Posted on 05/14/2006 5:03:17 PM PDT by West Coast Conservative
The lesbian daughter of US Vice President Dick Cheney hit out at President George W. Bush's support for a constitutional amendment proscribing gay marriage.
Mary Cheney, 37, told Fox News Sunday that the idea, which was backed strongly by Bush's Republican Party during his 2004 re-election campaign and continues to be promoted by many conservatives today, was "a bad piece of legislation".
"I think that is what the federal marriage amendment is, it is writing discrimination into the constitution.
"It is writing discrimination into the constitution and, as I say, it is fundamentally wrong."
"I would also hope that no one would think about trying to amend the constitution as a political strategy," she added.
Cheney, who worked on her father's campaign staff in 2004, said she very nearly quit the reelection effort over the issue.
In the wake of controversial moves to make same-sex marriage legal in California and other states, conservatives pushed strongly to have the constitution amended to define marriage as strictly between a man and a woman.
The effort failed in mid-2004, but a number of individual states passed their own initiatives to restrict marriage to traditional male-female couples.
Cheney, who has just published a book, "It's My Turn", covering in part her experience during the campaign, said she was troubled by the stance of the party she was backing.
"President Bush obviously feels very strongly about this issue ... Quite honestly, it was an issue I had some trouble with, as I talk about in the book. I came very close to quitting my job on the re-election campaign over this very issue."
But she said she was also "very angry" when Bush and Dick Cheney's opponents in the campaign, Senators John Kerry and John Edwards, challenged the Bush stance by publicly pointing out that Mary Cheney was a lesbian.
"It was a cheap and blatant political ploy" when Edwards used her as an example in debating the issue with her father, Mary Cheney said.
Speaking separately on Fox News Sunday, Bush's wife Laura noted the issue of gay marriage still sparked debate across the country.
"I don't think it should be used as a campaign tool, obviously," she said.
"But I do think it's something that people in the United States want to debate. And it requires a lot of sensitivity to talk about the issue, a lot of sensitivity."
St. Jerome wrote "The seed gradually takes shape in the uterus, and it [abortion] does not count as killing until the individual elements have acquired their external appearance and their limbs"
Pope Innocent III wrote that the soul enters the body at the time of "quickening" when the woman first feels the movement of the fetus.
St. Thomas wrote that only an abortion of the animated fetus was murder.
Finally, Popes went back and forth on what stage it was murder until Pius IX finally put it to rest. He eliminated the distinction between the animated and unanimated stage of a fetus' progression.
I was raised in the Church and this is one issue the Church would not like to bring out.
"The real issue is, do you believe that everyone is either 100% heterosexual or 100% homosexual, with no area in between?"
It's not really an issue because it doesn't exist. I believe there are different types of homosexual, with different levels/balances of attraction to the same or opposite sex - those who have a curious sexual attraction to individuals of the same sex to those who are 100% only atracted to the same sex.
"But what about people whose homosexual tendencies are only mild? Will they not be more likely to act on those tendencies if they have social and legal ratification?"
In a proportion of cases, it's more likely that individuals with any homosexual tendencies are more likely to act on them if homosexuality is more acceptable in society. But that depends on the individual's own personality and the pressures of their own immediate social environment.
"Homosexuals themselves know that their behavior is unnatural... Once they're told that their behavior is normal, and even good, they feel compelled to eradicate every suggestion that it isn't... They need constant reinforcement of the belief that their behavior is good and natural, or they'll remember that it isn't. Every dissenting voice must be stifled..."
This is so accurate!
My own observations and experience is that this is exactly the case. When walking in a 'gay pride' march, they know that they are deviants, but they try their hardest to deny it and blank it out. When society gives them an ounce of acceptance, they want total acceptance, plus more, like spoilt children.
The acceptance has to be total, or they will always know that they are deviants... less than normal... So they have to demand everything that you would not give a sexual deviant, to prove that their deviancy is acceptable to society. They have to push all the boundaries, constantly, in order to be able to say "Look, I am a scout leader and I have adopted a son, because I am allowed to, because it's good and positive... because being a homosexual is quite normal and not a danger to anyone."
If they don't respond this way, then they will always know that they are 'subnormal' deviants. They don't want to accept that. There are many factors that pushes them to fight for what they want.
Your presentation is indeed true to life in so many respects.
Selectively reading? I think you are the one that is selectively reading. I was also raised in the Church, so you quote me a Pope and please give me the documentation to back your claim, that ever said abortion wasn't murder.
