It is unconscionable to let a court decide matters
which aught to be decided by public opinion. So-
apparently the president doesen´t seem to know what
progress or what democracy are. O.K., these are harsh words, but what I´d like to see is a preceding debate and opinion from various experts, what homosexuality actually is-in essence, you know.
Among other things I myself am an astrologer, and I could hold my own in such a debate by proving how homosexuality mostly is a cultural disease: It has no essence-no inner being, although it can be predicted astrologically:
The likelihood by which a person with a certain horoscope may be homosexual can be explained to
people who know something about astrology.
Whether or not a person actually does become homosexual then depends on if these triggers are
actually triggered: It is just the same as with
cancer. Diagnosable by a competent astrologer
(such as the school of the Munich Rythm theory which has valid theorems for this)-predictable
by means of astrology.But not necessarily a given.
So- by approving of homosexuality just like that,
this would be the same as if I as an astrologer
were to say: Oh yes: That person is almost as
good as dead! Or: Quick-cut those breasts off-
for the love of god! Only a lawyer
could be as naiive to let a court decide such a matter- and thus violate the opinion of others
who may know better:Are lawyers gods?Or is this
Supreme-Court trick -We all remember the Supreme Court decided in favor of Obamacare, and after
that, Mitt Romney was toast-or is this trick
nothing but a form of blatant political fundamentalism?
If someone is homosexual-of course this must be
accepted as well as tolerated. Nevertheless
, this is not a legal, but a spiritual matter.
the very act of intending to decide this by virtue
of legal recognition is very unwise. It is like
saying." O.k.:Usually cars drive on the right side of the road. But guess what: Here´s a bunch of
people who want to drive on the left side of the road: Let´s just have pity on them and allow it."
I´d say: "NO!" to this, because there could be
some serious accidents: For example : A little
boy has two fathers. What the bleep is he to think
of love?If he is normal, he may get used to something which his mind categorizes as: Very
odd.At any rate: He will not be observing a loving relationship between the two sexes, as is needed
in order to function properly as an adult.
So: This is why being against complete recognition
of homosexual marriages and relationships does in
fact make an awful lot of sense.
Unfortunately though, we have a president who talks
with Taliban, encourages homosexuality, and lets
some "Gang" (of eight) hijack the entire discussion
on immigration by writing a huge tome and shove it
down peoples throats: All of this does not make
sense at all. It doesen´t make common sense.
For example: If I were a pedophile, and I went to
the Supreme Court and said:" Honest to god, believe
me-it feels so right to me! Would you please change
the law for me?" Supreme court ought to say say:
" Hell no- maybe you should get your head examined!" The only difference is: With homosexuals
there is mutual consent. For S&M there´s also
mutual consent (remember the song "Feel This Moment"). Are these things normal though?
Do people enjoy spanking each other and tying each
other up every day? Or is such behavior an indication that something may have gone wrong with
that person at some point in their lives?
When things go wrong, and pure and simple love
seems to be out of reach-that is sad. It is also becoming more and more common-place for love to fail in various ways. But to
legally recognize such failure is to encourage
it- and I do not care what on earth the Supreme
Court thinks about this, but the fact is, that
they are plain wrong on this one: Recognition
of homosexual marriage is recognition of the fact
that deviations from now on shall be rewarded:
And that,ladies and gentlemen.CAN ONLY BE WRONG!.