I'm sure by now many of you have heard that 6 couples have sued the state because of the Governors veto of House Bill 444. I think people are getting all riled up over nothing. (Click Here to read the article)
First of all the reason many of us opposed HB444, was because it was same sex marriage under the guise of granting the same benefits to homosexual couples as married couples.
My position is simply this, we already have laws on the books granting rights to same sex couples. These laws are known as reciprocal benefits laws, that if there is anything lacking in them, they can easily be changed to accommodate those issues. Many of us against same sex marriage believe that HB444 was an attack on the institution of marriage that has been defined as a union between one man and one women.
America is the land of the free, and freedom is for all of its citizens. The solution is not to sue the government and waste the courts time. The solution is to fix the law that is already in place and address the issues where that may be lacking.
Don't mess with marriage!!
Friday, July 30, 2010
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Monday, July 26, 2010
OMG look at what the Democrats are doing!!
The most disturbing and morally reprehensible resolutions passed by the Hawaii Democratic Party at their 2010 Convention on May 29, 2010:
BUS 2010-05 SUPPORT EMPLOYEE FREE CHOICE ACT (aka “Card Check” mandating public elections to unionize)
BUS 2010-10 Include the GLBT Tourist in Hawai‘i Tourism Marketing (advertise to Homosexuals to come to Hawaii)
ENV 2010-11 Requiring All Emergency Rooms to Offer Emergency Contraception
ENV 2010-16 SUPPORTING DEATH WITH DIGNITY (aka Physician assisted suicide)
ENV 2010-18 Urging the Establishment of a Single Payer Universal Healthcare System, including a National Health Board, to Ensure Quality Healthcare for All Residents of the United States
GOV 2010-20 Supporting Civil Unions (i.e. HB 444)
GOV 2010-22 Justice Regarding Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (establishing sexual orientation as a civil right)
GOV 2010-24 Religious Diversity and Tolerance (seeks to outlaw “Transformation Hawaii”)
GOV 2010-25 Separation of Church and State and Funding of Sectarian Organizations (seeks to prevent nonprofit Christian organizations from supporting or opposing morality based legislation)
GOV 2010-31 STATEWIDE MEDICAL MARIJUANA INITIATIVE RESOLUTION (make marijuana more accessible)
GOV 2010-33 LEGISLATION TO REPEAL THE PROHIBITION OF MARIJUANA
NAT 2010-02 Repeal Federal Defense of Marriage Act (abolish protection of the institution of Marriage)
NAT 2010-04 RESTORE INTERNET NEUTRALITY (seeks to monitor and regulate internet religious and political discourse to ensure equal time is given to the opposing viewpoint)
NAT 2010-08 Enact Federal Carbon Tax Legislation (an onerous tax on all electricity users)
*all source material found on http://www.hawaiidemocrats.org/2010-convention.html
BUS 2010-05 SUPPORT EMPLOYEE FREE CHOICE ACT (aka “Card Check” mandating public elections to unionize)
BUS 2010-10 Include the GLBT Tourist in Hawai‘i Tourism Marketing (advertise to Homosexuals to come to Hawaii)
ENV 2010-11 Requiring All Emergency Rooms to Offer Emergency Contraception
ENV 2010-16 SUPPORTING DEATH WITH DIGNITY (aka Physician assisted suicide)
ENV 2010-18 Urging the Establishment of a Single Payer Universal Healthcare System, including a National Health Board, to Ensure Quality Healthcare for All Residents of the United States
GOV 2010-20 Supporting Civil Unions (i.e. HB 444)
GOV 2010-22 Justice Regarding Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (establishing sexual orientation as a civil right)
GOV 2010-24 Religious Diversity and Tolerance (seeks to outlaw “Transformation Hawaii”)
GOV 2010-25 Separation of Church and State and Funding of Sectarian Organizations (seeks to prevent nonprofit Christian organizations from supporting or opposing morality based legislation)
GOV 2010-31 STATEWIDE MEDICAL MARIJUANA INITIATIVE RESOLUTION (make marijuana more accessible)
GOV 2010-33 LEGISLATION TO REPEAL THE PROHIBITION OF MARIJUANA
NAT 2010-02 Repeal Federal Defense of Marriage Act (abolish protection of the institution of Marriage)
NAT 2010-04 RESTORE INTERNET NEUTRALITY (seeks to monitor and regulate internet religious and political discourse to ensure equal time is given to the opposing viewpoint)
NAT 2010-08 Enact Federal Carbon Tax Legislation (an onerous tax on all electricity users)
*all source material found on http://www.hawaiidemocrats.org/2010-convention.html
Sunday, July 25, 2010
What does Mufi's Colors say about him?
