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.
You're nothing but a homophobic, Bible beating fool. Why, if these people have feelings of 'guilt', are they attempting to step out into the spotlight ? The 'sanctity' of marriage ? Over half of heterosexual marriages fail. How many of the half that 'succeeds' are happy ? Heterosexuals have PROVEN that they can't stay in a marriage. Why not let 'gays' take a crack at it ? Beacuse they might be better at it ? Go wave your silly book someplace else.
As for the attitude "Whaddaya gonna do about it", I think that's a poor political attitude and one that wouldn't garner any sympathy.
The problems with looking to nature are numerous: Animals and Homosexuality
If I could offer some advice: You really don't help your position with such rants.
As a gay man show, it would never fly, but the fantasy that our relations with the opposite sex can be as gay men's are with each other is very, very popular.
I would venture that such quickie marriage policies/laws encourage people to enter into marriage lightly. "If it doesn't work, we can always get a divorce."
Marriages are never easy (all the time). They require effort from both parties to work through difficulties. A culture which does not instill this mindset into those approaching marriage gets dissollution. We witnset this every day.
Now, if gay marriage is ever accepted and the author's thesis is correct, we shall see that even [gay] marriage will not be sufficient to assuage their guilt. And this will require not simply tolerance of sexually deviancy, but coerced "celebration" of it. We already see signs of this in diversity training courses which mega-business is forcing on its employees.
Here they are, finally found them. Thanks for posting this article. It is spot on.
From LA Times of March 12: ...
"Divided over gay marriage" by Roy Rivenburg Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor who runs the International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission, recommends legalizing a wide variety of marriage alternatives, including polyamory, or group wedlock. An example could include a lesbian couple living with a sperm-donor father, or a network of men and women who share sexual relations.
One aim, she says, is to break the stranglehold that married heterosexual couples have on health benefits and legal rights. The other goal is to "push the parameters of sex, sexuality and family, and in the process transform the very fabric of society." ... [snip]
An excerpt from: In Their Own Words: The Homosexual Agenda:
"Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile, who writes periodically for The New York Times, summarizes the agenda in OUT magazine (Dec/Jan 1994):
"A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes, but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution... The most subversive action lesbian and gay men can undertake --and one that would perhaps benefit all of society--is to transform the notion of family entirely."
"Its the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statues, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into the public schools and in short to usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us."
Chris Crain, the editor of the Washington Blade has stated that all homosexual activists should fight for the legalization of same-sex marriage as a way of gaining passage of federal anti-discrimination laws that will provide homosexuals with federal protection for their chosen lifestyle.
Crain writes: "...any leader of any gay rights organization who is not prepared to throw the bulk of their efforts right now into the fight for marriage is squandering resources and doesn't deserve the position." (Washington Blade, August, 2003).
Andrew Sullivan, a homosexual activist writing in his book, Virtually Normal, says that once same-sex marriage is legalized, heterosexuals will have to develop a greater "understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman."
He notes: "The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal; and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness." (Sullivan, Virtually Normal, pp. 202-203)
Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor and homosexual activist has said:
"Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. . Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family; and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. . We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society's view of reality." (partially quoted in "Beyond Gay Marriage,"
Stanley Kurtz, The Weekly Standard, August 4, 2003)
Evan Wolfson has stated:
"Isn't having the law pretend that there is only one family model that works (let alone exists) a lie? . marriage is not just about procreation-indeed is not necessarily about procreation at all. "(quoted in "What Marriage Is For," by Maggie Gallagher, The Weekly Standard, August 11, 2003)
Mitchel Raphael, editor of the Canadian homosexual magazine Fab, says:
"Ambiguity is a good word for the feeling among gays about marriage. I'd be for marriage if I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of 'till death do us part' and monogamy forever. We should be Oscar Wildes and not like everyone else watching the play." (quoted in "Now Free To Marry, Canada's Gays Say, 'Do I?'" by Clifford Krauss, The New York Times, August 31, 2003)
1972 Gay Rights Platform Demands: "Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit."
[Also among the demands was the elimination of all age of consent laws.]
Note the quotes I just posted.
That's it! Thank you. I need to save it or put it on a blog.
I think you are missing the point. The norm in heterosexual pairing is reproduction. The incidence of infertility (voluntary or involuntary) in some couples does not affect the overall heterosexual population.
