The Slippery Slope

Ya Think?!?

Equal Rights?

The Real Endgame of the LGBT Agenda

That is their [the LGBTQXYZ mob] endgame. They NEVER just wanted “tolerance” or “acceptance” or “equality” or even homosexual marriage. What they are really after is the full endorsement and celebration of their lifestyles and agendas, and the complete eradication of any and all opposition.

And they have always known that real-deal churches and Christians are the final obstacle standing in the way of complete and final hegemony. Thus they are actively on search and destroy missions for any recalcitrants who still will not bow down and embrace their agendas and worship at their altars.

Bill Muehlenberg, “Why Are So Many Christians Paralysed by Fear and Compromise?”

Political Language

Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.

George Orwell, Why I Write, cover quote.

What “Democratic” Socialism Looks Like

Socialism is usually defined as "common ownership of the means of production." Crudely: the State, representing the whole nation, owns everything, and everyone is a State employee. This does not mean that people are stripped of private possessions such as clothes and furniture, but it does mean that all productive goods, such as land, mines, ships and machinery, are the property of the State. The State is the sole large-scale producer. It is not certain that Socialism is in all ways superior to capitalism, but it is certain that, unlike capitalism, it can solve the problems of production and consumption. At normal times a capitalist economy can never consume all that it produces, so that there is always a wasted surplus (wheat burned in furnaces, herrings dumped back into the sea, etc, etc.) and always unemployment. ... 

In a Socialist economy these problems do not exist. The State simply calculates what goods will be needed and does its best to produce them. Production is only limited by the amount of labour and raw materials. Money, for internal purposes, ceases to be a mysterious all-powerful thing and becomes a sort of coupon or ration-ticket, issued in sufficient quantities to buy up such consumption goods as may be available at the moment.

George Orwell, Why I Write, pg.47-48

I don’t normally have a commentary with citations on this blog, but I posted THIS citation for the sole purpose of commenting about socialism.

Orwell stated he believed in “democratic” socialism, but all that means is that there isn’t an authoritarian running the show, just a government.  In reference to rich people, he said that butlers and “private incomes” are “monstrosities.” His outlook on income was that the government would decide what minimum income would be, and then the richest would not be allowed an income greater than ten times the minimum. With Orwell’s plan he would eliminate the “mere owners who live not by virtue or anything they produce but by the possession of title-deeds and share certificates.”  Of course the fact that said owners worked their way up to owning such production facilities, and often even invented them and built them, doesn’t seem to faze this man who tells us exactly what “democratic socialism” would do to everyone.  He says with State ownership, “nobody shall live without working.” So to his mind, managing production facilities wouldn’t be working. He rightly says resistance to his ideology “will come from the big capitalists, the bankers, the landlords and the idle rich.”  As with all socialists, you can certainly see his envy of those above his status — although I wonder just how much income he derived from the sale of his books; you know, his capitalist engagement.  Farmers will no longer own their land but if they are “competent” they “will continue as a salaried manager.” And if your occupation is as a “money lender,” then your life is “worthless.”

Additionally, he looks to raising the age at which one can leave government schools — obviously to keep them under government indoctrination for as long as possible. And as far Orwell is concerned, “Patriotism has nothing to do with Conservatism.  It is actually the opposite of Conservatism…”. So how does he explain that the vast majority of conservatives in the USA are also very patriotic?

Well, what I see is that socialism, “democratic” or not, is a rank violation of personal right of every sort.  And yet the ignorant people on the LEFT in the USA are demanding that the USA become a socialist nation. 

For a Democracy to Function -- Ideas

For a democracy to function, there must be a free exchange of ideas. Leftists do not believe in this. For the leftist, the consent of the governed and the opinions of the voters must be manufactured through the use of propaganda and the censoring and punishment of wrong-think. The propaganda and censorship is everywhere. It begins in preschool and continues throughout one’s education. Leftist­-approved correct-think is provided in every format—television, movies, books, magazines, video games, and even in standardized test questions. Expressing wrong-think is dangerous, physically and financially.

