Posted on 12/23/2008 7:01:10 AM PST by SmithL
Here's a lovely quote you may wish to put in your scrapbook:
"For 5,000 years, every culture and every religion - not just Christianity - has defined marriage as a contract between men and women. There is no reason to change the universal, historical definition of marriage to appease 2 percent of our population. This is one issue that both Democrats and Republicans can agree on. Both Barack Obama and John McCain have publicly opposed the redefinition of marriage to include so-called 'gay marriage.' Even some gay leaders, like Al Rantel of KABC, oppose watering down the definition of marriage. ... Of course, my longtime opposition is well known. This is not a political issue, it is a moral issue that God has spoken clearly about. There is no doubt where we should stand on this issue. ... This will be a close contest, maybe even decided by a few thousand votes. I urge you to vote yes on Proposition 8 - to preserve the biblical definition of marriage. Don't forget to vote!"
There's so much wrong with that quote, I don't know where to start. Islam, a reasonably well-known religion, has defined marriage as a contract between one man and as many as four women. I note that the speaker skillfully slides over that well-known custom; would he, one wonders, support a law allowing for polygamous marriages, since it is sanctioned by a popular monotheistic religion? No, he's just cherry-picking.
Homosexuality was and is permitted in many cultures around the world. Even where it is not sanctioned, it is common and tolerated. Sometimes it is forced underground, turning gay people into criminals and making them more susceptible to both blackmail and disease. Does the speaker believe that criminalizing that private and nonviolent behavior constitutes an action of Christian charity?
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Oh well, then Islam surely agrees that five gay men could get married......right?
Driving gays underground makes them more susceptible to disease?
And this writer thinks that the traditional-marriage supporters are cherry picking?
The rate of AIDS in his own city of SF, where the gays are not only NOT underground but are ‘king of the hill’ puts the lie to this absurd statement. They are prone to disease because they are engaging in an activity rife with disease.
The biggest problem the left has with banning of homosexual marriages is that it strikes a moral nerve. They HATE the term “Moral”.
To be picky, each relationship is its own marriage. It is not joint, they are not done at the same time and divorce of one does not affect the other marriages.
if love defines a marriage, then why can’t I marry my sister, my mother, my daughter, the neighbor’s six year old, my cat, my cow, my car...?
RE: Homos being “prone to disease because they are engaging in an activity rife with disease.”
As others have pointed out, both cigarette smokers and homosexual men regularly and routinely ingest lifespan-shortening substances for their own pleasure, or out of simple, addictive habit. Our liberal media and almost all of our state governments, however, encourage us to love the one and hate the other.
If its OK redefine a social institution that is 5,000 years old so that 2% of the population is happy then it should be OK to redefine the conventional meaning of the term “gay”.
Therefore, from now on, I decree that the term “gay” means someone who likes to have sex with varmints.
That was easy. If gay people don’t like that definition too bad, because I’ve already redefined it and thats the new, official definition. I’m only using the same redefinition method they use.
This is nothing new from The Obama.
The other side is only noticing it NOW because it is THEIR “ox” that is getting “gored”, so to speak.
How do you like THAT?
;^)
“If Rick Warren had been a preacher who suggested that blacks not be allowed to intermarry with whites, or not allowed to vote, or not allowed to own property, he would not even be in the running for invocation giver”
Blacks hate when gays use the civil rights analogy to advance their agenda. It’s amusing to see them turn on each other.
Gays don’t give a fig about marriage per se. Gays want to be able to flex political power to get what they really want: unrestricted gay behavior, including sex with boys.
"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
Yea, let's call them both marriage. . .no difference!
They don’t want us to change the definition of marriage for them. They want to change the definition of marriage for us.
Martrimony (the state of motherhood) has been a Sacrament in the Catholic Church for 2,000 years and they want the government to defile it. Separation of Churh my a$$.
Islam is not a religion.
Says nothing of how gays are treated in Muslim countries, now who’s cherry picking?
LOL! Thanks!
Many people assume that "gay marriage" is simply a matter of inclusiveness. Being able to smile upon people whose affections are different from yours. But that fails utterly to look at the larger picture of the care of souls and the shape of the society in which we are raising our kids.
If it were just a matter of the dear old lesbian couple on TV being able to have a nice hand-holding ceremony in the "Church of What's Happening Now," kiss-kiss, and a legal package that makes them medically and financially responsible for each other, gol-LEE, who could complain? I, for one, would NOT be the one to camp out in somebody else's "church," pop up from a side pew and yell,"YESSSS! I KNOW A REASON WHY THEY SHOULDN'T BE JOINED, REVRUM. CHECK IT OUT! They're both girls!!"
