Posted on 10/10/2014 10:29:10 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
Exclusive: Matt Barber warns, 'The courts are tossing around spiritual nitroglycerin'
It’s called Pandora’s Box.
And the Supreme Court just opened it.
Did you actually think the debate over “gay marriage” was about marriage? Have you really come to believe that this cultural kerfuffle has anything to do with “civil rights” or “equality”? Have you bought into the popular premise that this is a legitimate discussion on federalism – that it’s a reasonable disagreement over whether the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection clause requires that newfangled “gay marriage,” something rooted in same-sex sodomy, a deviant and disease-prone behavior our Constitution’s framers officially declared “the infamous crime against nature,” be made law of the land?
A lot of people have, so don’t feel bad. A lot of reasonable, well-meaning and even, at times, intelligent people have taken the bait.
But that’s all window dressing. It’s superficial. It’s collateral. It’s chaff, a diversion, a squirrel. Don’t chase it.
At its core, this increasingly heated fight over “gay marriage” is about two diametrically opposed and profoundly incompatible views of reality (or lack thereof). It’s the modern manifestation of a millennia-old clash between worldviews. This ugly cultural conflict is, in reality, neither legal nor political in nature, but, rather, is fundamentally a philosophical debate. Ultimately, it derives from, and is illustrative of, deep-seeded spiritual warfare. Quite simply, the clash over “gay marriage” is emblematic of the larger, and much older, clash between good and evil.
And it’s reaching critical mass.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
BUMP for later
Because we have allowed government to define “marriage” for its own purposes (such as taxation and regulation of estates), we have allowed government to define marriage as a social institution. That was fine as long as people in control of government were generally supportive of God’s original definition of marriage. However we have entered a time when a growing number of people in control of government want to redefine marriage for their own purposes, which in part is contrary to God’s definition.
Marriage is now far more a matter of politics and ideology than of private religious beliefs.
Therefore, for the sake of marriage as God defines it, it is time to remove from government the power to define who is married and who is not. Then gays could form whatever relationships they please but they could not force those who disagree to be enablers for those relationships. And we would not have schools that must teach that homosexual “marriages” are just as legitimate as heterosexual ones. Nor would we have owners of wedding photography services being threatened with arrest and being convicted of a crime for merely declining to artfully photograph a “marriage” they find morally repugnant.
LOVE the pic of the Holy Bible and the gun!
Its not gay and its not marriage.
Its a satanic plot to drive Christians out of business and curse the churches.
Its a satanic attack on this nation and its winning.
No bible or prayer in schools, no Jesus in military, slaughtering our babies (abortion) and so called ‘gay’ crap in laws.
I cannot call America a Christian nation today.
Exactly right. They can pass whatever laws they desire. They cannot force us to bow to them. Remember there were three thousand who had never bent a knee to Baal. It was enough.
As always, lucid response.
I wish I’d stop hearing about the 2% around these parts as though the 98% are as pure as the driven snow. The majority of the 98% have no moral ground to stand on. They are just as bad. 2% can’t force anything.
”: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life,” he pontificated.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/10/what-the-gay-marriage-debate-is-really-about/#Gh3fyQkfaumUSplj.99
I suppose Mr. kennedy believes this AS LONG AS IT IS POINTED IN ONE DIRECTION.
Morals have to be grounded in something. There are enough people now that don’t believe in anything which allows gays to push the debate in their favor. Quoting Bible verses just turns these people off.
Logically outlining why a society is better off respecting traditional marriage is necessary. The benefits of a virtuous life should be stressed, not just the fire and brimstone.
Civil rights, my tuchis.
It seems to me, from a layman's perspective, that underneath all the crap about "equality" and "civil rights" the bottom line is economics. They want things like spousal benefits (pensions, SS etc) as well as tax benefits that go to regular married couples, that and the right to adopt.
One way to quiet a lot of this would be to get rid of the progressive income tax , along with the death tax and all the other gvt regulations saying who you can and can't leave property to. As far as adoption, the courts need to start putting the rights of the children first. Every child should have a right to at least the chance of having a mother and a father.
All that being said, I agree with you 100%.
True!
You got that right. All the arguments the left used to get homosexual marriage legalized can be used to justify all of the perversions you’ve listed. Had we argued the original purpose of marriage , namely the procreation and protection of children, the same-sex marriage arguments would be meaningless.
“Mankind can no more redefine marriage to include same-sex parings than can he suspend the laws of gravity.”
That is true, but to the state in the modern era all it takes to redefine marriage for itself is whatever judges, pols, or the voting majority think about marriage at any one time. That’s all it has ever been to the state. Thus bans on interracial marriage at one time, civil divorce and remarriage, no-fault civil divorce and remarriage and now ‘gay marriage.’
FReegards
If it is all about economics, wouldn’t we see higher % of homosexuals getting ‘married’ where they can now do so? To my understanding that is not the case.
I think it is really about being able to use the power of the state to punish and to keep punishing those who they know can never buy into ‘gay marriage.’
FReegards
You are dead on in your analysis. As a prime example, look at the following YouTube video with nearly 600 million views:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWNaR-rxAic
(wait until after the advertisement, watch it and your main point is made starting about time 3:06 to the end; actually the entire video sets the background for what unfolds near its end at 3:06)
Your point is completely illustrated in this popular culture video with nearly 600,000,000 views.
I admit I like the tune, the energy and the story until time 3:06. It captures the attractiveness of youth, the human mating behavioral patterns among youth, the sexual attraction, the innocence of an era in our lives and then at the very end the surprising but not shocking injection of homosexuality via a comedy of irony.