The result is massive censorship even though the US is a “free” society where speech is “protected.” However, in the surveillance systems being imposed worldwide, only leftist speech is protected; rightist speech is ruthlessly suppressed.” I am sorry, Sir. Your card has been declined because of your political views. I am afraid we’ll be closing your bank account too. Consequently, the dissident right must meme, troll, write books “in a mood of revelry and laughter,” and speak in code. This is something Straussians understand. This fact gets to another reason that leftists hate democracy; censorship of wrong-think cannot be enforced in the privacy of the voting booth.

B.A. Pervert, The Dissident Right Embraces Realism, Not Nihilism

For a Democracy to Function -- Fair Play

For a democracy to function, there must be fair play. Leftists do not play fair; as noted, they cheat. Everywhere you look, in leftist states and enclaves, the voting rules are skewed toward cheating. Laws are passed allowing paper and mail-in ballots that are easily manipulated, voting machines that are easily hacked, ballot harvesting on election day and night and over-night, the use of erasable pencils in voting booths, voting without the need for voter ID, and more. Aside from rules which destroy the integrity of the ballot, leftists cheat outright: “voters” are bused from one polling place to another, ghost polling places are set up, ballots are cast by the dead and by illegals, loyalists cast the correct votes for an entire nursing home, and so on. Immigration, too, is a method of stuffing the ballot box.

If cheating does not work, the leftists will keep changing the rules until the vote is forever a leftist vote. The “jungle primary” is a good example of how the voting rules can create a one-party state. See California and Louisiana. Vote splitting is another method of not playing fair. The creation and support of alternative parties to split the rightist vote is common in Europe. In the US, evidence supports the conclusion that the Libertarian party was formed by leftists to siphon off votes from the Republican Party to enhance the chances of a leftist victories. And vote splitting works: see for example the 2018 midterm elections. Pretend Republican candidates are also run who immediately switch parties upon being elected. Expanding the franchise is another tactic, be it giving the vote to felons or “Irish voters” who live someplace other than Ireland. There is no fair play among the leftists; voting is just a mechanism for the exercise and accrual of raw power.

B.A. Pervert, The Dissident Right Embraces Realism, Not Nihilism

White Slavery?

More whites were brought as slaves to North Africa than blacks brought as slaves to the United States or to the 13 colonies from which it was formed. White slaves were still being bought and sold in the Ottoman Empire, decades after blacks were freed in the United States.

Thomas Sowell

How Can Wrong Be Right?

The father who carefully protects and guards his virgin daughter’s ears from every polluting word takes her to the theater himself, exposing her to all its vile language and attitudes….. How can it be right to look at the things that are wrong to do? How can those things which defile a man when they go out of his mouth not defile him when going in through his eyes and ears?

Tertullian

People Need To Think About What They Wear

Most American would be quite embarrassed to be seen in public in their underwear. Yet, they think nothing of relaxing at a poolside in swimsuits that are no less revealing. And don’t we Christians generally follow right along with our culture? We appear in public in swimwear that would have shocked even non-Christians only 50 years ago [from 1989 publishing]. Yet because our swimwear is acceptable to the modern conservative community, we think nothing of it.

David W. Bercot, Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up: A New Look at Today’s Evangelical Church in the Light of Early Christianity, pg.30-31

Veterans Day

Ladies, Watch What You Wear

Luxurious clothing that cannot conceal the shape of the body is no covering at all.  Such clothing, clinging close to the body, takes the body’s shape and adheres to the flesh. It outlines the woman’s figure, so that the whole shape of her body is visible to spectators, even though they cannot actually see the body itself…. Such clothing is meant for looking, not for covering.

Clement of Alexandria.

The Wrong Idiom

We use a most unfortunate idiom when we say, of a lustful man prowling the streets, that he “wants a woman.” Strictly speaking, a woman is just what he does not want. He wants a pleasure for which a woman happens to be the necessary piece of apparatus.

C.S. Lewis, The Four Loves, p.134

Word Weapons

"Homophobia" and "transphobia" are junk-science scare terms designed to end rational dialogue and debate, and instead to promote censorship and reeducation camps, possibly even setting the stage for future psychiatric commitment through suggestion of mental illness.

