice LLC.

Comment Rules: Please confine comments to salient ones that add to the topic; Profanity is not allowed and will be deleted; Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will be deleted.


Similar Posts:

Bob Ellis has been the owner of media company Dakota Voice, LLC since 2005. He is a 10-year U.S. Air Force veteran, a political reporter and commentator for the past decade, and has been involved in numerous election and public policy campaigns for over 20 years. He was a founding member and board member of the Tea Party groups Citizens for Liberty and the South Dakota Tea Party Alliance. He lives in Rapid City, South Dakota with his wife and two children.
Bob Ellis
View all articles by Bob Ellis
Leave a comment with your Facebook login
Print Friendly
  • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

    Thank heavens for Justice Antonin Scalia. Not every SCOTUS Justice has a deformed and perverted mind about homosexuality. It takes intelligence and ethics not to normalize homosexuality, but it seems the Court doesn’t have much of them with its current members.
    The problem is: what kind of a society do we have when it is ruled by the most primitive defense mechanisms of people with deformed psychologies like LGBTs who will not recognized how deformed their psychologies are? I can tell you one result: the systematic lying and cover up of every type of violence and harm that LGBTs do in society. The marriage question is largely a some screen for much more serious dysfunctional issues.

  • DCM7

    This generation seems not to have a concept of “love” that doesn’t equal either “sex” or “letting someone have whatever they want”.
    The reality is that the vast majority of love is meant to be non-sexual, with sexual love only meant to be exercised under very specific conditions.
    If someone’s definition of “same-sex love” isn’t “friendship,” they have the wrong definition.
    http://www.americanclarion.com/love-doesnt-have-limits-18840
    http://www.americanclarion.com/hate-hate-and-love-love-6462

  • franklinb23

    1) Incest. Despite the Biblical prohibitions, let’s keep in mind that the “righteous” Lot got both of his daughters pregnant. Abraham’s wife was also his half-sister (they had the same biological father). Incest is not my cup of tea, but if you’re going to call anyone who engages in it a “degenerate”, you are making a serious allegation against two men that the Bible declared to be worthy before God.
    2) Polygamy. The practice favors affluent men over those who are not, given that the population is about 50-50. Further, existing marriage law cannot address the issues of multiple partner marriage. If a man with five wives dies, which wife gets the inheritance? All of them? The oldest? Which woman makes decisions for him? We would have to create another type of legal construct entirely. Marriage as a civil contract would simply not work. Ethically, again, if you condemn the practice, you are alleging serious wickedness on the part of both Kings David and Solomon as well as a number of other Biblical patriarchs.
    3) “It takes intelligence and ethics not to normalize homosexuality”
    Tim Cook, a gay man, is CEO of Apple, one of the largest and most profitable companies in the world. If you think a simpleton can rise to this position, well, I encourage you to try it, Alessandra. Ethics? If you are insinuating that homosexuality in itself is unethical, I’d disagree but can’t really say much about it to change your mind. If you’re implying he (and other gay men and women) necessarily are unethical in numerous other way, please say so and lay your charges out on the table.

    • DCM7

      “the ‘righteous’ Lot got both of his daughters pregnant”
      That was their doing, not his, and at any rate there’s no reason to think it was approved of.

      “Abraham’s wife was also his half-sister”
      Keep in mind that this was before the law of Moses forbade this kind of thing, and (uncoincidentally) before human genetic information was corrupted to the point that such a law needed to be made.

      “if you condemn the practice, you are alleging serious wickedness on the part of both Kings David and Solomon as well as a number of other Biblical patriarchs.”
      The Bible is clear that men having multiple wives, while it did happen, was never part of the design for marriage; and that there were problems with the practice. Nonetheless, it wasn’t expressly forbidden at that time, I’m sure in part because (1) it involved one man being married twice at the same time, not three people being married to each other; and (2) it was still far closer to the design of marriage and sexuality than homosexuality.

      “It takes intelligence and ethics not to normalize homosexuality”
      Intelligence: A better choice of word would be “wisdom,” something that highly intelligent people can, and often do, utterly lack.

      “If you are insinuating that homosexuality in itself is unethical”
      Well, sexual morality is sexual morality. At any rate, the “ethics” being spoken about here are not about homosexuals per se as much as they are about being honest vs. dishonest about homosexuality — where it comes from, what its results are, etc. I know that if I were to call homosexuality “normal” after seeing what I’ve seen and learned, it would be a great act of dishonesty on my part.

    • Thisoldspouse

      What is sexual immorality or perversion, franklin? I’d like a definition.