I guess you have pretty much been saturated by now about the new administrations Shock and Awe on deliberately and steadfastly prosecuting a war on terror against conservatives in America, which stands to reason since to their unusual intelligence makes everything Bushes fault and the fault of all of their followers, the neo-cons and anyone around them that does not believe that the Truthers Were Right. But here's a little news for most of them. They are wrong, but their pig headed love for all things progressive means that they will drive us all down with them because a fifth column media says its all right and any cracks in reason can be pasted over with another hit peice on fake news or, perhaps what Paris Hilton's dog had for lunch.
So, when it comes to dialog, you pretty much have to go it alone with them whenever they challenge you on the fact that you don't echo chamber the echo chamber that follows their star chamber which just happens to be everyone and everything Barack Obama, but I repeat myself at the risk of nausea.
But remember when, not to long ago the nation rose up in the millions to defend, not just once but three times in California, and almost countless numbers in states all across America, time and time, etc. That every time it came up for a vote, it was voted down, that people did not want Gay Marriage. It was blamed on the Latter Day Saints for having provided funds to a political PAC to campaign against it this last time in California, which I am sure that you have heard and could just as easily find reference to it as I can, that this comes right out of Saul Alinsky Power Tactics 7 and 3 to freeze and then ridicule, as well as a few others I could easily argue the hows and the why for's. But during all of 'the struggle' for 'gay rights' and 'equality' for 'gay marriage' came the argument that if gays ever got the right to marry, legally recognized, bona fide stamp of federal approval, then that would back door every other form of sexual perversion being officially recognized and sanctioned. I know, it was a slippery slope, but again, that does not mean that its a false assumption, when the decision rendered was false in it's assumptions,
The argument was that gays should have the right to marry because no one picks who they are as a characteristic from birth, so how could they be responsible for their own lack of similar rights? It is the nature vs. nurture argument that goes way back to the first officially recognized form of homosexuality in the Kinsey Report. But that has nothing to do with the governments trying to throw off the yoke to protect its citizens from the destruction of Natural Law. This is something which Cicero warned us well about and because the founders wanted to secure for us in the debates on the constitution written in the Federalist Papers. I like Cicero because he was murdered for what he believed, he is quoted here because he chose to say what he believed anyway, though it cost him his life.
So, now in one of the countries which favor gay marriage with legal sanction and have had it for quite some time, comes a case that the gay alliance said for years would never happen, a polygamy case in Canada.
• "Canadians of all backgrounds share some basic values, like a belief in human dignity, equality between men and women and the rule of law. It is these values that unite us as Canadians," states a note prepared for the minister. "The practice of polygamy represents a clear challenge to those unifying values."
• The Criminal Code outlaws "any form of polygamy" or "any kind of conjugal union with more than one person at the same time, whether or not it is by law recognized as a binding form of marriage.
This realy is beginning to sound familiar isn't it?