Robert A.J. Gagnon, posted on Facebook by Mike Adams.

Today's Culture

The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it.

George Orwell

Real Islam

Muslims are not taught to be at peace with unbelievers but to struggle relentlessly to bring them under Qur'anic rule. Just as the communists sometimes followed a policy of peaceful coexistence when it seemed convenient, Muslim aggression may be more apparent at some times than at others, but the underlying struggle is unrelenting.

Phillip E. Johnson, The Right Questions: Truth, Meaning & Public Debate, pg.183

Humpty-Dumpty World

There was a time when words had meaning. Not anymore. Words are what the Left says they are. They are so concerned about freedom of speech that whenever a conservative shows up to speak, they have to come out in force to ensure that conservative will never have the opportunity to open his mouth and say something they don’t agree with.

Roger Helle, The Myth of Tolerance, Part 1

Violating Terrorist's Rights?

When a government earnestly seeks to root out terrorism, public opinion immediately accuses it of violating the terrorists' rights.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn, A World Split Apart. Cited by Phillip E. Johnson, The Right Questions: Truth, Meaning & Public Debate, pg.162

What Godlessness Brings

Victimhood

When you elevate victimhood as virtue, you will create a culture in which people are tripping over themselves to be oppressed.

Allie Beth Stuckey

Pay Attention, Ladies!

Come on ladies, you know this: your youthful physical beauty is for building a family. It is not a personal plaything your for giddy vanity. If you use your beauty for ego gratification, it will dry up and die in your wrinkled hands. Then it will be too late to be loved.

Stefan Molyneux. Cited by Mike Adams on Facebook

Paratrooper

It was the old story of the men with the maroon berets who never worry about odds.

Stanley Maxted, War Report, March 1945. Cited in “The Last Drop: Operation Varsity, March 24-25, 1945” by Stephen L. Wright.

Don't Let Words Control You

You will continue to suffer if you have an emotional reaction to everything that is said to you. True power is sitting back and observing things with logic. True power is restraint. If words control you that mean everyone else can control you. Breathe and allow things to pass.

Warren Buffett

Who Rules Over You?

The Truth About Psychoanalysis

I went to my psychiatrist to be psychoanalyzed 

To find out why I killed the cat and blackened my husband’s eye.

He laid me on a downy couch to see what he could find,

And here’s what he dredged up, from my subconscious mind.

When I was one, my mummy hid my dolly in a trunk

And so it follows, naturally, that I am always drunk.

When I was two, I saw my father kiss the maid one day,

And that is why I suffer from kleptomania.

At three I had a feeling of ambivalence towards my brothers, 

And so it follows, naturally, that I poisoned all my lovers.

But I am happy now I have learned the lessons this has taught:

Everything I do that’s wrong, is someone else’s fault!

Anna Russell, “Psychiatric Folk Song,” cited by Gary E. Gilley, This Little Church Stayed Home: A faithful church in deceptive times, pg.64

Do Words Have Objective Meanings?

If words have no objective meaning; and all interpretation lies in the mind of the reader (hearer), then the logical deduction is that communication is impossible. Additionally, the reasoning, logic, and pronouncements of the post-modernist proponents are just as preposterous as anyone else’s. If the content of their words have no meaning, apart from the meaning you or I choose to give them, then they have nothing meaningful to say.

Gary E. Gilley, This Little Church Stayed Home: A faithful church in deceptive times, pg.32

The Real Goal of Sexual Biology-Deniers

For too long, many Americans have misunderstood the goals of the LGBT community, particularly its activist leaders.  The majority of Americans thought this movement was about winning acceptance and tolerance of gay Americans, something few people found objectionable.

But that was never the goal.  It was only an intermediary step.  The goal was always about forcing Americans to celebrate and bow before the full and ever-expanding LGBT agenda while detaching America from its Judeo-Christian heritage and moral framework.  The destruction of Christianity in society is the goal.

