Gays rejoice, for you are (not) equal.

My Facebook feed looks like a rainbow, as at least half of my friends – most of who are not gay – celebrate the demolition of a constitution. The source of their joy is not the defeat of terrorism, or the curing of cancer, but one court saying “Fuck it!” to the separation of powers that were at the foundation of democracy.

The unconstitutionality of the Supreme Court’s decision is undebatable, as is its agenda. The definition of liberty has been twisted, the states have lost their power, and all Americans (including the morons celebrating) are no longer served by the greatest law in existence. And for what? So that gay couples can pretend to be equal??

"Deomcracy is dead? YAAAAAAY!!!!"

“Democracy is dead? YAAAAAAY!!!!”

Such equality is not decided by men. Can the rabbit be equal to the lion? Can the clouds be equal to the wind? Can gay spouses be equal to straight ones? The answers are predetermined, for it was Nature who decided, long ago.

Nature has made us man and woman; she has given us the ability to be one, and to procreate as one. We are united in the physical, mental, and spiritual, and just as the yin counters the yang, we counter one-another with natural perfection. Marriage, which once-upon-a-yesterday manifested this truth, is now about who (or what) we choose to love. How cringingly misguided we have become.

Gay couples can never be equal, and gay families can never be as complete. Courts can not change this, nor can debatable public opinion. Marriage, liberty, democracy, natural families, and the rule of law have all paid the price for the homosexual’s inadequacies, and as he attempts to fill the un-fillable, his victims will grow in number, until only his ego is left to destroy.

So rejoice, ye sodomites, for marriage is dead, the constitution is dead, and you’re still not equal.

You Might Also Like

Leave a Reply

63 Comments

  • Reply Paul Niland June 29, 2015 at 11:17 AM

    What a very angry and bitter person you are. A gay couple marrying has no affect on your life, not in the slightest., Nothing has changed for you, nothing has weakened your own marriage (if you are married, I feel sorry for the person who spends their life with you,) the decision of the Supreme Court is law. Who are you to challenge (dare we say “judge”) this? The Supreme Court is made up of men and women who are tasked with (among other things) finding the most legally correct definitions of the existing Constitution of the United States of America. That is what they have done.

    The Supreme Court’s ruling gives dignity to the lives of many people who you clearly fail to understand. You do not understand them because you refuse to. That is your problem, not theirs, thankfully they have one major problem less in their lives now. Live and let live.

    “The answers are predetermined, for it was Nature who decided long ago.” – this is middle or dark ages thinking. We live in a world of progress and innovation. Get used to it, or stay angry.

    • Reply Toma June 29, 2015 at 2:07 PM

      They didn’t find a definition, they created one. And the dark ages?? Naturalism is now.

    • Reply Toma June 29, 2015 at 2:15 PM

      And Paul, of course I’m angry. Gay marriage has long been inevitable, and remains as such in other actually democratic countries, but there are ways to go about it, and fucking over the entire democratic process highlights the selfish drive of this impatient, malintentioned group of advocates. They could have allowed public opinion to reach the point that their rights became a widespread, socially accepted norm. They instead opted for the quick and easy lay, at the cost of everything democracy was built upon. How truly noble of them.

      • Reply FuckYou June 29, 2015 at 9:51 PM

        Wow….
        You hate on the depressed
        You hate on Christians
        You hate on Gays

        What’s next?

        Before you bitch about others not following the democratic principles that are the foundation to our government, maybe you should give those principles a read.

        “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal”

        If you want to go by the laws of naturalism, fine. Not only are those laws filled with hate, discrimination, and the self destructive sense of Social Darwinism that has corrupted early civilizations but those are not the laws that dictate the legality of such issues in America, nor should it do so.

        If your incompetent brain couldn’t keep up with that “rant” then here’s a short version of what I said above:

        Go fuck yourself, you bigoted piece of shit

        • Reply Toma June 29, 2015 at 9:56 PM

          I suspect you have misunderstood naturalism.

          • FuckYouAsshole June 30, 2015 at 10:48 PM

            Educate me then. Cause right now it seems a lot like its about determining who is equal and who is based on someone’s personal obsession with superiority covered by the bullshit excuse that nature said it was all decided and okay a long time ago.

