Traditional values, family must be defended

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Tuesday, February 24, 2004 | Mychal Massie

[JohnHuang2]

Traditional values, family must be defended

---

Posted: February 24, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

If I were asked, "Do you like homosexuals?" I would probably say, "No." Of course, I would be inclined to answer "no" if asked the same of black people, white people, midgets or Hispanics. My point being that I don't like or dislike people based on group affiliation, height or race. I like or dislike a person based on shared interests and sometimes just because they're likeable.

The problem with the homosexual activist agenda is it refuses to recognize this. They espouse a position wherein we must accept them based on their lifestyle instead of despite it. The homosexual movement is about forced acceptance, not tolerance.

I am an unapologetic cigar smoker who hates cigarettes and sees no redeeming qualities in drinking. I accept that certain of my friends drink – I tolerate smoking from friends who smoke cigarettes. I accept my son as a good driver – I tolerate my wife's driving. It is my prerogative as to that which I accept or tolerate.

Tolerance is not a negative. As a result of tolerance, homosexuals enjoy full rights and protections, just as every other American. In fact, as a protected minority, they enjoy greater provision under the law than white heterosexual born-again Christian males.

It is interesting to observe that the unthinkable never reveals its hand all at once.

America largely accepts the idea that AIDS-HIV somehow morphed into a heterosexual disease. Accordingly, taxpayers participate, willingly or unwillingly, in the search for a cure that will encourage behavior the majority find objectionable.

In 1962, the Supreme Court in its wisdom ordered God removed from public schools under the mythical exclusion clause in the Constitution. Next came abortion on demand – a woman's right to murder her unborn child because of its inconvenience. The idea being it's a "choice," not a child. Paralleling abortion on demand were the '60s. Sex, drugs, God is dead and if it feels good do it.

Under the guise of sensitivity awareness, a greater threat to children than polio is forced upon every grade level. Marjorie King's definitive exposition "Queering the Schools" (City Journal, Spring 2003), lays bare the homosexual activist's plan for public education.

Many evangelical churches and church groups stood by (some more smugly than others) as homosexuality weakened, then split and finally destroyed mainline churches. Now the larvae of our tolerance are hatching. Which brings us to the greatest threat to marriage, family and child rearing in the history of America – homosexual marriage and same-sex unions.

In his brilliant exposition, "The End of Marriage in Scandinavia – The 'conservative case' for same-sex marriage collapses" (Weekly Standard, Feb. 2, 2004), Stanley Kurtz in frighteningly graphic factuality, writes that marriage and the American family as it now exists will soon be no more. He presents in clear terms that the United States is in the second of the four-stage death process to marriage, family and child rearing.

Homosexual activists try to posit the same-sex marriage movement as similar to the civil-rights movements. But per my comments in an Associated Press article not long ago, "the whole thing bespeaks of something much deeper and more insidious than 'we just want to get married.' They want to change the entire social order."

As Kurtz puts it, "Americans take it for granted that, despite recent troubles, marriage will always exist. This is a mistake. Marriage is disappearing in Scandinavia, and the forces undermining it there are active throughout the West."

The stage has been meticulously set. God, church and authority no longer have the meaning they did scant few decades ago. The Bible – the definitive guide to leading a Spirit-filled life – is now viewed as little more than a book written by sexist men. It is intellectualized, instead of believed. As clearly presented as sin is in the Scriptures, church leaders with the disregard of a second-story robber routinely dismiss the teachings of same.

Under the pretense of enlightenment, good will, being hip or not wanting to be the only one, parents give tacit approval for their children to be socially programmed.

It took less than six months for the high court ruling in Lawrence vs. Texas to open the flood gates to homosexual marriages – and this in states with laws forbidding it. Even with a constitutional amendment, there looms long, precedent-setting court battles to reverse the damage that has been done.

We must fight against this heresy, but the chances of our prevailing without constructionist jurists are not good. One more reason to let the elected know we are not pleased with them. Not pleased enough to see them replaced if they don't start listening to our voices.

---

[JohnHuang2]

Tuesday, February 24, 2004

Quote of the Day by johniegrad

[longtermmemmory]

This is one issue that is important to protect future generations. If homosexual marriage is allowed to stand, even homeschoolers will not be able to protect their children from legally imposed sexual acceptance.

[nothingnew]

Good cut and dried article on the evil that is surrounding us. The last paragraph:We must fight against this heresy, but the chances of our prevailing without constructionist jurists are not good. One more reason to let the elected know we are not pleased with them. Not pleased enough to see them replaced if they don't start listening to our voices....for me does not cover what needs to be done.