Note that liberals are always the aggressors on this issue.  While many Christians do not want to be forced to celebrate what they believe to be sin, they are not attacking or discriminating against members of that community.  Most Christians rarely think about this issue at all.  But they also don't want to be forced to violate their own deeply held religious beliefs, which is where they become vulnerable for attack.  Since they don't celebrate the LGBT agenda, they are the enemy. . . . 

The LGBT movement will not be happy until Christianity is completely driven from the public square and criminalized.  This is why Christian bakers, photographers, florists, and business-owners are being sued under the most outrageous pretexts.  These cases are almost always deliberately set up by extreme activists seeking a pretext to destroy what they hate.  They often succeed.

The goal is to either beat the Christian business-owner in court or bankrupt him through the legal process.  The burdensome and expensive process alone within the administrative state is often punishment enough to accomplish the goal.

Fletch Daniels, LGBT Activists Seek to Destroy Christianity

Who IS the Surplus Population?

Toxic Masculinity?

Don't Be Silent About Evil

Presumption

Presumption is a fire-work made up of pride and foolhardiness. It is indeed like a heavy house built upon slender crutches. Like dust, which men throw against the wind, it flies back in their faces, and makes the blind.

Author unknown. Quoted in Was Christ God, by Spiros Zodhiates

Ambition and Avarice

There are two passions which have a powerful influence in the affairs of men. These are Ambition and Avarice; the love of power and the love of money. Separately, each of these has great force in prompting man to action; but when united in view of the same object they have in many minds the most violent effects.

Benjamin Franklin, cited in All the Men of the Bible, by Herbert Lockyer.

Helping the Poor?

If you want to see the poor remain poor, generation after generation, just keep the standards low in their schools and make excuses for their academic shortcomings and personal behavior. But please don’t congratulate  yourself on your compassion.

Thomas Sowell

A Fascist Ideology

I have a collection of memes regarding the LGBTXYZ agenda, some of which I found and posted on Facebook, but since FB is suspending accounts which post things of which FB does not approve I decided to make a post here with all these memes I've collected.  This collection should provoke some thinking about the agenda and how 3% of the population is taking control of the other 97%.

Experience

Experience is what you get when you didn't get what you wanted.

Seen on a sign in Jimmy John's Gourmet Sandwiches, Iowa City, IA

Need and Greed

"Need" now means wanting someone else's money. "Greed" means wanting to keep your own. "Compassion" is when a politician arranges the transfer.

Joseph Sobran

Knowledge vs Ignorance

Knowledge will forever govern ignorance. And a people who mean to be their own Governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.

James Madison, 4 August 1822

Blacks Really Can Think Independently

Government Corruption

Real Americans

Sound Familiar?

Don't Be Idle

Proper Education of Children

For Sure!

Hell hath no fury like a vested interest masquerading as a moral principle.

Dr. Paul R. McHugh, Transgenderism: A Pathological Meme.

Transgendered?

Transgendered men do not become women, nor do transgendered women become men. All (including Bruce Jenner) become feminized men or masculinized women, counterfeits or impersonators of the sex with which they “identify.” In that lies their problematic future.

Dr. Paul R. McHugh, Transgenderism: A Pathological Meme.

Don’t Hold Truth Accountable For Error

In a free country, people can profess to be followers of whatever faith they want, but if their beliefs and practices do not fulfill the historic definition of the faith they invoke, fairness dictates that those who do fulfill that definition should not be held accountable for the false professors’ actions.

Armando Emanuel Roggio, Sr, “Fundamentalist Faith and the Problem of Holy Wars,” Christian Research Journal, Vol.29/No.4, pg.3

Homophobic?

If one is homophobic (assuming there is such a thing), that is, suffering from a phobia as one would suffer from claustrophobia, then the homophobe cannot help himself and is therefore suffering from a mental disorder, perhaps one that is the result of his genes. Consequently, calling someone homophobic is tantamount to making fun of the handicapped, unless of course the accuser himself is homophobic.

Francis J. Beckwith, “Deconstructing Liberal Tolerance,” Christian Research Journal, Vol.22/No.3, pg.47

Special Rights May Leave You Unemployed

It makes no sense from a business standpoint to hire a black worker if a white worker can be hired with the same qualifications who can’t start a lawsuit. So what this suggests is that when you give some people special rights, those special rights have special costs, not only to other people but to the people with special rights.

