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.
Look we doo all the things that animals do.after all we are only animals. But we have outdone the kingdom with male or female homo activity.
My point is in nature, one male will kill another for the wrong advances. Move in on my harem? I'll kill you. Let alone a homosexual advance. Cattle, horses, sheep, swine, goats, deer, moose, elephants, lions etc etc etc abide by this. Not even they will accept that behavior. But us earthling humans? we can cook it up, be bigger pigs than old ethel and company.... and we think we are smarter?
Maybe you didn't detect the sarcasm.
Society's problem today is that we have let the crazy homosexual lobby rule our lives because we have allowed them to control the language, i.e. too many have been cowed into PC talk/think.
We have to start calling a spade a spade. Homosexuals are mentally ill and need to be treated that way-not given some special status of victimhood.
Your first comment was "They?" which was a reply to post 22, and when I responded you threw me a curve when your thoughts changed back to the main article. Now I know what you're talking about.
I realize you know this, but as with most articles you have to read the article to get the bigger picture. The first sentence of the article says: radical homosexual activists. The term is used at least two more times in the article.
Besides that and as far as I know, Tammy Bruce is the only homosexual that speaks out against the radical homosexual activists. With what the radicals are trying to do to this country and the silence from homosexuals, I don't really have a problem with the title.
No, we don't. And if you read the first link I gave you, then I don't know why you would say that.
Earlier you said:
look to nature, it does exist,The second article I gave you demonstrated homosexuality in animals is a myth.
If you're saying something else then I'm not following your thought pattern at all.
hahaha, IATZ. Was that a sleeper troll?
That is nature's best outcome. We don't need anymore moonbats and perverts.
scripter,
we are on the same page.
i do not know how you mis read me. i never said look to nature to its existance.... please read my posting #61
from that posting,
"""My point is in nature, one male will kill another for the wrong advances. Move in on my harem? I'll kill you. Let alone a homosexual advance. Cattle, horses, sheep, swine, goats, deer, moose, elephants, lions etc etc etc abide by this. Not even they will accept that behavior. But us earthling humans? we can cook it up, be bigger pigs than old ethel and company.... and we think we are smarter?"""
On the lighter side..... did you hear Mickey Gilley died of aids?
Yup, he was looking for love in all the wrong places
just kiddin, I hope he's still alive
There are some millions of homosexuals give or take. And you say Tammy Bruce is the only one who speaks out against radicals. You must not get around much. How many would have to speak out before you would become more objective and exaggerate less?
I don't like the use of hyperbole in headlines to draw people to threads. That's my point.
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.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It does. It takes away from society as a whole. Divorce laws need to be changed.
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.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It does. It takes away from society as a whole. Divorce laws need to be changed.
I don't think you've thought this through, or are of the libertarian persuasion. Nature is replete with examples of this very fact. A virus enters a cell for the purpose of replicating what defines the cell in every aspect - the DNA. It then spreads in a form of the original cell so that the body's defense system has trouble identifying the invader, all the while, wreaking havoc and destruction on the cellular level (and sometimes endangering the life of the entire organism.)
On a more societal level, let's say a person or group of people want to have the color green called "red", for whatever purpose (maybe "separate but equal" would come into play) and they push for this terminology until, out of extreme fatigue or incredulity, the bulk of rational society grudgingly agrees to let the group have their way and call green red. After all, the better part of humanity will see the silliness of this position and continue to call green objects green. But, no man being an island, the better part of humanity will have to interact with the radical few in the course of business, and the radicals, being what they are, will demand that the bulk of society also call green red. They will appeal to the radical members of the powers that be until all society is forced, not only to call green red, but, all colors being equal, refering to any shade by any term desired.
This point is made by the razer-sharp wit of a Monte Python skit about a man looking for a bed:
Husband: Hello, my wife and I would like to buy a bed, please.
Mr Lambert: Certainly sir, I'll get someone to help you.
Wife: Thank you.
Mr Lambert: Mr Verity!
Mr Verity: Can I help you, sir?
