Posted on 08/22/2011 4:01:22 AM PDT by Kaslin
And besides, who wants to be a scold?
Even still it's a capitulation to deviancy that will bear predictable fruit, ie increasing sociopathologies; and we can't even afford the current crop of pathologies.
The author, I assume, wishes. Every vote, even in California, is against homosexual “marriage.”
Are there ANY actual conservatives left among the GOP commentariat, or have all of them made common cause with that supposed 3% of the population?
Ungodly. - We who disapprove of homosexuality have not tried to “boss” them around; they’ve always been able to be as debauched as they please in privae. - I just don’t care to “celebrate” with them, nor to applaud what they’re doing. No matter how many “laws” they get passed, that is not going to change. - Now that kids in schools are fed the homosexual propaganda in order to brainwash them, I suppose people are just going to have to homeschool their kids and give them the religious training that they wish.
This government has just about reached the tipping point.
“... Moving to the Mainstream”?
I’d say our society is on a raft caught in the rapids just short of the 300’ falls. We on the raft are paddling hard upstream, but some are paddling to make us go over the falls.
only in the delusion of the MSM.
this is the same mob that had decided there is no recession.
homosexual conduct is not normal and no amount of edict can make it so.
we do have a “class” of women who see male homosexuals as just another group of “girlfriends” but that is just a demonstration of limited mental capacity on their part.
this is more a product of push polling and the homosexual lobby finding useful idiots in the likes of ann coulter.
A little leaven leavens the whole loaf. Seems I read that once. The enemy of our Country has long known that “marriage” is the basis for civilization. Once Fraud was introduced —and the dilution begun what was once pure water has been clouded.The Holy Spirit is the only filter I know that can cleanse the system. A land defiled by the shedding of innocent blood as America has been since the elite embraced Margaret Sanger,and Roger Baldwin —can only see the land restored by the shed blood —and Scripture teaches that blood was shed by Jesus that Rabbi from Nazareth.Our Salvation.
D.H. v. H.H. the Alabama State Concurring opinion by Roy S.Moore told a necessary truth One so dangerous that the Queer Nation dare not allow its author remain in power.
Maybe the text from D.H. v. H. H. ought be published again — and Note: the enemy could not discredit the message so they went hunting the messenger. Roy S. Moore ought be Chief Justice of the U.S. supreme Court. I do not believe it was Roy Moore who was so divisive—it was the enemy of my country
willing to commit any act of civil disobedience and lawlessness -those unable to stand sound doctrine that is the problem.
“That being said, since marriage between homosexuals is currently not acceptable to American law (whereas two men or two women cannot legally be married), “gay marriage” cannot, under any circumstances, be a right.”
Exepting in the places that it is acceptable to American law and state. In any case the state’s take on it isn’t the determinate of whether or not “gay marriage” is right or wrong.
“Marriage, however, is a sacrament in the Catholic church and a religious rite almost universally known and accepted around the world by all cultures and religions.
Right on. The Catholic Church doesn’t rely on the state to define and protect marriage, thank God.
Freegards
Prop. 8 passed by 52% in 2008. Pro-marriage amendments and popular votes repealing pro-homosexualist legislation are very close in some places, they have failed in Arizona (they then went on to pass a few years later) and the repeal of pro-gay legislation failed in one of the NW states, if I recall. The average that the pro-marriage amendments have passed by is 67% I think, with most of them passing in the middle of the last decade or so. Most places are still against “gay marriage” by large margins. But I wouldn’t be shocked if some of the places where the vote was close might not pass now.
As soon as the homosexualists think they have the numbers, they will quit howling about how unfair the popular voting process is and scream for it. If the black robed masters deem prop.8 legit, look for another popular vote repealing it soon after.
Freegards
But that's my point here. The fact that it was, at one point, against common law and had to be legislated into legality indicates that it is not a pre-existing right but a privilege granted to those who lobbied for it.
