Because I'm a small business owner, attempting with all my might to resist the recession that President Obama seems intent upon keeping crammed down on us for as long as is humanly possible, it has begun to take me a while to get around to posting my thoughts on the events of the headlines, but also those in my own life these days.

Such is the case with the debate I was invited to participate in last night in New York's Hudson Valley Debate series. (Actually their final debate for the spring...)

Patrick McGrath should be congratulated for his desire to bring about civil and important discussion to the legislative issues of the time and thus his establishment of the series.



As he pointed out on his site, the attendance last night broke records. Previously they had averaged somewhere in the 30-40 range of attendees that voted. Last night with the issue being the loaded hot potato that I knew it would be the turnout was much larger. Most of it from the activist community that supports those who engage in homosexual activity.

When we were saying the "Pledge of Allegiance" at the beginning of the night the activists could not contain themselves and went for the jugular at the end of the pledge, 'with liberty and justice for S O M E!"

It's lame, it's dishonest, but it makes the irrational folks that make up that activist community feel more justified in their stew to have these little gadgets, catch phrases, and one-liners as many of them were thrown out in the course of the evening.

The debate was set up to be conducted in Oxford formatting so the same number of presenters are given an equal amount of time to make the case and then a vote is taken on the measure that is before the debate audience.

The tally of those who participated in the voting was registered before the debate and after the debate.

To no one's surprise, with the loaded jury, the activists bussed in a guaranteed win right?

Sort of...

When the vote was taken at the beginning of the night the numbers were 39 in favor of the marriage "equality" (sham) bill, and 18 against.



I was arguing the "against" position and I followed a family life activist, and a family life legal council from the New York Diocese. Batting clean up and know the other side was going to easily win I wondered exactly to myself why I had agreed to spend a lovely evening away from my Lovely Bride's side.

Both sides featured an attorney, both sides featured a woman. And both sides featured a personality who had some relationship to the other side of the debate.

The first presenter for those who wish to fundamentally redefine marriage stood up and announced that he was a practicing Jew who was married to his wife of some years and that he was here to fight for the "rights" of all. It was interesting to me in fact that two thirds of the debate team for the other side were married heterosexuals. Evidently the activist homosexual community understands at least in public how irrational, illogical, and passionately out of control they come off.

As Evidenced by the fact that the only presenter who espoused homosexual behavior for the other team made absurd statements asserting that homosexuals were the primary care givers to "crack babies" and other unwanted "cast off" children in America.

I looked him dead in the eye when I dealt with his assertion in the midst of my ten minutes.


All that being said I was grateful that both sides WERE able to have a fundamental discussion about genuine fairness, equality, sameness, gender distinction, and how all of that relates to the inherent definition of what marriage is. In addition when the voters were polled after the debate the tally was 47 to 29.

Fundamentally homosexual unions are not the equivalent to marriage because *gasp* heterosexual unions are superior by nature. Heterosexual unions are superior in what they have the capability to produce, how they physically work together, and in the DNA, chemical, and chromosome balance they bring to a family unit. (Before you blow a gasket... I admit that is a generalization. But generalizations are "generally" true for a reason.)

The debate will not be stopped anytime soon. But I for one am glad the discussion is now rolling because at least the substance of it can be examined more carefully.

And in doing so perhaps we can assuage some of the damage the activist homosexual "activist" community (not normal homosexuals) seems hellbent on visiting upon the free world.