I never understood why a candidate would ever choose colors other than red white and blue for their campaign.
What does Mufi Hannemann have in common with Adolf Hitler when it comes to colors?
You decide.
Also note the flower seems to be turning in the same direction as the swastika. Counter clockwise??? hmm...
(This comparison is made without permission of the candidate or candidate committee)
Friday, July 23, 2010
How do the candidates Rate?
State House Representative Maile Shimabukuro receives an overall score of 5% by the Grassroots Institute of Hawaii.
The Grassroots Institute of Hawaii rates candidates based on their voting record. Whether they raised Taxes or Raided funds among other categories.
On the Senate Side the top performing Seantors were Sam Slom (R) 95%, Fred Hemmings (R) 78%, Rosalyn Baker (D) and Carol Fukunaga (D) tied at 21%, David Ige (D) 20%, and Josh Green (D) 13%.
On the House side the top Performing Representatives were Lynn Finnegan (R) 56%, Barbara Marumoto (R) 54%, Kimberly Pine (R) 54%, Corrine Ching (R) 40%, and Cynthia Thielen (R) and Gene Ward (R) tied at 37%.
Maile Shimabukuro is one of the lowest performing Representatives according to the survey. She has voted consistantly to raise taxes, raid funds to balance the budget, and voted to increase the size and cost of government etc.
Its time to elect candidates who will fix Hawaii, not make it worse.
To see the full survey click Here
The Grassroots Institute of Hawaii rates candidates based on their voting record. Whether they raised Taxes or Raided funds among other categories.
On the Senate Side the top performing Seantors were Sam Slom (R) 95%, Fred Hemmings (R) 78%, Rosalyn Baker (D) and Carol Fukunaga (D) tied at 21%, David Ige (D) 20%, and Josh Green (D) 13%.
On the House side the top Performing Representatives were Lynn Finnegan (R) 56%, Barbara Marumoto (R) 54%, Kimberly Pine (R) 54%, Corrine Ching (R) 40%, and Cynthia Thielen (R) and Gene Ward (R) tied at 37%.
Maile Shimabukuro is one of the lowest performing Representatives according to the survey. She has voted consistantly to raise taxes, raid funds to balance the budget, and voted to increase the size and cost of government etc.
Its time to elect candidates who will fix Hawaii, not make it worse.
To see the full survey click Here
HAWAII’S ANTI-BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT
Source: rootedinreason.com
July 19, 2010, 12:28 pm
By Kelsey Winther
The Hawaii Reporter published an article this morning by software developer David Thielen explaining why high-tech companies do not locate in Hawaii. The benefits of having a high-tech industry are obvious, yet Thielen claims that companies are discouraged from moving here by a number of factors from educational to infrastructure problems. He says that Hawaii’s failing public schools prevent high-tech workers from wanting to relocate their families, the lack of “world class universities” prevents a supply of interns and recently graduated employees, and that there is need for strong support and service companies. Each of the factors that Mr. Thielen mentions has some validity. However, I would argue that these are not the most significant reasons.
To an increasing degree, employees in the high-tech sector are young and without families, making the public school point almost non-applicable. The weakness of local universities does not prohibit companies from being fueled with qualified workers. Any student or graduate of Berkeley, Stanford, or a similar school could seek an internship or employment at a high-tech company in Hawaii. Finally, infrastructure must be developed with the demand for it. If high-tech companies desired to come to Hawaii, they would invest in the needed service companies (like web designers or accountants). Support industries would develop with the demand created by high-tech companies.
