Posted on 05/23/2004 5:03:35 PM PDT by neverdem
With gay marriage on a roll, it's time to move on to another battle.
For decades, social conservatives have been fighting and losing culture wars. Contraception and abortion once taboo topics have been enshrined into law. The rates of premarital sex, out-of-wedlock births and divorce have soared since the 1950s (though lately most of these indexes have leveled off or declined slightly). In school, prayer is out; sex education is in. On TV, characters used to say "gee whiz" and sleep in twin beds; now they curse as if they had Tourette's syndrome and flash skin as if they were Gypsy Rose Lee.
This doesn't mean that America is in cultural decline; no one who saw the response to 9/11 can think we are soft or decadent. It does mean there is little mystery about how the latest culture war over gay marriage will turn out. Opponents of same-sex marriages may have most of the public on their side for now, but they've already all but lost this battle.
How do I know? Simply by looking at the arguments being advanced by both sides. Advocates of same-sex marriage speak in the powerful language of civil rights and liken their cause to that of African Americans fighting anti-miscegenation laws in years past. And what do opponents say in response? Once upon a time, the case would have been open and shut: Sodomy is a sin, period. Many people may still believe that, but that's no longer a tenable argument in our secularized politics.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Let me summarize if for you.
You guys can take care of keeping us free.
While you are out fighting our enemies, us rats will spread our filth. Don't worry though because in 20 years, we are going to be sorry we were so stupid.
Let me know if you find it, but don't expect me to change my opinion, which is that no one really knows what the "real" number is. Both sides have a motive to skew the figures, and the definition itself is subject to manipulation. I can't really see that it matters very much, in honest truth. Two percent or ten percent. Whatever.
Homosexual Agenda Ping - I haven't read the whole article yet, and I think I won't like it.
Moral relativism is a philosophy which will eventually destroy the civilization that it feeds on.
Let me know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.
I've been thinking like that for quite a while now. Believing in the adherents of Karl Marx may wind up getting them Muslim husbands. And they thought Christian white males were ogres.
So pederasty is "gay", huh? What about necrophilia? "Happy"? Bestiality? "Merry"? What's to discuss any more? Once you accept the enemy's definition of reality, you've lost the war! Read Orwell's "Politics and the English Language". (It's easily located on the net.) Who in his right mind would be against gaiety?!
In 10 years all the fags will be back in the closet, but the bulldykes will still be around because of the Home and Garden channel and abortion.
Good Night.
Yes. They are relentless and they are achieving their goals. The Left dominates academia at all levels (our children), most of the media (Leftist propaganda), most of the judiciary at all levels (legislating from the bench), the bureaucracy at all levels (even when the GOP controls the "front office" as they now do), labor, etc, etc, while the Right does little more than complain.
The perception, it seems, is that the Left is being all inclusive....while the Right is always trying to exclude potential voters. Every vote looks alike and every vote counts and the party with the most votes wins. In politics, wnning is everything and it extents out to and affects every other facet of our lives.
Society does need to draw the line somewhere. The question now is where do we draw the new line in regard to marriage. As much as I'm opposed to same-gender marriage, I don't see how society can deny polygamists the right to marry since they can now use the very same reasoning to justify polygamous marriage that homosexuals used to justify same-gender marriage.
IMO, a large share of the blame goes to Federal programs over the last few generations. We have rewarded out-of-wedlock births and subsidized sloth.
This in turn required higher taxes on traditional families making it harder to get by on a single income.
You can thank liberal contempt for the Constitution for turning the General Welfare Clause into the Santa Clause.
After the Communists took over the Russian Empire, they promoted "free love": promiscuity, easy divorce, abortion, homosexuality was legalized and there was even a serious debate about whether marriage itself should be banned. As a result, the birthrate plummeted and kids were growing up to be feral beasts. Beginning about 1927, the Communists began to backpedal: homosexuality was again outlawed and the Commies began to praise family life and denounce "free love" as a bourgeous invention. As recently as the late 80s, I read a piece in The National Review describing the Soviet Union as "the last bastion of Victorianism in the world" (probably not in the world, but certainly in Europe).
