Posted on 05/03/2009 10:07:36 AM PDT by wagglebee
Carrie Prejean's show of support for traditional marriage in the Miss USA Pageant has provoked a firestorm of controversy. Responding to judge Perez Hilton's politically charged question on whether other states should follow Vermont's lead in legalizing same-sex marriage, Prejean (Miss California) said that she was glad that Americans were able to choose, but that she was raised to believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
That response cost Miss California the Miss USA crown.
Hilton-a gay rights advocate-reacted with rage. In an online video, he called Prejean a "dumb b****" and said he would have "snatched that tiara off her head and run out the door" if she had won the crown. He later stated that she should have "left her politics and her religion out because Miss USA represents all Americans." No doubt, Miss Prejean would have been better off if she had invoked the "Fifth" and remained silent, rather than giving an honest answer to a politically-charged question.
Mr. Hilton's paroxysmal response to an honest answer to his question shows how difficult it is to have a thoughtful discussion about the subject of gay "marriage." Homosexual activists have said for years that all they want is "tolerance," but it has become increasingly clear that mere tolerance is not enough. They want their lifestyle to be endorsed by society and affirmed through civil law. And-as Miss Prejean can attest-they are anything but tolerant of those who have opposing points of view.
Demonization, not discussion, appears to be the modus operandi of the homosexual activist movement. Miss California is only the most recent example of what happens to a public figure who has the temerity to resist the gay agenda. Anita Bryant-another beauty queen-learned first hand the ugliness that results from taking a public stand against the gay agenda. So did Dr. Laura. Supporters of California's Proposition 8 are learning the same thing. Those who disagree with the radical homosexual agenda are demonized by their opponents for their belief. Advocates for traditional marriage are branded "intolerant," "discriminatory," or "homophobic." Their viewpoints are dismissed out of hand and deemed to be rooted in bigotry and prejudice against gays.
Homosexual activists have tried for years to define themselves by their practices. They argue that they are inherently gay and that their sexual impulses are dictated by their DNA. Since they have no choice in their sexual orientation, they maintain that their practices and relationships should receive society's seal of approval. Essentially, they argue: "If I desire X, then I must be an X-ist by definition and, therefore, no one has the right to deprive me of my pursuit of X." This argument does not withstand scrutiny. Lots of people are beset with impulses that they find difficult, if not impossible, to control. Pedophiles have overwhelming impulses to have sex with children, but that does not mean that we have to affirm their actions or legalize their behavior. Many a husband has succumbed to a strong sexual attraction toward a woman other than his wife, but the "irresistible impulse" plea rarely works with the spouse. Just ask John Edwards. The conflation of identity with impulse could be used to justify all sorts of illegal, undesirable, or immoral actions and relationships.
There are a number of cultural and social issues implicated in the civil affirmation of homosexual relationships as a valid form of marriage, not the least of which is that marriage is inextricably connected with family and society. From the beginning of time, men and women have come together in marriage and borne children as a result of their sexual union. Through the family unit, they have raised their children, protected them, taught them, transmitted their values to them, and prepared them for life in society. They have modeled gender roles and taught their children how to relate to members of their own sex as well as to the opposite sex. Society and culture has been promulgated-and can only be perpetuated-through the unique sexual dimensions of this heterosexual relationship.
Is it in society's interest to jettison the historic heterosexual model for marriage and embrace a new paradigm that includes homosexual unions (and, inevitably, other kinds of unions that are fashioned by other kinds of sexual impulses)? What are the implications for children of such unions? Are moms and dads merely superfluous, or do men and women both provide important role models for children? Will children suffer from gender confusion without heterosexual role models? Will gender have meaning in the future? Is gender identification important in preparing children to take their proper place in society? How will society be reproduced? Will we do it the old fashioned way or will we resort to brave new world technology? How will we regulate such technology? Will increased demand for such technology lead to designer children? Will fathers play a role in the lives of their children or will men be reduced to the status of mere inseminators? Will mothers become an anachronism? Will we embrace a definition of marriage which makes it a simple contractual relationship between two independent adults who are "in love?" If so, can the contract be amended? Will the definition of marriage be further amended?
