Stop the earth rotating, Superman, there's racism!

Okay, and? 

It's so obvious what the producers tried to do here, and somewhat succeeded. What Would You Do? is an ABC prime time show. It puts people (actors) facing awkward social situations (racism, sexism etc.) that are staged in order to see what the unexpected population do and say. Sometimes the goal (to paint small towns as racist, sexist, homophobic etc.) gets the controversial results; sometimes it doesn't. In this episode an elderly woman expresses why people of different skin color should date and marry people within their own race. I don't necessarily see anything wrong with that - it's somewhat similar to the religious deciding to marry someone with the same faith. It's a reasonable belief.  

Ah! Racists and religion are two sides of the same coin! Nope. To be honest, I don't think the elderly woman or the woman agreeing with are racists.

And the comments on the video. Dear Allah. This is the proof that modernism is absolutely ridiculous.

"I can't believe such a person exists!"

Welcome to the reality of diversity of thought.

I'd rather sit down with that elderly woman, a supposed "outed" racist, while having a cup of hot chocolate than sit down with the cast & crew of WWYD? The look on their faces were priceless.

"Did you catch that Cynthia? Dear Lord I can't believe what's happening."
"Jim, camera 4. Grab a headphone."

Sins and crimes through a modernist lens are, and make sure you write these down:

Racism
Sexism
Homophobia

Are there racists in America? Yes. Are there sexists in America? Yes. Are there homophobes in America? Yes. Were the people who did not approve of interracial dating racists? I say no.

What do you think? Do you think the elderly woman is a racist?

Gay "rights" deep and principled philosophical argument. And more.

I don't go looking for these types of comments. They just come my way as I skim through the combox. There's always at least one poster, with socially liberal leanings of course, that show how they're spoiled and outright bitter (and not for any good reason).

The left's argument, the main points, for saying "yes" to gay "marriage"? It's a right dammit! If people can't marry their own sex - or person of their choosing regardless of sex - then it's a limit on personal freedom!

Then there's the "but we help people" idiot.

"Caring about" -

•  the earth = anti-fracking, global warming, sustainability, solar energy
•  the people = universal healthcare, rise of minimum wage, expansion of welfare system, abortion, gay "marriage", women's "rights", transgender operations
• the future of humanity = all of the above

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

This is the mindset I left a few years ago.

Nasty.

The "family"? Ew! Kids? Disgusting!

Then there's always that one guy.

A youtube commenter said Ted Cruz was  "cretin", and apparently this poster explains her reasons why.

If you use too many facts, real life experiences related to the issue and a little bit of common sense then you're blocked. (I saw no proof of ad homs and insults as the moderator accused poster "Mesar" of.)

 An anti-American and self-loathing Americans find out they're kindred spirits. (I'm not sure what posts Jessie was reading, but a good portion of the comments agreed with the writer.)

The modern liberal mind isn't hard to figure out - you know what they like and what they don't like ... And it's practically the same across the board. Once you have met one modern day liberal you met a good majority of them.

I don't frequent dailycaller.com, but since it was mentioned in the combox by one poster and another calling it a "bubble" (the irony) it ceases to amaze me how unhappy the American left can be. They complain about the same things:

1. Social conservatives & religion - this is the "far right" to them. They always bring up Barry Goldwater to paint social conservatives in a "you were never liked" light.
2. America's healthcare system not being "universal healthcare."
3. How ignorant/stupid Americans are.
4. How fat Americans are.
5. How many Americans don't speak a second language.

American left and American expats love:

1. Europe. (Specifically Western Europe.)
2. Europe's attitude towards sex and drugs.
3. Universal healthcare.
4. How Europeans speak multiple languages.

It's clear that the left wants America to become Western Europe 2.0. If they hate the South, the Midwest, and the suburbs then they're going to seek out greener pastures in America's cities. If their bitterness still resides in them they might even move to Europe, but they will always loathe America for what it is not and what it does not provide. As poster "howerton" expresses he wants non-Americans to constantly tell Americans "the truth" and how much better life is abroad. You heard it from many on the article - America sucks, its people suck and that Western Europe and Australia are immensely more mature, filled with wisdom and sophistication that only American wishes to achieve one day.

Chillingly speaking, it's the opposite of "And be not conformed to this world; but be reformed in the newness of your mind, that you may prove what is the good, and the acceptable, and the perfect will of God."

It's funny that leftists want America to conform to Western Europe "for the better", want the social conservatives to be social outcasts if not their beliefs to "die the way of the dinosaur" all while throwing mantras like "be yourself" and "be a free thinker" and other slogans that promote non-conformity & extreme individualism. They definitely sound like the teenager who's ashamed of their parents for not being "cool."

Fantastic quote about education.

The basis of education is a carefully – that is to say, historically – vetted shelf of books. The mentor need not be better versed in the books than the student. He only needs to be older and wiser and willing to take the lead in active reading.

-  Thomas F. Bertonneau

This was in comment of taking control of the education young adults receive when it came to public (and private) institutions.

Go on youtube. Supporters for same-sex marriage show they're nothing but balls of emotions.

Here.

Here's a bet.

I bet there are more d-bag liberals than actual racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobic, ignorant, war hawk conservatives who fancies their cousin.

Ah, the ever open minded, educated, non-ignorant BosWash corridor. I don't even believe that the TEA Party had a "CONFEDERATE" label before they publicly, and officially, called themselves the TEA Party. The words in caps brings to light the contempt that modern day liberals, if not your garden variety type liberal, have for anyone who don't hold similar political views like them.

TEA = Taxed Enough Already

It's about taxes, but evidently that's a rather hard thing to find out let alone to understand and to sympathize with.

Is it me or do modern day liberals want conservatives to be social outcasts and that they purposefully relish the idea? Though just a story, as told by a man who seemed to enjoy the alienation of his co-worker, that a co-worker of his eating lunch at work with other colleagues. Politics came around and he voiced his views - apparently they were conservative and he was mocked for them. The man telling the story bizarrely enjoyed that the co-worker, who now was humiliated, ate at his desk alone after that incident.

(And to make a point about sex: The word "teabagger" was used by those in the TEA Party, though not all, to describe themselves as supporters of the movement. The name later was spinned to be derogatory in a sexual manner by those who had contempt for the movement. Let's just say "teabagger" wasn't the smartest label to adopt. )

Stuff you find on the internet.

It's always interesting when I either use bing or google to reach sites that I want to read and dig through. I entered "Thinking Housewife" (TH) because I wanted to re-read an entry, saying to myself "Just click on the official site and don't even look at the links below that,"  given pass results.

Well that didn't turn out as planned.

