"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
He's a Catholic in name only.
An apostate.
Funny, when bacteria joins the manstream, it’s called a bladder infection.
The homosexual lobby really needs to take care. If they, through liberal (extra-constitutional) jurisprudence force homosexual marriage on America at large, I can anticipate a serious backlash.
Wars have been fought for far less than the redefinition of a timeless institution. Everyplace is not like California...even, as we’ve seen in Prop. 8, California.
The best explanation and reasoning for traditional marriage is by Dr. Alan Keyes. Has anyone seen this Youtube of Alan Keyes v. Obama in 2004. He is on point. Listen intently to his arguments and it is so precise. Obama and moderator are tied up and they go after transient argument to derail his line of thinking. This is notetaking time. He is like a professor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SG5u04Gbg0A
it’s a scam. Like somebody setting a rock up in his yard, claiming he’s a Druid and wanting his property tax exempt like any other church. Nobody’s feelings need to be hurt, it’s just the answer is, “no, you don’t qualify. “ I can’t collect Social Security checks like the lady that retired last year, it’s not agism, I have no right to be offended , even though I’m sure I’ve paid more in over the years and she’s probably got a much higher chance of collecting a lot more over the years than I ever will when I, God willing, retire much closer to my actuarial projection. I don’t qualify. I can develop a grievance mentality about it or not. I still don’t qualify.
I know this is a serious article, but I'm not sure if that's the best thing to say to Andrew Sullivan. He might take it the wrong way.
Conservatives always get pushed into the moral argument on this issue. While I agree wholeheartedly with the moral difference, it would be a just and stronger position to argue that any society has right to promote the nuclear family. It is the best way to produce and raise future generations.
This is unequivocably true. A society which ignores or circumvents this truth is destinied to lose demographically.
Seeking our own destruction is fine with some but a weak point to make to the majority, I hope.
The gay movement was long ago co-opted by liberals who wish to attack the American family for their own reasons.
“We don’t need families, we need a village.”
We do need the family unit and there is plenty of evidence around that it needs support and promotion. If we don’t defend it we’ll end up like the rest of non-reproducing western world.
Again, that probably sounds wonderful to liberals but not yet to the average American.
Nuclear families, traditional families should not be dirty words and if we don’t draw a line then we will become a village of God knows what, with our primary allegiance to the state.
My recent letter to the editor on this same subject:
I had to laugh at your Speaking Out question: “Should states allow or ban gay marriages?” You may as well have asked about banning unicorns or allowing dragons.
So called gay marriages are a fiction, a clever fabrication to achieve a political end.
People are born either male or female, and each sex is obviously designed for the other. Furthermore, every adult already has the right to marry.
The primary purpose of marriage is the generation and nurturing of children followed closely by the companionship and mutual aid of husband and wife.
These principles can be arrived at by common sense, and they show marriage to be a natural institution of great value to the individual, the family and the nation.
The carnal activities of men with men and women with women are the culmination of unnatural desire and simply represent capitulation to sexual vice.
Such unions can never be marriages, and the yelps and rallies of the few, the proud and the sexually deviant should not influence citizens to debauch marriage.
In countries where it has been tried, fewer people marry; demands for legalization of polygamy grow; schools teach children that homosexuality is normal; and freedom of conscience and speech are threatened.
Consenting adults should be allowed to form domestic partnerships, whether they involve sexual activity or not.
Marriage, however, as affirmed by the citizens of all 30 states that have allowed a vote, is the union of one man and one woman.
Gays claim there is no qualitative moral difference and if you insist that there is, then you will be called a homophobic bigot.
It IS enough for conservatives to say that it is the constitutive unit of society and that same sex marriage is not the biological equivialent of heterosexual marriage and never can be. They can’t call you names over an obvious scientific fact without looking like the deranged thinkers they are.
They want us to ignore biological reality and pretend to a lie for their own moral comfort. I’m not going to give up reality for Andrew Sullivan no matter how much he stamps his feet.
Homosexual militant activists like Andrew Sullivan and Dan Savage are ratcheting up their threats against traditional families. They are no longer even pretending to be open-minded, but are instead openly spewing the most vicious bile against normal heterosexual people:
Dan Savage: “run and hide behind ‘Nothing personal—just my private religious beliefs!’ That game’s over.”
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2008/11/26/when_are_your_privately_held
There you have it. The homosexuals militants have literally declared war on all religion. I have a feeling their threats are only going to make them a more outcast alternative deathstyle community.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1517040/posts
Marriage is a house built for a man and a woman.
Let the homosexuals go build their own house.
I take a biological position. Same sex marriage cuts the definition of marriage off from procreation, mother and father and, for the child, next of kin on both sides of the family. Basically, same sex marriage separates marriage from biology. What remains is an adult-centered institution that has no particular connection to the future and therefore no importance in the long run. The destruction of marriage is, in fact, the goal of some activists who see marriage as oppressive and patriarchal.