Posted on 07/21/2012 1:44:38 PM PDT by ReformationFan
Calvinism isn’t Southern Baptist. And Calvin himself was a tyrant who murdered someone who challenged his interpretation. Thats about as far from Baptist as i can imagine.
Why, they only want to ba able to visit their lover in the Hospital Nothing MORE
I agree. Thanks for posting!
But though i think he is wrong about Calvinism, his sermon is dead on. It’s amazing to see a well oiled revolutionary movement that is so small overturn thousands of years of marriage, and make a mockery of it.
The bolsheviks were a very small group that essentially took over a city, it is as though a band of revolutionaries took over Washington DC and seized government. The homos have done this,,
Hussein is the new gay.
But though i think he is wrong about Calvinism being “southern baptist”, his sermon is dead on and ill argue that with him later. It’s amazing to see a well oiled revolutionary movement like the gays, that is so small, overturn thousands of years of marriage, and make a mockery of it.
The bolsheviks were a very small group that essentially took over a St Petersburg, it is as though a band of revolutionaries took over Washington DC and seized government. The homos have done this,,
Excellent piece. Thanks for posting, ReformationFan.
They have hushed it, but i literally think Obama is gay.
I like his slippery slope argument.
If homosexuals can marry others of their own sexual preference because marriage is a “fundamental right” and they are “made that way,” how can the same right be denied to bisexuals, who want both a male and female spouse? Polygamy for both bis and heterosexuals must then be allowed.
Also, if we all have the right to a sexual partner of our sexual preference, what happens in the case of pedophilia?
If todays homosexuals are the “new blacks,” will tomorrows pedophiles be the “new gays”? Could the pedophiles “right to marry” take precedence over a child’s legal inability to consent? We as a country have already decided that the desire for homosexuals to adopt supersedes whatever problem that would pose for the innocent adoptee.
Yes, they have done this. And the sermon is dead on about how:
By making gay “the new black”, they have tapped into the American spirit of egalitarianism. They have rendered any other theory or idea about homosexuality (a behavior, a maladaption ) null and void by stamping it with the label of “bigotry”.
“If todays homosexuals are the “new blacks,” will tomorrows pedophiles be the “new gays”? “
Well stated.
Cable tv shows are already pushing incest as an alternative. There is NO limit with the Left’s perversion.
His point is made so excellently here, and resonates so deeply with the spirit of logic and intuition, that the passage is worth copy pasting to highlight its emphasis:
“One thing that seems to escape most people in this debate is the fact that homosexuals have never been denied the right to marry. They simply haven’t had the right to redefine marriage. But don’t take my word for it; listen to the Iowa Supreme Court in their decision in favor of same-sex “marriage”: “It is true the marriage statute does not expressly prohibit gay and lesbian persons from marrying; it does, however, require that if they marry, it must be to someone of the opposite sex.”
There it is: not only in black and white, but in a legal decision. Homosexuals haven’t been deprived of any right. How, then, do those on the side of same-sex marriage continue to make the claim that this is a civil rights issue? The key is in the next paragraph:
[The] right of a gay or lesbian person under the marriage statute to enter into a civil marriage only with a person of the opposite sex is no right at all. Under such a law, gay or lesbian individuals cannot simultaneously fulfill their deeply felt need for a committed personal relationship, as influenced by their sexual orientation, and gain the civil status and attendant benefits granted by the statute.
I feel the need to remind the reader that this is a legal decision, since phrases like “gay or lesbian individuals cannot simultaneously fulfill their deeply felt need for a committed personal relationship” tend to sound out of place in such a document. Further, this is asinine logic. For example, following this line of reasoning, one could argue, “I have the right to join the military, but I am a pacifist. Therefore, I don’t really have the right (since it would be repulsive to me). Therefore, we need to establish a pacifist branch of the military so that I can fulfill both my desire to join, and my desire not to fight.””
You don’t know much about the SBC or Calvin.
Don’t forget polygamy with “Big Love” and “Sister Wives”.
“If todays homosexuals are the “new blacks,” will tomorrows pedophiles be the “new gays”?”
I figure the polygamists/polyamorists will come next, then the incestuous, then the pedophiles, and then the zoophile/bestiality crowd. To oppose any of these activities would be seen as “racism”.
‘Could the pedophiles “right to marry” take precedence over a child’s legal inability to consent? We as a country have already decided that the desire for homosexuals to adopt supersedes whatever problem that would pose for the innocent adoptee.’
Sad but true.
http://www.reformedreader.org/ccc/1689lbc/english/1689econtents.htm
“The old truth that Calvin preached, that Augustine preached, that Paul preached, is the truth that I must preach to-day, or else be false to my conscience and my God. I cannot shape the truth; I know of no such thing as paring off the rough edges of a doctrine. John Knox’s gospel is my gospel. That which thundered through Scotland must thunder through England again.”—C. H. Spurgeon, the great English Calvinist Baptist preacher of the 19th century
“‘Could the pedophiles “right to marry” take precedence over a child’s legal inability to consent? We as a country have already decided that the desire for homosexuals to adopt supersedes whatever problem that would pose for the innocent adoptee.’”
Yes, and not only this, but homosexuals are actually CREATING children with the aid of surrogacy, egg and sperm donation, with the whole idea of bringing them into the world to be without a father or mother, and to know their mother carried them or donated her egg for money, and never planned to know them.
This goes even beyond the adoption thing, which at least is giving a home (although not an ideal one) to an orphan.
But for 2 gay men to deliberately, cunningly, set about paying an egg donor and surrogate to create in Frankenstein fashion a “child of two daddies”-—it is despicable and ought to be outlawed.
I agree. I worked at a job a few years back where one of the managers was a lesbian. (It wasn’t too hard to figure out since she looked, dressed and sounded like a junior high school boy.) Anyway, she and her girlfriend were having what Michael Savage so appropriately calls a “turkey baster child.” What made this even worse was the fact that TPTB at the office put all sorts of social pressure upon us to celebrate this occurence with a baby shower(which I did not attend). Then later, she showed up with the child to show to the office. I merely said that the baby was cute and made no mention of how he entered this world and would live without his father. But I greatly resented(and still resent) this. We come to work for one thing: to earn a paycheck in order to pay our bills. We do not come to work to endorse the life decisions of our co-workers which I thought were supposed to be private and off company time anyway.
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.