Posted on 02/11/2004 9:00:13 PM PST by little jeremiah
Sounds like really first-rate advice to me, lentulusgracchus!
It would have been nice to be spared the pain and expense of the amendment process; but increasingly the Left leaves the rest of us with little wiggle room to escape that seeming inevitability. If the people don't demand -- and get -- an acknowleddgement of their constitutional right to stipulate the answer to this question, then we can all just forget about living under a system of liberty and equal justice under law. It's that simple. IMHO. (FWIW)
I am not suggesting that that will not eventually be the end here. Please understand, I am not advocating that. I feel the historic pattern would eventually trigger another aberration--the pendulum effect--and who knows what. Again, I do not want to see Homosexual activists put in stoning pits, burned at the stake, or meet any of the other historic ends that totally insane attacks on human reason have previously provoked.
But that this is, indeed, a form of madness--and I leave it to theologians as to the possibility of demonic possession, towards which I am a skeptic (although less and less so, in the face of what is all around us)--I have not the slightest doubt. It is not rational--it is seriously irrational and very disturbed--to actually believe that you can alter reality by simply changing the meaning of words. And yet that is precisely what is being attempted.
It isn't really a legal argument what marriage does not mean in this context. It is true, of course, that different peoples have differently defined what marriage does mean; but there has never been any doubt what it does not mean. Different cultures are willing to sanctify different forms of human mating; but human mating is still a concept that parallels that of other forms of sexual life (as opposed to asexual life, where there is no division of the species into two sexes). Marriage is the form we take to treat human procreational activity as something special; something we hope will be Blessed by God; something most religions believe was originally ordained by God.
It has always been the rule, at least in Western Societies, that if the marriage cannot actually be consummated--that is consummated by a sexual act, which is an act between a participant from each of the two parts of the species, for procreational functions--it is subject to annulment as something that never really was. I know that in kindness, in respect for privacy and sensitivity, we do not require proof of consummation; we permit those to marry, even where there might be doubts as to the ability to consummate because of age or infirmity. But those doubts do not equate to mocking the very concept of procreational mating, by allowing people to marry inanimate objects, or other species, where procreation is impossible; nor members of their own sex.
These distinctions are so fundamental to the concept of marriage that no one thought it necessary to address them before. But the present challenge, is nowise more rational than it would be to suggest that a 30 year old horse be eligible to stand for the United States Senate--a' la, the mad Emperor Caligula. Indeed, the horse candidate for the Senate idea, is actually more rational than the idea of Homosexual marriage. It is bizarre and stupid; while the idea of homosexual marriage, is not only bizarre and stupid, but a 180 degree denial of the very nature of the institution.
I have lately been making a little joke, that if men can marry men, and women marry women, the "happy" couples can reproduce by picking up rocks and registering them as births. Those children would be no more delusional than the "marital" state of the "parents."
I could go on with this. I have only touched the surface of how depraved this concept is. But I am arguing to the choir.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
I guess that infertile couples are not allowed to have sex because there's no chance of children. Fortunately there is no biblical command that the sexual act must be procreative every time.
I agree that the "procreative" argument by itself is rather weak, but I wouldn't compare a lack of pro-creativeness in an infertile couple to homosexual behavior either.
In any case we don't need a Biblical command on this particular aspect of homosexuality since the Bible clearly condemns homosexual behavior outright every place it mentioned in the Bible.
Exactly. Gays posting to Salon have said as much, usually emphatically.
There is a further consequence of their having achieved this, though, and that is that they will proceed to attempt to pressure "nonreconciling", i.e. doctrinally persistent churches (mostly the Baptists and the Roman Catholics, both of whom the homosexual activists have in their eye) to abjure their Levitical teachings, or suffer at the hands of friendly judges the way Paul Cameron did when he went up against uber-gay psychiatrist and former president of the APA Judd Marmor in a shopped court before a recent Carter appointee in 1981. That and a stunt gay activists ran on Cameron a few years earlier cost Cameron his membership in the American Psychological Association. The gays are very vindictive, and they would use Lawrence and the further decision that they want on marriage to go after the churchmen in court. They couldn't get criminal charges instated anywhere, but they could take them to civil court and strip them of resources, the way Morris Dees and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) did with a Klan organization. They want to drive faithful believers underground, to turn the tables 180 degrees on Levitical teaching and all its adherents.
Faithful religious people will, of course, welcome such persecution as a further sign of the approaching Eschaton.