I have long felt that the pubs/dems are just a choice between cancer or heart attack. I truly feel,perhaps even in my lifetime, the voting will cease to be in the polling places, but rather in the streets...and it won't be pleasant.

JMHO

FMCDH

[lentulusgracchus]

We're in the presence of a totally evil, predatory meme whose shock troops are vigorously spreading its shadow over the civilized world, and not just the West.

The International Organizations Research Group is a part of C-FAM, the Catholic family-defense NGO. They monitor international NGO's like the Family Planning Association, WHO, CCR, and so on, that are active in consciously undermining traditional and religious authorities and their right and ability to educate the young on moral and family matters. C-FAM/IORG produces white papers and maintains links and updates. They are here:

http://c-fam.org/iorg.htm

[backhoe]

-A Gay ( or not! ) Old Time- GM links--

[EdReform]

Ping

What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda

Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1)

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda Ping.

Describes the difference between tolerance and forced acceptance. Thought Crimes and Hate Crimes are coming our way, unless we turn this "tsuanmi of sludge" around.

Let me know if you want on or off this (very busy) ping list.

[King Prout]

thanks.
save for that I am not religious, this paralells my thinking on the topic almost exactly.

[little jeremiah]

It's telling that same sex acts are condemned in every monotheist religious system, as well as those which aren't such as Buddhism and Taoism. Also such acts are considered to be very unhealthy and imbalancing in Traditional Chinese Medicine and Ayurveda (ancient healing system from the Vedas). In fact, such acts are considered to lead to serious illness and mental illness.

[King Prout]

Hell, for that matter, modern Western empirical medicine has conclusively demonstrated that anal sex is flat-out unhealthy in a fairly broad range of ways, no matter how "carefully" it is practiced.
We shall not discuss the more grotesque (yet still quite common) male homosexual practices, for:
a. this is a PG board
b. I do not feel like inducing nausea upon myself.

[sarasmom]

There is a huge difference between religion as defined by organised religions and religion as defined by spirituallity.
Are you not religious, because you do not subscribe to an organised religious cult?
Or are you not religious because you do not believe in an afterlife or any individual human soul?
It may sound like I am parsing the meaning of "is", but it is really a pretty straightforward question.
Do humans have souls (an existance beyond physical matter)?
If you think we do,you are religious.And we can eternally debate the nature of our souls, and the merits of various religious cults, right and wrong, good and evil.

If you think we dont, well, I am not sure on what basis you could possibly debate the merits of anything, outside of your own immediate personal, physical gains or losses in direct competition and opposition to every other human being you come in contact with.

Count me on the side of the Christians.
I do not have to follow their belief system and/or cults to understand that they are my natural allies.
They believe in individual human souls, as do I.
They believe in human free will, good versus evil, and right versus wrong.
As do I.

I would much rather utterly destroy the "secular" power mongering individuals who do not even believe in the concept of the existance of human souls.

Happily for me, my personal spiritual beliefs do not require me to turn the other cheek!
My Christian friends may frown on my tactics, and pray for my soul's salvation.I can live with that.

What I refuse to live with is the persecution of Christians at the hands of godless secularists.

[King Prout]

I am a skeptical and suspicious agnostic.
I do not need to believe in souls and damnation to believe that there must be law in human society.
Considering the bashing Christians have been taking lately, at the hands of "agnostics" and "atheists" who are in truth mere anti-christians, my sympathies on almost all issues tend to lean towards the Christian POV.

On this issue, if this were merely about establishing purely legal parity, I would tepidly side with the gays.

This issue, however, is most emphatically NOT about legal parity.

It is, instead, yet another attempt, by extremists representing deviant minorities, to make the government take their side in a unconstitutional manner in a culture war, and hammer the rest of us into obedience to their whim in full disregard of OUR rights to freedom of speech, association, and protection under the law from punishment without due process.

I stand four-square against that. Now and forever.

I hope this answers you sufficiently.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Poll: Will the institution of marriage suffer if it fails to be inclusive of gays?

[EdReform]

Bump

The Stamp of Normality

[Kay Soze]

If we allow any definition of marriage to stand then marriage, the family unit and our society will suffer grave consequences.

I am glad to see Mr. Bush advocate a conservative position on this rather than just a GOP position.

I am certain Mr. Kerry opposes Mr. Bush’s stance and any such amendment.

States may have civil unions but thos eunions are not marriage.