The word "white supremacist" showed up under a site called "pax on both houses." Oddly enough "pax" seems to like Pope Francis as opposed to TH. I then scrolled down to the bottom of the site to see a picture of what I presume is him and some other guy. Now, this "other guy" was sitting rather intimately with "pax", so I took the bait and figured that he was his "partner." I clicked on his profile and then followed a link entitled "Catholicism As if God is Love." That link led to this page. Not too surprising.

Afterthought:

Jesus made no reference to homosexuality or abortion - a peculiar “oversight” for an individual who, according to Christian orthodoxy, participated in the omniscient nature of God. 

Did Yeshua fail to see that homosexuality and abortion would become the signal red button issues of post-Modern Christianity?

And in light of the presumed importance of these two burning issues, why did Yeshua not provide specific guidance?

On the other hand, Jesus did say: “Love your enemies. Do good to those who persecute you."

Literalists!

It's your move.

Are we to lather ourselves over what Jesus did not say?

Or are we to devote ourselves wholeheartedly to what he did say?

And is the former an excuse to avoid the latter?

"Judge not lest you be judged. For with the same measure that you mete out, it shall be meted out to you."

Salvation is in our hands and hinges on whether we make mercy-love the measure of our lives.

I'm not sure if "pax" is a homosexual, I wouldn't be surprised, but I did take away these things that can't be mistaken or assumed: He sounds like a person who uses the Bible, practically uses every other page, to seek out verses that defends the "judge me not" and "make this world a better place" all within the empty mindset of "do good" aka approve of homosexuality, abortion and and other socially liberal and innately immoral "personal" decisions.

Alan [pax]: There are two dogs in this fight.

One is convinced that scripture, doctrine and tradition are supreme.

The other is convinced that acts of love arising from mercy, compassion and forgiveness are supreme.

I suppose most people find themselves in one camp or the other as a result of genetics, conditioning, "cultural momentum" or perceived fidelity to "common sense." 

He quotes Albert Einstein saying common sense is just "a collection of prejudices." His numerous mentions of his subtle irritation for social conservatives, or American conservatives as it sometimes shows up on his blog, is also telling. One would rightly say that I might be of the opposite side of the coin for my numerous mentions and entries about homosexuality, and fair enough, but I definitely have the upper hand because, unlike Alan/pax, I do not desperately find ways to convince myself that homosexuality and same-sex attraction - alongside abortion - is okay simply because it was not mentioned as "wrong" in the Bible. I don't really track down what goes on with the LGBT world, it's just that MSM makes it immensely easy to catch up on whatever story is trending when it comes to such a demographic. What conclude is that it's a bizarre world filled with sadness, bitterness and spiteful (I'll confess I can be rather spiteful as well).

Alan/pax is one of those people, who ironically disdains Bible literalists, becomes a literalist himself in order to A) further and totally misunderstand social conservatives and B) to suck my dick, hold hands with the same-sex (seriously, it ain't cute nor does it warrant an "awww!") and C) wrap himself with a blanket of delusional biblical defenses for same-sex lip locking.

Alan/pax reminds of that one site of a transgender woman who seriously thought Aquinas' Five Ways proved that trasngenderism was totally A-OKAY, and what as legit as the male and female sexes. You know what, forget what Einstein said (I'm surprised he didn't quote Gandhi when it came to war issues). Common sense tells me that it's not legit. It's fucked messed up.

Saving grace about Alan/pax? If he is Catholic, well that's great. But he's a Catholic that, maybe unknowingly, wants to have his cake and eat it too.

Hollywood & Feminism

Now I think this is a cute skit -- I'm not sure if feminists would take that as an insult, if not make that out to be a sexist remark, but you know what? Fuck feminism.

Everything was going fine until this part -

"Such a plain cup, for such a pretty lady ... "
Lashes whip at knight.
"Man, I'm a respected professor of archaeology! Times have changed."
"I'm sorry! I meant it as a compliment."
"I have degrees. Have you ever been to college?"
"No, just 'knight' school."

Modernism is truly vacuous.

The problem with push-over-Christians and secularists is that they think everyone else who is serious *ahem actually adheres to* about their faith is a "fundie." Other wives aren't so fond of Thinking Housewife.

It's a rather simple mind that the modernist has.

Don't support same-sex "marriage"? Bigot. Homophobe.
Think women & men are innately and fundamentally different? Sexist. Backwards.
Think women should bare part of the responsibility when they are "raped"? Sexist.
Think that today's culture of sex & sexuality degrades the body, mind and soul? Prude.
Express non-"progressive" or non-left leaning libertarian ideas? Narrow-minded.

It's as easy as that. There is barely any complexity when it comes to most modern thought.

Accurate beyond belief.

This excerpt from an article written by Peter Hitchens is how I felt when I subscribed to liberal views during my teenage years. I get that this same snobbery is alive & well in other liberals.

The liberal mindset isn't hard to figure out when it comes to their impressions of non-urban places and non-progressives. I'll list them.

• The military is for the stupid. Soldiers, Marines, Airmen and Coasties can't think for themselves. They're the epitome of the "yes" man, taking orders, never questioning them.
•  The military is the mafia for the greedy business and oil men. The reason why wars start is for profit - military personnel are killers, killing innocent civilians and mistaking people who defend their country as "the bad guys." They are the henchmen for the CEOs.
• Rural places are devoid of culture, filled with narrow-minded people. These people are called rednecks, hicks or townies. 
• Rural places are filled with ignorant people, racist people, sexist people and homophobic people. 
• State universities, for the most part, are people who weren't smart enough to get into the Ivies, a top private or an elite LAC. Don't even mention community college.
• People in rural places drive trucks. Lamborghini they are not.
• Those in rural places and suburbs shop at malls and where clothes that are devoid of uniqueness. These malls are also filled with moms and dads with strollers, screaming kids and annoying teenagers.
• Suburban teenagers have no fashion sense. They dress in Ugg boots, North Face jackets and crowd Starbucks. They then attend a sate university and move to the city to be known as a "Chad & Trixie."
• Rural and suburbs tend to favor sports as a way of entertainment. Sports mostly appeals to the unsophisticated; soccer/football is the exception because Europe likes it. Soccer/football is the one sport that open-minded and intelligent crowd prefer unlike the brain bashing American football.
• Suburbs is a soulless place. Same architecture in the more newly developed divisions. 
• The suburbs is car centric with little options for quality stores. Target, Walmart and K-mart are looked at as places where you can find the ever popular overtly patriotic, heavy weight and dimwitted American.
• Many of those who work in the suburbs work 9-5 jobs, doing boring soul sucking tasks. For example, car insurance, retail, food services etc.These are uncreative jobs, if not dead end.
• If you work a corporate job aka cubicle farm worker then your the second best example of the "yes" man.
• The suburbs is the sign of dead dreams: Married with children. Instead of trips to Paris and canoeing in Canada's lakes, it's trips to Disney World and cross-country minivan trips to The World's Largest Yarn Ball.