It just feels "wrong", because it is.
#####
That says it all. We do not want our little children to go through the Totally Normal stage of development called peer group associations - around the age of six to ten or eleven to "learn" that their feelings for their pals are really sexual feelings. We want them to learn that Mommies and Daddies are pairs.
http://www.languedoc-france.info/articles/a_innocent.htm
http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/canonl.htm
http://home.earthlink.net/~davidlperry/abortion.htm
It's interesting to note that if you go to Catholic sites and look up Innocent III, you will see a nice history of him, with that part left out.
You stated earlier that for 1200 years the Church didn't consider the fetus as a human until "animation." That isn't true as I have proven with Church documents.
You also said that the early Christians didn't "believe that first term abortions were the taking of a human life either."
I have also proven from early Church records that isn't true.
Now you have given me 3 links that didn't come from the Vatican or any other reliable Catholic source.
Your first source is from "The Dark History of the Church,"
Seven Great Myths by Organized Religion.
Your second source is from an independent blog (apparently) on AOL.
Your third source is from a doctor who appears to be taking the pro-abortion side.
Yes, I agree that it is interesting that if you go to any Catholic site about Pope Innocent III you will see that part left out. You see, it's all part of the great Catholic conspiracy.. just like the Da Vinci Code.. (sarcasm off!)
The reason you won't find it is because it apparently only exists on liberal sites that argue against the Church and for abortion.
For example, your second source cited this as documentation:
"From the earliest days of the Church, men who had shed human blood, no matter how justifiable or blameless the act may have been, were excluded from entering the priesthood (e.g., Decretum Gratiani by Pope Innocent I in the year 404). This traditionally embraced abortion as a form of homicide. However, in 1211, Pope Innocent III issued the decree Sicut ex, which limited the irregularity incurred from abortion to abortions involving a fetus that was not "animated" or "ensouled."
There is NO such document/decree as Sicut ex that exists. I challenge you to find it at the Vatican website or any website out there. It's not there except on the site you gave. That's the only place it pops up on a googlesearch.
It does look like an attempt to put the best light on it they could, but the fact exists that early abortions for about 1200 years was the equivalent of birth control in penalties. The paper mentions Pope Sixtus condemnation of all abortions, but fails to mention either Innocent III, or Gregory who followed Sixtus and overturned his dictum. I think most can read between the lines though, and will see the obvious. The Church never approved of any abortions, but clearly distinguished between pre-animated and post-animated abortions for much of its existence.
http://www.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=1
This has not proven the claims made by your sources. I asked you to specifically show a document/decree on Sicut Ex by Pope Innocent III. Where is it?
Also, please provide this supposed writing by St. Augustine
"On Exodus." I have the Early Church Fathers on CD Rom and I can't find such a writing by Augustine.
I have no idea. But given the document from CUF, it's pretty apparent that some popes accepted the theory, or why mention Sixtus? Ask the Church. I would assume that if it says what I gave you, the Church is not exactly hanging it out for all to see. Google Innocent III and abortion and see what comes up.
Also, please provide this supposed writing by St. Augustine "On Exodus." I have the Early Church Fathers on CD Rom and I can't find such a writing by Augustine.
Well the paper I provided you from CUF clearly shows Augustine's position on the topic. I don't have On Exodus, merely the reference to it. Hopefully it wasn't edited. But given everything else, it seems pretty unlikely that it is all a fabrication. BTW, the paper reflects that it was scientific findings that persuaded the Church to change its stance on the concept of ensoulment, but the Greek Orthodox Church didn't seem to be hampered by a need for such evidence.
I don't write off every scholarly piece simply because the Church doesn't accept it. Pieces like that one that you apparently did accept (CUF) should be scrutized for what it doesn't say, as much as for what it says. I'm sure you can google better than me anyway. Take care.
While I think that the children of homosexual parents may be a little more likely to manifest homosexual behavior, the concept of "learned behavior" means to me more likely being learned from the culture. In other words, in a less sexualized culture, a person who's attracted to people of the same sex may not necessarily express those feelings sexually -- they may just have close emotional relationships with people of the same sex. But in a culture that encourages young people to label themselves sexually at a young age based on their emotional feelings, those feelings may be more likely to find sexual expression.
Maybe, though I'm not aware of any evidence other than anecdotal that would support that theory, and it still does not say that a predisposition, either physiological or psychological isn't in the mix. In other words, the "choice" theory is definitely in the minority. And if the Cheney, Terry, and Keyes children brought up in strict Christian homes with traditional values can turn out to be homosexual, I doubt there's much choice involved.
