Posted on 11/14/2008 9:46:06 AM PST by troparion
The best strategy to confuse people and cause them to doubt the necessity and validity of Prop 8 has been the continuous harping on racism by the "No on 8" gang. If one considers their latest ad, one can see how they abuse this issue to a shameful degree.
Let's think about this though…
When did homosexuals become a race, an ethnic group suffering generations of racism and discrimination? When did sodomy become the equivalent of nationhood? Or are they craftily comparing apples and oranges to get what they want? Is our pre-determined race/ethnicity equal to our lifestyle/sexual choices/urges? Even though there is nothing scientific or natural about saying one is born gay, liberals have continued to drill into people's heads that one is gay by birth, that there is such a thing as "gay identity," a political label produced by modern sexual rebels. Changes in laws and social policies to normalize unnatural sexual acts and desensitize the population about them are political decisions par excellence; they have nothing to do with objective science. Like swinging, pedophilia, and polygamy, this immoral lifestyle is leading the way toward reshaping, or destroying, social ideals and fulfilling the radical notion that God, morality, gender, traditional family, and taboos are all obstacles to true freedom and happiness, what the sex-revolution architect Marcuse called "polymorphic perversity," an agenda that almost engulfed the Soviet Union if it weren't for the far-sightedness of anti-Trotsky elements in Russia.
Legitimate fears of many churches, parents, adoption agencies, and social workers about this phenomenon are completely ignored, and the majority of people who don't see this movement or lifestyle as reflecting a healthy normal society are demonized and called "racists" or "bigots." This continues to amaze me, and while these same groups get sued and pushed around in the name of political correctness, the homoerotic activists continue to compare them to the Nazis or the KKK. The only institution that still reflects the will of society, which is the voting booth, was overturned a few months ago by four judges in a typical display of judicial tyranny. Comparisons were quickly made between this and the Supreme Court decisions that ended segregation. The reality is that segregation ended because of public opinion not because of judicial charity to the black community. The entire nation fought to end racism since John Brown's death more than a century ago. Much of that victory was the result of the Christian belief that all men are created equal in the image of God (Martin Luther King and others used that same idea again and again), not the Darwinian or Eugenic idea that some are more evolved or fit than others.
The court's move was calculated of course: this is a great time to use the political discontent with the Right to the advantage of liberal agendas. Attempts continue to mutate public opinion, control education and silence social dissidents. Churches that refuse to perform gay marriages will face lawsuits, and homosexuals have already hinted in that direction. What guarantees that they won't face the same fate as the boy scouts, publishers that refused dealing with gay and lesbian activist groups, or pastors that dared read bible verses on homosexuality in their own churches? Until they get their way, they will continue to say that such fears are unwarranted. These things are happening, and more is to come according to many activists' writings. Are we entering an age of despotism where certain groups gain super rights over all aspects of society?
All immoral regimes in history, especially atheistic revolutionary ones, deceived their populations by slapping moral labels on corrupt agendas. It is interesting how the "No on 8" argument is tailored to deceive fair-minded people. Society and religion are the natural legitimate sources for "who you can and cannot marry." There is nothing racist or discriminating about that. Radical activists can call natural childbirth unfair to women, who in the end bear all the burden of motherhood, but this "discrimination" is simply the manifestation of the normal and natural gender roles they keep rebelling against. One may not like natural facts or social roles, but there is nothing unfair or wrong about them in the eyes of sane people.
Marriage between relatives, more than two adults, and same sex couples cannot qualify by definition as "marriage." If we accept the criteria for one, we cannot escape accepting the others as "normal" and "teachable." All one has to do is hang around such activists to know how far they want to go, and this is only the first step to annihilate our "capitalist, male dominated, and Christian" society. Like rebelling teenagers, this guilt-ridden group seeks acceptance by forcing its own manufactured identity down the throats of everyone else. Truly, those who rebel against nature and God, "who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them" (Romans 1:32).
It started when we started attributing behavior to genetics.
/member of the sweet-tooth race
“Until then we’ll just keep fighting them at every turn and never back down in person or on TV/internet/media”
I couldn’t care less what these people want to do in private. It’s none of my business and not something anyone could or should try to stop. But that is far different from trying to attain equal rights for something that is purely a chosen lifestyle. When they trampled on that older woman’s cross and pushed her around it was quite obvious they don’t really believe in civil rights. No one has taken away their rights, they simply want rights they are not entitled to. What’s next, men wanting to marry their daughters, or three people wanting to get married to each other?
Absolutely. And those would be "normal" by comparison. If you can redefine marriage at will, anything goes.
The central point is that unlike race, non-discrimination does not have to be based upon nature, it can be based upon choices one makes, like the choice of a religion or the choice of sexual preference. People have the right to make those choices and government has no right to deny the choice or discriminate on the basis of it. Neither do we have the right to vote upon the rights of others.
