 |
Mail a check to or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com |
|
SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC |
|
Posted on 04/01/2004 4:28:45 PM PST by Zender500
A lot has been lost in the debate about so-called "gay marriage." At the top of that list is the effect that redefining marriage will have on people of conscience and religious believers.
Marriage is an institution that has been present since the beginnings of recorded history. It has meant the union of a man and a woman, and provided within that union the stability necessary to create and nurture the next generation.
While not all such unions produce children, procreation is the reason that most governments give some special consideration in law and tax to marriage and the resulting family. No government that ignores the welfare of the next generation will long endure.
At least three of the world's major religions – Christianity, Judaism and Islam – condemn homosexual relations. These faiths prescribe varying degrees of punishment for those who practice such behavior. The most serious punishment is death.
Amazingly, no one seems concerned about the effect that elevating such condemned behavior to the same position of dignity and honor that families receive will have on people of conscience and religious faith. We should expect homosexual activists to be one-sided and completely consumed with gaining cultural and legal sanction for their favored sexual pastime – that is the nature of the lust that consumes their minds and bodies.
The Catholic Church is a prime example. Even within the sacred confines of the priesthood, men were unable to control the lusts that ravaged their minds and bodies – and many, despite their stated intentions, ended up serving their lust by betraying the trust and innocence of those they sought to serve and lead to God. The result has been thousands of shattered lives among victims (and, one suspects, perpetrators as well).
We have a right to expect more than one-sided homosexual-advocacy from our judges, political leaders, pollsters and journalists. Yet our highest-ranking judges have betrayed their own oath to the Constitution to serve homosexual advocacy. They have cited international law over the Constitution in manufacturing a "right" to homosexual sodomy.
Local political leaders who failed to reveal to voters their homosexual sympathies have brazenly ignored state laws restricting marriage to a man and a woman, and issued homosexual "marriage licenses," then conducted "marriage ceremonies" for the deluded "couples." Journalists have written about these incidents, yet never disclosed to their readers that they are homosexuals or supporters of the homosexual movement.
What do these people who advocate for their own unrestricted lusts imagine that people of conscience and faith are supposed to do if the activists accomplish their selfish, thoughtless agenda and mandate acceptance of their sexual lifestyle? Do they somehow imagine that their sexual proclivities should be rammed down the throats of the faithful, and God be damned?
Yes, they do. Witness the Boy Scouts. Little else would give homosexual activists or their supporters in government, media and academe more pleasure than forcing a Christian, Jewish or Muslim widow to rent her property to a pair of homosexual tenants in violation of her conscience, and in mockery of her faith. It is the barrel of the policeman's gun that they seek – and which they have now found in Canada, where it is illegal to speak against homosexuality. That the widow should have her property seized and turned over to homosexuals through the court system for denying them the legitimacy they crave is their end goal.
Throughout history homosexuality has been characterized by uncontrolled lust. Today we see it in the "gay" personals ads, where men now advertise for sex with unprotected HIV-positive men. Nothing else, not even their life, matters. That is why homosexuals have historically been barred from government security service, military service and, yes, as Scoutmasters for Boy Scout troops. Has the Catholic Church not proven these concerns valid – in spades?
All that homosexuals have "achieved" since the 1960s has been achieved through manipulation, coercion or stealth. In 1973, militant homosexuals invaded the American Psychiatric Association's annual meeting and disrupted the meeting to such an extent – threatening more the next year and the next and the next – that psychiatrists were bullied into removing homosexuality from their list of illnesses. By stealth, they invaded and crippled the Catholic Church's seminaries, and ultimately its parishes, destroying the lives of tens of thousands. Behind closed doors, homosexuality's adherents in government have hold closed meetings, excluding those who disagree with their plans. They then present their cherished goal – "homosexual marriage" – as a fait accompli.
It is not. Homosexuals are now fond of presenting their "struggle" as a "civil-rights struggle." That is a self-serving trivialization of what blacks, who had no control whatsoever over their skin color, suffered. Blacks did not suffer because their behavior was abhorrent or ill-considered, they suffered for marrying, having children and supporting their families in the workplace. Only someone whose lust had corrupted their mind and obscured all rational thought could believe otherwise.
America needs to make sure its politicians understand: You're not God, and the perversions you're peddling have no place in civilized society.
|
Mail a check to or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com |
|
SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC |
|
There pushing the gay agenda down 1st grader's throats.
Please choose a different metaphor...
