Posted on 08/27/2013 9:04:47 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
ROME, August 27, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Since the push for "gay marriage" started, people who opposed it have absolutely refused to engage in discussions about the moral liceity, or even the physical and psychological consequences of homosexual behaviour. Have you noticed? The one thing no one in the argument seems to want to do is really to talk about what we’re talking about.
In the case of the Catholic Church, this has become a nearly universal policy, from the CDF on down. We have been informed that it was official. When the issue started gaining speed, bishops and national conferences told priests they were to talk exclusively about the glories and wonders of marriage, and never, ever breathe the slightest hint about all that other icky stuff.
Indeed, so appealing was the Catholic Church’s line to UK Prime Minister David Cameron – note: Conservative Party leader – that he actually used it to bring "gay marriage" into Britain, the little gift that he now wants to keep giving to the whole world. So, good work there, guys, thanks.
A very, very small number of people, including LifeSite, a couple of pro-family groups and maybe a handful of bloggers have been willing to say out loud that this policy is going to backfire. We’ve been the only ones to reject the disclaimers, evasions and excuses that nearly all the “conservative” world has embraced in order to sell the message. And for our troubles, we’ve had people, mainly these same “conservatives,” screeching at us like Pod People ever since.
We said that the arguments against "gay marriage" that start with the nice warm-cuddlies and go pretty much no further, are going to be ultimately incoherent. They won't move out any further than the borders of the conservative discussion bubble. Certainly, the average TV watching Regular Person, we said, is going to hear that line, shrug and say, "Well, OK, if marriage is so great, we should let everyone do it." Then he's going to flip over to the next episode of Glee.
Ultimately, we predicted, these “conservative” politically correct arguments are going to be so weak, that even the people holding and using them will eventually be forced to abandon them and join the throng themselves. Aaaaand guess what? This week, the US “conservative” political world is all in a tizzy over the column by Joseph Bottum, former editor of the kind-of Catholic magazine First Things, who said he’s not got any arguments to make against the change. (Yes, I’m going to keep using the scare quotes; deal.)
Lately we are increasingly being told, by everyone, that universal “gay marriage” is “inevitable”. To this, we at LSN and other assorted wacky hold-outs-to-reality, can really only say, “Yes, we told you that”.
We have been saying for some time that the Sexual Revolution isn’t over, that it’s an ongoing process that has as its aim the total abolition of any recognisable social structure based on objective biological realities, starting in the 70s with no-fault divorce, artificial contraception and abortion and moving on to the outer stratosphere of the weird.
We have also said that the language and processes of political conservatism, especially when they are applied to religious institutions, are inadequate to our immediate or long-term needs. That the political model, once summed up for me by a Canadian bishop as “the art of the possible,” isn’t going to be enough to provide the solutions to these big questions that people are looking for.
This political approach is the one that has bishops, and their “conservative” followers, around the world promoting the compromise of homosexual civil unions, a phenomenon that I think psychologists have called Stockholm syndrome. But I have bad news for these churchmen: that crocodile isn’t going to eat you last.
We have said that you can’t separate the moral law from politics. That the creation of a divide between “social conservative” and “fiscal conservative” is fatuous and a grave error that will result in the total elimination of any opposition whatever to the global socialist culture-wrecking agenda.
Click "like" if you support TRADITIONAL marriage.
But we were nuts, weren’t we? And we were “nuts” again when we followed the logic one or two steps further and said that once you’ve separated – in the words of a noted Italian pundit – the procreative ends of marriage from the unitive, you’ve pretty much opened the field up to anything at all. Meaning that the logic will take you very rapidly indeed from “gay marriage” to polygamy, paedophilia, incest and whatever else human concupiscence can come up with.
Logic is like math, people. Don’t shoot the messenger who insists, against all political fashion, that two and two still equal four.
Well, I've got to say that the least fun part about Cassandra Syndrome is saying "I told you so."
So, I’m going to change it to “Soooo, you don’t want to talk about the nasty, politically incorrect, squelchy stuff? You want to keep the discourse ‘civil’ and polite and friendly?
“How’s that workin’ out for y’all?”
Legal recognition of same-sex relationships around the world *:
Andorra – civil unions
Argentina – same-sex “marriage”
Australia: – civil unions
· ACT, NSW, QLD,
· TAS, VIC
Austria – civil unions
Belgium – same-sex “marriage”
Brazil – same-sex “marriage”
Canada – same-sex “marriage”
Colombia – civil unions
Czech Republic – civil unions
Denmark – same-sex “marriage”
Finland – civil unions
France – same-sex “marriage”
Germany – civil unions
Greenland – civil unions
Hungary – civil unions
Iceland – same-sex “marriage”
Ireland – civil unions
Isle of Man – civil unions
Israel – same-sex “marriage”
Jersey – civil unions
Liechtenstein – civil unions
Luxembourg – civil unions
Mexico – same-sex “marriage” and civil unions
Netherlands – same-sex “marriage”
New Zealand – same-sex “marriage”
Norway – same-sex “marriage”
Portugal – same-sex “marriage”
Scotland – civil unions
Slovenia – civil unions
South Africa – same-sex “marriage”
Spain – same-sex “marriage”
Sweden – same-sex “marriage”
Switzerland – civil unions
England & Wales – same-sex “marriage”
United States – same-sex “marriage”
· CA, CT, DC, DE,
· IA, MA, MD, ME,
· MN, NH, NY, RI,
· VT, WA, and 5 tribes
United States: – civil unions
· CO, HI, IL, NJ,
· NV, OR, WI
Uruguay – same-sex “marriage”
Venezuela – civil unions
* I won’t list the countries – Italy for one – currently thinking about legislation and I won’t take the trouble to look up those jurisdictions that, when putting the new sexual paradigm into law also made it illegal to dissent – though the Republic of Ireland springs to mind as an especially ironic exemplar.
Ant then on to polygamy, pedastery, and “fourth trimester abortion” (infanticide).
Looking over that list...does the Vatican take people seeking political asylum?
I’ll bet some rich men are already “shopping” for a second and third wife, especially in the Ukraine, Russia, Philippines and Thailand. Think I’m kidding?
I’ve been saying for some time that the one thing missing from the homosexual conversation is the fact of what being homosexual means. The homosexual agenda has nothing to do with two people being in love. It is purely an agenda of hedonism.
We have bigger fish to fry at the moment than gay marriage. Have you not been reading FR?
Hahahahaha! These are my numbers, what are yours? (You’ve posted a total of 19,083 threads and 43,492 replies.)What are you referencing?
I have married elderly friends who are in desperate situations because one of the couple needs round-the-clock care, yet the other one must submit to destitution to get their spouse in a nursing home (they’re all private pay or medicaid).
I think when these gay people marry, and they get into this predicament, the bloom will be off the rose in a real hurry.
Elderly people I know whose spouses die refuse to re-marry because of the danger to their assets. They might live together, but they do not commit legally and I understand why.
Bingo.
Once the gayberts got enough Americans to accept their lifestyle they started harping on equality under the law. And then the traditional marriage movement tried to protect marriage by getting laws passed defining marriage and prohibiting anything but traditional marriage be recognized by the government.
Thus they played right into the LGBT Lobby's hands by giving them a court case where traditional marriage was doomed to die because the LGBT Lobby could use "equal protection under the law" and win hands down.
Now it is set in stone and we will play Hell getting rid of Gay Marriage.
How do you find that? (I’m guessing I’ve posted 10 articles and 5,000 obnoxious replies)
God knows how to get rid of gay marriage. I read about his solution in Genesis. Don’t look back!
On the top of the page click “Account” and it’ll be right at the top of that page.
One easy step doth not a treatise make.
Russia not listed?
WE lost the gay wars because we (I mean those on our side even the Reed types) accepted the rule that you never talk specifically about the negative consequences of homosexuality and instead just repeat ‘I support traditional marriage’
Also leaving unchallenged the claim that Homosexual behavior (yes, behavior) is a human characteristic, like sex or race, was a sure way to surrender.
Only the left showed up for the fight.
BTW : All the gay rights people who were in the GWBush administration now coming out for gay marriage and the gays in military is very unhelpful.
Talking about the downfalls is certainly one thing that has gotten muted, but the real shame is that nobody is talking about the positive gospel direction that defends a body against not only homo behavior but all manner of other abuses: “Honor God in your body.” If one was really serious about exalting God in his or her body, the power of holiness would soon grow and displace any tendency to sin. And no you don’t have to be some cloistered monk or nun with special ascetic practices to do this! Any Christian who truly believes, can. God will honor prayer to be glorified in someone’s body, because these are prayers according to His will and the answer is ALWAYS yes.
WHO tells us, as it has for thirty years, that AIDS is a disease that infects homosexuals and drug addicts. Beside the HIV virus, homosexuals are ridden by many other STDs, and yet the Church still wants us—literally— to embrace our homosexual brothers and sisters?
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.