I don't make decisions based upon what activists or extremist say. That would be like denying black people their rights because you listened to Huey Newton.
“If you can redefine marriage at will, anything goes.”
Exactly. If two men can marry, why can’t people practice legal bigamy? Gay’s claim they want equal rights and that because they love each other they want the state to bless the union. Well, what if three or more people love each other and want to get married. There is absolutely no difference in logic.
I had to laugh when I read that people wanting to get married was based upon sex. Don’t let my wife read this. LOL!
I agree it’s not a complete argument. My apologies for the mistake; I meant ban a practice not a religion actually, but that’s what happens when I write too quickly and don’t revise. I had in mind Islam and Mormons when I said that, and both cannot practice polygamy in our society; the latter modified their faith to fit that criteria. The question is where does that criteria come from if not traditional Roman law as adopted by Christianity?
It's not an alien concept that marriage is a way to do that. Now we have homosexuals who want to marry each other. They are taxpayers and citizens. Under what right does the majority say they can't marry. Are we now to subject each others rights to popular vote. That would have shot down the civil rights and voting acts and many other things I suggest.
I remember all the red necks and ignorance when blacks were going to the same schools. As I recall that was court ordered. Would popular vote have let them do that?
The comments about blacks were not dissimilar to some of the comments you see about homosexuals on this very site.
In 20-30 years people will shake their heads and ask why everyone was so concerned with someone else's business, just as they used to do with interracial marriage. In fact, there was a comment yesterday evening about miscegenation.
That would be true if marriage was not defined and licenced by the state which regulates adoptions, education, and discrimination laws which could have one sued or jailed. It also begs the question of whether polygamy, marriages to direct relatives, or even children should be allowed as well. That’s exactly the social Marxist position I’m rejecting. I have no respect for the lifestyle but I hold no grudge or hatred twords gay couples; however, if gays could marry, and they only define marriage on the basis of “love,” whatever that means, then we should have no problem with marriages between one man and four wives (Islam), brothers and sisters, moms and daughters, and so on. What is “marriage” in the end, and how will redefining it affect the rest of us, our children, and our faith. Also, it makes a huge difference whether one considers homosexuality itself immoral or not in this debate, and there is no easy “politically correct” answer to that one. If I consider it one of various immoral and harmful lifestyles which shouldn’t be socially accepted, then I wouldn’t be so liberal in equating it with moral and natural relationships. Trampling on the cross or defacing churches by gay activists, let alone their violent publications, should clearly indicate a threat to our liberties.
And since someone will come along and repeat an old question here, what about animals. We are now to believe that animals are capable of entering into contracts so that human, homosexual adults can't get married. I point this out because it's typical of some the intellectual bankruptcy we see on this issue on this site.
Back to your comments, I don't have an issue with polygamy. It seems clear to me that the US congress imposed a religious beief on the mormons and they rolled over for the sake of statehood. An odd way to run a religion.
According to everything I've read about this freedom thing and the power of government in the USA, it is your burden and the governments to show that homosexuals should not be married. Not theirs to prove they have the right.
I don't know why liberty and freedom and the pursuit of happiness have to be considered liberal ideas? Did we give those ideas up to them?
Thank you for this civilized discussion. A rare treat for me on this issue here.
You’re raising a very good point. When did we start voting on whether or not people have rights?
Could you tell me what the legal basis is for the government’s power to ban polygamy?
Hey no problem. Your feedback is also appreciated although I would have to disagree (what can you do? I’m a pain). I wouldn’t want to go into why polygamy or marriage between relatives are problematic here; I’ve had such debates with Muslims many times before. But eventually someone’s beliefs have to be adopted in order to have a coherent society. In short, gay + marriage to me just sounds like female + dad, but I will leave it at that. I hope to hear from you in my next post.
I didn’t say anything about marriage between blood relatives.
“Could you tell me what the legal basis is for the government’s power to ban polygamy?”
Yeah, we don’t like it. Same reason we have laws against incest.
Seems like incest would hurt the kids. Let me know what you don’t like so we can pass some new laws.
“Seems like incest would hurt the kids. Let me know what you don’t like so we can pass some new laws.”
I was referring to incest among adults. Actually, we would have to pass new laws to allow bigamy since it is currently outlawed. A marriage is a state supported institution. If people want to live together as a group and do everything married people do there is nothing stopping them. We should not, however, be forced to sanction it with a legally binding contract. If we are going to make every conceivable combination eligible for marriage we may as well just abolish marriage since it will serve no purpose whatsoever.
So polygamy is okay if none of them are related? And homosexuals also, as long as there's no incest?
I asked the question earlier, you haven't addressed from where does the government derive it's power to prevent polygamy?
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.