Posted on 02/11/2005 4:20:04 AM PST by chambley1
In the aftermath of the November election, when so-called “moral values” were credited with deciding the presidency, a veritable blizzard of anti-gay legislative initiatives are choking the corridors of almost every state legislature, led by President Bush’s latest clarion call in his State of the Union message for a Constitutional amendment to ban same-sex unions.
It is no secret that Bush’s loud reaffirmation of his commitment to an anti-gay amendment to the U.S. Constitution last week resulted from pro-marriage amendment activists’ threats to undermine his push for Social Security reform if he didn’t.
Republicans and the religious right have discovered there is a lot of political and fundraising capital for them in exploiting this knee-jerk issue, and in a most craven, cruel and self-serving way are willing to vilify and incite mob-like hysteria against an entire class of human beings the vast majority of whom are, by the way, also law abiding citizens who contribute enormously to the strength and vitality of the national fabric in every conceivable way.
As the U.S. courts move methodically to extend the equal rights provisions of the U.S. Constitution to this class of people, political and religious opportunists seek to repeat the worst disgraces of those who used the Bible to defend racial and ethnic hated and segregation against the extension of equal rights through high court rulings in the not-that-distant past. It was the same kind of so-called “activist judges” being vilified by the right today that overthrew the “separate but equal” laws upholding racial segregation in 1954.
The religious right singles out homosexual acts from among many prohibited behaviors in the so-called Holiness Code in the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy of the Bible to carry out this ugly crusade. The same chapters also prohibit wearing clothes made from a blend of textiles, tattoos, eating rare meat and shrimp or lobster, cross-breeding livestock and sowing a field with mixed seed while allowing polygamy and declaring that any woman who claims to be raped is lying if no one hears her scream.
While the sayings of Jesus include nothing about the subject, in the letters of Paul it is depraved lust and brazen public behavior, and not a same-sex predisposition or loving relationships that are considered the consequence of sin or alienation from God.
Indeed, the dominant notion of sin in the New Testament, which is defined as “missing the mark” in pursuing the will of God, is not disobedience to the Holiness Code or any other lists of rules, but is the kind of arrogance, pride, hypocrisy and religious self-righteousness described in the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican that blocks true compassion and an ability to reach out in the manner described in the parable of the Good Samaritan.
Down through the centuries, the church has redefined sin as disobedience to its authority to maintain its grip on its followers, becoming the very institutional tyranny that the message of the New Testament stood against. So it is to this day in the realm of the religious right’s willingness to subordinate overarching Biblical themes of compassion, humility and defending the downtrodden to this selective practice of angry and unapologetic prejudice.
It is the dominant sentiment of most major religions that what’s at stake in the world, in reality, is the tension between the disposition to love against the disposition to indifference or hate. It’s really that simple.
But now, seldom has the nation been in a more hateful mood, directed not against a foreign military threat, against perpetrators of genocide, or even against the terrorists of 9/11, but against a whole class of Americans seeking nothing more than equal rights under the law.
Most ironically, those rights include the right to engage in the most moral behavior of all, which is to provide secure and nurturing contexts susceptible to the optimal rearing of the young. It is not these people who threaten the institution of marriage. It is they who may save it, by redefining it as originally intended, as a shared commitment between individuals with a mind to cultivating an environment for the proper health and feeding of the young, especially those abused, neglected and tossed away in the current cultural meltdown of the institution of. marriage. They hold out the promise for a new social safety net for the nation’s abused and neglected.
As it is, marriage is on the rocks today at least in part because our society still condones institutional hatred and bigotry, as such attitudes undermine love, compassion and fidelity.
All that notwithstanding, the issue is the simply the extension of the Constitutional guarantee of equal rights under the law to an unprotected class of people. Nothing more, nothing less.
Nicholas Benton may be emailed at nfbenton@fcnp.com
Nicholas Benton may be emailed at nfbenton@fcnp.com
...," ranted the raving queen in a shrill lisp.
Hey, it's for the sake of the public health, baby. For any gay who votes liberal, it's just like cigarette and frenchfry bans. It's for your own good and I don't want to pay your bills when you die on the county from AIDS.
Note to Mr. Benton: get over yourself.
They just don't understand it's not the job of the courts to legislate.
Most ironically, those rights include the right to engage in the most moral behavior of all, which is to provide secure and nurturing contexts susceptible to the optimal rearing of the young.
Most ironically, it's against human biology for same sex to have a child.
Not quite. For one thing everyone is already protected under the Constitution. The Constitution does not recognize classes of people. Making laws that redefine marriage based on the urging of a political minority is a violation of the First Amendment as it allows the State to dictate the wishes of the political minority onto religion.
ping
The unelected courts WILL override the various legislatures by "interpreting" the Constitution to fit their own agendas.
Strict constructionist judges and activist legislators are needed to offset the activist courts, and protect the original intent of the Constitution from becoming irrelevant.
Paul makes it clear that homosexuality is among those "depraved lusts." Mr. Benton should refrain from commenting on things he does not understand.
Indeed, the dominant notion of sin in the New Testament, which is defined as “missing the mark” in pursuing the will of God, is not disobedience to the Holiness Code or any other lists of rules, but is the kind of arrogance, pride, hypocrisy and religious self-righteousness described in the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican that blocks true compassion and an ability to reach out in the manner described in the parable of the Good Samaritan.
