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.
Then why not limit marriage to fertile man-woman couples? I'm 50, have had a vasectomy, my girlfriend is also 50, and post menopause. Would anyone here limit our right to marry?
Rhetoric that says that homosexuals want to destroy an institution by joining it is bound to fail. Promiscuous homosexuals have no more interest in marrying than do confirmed bachelors. And I have yet to see any way that someone else's "marriage", or civil union, or domestic partnership takes anything away from a man and woman who want to live a traditional style of life. The fact that you can get a quickie marriage and divorce in Nevada does not take a single thing away from people who view and live marriage as a lifelong commitment between themselves and their deity.
I've pinged somebody who may have the quotes available.
Rosie appears to have a lot of the inner conflict mentioned in the article. It's too bad she listens to all the wrong people.
I've only seen some salacious previews here and there. From what I've seen that show is quite disgusting.
Clear, concise, logical and reasonable argument, and that's why the pro gay marriage supporters are trying to frame this debate by emotional arguments.
Good points--and ones I am receptive to as well. Gay marriage should be decided by the people, not judges. Gays need to make their case in the court of public opinion--they could sway opinion to their side (but really--when you see a couple of guys at the altar, that's just sick (confirmed homophobe))
That is a sad situation indeed. What I find hypocritical are those who say men in that position were gay all along and cannot become heterosexual again. It's too bad we've slid so far down the slope.
I think the point of the article is that they don't actually want marriage/unions for themselves. Rather, they want to destroy the institution of marriage for everyone.
I guess the answer is to not go to any homosexual weddings. I also feel that the people should decide, not the courts, but I can imagine that majorities in the blue states would be supportive of civil unions. What I would oppose is a Supreme Court opinion that legalized gay marriage throughout the land, but I think it's coming within five to ten years.
Very good article.
No matter what earthly legal label they put on their sin, it will never be acceptable by God, and sadly, they will stand before Him one day and be truly Judged. And so will the so-called churches that condone their sin.
God help us.
I don't know if that's true but it's definitely something to consider.
And I have yet to see any way that someone else's "marriage", or civil union, or domestic partnership takes anything away from a man and woman who want to live a traditional style of life.
One argument I've seen is that gay marriage might cheapen traditional marriage as counterfeit money might cheapen real money. Realizing you've seen this before, I think some readers may not have seen this.
Some see gay marriage as opening a door to any type of marriage:
Here's a link with some additional thoughts: Questions and Answers: What's Wrong With Letting Same-Sex Couples "Marry?"
I have a good friend who is homosexual, though he dated girls in HS and was married and has a grown son. We were talking the otherday, and though I really had no great interest, he took the time to enlighten me about all his recent sexual activities. It was almost like he was driven to let me know just how much sex he was 'enjoying' with his numerous friends and numerous strangers. A little later we were talking about my marriage and he said he envied me because I was one of the lucky ones who had had that one great love affair in my life. He remarked that he was still looking for that. I had to bite my tongue to keep from telling him he wasn't going to find that at the bath houses and gay bars. It is really sad to see someone you care about sink into that hell hole of the hedonistic, live for today, physical pleasure at any cost queer lifestyle.
sure! of the 5%, (and thats liberal) of the homo sexuals, they are hardwired wrong. they do exist.they are real. for the balance its choice, and they are very vocal. ....wananbes
I go through the site every now and again. Here's something from their first FAQ (Did you choose to start feeling same-sex attraction or just choose to start acting upon it?):
People who believe they only chose to start acting upon same-sex attraction do not usually consider themselves queer by choice. Those of us who do consider ourselves queer by choice usually mean that we chose to start feeling same-sex attraction.I don't see that as a political choice. What FAQ are you reading?
Yes it is. If you think he would be interested in watching a video on the story of 5 ex-gays, take a look at Dr. Throckmorton's video: I Do Exist. It's a 52 minute video that might help...
I disagree, and I've never seen any science supporting a hardwiring among gays. In fact, even homosexual activists and scientists have stated there is no hardwiring involved. It's quite a complicated subject.
look to nature,
it does exist,
and when another male tries his stuff on another male, its a huge fight. some fight to the death.
stupid earthling humans!
.....father to son, nephew etc
redefine " dad, you're the best!"
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.