Yes, and what does it say? It says that St. Augustine condemned abortion with great severity:
"St. Jerome (420 A.D.) and St. Thomas Aquinas (1274 A.D.) were not unique in their condemnation of abortion. Beyond the Didache, the Church testimony against abortion includes the Epistle of Barnabas (130), Clement of Alexandria (215), Tertullian (d. 225), St. Cyprian (d. 258), the Council of Elvira (305), St. Augustine (d. 430), the Trullian Council (692), the first Council of Mainz (847), Pope Stephen V (d. 891), Pope Sixtus V (d. 1590), and Pope Innocent XI (d. 1689).[6] All condemned abortion with great severity."
I don't have On Exodus, merely the reference to it. Hopefully it wasn't edited.,
Well, with all due respect there's a reason you can't provide On Exodus, it doesn't seem to exist. As stated earlier, I have the complete works of all the Church Fathers on CD Rom and have searched it... no results. I have googled it..no results. I have looked at the Vatican's website.. no results.
I don't write off every scholarly piece simply because the Church doesn't accept it.
For something to be scholarly, it should at least make an attempt to be accurate. Your source, Dr. David L. Perry, is the one that gave you that "reference" to On Exodus. Dr. Perry should do his homework better next time.
The other source that said that Pope Innocent III made this decree "Sicut Ex" is apparently an unfounded claim too. Neither can that document be found. It's not scholarly, IMHO, to toss out claims that can't be verified.
Suffice it to say, I think both you and I have had our say on the issue and have come to an impasse. You take care as well.
Look, both of you, we may agree on the issue, but neither of you get it because you are making it much more complex than it needs to be...
One, Congress passes a criminal statute, the president signs it, end of story until the Amendment is passed and/or the Supreme Court overturns the law or upholds the law.
(The president should force Congress to stay in session until both the criminal statute and Amendment is voted upon.)
Secondly, I don't care how many homosexuals or state public officials go to federal prison for disobeying the law... the federal Marshals sure move in on the polygamists and I do not have a problem with it at all...
Lastly, Dick Cheney is wrong, it is not a matter solely for the states to decide, it is perfectly within the Constitutional purview of Congress...
Article. IV.Section. 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Section. 2. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
It is that bloody simple...
The premise is implied that somehow she made any difference one way or the other... she is delusional and, as I said, the article was a “never ending cascade of falsehoods...”
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
She spent 19 months on the campaign.
Who wouldn't with all that free gourmet food, luxury travel accomodations and money floating around? She was just a flea riding on the back of the bull elephant...
No, not according to the states who have voted on the matter, they just think it is stupidity... then again, most people in the USA believe Genesis as well...
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
...most medical professionals believe it.
Only if they never had a biology course - - Male + female = baby. I don't think storks deliver babies and I am sure most Gynecologists would agree...
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Most believe that whatever causes it is either a genetic, or a pre-born cause.
Birth defect, choice or mental illness? Take your pick...
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
believe
The word is applicable to a fetish, not to truth...
Here's an interesting site detailing the history of the english language bible...
http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/
I'm only aware of the states voting on the gay marriage issue. You mean there have been votes on what causes homosexuality? Please link. As for Genesis, yes most Americans believe the Bible, but also recognize most of the early books in it are written in metaphors, not literally. Fundamentalists of course believe the Earth is about 8000 years old, instead of the 4.5 billion science has shown.
Only if they never had a biology course - - Male + female = baby. I don't think storks deliver babies and I am sure most Gynecologists would agree...
Which of course has absolutely nothing to do with the causes of homosexuality.
Birth defect, choice or mental illness? Take your pick...
Call it what you will, it's rather obvious you can't shed any light on the causes of homosexuality. But one thing is pretty well established. It's not a choice.
believe
The word is applicable to a fetish, not to truth...
How does that apply to those who believe in the Bible?
I am not an orthodox or ecumenical atheist, there are no such things...
Cause is a matter only of thought and perverse use of anatomy...
Was Freudian psychoanalytic theory of sexual stages in psychological development more accurate than accredited? The Michael Jackson Complex is fixation on mutilation of and deviance with human anatomy in the media. It is a social psychosis catering to the lowest common denominator and generated with Pavlovian behavioral conditioning in popular culture.
Should we really be canonizing special societal privileges in secular law based on idolatrous fetishes?