If anyone cares to disagree, there's the comment section. I'd be more than happy to discuss this entry.

New link added to the list.

Thinking Housewife.

She's critical of Pope Francis. That's good, if not great.

Behind the emotional mantras, the protests and the "bravery"

lies confusion, mediocrity and nothingness.

Americans need to prepare for the same sort of surveillance-society in America if the Supreme Court rules to ban marriage as a male-female institution. It means that no matter what you believe, the government will be free to regulate your speech, your writing, your associations, and whether or not you may express your conscience. Americans also need to understand that the endgame for some in the LGBT rights movement involves centralized state power—and the end of First Amendment freedoms.

Full article here.

If I were in Canada this blog would've been reported, I'd be taken to court, my room searched for any "offensive" things towards the LGBT, be fined thousands of dollars into debt and later be sent to sensitivity training.

Your "love" is not love. You want the truth about your wuv? Perversion is perversion.

Perversion is perversion.

I'll reiterate. Perversion is perversion.

It's fucked up and it will be the thin side of the wedge that will ultimately make Western civilization into one homogenous "World Union." I saw it when I saw two homosexuals walking hand in hand in matching creme colored Irish sweaters (the irony), as they raised their heads to take in the urban view in Times Square. (But seriously it was a bizarre sight to behold.) I saw it at a musical where the couple sitting next to me consisted of one (real) woman and ... another woman clearly thinking she's boy. Who was the one cuddling and rubbing the inner thigh of the partner? The (real) woman. The "boy" just sat there taking it and didn't even offer any gesture on the same level of affection towards the partner. I saw it when two hand holding "underground" scene punks of the same sex were walking ahead of me - nails painted, tank wearing with black military boots.

You only win because relativism, laziness of thought and amorality is the easy thing to subscribe to today.

You only win because the humanities & social sciences in academia have been dominated by culture revolutionists.

You only win because the entertainment world feeds on the naive. You need Ellen Degeneres and Neil Patrick Harris to act as models for same-sex "marriage." You need Jesse Tyler Ferguson to visit my state to persuade senators to approve your "right." You need the degenerates of the entertainment world to say "A-OKAY in my book! I smoke marijuana as well!" to help push the tide.

You only win because you want to make orthodox faith into liberal Christianity and count on secular Jews to bat on your behalf.

You only win because your mental insecurity and fragility urges the government to play Thought & Word Police.

You only win because the media is home to the very same people that took over academia and entertainment.

You need kids & teenagers, young and inexperienced to not really know any better, to bat on your behalf.

You need all of the mentioned help because your "love" couldn't survive on its own. Literally and hypothetically.

As Thinking Housewife puts it (italics is my emphasis)- 

THE U.S. SUPREME COURT will very likely rule in June that the preposterous invention known as “gay marriage” must be recognized in all states, even states that have laws against it. The court is hearing arguments in the matter this month. If the highest court were to rule that all people must declare the earth is flat, and must act as if the earth is flat, it would be no more absurd. There is no such thing as “gay marriage.” There never will be any such thing as “gay marriage.” It doesn’t exist no matter how many lawyers say it does or how many people act as if it does or how many newspapers produce maudlin stories of loving “couples,” whose existence would not be valid without phony marriage certificates and mock weddings.

You need a wide open highway because the conventions, social norms and taboos born out of said cultural products of the (near) past did not allow you to build a future of nothingness. So you need them to either be ridden underground, to die or to be quarantined and monitored. Like a severely insecure young woman who not only gets a rhinoplasty but lip injections, eye lifts and breast implants alongside a couple of tattoos, you can only feel "safe" under the "new normal."

Signed,
GRA
Ex-SS"M" supporter

You won't lead the way.

Over at orthosphere.org contributor Bolland has written a good article (which was inspired by the thoughts in this post) about the site's place amongst other right-o-sphere blogs.

When last I tried to distinguish the Orthosphere with respect to other clusters on the Right, I appealed to what I take to be our defining principles, especially

1. moral community (the social authority of God; rejection of official neutrality)
2. given meanings (an understanding of natural law and tradition)
3. loyalty to the particular (legitimacy of local, national, cultural, and ethnic loyalties)

(See the linked post for an explanation of these points.)

That’s what we are.  It tells us what kind of basic unity we do or don’t have with other groups.
The first principle is our point of overlap with the Catholic Integralists, a group united around the Social Kingship of Christ.  It rejects liberalism’s core principle, affirming the need for an established Church without saying exactly which church that should be.  Naturally, there would be some disagreement about that among us, but no one is hiding his opinion, and we all agree that establishing even a rival Christian church would be far preferable to a secular establishment.  Thus Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, and Calvinists can be at home in the Orthosphere; I’m not sure about Baptists.  Classical liberals from all denominations will find themselves in foreign territory.

Okay, I'm following you. I agree for  the most part.

The second principle is, I think our most distinctive one.  One can see its style of thinking even in the early days of View from the Right, and I made it the focal point of Throne and Altar from the beginning.  Many defenses of “traditionalism” involve appeals to the complexity of society and the frailty of reason, or when the meaning traditional morality brings to its practitioners’ lives is acknowledged, this is regarded as a psychological trick, an illusion (albeit a socially necessary one), which can only work to the extent that it is misunderstood.  We must be vigilant in distinguishing ourselves from these lines of thought.  It’s not that pragmatic and functionalist analyses can’t yield valid insights; they often do.  The danger is that our position, being more subtle, can easily be misread by readers expecting the usual defenses of “traditional morality”.

I'm still with you, and interesting thoughts.

Then he became borderline mentally handicapped.

This is the main reason we cannot subordinate ourselves to the neoreactionaries by granting flagship status to their publication Social Matter.  People are already inclined to assume we share their functionalist premises, and failing to make it clear that we are not neoreactionaries would make that danger worse.  One can still acknowledge Mark’s point that we could do a better job working together with our allies and pooling intellectual resources.  And, of course, why not draw attention to quality Social Matter articles when appropriate?

Bolland seems incapable of understanding that, though Social Matter is quite a different site from Orthosphere in its focus and its tone (much  less philosophical and esoteric than Ortho), it's ultimately - to me - an "ally" when looking at modernism with a critical eye. I do not defend whatever weaknesses the site has, but since it covers a wide variety of criticism on modernity (feminism, social media, the role of humanities in higher education) I do not dismiss it. These things are very important to discuss because they are ultimately the lefts way of "getting to" the masses. As someone under the age of 35 social media is the highway that the left uses to gain support and to change whatever controversial reputation into a sterling one, if you're picked to be that narrative. The left practically owns academia. What does the right dominate at? I can't name one thing, honestly. Sure there are podcasts, radio and the blogging world, but these alternatives don't hold a candle to the mammoths that is academia, social media and (not listed) entertainment.

