Posted on 03/25/2006 8:57:39 PM PST by woodb01
One of the big issues facing America today is the type of country we will live in tomorrow. As we often hear, what country will we give to our children and grandchildren? If the left has its way, America will be a secularized, modern-day Sodom and Gomorah.
Why is the homosexual "marriage" issue such a big deal? Why not look at what the homosexuals and their allies say themselves. But before we do, let's look at what marriage IS, as defined by America's history and traditions, as well as the U.S. Supreme Court. In a direct challenge to nature of what marriage IS, the court dealt with polygamy (multiple wives), and determined that marriage itself is:
“formed on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony…” Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15, 45 (1885) (unanimous).
The whole reason homosexual "marriage" supporters promote the changing of what marriage IS into something else to to attack and umderine marriage. This is their goal from their own mouths and from their own advocates. For example, from another court case from 2001, the Lambda Legal organization that supports same-sex marriage "so that marriage will lose some of its luster." Read for yourself this excerpt from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit:
"Lambda wants to knock marriage off its perch by requiring the board of education to treat unmarried heterosexual couples as well as it treats married ones, so that marriage will lose some of its luster." Irizarry v. Chicago Board of Education, No. 00-3216, (7th Cir., 2001). http://laws.findlaw.com/7th/003216.html
Homosexuals already have equal rights. They can marry anyone of the opposite sex at any time. The fact is, they don't really want marriage, that's a lie, they want to CHANGE WHAT MARRIAGE IS. To help in this they have found many allies on the left and in the Democratic Party. Consider the biggest special interest groups and allies of the Democratic Party that detest traditional family values--; The ACLU, N.O.W, Americans United (to Remove God), the Teacher's Unions, NAMBLA, Lambda Legal Defense, and on, and on, and on.
As a short excerpt from a legal brief I coauthored for the Massachusetts Goodridge case, there is a very clear agenda to destroy marriage by those who advance the causes of Socialism. "Destroying marriage, family, and morality are central components of the homosexual and feminist agendas of “destroying hegemony” as envisioned by the Marxist communist Antonio Gramsci. Gramsci’s philosophies were developed to destroy Western Civilization including America."
“Gramsci hated marriage and the family, the very founding blocks of a civilized society. To him, marriage was a plot, a conspiracy... to perpetuate an evil system that oppressed women and children. It was a dangerous institution, characterized by violence and exploitation, the forerunner of fascism and tyranny. Patriarchy served as the main target of the cultural Marxists. They strove to feminize the family with legions of single and homosexual mothers and ‘fathers’ who would serve to weaken the structure of civilized society.” Borst, William, Ph.D. American History. A Nation of Frogs, The Mindszenty Report Vol. XLV-No.1, January 2003, pg 2. (Online version at http://www.mindszenty.org/report/2003/mr_0103.pdf )
A short search on the Internet reveals the real goal of the same-sex "marriage" agenda. Right from the homosexuals own mouths, they have also mapped out their goals:
“[F]ight 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... radically alter an archaic institution." -- Michelangelo Signorile, "Bridal Wave," OUT magazine, December/January 1994, p. 161.
"[E]nlarging the [marriage] concept to embrace same-sex couples would necessarily transform it into something new... Extending the right to marry to gay people -- that is, abolishing the traditional gender requirements of marriage -- can be one of the means, perhaps the principal one, through which the institution divests itself of the sexist trappings of the past." – Tom Stoddard, quoted in Roberta Achtenberg, et al., "Approaching 2000: Meeting the Challenges to San Francisco's Families," The Final Report of the Mayor's Task Force on Family Policy, City and County of San Francisco, June 13, 1990, p.1.
"[Marriage is] a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture. It is the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statutes, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into public schools, and, in short, usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us." -- Michelangelo Signorile, "I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do," OUT magazine, May 1996, p. 30.
“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... In arguing for the right to legal marriage, lesbians and gay men would be forced to claim that we are just like heterosexual couples, have the same goals and purposes, and vow to structure our lives similarly... We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society’s view of reality.” -- Paula Ettelbrick, “Since When Is Marriage a Path to Liberation?”, in William Rubenstein, ed., Lesbians, Gay Men and the Law (New York: The New Press, 1993), pp. 401-405.