Thomas Sowell, Thomas Sowell Talks About Discrimination, Race, And Social Justice

People and Laws

People tend to complain that laws are morals-based only when the law in question is based upon a moral valuation with which they disagree. To be consistent, those who object to morals-based laws would have to raise the same objection to all laws whatsoever, including the laws they themselves support. But they do not. They never do. When their own morals are coded into law, they raise not even the faintest whimper of protest. Yet when laws are passed that they dislike, they say almost nothing else. They seem to want a sword that will cut only others, never themselves. But any sword of objection sharp enough to cut Jack is sharp enough to cut John as well, even though John might not like it. …

The morality in the law, whatever it might be, tends to become the morality of the people. Law is always a tutor to morals and a shaper of national character, both for good and ill.

Michael Bauman, “The Falsity, Futility, and Folly of Separating Morality From Law,” Christian Research Journal, Vol.21/No.3, pg.22, 36

Ladies, Think About It

The next time you do a bikini selfie remember that what you get him with is what you must keep him with. It’s fun being hot in a bikini at 25. But it’s not fun when you’re 50 and your husband leaves you for a 25 year old who looks hot in a bikini. So go put some clothes on and impress him with your intellect. Trust me on this one.

Mike Adams, Facebook, 5/25/19.

If God Does Not Exist

If God does not exist, they you are just a miscarriage of nature, thrust into a purposeless universe to live a purposeless life. …

If God does not exist, then nobody has any value. Only if God exists can a person consistently support women’s rights. For if God does not exist, then natural selection dictates that the male of the species is the dominant and aggressive one. Women would no more have rights than a female goat or chicken have rights. In nature whatever is, is right. …

If God does not exist, there can be no objection to using people as human guinea pigs. The end of this view is population control in which the weak and unwanted are killed off to make room for the strong.

William Lane Craig, “The Absurdity of Life Without God,” Radix, The Journal of the Apologetics Resource Center, January 2001, pg.31-35

Lawyers and “Rights”

It was inevitable that a culture that nourishes 70 percent of the world’s lawyers would be the one that would attempt to convert every desire into a right.

David F. Wells, “Our Dying Culture,” Radix, The Journal of the Apologetics Resource Center, January 2001, pg.15.

Want Marriage? Don't Cohabit

Because men and women differ somewhat in their sexual and mate-selection strategies, cohabitation often has a different meaning for each sex. Women tend to see it as a step toward eventual marriage, while men regard it more as a sexual opportunity without the ties of long-term commitment. A woman’s willingness to cohabit runs the risk of sending men precisely the wrong signal. What our grandmothers supposedly knew might well be true: If a woman truly wants a man to marry her, wisdom dictates a measure of playing hard to get.

David Popenoe and Barbara Defoe Whitehead, “Should We Live Together? What Young Adults Need to Know About Cohabitation before Marriage.”  A publication of The National Marriage Project, pg.15

Modern Marriage and Divorce

People used to marry not just for love but also for family and economic considerations, and if love died during the course of a marriage, this was not considered sufficient reason to break up an established union. A divorce was legally difficult if not impossible to get, and people who divorced faced enormous social stigma. In today’s marriages love is all, and it is a love tied to self-fulfillment. Divorce is available to everyone, with little stigma attached. If either love or a sense of self-fulfillment disappear, the marriage is considered to be over and divorce is the logical outcome.

David Popenoe and Barbara Defoe Whitehead, “Should We Live Together? What Young Adults Need to Know About Cohabitation before Marriage.”  A publication of The National Marriage Project, pg.10

What Culture Has Done

In the past thirty years [from 2002], with the advent of effective contraceptive technologies and widespread sexual permissiveness promoted by advertising and the organized entertainment industry, premarital sex has become widely accepted. In large segments of the population cohabitation no longer is associated with sin or social impropriety or pathology, nor are cohabiting couples subject to much, if any, disapproval. 

