I’ve been doing some show prep for an episode of Knight and Rose on same-sex marriage. When I talk to atheists about same-sex marriage, they just say stupid things like how proud they are of legalizing it. No atheist understands what marriage is, what the state’s interest is in marriage, or what happens after marriage is redefined to eliminate the requirement for complementary genders.

Before same-sex marriage was legalized by Supreme Court decision, social conservatives like me were warning about what would happen after. But secular leftists didn’t listen, because thinking is hard. Especially for immoral people.

But here we are a few years after same-sex marriage, and we get this story from the New York Post:

An opinion from New York City’s eviction court has come down on the side of polyamorous unions.

In the case of West 49th St., LLC v. O’Neill, New York Civil Court Judge Karen May Bacdayan reportedly concluded that polyamorous relationships are entitled to the same sort of legal protection given to two-person relationships.

West 49th St., LLC v. O’Neill involved three individuals: Scott Anderson and Markyus O’Neill, who lived together in a New York City apartment, and Anderson’s husband Robert Romano, who resided elsewhere.

So, the reason why social conservatives were opposed to redefining marriage, is because we knew that a core aspect of marriage is the complementary genders. The male-female standard is related to many aspects of marriage and child-raising. A male-female union is necessary to conceive children. Male-female marriages (particularly those with virgins who attend church weekly) are the most stable form of relationship. Male-female marriages don’t have the high rates of infidelity of male-male relationships. Male-female marriages also don’t have the high rates of domestic violence and instability of female-female relationships.

But another thing that’s important about the male-female aspect of procreation is that you get a number out of it. That number is the number TWO. One man and one woman go into the bedroom, and then 9 months later, a child is born that shares DNA from both of them. That’s why the number 2 is central to natural marriage.

But if you drop the norm of complementary sexes from marriage, and just say that marriage is between two people who have a strong emotional commitment to each other, then there is no more number 2. After all, strong emotional commitments can be shared by groups of people. And that’s why we are seeing this ruling.

Secular leftists don’t accept an objective moral law, and they are terrible at understanding the consequences of tearing down moral boundaries. When it comes to morality, they have zero ability to reason or predict consequences. These are the same people who destroy their own oil and gas industries to stop “global warming”, then are forced to buy dirty oil and gas from Russia. Then they complain when Russia takes their money to buys tanks and planes that they use to invade Ukraine. They deny responsibility for the results that directly follow from their own foolish choices.

Here’s another consequence of same-sex marriage, this time reported by The Post Millennial.

A gay New York City couple is fighting for the right to get in vitro fertilization (IVF) and surrogacy covered by the city’s “discriminatory” insurance policy that does not fund fertility treatments for homosexual male couples.

Corey Briskin and Nicholas Maggipinto filed a class-action lawsuit against the city back in April, after learning in 2017 that Briskin’s insurance policy from his government job did not provide IVF benefits for gay men, reported NBC.

“What the city has done is robbed me of the right to determine when I get to have the family that I want to have,” Maggipinto said.

The couple had made a two-part plan to become parents: First, they would get IVF, a process in which an egg is fertilized with sperm in a lab. Then, they planned to hire a woman to be a surrogate, to use her womb to carry the zygote to term.

They want to get IVF, and they they want to get a surrogate mother to do the pregnancy. But they don’t want to pay for it – they want YOU to pay for it, because… marriage equality. Their same-sex marriage is the same as your heterosexual marriage, and that’s why the money earned from your marriage has to transferred to their marriage to pay for the production of children for their marriage.

Why do they want children?

“We got married and then we wanted all the trappings: house, children, 401K, etc,” Maggipinto, 37, said to the Guardian on Saturday.

I would really like to see what happens to supporters of same-sex marriage on judgement day when they meet the children who were treated like commodities. I would like the children to explain to them what they lost when they lost their biological mother and father, and the stability of an opposite-sex married home. Right now, they don’t seem to care. But I hope that one day, they are made to care. Children are not objects. They have needs. Adults need to stop being so reckless, irresponsible and selfish.

In this post, let’s first take a look at the a list of FBI corruption scandals, then we can see what the FBI is doing with pro-lifers. My goal here will be to alert people that the FBI is operating like some sort of secret police for the Biden regime, so we really need to let people know about this before the elections in November. We do not want the FBI to continue under Democrat leadership.