 If there are four wheels to a car, I'd consider both mentioned sites as one of the wheels. Bolland wants Ortho to be in the driver's seat - the leader, the flagship - that when people look back on on what poked the balloon of modernity they'd point to Ortho. As someone who has more so observed the right-o-sphere blogs than actual contributor, I'd say that's a bit arrogant and laughable to even want. The self-importance is a complete turn-off.

I have an ever growing list of links on the right side of my page. It's a mixture of blogs critical of what is insidiously (and not so-insidiously) making home in the minds and therefore the homes of the American populace. I see no reason to subject any blog that is listed as a subordinate to another since each one lacks something another can offer. I might even include white nationalists/pagan/atheistic blogs (who, from my readings, absolutely do not like traditional Christianity) because I see they make decent enough articles against modernity and feminism. I'm not even white. I'll even admit that, as some articles point out, modern Christianity is rather wimpish (see: doormat Catholics at CAF and, to an extent, Pope Francis) and its acceptance of feminism is making it eat its own ass (see: liberal Christianity).

Bolland wants Ortho to be the LeBron James or the Derrick Rose or the Patrick Kane of the right-o-sphere. It can't. It doesn't have the ability. It is a very good sight, it's just the nature that is blogging really doesn't allow for an "it" type of player. Now there's Roosh V for the "game & anti-feminism" corner of the right-o-sphere and I'd consider his site the "it" player for that certain mindset, but that mindset is ultimately simplistic and attracts the bitter loser in almost any male. (I appreciate that he points out that females can be as big of a horny, greedy douche(ttes) like males -- in that way they're equal. I also appreciate that he brings some confidence to the truly pathetic male losers whose only social outing is some strategic card game at some convention.) Roosh V's target area and, um, "specialty" makes it easy for him to be the "it" player. Commenting in favor of traditional morals, Christianity and traditional male masculinity and urging females to embrace innate femininity? That's a much larger task filled with backlash and alienation from secular types, of all political persuasion, and ultimately modernity itself. You can't have an "it" player in this case - you need a committee that attacks the beast at various angles. Sort of like this video.

Because Tumblr says so!

I typed in "tumblr" in google in order access my page so I could update it for Memorial Day, and the headline link for the site was this. Now all the twits will probably use this in their Phd dissertation concerning sexism.

Yes, I took the bait.

Pet them, for they are soft rabbits.

Dear Allah, even if you show a bit of criticism the nails come out.

My own impression -

"Intersectionalism is very important, you know! It's absolutely critically to fully understand where the LGBT youth come from as we diagnose and evaluate their living, health and mental conditions!"

Revisiting my "crush" for Kurt Vonnegut.

His works just don't have the same appeal to me as in the past when I was at the ages of 11 to 13. He's not a poor writer by any means, and I don't think there's a "bad" book in his catalog. The main gripe I have of him is how childish and juvenile his observations can be. He just comes across as a man who is mad at the world because things aren't all flowers and rainbows and people may not like each other. Despite the heavy issues that are tackled within the pages of his books it just ends up being a "light" read. In a way, I have outgrown Vonnegut.

Only certain thoughts, please.

Rated R for very offensive and crude language.

I wanted to read the infamous article that Vice co-founder, Gavin McInnis, wrote for Thought Catalog on transexuals. This was the result. Yes, this is like the NC-17 movie rating of the journalistic world.

WARNING: THIS IS EXTREMELY HATEFUL. GATHER BUNNIES AND PUPPIES AROUND TO EASE YOUR CRYING.

There's a teen tiny "continue" button on the very bottom of the page that leads to the actual article. You may miss it after the huge font size of the warning. If I could change the warning what would I write?

WARNING: WILL BUST THE NUT AND VAGINA OF SOCIAL JUSTICE TERRORISTS. WILL MAKE LESBIANS & FEMALE BISEXUALS TAKE ON 12 INCH BLACK DILDOS. WILL MAKE HOMOSEXUALS AND BISEXUAL MEN DIG THEIR PENISES DEEPER INTO THEIR PARTNER'S ANUS. HILARITY WILL ENSUE AS YOU SOAK IN THE COMMENTARY.

Apparently this article led to his indefinite leave from Rooster Advertising (RA) and its closing, which he founded. The blog portion of RA's site seemed to have stop updating in August 2014, the time when heat was put under McInnis and his business.

Modernists have no issue on showing gratuitous sex scenes, nudity, full frontal nudity, same-sex love making and romances on screen, have no problem with porn and have no problem with foul language when used as everyday communication. They do have an issue if you hurt ones feelings, especially the LGBT community.

"But the Church has no men with balls"

I'd say there's too few men with real balls.

"I'm in a committed relationship."

Every time someone who's in a same-sex relationship says this I'm like, "And?"

Of course, like an eager student seeing their chances to get into an elite college, they show "the numbers."

"We've been together for 14 years," versus the student's, "I got a 33 on my ACT. Do you think that makes me competitive to get into Amherst?"

Now, this "been together for X years," is really an appeal to "We deserve gay 'marriage' aka civil marriage."

Look, I'm not going to say "That's really cute. Good for the both of you!" or "That's admirable." Why? Because I don't think it's cute nor do I think it's admirable. I think you two look bizarre "together" and when you make "love" you have a higher chance of blowing your anal cavity than I do pushing out brick hard stool. As for the ladies, well, you grinding your vaginas together is just plain weird. I bet if your uterus & vagina could speak they would be saying, in unison, "Da fuq?"

I mean, it's coming to a point where I can't but laugh when two non-straight people hold their hands, in the air, together in triumph.

I'm sorry ... No, no, I'm not sorry.

As expected, with predictable quotes.

By a landslide, gay "marriage" is made legal in Ireland. Ireland is the first European country to vote into gay "marriage" by popular vote. 62.1% voted "yes."

A few interesting quotes from the article.

"We're the first country in the world to enshrine marriage equality in our constitution and do so by popular mandate. That makes us a beacon, a light to the rest of the world, of liberty and equality. So it's a very proud day to be Irish," said Leo Varadkar, a Cabinet minister who came out as gay at the start of a government-led effort to amend Ireland's conservative Catholic constitution.

"People from the LGBT community in Ireland are a minority. But with our parents, our families, or friends and co-workers and colleagues, we're a majority," said Varadkar, who watched the votes being tabulated at the County Dublin ballot center.