The use of the language is so very twisted by the Leftist radicals, that in our touchy-feely world, many blindly accept erroneous terminology. XX or XY chromosomes are immutable after conception when mitosis begins. People are either genetically male or female. There are genetic abnormalities/defects, but these people are sterile. [XO (Turner syndrome), XXY (Klinefelter syndrome), XXX (poly-X syndrome), and XYY (Jacob syndrome).] No matter how many X-chromosomes there are, any individual with the Y-chromosome develops into a male. The abnormalities are so few, only one in several thousands occurs. So much for the "gay" gene - - it does not exist. It is a phantasm, an ‘endeavor by dark and erroneous doctrines’ to occlude the light of truth about nature. It is not a procreant genotype.
Homosexual perversions are no more genetic than child molesting or rape.
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
As for Genesis, yes most Americans believe the Bible, but also recognize most of the early books in it are written in metaphors,...
Either they believe it or they do not.
Today, "morals" are defined by a quasi-religious pagan philosophy based on esoteric hobgoblins. A greater number of "atheists" and "pagans" adopt the same hackneyed tenets of a false Judaic-Christian ideal (golden calf). They also subscribe to the Judaic fetishism of "sin," but will fight to their death in denial of it. Most of them are so wrapped up in their own polemics that they have become nothing more than pathetic anti-Christians with the same false hypocritical philosophy. They just slap a new label on it hoping nobody will notice - - they replace the idea of "avoiding sin" with "morals."
Morality and all of its associated concepts are from the belief some higher power defines what is correct in human behavior. Today, "morals" are a religious pagan philosophy of esoteric hobgoblins. Transfiguration is a pantheon of fantasies as the medium of infinitization. Others get derision for having an unwavering Judaic belief in Yahweh or Yeshua, although their critics and enemies will evangelize insertion of phantasmagoric fetishisms into secular law.
Mosaic Law (of which the Ten Commandments is just a part) is the foundation of Western Civilization. Genesis is the primary focus of the Declaration of Independence, from where our Constitutional rights are derived. The Ten Commandments are the foundation of our judicial system.
Moses wrote Genesis. This is why such people will jump up and down screaming when the Ten Commandments are displayed or the Creationist idea of monogamy from the book of Genesis is introduced.
The latter (Genesis) also ruins the illogical and non-biological arguments of homosexual monogamy. In a secular sense, homosexuality is an idolatry of perversion. It is in no way an anatomical function of the human organism, but a phantasmagoric creation from within the mentally disturbed human mind, a social psychosis, naked and on full exhibitionist display.
This is the whole crux of their attack on creationism - - they are really frustrated by Genesis, but cannot destroy the axiomatic state of procreant human biology, it does not fit their religious agenda.
Homosexual monogamy advocates seek ceremonious sanctification of their anatomical perversions and esoteric absolution for their guilt-ridden, impoverished egos.
Neither of those will satisfy their universal dissatisfaction with mortality or connect them to something eternal. With pantheons of fantasies as their medium of infinitization, they still have nothing in them of reality, any more than there is in the things that seem to stand before us in a dream.
Homosexual deviancy is really a pagan practice (and a self-induced social psychosis) at war with the Judaic culture over what is written in the book of Genesis (1:27, 2:18).
This is exactly what the National Socialists were at war with... so, when someone uses the term "Gaystapo," they might not realize how close to the truth they really are.
Many will seek ceremonious sanctification and esoteric absolution in some type of marriage rite, but that still fails to give them a connection to the eternal in both a religious and temporal, procreant sense - - the union does not produce offspring.
Dissatisfaction with inevitable mortality only feeds the impoverishment of the ego further. Homosexuals really hate human life; their whole desire is rooted in the destruction of it...
Contemplate the religious fervor associated with the pro-abortion advocacy. The societal practice of abortion is ritual mass murder upon the altars of conceit dedicated to idolatrous vanities, a collective human sacrifice before pagan idols.
It has a similitude to the Teutonic paganism of Adolph Hitler (whose idolatry was the idea of a "master race," among other things). In effect, these genocides are a mass human sacrifice to those pagan idols. The abortionists, like the National Socialists, incinerate the remains of their victims.
Aleister Crowley, who openly supported the National Socialists, was affiliated with Ordo Templi Orientis, A.A. (Order of the Silver Star) and other such occult lodges all across Germany. Crowley engaged in all manner of deviancy, homoeroticism, sadomasochism and murder. Much of the occultism in National Socialism is derived directly from there. Crowley envisioned himself as the Great Beast (To Mega Therion), just as der Fuhrer made himself in that image. Hitler's life as a struggling, inept artist was where that association blossomed.