David Popenoe and Barbara Defoe Whitehead, “Should We Live Together? What Young Adults Need to Know About Cohabitation before Marriage.”  A publication of The National Marriage Project, pg.10

Cohabitation Not Good For Children

One of the greatest problems for children living with a cohabiting couple is the high risk that the couple will break up. Fully three quarters of children born to cohabiting parents will see their parents split up before they reach age sixteen, whereas only about a third of children born to married parents face a similar fate. ...

Parental break up, as is now widely known, almost always entails a myriad of personal and social difficulties for children, some of which can be long lasting. For the children of a cohabiting couple these may come on top of a plethora of already existing problems. Several studies have found that children currently living with a mother and her unmarried partner have significantly more behavior problems and lower academic performance than children in intact families.

David Popenoe and Barbara Defoe Whitehead, “Should We Live Together? What Young Adults Need to Know About Cohabitation before Marriage.”  A publication of The National Marriage Project, pg.8

Dangers of Cohabitation

Annual rates of depression among cohabiting couples are more than three times what they are among married couples. And women in cohabiting relationships are more likely than married women to suffer physical and sexual abuse. Some research has shown that aggression is at least twice as common among cohabitors as it is among married partners. Two studies, one in Canada and the other in the United States, found that women in cohabiting relationships are about nine times more likely to be killed by their partner than are women in marital relationships.

David Popenoe and Barbara Defoe Whitehead, “Should We Live Together? What Young Adults Need to Know About Cohabitation before Marriage.”  A publication of The National Marriage Project, pg.7

Cohabitation Is Mentally Harmful

Cohabiting couples report lower levels of happiness, lower levels of sexual exclusivity and sexual satisfaction, and poorer relationships with their parents. One reason is that, as several sociologists not surprisingly concluded after a careful analysis, in unmarried cohabitation “levels of certainty about the relationship are lower than in marriage.” 

David Popenoe and Barbara Defoe Whitehead, “Should We Live Together? What Young Adults Need to Know About Cohabitation before Marriage.”  A publication of The National Marriage Project, pg.6

The Effects of Cohabitation

The act of cohabitation generates changes in people’s attitudes toward marriage that make the stability of marriage less likely. Society wide, therefore, the growth of cohabitation will tend to further weaken marriage as an institution. An important caveat must be inserted here. There is a growing understanding among researchers that different types and life-patterns of cohabitation must be distinguished clearly from each other. Cohabitation that is an immediate prelude to marriage, or prenuptial cohabitation—both partners plan to marry each other in the near future—is different from other forms. There is some evidence to support the proposition that living together for a short period of time with the person one intends to marry has no adverse effects on the subsequent marriage. Cohabitation in this case appears to be very similar to marriage; it merely takes place during the engagement period. This proposition would appear to be less true, however, when one or both of the partners has had prior experience with cohabitation, or brings children into the relationship.

David Popenoe and Barbara Defoe Whitehead, “Should We Live Together? What Young Adults Need to Know About Cohabitation before Marriage.”  A publication of The National Marriage Project, pg.6

Cohabitation Makes Marriage Less Successful

The results of several studies suggest that cohabitation may change partners’ attitudes toward the institution of marriage, contributing to either making marriage less likely, or if marriage takes place, less successful. A 1997 longitudinal study conducted by demographers at Pennsylvania State University concluded, for example, “cohabitation increased young people’s acceptance of divorce, but other independent living experiences did not.” And “the more months of exposure to cohabitation that young people experienced, the less enthusiastic they were toward marriage and childbearing.”

David Popenoe and Barbara Defoe Whitehead, “Should We Live Together? What Young Adults Need to Know About Cohabitation before Marriage.”  A publication of The National Marriage Project, pg.5

Cohabitation Gives No Contribution to Marriage

No positive contribution of cohabitation to marriage has ever been found. The reasons for a negative “cohabitation effect” are not fully understood. One may be that while marriages are held together largely by a strong ethic of commitment, cohabiting relationships by their very nature tend to undercut this ethic. Although cohabiting relationships are like marriages in many ways--shared dwelling, economic union (at least in part), sexual intimacy, often even children--they typically differ in the levels of commitment and autonomy involved. According to recent studies, cohabitants tend not to be as committed as married couples in their dedication to the continuation of the relationship and reluctance to terminate it, and they are more oriented toward their own personal autonomy.