            Unless you want to admit that this and all your other posts in the past prove you’re nothing but a hateful prick…

          • Felicia August 26, 2015 at 3:00 PM

            I suspect you are contradictory. If you are going to attempt to argue about “creating definition”, you should, perhaps, reconsider what defines you and each term you have decided to utilize. I respect one thing about you: you voice your opinion. However, that is all you do, with a lack of respect for your own species. This is politics. You should get out more, stop just reading up on new terminology and short opinionated articles which have formulated who you think you “naturally” are. I do not mean to hate on you or your opinion; I simply aim to open your eyes, as they have shown in all the articles I have gazed upon this morning, to be sewn shut by the hand of ignorance. I hope bliss feels good–I, however, suffer from depression caused by the inability to help other people. Yes, depression. Oh, I am also a pro-choice, bisexual atheist. My best friend is the opposite. People can get along. You are just difficult and do not seem to have the ability to really see. I wish you well.

  • Reply Susan Lea Rudd June 29, 2015 at 1:52 PM

    The all-knowing, ever-loving supposed child of God has let us know once again what God is thinking. He lets us see Jesus’s forgiving and loving spirit. NOT. “for it was Nature who decided long ago.” Sounds more like Toma decided just now.

    • Reply Toma June 29, 2015 at 2:06 PM

      Did I mention God?

      • Reply HowSociallyIneptDoYouNeedToBe July 14, 2016 at 10:36 PM

        No, you only mentioned how apparently angry you are at how all of this is unconstitutional. Interestingly you never write about any of the more serious breaches of the constitution. Instead, something that has no effect whatsoever on political processes will ‘destroy democracy’. You must be the most honest person I’ve ever met.

  • Reply Brad G June 29, 2015 at 3:26 PM

    Best example I’ve read of why a judiciary body sometimes needs to step in to protect a minority, despite perhaps going against public opinion (or a conception of natural law). Otherwise you have naturally born souls (such as the blind, disabled, idiosynscratic genius, currently-inferior race, homosexual, etc.) who are deemed unnatural – an thus inferior. Which logically leads to legally endorsed discriminaiton if not extermination in extreme cases. It’s a legal question. Your private opinions on the worthiness of individual souls are, by law (and I’d say grace), irrelevant. But do type away … it’s another strength of our legal system.

    • Reply Toma June 29, 2015 at 6:15 PM

      If society believes a minority needs protecting, then the democratic process will reflect that accordingly.

      • Reply Brad G June 29, 2015 at 6:52 PM

        What if a society believes a minority doesn’t need protecting – that in fact, that minority isn’t privy to the same rights under the law as the majority?

        • Reply Toma June 29, 2015 at 7:03 PM

          You ask that like it doesn’t happen every day. What matters is that we can come to that conclusion. The Supreme Court robbed Americans of that right, probably because, despite what corrupt media reports, the (small?) majority of Americans do not support gay marriage. But now we’ll never know.

          • Brad G June 29, 2015 at 10:54 PM

            On one hand, I tend to agree with you that matters are typically best left to the democratic process, so there’s more of a consensus and less of a backlash if an unpopular law is ushered in via the judicial branch. On the other, minorities are at times in need of protection under law despite the majority’s current opinion, which is where the judiciary can be most effective. If, for example, the majority of Americans were in favor of abortion, but SCOTUS ruled to protect the rights of the unborn (contrary to public opinion), would you be equally outraged at Americans being robbed of their right to democratic rule?

          • Toma June 30, 2015 at 11:37 AM

            You raise an important question. I propose the real question to you: Would you rather have holy laws rule a nation? Or holy hearts? My answer is the latter.

            What I am saying here is that given the choice, I would much prefer to change the hearts of the nation, and have that change reflected through the democratic process. Gay advocates claim the majority of the population supported their cause, yet they didn’t allow the majority to say so for themselves.

          • Nick July 3, 2015 at 8:26 PM

            This was certainly true a very short while ago, but I would almost disagree with you at this point in time. I think the vocal minority has done such a great job demonizing those who disagree with them that likely the majority now has bought their fundamentally fallacious arguments and would never vote against “equality” for fear of being branded a “hateful bigot.” Though I like to believe that when they’re calm and at peace, and without that vocal minority yelling in their ears through the media, etc., deep down inside, they know that the whole thing is ludicrous.