Disobedience to the Holiness Code, or any other part of God's law, is "'missing the mark' in pursuing the will of God." We all do it, and therefore need forgiveness to attain salvation. I am now quite confident that Mr. Benton has never actually read the Bible.
Down through the centuries, the church has redefined sin as disobedience to its authority to maintain its grip on its followers, becoming the very institutional tyranny that the message of the New Testament stood against. So it is to this day in the realm of the religious right’s willingness to subordinate overarching Biblical themes of compassion, humility and defending the downtrodden to this selective practice of angry and unapologetic prejudice.
While the church has, at times, adopted the Pharisees' practice of hypocrisy, holding its followers to a higher standard than itself, it has not redefined the notion of sin.
Most ironically, those rights include the right to engage in the most moral behavior of all, which is to provide secure and nurturing contexts susceptible to the optimal rearing of the young. It is not these people who threaten the institution of marriage. It is they who may save it, by redefining it as originally intended, as a shared commitment between individuals with a mind to cultivating an environment for the proper health and feeding of the young, especially those abused, neglected and tossed away in the current cultural meltdown of the institution of. marriage. They hold out the promise for a new social safety net for the nation’s abused and neglected.
Marriage was originally intended to be between a man and a woman. Thus, it is impossible to redefine marriage according to original intent by permitting what was not originally intended. The "current cultural meltdown of the institution of marriage" is due largely to folks like Mr. Benton removing the stigma of divorce and passing no-fault divorce laws. At least he acknowledges that these actions did nothing to promote the original intent of marriage.
As it is, marriage is on the rocks today at least in part because our society still condones institutional hatred and bigotry, as such attitudes undermine love, compassion and fidelity.
This bizarre claim has no basis in reality. Society condoned far more institutional hatred and bigotry 50-100 years ago than it does today, and marriage was in far better shape back then than it is now. I suspect Mr. Benton just made this up to justify projecting his own shortcomings on his opponents, in true liberal fashion.
In sum, Mr. Benton is a moron, and if he is the best editor this pseudonewspaper could find, I am glad I am not a subscriber.
Though Gay couples are not able to have children naturally. One would think that this fact should tell him something about the absurdity of the notion of Gay marriage.
It is not these people who threaten the institution of marriage.
It is indeed. I refer to the following.
MARRIAGE IS SLOWLY DYING IN SCANDINAVIA. A majority of children in Sweden and Norway are born out of wedlock. Sixty percent of first-born children in Denmark have unmarried parents. Not coincidentally, these countries have had something close to full gay marriage for a decade or more. Same-sex marriage has locked in and reinforced an existing Scandinavian trend toward the separation of marriage and parenthood. The Nordic family pattern--including gay marriage--is spreading across Europe. And by looking closely at it we can answer the key empirical question underlying the gay marriage debate. Will same-sex marriage undermine the institution of marriage? It already has.
It is they who may save it...
Sort of reminds one of the Lincolnian notion of "violating the Constitution in order to 'save' it" nonsense. Arguing that marriage can be "saved" by one of the very forces that is undermining it is a most specious argument. This Nicholas F. Benton fellow is using an old propagandistic formula which did not even work well in the past.
...for class reading list.
Excellent point. All need to understand that Homosexuality is not a "class of people"; it is a behavior.
This theme of "evil Christians" has been building since the election. Its pervading the DNC websites that I follow.
I'm beginning to get worried, because this attitude goes hand in hand with the worst anti-Christian/anti-Semitic bigotry I've ever seen on those site.
The democrats are becomming the party of hate and bigotry. And no one is calling them on it. Is this going to build for four years as the democrats look for scapegoats? I do not see how they can avoid violence-its the next natural step.
And thats the point of my post. As the DNC self destructs, I think it will get violent.
More lefty lies. No one is out to imprison homosexuals. They're still looking for special rights. Maybe he can explain to smokers why they don't have a right to smoke where they'd like.
If they pass same-sex marriage, maybe I can marry my dad and get his pension. He worked for the government and his pension is better than my pay.
Wow, All the homopropaganda condensed and presented in one article. This is target rich.
Most of the pinglisters that have been around any length of time can witness to the fact that all the (misinformation)in this article is false and has been debunked repeatedly here on FR. Its frustrating to know the truth about these issues and know that this particular spiel has been shot down time and time again, and it just keeps coming back alive like a bad horror movie character that refuses to die.
The leftists actually believe in their propaganda, they use these talking points and preach them like they were gospel. They know that if they tell these lies loud enough and often enough especially around the younger generation that they will succeed in indoctrinating the public.
If you want on/off the ping list see my profile page.
| Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1) |
|
|
| What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda |
|
|
| Myth and Reality about Homosexuality--Sexual Orientation Section, Guide to Family Issues" |
You nailed it. You're both consenting adults and you can't have children together, so if same-sex marriage passes, who's to say same-sex blood relatives can't marry? There's actually quite a few scenarios like the one you described above that should be legalized if we legalize same-sex marriage.
The people who can't see that passing same-sex marriage opens the playing field to anything and everything haven't thought the issue through... or they don't want to... or they don't care.
And what about mere citizens? What can we do?
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.