So then, what is the main reason why high-tech companies are not moving to Hawaii? The question can be answered by a recent report by CNBC which ranked Hawaii as the 48th best state for business. High cost of living and low capital availability are both caused and added to by heavy taxes and regulation. As the state continues to engage in fiscally irresponsible activities and accrue more debt, more capital is sucked from the private sector.
David Thielen’s assessment was in no way incorrect, only incomplete, ignoring the most significant aspect of business deterrence. State intervention into the private sector and the resulting reduction in capital is the key reason why high-tech companies (along with others) are choosing not to locate in Hawaii.
July 19, 2010, 12:28 pm
By Kelsey Winther
The Hawaii Reporter published an article this morning by software developer David Thielen explaining why high-tech companies do not locate in Hawaii. The benefits of having a high-tech industry are obvious, yet Thielen claims that companies are discouraged from moving here by a number of factors from educational to infrastructure problems. He says that Hawaii’s failing public schools prevent high-tech workers from wanting to relocate their families, the lack of “world class universities” prevents a supply of interns and recently graduated employees, and that there is need for strong support and service companies. Each of the factors that Mr. Thielen mentions has some validity. However, I would argue that these are not the most significant reasons.
To an increasing degree, employees in the high-tech sector are young and without families, making the public school point almost non-applicable. The weakness of local universities does not prohibit companies from being fueled with qualified workers. Any student or graduate of Berkeley, Stanford, or a similar school could seek an internship or employment at a high-tech company in Hawaii. Finally, infrastructure must be developed with the demand for it. If high-tech companies desired to come to Hawaii, they would invest in the needed service companies (like web designers or accountants). Support industries would develop with the demand created by high-tech companies.
So then, what is the main reason why high-tech companies are not moving to Hawaii? The question can be answered by a recent report by CNBC which ranked Hawaii as the 48th best state for business. High cost of living and low capital availability are both caused and added to by heavy taxes and regulation. As the state continues to engage in fiscally irresponsible activities and accrue more debt, more capital is sucked from the private sector.
David Thielen’s assessment was in no way incorrect, only incomplete, ignoring the most significant aspect of business deterrence. State intervention into the private sector and the resulting reduction in capital is the key reason why high-tech companies (along with others) are choosing not to locate in Hawaii.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Homosexuality and the Bible
I received an e-mail and decided to reprint it here:
Reprinted from Deacon Andy
Genesis
The creation story in Genesis includes: "God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them, saying: 'Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it"(1:27, 28). St. Thomas Aquinas in evaluating genital expression that could not conform to the procreative ordering of the natural finality of genitality wrote, "...a sin against nature in which the natural order itself is violated is a sin against God who is the creator of that order"(S. Th. I-II, Q. 154). It is clear that God created man and woman to complement each other, and to come together and multiply. Man lying with man and woman with woman is contrary to God's creative purpose.
In Chapter 18 of the Book of Genesis Abraham bargains with the Lord to try to save Sodom from destruction (18:22 -33). The two angels who had accompanied the Lord entered Sodom. Lot convinced the angels to stay in his house. In the evening after dinner “...all the townsmen of Sodom both young and old-all the people to the last man closed in on the house. They called out to Lot and said to him, ‘Where are the men who came to your house tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have intimacies with them.”(19:4-5). Lot tried to reason with them even offering them his two virgin daughters, but they were not interested, they wanted to have “intimacies” with the two angels. We might consider it strange that Lot would offer his two daughters to the men of Sodom but one has to remember that desert hospitality at that time demanded that the host had to defend his guests at all costs. The angels protected Lot and hurried him and his family out of Sodom before it and Gomorrah were destroyed (19:16-25).
An argument used by the defenders of homosexuality is that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed not because of the lust of men for their own sex but because of the lack of Sodom’s hospitality, or because it was rapacious intent and not consensual sex. This is belied by scripture and, not the least, by the word “sodomy” which is derived from the common practice of the men of “Sodom.”