      • Reply Nargess August 14, 2016 at 7:44 PM

        Yes.that’s the way it should be.

  • Reply CindyT June 29, 2015 at 5:58 PM

    I agree with article, I say it may be legal on a piece of paper, but to God it is not recognized as marriage. Can you, Toma explain the gay theory in your opinion? I believe it is a spiritual condition.

    • Reply Toma July 1, 2015 at 8:09 AM

      Hey Cindy. Yes, it is absolutely a spiritual issue. A man who knows the spirit also knows truth, and the truth is there is NO good in homosexuality. Even if he were to continue to feel temptation, he would resist acting upon it.

      You may find this old post of mine to be of some interest:

      http://tomahaiku.com/is-heterosexuality-homosexuality-choice/

      • Reply Andy Stokely October 19, 2016 at 2:21 PM

        Just fyi buddy…there is absolutely no fucking evidence whatsoever that “god” exists, but yet you base all of beliefs and assumptions that you express in an extremely offensive and “know it all” kind of attitude on the existence of god. Just something you might want to think about next time before you claim things like mental illnesss, which has absolutely massive bodies of physical evidence supporting its existence, isn’t real. Oh and by the way nature is actually responsible for creating homosexuality. New studies neuroscience studies show that the INAH-3 in homosexual men is similar in size to that of women. This finding offers extremely strong and convincing evidence that sexual orientation is determined from a biological basis and not a psychological one. Furthermore, another recent study showed that the anterior commissure and suprachiasmatic nucleus is larger in male homosexuals than it is in male heterosexuals. Another study reported that the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis is larger in men than in women and that male to female transsexuals have a nucleus comparable in size to females. All in all these studies provide strong evidence that sexual orientation is determined by a person’s hardwired genetics and neurochemistry and that it is not up to that person to “choose” what they want to be. Also as far as your whole mission to rant about how mental illness is made up, I really suggest that you just order a basic neuroscience text book so you can maybe learn a little about how the brain works. Maybe then you’ll realize how insanely flawed and idiotic all your posts are about mental illness because scientists can literally prove that mental illness does exist through brain scans and they even have extremely detailed theories, that are back up by tons of evidence, on the biological mechanisms behind depression, bipolar, anxiety, schizophrenia, ect…

  • Reply Nick July 1, 2015 at 7:41 AM

    It really is incredible how quickly an extremely vocal minority has managed to force its agenda on the public in order to make themselves feel better about themselves. They did an excellent job from the start framing the discussion – demanding “equal rights” – and what kind of decent person would want to deny someone else equality?! And of course, like you say, a gay couple will never be equivalent to a truly married one because of reality. But I’d also like to point out that “equality” is not and was not ever truly an issue – a gay person has just as much right to marry as a straight one – he just has to marry someone of the opposite gender, the same as everyone else, and if he’s not attracted to anyone of the opposite gender, then marriage clearly isn’t for him.
    And that is the real issue, and the real problem with gay “marriage” – these radicals have taken an institution that was never supposed to be about the individual, or individual happiness, but about something bigger that the indivdual, ie, the family; and they’ve made it about ME, ME, ME. By doing so, they’ve completely undermined the institution and totally missed the whole point of it in the process.

    • Reply Toma July 1, 2015 at 8:23 AM

      Your comment may be better than my entire post.

      The ME ME ME point of view leaves little wonder as to why they succeeded. When I look at their supporters (my friends included) I see a bunch of self-centred fuckwits who, more than supporting gay marriage, support the idea of doing whatever we want in life. Oh, and being proud of it.

      Then there is the issue of framing it as ‘equality’. It was certainly a great way to market their cause, but without the support of controlled media it would have meant nothing. While I’m not typically a tin-foil hat type, now more than ever I believe this was more than a cause, but a conspiracy.

      • Reply Nick July 4, 2015 at 1:55 AM

        I guess it depends on your definition of conspiracy. It’s easy to see why the rich Hollywood celebrity elite types would adhere to a self-centric view of the world and support things like gay “marriage” and I suppose they hold considerable influence on society. And it’s unsurprising that the left-leaning media would support these causes though I’m not going to pretend to understand why the media is always so liberal. But yeah, logging into Facebook the past week has been painful.