Grabien has a good long list of 79 FBI Scandals, Controversies, & Acts of Corruption.

Here are few recent ones:

Durham: Primary Steele Dossier Source Was Paid FBI Informant	09/14/2022	Newsmax
FBI labeled veteran-led disaster organization a ‘terror’ group over government criticism, whistleblower says	09/15/2022	Yahoo! News
Former top FBI official involved in Trump-Russia investigation under scrutiny by federal prosecutors for his own ties to Russia	09/15/2022	Business Insider
FBI inflating ‘white supremacy’ threat to help White House political agenda	09/15/2022	The Washington Times
FBI whistleblower alleges Jan. 6 cases manipulated to create illusion of national crisis	09/20/2022	Just the News
FBI whistleblower: Counterterrorism cases against alleged right-wing extremists mostly ‘entrapment’	09/22/2022	The Washington Times
FBI misled judge who signed warrant for Beverly Hills seizure of $86 million in cash	09/23/2022	Yahoo News
FBI Agents Raid Home, Arrest Pro-Life Advocate in Front of Wife and Children	09/25/2022	The Daily Signal

They link to a news story for each one. Those news stories are just from the last 2 weeks of September.

Anyway, I do think it’s important for taxpayers to decide what the FBI should be doing, since taxpayers pay them. And that’s why we have elections. Clearly, many of the people running the FBI are immoral and corrupt. They don’t know anything about the Constitution, or the rule of law, or law enforcement. So, we should definitely put them under new management. But what’s been bothering me lately are these stories about the FBI pre-dawn raiding the homes of pro-lifers.

Here’s an article from The Federalist that shows that the lawyer of one of the people who was raided e-mailed federal law enforcement to let them know that he would turn himself if required. That e-mail was sent in June 2022, and it was ignored. It was replied to by federal law enforcement only AFTER they pre-dawn-raided his house.

Look:

Amid Americans’ growing distrust of the FBI, the agency further damaged its reputation when, not quite two weeks ago, some 15 police vehicles and about 20 law enforcement officers, including many with ballistic shields, long guns, and a battering ram at the ready, descended on Houck’s home.

And:

The scandal intensified after a dozen Republican senators revealed in a letter sent to FBI Director Christopher Wray that Houck’s attorney, Thomas More Society lawyer Matt Heffron, had informed the Assistant U.S. Attorney Anita Eve that he would accept the summons on Houck’s behalf and that Houck would appear voluntarily. A copy of the email exchange between Heffron and Eve obtained Monday by The Federalist proves even more damning than the senators’ letter to Wray suggests, for two reasons.

[…]Heffron’s email to Eve, in which he noted he would “accept a summons on my client’s behalf, rather put Mr. Houck and his family through needless disruption,” was dated June 9, 2022, but Eve’s sole response to that email came on Sept. 23, 2022 — when Eve wrote Heffron to inform him that “this morning, [Houck] was taken into custody by FBI agents and is being transported to the Philadelphia FBI office for processing.” So the first response Houck’s attorney received from the U.S. attorney’s office, following two phone calls and an email, came more than three months later to advise him that his client had already been arrested.

That’s bad, but look at this more recent story from the Daily Signal, which talks about the recent arrest and charging of 11 more peaceful pro-life activists:

[…]The Biden Justice Department is heavily focused on protecting abortion clinics from pro-life activists who pray outside or seek to persuade women not to abort their unborn babies. On Wednesday, the Justice Department charged 11 more pro-life activists with violations of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act for blocking the entrance of an abortion clinic in 2021.

You can watch videos of one the raids here on Life News. The FBI men were armed with assault rifles and they refused to give their names. That’s the kind of accountability we’re getting from the federal law enforcement.

The Daily Signal article also notes that pro-abortion violence against pro-lifers hasn’t gotten any attention from the Biden regime:

The Federal Bureau of Investigation will not share whether it has made any arrests related to attacks on pro-life centers, organizations, and Catholic churches following the leak of the Supreme Court opinion overturning Roe v. Wade.

At least 83 Catholic churches and 73 pregnancy resource centers or pro-life organizations have been attacked since the draft opinion was leaked in May. And some of these pro-life centers and organizations have told The Daily Signal that they have not heard anything from federal authorities.