Comedy is often used to disarm people to the dangers of homosexuality. We are led by enchantment to laugh and then the homosexual themes are injected into the mix reinforcing the notion that homosexuality is ‘gay’ when in fact it is not at all gay which is defined to describe a lighthearted joyful near frivolous subject.
Yes, the culture and its setting are the true battleground.
But do not discourage fighting this perversity using the First Amendment in the Courts because people are inclined to fight such perversity head on. Do not discourage Marriage Amendment movements. The war must be waged in ALL ARENAS, the Constitution, the Courts and the Popular Culture.
Consider this: if tactics were considered to fight this not in the courts but in the cultural arena, what tactics, what themes would be chosen?
There are at least two tactical approaches to consider:
One is to ignore the perversion process and compete with a healthy natural lifestyle exhibition. Look at the YouTube example above. Are there any natural healthy You Tube videos that have garnered or could garner 600,000,000 views?
But the Left and its homosexual cultural weaponization elements are expert at taking a healthy natural success exhibition and injecting a perverse element.
Again the YouTube video example above captures the viewer’s interest with a catchy tune, an old theme of cute sexy girl infatuated with a handsome cute sexy boy, the viewers and listeners are caught up in the energy and nuances of this ancient ritual of girl falls for boy, the feeling is good, the ambience is uplifting and at the dance finale, the perversity is allowed to slither in.
So tactics of ignoring the problem and competing with it are prone to failure because of the Left’s adroit handling of subverting its competition.
A second approach to consider is to create the comedy, the lighthearted and euphoric setting and dynamics with a competing natural healthy setting and then inject the perversity in such a way that it leads to death, disease or repression. For example, the true story of the homosexual ‘married’ men (now ‘divorced’) who were accused of raping their adopted children:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/gay-conn-couple-accused-rape-face-trial-article-1.1310010
These two homosexuals adopted 9 boys. A film could set the scene from the perspective of these homosexuals ‘loving ‘gay’ parents’ providing a loving warm home for 9 boys and then move to the perspectives of the boys who witnessed the underlying evil. A film could also show facts of the trial brought when one of the boys turned 19. A film could dramatize the fact that these two homosexual men agreed to plead guilty and then were told to withdraw their pleas by a sinister entity pulling strings behind the scenes. A film could show how the young 19 year old was harangued by a court system that provided him NO JURY and a Judge who accused him of being a liar and how the pleas of 3 other boys were silenced while the false narrative was allowed of only one liar boy had made accusations. Such a film could show a smiling face of Anthony Kennedy and other liberal federal justices as well as the smiling dismissive faces of certain person of society in general. And this is a true story, but it is a negative story.
In fact any popular culture device that confronts and counters homosexuality must of necessity be negative and therein lies the dilemma.
Such dilemmas can be resolved by showing a transition from negative to positive. For example, a young man who was abused as a boy by an older male and who feels ashamed thinking there is something wrong with him and who is made to feel he is homosexual or has such inclinations and because of this he shuns girls; this is a negative backdrop to a positive liberating experience when a girl notices him and becomes his friend and leads him away from his shame to a natural healthy relationship.
There are countless examples of what can be done and your point is well-taken that battles must also be waged in the popular culture for the hearts and minds of Americans against the deterioration of morality and subsequent normalization of perversion.
Bans on interracial marriages stemmed from segregation laws. When segregation laws were abolished, laws banning interracial marriages followed suit.
There is no legitimate comparison of the homosexual normalization effort with the struggle of Black Americans to secure their civil rights, and Black Americans have said so.
What the ‘gay marriage’ debate is really about.
Wouldn’t that be legitimizing a perversion ( and before you get you undies in a bunch look up perversion).
I have seen it in real life, doesn’t make it so, but all my adult children, their spouses, their cousins and their friends are all prolife, all of them. I think that change came with the ultrasound, they can see a baby in there not the lie of 40 years, “it is just a blob of flesh.”
“There is no legitimate comparison of the homosexual normalization effort with the struggle of Black Americans to secure their civil rights, and Black Americans have said so.”
In both the bans on interracial marriage and by accepting ‘gay marriage’ the state got its definition of marriage dead wrong. That’s pretty similar in my opinion. How it got there was not my point. My point was the definition the state uses is simply based on whatever judges, pols, or the voting public think about marriage at the time. And that’s it.
Freegards
> “In both the bans on interracial marriage and by accepting ‘gay marriage’ the state got its definition of marriage dead wrong.”
You think the clear definition that a marriage is between one woman and one man is wrong?
There is no state amendment or statute that says anything about a ‘BAN’. The amendments and statutes passed are affirmatively more narrow to protect against the encroachment of and decay by perverse elements.
> “That’s pretty similar in my opinion.”
You think the ‘bans’ of interracial and homosexual marriage are similar?
> “How it got there was not my point. My point was the definition the state uses is simply based on whatever judges, pols, or the voting public think about marriage at the time.”
Excuse me, but the way it has ‘gotten there’ is based on what judges think about marriage. So your statement contradicts itself.
Most of what the public thinks about marriage has been overruled by judges so that part of your statement is also not true.
By filling the thread with circular reasoning, the larger point of what distinguishes interracial marriage from homosexual marriage is removed. Interracial marriage restrictions were carried over by now abolished segregation laws.
I’ll say it again with emphasis:
“THERE IS NO LEGITIMATE COMPARISON OF THE HOMOSEXUAL NORMALIZATION EFFORT WITH THE STRUGGLE OF BLACK AMERICANS TO SECURE THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS, AND BLACK AMERICANS HAVE SAID SO.”
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.