See? By inclination, I wouldn't want to get involved. Like any polite person who was raised right, I'd have the tendency to say, "Pay no attention, dear, it's their business, not ours." So you must understand that I was PUSHED to the other side. I was pushed by factors powerful enough to overcome my habitual civic tolerance, my considerable sloth and my craven desire to be thought well of by everybody.
What factors would be strong enough to do that?
Ah. Glad you asked.
(1) I am deeply concerned about a kind of pervasive sex-education which amounts to sexual initiation in the schools, in favor of -- well, to use the activists' own term--- "queerness." If "gay" becomes part of the legal definition of "marriage," propaganda in favor of gayness will become universal, and locked in by law.
Gay activist organizations are already drumming up support for "queerness programs" (their term, not mine) in the public school classrooms. They want gay awareness in EVERY classroom, K-12: in any story that discusses "love," in any skit that dramatizes "family," in the 2nd grade readers --- "Guess what, kids? Those two nice men in the little white house? Guess why they're having a party?" ---- in civility, citizenship and character education curricula, and also in social studies, science, English lit, and (in the upper grades) subjects like psychology and current events.
If "gay marriage" were to become a legal reality, the gender-bending program would become both pervasive, and impossible to opt out of.
(2) I observe that chaste married people and chaste singles, of ~whatever~ orientation, are among the most vulnerable, much-feared, and little-understood segments of society. Our struggles to live our vows are mocked. Our efforts to defend our pre-pubescent children from being violated in body and soul are openly undermined --- by the "helping professions" ---and by public agencies we're forced by law to pay for. Our futures are supposed to be laid open to be molded by the Higher Caretakers who have more enlightened, humane, and progressive ideas than we, the ox-like populace.
In other words, we're supposed to allow our society to be changed in ways we find disorienting and disgraceful ---without resisting--- because a handful of self-important lawyers known as Federal Judges (or somebody) has decided this.
Rubbish.
I remember that a social conservative was once defined as a liberal with a teenage daughter. Now, I suppose, we would have to add "or a prepubescent son."
(3) I care, personally and deeply, about the well-being of people who have to cope with homosexual temptation, and I am grieved by the damage that is done to them by the social forces of "Do it."
I'm concerned that gay "marriage" encourages good men and women who experience a disordered attraction, to "go with it" and not to struggle for real sexual wholeness. Society increasingly says to people with serious deviancies, "Do it," and to the rest of us, "Get used to it."
This derails the wholesome process of (1) admitting one's problems, (2) repenting one's failings, (3) fighting the good fight every day to be the person God wants you to be. That's practically a definition of maturity --- of growing up --- for any man or woman. So, to say to any man or woman struggling with same-sex attraction, "Give up," "Give in," "Do it," is saying "I don't believe you can rise to the level of an honest moral struggle. You'll never be chaste, virtuous, or whole. I don't think it's worth the effort."
I know boys who have a bunch of risk factors for gender-identity disorder (due to fatherlessness, sexual trauma during adolescence, etc.) Their greatest need is to strengthen and encourage their fragile masculine identity. They have a hard enough time with this, without the open "celebration" of every kind of gender-disoriented behavior, including males attempting to mate with males.
The Family Research Council and the Howard Center have assembled a whole lot of the SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH that shows that the natural family, built on the foundation of a man and a woman married to each other, is the surest safeguard of health for children. I find the research persuasive; think it should be the #1 consideration (not somewhere down the list) when talking about social changes and social policies.
Look, industries have to file an Environmental Impact Statement showing that their industrial processes will not have a harmful ecological impact. New social policies (like "gay" marriage) should be required to develop a Family Impact Statement proving that there will be no negative impact on the natural family. Not just an experimental approach: "Let's try this and see what happens."
I don't approve of experimentation on an entire society.
"Gay marriage" isn't mere inclusion. It isn't like moving the chairs over to make more room for All the Brothers and Sisters at the Table. It's more like changing the composition of the earth's atmosphere. It is more like filling in the Pacific Basin with three quarters of the moon. All earth, all tides, all gravitation would be altered in a fundamental way. And I don't think we'd be the better for it. I know our kids wouldn't be.
That's why we have to defend Traditional Marriage. Because our kids are counting on us.
I thought McCain said it was okay if states wanted to allow homosexual marriage.
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.