Posted on 10/27/2006 6:43:05 AM PDT by scripter
Despite all that their angry-mob front groups argue in front of television cameras to the contrary, radical homosexual activists despise the institution, and more importantly the sanctity, of marriage. That is the fundamental reason why they are seeking to destroy the institution.
This week – dateline Trenton, N.J. – a unified panel of seven judges agreed that illegitimate sexual unions should be made equitable under law to that of monogamous married persons. Without the consent of the governed, these tyrants in black robes sat in judgment of healthy families across the universe and demanded that New Jersey residents accept immoral construction of sexual unions as the equal basis for families and family life in their recreated sexual, liberal utopia.
With utter contempt for God and for the voters of their state, the New Jersey seven unanimously said that all who live in the confines of its borders must fundamentally agree to the moral premise that what the Bible terms perversion the voters should call healthy.
But why? What's the real goal of the activists, the judges and the radicals who seek to subvert a moral worldview?
The answer is simple: No longer satisfied with practicing the unspeakable perverse sexual pleasures that their hearts seek in private bedrooms, they wish to be able to do so in public. They are also suffering from such immense guilt over their sexual behaviors, because they know inherently that the actions they perform are in fact unhealthy, that they will go to any means necessary to try and shut down the voices in their heads that tell them it is wrong.
They wrongfully believe that the guilty voice within them is an echo of a prudish state that seeks to limit their freedoms. They wrongfully believe that the judgment they feel is emanating from "Bible thumpers." And what they fail to admit is that the voice that condemns them the loudest is never a human voice – but in fact the voice of their own conscience informed by the truth of the God who created them.
There are attributes of marriage that same-sex couples will never achieve. But in the minds of radical activists, getting the label and a piece of paper saying so will be close enough.
For instance, a woman who engages in lesbianism will never know the joy of lovemaking that creates within her the product of that union – an actual human life. She will never know the security of a true man protecting her from the dragons of the world and providing for her an environment where she can nurture and give love to that little life once it arrives, or the stamp of approval that God puts on such an experience. And because she and her partner know this, they must defy reason, biology and sexual function to create children and experiences that serve as faulty substitutes for that God-ordained picture.
Likewise, a man who seeks his perverse kicks by depositing the seed of life in, shall we say, non-life-giving cavities, may know orgasm, but never complete union, as he uses anatomy in ways for which the Creator did not create it.
Married couples that love each other and practice monogamous, committed, life-affirming affection – even through tribulation – know a very different experience. A man can learn more about his role as a man because of the way his wife responds to him. Likewise, a woman who has a man who truly loves her for who she is, provides for her needs and encourages her constantly will never even think of finding solutions to those needs elsewhere.
The truth is radical homosexual activists know that these experiences are not theirs for the having. No matter how much they attempt to shut down voices that choose not to support their perverse bedroom habits, even if the entire world agreed with them to their face, they would no be able to escape the voice of their own conscience.
Radical homosexual activists hate biblical marriage, because to achieve its benefits and blessings they must first conform to God's plan for sexuality, and the sinful nature in man is not willing to make such submission and conformity happen. The existence of joyful biblical marriage being practiced by "thumpers" in "Jesusland" infuriates them and thus the only action they can attempt is to destroy the institution that allows for such fundamental societal success.
This sad deception is indicative of the greater truth that mankind is sinful and prefers our own pursuits of carnal pleasure to accepting the reality that there is a God and that we are subject to Him.
But that's OK, because soon there will be a day in Massachusetts and New Jersey where the voters will finally be given back the rights they've had from the beginning to keep the important, vital and joyful union of marriage what it is – a God authorized, designed and established relationship.
So don't believe the angry spokespeople. Radical homosexual activists hate marriage because fundamentally they hate God, and the guilt of both drives them to extremes.
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.
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.
Thanks!
Who said anything about hate? Surely I didn't. Wait let me check my post..............nope sure enough, no hate in it.
That is one of the most ludicrous and hubristic statements I have ever read.
It's definitely a strong statement. But do you know any radical homosexual activists that love God?
Why yes. I've met and read comments from radical homosexual activists who state they hate God.
I don't know any "radical homosexual activists.' I suspect that term is just one of those provacative buzz phrases put out there by folks that want attention, and/or money, without much meaning. What does it mean? Is Andrew Sullivan a "radical homosexual activist?" If so, why? But I know homosexuals that love God. Myself, I am a near atheist. I am headed to the pit and hell.
Sorry, but this guy seems far sicker than those he tries to denigrate.
I am certain that, politics aside, this kind of hate is counter productive.
Since none of this is any of the government's business, the author is throwing letters around with as much semantic content as the results of an explosion at the Scrabble tile factory.
Simon LeVay is a scientist and used to be a radical homosexual activist, but I remember reading how he tired of it and just wanted to live a normal life.
I'm sure there are homosexuals who love God just as there are other sinners who struggle with their sin. The key is to be "in Christ" as Romans 8:1 says.
I've not really gotten a solid answer. Right now, the voters are plenty uneasy with the concept of same sex marriage, and even in the most liberal states, constitutional amendments aimed at preventing gay marriage have carried the day, but I really don't see that continuing on for the long term. About all the opponents of same sex marriage can do is to quickly get constitutional amendments in the states where they can (I really don't think it will happen on a national level), making it difficult to remove them when simple majorities decide they're over their squeamishness over this issue. UNLESS, there is a reason beyond religion or tradition that arises to take the place of that skittishness, that's the way I see things developing on this issue in the future.
As someone who has followed this issue for years, I think Kevin McCullough is telling it like it is.
I think the government has an interest in what's best for our culture and what's best for our future, the family.
They could set up a department for that -- "The Ministry of Culture". There are plenty of models on which it could be based in the records of the old Soviet Empire.
What's "government"? Ideally, it's supposed to be what the governed choose, and want. So the governed have voted, in every state that they've had the opportunity, to support marriage (one man and one woman), voting down by huge margins same sex marriage.
So, steve-b, I guess the JBTs (aka "liberaltarians") should force the people to be values neutral, all for their own good of course.
Now just WHO are the nanny staters?
An atheist like myself doesn't see that as a valid question... There is an axiomatic state of human reproductive biology and anything beyond that is purely a fetish, something the state should have no interest in sanctioning as codified into secular law.
No man may become a law unto himself under the guise of freedom of religion.
Some of these liberal-tarians forget, it is THEY who advocate “separation of church and state.” Let me cram it right back down their throats...
It was landmark U.S. Supreme Court precedent Reynolds v. United States in 1878 that made “separation of church and state” a dubiously legitimate point of case law, but more importantly; it confirmed the Constitutionality in statutory regulation of marriage practices.
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.