Leviticus
Chapter 18 of Leviticus emphasizes the sanctity of sex and points out the sexual practices which are abhorrent and an abomination to God. Among these is, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination” (18:22). The Lord’s admonitions to Moses goes on: “Do not defile yourselves by any of these things by which the nations whom I am driving out of your way have defiled themselves. Because their land has become defiled, I am punishing it for its wickedness, by making it vomit out its inhabitants. You, however, whether natives or aliens, must keep my statutes and decrees forbidding all such abominations by which the previous inhabitants defiled the land; otherwise the land will vomit you out also for having defiled it, just as it vomited out the nations before you “ (18:24-26).
It is clear from the foregoing, that homosexual practices, among other sexual disorders, defile the land. Such defilement would certainly be more serious if such practices are accepted, made equivalent to traditional marriage, and become the official law of the land. The "Life of the land is (must be) perpetuated in righteousness."
Chapter 20 of Leviticus indicates the penalties for various sins: “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives” (20:13).
The supporters of homosexuality argue that such punishments found in the Old Testament are no longer followed by modern society and that change, they argue, also occurs in the acceptance of homosexual practice. While it is true that laws punishing sodomy have been eliminated in the U.S., this does not mean that such practice is considered normal and acceptable by most Americans. In any case the relativism that sets in a particular society, at a particular time, is not an acceptable teaching of the Church as we will see below.
Homosexuality in the New Testament
Following are quotations by St. Paul in Romans, 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy:
“In consequence, God delivered them up in their lusts to unclean practices; they engaged in the mutual degradation of their bodies, these men who exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator- blessed be he forever, amen! God therefore delivered them up to disgraceful passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and the men gave up natural intercourse with women and burned with lust for one another. Men did shameful things with men, and thus received in their own persons the penalty for their perversity” (Rom 1:24-27) (Emphasis added).
“Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor 6; 9-10) (Emphasis added).
“...with the understanding that the law is not meant for a righteous person but for the lawless and unruly, the godless and sinful, the unholy and profane, those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers, the unchaste, practicing homosexuals, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever is opposed to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted” (1 Tim 1:9-10) (Emphasis added).
Supporters of homosexual behavior center the debate on the last word in 1 Cor. 6:10, áñóåíïêïéôáé (arsenokoitai), literally, “those who go to bed with males.” This is translated as “sodomites” (NRSV) or “homosexuals” (NIV). The NABR, quoted above, renders the term “practicing homosexuals.” The word “practicing” conforms to Catholic theology that homosexual orientation is not sinful but homosexual practice is. The homosexual movement contends that Paul is condemning only male prostitution since it brutalizes the active participant as well as victimizing the passive participant. Most biblical scholars find this interpretation highly dubious. The components of the Greek word are found in Lev 18:22; 20:13, the basic Bible (LXX) available to Paul. Paul's condemnation of homosexual acts is unequivocal in Rom 1:26-27 as quoted above, in that they will not "...inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor 6:10). One can go further and interpret that Paul teaches that sexual activity should be confined to marriage between a male and female when, in 1Cor 6:16, he cites Gen 2:24, “The two will become one flesh.” whom God has created in the divine image (Gen 1:27).
The Letter of Jude
The letter of Jude refers to eternal damnation to those who practice "unnatural vice."
"I wish to remind you, ... that the Lord who once saved a people from the land of Egypt later destroyed those who did not believe. The angels too, who did not keep to their own domain but deserted their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains in gloom, for the judgment of the great day. Likewise, Sodom, Gomorrah, and the surrounding towns, which in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual promiscuity and practiced unnatural vice, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire." (5-7) (Emphasis added).
Jesus and Homosexuality
Homosexual advocates argue that Jesus did not condemn homosexual acts. The law against homosexual behavior was so imbued in the Jewish mind during Jesus time that there was no need to address this question. Jesus, however, affirmed traditional marriage. He chose to become part of a traditional family in the home of Joseph and Mary (Lk 1:26-38; Mt 1:18-25; 2:19-23). He celebrated traditional marriage, as He did at the wedding feast at Cana (Jn 2:1-11). In speaking against divorce Jesus affirmed traditional Marriage: "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate" (Mt 19:4-6). Jesus clearly supported traditional marriage in the New Testament.