Crowley's creed, "Do what thou wilt, shall be the whole of the Law," (which is actually from Francois Rabelais) and used by Neo-Pagan nutcases without attribution for obvious politically correct reasons, is with certainty no different than the National Socialist "will to power," or their ubermensch mentality.
It is also no accident Nietzsche's "over-man" and nihilist philosophy and resulting insanity from venereal disease closely mirrors the insanity of der Fuhrer.
These occult orders, sex and drug cults still survive today, as do the Neo-pagan, Neo-Nazi groups, black supremacist Rastafarian potheads, prison gangs and other related filth.
Crowley occultism is also from where L. Ron Hubbard emerges with Scientology. Note the NAZI symbolism of that kooky cult of weirdos.
Cause is a matter only of thought and perverse use of anatomy...
Cause is that which is the reason for a condition. Scientists and medical professionals are still searching for the "causes" of homosexuality. Religious convictions cannot account for it, only condemn it. Many religious fanatics continue to say it is simply a choice. I doubt that, as do most Americans. Your explanation fails to explain the "attraction" but jumps straight to the conduct.
Should we really be canonizing special societal privileges in secular law based on idolatrous fetishes?
I'm not sure what special privileges you are referring to. If it is gay marriage, the answer for me is no. If it is to permit gays and lesbians to engage in private conduct then of course that is a basic right...the right to privacy, and is protected by the Constitution. It is not a special privilege.
Homosexual perversions are no more genetic than child molesting or rape.
The point is that you do not know, because if you do, you know something the world of science doesn't. I have no idea if it's genetic or if it is caused by something after conception. Most do believe that it is one or the other. No one knew that particular genes causes particular illnesses either until recently. The answer will not be found in a fundamentalist congregation. But it will be found. Having said that, of course our society will not permit child molesting or rape. But the activities of two consenting adults in the privacy of their own home, or if in public, consistent with the conduct permitted of all people, is absolutely no business of anyone but them.
Mosaic Law (of which the Ten Commandments is just a part) is the foundation of Western Civilization. Genesis is the primary focus of the Declaration of Independence, from where our Constitutional rights are derived. The Ten Commandments are the foundation of our judicial system.
The framers of the Constitution were religious, but definitely created a secular state. We are a nation of Christians, but we are not a Christian state. We are a republic. The supreme law of this land is the Constitution, not any religious book or belief. Yes, Judeo-Christian philosophy likely impacted the Bill of Rights, but the framers were very specific about both protection of religious freedom while ensuring the government did not rule by religious law.
The latter (Genesis) also ruins the illogical and non-biological arguments of homosexual monogamy. In a secular sense, homosexuality is an idolatry of perversion. It is in no way an anatomical function of the human organism, but a phantasmagoric creation from within the mentally disturbed human mind, a social psychosis, naked and on full exhibitionist display.
However, we do not want our lawmakers looking to Genesis to decide how to interpret the 14th Amendment. Also, I don't mind mentioning that even in heterosexual relationships, sex is engaged in rarely for the purpose of procreation, and in any case, many of those acts could not result in procreation.
Homosexual monogamy advocates seek ceremonious sanctification of their anatomical perversions and esoteric absolution for their guilt-ridden, impoverished egos.
I don't know. I watched Mary Cheney's interview and saw none of that. I saw a sincere, intelligent human being, accepted and loved by her family, in a loving monogamous relationship. I may not understand it, nor would I vote for marriage in her case, but I still respect her. She makes more sense in one sentence that the Homosexual Ping List has in a thousand posts.
Neither of those will satisfy their universal dissatisfaction with mortality or connect them to something eternal.
I'm hard pressed to believe that if they lead good lives and believe in God, that somehow He will not take that into consideration. But then, He may have confided in you more than me.
Contemplate the religious fervor associated with the pro-abortion advocacy. The societal practice of abortion is ritual mass murder upon the altars of conceit dedicated to idolatrous vanities, a collective human sacrifice before pagan idols.
I'm sure that you are aware of the policies of the Catholic Church for over 1200 years on abortion aren't you? If not, I suspect you would be amazed. Search for the concept of delayed ensoulment, and how "animation" determined when the fetus was a human being.
Crowley engaged in all manner of deviancy, homoeroticism, sadomasochism and murder.
I presume you have followed the trial of the Catholic priest just convicted of a ritualistic murder of a nun? And what of all of those pedophile priests over the years? Evil is not neatly contained in just certain segments of society.
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.