No, I don't either, but I don't think there's any question that, mutatis mutandis, that they wouldn't do that to us. Their vindictiveness is extreme, and it is on the record. They may have justified to themselves and others the werewolfing that they gave Laura Schlessinger, Paul Cameron, and (I suspect, behind-the-scenes) Judith Reisman, upon some peg of situational necessity or just deserts (just in their own twisted lights), but sooner or later they will try to make their "Homoerotic Order" screed stick -- I suspect that when they go after the kids for real, is when it'll hit the fan, and they'll have to put the Baptists and Catholics away for good, or lose their culture war.
But that this is, indeed, a form of madness--and I leave it to theologians as to the possibility of demonic possession, towards which I am a skeptic (although less and less so, in the face of what is all around us)--I have not the slightest doubt.
John Paul II issued a rather interesting encyclical, whose arguments I read in digest, that modernism, and in particular its dry, sardonic, detached intellectual form, is an emanation of hell itself. He even mentioned a coupld of its epicenters, one of which IIRC was Lyon, France. He seemed to be describing the modern continental worldview.
It is not rational--it is seriously irrational and very disturbed--to actually believe that you can alter reality by simply changing the meaning of words. And yet that is precisely what is being attempted.
Kirk and Madsen, in their magazine articles that eventually became After the Ball, stated forthrightly that they proposed to follow the propagandistic methodology of Josef Goebbels. Considering that the Nazi SA's and Hitler himself were homosexual, it is worthwhile to reflect on what that augurs, about the type of treatment people who don't "go along to get along" are going to receive from these people, and what their idea of settling scores and governing outcomes looks like.
"Stop the homosexual assault on our children" states the real battleground, and puts the homos on the defensive, where perverts belong.
Inform people that if "gay marriage" is accepted by law, then by law gay activists will be in our public grade schools telling children that homosexuality is just a fine choice.
"Little Bobby, when you grow up, are you going to marry a man or a lady?" is going to be the NEA talking point, day after day, brainwashing our children. "Sally, (Steve) if you've never kissed another girl (boy), how do you know you don't like it?" will be rammed down our kids throats day after day. Any teachers who refuse to allow "Gay Pride" guest lecturers into the classroom will be fired as "haters" and "homophobes."
That's the real fight: to protect our kids from the homo chickenhawks who want to poison their minds as school kids.
Instead, always refer to this abomination as "so-called homosexual marriage," or "sham marriage" or "homosexual mockery of marriage."
Pinging to your requested link.
Hmmmm... Not quite. The Greeks were at the pinnacle of their civilization, and incorporation of homosexuality was a big part of that. The way I see it, the queer coup is the milestone that says, "this society has hit its prime, and now it's on the way down." When a society becomes rich and fat enough, self-destructive behavior sets in...
I guess that's what depresses me about the whole fruit salad inundation. It almost seems inevitable. What's a conservative to do? Somehow I don't think that bumper stickers about entries and exits is going to strike any major chords...
I've been thinking about our societal decline lately, and it seems to me that if there is any way out, it lies in democracy. I don't give much credence to polls but if their trends are to be believed, more folks than not in this country don't approve of the gay lifestyle or agenda. Where are their voices being heard? Where is the moral vote?
IN SEATTLEA march is planned to try to pressure King County Executive Ron Sims to allow same-sex couples to obtain marriage licenses in the county. Sims said he is required to uphold state law, which says marriage is between a man and a woman. The march is being organized by Brian Peters, who says he and his partner want to get married, but don't want to travel to do it, according to a notice on thestranger.com. The march is scheduled to begin Monday, March 8, at 9:30 a.m. at the Espresso Vivace cafe, 321 Broadway E., and head to the administration building at Fourth Avenue and James Street.
We also need to lean on our politicians and judges up for re-election since this is a major election year and if they are not willing to work with us to stop this assault on our society and children then they had better update their resumes.
Finally, we must push and push hard to make appointed judges accountable for their actions by making it easier to get them thrown off the bench if and when they decide to usurp the powers of Congress and legislate from the bench.
Of course, I know in my heart people really don't care as much as they say they do (present company excepted) and nothing will change and in five years time not only will we have same sex marriage regardless of what the people want our children will become little more than sex toys for the sick pervert queers.
Don't be praying for President Bush. Be praying for the soul of this country.
The 10 to 15% numbers would place them above Blacks and Hispanics as the most numerous minority and therefore worthy of equal treatment as afforded those ethnic minorities.
Number two: The point needs to be made that homosexuals need to recruit to perpetuate. If left to biological selection, they cannot procreate and by the principles of Darwinism, they should disappear.
They recruit primarily through media portrayal of gays as humorous, quirky fun-loving people that have infinitely more wisdom than their straight counterparts. The entertainment community has taken the gay issue and placed it in mainstream programming as "normal". Our children are being recruited for this lifestyle by virtue of their TV viewing habits.
TVs have an on-off switch and a tumer. Parents need to control what their kids watch.
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.