    • Reply Nargess August 14, 2016 at 7:52 PM

      You can say all that again. I really dont know where this extreme preoccupation of us, human beings, with our Is and MEs is going.

  • Reply Arby July 2, 2015 at 1:55 AM

    “It really is incredible how quickly an extremely vocal minority has managed to force its agenda on the public in order to make themselves feel better about themselves.”

    And now the question is, after the glow of this victory wears off what will they attack next to feel better about themselves?

    • Reply Toma July 2, 2015 at 6:43 AM

      Exactly. My money is on it going the way of feminism. It won’t be enough to have legal equality. Next will be an even greater attack on the social mind. More gays in the workplace. More gays on TV. Gay rights being taught in schools. And, most inevitably, gay rights within the church.

  • Reply Nick July 3, 2015 at 8:53 PM

    “More gays on TV.”
    As someone who watches too much TV, I can assure you this has already been happening for some time and it’s incredibly irritating.
    “Gay rights being taught in schools.”
    Pretty sure this is already happening, or starting to.
    http://www.newsweek.com/san-francisco-high-school-offer-lgbt-studies-course-346106
    “And, most inevitably, gay ‘rights’ within the church”
    Churches will either be forced to betray their principles and embrace the New Order or they will be destroyed. (Evil sounding, but true.)
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/02/government-crusade-against-churches-begins-with-removal-of-non-profit-status/
    “More gays in the workplace.”
    This just makes me laugh, for some reason.

  • Reply April July 13, 2015 at 6:06 PM

    With so many children in homes without loving families are you for or against gays adopting a child and raising it? this child will receive love and a steady upbringing. or they can stay and move from foster home to foster home because .. well more people can’t have kids anyway due to the chemicals they dump in our food, air, and water?

    As much as you get the heat on this website i do like your point of view. I haven’t found one i agree with but it’s en-lighting to see a point of view i don’t share. So i really do thank you for this perspective.

  • Reply Rafael July 16, 2015 at 1:53 AM

    “If it be admitted that a man possessing absolute power may misuse that power by wronging his adversaries, why should not a majority be liable to the same reproach? Men do not change their characters by uniting with one another; nor does their patience in the presence of obstacles increase with their strength. For my own part, I cannot believe it; the power to do everything, which I should refuse to one of my equals, I will never grant to any number of them.”

    -Alexis de Tocqueville, “Tyranny of the Majority,”

    I suggest you read the link in the end of my comment Toma. Maybe you’ll learn a thing or two about the rights of minorities in a democracy, as defined by the founding fathers of this country…

    http://www.democracyweb.org/node/36

    • Reply Nick July 18, 2015 at 7:34 PM

      Of course, the link has almost nothing to do with gay “rights.” But reading it makes me wonder: how likely did the founding fathers ever think it would be that the rights of the majority would end up being trampled upon by a tiny but vocal and belligerent minority, as has been the case?

      • Reply Rafael July 19, 2015 at 12:55 AM

        The link desnt talk about gay rights specifically, but of minority rights in general. I thought you would have been able to extrapolate what was written to specific groups, but sadly I’ve overestimated your intelligence.

        In any case, as the text suggests, the rights of the majority have not been trampled, precisely because the majority does not have a right to enforce their will upon the minorities. One of the primary reasons for the existence of the supreme court is to protect the minorities from the wrath of the majority, which is exactly why the supreme court members aren’t subject to popular elections. This is the way our system of government was designed by the founding fathers. They built the government this way for a reason.

        You might argue that the exact opposite has happened, that the minority has enforced their will upon the majority, but this is simply not the case. They’re not forcing you to gay marry, they’re merely fighting for the right to marry amongst themselves. You have not been hurt in any way by this ruling. Your rights have not been infringed. As the quoation I’ve written above explains, the majority does not and cannot have the right to do everything they wish, less they turn tyrannical. This isn’t my opinion, it’s the opinion and reasoning of the founding fathers. You have a lot to learn, and if you reply to this with more nonsense you my friend have a bad case of ‘sour grapes’. Haha

        • Reply Arby July 19, 2015 at 1:19 AM

          There is no right to marry in the Constitution. The decision took away the right of the people to define marriage. That leaves open legal cases for incest and polygamy in addition to the whole problem with legislating from the bench.