Whereas, 100% of homosexual couples are infertile as a result of their sexual preferences. They only way they can "have children" is to claim other people's, including a "womb for rent" and a baggie of some anonymous guy's jism.
The purpose of society in supporting the institution of marriage is to create an environment in which to perpetuate future generations.
To stop HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE in VIRGINIA
I hear rumors that the homosexual agenda research institute (kidding!), as most lefty organizations... resort to lies or disinformation To confuse the voters on the how to vote on the ANTI-GAY-MARRIAGE amendments in the different states. So, I did a little research to be absolutely sure how to vote on it in VIRGINIA only! (other states maybe different). - Public Announcement from EP :)
1 FINAL COPY Proposed Constitutional Amendment To Be Voted on at the November 7, 2006, Election PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT Article I. Bill of Rights. Section 15-A. Marriage. BALLOT QUESTION NUMBER 1
Excerpt -------------------------
EXPLANATION Present Law The Constitution does not define marriage. Under current statutory law in Virginia, persons who marry must have a license and be married by a licensed minister, judge, or other person authorized by law to perform marriages. Present law prohibits marriages between certain individuals. For example, the law prohibits a marriage between a brother and sister, between a couple where one of the parties is married to someone else, and between couples of the same sex. In 1975, the General Assembly enacted a statute (present Code of Virginia § 20- 45.2) that states "A marriage between persons of the same sex is prohibited." In 1997, the General Assembly added a sentence to § 20-45.2 that states that: 2 Any marriage entered into by persons of the same sex in another state or jurisdiction shall be void in all respects in Virginia and any contractual rights created by such marriage shall be void and unenforceable. In 2004, the General Assembly passed a law to prohibit certain civil unions or other arrangements between persons of the same sex. That law (Code of Virginia § 20- 45.3) states that: A civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage is prohibited. Any such civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement entered into by persons of the same sex in another state or jurisdiction shall be void in all respects in Virginia and any contractual rights created thereby shall be void and unenforceable.
Thus, civil unions or other arrangements which purport “to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage” are prohibited by statute.
Proposed Amendment If approved by the voters, this proposed amendment will become part of the Constitution of Virginia. The proposed amendment adds a definition of marriage as the “union between one man and one woman” to the Constitution's Bill of Rights and prohibits Virginia and its counties, cities, and towns from creating or recognizing any legal status by any name which is comparable to marriage. Marriage in the Commonwealth creates specific legal rights, benefits, and obligations for a man and a woman. There are other legal rights, benefits, and obligations which will continue to be available to unmarried persons, including the naming of an agent to make end-of-life decisions by an Advance Medical Directive (Code of Virginia § 54.1-2981), protections afforded under Domestic Violence laws (Code of Virginia § 18.2- 57.2), ownership of real property as joint tenants with or without a right of survivorship (Code of Virginia § 55-20.1), or disposition of property by will (Code of Virginia § 64.1- 46).
A "yes" vote on the proposed amendment will result in the addition of the proposed Section 15-A to Article I, the Bill of Rights. A "no" vote will mean that there will be no change made in Article I, the Bill of Rights."
"They"?
The more radical homosexual activists.
there is no problem looking to nature. the article does not confirm male homo activity. it does everything else. not even the male creatures of the field will do one another, they will do everything else.... but they WILL kill one another for the wrong advances.
proves but one thing about mankind: as smart as we think we are? we still can outdo the common pig.
oink oink
The first article listed why we shouldn't emulate what we see in animals. Here's another article that demonstrates The Animal Homosexuality Myth.
I misunderstood. I thought your headline was directed at all homosexuals.
That happens. Sometimes it's easy to unknowingly make blanket statements, and there are other times a statement is read as a blanket statement but wasn't a blanket statement at all. The key, and it can be an elusive key, is to try and write more clearly. Of course, I'm assuming you're referring to post 22.
I was referring to the headline which I believe is a gross exaggeration.
If there is a case to be made that some are "hardwired", then they are much like schizophrenics and others with mental illnesses: people who need to be treated and cured. But, of course we know homosexuality is not a mental illness; the American Psychological Association tells us so./s
The question is, are we going to allow the mentally ill to reshape society to their liking? Are the inmates already running the institution?
who is the majority?
i am sick and tired of being dragged around by this special rights minority interest.
to the point where they are polluting other children in grade school? NOW, thats PURE, unadulterated H/$hit.
what? are the loonies supposed to be running the asylum? does that make sense....Hillary?
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.