David Popenoe and Barbara Defoe Whitehead, “Should We Live Together? What Young Adults Need to Know About Cohabitation before Marriage.”  A publication of The National Marriage Project, pg.5

Homosexual Privilege

I would submit the real problem today, in our culture and in our politics, is not in fact white privilege but homosexual privilege. Despite their constant claims to martyrdom and victimhood, homosexuals have an entire array of privileges and powers that are based exclusively on their private sexual preferences, and they are privileges and powers that normal people do not possess. Homosexuals must be catered to by wedding vendors and be catered to in housing and employment, or those who refuse to cater to them will be demonized, vilified, and sued until they’re broke or out of business.  Today homosexuals belong to the most pampered, protected, favored, privileged demographic in all of America. . . . 

Homosexuality was once rightly known as “the love that dare not speak its name.” Those days are long gone. Now it is not a career-killer but a resume enhancer. Due to the decaying morals of the Republic, we have now made it possible for a man to boldly sin his way right into the White House.

Bryan Fischer, "The Problem Isn’t White Privilege, It’s Homosexual Privilege.”

When the Sexual Fence is Removed

The idea of sexual activity being limited to marriage, always defined as male-female, has been a fence erected in all civilizations around the globe. Throughout history, many people have climbed over the fence, engaging in premarital, extramarital and homosexual sex. Still, the fence stands; the limits are visible to all. Climbing over the fence, metaphorically, has always been recognized as a breach of those limits, even by the breachers themselves. No civilization can retain its vitality for multiple generations after removing the fence.

John R. Diggs, Jr., M.D., “The Health Risks of Gay Sex,” Corporate Research Council paper

Financing AIDS Detracts From More Important Issues

The impact of the health consequences of gay sex is not confined to homosexual practitioners. Even though nearly 11 million people in America are directly affected by cancer, compared to slightly more than three-quarters of a million with AIDS, AIDS spending per patient is more than seven times that for cancer. The inequity for diabetes and heart disease is even more striking. Consequently, the disproportionate amount of money spent on AIDS detracts from research into cures for diseases that affect more people.

John R. Diggs, Jr., M.D., “The Health Risks of Gay Sex,” Corporate Research Council paper

Encouraging Risky Sexual Behavior Is Unethical

Encouraging people to engage in risky sexual behavior undermines good health and can result in a shortened life span. Yet that is exactly what employers and government entities are doing when they grant GLB couples benefits or status that make GLB relationships appear more socially acceptable.

John R. Diggs, Jr., M.D., “The Health Risks of Gay Sex,” Corporate Research Council paper.

Spousal Benefits Should Be Reserved for REAL Marriage

The continued extension of spousal benefits to domestic partners further erodes the status and practice of marriage, ultimately reducing the well-being of children, increasing taxpayer costs, and retarding workforce productivity and economic progress. Domestic partnership benefits do not fulfill a large, unmet social need, but instead operate primarily on the symbolic level, as a signal that these relationships are marriage equivalents. …

Given the powerful advantages of marriage in protecting the well-being of children and the productivity of adults, responsible executives should be reluctant to embrace policies that suggest or imply to workers, their lovers, or their children that cohabitation is the functional equivalent of marriage, or that children do not really need both mothers and fathers.

Maggie Gallagher, “Why Supporting Marriage Makes Business Sense.”  Corporate Research Council paper.

Cohabitation Is Not Like Marriage

Living together is not just like marriage because marriage is not just a piece of paper. Marriage is a powerful social institution that changes the way adults behave towards each other and their children.  But institutions have this power only when their boundaries are protected. If society begins to treat other relationships as the equivalent of marriage, marriage loses some of it social power, especially the power to signal to young people and prospective parents that this particular kind of relationship—a lifelong legal and public commitment joining mothers and fathers in one family unit—is the most socially responsible and desirable context for having children.

Maggie Gallagher, “Why Supporting Marriage Makes Business Sense.”  Corporate Research Council paper.