You remember Michael Bloomberg. He’s the busy-body mayor of New York City. He’s also the guy who wants to ban oversized soft drinks. Consider this from the mayor. Now he’s in the sex business:
“I do not believe that government has any business telling one class of couples that they cannot marry,” Bloomberg wrote in an e-mail to same-sex marriage supporters in Maryland, The New York Times reports. “The next great barrier to full equality under the law is marriage equality. There is no doubt in my mind this barrier will fall, just as so many others have.”
He donates money so men can engage in sex with one another and so the law can put such immoral behavior on a moral par with heterosexual relationships. At the same time that he is supporting people to make immoral, irrational, and biologically dangerous sexual choices, he wants to interfere with people’s choices about what types of drinks they can serve.
Fortunately soft drink makers and sellers are fed up with the intrusionist publicies of Mayor Bloomberg and his cadre of food brown shirts. The American Beverage Association, National Restaurant Association, unions and pro-business groups have filed a lawsuit “with the New York State Supreme Court seeking to block Mayor Bloomberg’s ban on large-size sugary drinks in New York City. The lawsuit asks the court to strike down the law before it can take effect next March.”
It’s bad to incest sugary drinks, but it’s not bad to ingest a sexual lifestyle that costs billions of dollars each year in healthcare costs, irrational thinking, and immoral behavior.
Each time a state has voted on legalizing homosexual marriage, the voters have struck down the measure. Even California voted to deny legal status for homosexual marriage. It took a self-admitted homosexual judge to overrule the will of the people after millions of dollars on both sides of the issue were spent.
Once we go down the road of “marriage equality” for people of the same sex, will polygamists demand a similar equal marriage treatment under the law? Will mothers and sons and/or daughters be able to marry? Will age restrictions be lifted? What will the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) do? These are the guys who believe it’s OK for adult men to engage in sex with prepubescent boys.
I was watching a “Law & Order” episode1 about a group of men who claimed that their sexual interest in young boys was genetic. They were borrowing the genetic defense made famous by homosexuals.
The fictional “Our Special Love” group (obviously patterned after NAMBLA) defended “a pedophile’s right to have sex with children” by claiming “that pedophilia is genetic, like homosexuality or heterosexuality.” Dr. George Huang’s character, an admitted homosexual (B.D. Wong, the actor who plays him, is openly homosexual), interjects that the genetic defense for pedophilia is preposterous and should not be compared to heterosexuality and homosexuality.
There’s no way to prove that either homosexuality or pedophilia is genetic. What we do know that in terms of God’s law, homosexuality and pedophilia are considered an abomination. Let’s not forget that Biology 101 confirms what people like Michael Bloomberg do not want people to consider. Like any support for an irrational and immoral worldview, the facts and sound reasoning must be thrown to the four winds.
Does Mayor Bloomberg realize that he may be helping to open Pandora’s sexual box? If he gets his wish that “this barrier will fall, just as so many others have,” he might find himself regretting it when some 25 year-old pedophile decides to take up legally with one of his grandsons.