Reprinted from Deacon Andy
Genesis
The creation story in Genesis includes: "God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them, saying: 'Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it"(1:27, 28). St. Thomas Aquinas in evaluating genital expression that could not conform to the procreative ordering of the natural finality of genitality wrote, "...a sin against nature in which the natural order itself is violated is a sin against God who is the creator of that order"(S. Th. I-II, Q. 154). It is clear that God created man and woman to complement each other, and to come together and multiply. Man lying with man and woman with woman is contrary to God's creative purpose.
In Chapter 18 of the Book of Genesis Abraham bargains with the Lord to try to save Sodom from destruction (18:22 -33). The two angels who had accompanied the Lord entered Sodom. Lot convinced the angels to stay in his house. In the evening after dinner “...all the townsmen of Sodom both young and old-all the people to the last man closed in on the house. They called out to Lot and said to him, ‘Where are the men who came to your house tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have intimacies with them.”(19:4-5). Lot tried to reason with them even offering them his two virgin daughters, but they were not interested, they wanted to have “intimacies” with the two angels. We might consider it strange that Lot would offer his two daughters to the men of Sodom but one has to remember that desert hospitality at that time demanded that the host had to defend his guests at all costs. The angels protected Lot and hurried him and his family out of Sodom before it and Gomorrah were destroyed (19:16-25).
An argument used by the defenders of homosexuality is that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed not because of the lust of men for their own sex but because of the lack of Sodom’s hospitality, or because it was rapacious intent and not consensual sex. This is belied by scripture and, not the least, by the word “sodomy” which is derived from the common practice of the men of “Sodom.”
Leviticus
Chapter 18 of Leviticus emphasizes the sanctity of sex and points out the sexual practices which are abhorrent and an abomination to God. Among these is, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination” (18:22). The Lord’s admonitions to Moses goes on: “Do not defile yourselves by any of these things by which the nations whom I am driving out of your way have defiled themselves. Because their land has become defiled, I am punishing it for its wickedness, by making it vomit out its inhabitants. You, however, whether natives or aliens, must keep my statutes and decrees forbidding all such abominations by which the previous inhabitants defiled the land; otherwise the land will vomit you out also for having defiled it, just as it vomited out the nations before you “ (18:24-26).
It is clear from the foregoing, that homosexual practices, among other sexual disorders, defile the land. Such defilement would certainly be more serious if such practices are accepted, made equivalent to traditional marriage, and become the official law of the land. The "Life of the land is (must be) perpetuated in righteousness."
Chapter 20 of Leviticus indicates the penalties for various sins: “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives” (20:13).
The supporters of homosexuality argue that such punishments found in the Old Testament are no longer followed by modern society and that change, they argue, also occurs in the acceptance of homosexual practice. While it is true that laws punishing sodomy have been eliminated in the U.S., this does not mean that such practice is considered normal and acceptable by most Americans. In any case the relativism that sets in a particular society, at a particular time, is not an acceptable teaching of the Church as we will see below.
Homosexuality in the New Testament
Following are quotations by St. Paul in Romans, 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy:
“In consequence, God delivered them up in their lusts to unclean practices; they engaged in the mutual degradation of their bodies, these men who exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator- blessed be he forever, amen! God therefore delivered them up to disgraceful passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and the men gave up natural intercourse with women and burned with lust for one another. Men did shameful things with men, and thus received in their own persons the penalty for their perversity” (Rom 1:24-27) (Emphasis added).
“Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor 6; 9-10) (Emphasis added).
“...with the understanding that the law is not meant for a righteous person but for the lawless and unruly, the godless and sinful, the unholy and profane, those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers, the unchaste, practicing homosexuals, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever is opposed to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted” (1 Tim 1:9-10) (Emphasis added).