"For me it wasn't just a referendum. It was more like a social revolution," he added.

According to the article, no Irish political party backed the "no"s. Only conservative think tank Iona Institute did.

Here's the most interesting quote, coming at the end.

John Lyons, one of just four openly gay lawmakers in the 166-member parliament, waved the rainbow flag of the Gay Pride movement in the Dublin City counting center and cried a few tears of joy. He paid special credit to the mobilization of younger voters, many of whom traveled home from work or studies abroad to vote.

"Most of the young people I canvassed with have never knocked on a door in their lives," Lyons said. "This says something about modern Ireland. Let's never underestimate the electorate or what they think."

The youth of Ireland all of a sudden became overwhelmed by their duty to vote and to canvass ... For marriage "equality." Not for Ireland's economy. Not for Ireland's education system. Not for its cities' infrastructure. But for gay "marriage." How does gay "marriage" positively moves the country forward? You'd have to ask the youth of Ireland. Maybe if there are enough rainbows, they'll be enough leprechauns at the end with their pot of gold, and then maybe all those pots of gold will be taken to the bank of Ireland and it will boost the country's economy. Or not.

As supporters of gay "marriage" have admitted -

You head it. Gay "marriage" is another flavor in the "love is love" world - so what's the deal with the opposition? Everything will turn out fine. The ever so reliable "DaddyGirl" from Catholic Answers mustn't be aware of all the "you're a bigot" and "full of hate" accusations when people say they only support & believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. If popular culture cares so much for this issue then it must be important, right? If people in the arts & entertainment are so vocal about it then the masses should pay attention, right? If all these groups back and support a certain social issue, as the reasoning goes, then the Catholic Church should pay attention and maybe even reconsider its stance if the stance opposes. After all, a bunch of naive teenagers, religiously lazy, non-believers, people who play pretend for a living, people who smoke marijuana, do coke lines every one a month (responsibly, of course in a safe environment) and where the industry (movies, fashion, music) is pro-gay "rights" innately should show the Catholic Church how it can be "up-to-date." Swap that 2005 PC with that new iPhone. It's right thing to do, the just thing to do. C'mon now, the times are changing and there's nothing you can do about it (unless you're a social "progressive" then the momentum is on your side).

It's not like these two posters represent the entire demographic that supports such an a bizarre concept that is two people of the same-sex "marrying" (and if you see from the Fox News article, why the heck is at least one guy of the two buff and wearing the very "in" urban pomp and short sleeve button down? -- like all the time), but their arguments pretty much sum up the general mentality that pushes their reasoning.

And dear Ms. Knight -

There's so much stupidity in this I'm not sure where to begin. It is much easier to be a non-social conservative because you, honestly, don't have to think much. I'm including so-called libertarians to the "stupid club" because I haven't heard much variance in their support for same-sex "marriage" compared to modern day liberal.

Not really surprised that Atlhouse is happy with the result.

True words.

Who are the hateful ones, again?

Then you got the absurd showing up.

There's the extremely absurd.

One gay "rights" supporter is relishing the disappointment by the opposition.

I'll balance that off with this.

And finally, someone from Europe (England to be exact) telling those who subscribe to the belief that same-sex acts aren't all that grand how they're seen in the eyes of the "modern" -

Next up: The United States of America. By fiat. In June.

Note: I'll predict it now. More of the "absurds" and "Marks" will show up on non-progressive sites to gloat. They will throw their arms into the air with joy as the opposition expresses their disappointment.

Big Gay Inc. & The Media

Over at Crude Ideas there's a video concerning Ted Cruz and his irritation on answering questions relating to homosexuals. It's smart of Cruz to clarify that he allows such questions to be asked, but he also points out the media's obsession with gay "rights" and its insistence on grilling politicians who may not support these so-called "rights."

What irritates me, as someone who isn't a politician or someone has never held any government position that represented group of people, I will say that Cruz makes a good point. Given that Ireland (as previously stated in an earlier post) will be voting on same-sex "marriage" come the 25 of May, 2015, these questions will only become more prominent and the LGBT supporters will be even more hungry to expose "bigots." As I mentioned, I'd be surprised if the referendum doesn't pass. The only issue I have with Cruz' answer, as a Christian, is "Scripture tells use to love everybody." That's too much of a wide answer. Many 'progressive' Christians and secular types hold this as a "Vote yes for same-sex marriage." Such Christians don't want to be "mean" or to "non-Christian." Well, with that logic, carrying to its fullest practice,  they must be very proud of their daughter who becomes a porn star; I can go as far and say that not supporting the legalization of prostitution is the same as not supporting same-sex "marriage." I can also say that prostitutes have more ground to be deemed second-class citizens than those with same-sex attraction.

Oh, the reporter was totally planted there by LGBT activists to ask Cruz (and any non Democrat politicians) such questions. Truly, gay "right" supporters belong to a psychological fucked up cult-like group.

If you do not support gay "marriage," think same-sex relationships are anything but normal and healthy, and think that adoption by such people shouldn't be allowed you're automatically though of as having "animosity towards homosexuals," as said by the journalist. It's a downright horrid accusation that is bereft with any thought and reflection. It's based mostly on emotions (that's how the left works: Grade A Emotions, only at $2.19 per gallon). To accuse people of "animosity" is to shutdown discussion. It's like this -

"I don't think 'marriages' between two people of the same-sex is a real marriage."
"Well it's legal in this state so it doesn't matter what you think."
"So if it's legal then it's topic that doesn't deserve to be critical off? Ten years ago it wasn't legal, now it is. Can't it work the other way around as well?"
"You know what, you're just a bigot. Gays don't effect you."
"They do, actually. They have probably the most fervent "right" supports that I've come across in my short life. In fact, you calling me a bigot tells me how gays effect me. I can say that's beyond a micro-aggression."
"So you want them to be in the closet, to be ashamed of their true selves? You think they're second-class citizens?"
"I think they should tell their family and close friends. Not the world. I'm not going to play kindergarten teacher and pass out self-esteem cards to them. Homosexuals aren't second-class citizens just because they can't get married, yet, to the person of their choice or adopt nationwide. Making such things legal won't make them first-class citizens because they were never second. In fact, it'll make them and their supporters even more obnoxious and indignant. Just you wait. That doesn't say 'relieved.' It says 'brat,' and 'narcissistic.'"
"You're a hateful human being, you know that?"

Same-sex relationships aren't equal to opposite sex couples. It doesn't matter if the government says so.
Kids raised in same-sex households don't have equal childhoods to those with opposite sex parents. It doesn't matter what academic studies say because they'll rule in favor.

