Conservative Political Views


Why Draw the Line at Couples?

March 26, 2013

Listen to it Button


RUSH: Here’s Art in Windsor, Connecticut, as we go back to the phones.  Hello, sir.

CALLER:  Rush, how you doing?

RUSH:  I’m fine, sir.  Thank you.

CALLER:  Look, I just think, you know, there used to be laws that said black people can’t marry white people.  I don’t think this is any different.  I mean, if you’re gay and you want to marry somebody who’s gay, marry somebody who’s gay.  That’s your business.  What is the business of the state government or the federal government telling me who I can and can’t marry?

RUSH:  You are serious with this?  You want to equate interracial marriage to homosexual marriage?

CALLER:  Yeah, I think that a person should be able to make their own personal decision.  I think actually this should be something the Republican Party should be in support of.  It’s individual rights, you can marry whoever you want.

RUSH:  You don’t have to worry, the Republican Party’s moving in that direction, it is.


RUSH:  Well, let me ask you this.  Where does this freedom to do what you want stuff stop?  And what, in your case, what would two people wanting to do raise a red flag for you?  What would you say, “Now, wait a minute, no, no, no, you shouldn’t do that?”

CALLER:  Well, I think if you were talking about like a three-party marriage, an eight-party marriage —

RUSH:  Why?  If you love one, you can love two. What if all three people love each other and they want the benefits and all that, who among us should deny those three people their love?

CALLER:  I think they can be loved, I just don’t think you need to give it a legal status because —

RUSH:  Why not?

CALLER:  Because two people would make a family, they could raise kids, adopt kids, do whatever they want, I don’t think —

RUSH:  Wait a minute.  But why can’t three people do that?  In fact, if you have two of the same sex and one of the opposite sex, you’ve handled the adoption issue. You don’t need to adopt. You can have one woman and two guys in a marriage, and the woman could be impregnated by the two, and, voila, you got a family.

CALLER:  I don’t see that.

RUSH:  You got a lot of love and what could possibly be wrong with that?

CALLER:  I think society’s determined that two spouses, two people —

RUSH:  Well, wait, society’s determined, you know, by the way, human civilization, from the beginning of time, has determined that marriage is a union of a man and a woman.  The Republicans didn’t do it.

CALLER:  Right.

RUSH:  Conservatives didn’t do it.

CALLER:  Right.

RUSH:  Churchill didn’t do it. Margaret Thatcher didn’t do it. Gorbachev didn’t do.  It was humanity which did it.  You just said society has determined that — well, society has determined that marriage is between a man and a woman, but I don’t think society’s right in that case.

CALLER:  No, no.  I don’t agree with you.  I think society has evolved away from that.  I think the people in general think that you want if you want to marry somebody you should be able to marry them.

RUSH:  Well, someday society is gonna evolve away from marriage by two people and could be three or four, and you’re gonna oppose that then for some reason. You’re gonna deny those people their love.

CALLER:  Yeah, I would.  I would oppose that.

RUSH:  Why?  I don’t understand.  Why would you discriminate that way?  What does the number matter when we’re talking about love here?



Nor do I understand the reasoning here, of the caller. The caller said that our society had evolved away from one man and one woman definition of marriage, toward including same-sex marriage, and that it was not the business of  society to say otherwise.  If that’s the case, then what will keep society from branching out even further to include one car and one man marriage or one horse and one woman marriages?  (I swear that I kid you not when I say I have knowledge of a man who is in love, and sexually involved with his car!  If marriage is based upon love, and we are evolving toward acceptance of the atypical, then we must allow these things.)

The real issue is that evolution is not always a good thing, and it doesn’t always strengthen a species.  Sometimes evolution takes civilization into a degenerative state of devolvment.  Absolutely nothing will stop the human event from sinking into debauchery, depravity, and every other ID-centered, behavior without moral restraints guiding it.  My perspective on same-sex marriage is a traditional one and not for the apparent reason.  I hold no moral objections against homosexuality because I firmly believe that sexual orientation is stamped on man’s DNA even before birth.  In the most candid of explanations, I believe that the homosexuality gene is either an anomaly or a natural result of the evolution of man and pertains to his survival.  Because like-gender, homosexuals are not capable of reproducing between themselves, I understand this as a natural occurrence in evolution–a form of genetically driven population control.

For eons the word “marriage,” has been defined and understood to mean a moral, civil, and legal covenant between one man and one woman, following a ceremony performed by a qualified individual.  If the goal of the gay and lesbian communities was to legitimize and legally protect his/her life-partner in the same ways marriage laws protect spouses, then this could very easily be done with the invention of a new term, with a specific definition and meaning, such as “life-partner union” or “single-gender union.”  The label doesn’t matter when the agenda honorable.  But equal under the law was never the actual goal of these people, and by “these people,” I mean the money group behind the push for this new kind of “marriage.” The real motive was to decimate yet another layer of societal values and mores.

Much of the gay and lesbian population did not want to be a part of this movement and would have been satisfied with laws that guarantee the same legal protections that marriage provides for a spouse.  The Progressive movement never publicly displays its true agendas.  For example, on the surface, the word “progressive” seems benign in both meaning and application.  If it weren’t for progress, we never would have moved beyond the Inquisition.  However, this movement operates covertly, and what is said is not what is meant–black is white–up is down–Orwellian across the board.

Progressives always advance and continually increase their control over the lives and liberties of mankind for the good of the élite rulers atop a New World Order.  Regardless of their claims that they work for the good of the whole, it’s really all about them.  Progressives despise the average person, view themselves as far beyond the intelligence of the citizenry, and want to significantly diminish our numbers.  The ultimate agenda is to completely dismantle ways of life across the planet, hence, the United Nations Agenda 21 and the United Nations Arms Treaty, the two most vile, corrupt, and terrifying carrots ever tied to a stick.  Yet, there are Stalin’s “useful idiots” who chase after those carrots certain that the former will bring us Hilton’s “Shangri-La” and the latter a world without violence.  Go figure!

Just Me

March 27, 2013 - Posted by | Home | , , , , , , , , , , , ,

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Political Vel Craft

Veil Of Politics

Political Film Blog

money, power, injustice, sex, violence, propaganda, anti-fascism...


Fighting Against Government Harassment

Constitutional Clayton

Politics surrounding the Constitution


Smile! You’re at the best site ever

John Groves Art Stuff

Art from johngrovesart


Swiss Defence League

the seaton post

A little bit of this and a little bit of that

Jericho777's Blog

Correcting Misinformation!

%d bloggers like this: