Opposing Gay Marriage Is a Waste of Your Time

National Journal ^ | May 14, 2014 | Ron Fournier, Senior Political Columnist & Editorial Director

[2ndDivisionVet]

Like those who stood against civil rights for African-Americans, gay-marriage foes are fighting a battle they can't win.

LITTLE ROCK, Ark.

[Morpheus2009]

Lengthy post, but pretty much spot on. In addition to what you said, though, the whole polygamy thing won’t be accepted by the gays. They hate Mormons immensely, anything that deals with Mormons, I doubt they would want to be heard if they had the choice. Plus, polygamy has a place in the Bible, and among the religious, too.

[Elsie]

But some of us will never be silent.

Like Don Jones?

[Elsie]

America has murdered millions of unborn children, has enslaved millions more to government, and is now forcing the celebration of unnatural relations and perversion. We will answer for these sins.

I'd like to thank the United States Government for protecting me and my kind.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You see, 40 years ago, my odds of making it out of the egg, alive, were very poor; about 80% of us died. 

 (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=rachel-carson-silent-spring-1972-ddt-ban-birds-thrive)

 

 

But a lady discovered our plight and wrote a book that addressed our problem,

and, in 1972, a law was ammended protecting us even further. (http://www.fws.gov/midwest/eagle/protect/laws.html)

 

 

 

 

 

 

What I find strange is that the same government passed a law the very next year that allowed for killing

of unborn, and apparently unwanted, humans.  Little ones still nestled safely in their Mother's womb.

Around 25% of them are dying before birth - on average nearly 3,300 - every day of the year.

 

 

I hear that by now, somewhere around 55 MILLION of them have perished.

Wouldn't that kind of mess up the humans plans for growth, and welfare, and

retirement?

 

 

 

 

 

Strange birds; these Homo Sapiens.  Perhaps they'll come to their senses

before they are ALL dead!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd like to thank the United States Government for protecting me and my kind.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You see, 40 years ago, my odds of making it out of the egg, alive, were very poor; about 80% of us died. 

 (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=rachel-carson-silent-spring-1972-ddt-ban-birds-thrive)

 

 

But a lady discovered our plight and wrote a book that addressed our problem,

and, in 1972, a law was ammended protecting us even further. (http://www.fws.gov/midwest/eagle/protect/laws.html)

 

 

 

 

 

 

What I find strange is that the same government passed a law the very next year that allowed for killing

of unborn, and apparently unwanted, humans.  Little ones still nestled safely in their Mother's womb.

Around 25% of them are dying before birth - on average nearly 3,300 - every day of the year.

 

 

I hear that by now, somewhere around 55 MILLION of them have perished.

Wouldn't that kind of mess up the humans plans for growth, and welfare, and

retirement?

 

 

 

 

 

Strange birds; these Homo Sapiens.  Perhaps they'll come to their senses

before they are ALL dead!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[liberalism is suicide]

If we are to go down then its better to go down fighting. History has examples of those who fought on with the odds against them. There were those who lost(the Alamo,Wake Island). There were those who won(Rorke’s Drift,1879,Great Britain,1940).

[GeronL]

I would rather be right than surrender!

[liberalism is suicide]

You said it!

[AppyPappy]

“Opposing Gay Marriage Is a Waste of Your Time”

We heard the same thing about Jim Crow.

[SoFloFreeper]

Interesting! Thanks for sharing!

[Reddy]

Comparing homosexual marriage to the civil rights movement is false logic.

Regardless, Fournier thinks everyone should applaud the State establishing households that guarantee that a child will have either no father or no mother?

Where are the civil rights for the children?

[Elsie]

Plus, polygamy has a place in the Bible, and among the religious, too.

SIN has a place in the Bible, and among the religious, too.

[Romulus]

The connection is simple: Contraception severs the unitive and procreative aspects of the sexual union. To accept contraception as normal is to endorse the view that sexual activity can be purely a recreational activity, for the giving and receiving of pleasure. People who have been conditioned to believe that sex is for fun and that childbearing is purely an optional element of marriage are much more ready to believe that marriage is no more than a contract for mutual sexual access, entered into by people who like each other. Seen thus, in their eyes it would be cruel and unjust to deny this recreational amusement to others.

