And in film...Ain't "she" cute? >/P>
<>
Posted on 02/14/2014 4:07:38 PM PST by NYer
Ping!
We’re just losing a battle. The war has been won. This is mop-up.
Same-sex marriages are not a new idea just created in the latter part of the Twentieth Century, and never before thought of.
In fact, it has been thought of a LOT over the millennia, going back to the times of Sodom and Gomorrah, and no doubt for a while before that. And almost always, this upsurge in these “situational ethics” becomes strongest just as the fabric of the dominant societies is being torn apart.
Cause-and-effect there, or is this fascination with deviancy just a symptom of a much deeper rot? Either way, the decay continues to feed upon this leniency and licentious behavior.
having children is a duty....because each generation depends on the other generations....that young nurse or therapist assisting you to the Bathroom is there because she/he was born...
what do we do when we have no young people?
Actually it has not. Homosexuality was considered separate from marriage, even in Greek society where men had sex with boys (the traditional homosexual activity).
What worries me is the meaning of this historical detail. I suspect that a better statement is: "Surveying history for anything resembling same-sex marriage in any culture that survived long enough to be noted by historians is a fruitless search."
"He had the testicles cut off of a boy named Sporus, and attempted to transform him into a woman, marrying him with dowry and bridal veil and all due ceremony, then, accompanied by a great crowd, taking him to his house, where he treated him as his wife. Someone made the rather clever joke which is still told that it would have been a good thing for humanity if Nero's father had taken such a wife. This Sporus, decked out in the ornaments of an empress and carried in a litter, he took with him around the meeting places and markets of Greece and later, at Rome, around the Sigillaria, kissing him from time to time." (Nero, ch. 28. Trans. by Catharine Edwards, Oxford World's Classics)
Even the Romans in their most decadent period thought that was preposterous.
Sorry. All of the fancy verbiage to make homosexuality simply a “reaction to the self-centeredness of society” is once again Rome missing the mark. Homosexuality is simply sin.
Go read Romans 1 & 2. Homosexuality is just an extremely graphic expression of the brokenness of man (equal to being disobedient to parents, murder, etc.). It is sin and until we say so plainly, articles like this will continue to misrepresent the way God looks at the way men live.
It became another form of idolatrous rebellion against God, by gratification of the glands outside of the life-long commitment which provides the secure context for it and for the normal result, children.
Homosexual relations and its "marriage" is a progression of that idolatrous rebellion, and the rest of the marks of moral decline will increasingly become evident.
America is in Romans 1 .
“We’re just losing a battle. The war has been won. This is mop-up.”
Says who? Just because you shout the loudest doesn’t mean you won the fight. That’s what AIDS is for as it can thin the herd.
“The gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
Slippery slope began with the acceptance of artificial birth control.
Accelerated with the acceptance of abortion as a means of birth control.
Rocketed with the acceptance of no-fault divorce.
Ping
Nothing new here. Why would Leviticus mention the abomination?
And in film...Ain't "she" cute? >/P>
<>
“Now, since the family and human society at large spring from marriage, these men will on no account allow matrimony to be the subject of the jurisdiction of the Church. Nay, they endeavor to deprive it of all holiness, and so bring it within the contracted sphere of those rights which, having been instituted by man, are ruled and administered by the civil jurisprudence of the community. Wherefore it necessarily follows that they attribute all power over marriage to civil rulers, and allow none whatever to the Church; and, when the Church exercises any such power, they think that she acts either by favor of the civil authority or to its injury. Now is the time, they say, for the heads of the State to vindicate their rights unflinchingly, and to do their best to settle all that relates to marriage according as to them seems good.”
—Pope Leo XIII, 1880
He warned about the danger of the state defining marriage 130+ years ago. To the state, it simply is whatever judges, pols, or the voting majority think it can be at any one time.
Freegards, thanks for all the pings on FR
All of this needs to be repeated.
**Slippery slope began with the acceptance of artificial birth control.
Accelerated with the acceptance of abortion as a means of birth control.
Rocketed with the acceptance of no-fault divorce.**
I wonder if poor Sporus was a willing participant in all of this. Nero, what a role model!
Thanks for posting. There’s a lot to think about, not neccessarily what people want to hear, but what they need to hear.
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.