One of the trickiest parts of writing this particular article was finding a title that fitted what I intended to say. I’m not convinced that what I’ve gone for is right, but I can’t think of anything else!
I read a post earlier that left me baffled. I couldn’t understand what the author was aiming for, and I wanted to reply directly, but comments are disabled on their site, so there was no possibility of this. Instead, I make my reply here, and who knows, maybe they will see it. I don’t know whether they will appreciate it, but it is worth a try.
Anderson Cooper, a open homosexual, grilled the twice-married, alleged conservative Miss Pamela Bondi after the Orlando shootings. The interchange is a great example of conservative failings and total paralysis in the face of the “gay” agenda.
Miss Bondi had argued in court, correctly, that if people of the same sex were given the “right” to contract their faux-marriages, then it would do harm to the people of the state of Florida. In the wake of the Orlando shootings, Miss Bondi was totally unable to defend her position:
“Are you saying you do not believe it [gay “marriage”] would do harm to Florida?”
“Of course not, of course not,” Bondi replied. “Gay people — no, I’ve never said that. Those words have never come out of my mouth.”
“But that,” Cooper responded in an increasingly tense exchange, “is specifically what you argued in court.”
Miss Bondi, reduced to a nonsensical fool by her cowardice.
Conservatives are terrified to speak the truth. While I have said, and continue to say, that this is a terrible tragedy, there is no way I am going to profess solidarity with the “LGBT” community, or suggest that in any way they are right. Of course they are wrong. Of course these men and women who died were engaged in self-destructive, sinful behavior. “Gay people” aren’t a class that needs to be protected, they are sodomites who need help.
It is my view that it was not homosexuality or gay marriage that brought harm to the people of Orlando, but rather, the indoctrination of men and women into hating something that offers no harm to them whatsoever. The rhetoric here is toned down but still very much present – the talk of sin and sodomy the sort of language that will easily enflame passions and crowds.
There is more.
Another article I saw said that the shooter was set off by seeing two men kissing. It was love, said the article, that led to the shooting. No, no, no. The people in that club were almost all looking for sexual partners to bring home. They were looking for people to help commit their act of sodomy. Sodomy isn’t love. It isn’t for heterosexuals, and it isn’t for homosexuals.
I have to wonder what business it is of the author (and indeed, of any of us) what goes on in private between two consenting adults. For that matter, I have to question how the author can pass judgement on the behaviour of the people in Pulse. Unless they have actually been there, they cannot judge.
Besides, whether heterosexual or anything else, if people want to meet up in a club or a bar and then decide for no-strings-attached fun, so what? If no one gets hurt, then what business is it of the rest of us?
The article continues.
Smashing your erection into someone’s colon is hate. Volunteering for such an act is self-hate. Nothing about it is good. Nothing about it is holy. Speaking directly, as I am, is not hate but love. I want nothing less than the good of these people.
Out of love, I wish “gays” would leave behind their frenetic sexual escapades and come home to the Catholic Church. I wish they would experience the joy of confession and repentance. I wish they would go to Heaven after their journey in this world. That’s love.
The language here is what encourages hate. By using such terms the author only fuels the idea that homosexuals are misguided souls who carry out disgusting acts, instead of simply being people, who happen to prefer people of the same sex to settle down with, without religious interference in their lives. It is this sort of rhetoric (I hate to overuse the word but it fits) that needs to be opposed, not the idea of two people who are in love wanting to live their lives in peace.