[Reddy]

I fully expect that my public stance against homosexual marriage will eventually lead to public persecution, maybe even the loss of my job. It happened to Eich, it will happen to us.

But I will NOT be silenced.

[Morpheus2009]

Except for the politically correct. They threaten to cry and have a temper tantrum because someone thinks their actions aren’t morally right.

[Sherman Logan]

The best explanation I’ve heard of this question is as follows:

You’re on a hill. If you stay to defend that hill, you will most probably die. Is this particular hill worth that price?

Not every hill is, but some certainly are.

Sometimes some must die on a hill to motivate others to fight on and eventually win. And, as you say, sometimes it turns out the defenders of the hill may win despite the odds.

But at least determine whether a hill is worthy dying on before committing yourself to such a seemingly hopeless defense.

[CodeToad]

Well, then, let’s just get back to the Crusades because why fight city hall!

[OldPossum]

I would agree with you that contraception has allowed people to use sex as a recreational activity, but where you go wrong is transferring that idea to marriage.

Since you are so focused to the idea of sex as a means of procreation to the apparent exclusion of everything else, this will be a foreign concept to you, but sex WITHIN marriage is an expression of the love between a man and a woman.

Does it not occur to you that people have the option of being parents or not being parents? It’s a matter of personal freedom, which you and like-minded individuals, given the power, I strongly suspect, would deny others.

All of us think about parenthood and some, such as my wife and myself, feel that it was not for us. Accordingly, before our marriage I had a vasectomy, something I have never regretted. She and I had a number of good reasons to not wish to be parents, which I am sure is an abhorrent concept to you. Too bad.

Since the idea of contraception is so appealing to you, surely you have dozens of children, or you have little to no sex drive. Perhaps you might want to refute that by telling me how children you have. Hmmm.

Since you are so focused, Romulus, on the idea of sex as a mean of procreation to the apparent exclusion of everything else, this will be a foreign concept to you, but sex within marriage is an expression of the love between a man and a woman, not recreation per se.

Does it not occur to you that people have the option of being parents or not being parents? It’s a matter of personal freedom, which you and like-minded individuals, given the power, I suspect, would deny others.

All of us think about parenthood and some, such as my wife and myself, feel that it is not for us. Accordingly, before our marriage I had a vasectomy, something I have never regretted. She and I had a number of good reasons to not wish to be parents, which I am sure is an abhorrent concept to you. Too bad.

Since contraception is so unappealing to you, surely you have dozens of children, or you have little to no sex drive. Perhaps you might want to refute that by telling me how many children you have. Hmmm.

[OldPossum]

Disregard post 76 and its duplication. Here is what I meant to post:

I would agree with you that contraception has allowed people to use sex as a recreational activity, but where you go wrong is transferring that idea to marriage.

Since you are so focused to the idea of sex as a means of procreation to the apparent exclusion of everything else, this will be a foreign concept to you, but sex WITHIN marriage is an expression of the love between a man and a woman.

Does it not occur to you that people have the option of being parents or not being parents? It’s a matter of personal freedom, which you and like-minded individuals, given the power, I strongly suspect, would deny others.

All of us think about parenthood and some, such as my wife and myself, feel that it was not for us. Accordingly, before our marriage I had a vasectomy, something I have never regretted. She and I had a number of good reasons to not wish to be parents, which I am sure is an abhorrent concept to you. Too bad.

Since the idea of contraception is so unappealing to you, surely you have dozens of children, or you have little to no sex drive. Perhaps you might want to refute that by telling me how children you have. Hmmm.

[Romulus]

you are so focused to the idea of sex as a means of procreation to the apparent exclusion of everything else

That's a willfully perverse misreading of what I wrote. I said that the problems start when unitive and procreative elements are separated. That means they belong together. Get it?

As for same sex "marriage", give yourself a pat on the back for your part in mainstreaming the concept.

[lentulusgracchus]

Ron Fournier is gay? Sounds like it.

[Elsie]

To accept contraception as normal is to endorse the view that sexual activity can be purely a recreational activity, for the giving and receiving of pleasure.

Thus, those who are past childbearing capabilities should just QUIT IT!