Gay Marriage
Former Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-Ariz.) said Sunday that the expansion of state laws allowing gay marriage could lead to people marrying horses.
Hayworth, during an interview with an Orlando, Fla., radio station explained: “You see, the Massachusetts Supreme Court, when it started this move toward same-sex marriage, actually defined marriage - now get this - it defined marriage as simply, ‘the establishment of intimacy.’”
“Now how dangerous is that?” asked Hayworth, who is challenging Sen. John McCain from the right in Arizona’s GOP Senate primary.
“I mean, I don’t mean to be absurd about it, but I guess I can make the point of absurdity with an absurd point,” he continued. “I guess that would mean if you really had affection for your horse, I guess you could marry your horse.”
J.D. Hayworth: ‘You could marry your horse’
Uh huh.
Remember when ahem…not so “Gay” youth advocates called it a landmark victory for campus gender expression when a transgender student ran for prom royalty?
Prom royalty?
Does that not go off the rails.
Welcome to the muddled and baffled world of late twentieth-century gender politics.
Shams are spreading throughout this globe at the speed of light.
Well guess what.
Recognizing that one is a man or woman and knowing how you are at variance physically and psychologically from the other sex is good.
Healthy, good and….um…normal.
That’s right. I said “normal.”
You do remember that dontcha Libs?
Don’t answer that.
Ooops. I made a value judgement. That was just so un-PC of me.
All this courtesy of the voices of the life-denying Leftards, my friends, who feel right at home with the life-denying Islamorobot-Killers of Death and destruction.
Given all the PC rubbish flung at kids and young teens, it’s a marvel they aren’t all manifestly bewildered about their “gender identity.”
The fact is that that many men living in this radical feminist culture feel confused about who they are as men.
Girls are spoon fed that their “self esteem” emanates from weighing less than 90 lbs and dressing like whores.
But…Gender uncertaintly contributes to the Rad Libs’ goals of social and political reform…or should I say revolution..
Watch out..incest is the next sin ..taboo..to go.
Women choosing to marry and become “stay at home moms”, (the new acceptable term for “housewife”)…can’t be celebrated as unique to the female gender….No.
Of course no one on the Leftard PC payroll will admit this Truth:
about….er………Sexual Identity Confusion.
Responses to Sexual Abuse:
Boys, like girls, usually respond to abuse with sexualization (cross-dressing, etc.)
Sexually abused boys later have greater sexual identity confusion and increased likelihood of homosexuality.
Victims, even at a young age, tend to show considerable concern over their gender identity.
Some research shows that boys who were sexually molested by older men were four times more likely to be engaged in homosexual activity than non-victims.
General Initial Effects of Sexual Abuse
1-Confusion or anxiety over sexual identity
2-Inappropriate attempts to reassert masculinity
3-Recapitulation of the victimizing experience
Boys may react differently to sexual abuse.
Boys may have a greater tendency to “act out” (externalize) their emotional with disruptive behaviors.
Effects of Sexual Abuse
Girls may have a greater tendency to “act in” (internalize) and become anxious or depressed.
Another dirty lil secret the PC Machine doesn’t want you to know.
It is more likely that the family where the boy is being abused will not be headed by a father.
(Watkins, B. & Bentovim, A. (1992). The sexual abuse of the male children and adolescents: a review of current research. Journal of Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry, 33(10), 197-248.)
Libs can hardly bottle their utter disdain of what our country really stands for,.. its religious history along with all its morals and tradtional values.
Just another example of the “repeat until true” subjectivism unbridled today.
Now class, write this on the chalkboard 100 times:
Dudes are chicks and Chicks are dudes.
My unsoliticed advice?
Never put both feet in your mouth at the same time, because then you don’t have a leg to stand on.
March 15th, 2010 at 2:19 pm
There’s a lot of depth in a few short sentences: Gender confusion is highly likely as a result of sexual abuse.
And…if abused boys, now exhibiting homosexual behavior “act out,” then we have more likelihood of more abused boys, with then a high probability of more “confused” young men.
It seems like this would be an issue worth solving, to prevent the sexual abuse of children, wouldn’t it? Yes, but then you’re have a linkage to “alternate lifestyle” as a result of sexual abuse, and that would be so Un-PC, since they are “born that way.”
Don’t worry, soon they will have “Hate Registries” for those who would dare to say “HELLO! WE HAVE A PROBLEM HERE AND WE CAN STOP IT!” After all, if you’re a hater, you should be denied housing and employment, just to make sure your obvious anger isn’t manifested later in life, as they can’t project the correlation between abuse and homosexuality, but they certainly can project your disagreement will, most certainly resulting you becoming violent one day.