Husband: Yes, we'd like a bed, a double bed, and I wondered if you'd got one for about fifty pounds.
Mr Verity: Oh no, I'm afraid not, sir. Our cheapest bed is eight hundred pounds, sir.
Husband & Wife: Eight hundred pounds?
Mr Lambert: Excuse me, sir, but before I go, I ought to have told you that Mr Verity does tend to exaggerate. Every figure he gives you will be ten times too high.
Husband: I see.
Mr Lambert: Otherwise he's perfectly all right.
Husband: I see. Er... your cheapest double bed then is eighty pounds?
Mr Verity: Eight hundred pounds, yes, sir.
Husband: I see. And how wide is it?
Mr Verity: It's sixty feet wide.
Husband: Yes...
Wife: (whispers) Sixty feet!
Husband: (whispers) Six foot wide, you see.
Wife: (whispers) Oh.
Husband: ...and the length?
Mr Verity: The length is ... er ... just a moment. Mr Lambert, what is the length of the Comfidown Majorette?
Mr Lambert: Ah. Two foot long.
Husband: Two foot long?
Mr Verity: Yes, remembering of course that you have to multiply everything Mr Lambert says by three. It's nothing he can help, you understand. Otherwise he's perfectly all right.
Husband: I see, I'm sorry.
Mr Verity: But it does mean that when he says a bed is two foot long, it is in fact sixty foot long, all right?
Husband: Yes, I see.
Mr Verity: That's without the mattress, of course.
Husband: How much is that?
Mr Verity: Er, Mr Lambert will be able to tell you that. Lambert! Could you show these twenty good people the dog kennels, please?
Husband: Dog kennels? No, no, the mattresses!
Mr Verity: I'm sorry, you have to say 'dog kennel' to Mr Lambert, because if you say 'mattress' he puts a bucket* over his head. I should have explained. Otherwise he's perfectly all right.
Husband: Oh. Ah. I see. Er, excuse me, could you show us the dog kennels, please, hm?
Mr Lambert: Dog kennels?
Husband: Yes, we want to look at the dog kennels, hm.
Mr Lambert: Ah yes, well that's the pets' department, second floor.
Husband: No, no, no, we want to see the DOG KENNELS.
Lambert: (irritated) Yes, second floor.
Husband: No, we don't want to see dog kennels, it's just that Mr Verity said that...
Mr Lambert: Oh dear, what's he been telling you now?
Husband: Well, he said we should say 'dog kennels' instead of saying 'mattresses'.
(Lambert puts bucket on his head) Husband: Oh dear. Hello? Hello? Hello?
Mr Verity: (approaching) Did you say 'mattress'?
Husband: Well, yes, er...
Mr Lambert: (muffled) I'm not coming out!
Mr Verity: I did *ask* you not to say 'mattress', didn't I?
Husband: But I mean, er...
Mr Lambert: (muffled) I'm not!
Husband: Oh.
Mr Verity: Now I've got to get him to the fish tank and sing.
Husband: Oh.
Mr Verity: (stands in a cardboard box and sings William Blake's, Jerusalem) And did those feet, in ancient time...
Manager: (walking up, hearing the singing) Oh dear, did somebody say mattress to Mr Lambert?
Husband: Yes, I did.
(Manager gives nasty look at Husband)
Mr Verity: (still singing) ...walk upon England's mountains green... (Manager joins in) ...and was the Holy Lamb of God...
(Lambert removes bucket; Verity and Assistant immediately stop singing; Manager leaves.)
Mr Verity: He should be all right now, but don't...you know...*don't*!
Husband: No, no. (to Lambert) Excuse me, could we see the dog kennels please?
Lambert: (irritated) Yes, pets department, second floor.
Husband: No, no, no. Those dog kennels, like that. You see?
Mr Lambert: Mattresses?
Husband: (relieved) Yes.
Mr Lambert: But if you want a mattress, why not say 'mattress'?
Husband: (nervously) Ha ha, I mean...