Supporters of homosexual behavior center the debate on the last word in 1 Cor. 6:10, áñóåíïêïéôáé (arsenokoitai), literally, “those who go to bed with males.” This is translated as “sodomites” (NRSV) or “homosexuals” (NIV). The NABR, quoted above, renders the term “practicing homosexuals.” The word “practicing” conforms to Catholic theology that homosexual orientation is not sinful but homosexual practice is. The homosexual movement contends that Paul is condemning only male prostitution since it brutalizes the active participant as well as victimizing the passive participant. Most biblical scholars find this interpretation highly dubious. The components of the Greek word are found in Lev 18:22; 20:13, the basic Bible (LXX) available to Paul. Paul's condemnation of homosexual acts is unequivocal in Rom 1:26-27 as quoted above, in that they will not "...inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor 6:10). One can go further and interpret that Paul teaches that sexual activity should be confined to marriage between a male and female when, in 1Cor 6:16, he cites Gen 2:24, “The two will become one flesh.” whom God has created in the divine image (Gen 1:27).
The Letter of Jude
The letter of Jude refers to eternal damnation to those who practice "unnatural vice."
"I wish to remind you, ... that the Lord who once saved a people from the land of Egypt later destroyed those who did not believe. The angels too, who did not keep to their own domain but deserted their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains in gloom, for the judgment of the great day. Likewise, Sodom, Gomorrah, and the surrounding towns, which in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual promiscuity and practiced unnatural vice, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire." (5-7) (Emphasis added).
Jesus and Homosexuality
Homosexual advocates argue that Jesus did not condemn homosexual acts. The law against homosexual behavior was so imbued in the Jewish mind during Jesus time that there was no need to address this question. Jesus, however, affirmed traditional marriage. He chose to become part of a traditional family in the home of Joseph and Mary (Lk 1:26-38; Mt 1:18-25; 2:19-23). He celebrated traditional marriage, as He did at the wedding feast at Cana (Jn 2:1-11). In speaking against divorce Jesus affirmed traditional Marriage: "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate" (Mt 19:4-6). Jesus clearly supported traditional marriage in the New Testament.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Its Official
As of July 13, 2010, I am officially a candidate for the State House of Representatives for District 45 (Waianae to Makaha).
Please vote for me!!
Please vote for me!!
Monday, July 12, 2010
Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA)
Marriage is under attack even at the federal level. Western Civilization has decided that Marriage is an institution that is important to raising Children with Both Parents, and this is important to the Government.
But a Federal Judge has ruled that DOMA is unconstitutional. See the video below.
But a Federal Judge has ruled that DOMA is unconstitutional. See the video below.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Is Hawaii a Family Friendly State?
The debate over same sex marriage or civil unions has gotten ugly since Governor Lingle's decision to Veto HB444 and leave it up to the people to decide. Many in the radical left are spewing venomous language toward Governor Lingle and Christian Leaders who opposed such a measure.
Many are referring to the matter as a civil right and comparing their suffrage to that of the blacks during the civil rights movement.
As a Republican I am one who feels the importance of our institutions. Marriage is an institution, and it serves as the foundation of the family. Procreation is the commandment of God and marriage is the vehicle. When you try to undermine Marriage, you are undermining the family.
Same Sex Marriage does not promote pro-creation, but merely attempts to justify the lifestyle of those engaged in Homosexual relations. Homosexual relations are not only a perversion of God's family, but those who engage in such a lifestyle only do so to fulfill their own selfish lust.
Sodomy is a crime in many states and is defined simply as oral or anal sex. Sex between a man and a women is natural. Sex between same sex couples is Sodomy.
Therefore Homosexuals through their lifestyle engage in criminal behavior. How can you make criminal behavior a civil right?
The blacks were wrongly treated during the civil rights movement because of bigotry and racism. You can't change the color of your skin, but you can choose to change your lifestyle.
There are numerous reports of Homosexuals repenting from that lifestyle and becoming "Straight". I would encourage all of those who live that lifestyle to repent as well. Lets focus on making Hawaii a Family Friendly State.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)