Posted on 08/13/2010 8:02:27 AM PDT by unspun
According to expert testimony before the House in 1963, the 26th of the “Current Communist Goals” was:That is the way Don Hank began his August 11th article in Laigle's Forum, "Is “Gay Marriage” a Historical Imperative?"26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”
The broad brush of intolerance and bigotry are being used to paint those who refuse to accept "gay marriage" as an acceptable legal "right." Proponents claim this has been going on throughout history and it is about time to end the repression and give these hapless, innocent people the legal equality they deserve.
Is this just another Marxist tactic to indoctrinate the ssheeple? Don Hank presents a case and describes its dynamics:
"This activist is portraying “gay” marriage as a historical imperative.Friends, man did not institute marriage and man has no jurisdiction over it. The State began requiring and issuing "marriage licenses" around the end of the Civil War to permit intermarriage of blacks and whites which had been "illegal" before this time.Hegel’s concept of the historical imperative found its first application in communism by the founders of that ideology. It is an example of the Left’s inversion of all things. If you are an ordinary person, you look at history objectively in logical chronological sequence, from past to present.
Not the Leftist. He sees history’s starting point in the future utopia that he imagines. For him, all recorded history must meet one criterion: It must show unequivocally that all of history is marching toward a great egalitarian revolution, where all are equal. It is inevitable and the history books must be revised to reflect this “fact."
“Gay marriage” is an important stepping stone in the quest for this revolutionary “equality” or “social justice.”
But do Utopians really ever bring about equality and social justice?"
In his brochure on marriage Pastor Matt Trewhella wrote:
"Historically, all the states in America had laws outlawing the marriage of blacks and whites. In the mid-1800’s, certain states began allowing interracial marriages or miscegenation as long as those marrying received a license from the state. In other words they had to receive permission to do an act which without such permission would have been illegal.Today, the UN has made declarations to define what the "World Community", in its infinite godless wisdom, deems marriage to be. The World looks at marriage as a contractual, business arrangement, which is easily dissolved and it is therefore best regulated by government.Blacks Law Dictionary points to this historical fact when it defines "marriage license" as, "A license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry." "Intermarry" is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as, "Miscegenation; mixed or interracial marriages."
Give the State an inch and they will take a 100 miles (or as one elderly woman once said to me "10,000 miles.") Not long after these licenses were issued, some states began requiring all people who marry to obtain a marriage license. In 1923, the Federal Government established the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act (they later established the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act). By 1929, every state in the Union had adopted marriage license laws."
[Read more here.]
Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.'"
God established marriage as a physical, emotional, spiritual relationship between a man and a woman (look at the corresponding body parts) which, when consummated, results in the unity of two people into one. Its dissolution is hated by its Creator and is never easy; it is a wrenching, tearing, destructive process. Just ask any child whose parents have divorced.
The governments of the world are free to regulate business arrangements and put constraints upon them as much as their populace allows, but no government can rightly redefine a relationship established and constrained by the edict and command of God. If government can legislate the definition of marriage, what human relationship can't it regulate?
If marriage is simply a business arrangement, subject to regulations, then the products of the business are also open to inspection and regulation, correct? So the government can regulate your children? Is this where family social service agencies get their authority to go into a home and confiscate the children, when any unproven accusation is made?
Is this why schools can decree that all children will be taught about sex, beginning in kindergarten, and that "no parental option to decline is allowed"? Or the school staff can take a young woman from her school to an abortion clinic and never inform the parents that she was even pregnant?
A state which is empowered to instigate these intrusive regulations of your parental decisions, is free to direct every aspect of your personal family life. This is why the State feels compelled to tell you what to feed your child, how much exercise your child should get, and why your first grader has two hours of homework, which requires you to schedule your family time around their assignments... and the State has just told you how to spend your parental investment.
The definition of marriage, family, and parent have all been changed in order to allow for a Utopian vision of "social justice" which must include equality for all sorts of behaviors and couplings which are unacceptable to more than half of all Americans. So a small minority of varied social deviants are made equal and receive the State "seal of approval" while the majority, moral and faithful, are disenfranchised. If this isn't Marxism and control of every aspect of your life, please explain it back to me.
Please reply or FReepmail, if you want on or off this list.
Please ask your candidates and politicians The Three Sovereignty Now Questions.
From Marx’s Communist Manifesto:
In bourgeois society, therefore, the past dominates the present; in Communist society, the present dominates the past.
And…
Abolition [Aufhebung] of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.
On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.
The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.
Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.
But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.
And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, &c.? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.
The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour.
But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the bourgeoisie in chorus.
The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.
He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.
For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial.
Our bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other’s wives.
Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalised community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.
The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality.
The Maxist agenda is the abolition of family. Eventually what is and what is not a family will be challenged over and over and the definitions changed by Courts. They will attack the people’s right to representation on the issue of ‘age of consent’ and will further push a wedge between families and insert the State between children and parents.
Straining toward depravity
I note again that no Communist state in history has ever permitted "gay marriage." If this is such an inherent part of the Marxist program, why didn't some Marxist state legalize it?
The time is now! They are doing it HERE AND NOW!
Socialism is the false religion people get after they lose their religion. With socialism the religious impulse is strong and people feel exulted that they are doing “good work” or social justice. It is a powerful high. So would they turn down a high and what they believe is doing good work very easily? No. And for what? What would take a junky to turn down his high? What would it take for a socialist junky who believes he is saving the world to give up his addiction? Feelings and feeling good are important to these people — they have been raised on it. So in order to offset that seductive urge you have to go to the source: the university. The university is like a crack house / whore house where they’ll pimp students out (with a degree) at the first opportunity. Off they go into the world to feel good, do social justice and activism. The university is the lair of these leftist bed bugs that are killing America with a million little bites — like dying from a thousand cuts. They’re already in the Lincoln’s bedroom, in Hollywood, the courts, schools and the media. They are spreading a false religion — a hedonistic paganism from the past that allows for and legitimizes every type of deviant behavior. We are going backwards to paganism and feeling good about it.
But the children of tomorrow will suffer from the feel good attitudes of today. Fumigate the universities so that they don’t indoctrinate any more. Otherwise, the children will all grow up to be socialists — and not know any better.
If this is such an inherent part of the Marxist program, why didn't some Marxist state legalize it?
The time is now! They are doing it HERE AND NOW!
I think you're missing my point. In the twentieth century the Marxists had many nations under their complete dictatorship, yet "gay marriage" was never even on the radar screen.
Is "gay marriage" really part of the Marxist program or merely a tactic used to weaken the opposition? If (G-d forbid!) America ever becomes a Marxist dictatorship will the "gays" be lined up against the wall and shot as "subversive?"
Very interesting article. Thanks for the post.
The Pink Swastika
Source
No, it's not Marxism. It is also incorrect that the Marxist view of history starts with the end result, a Utopia. Marx has postulated that people's views and behaviors are determined by the economic class to which the person belongs (many people, even those on this forum, share this view and claim that the "rich" have different morality than the rest because they are "rich"). It followed, then, that history is a battle among classes.
Government control of our lives is not necessarily Marxism. Most cases described by the author are actually acts of fascism.
Thanks, but were you reading Das Kapital and not The Communist Manifesto?
"I am not a Marxist."
- Karl Marx
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.