I agree that this is a State's rights issue, since the likely outcome is a patchwork of gay and straight states where homos flock to CA, NY, NJ, etc. and the rest of us live in the real world. Then we'll really see how fast those states decline!
Well, you said it was not currently acceptable in American law. In some places it is, which demonstrates the ever-mutating versions of statist and homosexualist marriage. Some faiths aren’t ever going to change their take on marriage, because they recognize that they don’t have the authority to do so.
The state should recognize the right of marriage correctly, but now many think that the state actually grants rights, so they think that marriage comes from the state, accepting any impossibility as marriage as long as the state says it is OK. Statists and homosexualists love that folks look to the state to define marriage, it provides immense control of the culture. They also love that the state can punish if one doesn’t accept their version of marriage.
Freegards
Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
Must ping out to the list tomorrow - got hardly any FR time today. Thanks for the ping.
The really ironic thing is that the more an issue it becomes and the more people think about it (and dare I say, the more people are exposed to in-your-face homosexuals), the less they like the idea.
Freepmail wagglebee 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 real reasons homosexual activists want "gay" marriage will be quoted in my next comment. It's all about destroying society, family and marriage, and has nothing whatsoever to do with monogamy or love. Useful idiots may think that, but that is not the real reason.
From LA Times of March 12: ...
“Divided over gay marriage” by Roy Rivenburg Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor who runs the International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission, recommends legalizing a wide variety of marriage alternatives, including polyamory, or group wedlock. An example could include a lesbian couple living with a sperm-donor father, or a network of men and women who share sexual relations.
One aim, she says, is to break the stranglehold that married heterosexual couples have on health benefits and legal rights. The other goal is to “push the parameters of sex, sexuality and family, and in the process transform the very fabric of society.” ... [snip]
An excerpt from: In Their Own Words: The Homosexual Agenda:
“Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile, who writes periodically for The New York Times, summarizes the agenda in OUT magazine (Dec/Jan 1994):
“A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes, but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution... The most subversive action lesbian and gay men can undertake —and one that would perhaps benefit all of society—is to transform the notion of family entirely.”
“Its the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statues, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into the public schools and in short to usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us.”
Chris Crain, the editor of the Washington Blade has stated that all homosexual activists should fight for the legalization of same-sex marriage as a way of gaining passage of federal anti-discrimination laws that will provide homosexuals with federal protection for their chosen lifestyle.
Crain writes: “...any leader of any gay rights organization who is not prepared to throw the bulk of their efforts right now into the fight for marriage is squandering resources and doesn’t deserve the position.” (Washington Blade, August, 2003).
Andrew Sullivan, a homosexual activist writing in his book, Virtually Normal, says that once same-sex marriage is legalized, heterosexuals will have to develop a greater “understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman.”
He notes: “The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal; and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness.” (Sullivan, Virtually Normal, pp. 202-203)
Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor and homosexual activist has said:
“Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. . Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family; and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. . We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society’s view of reality.” (partially quoted in “Beyond Gay Marriage,”
Stanley Kurtz, The Weekly Standard, August 4, 2003)
Evan Wolfson has stated:
“Isn’t having the law pretend that there is only one family model that works (let alone exists) a lie? . marriage is not just about procreation-indeed is not necessarily about procreation at all. “(quoted in “What Marriage Is For,” by Maggie Gallagher, The Weekly Standard, August 11, 2003)
Mitchel Raphael, editor of the Canadian homosexual magazine Fab, says:
“Ambiguity is a good word for the feeling among gays about marriage. I’d be for marriage if I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of ‘till death do us part’ and monogamy forever. We should be Oscar Wildes and not like everyone else watching the play.” (quoted in “Now Free To Marry, Canada’s Gays Say, ‘Do I?’” by Clifford Krauss, The New York Times, August 31, 2003)
1972 Gay Rights Platform Demands: “Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit.”
[Also among the demands was the elimination of all age of consent laws.]
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.