Mr Lambert: I mean, it's a little confusing for me when you say 'dog kennel' if you want a mattress. Why not just say 'mattress'?
Husband: But you put a bucket over your head last time we said 'mattress'.
(Lambert puts the bucket over his head again) Mr Verity: (running on the scene again) Oh dear! (stands in box and sings) And did those feet...
Manager: (to Husband) We *did* ask!
(Manager & Mr Verity sing together) ...in ancient times, walk upon England's mountains green...
(singing continues throughout the next few lines of dialogue)
Assistant: (running in) Did somebody say 'mattress' to Mr Lambert?
(Manager points angrily towards the Husband and Wife)
Mr Verity: *Twice*!
Assistant: (shouting throughout the store) Hey, everybody! Somebody said 'mattress' to Mr Lambert -- *twice*! (joins in the singing)
(Organ music swells and they carry on singing)
Mr Verity: It's not working, we need more!
(The entire Mormon Tabernacle Choir begins to sing in the background. Sounds of water splashing; eventually Lambert removes the bucket again and they stop singing)
Mr Lambert: I'm sorry, can I help you?
Wife: (brightly) We want a mattress!
(Lambert puts the bucket over his head again. Verity, husband and assistants all groan and glare accusingly at wife)
Wife: But it's my only line!!!
Bad analogy, as nobody's marriage is "currency". Currency is valuable because it is what we exchange with other people for what we want. A marriage has value primarily for the two people in it. Yes, marriage benefits society, but unmarried people have value to society as well. Often, without kids to raise, they are the ones who do the volunteer work that so much of our collective well being rests on.
I went to the website you suggested, and its arguments are only two points: 1) Same sex marriage is not marriage because there needs to be a man and a woman, and 2) Same sex marriage is wrong because homosexuality is wrong.
Argument number one is definitional in nature, and clearly, the debate over gay marriage is trying to change the definition. If we say that only cars can use the carpool lane, then by definition, a motorcycle cannot. However, if we change the definitions of vehicles permitted to use the carpool lane, we certainly can add motorcycles.
Argument number two is well and good for people who oppose homosexuality for either aesthetic or religious reasons, but the numbers of people feeling so inclined is dropping. I had a good Mormon friend of mine telling me the other day about a conversation he had with a young missionary, who was somewhat open to a "live and let live" standard regarding homosexuality. Now, for a young man raised in the cradle of the LDS church to be that accepting, that ought to tell you which way things are going on this issue with young people everywhere.
If arguments against homosexual marriage are to prevail, they need more grounding than the above arguments, and the "slippery slope" theory, as well.
Yes, it's to help gays realize they can leave the lifestyle. My agenda is to get the truth out to as many as possible, and I think it's a worthy cause to get behind.
I have read your comments on other threads and you're on some kind of crusade against homosexuals.
My crusade is to help homosexuals realize help is available if they want it. Unfortunately it appears you can only twist my agenda to suit yours, and that is too bad.
There are some millions of homosexuals give or take. And you say Tammy Bruce is the only one who speaks out against radicals.
I'm more than interested in reading about homosexuals who speak out against the radical agenda. Please provide me with some links and I'll get around as you put it.
I don't like the use of hyperbole in headlines to draw people to threads. That's my point.
It seems to me you're a little sensitive on the subject.
Could be. That was a mini-rant out of nowhere.
Glad to hear it!
I went to the website you suggested, and its arguments are only two points
I just read the article again and have to disagree. To summarize the article to two points, would, as I see it, lump a number of points together inappropriately. In fact I'm more than really surprised you said that.
Now, for a young man raised in the cradle of the LDS church to be that accepting, that ought to tell you which way things are going on this issue with young people everywhere.
I understand what you're saying but that doesn't really tell me anything. What's interesting is I've heard just the opposite of what that young man told you. Maybe what I heard was wrong, I don't know.
What I do see happening in each state is encouraging.
so
uhhhhh
i know this sounds dumb - but
if pigs don't wanna do it (m/m)
why do the earthlings?
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.