This would be similar to how BLM and Antifa terrorists seem to have an easy time getting bail, despite causing 2 billion dollars worth of damages. That’s from vandalism, theft and arson. And that’s not even to mention the violence committed by the secular left terrorists. I know that in big Democrat cities, Antifa fascists are often released the same day they are arrested.

Here’s an excellent article from center-left writer Michael Shellenberger, on his Substack. He is talking about all the journalists who are claiming that there are more hurricanes now than ever before in the history of the world, and that global warming is causing the increase in the number of hurricanes, and in the intensity of hurricanes. What does the evidence really say?

First, let’s see what the mainstream news media says:

Over the last several weeks, many mainstream news media outlets have claimed that hurricanes are becoming more expensive, more frequent, and more intense because of climate change.

• The Financial Times reported that “hurricane frequency is on the rise.”
• The New York Times claimed, “strong storms are becoming more common in the Atlantic Ocean.”
• The Washington Post said, “climate change is rapidly fueling super hurricanes.”
• ABC News declared, “Here’s how climate change intensifies hurricanes.”
• Both the FT and N.Y. Times showed graphs purporting to show rising hurricane frequency using data from the U.S. government’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

All of those claims are false.

So the first claim is that hurricane damage is increasing. But why is that? It’s because the areas being hit by hurricanes are more developed and populated than before:

The increasing cost of hurricane damage can be explained entirely by more people and more property in harm’s way. Consider how much more developed Miami Beach is today compared to a century ago. Once you adjust for rising wealth, there is no trend of increasing damage.

What about the frequency of hurricanes. Is it really increasing, like the no-STEM-degree journalists say?

Claims that hurricanes are becoming more frequent are similarly wrong. “After adjusting for a likely under-count of hurricanes in the pre-satellite era,” writes NOAA, “there is essentially no long-term trend in hurricane counts. The evidence for an upward trend is even weaker if we look at U.S. landfalling hurricanes, which even show a slight negative trend beginning from 1900 or from the late 1800s.” What’s more, NOAA expects a 25% decline in hurricane frequency in the future.

NOAA expects a 25% decline in hurricane frequency in the future! That doesn’t sound like what the global warming alarmists would predict.

The no-STEM-degree journalists also claim that the intensity of the hurricanes is increasing. Are they right about that?

Explains NOAA, “after adjusting for changes in observing capabilities (limited ship observations) in the pre-satellite era, there is no significant long-term trend (since the 1880s) in the proportion of hurricanes that become major hurricanes.“ Bottom line? “We conclude that the historical Atlantic hurricane data at this stage do not provide compelling evidence for a substantial greenhouse warming-induced century-scale increase in:  frequency of tropical storms, hurricanes, or major hurricanes, or in the proportion of hurricanes that become major.”

This is important, because the NOAA said it: “there is no significant long-term trend (since the 1880s) in the proportion of hurricanes that become major hurricanes.” I like that Shellenberger is quoting the NOAA, and not just giving his opinion.

Shellenberger contacted several of the journalists, but just got silence from them when he asked why they were misrepresenting the data.

Here’s one example:

Is it possible that the Financial Times reporter Aime Williams and her editors pulled the data from the NOAA website to make their graph, and mistakenly claimed that it shows more frequent hurricanes, but didn’t happen to read the website and its explicit warning that “After adjusting for a likely under-count of hurricanes in the pre-satellite era, there is essentially no long-term trend in hurricane counts”?

If that is indeed what occurred, then Williams and FT are guilty of journalistic malpractice of the highest order. But there is little reason to think that’s what happened. NOAA makes its warning relatively early on its web page and repeats it several times. And FT, like everyone else, has been covering this issue for decades not years.

I asked Williams in an email why she reported that hurricanes were increasing in frequency and intensity, against the best available science, and she did not respond. Whatever the case, FT should issue a retraction or a correction.

I tried to see what earned degrees Aime Williams has, but wasn’t able to find anything. It’s almost as if she doesn’t want people to know what she studied in school. I couldn’t find any work experience in the field of climate science, either. If she’s a writer, rather than a scientist, then maybe she just has degrees in English?

I find it suspicious, because if you google my real name, you’ll find the citation for my Master’s thesis in computer science, and my Linked In page with my 2 computer science degrees and over two decades of work experience in the field. Where are her degrees? Where is her work experience? If she doesn’t have any knowledge of these topics, then why should we trust her as an authority?