These and dozens of other important questions need to be asked and answered before declaring that the heterosexual model for marriage is obsolete. Yet, if the Perez Hiltons of the world have their way, these questions won't be answered. They won't even be allowed to be asked.
And that is what the militant homosexualists intend to do, they want to silence ANY debate.
Freepmail wagglebee or DirtyHarryY2K to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
The very problem is illustrated by the continued use of the terms “DEBATE.” One does not debate with the perverts one COMMANDS them!
How on earth do you debate people who have no argument?
AMEN!
Where have these people been?
They act surprised by the homosexual lobby’s tactics.
You cannot rationally argue with these people.
the best you can and should do is to tell them to shut up.
Pass constitutional ammendments barring their lifestyle choices for starters.
They will not accept accomodation...they want you to do what they want and only what they want. They want your kids and they want you to pay for their imagined mistreatment.
We must summon the will collectively to say NO to these biological errors.
The odd thing is too, that in the name of “liberation” homosexual marriage is being pushed—yet according to every legal scholar I’ve heard of, opening the door to this, abandons any moral (and biblical) mooring for the institution of marriage—and makes polygamy—with its associated loss of rights for women—absolutely inevitable.
Acceptance of homosexuality in any society is not a step forward in tolerance, it is several steps back in degradation.
The only reasoned debate on gay marriage is who pitches and who catches.
The same logic should be applied to those who are disgusted by the gay lifestyle. It's not a "choice", it's a natural revulsion.
So while we will not intervene to prevent them from their insanitary practices we shouldn't be forced to accept or condone them.
It's just the same as whether you like, or dislike, the taste of a particular food. It is what it is, you don't make a conscious choice to like something or not.
Christian marriage was given to us by God to use for procreation and pleasure. The husband and wife relationship is also a picture of Christ’s caring relationship to His wife, the church. To pervert this my allowing gays to ‘marry’ is making a mockery of the teachings of my faith.
If gays want to have legally sanctioned relationships, OK. But don’t call it a marriage in the Christian sense.
Yes! Amen! They place their perverted unnatural desires above their own health and safety:
WHY LAWS AGAINST SODOMY ARE VITAL AND BENIFICIAL FOR ALL CITIZENS, INCLUDING THE SODOMITES!
The first purpose of a law is to give instruction to those who violate universal standards of conduct which bring destruction to themselves and to those around them.
(1 Timothy 1:9-10)
Sodomy is a self-consuming passion which will not satisfy those who engage in it. Instead it will produce enslavement to ever-increasing cravings for fulfillment. If no law exists to prohibit sodomy or, worse yet, if laws are made to protect it, thousands of unsuspecting citizens will be drawn into it without knowing of its dangers.
Everything I’ve read indicates that she was probably going to win, but I really don’t know. I think the way that the voting goes, if one judge wants you to lose, it is impossible to win.
OK, thanks, I’ll go with the statement in the second sentence of your reply.
I’m not certain of that, but my impression was that each of the judges “ranked” the finalists.
As far as CA voters are concerned there is no debate, the ballot box silenced the debate. The queers lost, the heteros won, period!
Yep.
That’s what I was thinking. The act of talking about it gives ground. Throw them in jail.
ironically the more they try to silence and push their agenda the more I along with many are speaking out, even people I know who never cared about homos now are getting pissed off with them and the way they try to bully people and do not accept others views
they try to make it out that if you’re against homos then you’re a bible reader when in fact many of us are not.
The majority of blue collar workers I know are fed up of them and I could not even put down on here what they say about them.
they then try to say it is a generation thing when infact most of us are under 40 who do not approve of them.
they can go to all the courts in the world to get their agenda going but the fact remains we are not going to change our minds.
so if any homo is reading this then remember what I am writing
you’re agenda never will be accepted even if some judge says it is legal.
you are mentally messed up and crying out for attention and for you the only attention you’re getting is negative attention because of your childish bully tactics
things like your freak parades as showing you to be totally confused and in need of mental help
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.