What strikes me is how quickly the godless Communists recognized the havoc caused by "free love" and reversed themselves. In the West, despite the social costs of family breakdown, the widely-held view (especially among the elite) is that people have a right to live their lives as they see fit and when things go wrong, as they frequently do, the government (with taxpayer funds) will save them and their families from the consequences of their own folly.
"There is simply no substitute for the traditional mom/dad family. Anything else puts the kid at much higher risk for poor school performance, delinquency, and other social pathologies."
Well said, Ken. I want so much for parents to realize what an awesome gift they have in their spouse and their children: Gifts! Grace! Real treasure from God!
or how about brother marring brothers, sisters marring brothers, people marring pets etc. so where do we draw the line???
See the highlighted areas below:
Published by Centre Daily Times, Friday, June 2, 2000
Homosexual behavior increases risk of AIDSby Brian J. Kopp, DPM Parental warning: The following "My View" contains graphic medical terminology about sexual activities that may not be suitable for younger readers. AIDS research by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control reported that the typical homosexual interviewed claimed to have had more than 500 different sexual partners in a lifetime. Considered by themselves, the AIDS victims in this study averaged more than 1,100 lifetime sexual partners. Some reported as many as 20,000. Studies reported by A-P. Bell, M.S. Weinberg and S.K. Hammersmith in the book "Sexual Preference" (Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1981) indicated that only 3 percent of homosexuals had fewer than 10 lifetime sexual partners. Only about 2 percent could be classified as either monogamous or semi-monogamous (from "Homosexuality and Civil Rights," Tony Marco, 1992). To the present time, 75 to 85 percent of AIDS cases reported are related to homosexual activity, promiscuous heterosexual sex and IV drug abuse. AIDS stubbornly refuses to spread into the population in general, even 20 years after its discovery, despite dire warnings to the contrary. These diseases are acquired directly through the sexual behavior homosexual activists are asking Americans to legally endorse and protect. Yet, as professor Jerome Lejeune of Descartes University, Paris, says of AIDS: "Only God can truly pardon the one who violates His laws; man pardons at times; Nature never pardons at all: She is not a person." The brutal consequences of attempting to break the natural law are not bigoted or hateful, nor are those, like Dr. Laura, Cal Thomas or Gary Morella, who try to point out the dangers and simple truths. We are seeing the natural consequences of violating nature's laws now. They are also a warning to prevent the ultimate eternal consequences. How many will ignore that warning and continue to call the messenger a bigot and continue to shake their fist at God? How many will heed that warning of a loving Father, ready to forgive and reconcile His prodigal children? |
![]() |
![]() |
But does it necessarily follow that those who cannot procreate are to be denied marriage licenses? Where does that leave infertile heterosexual couples? Or elderly people who want to marry?
So by your lights Ann Coulter and Condi Rice shouldn't be allowed to vote, but Teddy Kennedy and Michael Moore should be. Excellent.
I am sorry, but this Max Boot guy is a POS. Currently there are 38 states that have bans on homo marraige and more in the works. That is enough for a Constitutional Amendment. The only thing we lack is courage from the administration and the RNC to really take this fight the democrats.
It is one thing for that to happen in South Carolina, it is quite anohter for that to happen in Long Island New York.
Like many people you decry the media bias and then procede to buy their spin. The media depends on you buying their spin. It is foolish to buy the spin. It is almost always wrong
I remember 1980. For weeks before and even on election day the media said the Reagan-Carter race was too close to call. At 6:30Pm EST on election day all 3 networks said the race was too close to call. At 6:40Pm EST on election day 1980 Jimmy Carter conceded to Reagan. If the race was too close to call, why did Carter concede 10 minutes after the first polls in the nation closed. They had not counted even 1 percent of the East cost votes when Carter conceded.
Carter's internal polls said it was a Reagan blow out. Reagans internal polls said it was a Reagan blow out. The medias polls all said it was too close to call. It was too close to call... for everyone in the media.
Maybe soon in Massachusetts:
The lefties want us to be 'tolerant' of everything!
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.