As long as there are people who hold these beliefs, Big Gay Inc. will not stop. They want to snuff, to track and to ruin anyone that offends them. We (I)  dealing with an insidious creature born out of a disorder. It is innately cruel and narrow-minded. It will forever, in its own mind, be a victim, even when it wins (by the stupidity of the people, if not by fiat).

"It's those rich 1%ers, man."

I went to the local food market to get cheese for the pizza I was making for dinner. As I walked out of the market there were a couple of employees being lightly chastised by their boss for not putting the carts away fast enough. A man ahead of me over heard the total conversation. As he  loaded his truck with his bought items, I caught his eye and he told me what had happened; I told him I was in a similar position when I worked at a zoo. Then the conversation became interesting. It went something like this.

"I make neon lights with my hands. When I go home I still work because you need to get ahead of the game in this design business," he said. "I had a coworker get yelled at because he wasn't doing his work. Man, the boss is an old guy. Probably mid 70s. He's 'tight'." (By 'tight" I guess strict, old fashioned.)

"Oh really?" I said.

"Yea, you're a young guy. You know, it's those Republicans and Democrats that are screwing this country up. Especially those rich one percenters, white Republicans. It ain't the Jews ... It's ain't the blacks ... No, no. It's those rich one percenters."

God fucking dammit. Why me?

"If you read history, the rich are just fucking us over. The Rockefellers? Well they were the first millionaires this country had. They had the railroad business and then they started investing their money everywhere, buying stuff out. It's the same with these rich Republicans. They control the corporations."

"Hmm. Interesting." I position my body to exit the conversation -

"It's not just the corporations, it's also the media. Once you piece everything together it becomes clear. The rich buys the lobbyists and the lobbiyst buy out the senators. The lobbyists work for the rich. That's why Obama, though he can say this and that, won't accomplish much because he has no control over Congress. They're bought and sold. Ever heard of Bernie Sanders? Well Sanders went into the VA and fired the lazy guys who weren't giving out the benefits. I say vote for him. You gotta vote - that's the only way to change this country. Look him up."

I nod my head to acknowledge I heard him.

"The rich voted in that guy Reagan. All this anti-union and the economic crap started with him. He's the one who started deregulating all the businesses because it kept the rich rich."

I nod again.

"That Rauner sh*tbag ... He just invested tons of money into making this state a right-to-work-for-poor (right-to-work), that's my spin on it. He wants to kill unions. I'm in the union and make $40 an hour."

"Pretty good dough."

"Slavery ended here in this country, but it moved over seas."

"What do you mean?"

"The Republicans are moving business over seas for cheaper labor."

Other things were said that I can't remember. After he was done talking we said our good-byes.
 

Ireland to vote on same-sex "marriage"

Most likely it'll pass.

And most likely same-sex "marriage" will pass in June in the United States as well.

When it does pass, in both countries, expect LGBT supporters to gloat and swarm sites that they don't agree with. Expect twitter to be flooded with "You lose you bigots!" or something of that sort.

The rainbow flag will wave world wide tomorrow. And in June.

"Finding yourself."

Well, I hope you have a map.

"Being true to yourself." (sexuality)

I hope you have money to pay for the kids. Truth be told, two women in white dresses (or one in a suit) is pretty laughable. Two men in a suit is quite ridiculous. All this under the concept of "marriage."

"Live an authentic life." (again, sexuality)

You basically want to be guilt/shame free, but at the same time refuse to reflect why your "romance" is pretty fucked up. Sorry, your "love" doesn't inspire anything but more fucked up thoughts, ideas and relationships.

"My partner and I ... " (be it a straight or non-straight relationship)

Using the word "partner" is so devoid of any romantic connotations.I'd be insulted if my significant other/spouse/girlfriend referred to me in that way. It's just a strange and awkward word to use unless it's used to for a business partner, or a dance partner or a homework partner etc. It's weird because people use this word probably want the "awws" and the "they make such a cute couple!" comments, and the ceremony and the kids and the  ... You get it. Using "partner" is a sign that says "Modern BS Train."

Behold, the Modern Man Child.

Even though I wouldn't touch Mercedes with a ten foot pole, and she basically is a slut (there is no such thing as a "good" slut) who is misguided in her use of sexuality, I have more respect for her than I ever had for ex-NFL punter Chris Kluwe (which is close to none).

When I first heard of this guy (through deadspin) I couldn't help but think he was condescending and arrogant, with no regard to professionalism who puts in minimal effort into understanding what the opposing side has to say. 

From his articles on deadspin dripping with d-baggery, his letter to Emmett C Burns Jr., learning his favorite word: empathy, to his overall bitter existence, the guy is a perfect case of being an asshole. Straight-out. No cutting corners to it. No sugar coating it. I keep wondering to myself, "What is the deal with this guy?" As one commenter put it (from the youtube video) -

Everything that I've read from him and seen of him cements my first impressions: That Chris Kluwe is everything that he despises and nothing of which he proclaims himself to be. In other words, this is a despicable man. A man that needs therapy. If it wasn't for his pro-gay "rights" fervent crusade and his talk show circuit rounds, add in Gamer Gate, the man's public profile would be "just an NFL punter." Kluwe has a narcissistic personality disorder.

I could care less that he played on an elite sports level. I could care less that he has more money in his bank account that I'll ever have in mine. I don't really care that he's an ignorant secularist. Here's the thing: I'm not a man child nor am I a poser; when I'm caught in situations where I turn out to be wrong, if I've misunderstood, or my stance is less than stable than I want it to be, I will admit it. I may actually drop a previous held belief. Kluwe? He seems like a cool guy to play video games with and ask for punting advice, but get talking about SJW issues and "equality"? Yikes. The man turns into a child. That ain't cool.

This is what the secular-SJW-white knight-"equal rights" movement has produced. This is the type of personality and mindset that dogmatically supports such groups and stances.This is the type of personality that is drawn to the pathologically fucked up minority.

I feel sorry for his daughter. I feel sorry for his wife.

Under the guise of "liberal arts."

Bowdoin College. Swarthmore College.

Say these two institutions to an ambitious, bushy tailed young high school junior or senior and you'll probably hear a squeak coming from their mouth. They may even blush, as if you muttered their crush's name. If you mention these names to parents whose kids are in the Northeast prep/private school system you might be met with a stare that says "You're one of us." Mention these names to knowing Asian parents they might ask you if you know anyone on the admission counsel.

Both Bowdoin and Swarthmore would probably beat out places like Brown University (a glorified LAC with an Ivy League label), for those familiar with each. *Heck, if my kid wanted an LAC I'd guide them towards Bowdoin and Swarthmore far before any Brown campus tour.