“...American marriage is inextricable from Christianity... In 1972 the National Coalition of Gay Organizations demanded the ‘repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.’” -- Judith Levine, “Stop the Wedding!: Why Gay Marriage Isn’t Radical Enough,” The Village Voice, July 23-29, 2003. Levine declines to mention that the 1972 Gay Rights Platform also called for abolishing age of consent laws. Levine herself has written in favor of lowering the age of consent to 12 for sex between children and adults in her book Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex (p. 88.)
"In one sense the right is right... to accuse the gay and lesbian rights movement of threatening homogenization... if gay and lesbian liberationists ever achieve full equality, they will do away with the social need for the hetero/homo division. The secret of the most moderate, mainstream gay and lesbian civil rights movement is its radically transformative promise (or threat, depending on your values)." -- Gay historian Jonathan Katz, The Invention of Heterosexuality, 1995, p.188.
"Heterosexual hegemony ... is being simultaneously eroded and reconstructed. ...The forms of sexuality considered natural have been socially created and can therefore be socially transformed." (pg. 219) "New social policies would focus on transforming social relations and would be based on empowering of lesbians, gay men, sex-trade workers, women and people of colour." (pg. 229) -- Gary Kinsman, "The Regulation of Desire: Sexuality in Canada," Black Rose Books, 1987.
"[A]ny 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." -- Chris Crain, Washington Blade, August, 2003.
Parents, grandparents, families everywhere, what kind of a nation will we leave to our children and grandchildren if we don't stand up and become real activists in this attempt to redefine marriage. Isn't it time we stopped pandering to the lying liars on the left in every position they occupy and started fighting back. Start openly challenging the insanity of this same-sex "boondoggle" and stop letting politically "correct" insanity deter you from standing up. If we don't stand up today, there won't be anyone left to stand up for our children and grandchildren in a few more years.
NoDNC.com © 2006 - all unchanged original work may be freely distributed.
http://www.nodnc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=475
Additional Resources:
If only the "specter" of legalized gay marriage (oh the horror of it, the horror) were the most trenchant issue facing America today, and its future. Pity that ain't so. If it were, the fruited plain would be a metaphorical Elysian field.
BTTT!
I'd say that it's 50%. The other 50% is because they want the government to officially sanction their perversion as "normal." If our behavior is endorsed by the law it must be normal, right? Next up, bestiality...
The gay agenda is one of the most serious issues facing America today. Yes terrorism is an issue, and yes immigration is an issue. However if we do not maintain ourselves as a just and moral society, what's the point of fighting to prevent our extinction?
This is fine with me. As long as the Homosexual Alliance doesn't want gays to get married, I'm happy.
bookmark for later
Thanks for the welcome. I've been a long time reader and actually just started posting today. Physics thread finally pushed me over the edge.
----
I agree there is a difference. I just don't see it mattering in the long run. Liberalization of marriage is pretty much unavoidable at this point, in my opinion. Once the term homophobe reaches an equal standing as the term racist, gay marriage will not be long off.
Best move now is to try to take away the term homophobe as a powerful word and hope for the best.
I think your'e wrong. Else why do you have most every state placing in their constitution a ban on this crap? I wonder if that's what you hope for. Homophobe? What the hell does that mean anyway?
I strongly suspect that many who turn "queer" may have a real and genuine fear of the opposite sex - men who are actually afraid of women, for example.
Fear of sameness - homogeneity, or maybe just a fear of homogenized milk...?
Hilarious. I will say however that I would be more inclined to a phobia against a butchy woman than a girly man. LOL
Homophobe is a strategic word, like Pro-Choice or Pro-Life. It's a great tool for eliciting an emotional response. Racist worked well 40 years ago. Homophobe will be the new racist.
The current tactics for banning gay marriage are short term. We're looking at 20 years tops.
Look at how the incident in Selma cause national movement to give rights to blacks. I doubt anything so polarizing will happen involving gay marriage, but something so drastic isn't really needed. The change can be slow. The current strategy for banning gay marriage plays well to people's emotions and feelings but there needs to be a massive shift in strategy to long term prevention if you want to stop the liberalization of marriage.
Ignoring the history of women's and minority rights, and it's connections with the current anti-gay marriage movement, is dooming the country to the social change this website is against.
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.