          For the legal arguments around why this decision by SCOTUS is harmful, follow @Ebolamerican on Twitter. He’s a highly entertaining lawyer who graduated from an Ivy League school. He is also gay so if you want to jump down his throat for being a religious bigot you can try but he will chew you up and spit you out. Actually, he will do that just for arguing for same sex marriage.

          • Nick July 19, 2015 at 2:25 AM

            Exactly. People are already seriously arguing for polygamy using the exact same arguments for gay “marriage.” Germany is already on the road to incest. But I guess we have to assume that those most rabidly for gay “marriage” must probably see nothing wrong with those two other things either, since again, the exact same arguments can be used to support both.

          • Arby July 19, 2015 at 2:39 AM

            Nick,
            Sadly, the ones I see arguing with the lawyer against “incestual marriage” (esp.) and polygamy, have no concept of how their arguments against it exactly match what others have been saying about same sex marriage. One even went so far as to tweet if the court ruling is misinterpreting the Constitution, then just ignore the court and go with the fact that the people want it. Another tweeted that the court couldn’t approve “incestual marriage” because there are laws against incest. You have no idea the horror I am feeling at the educational level of Americans right now.

          • Nick July 19, 2015 at 3:22 AM

            It sounds like these people have been thoroughly brainwashed. Actually, I almost think it’s impressive in a sad way how skilled they are at mental gymnastics to be able to justify the one but not the others and keep it all straight in their minds.

        • Reply Nick July 19, 2015 at 2:21 AM

          Oh, I can extrapolate when it’s warranted, and in this case it’s not. I’m sorry you can’t see that. Gay people can and always have been able to marry – they just have to marry someone of the opposite gender, the same as everyone else.
          I realize the idea of marriage being about something more than individual “happiness” may be a foreign concept that is extremely difficult for you to grasp, but do try.
          Once again, no one is being discriminated against by preserving the traditional (real) definition of marriage, which is why your entire argument falls flat and your link is completely and totally irrelevant.

          • Adrienne September 27, 2015 at 4:28 AM

            This is like saying to a black man or later a woman before they had the right to vote, that they have the same rights as anyone else– the right to vote if they’re a white man.
            Also, preserving tradition is totally the best way to advance as a society. Yes.

          • Nick September 29, 2015 at 5:37 AM

            You’d better go back to Logic 101, for your analogy quite literally doesn’t make any sense. I’ll say it again since you seem unable to grasp it: a gay person has always had the right to marry, as long as he marries someone of the opposite gender. A straight man has always had the right to marry, as long as he marries someone of the opposite gender. Because that’s what marriage has always been. See how that works? It’s not that hard. In fact, our President Obama used to have that very same opinion, though I admit it was a looooong time ago, way back in 2008 (the Dark Ages, I know).
            Before a black man could not vote. Before, a woman could not vote. Like, literally, not vote. Like, at all. I really hope you’re capable of discerning the difference here.
            Ridiculous analogies aside, as I said to Rafael, the key to all this is being able to grasp the concept that marriage isn’t necessarily about individuals and individual happiness – and the fact that you are apparently blind to even conceiving of marriage in this other context, its original, traditional context, is rather disturbing.
            Finally, to your last statement, what do you even know about advancing society? What is an advanced society to you? Have you even thought about the things you’re saying? Don’t answer that, I know why you said it, it sounded good in your head, and if you were in a place surrounded by a group of collectivist brainwashed “progressive” zombies (a typical college campus, for example), everyone would cheer that you said it (because f*** tradition, amirite?? looolz). Grow up and learn to think for yourself.

  • Reply Hey September 4, 2015 at 5:11 PM

    You’re a fairly disgusting racist and misdirecting piece of white supremacy toting, white liberal, probably white, cisgendered, straight man. Wow. Go to Blackgirldangerous for some enlightenment on truth or something. Actually don’t. They don’t need you bitching at them too.

  • 1 2 3