These two institutions are a symbol of what higher education, in the liberal arts sense, has to offer to America's brightest students. But don't get too excited.

Steven Robinson's experience wasn't all very welcoming once he "came out." The NAS report, mentioned within the article, can be found here.

Swarthmore alumnus, Daniel Charette, shared her experience at Swarthmore here.

These institution of higher education offer top-notch liberal arts education, but not what John Henry Newman had in mind. Let me insert Thomas Sowell's thoughts as well. As you can see from comments on Sowell's article, it further proves of how the modern liberal mindset is more of a pathology than an actual mentally stable position. Poster "Stuart L. Riley" shows his disagreement, "Not one citation of anything that can remotely support the idiotic rantings of a lunatic. No supporting facts. Just spouting off insane accusations with no basis in reality. Just the thing we've come to expect from Sowell." (These accusations towards Sowell are nothing new. Go on youtube, or search for the National Review columns he has written, and you'll find the variations of the "lunatic" name calling. It's telling because there's some serious beehive mentality going on.) Upon clicking on his facebook profile I found this -

Not entirely surprising. Riley is a modern day Kool-Aid drinker. But I digress.

Elite, prestigious liberal arts colleges, many of them, are bastions for communists, socialists, the perverted, the amoral and those who despise America despite living in it and benefiting from its higher education system (probably the finest in the world, whether it be private or public institutions). Don't they see the irony? They want no responsibility for the growing amorality that slowly creeps into the lives of the students that sit in front of them; they don't want to answer to the parents who spend handsome amount of money to send their kid to sit there - who just want their kids to achieve that American Dream that they probably never had. They want to sit in their prestigious universities, with their Phds from other prestigious universities, publish "research" that will most likely change traditional social views on societal taboos and support more state driven budget wasting, all the while being so far out-of-touch with the dreaded proletariat. "The masses" is the group that these elite professors despise.

You don't need to have a college degree to know that if the bulk of the social science & humanities professors - regardless whether they teach at a tier 1 or tier 3 institution - were to form a counsel that would be looked to for suggestions, wisdom and insight to the family, intimate/sexual relationships, class and race feuds they'd make the the world into an even more secular, amoral and nihilistic place. They'd probably support single parenthood. No doubt they'd support same-sex relationships and same-sex mirage. They'd legalize all the drugs, make ROTC some sort of "right-wing nut" club if it hasn't already been banned from campus and support "exploring your sexuality and your true, authentic self" to every incoming freshmen.

Would one call this "education"? I'm not sure. If you dig, if you are aware of the modern liberal BS then you might get a far better education at Bowdoin and Swarthmore than "parents were liberal, high school was liberal, I'm liberal, now my college is uber-duper-freakin' liberal" sheltered types (the irony, again). Then again you might walk away saying yourself, if you aren't a modern day liberal, "This is a deformed liberal arts experience."

*Though I do think many professors that teach at these institutions are cowards, idiots and morons once they step out of their specialty (if you focus on queer studies then you're automatically a moron in my book; if you're socialist or communist English teacher then you're a moron in my book; if you're anything like this social science professor you're a moron and a fucking cunt) I think, as noted above, one can receive a decent liberal arts education if you're immune to the modern day liberal BS. But then again, a good percent of the kids entering these institutions are naive, easily impressed, therefore easy to recruit and to mold into "enlightened, open-minded, social 'progressive'" types. If their parents aren't already of that mindset, they'll probably transition into adulthood and hold them - and the communities they original came from - in contempt.

Things that annoy me when it comes to social conservatives.

 As said by a poster named Athena Carson about a rape scene in Game of Thrones (tv series),

Actually, I see this occurrence = endorsement much more often in conservative Christian circles, trying to scare parents into sanitizing their homes of every last scrap of popular culture. Over the last several years I have seen much ridiculous debate about how Frozen is corrupting our children, how Brave is corrupting our children, about the (supposed) hidden Satanic messages in Harry Potter.

Invariably, the non-conservative Christian types (which may or may not overlap with the more liberal progressive types) sensibly take down these ridiculous objections, only to have their commentary fall on deaf ears (of course).

The "sanitize" type of parents have a more compelling argument against Frozen (not that I agree with them) than with Harry Potter. I have always felt that "HP is evil!" parents, though well-meaning, are an embarrassment to sensible social conservatives. Harry Potter isn't evil, though the author of the series is the one you should be critical of since she's basically a modern day liberal when it comes to social issues (defends Islam, shallow defense for the LGBT community).

"Leave Harry alone!"

"Out! Out! You don't belong here!"

Says David, the social worker. Here's an interesting thing said about being a conservative in the social work profession.

His reasoning is that since, supposedly, the profession of social work has its founding on liberal & secular grounds that those with non-liberal views are not fit to belong to the profession. If we had David's way then social work would be an echo-chamber of do-gooders, SJWs, feminists and naive modernists. It would be a an exclusive profession not welcoming to conservative views (without sound arguments to back-up the rejections of opposing views) and be like academia, the  movie industry and publishing. In other words, strongholds to the modern day liberal mind view.

Are you saying that single motherhood (or parenting) is totally "fine"?

Around the 11:10 mark. Good points about government and it being involved in marriage, making divorce a nightmare for guys, but what you just said about "tons and tons and tons of single mothers" is really ridiculous. Advocating for single motherhood, like it's a fine alternative to two people of the opposite sex being married and raising a child, is fucking crazy because it's irresponsible and plain out idiotic to even support.

You probably are incapable of running a small island.

Theodore Beale aka Vox Day.

Vox isn't nearly as smart as he thinks he is.

I admire when he shows-up SJWs and feminists. I get annoyed when he flaunts his supposed grand IQ, as well as him claiming to be Native American - at least more % than Elizabeth Warren can claim, but at the end of the day I don't give two shits because he doesn't even live in the U.S. 

And here I am supposed to be impressed by a Bachelor's degree in Philosophy of Language from a second-tier Midwestern university?

As opposed to a non-second tier not located in the Midwest? What does getting a degree in the same major from a first-tier university say? Higher test scores upon entrance? Maybe. More ambition? Maybe. Wait, Vox is rather proud of his supposedly high IQ so no wonder he plays the "tier" game. Is Vox even a college graduate (not that is actually matters). I guarantee that I am more familiar with "tiers" and what goes into them than Vox. I'm irritated because of the arrogance that oozes out of that quote. It really annoys me.

I also think Vox's race theories are somewhat laughable.

If there are two things that greatly make me think Vox is an idiot, and more of a man trying to delude himself that he's greater and more successful than he actually is, it's when he becomes arrogant about his IQ and his race theories (when he does, he loves to mention that he's Native American -- sometimes it comes to a point where I think he wants brownie points for "his people", kinda like some third cousin of royalty wanting to impress people).