March 15th, 2010 at 5:51 pm
I’ve very old fashion about gays(I hate that stolen word and would rather use fag, or queer), at any rate to those who say this perversion is inherited, that would be great in that over the next few generation that breed that can’t or won’t reproduce will die out. Wait if that’s the case they would already be extinct, so it must be a learned behavior!
March 15th, 2010 at 7:22 pm
I have nothing against gays, and nothing against partnerships. I do have a big time problem with a certain queer segment indoctrinating our children and shoving every perversion in our faces.
This is about taking what virtually every culture has considered perversion and mainstreaming it. It’s sickening…
March 15th, 2010 at 8:42 pm
So you mean to tell me Mr. Ed the talking horse is on Match.com… under what category????
So in a perfect world of 1960-70 T.V. stars, Flipper and Lassie would now be permitted to date their owners????
Maybe it is just me….but a King Kong or Godzilla wedding would just be so wrong…..
March 15th, 2010 at 8:48 pm
“Dudes are chicks and Chicks are dudes.”
Angel, you have nailed it yet again, and at the same time, pointed out some of the VERY un-PC truths that the left would prefer we not discuss. Thanks, and well done!
March 15th, 2010 at 11:27 pm
Angel, excellent and courageous post. I admire your honesty in these days of radical left and gay bullying and crime over gay issues.
Men are men and women are women and thank God for the difference. There is nothing “gay” about homosexuality and there is no justice in forcing abominations and acceptance of them on decent people, especially our children.
March 16th, 2010 at 2:11 am
I do not recognize the word GAY and do not use it very often. The meaning was swiped and perverted. I agree with Ron about this. Queer, faggot, candy ass, homosexual, dyke, lesbian, etc are the words that I use. Plus I just don’t giive a damn if i am politically INCORRECT and people see me as a racist or whatever. At one time or another I have discriminated against everything, race, religion, myself. Pretty simple to figure out;Men are men and Women are women. Simple that is except to the libtards, Politicall correct, diversified and let’s not forget multicultural.
March 16th, 2010 at 7:47 am
This legal recognition of gay marriage has been a long time coming.
I remember the day when no gay activists promoted marriage.
I also add that it is now the in thing to say that one is gay in some high schools. In fact, I recall the high school nearest me starting a Gay & Lesbian Club back in the late 1970s.
March 16th, 2010 at 8:34 am
“You see, the Massachusetts Supreme Court, when it started this move toward same-sex marriage, actually defined marriage - now get this - it defined marriage as simply, ‘the establishment of intimacy.’”
That point made by Hayworth brings up something else which is adverse to American society , embraced under Sharia (moslem) law and never addressed in this controversy, that of Polygamy.
As Angel and Hayworth allude to, you open these doors and might as well open Pandoras Box.
March 16th, 2010 at 9:18 am
Establishment of intimacy equals marriage?
Huh?
That makes no sense whatsoever.
March 16th, 2010 at 11:21 am
Brooke,
Those are the liberal code words for anything goes, to and including pedophilia.
March 16th, 2010 at 11:59 am
Hayworth’s comment is not absurd. He has a real point. We can’t guarantee what comes next. We already have an Obamabot Czar wanting to give our pets the right to sue humans.
We are naive to think there are not those out there waiting to move their man-sized monkey into the bedroom - oh yeah, that’s already happened. Remember the woman who got her face torn off by another woman’s ape - wearing diapers and sleeping in the same bed?
March 16th, 2010 at 4:28 pm
What can I say — you made me smile with this post…:-) —
Hayworth is usually right on–too…as are you…thank you - my fellow ‘warrior’…
C-CS
March 16th, 2010 at 5:14 pm
Hey Angel, like I have always said, “God made Adam and Eve. NOT-Adam and Steve.” People are just sick. Broke back mountain, heh! Broke back mindset that is sinful. I hate the sin, not the sinner.
Good posting.
March 16th, 2010 at 8:58 pm
Actually, incest is already on its way out as a “taboo”. A recent trend is for brothers and sisters to satisfy themselves sexually with each other. Safe from diseases, no commitment. Marriage to animals can’t be much farther away.
Interesting blog you have here, Angel.
March 17th, 2010 at 9:17 pm
“…the expansion of state laws allowing gay marriage could lead to people marrying horses.”
Well, the homos argue that the horse cannot give consent, which is a valid point. However, the expansion of state laws allowing gay marriage could lead to people marrying their daughters, brothers, fathers mothers and such.
After all, isn’t the logic behind homo marriage simply that two gayboys love each other. Well if two brothers love each other, why can’t they tie the knot.
The possible depravity that’s at the bottom of that slippery slope is too much i feel.
April 15th, 2010 at 8:48 am
I definitely think that having the meaning as the basis will NEVER be solid enough.. there is more to marriage than JUST establishing intimacy…
I believe you have a very weak opening line there, but have somehow establish your point and I do respect that