At least three of the world's major religions – Christianity, Judaism and Islam – condemn homosexual relations. These faiths prescribe varying degrees of punishment for those who practice such behavior. The most serious punishment is death.
I'm familiar with Christianity. All my experience has shown me that if I would align myself with a group, a church if you will, and if I engaged members from other groups, or churches, that debate would devlop with regard to salvation--how it is accomplished, how it is maintained. There are also groups that do not believe homosexual unions are wrong. Perhaps that says something about their charity, while reading the article suggests that other motives may be apparent. Nevertheless, there are religious groups that do not believe it to be wrong. They exist.
Keep that in mind. When one listens to the argument--tolerating the intolerable will lead to the downfall of civilization. How? If homosexuality is an aberration, and by all accounts here on FreeRepublic, the only thing worse would be a Democrat (think about the lurkers who are undecided)--if homosexuality is so bad and repulsive, then how, pray tell, will it win any converts? Perhaps the outspoken animosity against it has driven the charitable to try to understand them and accept them.
We have a right to expect more than one-sided homosexual-advocacy from our judges, political leaders, pollsters and journalists. Yet our highest-ranking judges have betrayed their own oath to the Constitution to serve homosexual advocacy. They have cited international law over the Constitution in manufacturing a "right" to homosexual sodomy.
And I've yet to hear anyone in these United States to argue that en elected official is violating the 1st Amendment to the Constitution by marrying homosexuals. If there are only two churches in the USA, and government takes an action that clearly endorses the shaky proposition of the one over the other, and if no one mentions the 1st! then what in the heck is the 1st Amendment for?
Is it only there so everyone can yell and scream when an athiest asks that "under God" be removed from a pledge?
The argument that homosexuality will cause Global Warming makes more sense that what I've seen.
I agree with the author that the whole gay marriage thing is a slap in the face to people of conscience. However, I do not agree that homosexuality is about nothing but uncontrolled sexual activity. I have no problem with gay folks who want to bond for life. That is fine for them, but it is not equal to marriage. That so many folks cannot see this - it makes me weep for our civlization.
Dr Spitzer played a part in that APA change, yet now he's changed his mind and believes homosexuals can leave the lifestyle. There's a whole lot of information here.
| Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1) |
| Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.0) |
| Homosexual Agenda Index (bump list) |
| Homosexual Agenda Keyword Search |
The 1st Amendment provides for that, already. Government cannot endorse the religious beliefs of one group without alienating, and in this case, interferring with the free exercise of the other. When a government official goes as far as marrying homosexuals, he is in effect, endorsing the minority opinion of those religous groups sitting on the wrong side of the marriage aisle, those who believe homosexual marriage is fine. Is that all he is doing?
No, by his actions he is clearly indicating to those religous groups on the right side of the marriage aisle that they are the outsiders, that their belief that the marriage bed should be kept holy does not matter, that their exercise of religious belief in this way can be corrupted by governmental endorsement of another belief, regardless of the religious clauses of the 1st.
But you can't have it both ways. Government can neither legalize, nor ban, homosexual marriage without violating the tenets of the 1st Amendment. Why? Because there are religious groups on both sides of the aisle, parties of the groom on one side, parties of the other groom on the other side.
Homosexual activists, if they've infiltrated the churches have, in effect, shot themselves in the foot, or any other part of their anatomy if the metaphor fits.
Does it matter what word is used? As Goldberg writes:
The answer is, it maters a lot. Because this story goes to one of the deep, dark secrets of the gay subculture: that a certain, small percentage of gay men are attracted to teenage boys--and to the extent that there is a stigma on that attraction within the gay community, it has never been a particularly severe one.
Charlotte Iserbyt (sp?) author of The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America writes in 1999 the American Psychological Association (APA) felt comfortable publishing in its Journal a study suggesting that pedophilia is harmless and even beneficial if consensual. According to an article in the June 10, 1999 issue of The Washington Times, entitled “Psychology Group Regrets Publishing Pedophilia Report: Practice Not Always Harmful, Article Said,” the APA was taken by surprise when “its report provoked angry public reaction, including a House of Representatives resolution condemning it. It followed up with an abrupt about-face in an apologetic letter to House Majority Whip Tom DeLay” which expressed regret—not that it supported the idea of acceptable adult-child sex—but that the article had been published in a public journal.]
And it is natural to want to defend the family. Which candidate believes in that right? Which candidate for president would become the Gun Fairy?
More and more I read. And more and more I pray.
God, Please save and change them or kill them before they drag others into hell with them
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.