Due to his arrogance I'm not as intrigued to read any of his novels. I'm barely familiar with the sci-fi genre; the only book that I've read that would be rightfully be categorized as "sci-fi" is Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game (which I fully enjoyed). I an going to read a couple of John C. Wright's novel (far more humble than Vox Day, far more intelligent than Vox Day, far more insightful than Vox Day when it comes to commenting on modernism). I do remember when Wright rejected Vox's "alpha male" view on sex and romance, and when Vox Day found out he offered some sort of neutral response that ended up making him look like a mega pussy (probably because he knew he was going toe-to-toe with a person who has a greater amount of intelligence that an IQ test cannot measure, is a married man, and is a better fiction writer). So much for being "alpha" when met with another man, Vox.

But hey, as I said I admire Vox's strength when dealing with feminists and SJWs. He also comments on atheism as well, which I appreciate. IQ, race, even war/military ... All I can say I respectfully disagree.

Derrick Gordon: College basketball's Michael Sam

If love is love then go make babies without the help of the legal system. Opposite sex couples excluded from this request.

There is no fruit to be had in a intimate/romantic/sexual same-sex relationship.

UMass basketball player, Derrick Gordon, went to the newspapers complaining that there's still a lot of "homophobia" after he made his decision to transfer to Seton Hall for his final year of eligibility. Why transfer out if you're a starter and have one year left?

 His "boyfriend" is three times his senior. With that out, what's with the homosexual/bisexual dating pool? Michael Sam is dating a guy who is so happens to be semi-celebrity in the St. Louis LGBT scene; Gordon is dating a working actor etc. It's like Big Gay Inc. is playing matchmaker for those that "come out."

You're as annoying as the people you try to defend.

That is, the owner of fisheaters, Vox Clamantis.

See this thread. Why don't you wave a rainbow flag, VC? Go on. 

Here's his annoying ass response -

It is sad. But it also points out something I am passionate about, as anyone who posts or lurks here knows:  the importance of being very clear about the Church's true teachings about homosexuality and homosexuals, and the importance of being truly charitable and sensitive and letting the language used to talk about those things express that.

Nothing annoys me more than sloppy language when it comes to talking about homosexuality -- especially when some people don't really "get" the Church's teachings and come off as "anti-homosexual" or just plain ugly and mean. It is CRUCIAL that people get this straight. Most everyone knows a homosexual or has a homosexual family member. And most people love those people. Ugly language, a lack of respect, ridiculous assumptions, game-playing with language ("homosexuals don't exist", etc.) -- it's GOT to stop. It not only hurts those homosexuals and the people who love them, it hurts Christ Himself and His Church.

Bottom line:  if you woudn't say it about schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, clinical depression, epilepsy, etc., then don't say it about homosexuality, which is a disorder, not a sin in itself. Only acting on that disorder is sinful. When you meet homosexuals, don't make assumptions about things you don't know anything about ("he is out of the closet, therefore, he acts on his disorders," "he acts on his disorders, therefore he has anal sex," "he's gay and he has a male roommate, therefore they are lovers," etc., etc.)

Good luck with that, VC. You come in "peace" and "respect" but many LGBT activists don't give a shit about your niceness. Your approach doesn't work. You're a lamb. I'm glad you opened up fisheaters for more orthodox/traditional minds, but man you're a fucking walk-over.  People like Dan Savage will just laugh in your face and mockingly ask you to "Suck my dick you bigot."

I never came across someone saying homosexuals don't exist - like actually exist, implying if they're just a figment of our imaginations. The closest thing I came to that remark was when biology and "born that way" were questioned as legit pillars to discuss for same-sex attraction's "natural" state. The odd thing is he also plays the "you probably know a homosexual" card. And? So-the-fuck what if one does know a homosexual? Is this suppose be some "safe zone" bullshit? VC also plays the "you can't think that cause it's rude and mean" card. I nominate VC for the "Ally for Homosexuals" award, complete with a "Thought Police" badge.

On a more charitable note, I do agree that as Catholics we need to make crystal clear same-sex attraction, whether one identifies as a homosexual, bisexual or whatever label, that they are humans who have a disorder. That they are to be treated with respect (non-derogatory name calling, no family party exclusions, no lynching).

I've come across some less-than charitable people who aren't supportive of same-sex relationships let alone "marriage" and adoption, but never to the cartoon that many LGBT activists paint such people out to be. Such people can be easily talked to and I found no real difficulty on explaining why their choice of words, or statements, is counter-intuitive to their stances. More or less they've been understanding. Well, save for the Westboro Baptists, though I think it's safe to believe that any Catholic/Christian with a sound mind would agree that they're outright assholes and d-bags.

The reason I do not support VC's attitude, at least in the "STOP IT YOU GUYS! YOU ARE MEAN!" is that I absolutely believe that most all complaints made by internet LGBT activists, and those are really behind the push to fundamentally change the family and how we see same-sex relationships, are either lying or exaggerating their claim of victimhood.
  The lesbian (who's butch as heck) waitress who filed a complaint that a couple (male + female) did not leave her a tip because of sexuality? A lie.

The infamous Matthew Shepherd case that his death was due to the murderer being anti-gay? False.

I also just find LGBT activists and their lemmings, like the WBB, straight out assholes and d-bags. Unlike the WBB these people want to royally fuck up your family, your way of life and your "be nice" stance. They want revenge because of their insecurities and their mental instability. These are the most bitter people, besides extreme Muslims, I have ever come across. It's not because they were fired from their job because they liked the dick instead of the vagina. It's not because a bisexual said she wanted to be in a "committed" relationship with a woman to her parents, and that she was thrown out of the house. It's not that a lesbian was denied an apartment for rent because she liked the "soul" of another woman instead the "soul" of a man. No. They're bitter people because their minority status of their sexuality makes them insecure to an extent where there are support groups. Where's my straight support group? There is no serious group because straights aren't disordered that way. It's when "growing up different" is their badge of courage. It's when people like Dan Savage suspect that the people who bullied him in high school did so because they, too, were gay and that they wanted to suck his dick (read that straight out of a college newspaper that interviewed him). 

The LGBT community know what they're attracted to isn't "normal." They wouldn't be growing up with their shame (to say it's because of their bigoted family and society is stretching it; many times, from what I've observed, it's because innately they know that liking their own sex isn't actually "right"), when that shame turns into "pride." Nothing says normal, beautiful and A-OKAY about Pride Parade, the sexual acts done by "active" LGBT people (because vagina grinding, carpet eating and hand holding will produce a baby ... ) and LGBT activists tactics and fervor. Absolutely nothing.